No, that's the opposite of rationing.
ObamaCare's architects reap windfall as Washington lobbyists
- Thread starter Jroc
- Start date
No, that's the opposite of rationing.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #62
Only in reactionary la la land.
In the dictionary. Read a book Jake. It won't hurt.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
It's not about rationing AT ALL. It's about having a doctor, free checkups, PREVENTIVE care, ending ridiculously expensive ER care, bankruptcies, going on welfare to get care,, cutting non medical spending by insurers, cutting redundant testing and costs with online medical records, end of life counselling to end ridiculous costs just to add 2 weeks of pain lol etc etc etc. Pubs lie about EVERYTHING involved or ignore it to protect the profits, and dupes are just that- totally misinformed and fear mongered.
Last edited:
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #65
Stay on topic. Private industry grew rich by denying and or rationing coverage.
Not going to happen here, dblack.
Cry all you want: you are not getting your way.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
That's right, private insurers rationed, not under O-care they don't- no more caps, no more insurer bureaucracy making the decisions....
Last edited:
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,441
- 2,180
Obama delayed the caps keep up.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
Only on employer based group plans- behind the scenes thanks to Pub delaying and fear mongering tactics...
"... if you’re on a plan like that now, you face these expenses already. This decision means only that you’ll wait another year for relief—during which time, by the way, you’ll benefit from the law’s other protections. For one thing, you’ll be better off because the spending cap still applies to major medical expenses, a category that includes office visits and mental health care. That's not always the case today. You also don’t have to worry about lifetime caps, which the law eliminates and people with chronic disease occasionally exhaust. And that’s not to mention what happens if you end up buying insurance on your own: Thanks to the law, no insurer can deny you coverage, raise your premiums, or restrict your coverage because of your pre-existing condition.
(By the way, an administration official also confirmed that the delay applies only to group plans. The out-of-pocket limits on the new insurance exchanges will apply to all covered expenses.)
The American Cancer Society Action Network just released a statement, summing up what how many advocate feel:
The delayed enforcement of the single out-of-pocket limit is no doubt disappointing and a potential affordability barrier to treatment for some cancer patients and survivors in the coming year. However, it is important to not lose sight of important new protections that are taking effect as scheduled, including a ban on lifetime and annual dollar limits on coverage and a ban on pre-existing condition discrimination. These protections didn't exist before the health care law passed and will significantly improve access to adequate, meaningful health care for cancer patients and others with chronic diseases.
Whether the administration made the right decision in this particular episode is ultimately a judgment call, and not one I’m in a position to make. On the one hand, these sorts of complications are virtually inevitable, given the complexity of grafting a new health care system onto the existing one. The harder the administration leans on employers, the more it risks alienating employers who already provide insurance. Employers don’t want that and, by the way, neither do most employees who have employer insurance. In this sense, the delay might be a sign that implementation is proceeding as it should—with the administration introducing the new scheme cautiously, using its regulatory authority to make necessary adjustments along the way.
There's also a less generous interpretation. Disease advocacy groups had urged the administration not to push back the new regulation, citing the high expenses that people with chronic illness face. It’s a real problem. And they asked, reasonably, why the accounting was so difficult when some companies do it already. Progressives and their allies have long worried whether the Administration defers to business excessively, because of lobbying or fear of political reprisals, and not simply on matters like this. "You could argue that the the businesses have had plenty of damned time to put those systems in place since the law passed," Joan McCarter wrote at DailyKos.
Of course, Boehner and his allies are taking that argument even farther: Obama is standing with big business, they say, in order to screw the little guy. The implication seems to be that they—i.e, the Republicans—would do things differently. Each part of that argument is downright nutty.
Obama is the one limiting what charges insurers can pass along to consumers, in order to protect people with serious illness from financial ruin. He deferred a consumer protection by one year, yes, but he still wants it to take effect. Boehner and the rest of the law’s critics oppose such regulations. If they had their way, people with serious medical problems would face even higher bills and have less access to insurance. In other words, Obamacare critics aren't hyping this news because they wish consumer protections for the sick would take effect now. They're hyping the news because they wish consumer protections for the sick would go away forever.
The essential truth of Obamacare remains what it has always been: It's an imperfect law, being introduced under imperfect circumstances. But it's still going to make life better for millions of people—even if some of that helps takes an extra year to arrive. "
Jonathan Cohn is a senior editor at the New Republic. Follow him on twitter [MENTION=19517]Citizen[/MENTION]Cohn
Obamacare consumer protection delay?and the conservative overreaction | New Republic
Pub dupes!
"... if you’re on a plan like that now, you face these expenses already. This decision means only that you’ll wait another year for relief—during which time, by the way, you’ll benefit from the law’s other protections. For one thing, you’ll be better off because the spending cap still applies to major medical expenses, a category that includes office visits and mental health care. That's not always the case today. You also don’t have to worry about lifetime caps, which the law eliminates and people with chronic disease occasionally exhaust. And that’s not to mention what happens if you end up buying insurance on your own: Thanks to the law, no insurer can deny you coverage, raise your premiums, or restrict your coverage because of your pre-existing condition.
(By the way, an administration official also confirmed that the delay applies only to group plans. The out-of-pocket limits on the new insurance exchanges will apply to all covered expenses.)
The American Cancer Society Action Network just released a statement, summing up what how many advocate feel:
The delayed enforcement of the single out-of-pocket limit is no doubt disappointing and a potential affordability barrier to treatment for some cancer patients and survivors in the coming year. However, it is important to not lose sight of important new protections that are taking effect as scheduled, including a ban on lifetime and annual dollar limits on coverage and a ban on pre-existing condition discrimination. These protections didn't exist before the health care law passed and will significantly improve access to adequate, meaningful health care for cancer patients and others with chronic diseases.
Whether the administration made the right decision in this particular episode is ultimately a judgment call, and not one I’m in a position to make. On the one hand, these sorts of complications are virtually inevitable, given the complexity of grafting a new health care system onto the existing one. The harder the administration leans on employers, the more it risks alienating employers who already provide insurance. Employers don’t want that and, by the way, neither do most employees who have employer insurance. In this sense, the delay might be a sign that implementation is proceeding as it should—with the administration introducing the new scheme cautiously, using its regulatory authority to make necessary adjustments along the way.
There's also a less generous interpretation. Disease advocacy groups had urged the administration not to push back the new regulation, citing the high expenses that people with chronic illness face. It’s a real problem. And they asked, reasonably, why the accounting was so difficult when some companies do it already. Progressives and their allies have long worried whether the Administration defers to business excessively, because of lobbying or fear of political reprisals, and not simply on matters like this. "You could argue that the the businesses have had plenty of damned time to put those systems in place since the law passed," Joan McCarter wrote at DailyKos.
Of course, Boehner and his allies are taking that argument even farther: Obama is standing with big business, they say, in order to screw the little guy. The implication seems to be that they—i.e, the Republicans—would do things differently. Each part of that argument is downright nutty.
Obama is the one limiting what charges insurers can pass along to consumers, in order to protect people with serious illness from financial ruin. He deferred a consumer protection by one year, yes, but he still wants it to take effect. Boehner and the rest of the law’s critics oppose such regulations. If they had their way, people with serious medical problems would face even higher bills and have less access to insurance. In other words, Obamacare critics aren't hyping this news because they wish consumer protections for the sick would take effect now. They're hyping the news because they wish consumer protections for the sick would go away forever.
The essential truth of Obamacare remains what it has always been: It's an imperfect law, being introduced under imperfect circumstances. But it's still going to make life better for millions of people—even if some of that helps takes an extra year to arrive. "
Jonathan Cohn is a senior editor at the New Republic. Follow him on twitter [MENTION=19517]Citizen[/MENTION]Cohn
Obamacare consumer protection delay?and the conservative overreaction | New Republic
Pub dupes!
Last edited:
Don't be a dupe, franco. Orwellian word games notwithstanding, 'rationing' is a pretty concise concept. Rationing programs are compulsory and are intended to replace free market distribution in order to equalize access or control prices. Free market health care is not compulsory and involves decidedly unequal distribution: the rich will usually get better health care under such a system.
I suppose the people pitching the 'insurance is rationing' angle - besides just playing asinine word games - are trying to draw a parallel between actuaries determining what a given policy does or does not cover and real mandated rationing. They are as different as night and day, however, because participation with an insurance plan isn't compulsory (pre-PPACA at least) and no single source controls the distribution of the resource (health care).
francoHFW
Diamond Member
Facts are now "asinine word games? How Pub dupe of you. lol
And the OP is Pub BS too. Those aren't lobbyists in the accepted term. Experts more like. NOT making ridiculous money to wine and dine and bribe the gov't.
And the OP is Pub BS too. Those aren't lobbyists in the accepted term. Experts more like. NOT making ridiculous money to wine and dine and bribe the gov't.
Good answer! Good answer!
Darkwind
Diamond Member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 42,009
- 30,546
- 3,615
I can't see the haters post (franco) except in quotations by others. but I wonder how he'd answer the fact that when government tightens the already rationed healthcare that we get, where do I go to get better insurance? How do I fire the US Government and go to a better insurance agency?
Stupid ******* hater.
The purveyors of Obamacare......YOUR new masters. Do as we say, or your mother won't get a kidney.
Don't believe in abortion? Your father will have to deal with that faulty heart valve.
Won't support our candidate? Well, there are other children who can benefit from the Leukemia treatment. Your kid is toof far gone.
You use table saltl at dinner? Sorry, but your Aunt will have to deal with radiation therapy instead of having breast surgery.
Join the Union or little Alice won't get that prosthesis for her leg.
Little Jimmy would have a shot at life and a bone marrow transplant.....You just have to sign this little document that you will agree to raise the taxes on the rich.
Don't worry about Senator X.......We don't force his family to share in Affordable Healthcare Act...He can go to a free nation and get all the good care he wants.
Funny how I can't fire My government.
Not even fully implemented. And already, the favoritism has begun.....
Stupid ******* hater.
The purveyors of Obamacare......YOUR new masters. Do as we say, or your mother won't get a kidney.
Don't believe in abortion? Your father will have to deal with that faulty heart valve.
Won't support our candidate? Well, there are other children who can benefit from the Leukemia treatment. Your kid is toof far gone.
You use table saltl at dinner? Sorry, but your Aunt will have to deal with radiation therapy instead of having breast surgery.
Join the Union or little Alice won't get that prosthesis for her leg.
Little Jimmy would have a shot at life and a bone marrow transplant.....You just have to sign this little document that you will agree to raise the taxes on the rich.
Don't worry about Senator X.......We don't force his family to share in Affordable Healthcare Act...He can go to a free nation and get all the good care he wants.
Funny how I can't fire My government.
Not even fully implemented. And already, the favoritism has begun.....
Last edited by a moderator:
francoHFW
Diamond Member
WHAT rationing programs are compulsory? Ay caramba!
francoHFW
Diamond Member
Rationing under O-Care only exists in the Pub dupe fear mongered imagination. Rationing is ENDING.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #75
Government rationing health care?
Like private industry got rich by rationing care and denying care?
You reactionary dupes take the cake, but the rest of America has already eaten the cake
This is over.
Like private industry got rich by rationing care and denying care?
You reactionary dupes take the cake, but the rest of America has already eaten the cake
This is over.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
#74-76: Absolute idiocy.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #77
Yup, all that happens in the other countries with such care?
What a bunch of liars.
What a bunch of liars.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #78
Darkwind, you are not scaring anyone.
The Board is, rightfully, laughing at you.
The Board is, rightfully, laughing at you.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #79
Stop the trolling, please, and stay on OP.
francoHFW
Diamond Member
and #79-80. Forget your medication?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Open border quasi terrorists surround ICE agents in Burlington VT- Started by Mac-7
- Replies: 0
-
Iran unveils enormous supply of naval suicide drones in chilling footage from underground ‘missile city’- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 0
-
Now here's something you don't see everyday....White people brawl!- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 1
-
Canada announces new ‘Same Day Suicides’ as euthanasia numbers reach over 75K…
- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 2
-
