Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Crediting 50 years of medical advancements to "government funded healthcare" is inane. Medical science advanced in spite of government meddling, not because of it.Way back before government was involved in healthcare, there was zero government healthcare fraud.
Just saying.
That's a true statement alan1, and far be it from me to call you an idiot for making it, but consider-------in 1960 life expectancy in the United States was 69.7 years, along came gov't funded healthcare, and-------voila-------in 2010 life expectancy in the United States has increased to 78.7 years. IOW's, going back to a time when all health insurance was provided by private corporations is a death sentence for the average citizen of the United States-------no wonder, Americans get really-really pissed when Republicans start talking about privatizing Medicare.
Crediting 50 years of medical advancements to "government funded healthcare" is inane. Medical science advanced in spite of government meddling, not because of it.That's a true statement alan1, and far be it from me to call you an idiot for making it, but consider-------in 1960 life expectancy in the United States was 69.7 years, along came gov't funded healthcare, and-------voila-------in 2010 life expectancy in the United States has increased to 78.7 years. IOW's, going back to a time when all health insurance was provided by private corporations is a death sentence for the average citizen of the United States-------no wonder, Americans get really-really pissed when Republicans start talking about privatizing Medicare.
Huh? Are you trying to imply that all medical advances since the mid-1960's have been privately funded?
Check out this PDF NIH article. http://http://www.faseb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=aDQlNW4adp0=&tabid=431
Crediting 50 years of medical advancements to "government funded healthcare" is inane. Medical science advanced in spite of government meddling, not because of it.That's a true statement alan1, and far be it from me to call you an idiot for making it, but consider-------in 1960 life expectancy in the United States was 69.7 years, along came gov't funded healthcare, and-------voila-------in 2010 life expectancy in the United States has increased to 78.7 years. IOW's, going back to a time when all health insurance was provided by private corporations is a death sentence for the average citizen of the United States-------no wonder, Americans get really-really pissed when Republicans start talking about privatizing Medicare.
Huh? Are you trying to imply that all medical advances since the mid-1960's have been privately funded?
Check out this PDF NIH article.
http://http://www.faseb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=aDQlNW4adp0%3d&tabid=431
Crediting 50 years of medical advancements to "government funded healthcare" is inane. Medical science advanced in spite of government meddling, not because of it.
Huh? Are you trying to imply that all medical advances since the mid-1960's have been privately funded?
Check out this PDF NIH article. http://http://www.faseb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=aDQlNW4adp0=&tabid=431
No. I am not implying anything. You however, seem to be convinced that life expectancy increases over the past 50 years are 100% attributable to government funded healthcare. There is no factual basis for your conclusion.
Provisions in the Affordable Care Act make it one of the toughest anti-fraud laws in history. The results? Another record setting year.
Feds recover $4.1B in health care fraud in 2011
Federal authorities say they recovered $4.1 billion in health care fraud judgments last year, a record high which officials on Monday credited to new tools for cracking down on deceitful Medicare claims.
The recovered funds are up roughly 50 percent from 2009. Attorney General Eric Holder and Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius were expected to make the announcement at a news conference Tuesday.
more
Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke
They also say it is important to end the antiquated system of paying the claims then chasing suspicious ones. By the time officials catch on to bogus billing patterns, crooks typically dump that provider ID and open a new one, or flee the country. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has come under fire for lax screening as violent criminals and mobsters are also getting involved, seeing the fraud as more lucrative than dealing drugs and having less severe criminal penalties.
Crediting 50 years of medical advancements to "government funded healthcare" is inane. Medical science advanced in spite of government meddling, not because of it.Way back before government was involved in healthcare, there was zero government healthcare fraud.
Just saying.
That's a true statement alan1, and far be it from me to call you an idiot for making it, but consider-------in 1960 life expectancy in the United States was 69.7 years, along came gov't funded healthcare, and-------voila-------in 2010 life expectancy in the United States has increased to 78.7 years. IOW's, going back to a time when all health insurance was provided by private corporations is a death sentence for the average citizen of the United States-------no wonder, Americans get really-really pissed when Republicans start talking about privatizing Medicare.
Yes, what a success. We're spending $794 billion over the next seven years on this new entitlement program in order to recover $4.1 billion in fraud costs.
No, we're spending $794 billion to get care to 32 million Americans by modernizing Medicaid and the individual health insurance market.
Now it's only costing us $790 billion in borrowed money from China!
The ACA isn't paid for with borrowed money.
Yes, what a success. We're spending $794 billion over the next seven years on this new entitlement program in order to recover $4.1 billion in fraud costs.
No, we're spending $794 billion to get care to 32 million Americans by modernizing Medicaid and the individual health insurance market.
The ACA isn't paid for with borrowed money.Now it's only costing us $790 billion in borrowed money from China!
Horseshit. It all comes from the same pool and you damn well know it. We are borrowing 40% of every dollar we spend. I don't care who or what the $794 billion is going to. It's reckless and irresponsible to spend it when you can't afford your current expenditures and you being intellectually dishonest about that doesn't change reality. Unfortunately, people like you aren't going to figure that out until our mountain of debt collapses our financial system and if we're lucky it will simply be a repeat of the Great Depression and not something worse.
I don't care who or what the $794 billion is going to.
Hear, hear!Crediting 50 years of medical advancements to "government funded healthcare" is inane. Medical science advanced in spite of government meddling, not because of it.Way back before government was involved in healthcare, there was zero government healthcare fraud.
Just saying.
That's a true statement alan1, and far be it from me to call you an idiot for making it, but consider-------in 1960 life expectancy in the United States was 69.7 years, along came gov't funded healthcare, and-------voila-------in 2010 life expectancy in the United States has increased to 78.7 years. IOW's, going back to a time when all health insurance was provided by private corporations is a death sentence for the average citizen of the United States-------no wonder, Americans get really-really pissed when Republicans start talking about privatizing Medicare.
Yes, what a success. We're spending $794 billion over the next seven years on this new entitlement program in order to recover $4.1 billion in fraud costs.
No, we're spending $794 billion to get care to 32 million Americans by modernizing Medicaid and the individual health insurance market.
Now it's only costing us $790 billion in borrowed money from China!
The ACA isn't paid for with borrowed money.
Horseshit. It all comes from the same pool and you damn well know it. We are borrowing 40% of every dollar we spend. I don't care who or what the $794 billion is going to. It's reckless and irresponsible to spend it when you can't afford your current expenditures and you being intellectually dishonest about that doesn't change reality. Unfortunately, people like you aren't going to figure that out until our mountain of debt collapses our financial system and if we're lucky it will simply be a repeat of the Great Depression and not something worse.
No, we're spending $794 billion to get care to 32 million Americans by modernizing Medicaid and the individual health insurance market.
The ACA isn't paid for with borrowed money.
Horseshit. It all comes from the same pool and you damn well know it. We are borrowing 40% of every dollar we spend. I don't care who or what the $794 billion is going to. It's reckless and irresponsible to spend it when you can't afford your current expenditures and you being intellectually dishonest about that doesn't change reality. Unfortunately, people like you aren't going to figure that out until our mountain of debt collapses our financial system and if we're lucky it will simply be a repeat of the Great Depression and not something worse.
Technically, he's right. The PPACA is not paid for with borrowed money because it is not paid for at all, it floats around on a magic carpet that makes things work just because.
True, but cons believe it's better to pay CEOs of private insurance companies hundreds of millions a year instead of the low overhead of Medicare.Crediting 50 years of medical advancements to "government funded healthcare" is inane. Medical science advanced in spite of government meddling, not because of it.That's a true statement alan1, and far be it from me to call you an idiot for making it, but consider-------in 1960 life expectancy in the United States was 69.7 years, along came gov't funded healthcare, and-------voila-------in 2010 life expectancy in the United States has increased to 78.7 years. IOW's, going back to a time when all health insurance was provided by private corporations is a death sentence for the average citizen of the United States-------no wonder, Americans get really-really pissed when Republicans start talking about privatizing Medicare.
50 years of medical advancements has been a factor, BUT...American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.
In praise of Medicare
By Samuel Metz, M.D.
Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.
And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.
Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.
Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.
Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.
Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.
True, but cons believe it's better to pay CEOs of private insurance companies hundreds of millions a year instead of the low overhead of Medicare.Crediting 50 years of medical advancements to "government funded healthcare" is inane. Medical science advanced in spite of government meddling, not because of it.
50 years of medical advancements has been a factor, BUT...American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.
In praise of Medicare
By Samuel Metz, M.D.
Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.
And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.
Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.
Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.
Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.
Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.
True, but cons believe it's better to pay CEOs of private insurance companies hundreds of millions a year instead of the low overhead of Medicare.50 years of medical advancements has been a factor, BUT...American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.
In praise of Medicare
By Samuel Metz, M.D.
Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.
And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.
Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.
Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.
Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.
Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.
Are you Always full of shit or just right now?
The ACA reduces total health care spending.Yes, what a success. We're spending $794 billion over the next seven years on this new entitlement program in order to recover $4.1 billion in fraud costs.
No, we're spending $794 billion to get care to 32 million Americans by modernizing Medicaid and the individual health insurance market.
Now it's only costing us $790 billion in borrowed money from China!
The ACA isn't paid for with borrowed money.
Horseshit. It all comes from the same pool and you damn well know it. We are borrowing 40% of every dollar we spend. I don't care who or what the $794 billion is going to. It's reckless and irresponsible to spend it when you can't afford your current expenditures and you being intellectually dishonest about that doesn't change reality. Unfortunately, people like you aren't going to figure that out until our mountain of debt collapses our financial system and if we're lucky it will simply be a repeat of the Great Depression and not something worse.
55% of new drugs are developed by government despite government spending only amounting to 30% of new drug researchCrediting 50 years of medical advancements to "government funded healthcare" is inane. Medical science advanced in spite of government meddling, not because of it.That's a true statement alan1, and far be it from me to call you an idiot for making it, but consider-------in 1960 life expectancy in the United States was 69.7 years, along came gov't funded healthcare, and-------voila-------in 2010 life expectancy in the United States has increased to 78.7 years. IOW's, going back to a time when all health insurance was provided by private corporations is a death sentence for the average citizen of the United States-------no wonder, Americans get really-really pissed when Republicans start talking about privatizing Medicare.
wow, Godwin'd in only 24 posts. Is that a record?Per enrollee spending is higher than anticipated; total spending on the program is still well below what was expected at the outset. A couple years ago the CMS actuary predicted the $5 billion allocated to the PCIPs would be exhausted this year; as it is, they've only committed something like 10-15% of the funding so far.
For the math-challenged: 1 percent out of a 9 percent increase is not "50 percent of the premium hike."
Thanks Greenbeard for exposing that Luntz-like language.
frank-luntz-talking-points
Frank Luntz
Most people are unfamiliar with Frank Luntz, but if I threw out the terms "death tax" or "government takeover of your health care" those are Frank Luntz talking points. Luntz is a pollster and consultant for Fox News, but he is more commonly known as the Republican Party word smither.
At the recent Republican Governors' Association meeting in Florida, Frank Luntz prepped the governors on what words and expressions to use to make the Republican positions appear more favorable.
Instead of capitalism use "economic freedom" or "free market."
Instead of saying government taxes the rich, say "government takes from the rich."
Refer to the middle class as "hardworking taxpayers."
It's not jobs...it's "careers."
Government spending becomes "government waste."
Republicans don't compromise...they "cooperate."
And when hearing out a OWS protester, the three magic words are, "I get it."
You now get the idea. Republicans are masters at coining terms to either convey a more positive or negative meaning, whatever the case may be. So when it appears that all Fox News pundits as well as Republican politicians all of a sudden seem to adopt some new words or expressions all at the same time, you are right. And it is most likely Frank Luntz doing the coaching.
"80 percent of our life is emotion, and only 20 percent is intellect. I am much more interested in how you feel than how you think." -- Frank Luntz
I'm sure Joseph Goebbels would be proud that his party and tactics are still in existence.
And Luntz admits that liberals don't have a propaganda ministry.
From:
The 11 Words for 2011 by Frank Luntz
"These are 11 phrases that will be shaping the public discourse over the coming year. You won't find a similar list from a liberal wordsmith -- there aren't any -- so you might as well use these."
True, but cons believe it's better to pay CEOs of private insurance companies hundreds of millions a year instead of the low overhead of Medicare.
Are you Always full of shit or just right now?
Republicans oppose single payer which would immediately wipe out 300billion in wasteful health care spending without impacting health quality. WHy would they oppose that? Well because then insurrance companies wouldn't be able to get mega rich off of cancer patients
