Who do you trust more on health care?

[thereisnospoon]

More bizarre rightwing fantasies?



They all cost less than they cost?

Cost to dispense care exceeds revenue. I mis-typed.
All nations with single payer systems run health care system deficits.
Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal have gone broke or are near the breaking point due to social programs of which government operated medical care is the largest expense.
Taxation was believed to be the route by which these systems would be covered. So much for that.

And they all spend 40%+ less than we do, and have better results. They were all fine before the Pub cronyism/corruption SECOND World Depression.

Sure they do....I guess the financial crises in the above mentioned nations plus the teetering Euro currency is all a fake perpetrated by conservative business people.
UGH.....You are a true believer.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Myself. I dont trust the government at all.

Good... you shouldn't. Even if you don't trust government however, it will still sneak into your home at night and try to suffocate you. It'll slip rufis into your drinks when you're not looking, and it'll talk about you behind your back.



Even people who are supportive of many Government programs... like myself, are not "trusting" of government. We question everything. I don't have to be "trusting" of government to support certain programs. Government has a role to play, and I understand that. It's not the central role however, and only delusional freaks like yourself believe we think it is.

Bovine, you cannot have it both ways.
Pick a side.
Oh, what gives you people the right to take from those who produce and give to those who could produce but refuse?
And don't come back with "oh so you're saying there should be no social programs"...
You'll get a response you won't like.

 

[alan1]

You can sue private insurance companies, you won't be able to do that with the ACA. Proper gov't oversight and regulation is supposed to keep them honest. If you don't trust the insurance companies, it's because the gov't didn't do it's job. But the gov't has no oversight, they can pretty much do whatever they want. Don't know why anyone would trust them to be competent or honest, unless you're one of their biggest benefactors.

Said with such conviction.

Yet you actually have more protections and more rights when it comes to dealing with your insurance company thanks to the ACA.

External Appeals
Consumer Assistance Program Grants (CAP Grants)
The Affordable Care Act's New Patient's Bill of Rights

I am unconvinced. Maybe the gov't should've done a better job of regulating the insurance companies, we wouldn't have had to go through all this bullshit. Maybe we should've done something about tort reform. Maybe we should've allowed insurance companies to write policies in every state, thereby increasing competition. Maybe there were other altneratives that would've actually lowered healthcare costs. Maybe the democrats should've worked with the repubs to arrive at a true bipartisan law instead of the backroom deals and behind closed doors bullshit that couldn't stand the light of day. And maybe we shouldn't have passed a bill this big that covers one sixth of the entire economy WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE **** WAS IN IT.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.......
The most highly regulated industries in the US (in no particular order) are, banking/finance, insurance, medical/healthcare, energy--- yet these highly regulated industries are the exact same industries that seem to be broken and people keep calling for more government regulation. Gee, so far it hasn't worked, why do people want more government involvement?

 

[Wiseacre]

You can sue private insurance companies, you won't be able to do that with the ACA. Proper gov't oversight and regulation is supposed to keep them honest. If you don't trust the insurance companies, it's because the gov't didn't do it's job. But the gov't has no oversight, they can pretty much do whatever they want. Don't know why anyone would trust them to be competent or honest, unless you're one of their biggest benefactors.

You're quite mad, insurance companies are going nowhere, but they wll no longer be able to cut you off, blackball people for preexisting, or spend too much on salaries or advertising, etc.

You dupes will 85% LOVE ACA when you get the facts, as Pelosi said.

Don't hold your breath, dipweed.

 

[francoHFW]

Highly regulated my azz....

So you didn't hear about the Pub depression? Amazing LOL

 

[thereisnospoon]

You can sue private insurance companies, you won't be able to do that with the ACA. Proper gov't oversight and regulation is supposed to keep them honest. If you don't trust the insurance companies, it's because the gov't didn't do it's job. But the gov't has no oversight, they can pretty much do whatever they want. Don't know why anyone would trust them to be competent or honest, unless you're one of their biggest benefactors.

Said with such conviction.

Yet you actually have more protections and more rights when it comes to dealing with your insurance company thanks to the ACA.

External Appeals
Consumer Assistance Program Grants (CAP Grants)
The Affordable Care Act's New Patient's Bill of Rights

Your insurance company with ACA will be the US federal government.
The private health insurance industry under ACA will cease to exist.

 

[alan1]

Highly regulated my azz....

So you didn't hear about the Pub depression? Amazing LOL

Educate yourself.
The truth may set you free.

 

[Greenbeard]

I am unconvinced.

I'll try and contain my shock.

Maybe the gov't should've done a better job of regulating the insurance companies, we wouldn't have had to go through all this bullshit. Maybe we should've done something about tort reform. Maybe we should've allowed insurance companies to write policies in every state, thereby increasing competition. Maybe there were other altneratives that would've actually lowered healthcare costs. Maybe the democrats should've worked with the repubs to arrive at a true bipartisan law instead of the backroom deals and behind closed doors bullshit that couldn't stand the light of day. And maybe we shouldn't have passed a bill this big that covers one sixth of the entire economy WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE **** WAS IN IT.

1) The ACA is the better job of regulating insurance companies. It's the way Paul Ryan would approach regulating insurance companies, it's the way Mitt Romney would (sorry, did) regulate insurance companies, and it's the way Barack Obama would regulate insurance companies. Health insurance exchanges for the individual market, coupled with the popular protections in the group markets (read: the things I just linked to).

2) The ACA's language on tort reform was taken (literally, copied and pasted) from Republican health reform legislation introduced in '08. It also appeared in broad strokes in Ryan's '09 health reform legislation. Its take is simple: innovation in tort law is best done at the state level, but the federal government can and should spur it with some helpful innovation grants to states. There isn't unwavering support, even within the Republican Party, for federalizing tort law; there's actually substantial opposition to it within their caucus.

3) Insurance policies will be able to write insurance policies in every state under the ACA. They'll do it the same way they sell to federal employees nationwide if they want to: they contract to sell multi-state health insurance plans. That means out-of-state insurers now have a mechanism for selling in new state markets.

4) The Republicans made a deliberate strategic decision (a miscalculation, as it turned out) as to how they'd approach the legislative process for health care reform, and it didn't have much to do with policy.

5) Lots of folks know what's in it. You could, too, if you wanted to know. But I'm guessing you don't.

 

[Wiseacre]

Highly regulated my azz....

So you didn't hear about the Pub depression? Amazing LOL

Educate yourself.
The truth may set you free.

He wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit him on his azz.

 

[Greenbeard]

Your insurance company with ACA will be the US federal government.
The private health insurance industry under ACA will cease to exist.

Your fears are unfounded.

 

[francoHFW]

You can sue private insurance companies, you won't be able to do that with the ACA. Proper gov't oversight and regulation is supposed to keep them honest. If you don't trust the insurance companies, it's because the gov't didn't do it's job. But the gov't has no oversight, they can pretty much do whatever they want. Don't know why anyone would trust them to be competent or honest, unless you're one of their biggest benefactors.

Said with such conviction.

Yet you actually have more protections and more rights when it comes to dealing with your insurance company thanks to the ACA.

External Appeals
Consumer Assistance Program Grants (CAP Grants)
The Affordable Care Act's New Patient's Bill of Rights

I am unconvinced. Maybe the gov't should've done a better job of regulating the insurance companies, we wouldn't have had to go through all this bullshit. Maybe we should've done something about tort reform. Maybe we should've allowed insurance companies to write policies in every state, thereby increasing competition. Maybe there were other altneratives that would've actually lowered healthcare costs. Maybe the democrats should've worked with the repubs to arrive at a true bipartisan law instead of the backroom deals and behind closed doors bullshit that couldn't stand the light of day. And maybe we shouldn't have passed a bill this big that covers one sixth of the entire economy WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE **** WAS IN IT.

There ARE care guidelines that will cut down on malpractice. They can add national policies. Romney/Teddycare has already proved this will lower costs, and more can be added. It's a PUB PLAN, just proves Pubs would not cooperate on any level. The backroom deals are temporary. THEY knew what was in it, but the dupes certainly don't, OR what Pelosi was saying. You'll get it when it's implemented, certainly never from Fox Noise etc etc etc.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I am unconvinced.

I'll try and contain my shock.

Maybe the gov't should've done a better job of regulating the insurance companies, we wouldn't have had to go through all this bullshit. Maybe we should've done something about tort reform. Maybe we should've allowed insurance companies to write policies in every state, thereby increasing competition. Maybe there were other altneratives that would've actually lowered healthcare costs. Maybe the democrats should've worked with the repubs to arrive at a true bipartisan law instead of the backroom deals and behind closed doors bullshit that couldn't stand the light of day. And maybe we shouldn't have passed a bill this big that covers one sixth of the entire economy WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE **** WAS IN IT.

1) The ACA is the better job of regulating insurance companies. It's the way Paul Ryan would approach regulating insurance companies, it's the way Mitt Romney would (sorry, did) regulate insurance companies, and it's the way Barack Obama would regulate insurance companies. Health insurance exchanges for the individual market, coupled with the popular protections in the group markets (read: the things I just linked to).

2) The ACA's language on tort reform was taken (literally, copied and pasted) from Republican health reform legislation introduced in '08. It also appeared in broad strokes in Ryan's '09 health reform legislation. Its take is simple: innovation in tort law is best done at the state level, but the federal government can and should spur it with some helpful innovation grants to states. There isn't unwavering support, even within the Republican Party, for federalizing tort law; there's actually substantial opposition to it within their caucus.

3) Insurance policies will be able to write insurance policies in every state under the ACA. They'll do it the same way they sell to federal employees nationwide if they want to: they contract to sell multi-state health insurance plans. That means out-of-state insurers now have a mechanism for selling in new state markets.

4) The Republicans made a deliberate strategic decision (a miscalculation, as it turned out) as to how they'd approach the legislative process for health care reform, and it didn't have much to do with policy.

5) Lots of folks know what's in it. You could, too, if you wanted to know. But I'm guessing you don't.

That's a whole lot of wishful thinking on your part.
I am wondering how a private citizen such as yourself can so easily summarize a 2,500 page bill than quite frankly very few people who voted for it's passage were able to understand.
Even the Speaker of the House said "we need to pass this bill so we can see what's in it"...
There is no ambiguity there. Pelosi was very clear in her lack of understanding of the ACA Bill.
60% of the population is furious over this. A lot of them left leaning...They will struggle to get back to the polls if it's with the intention of voting for Obama

 

[francoHFW]

The Hell she did, Pub dupe. Of course they knew what was in it- they discussed for 6 months. She meant the PUBLIC, especially dittoheads.

 

[francoHFW]

60% of Pub dupes, you mean...

 

[Greenbeard]

That's a whole lot of wishful thinking on your part.

In what respect, Charlie?

I am wondering how a private citizen such as yourself can so easily summarize a 2,500 page bill than quite frankly very few people who voted for it's passage were able to understand.

I suppose there are two possibilities: I'm either smarter than the average legislator or it ain't that hard to learn about these things if you want to.

Maybe it's a little bit of both.

Even the Speaker of the House said "we need to pass this bill so we can see what's in it"...
There is no ambiguity there. Pelosi was very clear in her lack of understanding of the ACA Bill.

No, she wasn't. That's something someone said at one point that you uncritically accepted and folded into your world view. What actually happened is that Pelosi was explaining to the National Association of Counties what she thought were the bill's strengths. Given her audience, her remarks were tailored to the effect of the legislation on local health systems. At the end of her spiel, she concluded that the bill had to be passed so these county-level officials could see its effects--in the United States, most of our public health infrastructure is at the county level, meaning these people were going to be the ones implementing key pieces of the ACA (and enjoying the help it provides to their mission).

"As you [the National Association of Counties] are in Washington this week, we stand at the doorstep of history, ready to realize a centuries old dream, started by a Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt. He was the one who started this country thinking in this direction, and we are deeply in his dept. But, we are a hundred years late. A century old dream of health care for all, and we will be prepared to send the bill to President Obama's desk that ensures affordability for the middle class, accountability for the insurance companies, and access for millions more Americans, tens of millions more.

"Nobody knows better than you the strain on hospitals that never turned a patient away, and health care providers grappling with the challenges of the uninsured and shrinking reimbursement. You know as well as anyone, that our current system is unsustainable. It's unsustainable to individuals and their families. It's unsustainable for small businesses. It's unsustainable for your communities. It's unsustainable for our state, local, and national budgets. [...]

"Again, it's unaffordable for families, individuals and families, for businesses of any size, and it is a cost to our economy. Imagine an economy where people could follow their aspirations, where they could be entrepreneurial, where they could take risks professionally because personally their families health care needs are being met. Where they could be self-employed or start a business, not be job-locked in a job because they have health care there, and if they went out on their own it would be unaffordable to them, but especially true, if someone has a child with a pre-existing condition. So when we pass our bill, never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition.

"We have to do this in partnership, and I wanted to bring up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals.

"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention -- it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting.

"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

Note that she never said anything that indicated she didn't understand the legislation.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's a whole lot of wishful thinking on your part.

In what respect, Charlie?

I am wondering how a private citizen such as yourself can so easily summarize a 2,500 page bill than quite frankly very few people who voted for it's passage were able to understand.

I suppose there are two possibilities: I'm either smarter than the average legislator or it ain't that hard to learn about these things if you want to.

Maybe it's a little bit of both.

Even the Speaker of the House said "we need to pass this bill so we can see what's in it"...
There is no ambiguity there. Pelosi was very clear in her lack of understanding of the ACA Bill.

No, she wasn't. That's something someone said at one point that you uncritically accepted and folded into your world view. What actually happened is that Pelosi was explaining to the National Association of Counties what she thought were the bill's strengths. Given her audience, her remarks were tailored to the effect of the legislation on local health systems. At the end of her spiel, she concluded that the bill had to be passed so these county-level officials could see its effects--in the United States, most of our public health infrastructure is at the county level, meaning these people were going to be the ones implementing key pieces of the ACA (and enjoying the help it provides to their mission).

"As you [the National Association of Counties] are in Washington this week, we stand at the doorstep of history, ready to realize a centuries old dream, started by a Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt. He was the one who started this country thinking in this direction, and we are deeply in his dept. But, we are a hundred years late. A century old dream of health care for all, and we will be prepared to send the bill to President Obama's desk that ensures affordability for the middle class, accountability for the insurance companies, and access for millions more Americans, tens of millions more.

"Nobody knows better than you the strain on hospitals that never turned a patient away, and health care providers grappling with the challenges of the uninsured and shrinking reimbursement. You know as well as anyone, that our current system is unsustainable. It's unsustainable to individuals and their families. It's unsustainable for small businesses. It's unsustainable for your communities. It's unsustainable for our state, local, and national budgets. [...]

"Again, it's unaffordable for families, individuals and families, for businesses of any size, and it is a cost to our economy. Imagine an economy where people could follow their aspirations, where they could be entrepreneurial, where they could take risks professionally because personally their families health care needs are being met. Where they could be self-employed or start a business, not be job-locked in a job because they have health care there, and if they went out on their own it would be unaffordable to them, but especially true, if someone has a child with a pre-existing condition. So when we pass our bill, never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition.

"We have to do this in partnership, and I wanted to bring up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals.

"You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention -- it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting.

"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

Note that she never said anything that indicated she didn't understand the legislation.

Note that the majority of Americans do not want this..
Only parasites and taker libs want this piece of shit.
"It will offer paid for investments"...HUH? BY whom?
Look, the federal government may be able to control prices, it will NEVER be able to control costs. And THAT is where ACA fails.
As the cost of medical care, technology, medicines and of course compensation for medical professionals rises, the ACA will lose control and collapse.
The only way costs can be controlled is if 1) new technology slows to a crawl. No private investor is going to invest it's money on products that do not pay off. Same goes for medicines. 2) the federal government becomes the de-facto employer of all medical professionals, controlling all compensation. Of course that will result in a virtual 100% foreign born work force..Talk about offshoring of work...

 

[francoHFW]

Pub dupes!!Amazing chumps for the greedy rich and their charlatans- since 1872! LOL

 

[P@triot]

Well, if you're like most Americans, the answer is Barack Obama.

If you're like most Americans - a DOCTOR.


You liberals with your Obama worship are getting worse by the day. Now he's "qualified" to tell us all about our own healthcare. The government has no ******* business being involved with healthcare. There is no limit to the stupidity of you liberals....

 

[Famine]

What we have here is the proverbial rock and hard place. Trust the gov't or trust the HC free market, which essentially means trust the gov't to regulate that so-called free market. In the final analysis, do we trust the gov't to run HC or do we trust the gov't to do a better job of regulating the industry. Personally, I don't think the gov't can do a reasonable job either way, their track record sucks. If it was me, I'd get the federal gov't out of the HC business and leave it to the states to try different solutions. Chances are somebody will arrive at the best solutions, money is getting tighter all the time.

That is about spot on good sir!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Who do you trust more on health care?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI]BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Wendell Potter | PBS - YouTube[/ame]


​