This article was a bit misplaced in my opinion, but the points are still legitimate. Although I did know that a large percentage of Doctors are planning an exit from the industry once Obamacare hits, I was unfamiliar with some of the other points.

http://www.nationalreview...rie-turner

1. Higher cost of insurance. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Senator Obama promised that average premiums for a family would go down by $2,500 by 2012 as a result of his proposed reforms, but they actually have gone up by nearly that much — from $12,680 in 2008 to $15,073 in 2011, according to Kaiser Family Foundation data. And the Congressional Budget Office found that Obamacare’s new insurance mandates will raise premiums in the individual market by an additional $2,100 per family. That’s just the beginning. There are at least 20 new or higher taxes in Obamacare that will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher premiums, including taxes on medical devices and health-insurance premiums. This is bad news for women trying to keep coverage while managing a tight family budget.

2. Losing your current insurance. The administration itself estimates that 51 to 80 percent of Americans will lose their current health insurance because their policies won’t qualify as acceptable under Obamacare rules. As many as 20 million people could lose the insurance they get at work as a result of Obamacare, according to the CBO. McKinsey and Co. says as many as 80 million people could be forced to change policies to comply with the law’s requirements. Other studies have shown that at least a third of businesses are considering dropping coverage because of the costly Obamacare mandates. This is bad news for women who want stability and control over their health insurance.

3. Dependents losing coverage. One of the perverse risks of Obamacare is that it could cause families who are relying on employer insurance to lose their coverage. Under the law, employers must offer affordable insurance to their employees; Washington will deem a policy unaffordable if an employee’s premium is more than 9.5 percent of his or her household income. This means that for a household income of $30,000, if the premium is more than $2,850, the coverage is considered unaffordable. Then the worker is eligible to go to the Exchanges for taxpayer-subsidized insurance. The only problem is that the subsidized insurance will be only for the worker and not for dependents. Families could lose coverage at work and be ineligible for subsidies in the Exchanges.

4. Unintended consequences. One of the first provisions of Obamacare to be implemented requires employers that offer dependent coverage to allow children to stay on their parents’ policies up to age 26. But some families are finding that this has a dark side: Firms and other organizations are finding they can’t afford the added cost and are dropping dependent coverage altogether. Soon after the law passed, the 1199SEIU local of the Service Employees International Union announced that it was dropping dependent coverage: “. . . new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26,” Mitra Behroozi, executive director of benefits and pension funds, wrote in a letter to members. “Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible, and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”

5. Conscience and the mandate. The administration has forced a debate over reproductive issues by mandating that most employers must provide insurance coveragethat gives free access to sterilization, contraception, and drugs that cause abortion. All women will have access to the mandated services at no extra charge, even if they work for a religious organization such as a Catholic hospital, university, or charity whose religious beliefs are violated by the mandate. Private employers, including women business owners, will be unable to exercise their own right of conscience with regard to services they consider to be morally offensive.

6. Vulnerable Americans hit hardest. The new health law could shred the Medicaid safety net because it does not increase capacity or make desperately needed structural reforms to Medicaid but simply drives more people into the program. Current Medicaid recipients, most of whom have few if any other options for coverage, will soon be forced to compete for care with the 16 to 25 million people being added to the program. Dr. Edward Miller, the dean of Johns Hopkins Medicine, argued in a 2009 Wall Street Journal article entitled “Health Reform Could Harm ...d Patients” that our system simply doesn’t have the capacity to absorb so many more patients so quickly. It will become that much harder for a mother on Medicaid to find a doctor for an ill child.

7. Loss of control. One of the things that women want most is more control over decisions involving health care for their families. Under Obamacare, those decisions will be made, not by parents, but by bureaucrats at the 159 new agencies and boards in Washington that will control our health-care system. Already a government agency has recommended restricting access to mammograms. That is only the beginning of government rationing of care as boards such as the Independent Payment Advisory Board decide to cut payments for providers and procedures.

8. The doctor shortage. We need at least 160,000 more physicians just to meet the demands of a growing and aging population. A 2010 survey by athenahealth and Sermo found that 66 percent of doctors are seriously considering dropping out of Medicare and Medicaid, and 53 percent are considering opting out of all third-party insurance. A more recent survey said that as many as 46 percent of doctors are planning to leave medical practice when Obamacare fully kicks in. Meanwhile, there will be 30 million more people in the health-insurance market. Waiting times will grow, as they have in Massachusetts, where a forerunner of Obamacare is in effect; some patients there wait up to 100 days to get an appointment with a primary-care doctor. With many fewer physicians, women and their families will find it harder and harder to find a doctor to see them.

9. Losing full-time jobs. Many mothers must juggle a full-time job with full-time family responsibilities. But Obamacare’s employer mandate means they could face an even bigger challenge: holding onto that full-time job. Here’s why: The law forces employers with more than 50 employees to provide expensive health insurance to full-time workers or pay a big fine. Many employers are seriously considering cutting their full-time employees to 25 hours a week so they can avoid the costly mandate.

10. Child-only policies vanishing. Children are most commonly insured along with their parents, but child-only policies have been available for families where the parents’ insurance doesn’t cover dependents. Under a provision of Obamacare that went into effect in 2010, insurers can no longer refuse to sell such a policy because of a preexisting condition. This means that parents or guardians could wait to purchase policies until their children got sick. In at least 17 states, insurers have pulled out of the child-only market, saying they would face “adverse selection” because the new rule destroys the basis for shared insurance against risk.

I love how NONE of this is source (minus the poll at the end, just proves how sucessful Republican's fear and hate rhetoric worked on Americans) and is purely ad-hominem

[Edited 6/18/12 11:55am]

rudedog said:

I love how NONE of this is source (minus the poll at the end, just proves how sucessful Republican's fear and hate rhetoric worked on Americans) and is purely ad-hominem

[Edited 6/18/12 11:55am]

none of it will matter in a few days.

I have a short attention span, but I will try and get back to this thread later when I google the 10 claims listed.

Once again, if you think any doctor is going to give up the only thing he knows - the profession for which he went to school for 8 years, did 3 years' residency, and then spent years establishing a practice - if you think any doctor is going to give up that hard-earned livelihood (his only livelihood in most cases) because he isn't going to make as much money as he used to, well then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to show you.

seekingtruth said:

This article was a bit misplaced in my opinion, but the points are still legitimate. Although I did know that a large percentage of Doctors are planning an exit from the industry once Obamacare hits, I was unfamiliar with some of the other points.

http://www.nationalreview...rie-turner

1. Higher cost of insurance. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Senator Obama promised that average premiums for a family would go down by $2,500 by 2012 as a result of his proposed reforms, but they actually have gone up by nearly that much — from $12,680 in 2008 to $15,073 in 2011, according to Kaiser Family Foundation data. And the Congressional Budget Office found that Obamacare’s new insurance mandates will raise premiums in the individual market by an additional $2,100 per family. That’s just the beginning. There are at least 20 new or higher taxes in Obamacare that will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher premiums, including taxes on medical devices and health-insurance premiums. This is bad news for women trying to keep coverage while managing a tight family budget.

2. Losing your current insurance. The administration itself estimates that 51 to 80 percent of Americans will lose their current health insurance because their policies won’t qualify as acceptable under Obamacare rules. As many as 20 million people could lose the insurance they get at work as a result of Obamacare, according to the CBO. McKinsey and Co. says as many as 80 million people could be forced to change policies to comply with the law’s requirements. Other studies have shown that at least a third of businesses are considering dropping coverage because of the costly Obamacare mandates. This is bad news for women who want stability and control over their health insurance.

3. Dependents losing coverage. One of the perverse risks of Obamacare is that it could cause families who are relying on employer insurance to lose their coverage. Under the law, employers must offer affordable insurance to their employees; Washington will deem a policy unaffordable if an employee’s premium is more than 9.5 percent of his or her household income. This means that for a household income of $30,000, if the premium is more than $2,850, the coverage is considered unaffordable. Then the worker is eligible to go to the Exchanges for taxpayer-subsidized insurance. The only problem is that the subsidized insurance will be only for the worker and not for dependents. Families could lose coverage at work and be ineligible for subsidies in the Exchanges.

4. Unintended consequences. One of the first provisions of Obamacare to be implemented requires employers that offer dependent coverage to allow children to stay on their parents’ policies up to age 26. But some families are finding that this has a dark side: Firms and other organizations are finding they can’t afford the added cost and are dropping dependent coverage altogether. Soon after the law passed, the 1199SEIU local of the Service Employees International Union announced that it was dropping dependent coverage: “. . . new federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26,” Mitra Behroozi, executive director of benefits and pension funds, wrote in a letter to members. “Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible, and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”

5. Conscience and the mandate. The administration has forced a debate over reproductive issues by mandating that most employers must provide insurance coveragethat gives free access to sterilization, contraception, and drugs that cause abortion. All women will have access to the mandated services at no extra charge, even if they work for a religious organization such as a Catholic hospital, university, or charity whose religious beliefs are violated by the mandate. Private employers, including women business owners, will be unable to exercise their own right of conscience with regard to services they consider to be morally offensive.

6. Vulnerable Americans hit hardest. The new health law could shred the Medicaid safety net because it does not increase capacity or make desperately needed structural reforms to Medicaid but simply drives more people into the program. Current Medicaid recipients, most of whom have few if any other options for coverage, will soon be forced to compete for care with the 16 to 25 million people being added to the program. Dr. Edward Miller, the dean of Johns Hopkins Medicine, argued in a 2009 Wall Street Journal article entitled “Health Reform Could Harm ...d Patients” that our system simply doesn’t have the capacity to absorb so many more patients so quickly. It will become that much harder for a mother on Medicaid to find a doctor for an ill child.

7. Loss of control. One of the things that women want most is more control over decisions involving health care for their families. Under Obamacare, those decisions will be made, not by parents, but by bureaucrats at the 159 new agencies and boards in Washington that will control our health-care system. Already a government agency has recommended restricting access to mammograms. That is only the beginning of government rationing of care as boards such as the Independent Payment Advisory Board decide to cut payments for providers and procedures.

8. The doctor shortage. We need at least 160,000 more physicians just to meet the demands of a growing and aging population. A 2010 survey by athenahealth and Sermo found that 66 percent of doctors are seriously considering dropping out of Medicare and Medicaid, and 53 percent are considering opting out of all third-party insurance. A more recent survey said that as many as 46 percent of doctors are planning to leave medical practice when Obamacare fully kicks in. Meanwhile, there will be 30 million more people in the health-insurance market. Waiting times will grow, as they have in Massachusetts, where a forerunner of Obamacare is in effect; some patients there wait up to 100 days to get an appointment with a primary-care doctor. With many fewer physicians, women and their families will find it harder and harder to find a doctor to see them.

9. Losing full-time jobs. Many mothers must juggle a full-time job with full-time family responsibilities. But Obamacare’s employer mandate means they could face an even bigger challenge: holding onto that full-time job. Here’s why: The law forces employers with more than 50 employees to provide expensive health insurance to full-time workers or pay a big fine. Many employers are seriously considering cutting their full-time employees to 25 hours a week so they can avoid the costly mandate.

10. Child-only policies vanishing. Children are most commonly insured along with their parents, but child-only policies have been available for families where the parents’ insurance doesn’t cover dependents. Under a provision of Obamacare that went into effect in 2010, insurers can no longer refuse to sell such a policy because of a preexisting condition. This means that parents or guardians could wait to purchase policies until their children got sick. In at least 17 states, insurers have pulled out of the child-only market, saying they would face “adverse selection” because the new rule destroys the basis for shared insurance against risk.

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my.

10 Problems on their Way without Obamacare

1. People will die. Without Obamacare many people will die because they are denied insurance or can not afford it. Christians and Voodoo men will not care, because for unknow reasons they believe there would be some hocus pocus afterlife. Rational men however care about other human beings, while they are still here on earth.

2. People will die. Without Obamacare many people will die because they are denied insurance or can not afford it. Christians and Voodoo men will not care, because for unknow reasons they believe there would be some hocus pocus afterlife. Rational men however care about other human beings, while they are still here on earth.

3. People will die. Without Obamacare many people will die because they are denied insurance or can not afford it. Christians and Voodoo men will not care, because for unknow reasons they believe there would be some hocus pocus afterlife. Rational men however care about other human beings, while they are still here on earth.

4. People will die. Without Obamacare many people will die because they are denied insurance or can not afford it. Christians and Voodoo men will not care, because for unknow reasons they believe there would be some hocus pocus afterlife. Rational men however care about other human beings, while they are still here on earth.

5. People will die. Without Obamacare many people will die because they are denied insurance or can not afford it. Christians and Voodoo men will not care, because for unknow reasons they believe there would be some hocus pocus afterlife. Rational men however care about other human beings, while they are still here on earth.

6. People will die. Without Obamacare many people will die because they are denied insurance or can not afford it. Christians and Voodoo men will not care, because for unknow reasons they believe there would be some hocus pocus afterlife. Rational men however care about other human beings, while they are still here on earth.

7. People will die. Without Obamacare many people will die because they are denied insurance or can not afford it. Christians and Voodoo men will not care, because for unknow reasons they believe there would be some hocus pocus afterlife. Rational men however care about other human beings, while they are still here on earth.

8. People will die. Without Obamacare many people will die because they are denied insurance or can not afford it. Christians and Voodoo men will not care, because for unknow reasons they believe there would be some hocus pocus afterlife. Rational men however care about other human beings, while they are still here on earth.

9. People will die. Without Obamacare many people will die because they are denied insurance or can not afford it. Christians and Voodoo men will not care, because for unknow reasons they believe there would be some hocus pocus afterlife. Rational men however care about other human beings, while they are still here on earth.

10. People will die. Without Obamacare many people will die because they are denied insurance or can not afford it. Christians and Voodoo men will not care, because for unknow reasons they believe there would be some hocus pocus afterlife. Rational men however care about other human beings, while they are still here on earth.

[Edited 6/19/12 1:45am]

RodeoSchro said:

Once again, if you think any doctor is going to give up the only thing he knows - the profession for which he went to school for 8 years, did 3 years' residency, and then spent years establishing a practice - if you think any doctor is going to give up that hard-earned livelihood (his only livelihood in most cases) because he isn't going to make as much money as he used to, well then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to show you.

You don't understand the profession.

I have had conversations with 2 different doctors who are in that 46%. There are other areas they can work where they don't have to deal with all the headaches that are going to comprise their profession.

You don't understand the issue. It's not the lack of money. Doctors can recoup that income in other ways. It's about the headaches and hurdles that come with endless regulation.

rudedog said:

I love how NONE of this is source (minus the poll at the end, just proves how sucessful Republican's fear and hate rhetoric worked on Americans) and is purely ad-hominem

[Edited 6/18/12 11:55am]

I guess I could have used sources like you do. Any "out there" website you get some oped off of.

rudedog said:

I love how NONE of this is source (minus the poll at the end, just proves how sucessful Republican's fear and hate rhetoric worked on Americans) and is purely ad-hominem

[Edited 6/18/12 11:55am]

And btw.....

The Kaiser Foundation was one source. By using the links in the post, you can access the actual report.....

seekingtruth said:

1. Higher cost of insurance.

1. Translation: Americans are too stupid. Americans are simply unable to properly get something done, that works in all other civilized countries sicne many decades. They can not provide health care to all of their citizens. They have enough money and resources. So the problem must be lack of intelligence.

2. Losing your current insurance.

2. Translation: Americans are too stupid. Americans are simply unable to properly get something done, that works in all other civilized countries sicne many decades. They can not provide health care to all of their citizens. They have enough money and resources. So the problem must be lack of intelligence.

3. Dependents losing coverage.

2. Translation: Americans are too stupid. Americans are simply unable to properly get something done, that works in all other civilized countries sicne many decades. They can not provide health care to all of their citizens. They have enough money and resources. So the problem must be lack of intelligence.

4. Unintended consequences.

4. Translation: Americans are too stupid. Americans are simply unable to properly get something done, that works in all other civilized countries sicne many decades. They can not provide health care to all of their citizens. They have enough money and resources. So the problem must be lack of intelligence.

5. Conscience and the mandate.

5. Translation: Americans are too stupid. Americans are simply unable to properly get something done, that works in all other civilized countries sicne many decades. They can not provide health care to all of their citizens. They have enough money and resources. So the problem must be lack of intelligence.

6. Vulnerable Americans hit hardest.

6. Translation: Americans are too stupid. Americans are simply unable to properly get something done, that works in all other civilized countries sicne many decades. They can not provide health care to all of their citizens. They have enough money and resources. So the problem must be lack of intelligence.

7. Loss of control.

7. Translation: Americans are too stupid. Americans are simply unable to properly get something done, that works in all other civilized countries sicne many decades. They can not provide health care to all of their citizens. They have enough money and resources. So the problem must be lack of intelligence.

8. The doctor shortage.

8. Translation: Americans are too stupid. Americans are simply unable to properly get something done, that works in all other civilized countries sicne many decades. They can not provide health care to all of their citizens. They have enough money and resources. So the problem must be lack of intelligence.

9. Losing full-time jobs.

9. Translation: Americans are too stupid. Americans are simply unable to properly get something done, that works in all other civilized countries sicne many decades. They can not provide health care to all of their citizens. They have enough money and resources. So the problem must be lack of intelligence.

10. Child-only policies vanishing.

10. Translation: Americans are too stupid. Americans are simply unable to properly get something done, that works in all other civilized countries sicne many decades. They can not provide health care to all of their citizens. They have enough money and resources. So the problem must be lack of intelligence.

seekingtruth said:

RodeoSchro said:

Once again, if you think any doctor is going to give up the only thing he knows - the profession for which he went to school for 8 years, did 3 years' residency, and then spent years establishing a practice - if you think any doctor is going to give up that hard-earned livelihood (his only livelihood in most cases) because he isn't going to make as much money as he used to, well then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to show you.

You don't understand the profession.

I have had conversations with 2 different doctors who are in that 46%. There are other areas they can work where they don't have to deal with all the headaches that are going to comprise their profession.

You don't understand the issue. It's not the lack of money. Doctors can recoup that income in other ways. It's about the headaches and hurdles that come with endless regulation.

You said they were going to "exit the industry". If they leave medicine altogether, what industry is next for them? Plumbing?

You either misspoke, or exaggerated your claim.

I am 100% confident that there will not be a mass exodus of doctors leaving the only industry for which they are trained. Will some retire? Sure. But quit?

Nope.

So what is the solution to many Americans not being able to afford healthcare and going into debt over it?

I would like a viable solution if you are going to shoot down what the current president has to offer.

[Edited 6/19/12 5:45am]

seekingtruth said:

This article was a bit misplaced in my opinion, but the points are still legitimate. Although I did know that a large percentage of Doctors are planning an exit from the industry once Obamacare hits, I was unfamiliar with some of the other points.

utter shite

like a large percentage of US citizens would leave the US if Bush got relected?

just talking loud and saying nothing.

noone is gonna flush their education down the toilet and go to pump gas at the station instead. if you believe those shitters, you're even more naive than I thought.

actually, no, I take that back. you are exactly as naive as I thought.

I can't wait until someone is willing to stand up to the insurance companies, they are just as corrupt as the banks.

That is a big part of the problem. I have worked in the healthcare/medical billing area for years and seeing what these insurance companies charge for medicine and procedures is a HUGE problem.

The dr I was seeing decided to code a visit as a well visit because she could charge the insurance company $300. Turns out the insurance I had at the time did not cover well visits. I went to see her for stomach issues. I ended up paying the dr for the visit and disputing it with the insurance company.

They had to request medical records from drs office with after 6 months they still have not rec'd them.

So I am out the money, the dr got paid, the insurance company got their $600 a month from me and my stomach is worse than ever.

Yes, I would like to see some sort of reform. The drs are learning to work the system to take care of themselves, the insurance companies have been working the system for a long time.

No one likes to see any system they have figured out and can manipulate and defraud be changed. But no worries, as soon as Obamacare goes in effect, there may be some teething pains, but the same folks making out like bandits now, will figure it out. Greed and corruption is innate to us. It's a natural part of the human condition, we have good and bad in us. We can't change that. We can only mitigate the bad we do.

I think the trick is to do the same as with the flu vaccine. Modify policy each year, ever so slightly based on surveillance-based forecasts about what viruses tactics are most likely to cause illness be used screw people in the coming season.

People are smart, if we work long enough on anything we figure out a way fuck it no matter what safeguards are in place. Complacency is our biggest enemy.

[Edited 6/19/12 7:16am]

seekingtruth said:

rudedog said:

I love how NONE of this is source (minus the poll at the end, just proves how sucessful Republican's fear and hate rhetoric worked on Americans) and is purely ad-hominem

[Edited 6/18/12 11:55am]

I guess I could have used sources like you do. Any "out there" website you get some oped off of.

HA!! I think it's safe to assume from your statement that you never look at sources, even mine. But why bother right? Right wing unsourced links are WAY more factual than sourced ones.

seekingtruth said:

This article was a bit misplaced in my opinion, but the points are still legitimate. Although I did know that a large percentage of Doctors are planning an exit from the industry once Obamacare hits, I was unfamiliar with some of the other points.

Wait wait wait, you talked to TWO doctors and from that you say "large percentage of Doctors are planning an exit from the industry once Obamacare hits". HA! I know ppl are full of shit when they start their argument with the straw man.... 'i know' and provide no evidence other than they knowing a couple of ppl that they've talked to. Oh yeah...that's factual.

seekingtruth said:

rudedog said:

I love how NONE of this is source (minus the poll at the end, just proves how sucessful Republican's fear and hate rhetoric worked on Americans) and is purely ad-hominem

[Edited 6/18/12 11:55am]

And btw.....

The Kaiser Foundation was one source. By using the links in the post, you can access the actual report.....

10 points and you have one source, congradulations! THe funny this is that that one source doesn't support very much as Obamacare hasnt' been fully implemented.

rudedog said:

seekingtruth said:

And btw.....

The Kaiser Foundation was one source. By using the links in the post, you can access the actual report.....

10 points and you have one source, congradulations! THe funny this is that that one source doesn't support very much as Obamacare hasnt' been fully implemented.

again with this nacy pelosi-esk idea that we can not know what is in it until we pass it... we cannot be critical of it until it is in full effect? even when obama himself admitted lowing cost was a lie as he said we always knew it would raise the costs!

when the idea of death panels was mentioned what's her name was attacked! yet it is in the law! onaba himself said that 'we' should be able to decide based on cost if a person is valuable enough to provide option A or B. Now did I paraphrase? hell yeah! but that was his message. (and he also said obama care was not good enough for himself or his family! just for you and yours)

OnlyNDaUsa said

again with this nacy pelosi-esk idea that we can not know what is in it until we pass it... we cannot be critical of it until it is in full effect?

Horrible comparison You can't criticize it for being UNeffective if it even hasn't been implemented. That's like critizing how crappy a car rides without even driving it. 'I heard' it drives badly just doesn't cut it.

when the idea of death panels was mentioned what's her name was attacked! yet it is in the law! onaba himself said that 'we' should be able to decide based on cost if a person is valuable enough to provide option A or B. Now did I paraphrase? hell yeah! but that was his message. (and he also said obama care was not good enough for himself or his family! just for you and yours)

And again, another baseless attack with no evidence, or sources. She was also attacked because her and her family ran off to Canada for healthcare when she was young...SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!! She apparently thought socialized heathcare was fine when it worked for her.

Palin's claim was presented as false and criticized by mainstream news media, fact-checkers, academics, physicians, Democrats, and some Republicans. Other prominent Republicans and conservative talk radio hosts backed Palin's statement.

Due to public concern, the provision was removed from the Senate bill and was not included in the law that was enacted, the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In a 2011 statement, the American Society of Clinical Oncology bemoaned the politicization of the issue and said that the proposal should be revisited.

For 2009, "death panel" was named as PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year", one of FactCheck's "whoppers", and the most outrageous term by the American Dialect Society.

Economists, professors, Bioethicists, Medical Directors, The Economist, NY Times, and more have all called BULLSHIT on Death Panels. So....you want me to believe YOU over these credible sources?

it is used in every heath care plan... every single one. if you are too old or too sick you WILL get denied.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

it is used in every heath care plan... every single one. if you are too old or too sick you WILL get denied.

Okay, so there must be no old ppl in Canada, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Honk Kong.....COOL!!!! Is this something 'you heard'?

RodeoSchro said:

seekingtruth said:

You don't understand the profession.

I have had conversations with 2 different doctors who are in that 46%. There are other areas they can work where they don't have to deal with all the headaches that are going to comprise their profession.

You don't understand the issue. It's not the lack of money. Doctors can recoup that income in other ways. It's about the headaches and hurdles that come with endless regulation.

You said they were going to "exit the industry". If they leave medicine altogether, what industry is next for them? Plumbing?

You either misspoke, or exaggerated your claim.

I am 100% confident that there will not be a mass exodus of doctors leaving the only industry for which they are trained. Will some retire? Sure. But quit?

Nope.

We'll just have to see then. I'll gladly concede if I am wrong.

i am going on multiple conversations with multiple medical providers; my personal doctor included.

There are areas they can provide medical care, privately, without having to do so in the general, medical market.

Shanti0608 said:

So what is the solution to many Americans not being able to afford healthcare and going into debt over it?

I would like a viable solution if you are going to shoot down what the current president has to offer.

[Edited 6/19/12 5:45am]

There absolutely needs to be changes to how healthcare is deployed in this country. I agree with that.

What do you guys say about the fact that the Healthcare Bill's false premise of debt reduction has already been realized under the governments own budgetary rules? What was sold to the American public as a viable option was bogus.

There were a total of 13 other bills offered up during the healthcare debate with alternative measures.......the democratic house and senate would not allow debate on 1 of them other than Obamacare....so much for transparency.

Obamacare is a Health INSURANCE bill, not a healthcare bill. It's like putting a new battery in a car that is out of gas, and expecting it to run; it doesn't address the problem.

The problem with our healthcare system is cost of care. If you only deal with how individuals are insured without addressing more poignantly the cost of the care, than you are going to run into a bankrupt government.

All insurance is is liability coverage. If that liability (cost of care) increases, than the cost of insurance increases. The cost of insurance cannot keep up with the cost of care, so there will ALWAYS be a gap in our current system. The more the government tries to cover, the more they are going to have to tax us.....

rudedog said:

seekingtruth said:

And btw.....

The Kaiser Foundation was one source. By using the links in the post, you can access the actual report.....

10 points and you have one source, congradulations! THe funny this is that that one source doesn't support very much as Obamacare hasnt' been fully implemented.

I listed 1 for you. That's not all there were.....

seekingtruth said:

Shanti0608 said:

So what is the solution to many Americans not being able to afford healthcare and going into debt over it?

I would like a viable solution if you are going to shoot down what the current president has to offer.

[Edited 6/19/12 5:45am]

There absolutely needs to be changes to how healthcare is deployed in this country. I agree with that.

What do you guys say about the fact that the Healthcare Bill's false premise of debt reduction has already been realized under the governments own budgetary rules? What was sold to the American public as a viable option was bogus.

There were a total of 13 other bills offered up during the healthcare debate with alternative measures.......the democratic house and senate would not allow debate on 1 of them other than Obamacare....so much for transparency.

Obamacare is a Health INSURANCE bill, not a healthcare bill. It's like putting a new battery in a car that is out of gas, and expecting it to run; it doesn't address the problem.

The problem with our healthcare system is cost of care. If you only deal with how individuals are insured without addressing more poignantly the cost of the care, than you are going to run into a bankrupt government.

All insurance is is liability coverage. If that liability (cost of care) increases, than the cost of insurance increases. The cost of insurance cannot keep up with the cost of care, so there will ALWAYS be a gap in our current system. The more the government tries to cover, the more they are going to have to tax us.....

There will ALWAYS be a gap as long as insurance companies are reaping huge profits.

13cjk13 said:

.

There will ALWAYS be a gap as long as insurance companies are reaping huge profits.

source? last I heard they were pretty thin.

seekingtruth said:

RodeoSchro said:

You said they were going to "exit the industry". If they leave medicine altogether, what industry is next for them? Plumbing?

You either misspoke, or exaggerated your claim.

I am 100% confident that there will not be a mass exodus of doctors leaving the only industry for which they are trained. Will some retire? Sure. But quit?

Nope.

We'll just have to see then. I'll gladly concede if I am wrong.

i am going on multiple conversations with multiple medical providers; my personal doctor included.

There are areas they can provide medical care, privately, without having to do so in the general, medical market.

Great, but that wouldn't be "exiting the industry", would it? That would just be changing jobs within the same industry (assuming the practice of medicine is the industry).

Shanti0608 said:

So what is the solution to many Americans not being able to afford healthcare and going into debt over it?

I would like a viable solution if you are going to shoot down what the current president has to offer.

[Edited 6/19/12 5:45am]

What those who oppose "Obamacare" want is basically nothing - they simply don't care about anybody else, and if they get sick and die, too fucking bad, they should have earned more money to take care of themselves. "I ain't gonna help some lazy slacking muthafuckas...."

jjhunsecker said:

What those who oppose "Obamacare" want is basically nothing - they simply don't care about anybody else, and if they get sick and die, too fucking bad, they should have earned more money to take care of themselves. "I ain't gonna help some lazy slacking muthafuckas...."

that is just totally untrue..there is nothing at all that is true about any of that. it is so far from any factual basis as to be almost hateful. No one thinks that.

Shanti0608 said:

So what is the solution to many Americans not being able to afford healthcare and going into debt over it?

I would like a viable solution if you are going to shoot down what the current president has to offer.

[Edited 6/19/12 5:45am]

The solution is outright universal health care, where people are taxed and everyone gets decent healthcare. It works in other countries and the people in those countries are healthier, have lower infant mortality rates, and live longer than in the US.

tmo1965 said:

The solution is outright universal health care, where people are taxed and everyone gets decent healthcare.

then they can push for that and try to get the support needed to get passed.

It works in other countries and the people in those countries are healthier,

can that really be demonstrated independently and with life style, eat ting habits, all other independent variables taken out of the equation?

have lower infant mortality rates,

due in some part different standards of what is or is not counted in that figure. In some a baby has to be more than 28 days old to count. In the US the docs keep many babies alive for more than 4 weeks that would have never been counted in most other nations. Another factor is some nations (cuba) just lie about the numbers. AND the difference is tiny.

and live longer than in the US.

by how long? and again does that take out lifestyle factors that have ZERO to do with health care?

tmo1965 said:

Shanti0608 said:

So what is the solution to many Americans not being able to afford healthcare and going into debt over it?

I would like a viable solution if you are going to shoot down what the current president has to offer.

[Edited 6/19/12 5:45am]

The solution is outright universal health care, where people are taxed and everyone gets decent healthcare. It works in other countries and the people in those countries are healthier, have lower infant mortality rates, and live longer than in the US.

That works in SOME socialist countries, but it cannot with our current economic structure. Sorry. That's like saying a coffee maker will work great under the hood of a car.

There are also other countries with more socialized healthcare, that are having to regress.

Canada and UK both are having to go more and more privatized with their healthcare. Why would we want to go through the same cycle they are going through?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

tmo1965 said:

The solution is outright universal health care, where people are taxed and everyone gets decent healthcare.

then they can push for that and try to get the support needed to get passed.

It works in other countries and the people in those countries are healthier,

can that really be demonstrated independently and with life style, eat ting habits, all other independent variables taken out of the equation?

have lower infant mortality rates,

due in some part different standards of what is or is not counted in that figure. In some a baby has to be more than 28 days old to count. In the US the docs keep many babies alive for more than 4 weeks that would have never been counted in most other nations. Another factor is some nations (cuba) just lie about the numbers. AND the difference is tiny.

and live longer than in the US.

by how long? and again does that take out lifestyle factors that have ZERO to do with health care?

I don't know whether or not lifestyle factors are taken into account, but some of the countries that I've looked at have diets that are considered not that great by US standards, like France (high fat) for example. Perhaps you can find data that takes those factors into account. Nevertheless, here are some figures that I got from CIA World Factbook website (https://www.cia.gov/libra...index.html). I picked countries that I know to have "socialized" medicine. Pay attention to the percentage of GDP that each country pays towards healthcare.

UK

Death rate: 9.33/1000

Infant Mortality: 4.56/1000

Life Expectancy: Male - 78.08 Female - 82.4

Num. of Physicians: 2.739/1000

Healthcare Expenditures per GDP: 9.3%

France

Death rate: 8.85/1000

Infant Mortality: 3.37/1000

Life Expectancy: Male - 78.35 Female - 84.73

Num. of Physicians: 3.4/1000

Healthcare Expenditures per GDP: 3.5%

Norway

Death rate: 9.22/1000

Infant Mortality: 3.5/1000

Life Expectancy: Male - 77.65 Female - 83.14

Num. of Physicians: 4.076/1000

Healthcare Expenditures per GDP: 9.7%

Sweden

Death rate: 10.21/1000

Infant Mortality: 2.74/1000

Life Expectancy: Male - 78.86 Female - 83.63

Num. of Physicians: 3.583/1000

Healthcare Expenditures per GDP: 9.9%

Canada

Death rate: 8.09/1000

Infant Mortality: 4.85/1000

Life Expectancy: Male - 78.89 Female - 84.21

Num. of Physicians: 1.913/1000

Healthcare Expenditures per GDP: 10.9%

US

Death rate: 8.39/1000

Infant Mortality: 5.98/1000

Life Expectancy: Male - 76.05 Female - 81.05

Num. of Physicians: 2.672/1000

Healthcare Expenditures per GDP: 16.2%

The US has the 2nd highest healthcare expenditures out of 189 countries. Malta has the highest and Mexico has the 3rd highest. (https://www.cia.gov/libra...5rank.html)

[Edited 6/21/12 15:11pm]

seekingtruth said:

tmo1965 said:

The solution is outright universal health care, where people are taxed and everyone gets decent healthcare. It works in other countries and the people in those countries are healthier, have lower infant mortality rates, and live longer than in the US.

That works in SOME socialist countries, but it cannot with our current economic structure. Sorry. That's like saying a coffee maker will work great under the hood of a car.

There are also other countries with more socialized healthcare, that are having to regress.

Canada and UK both are having to go more and more privatized with their healthcare. Why would we want to go through the same cycle they are going through?

Why can't it work here? What about all of the other countries that have successful univeral healthcare?

tmo1965 said:

seekingtruth said:

That works in SOME socialist countries, but it cannot with our current economic structure. Sorry. That's like saying a coffee maker will work great under the hood of a car.

There are also other countries with more socialized healthcare, that are having to regress.

Canada and UK both are having to go more and more privatized with their healthcare. Why would we want to go through the same cycle they are going through?

Why can't it work here? What about all of the other countries that have successful univeral healthcare?

Because we have big pharma and big insurance that will fight tooth and nail to make sure it wont work here.

Employers can outsource the jobs and pay less of the new tax.

SuperFurryAnimal said:

Employers can outsource the jobs and pay less of the new tax.

That's another reason to have individual citizens to pay the tax. Corporations can be taxed but not based upon the number of employees - for example a flat 3%, 4% or whatever of net profits or something along those lines.

tmo1965 said:

seekingtruth said:

That works in SOME socialist countries, but it cannot with our current economic structure. Sorry. That's like saying a coffee maker will work great under the hood of a car.

There are also other countries with more socialized healthcare, that are having to regress.

Canada and UK both are having to go more and more privatized with their healthcare. Why would we want to go through the same cycle they are going through?

Why can't it work here? What about all of the other countries that have successful univeral healthcare?

The problem is whenever anyone in America mentions universal healthcare the word socialism comes up. Stupid Americans still believe that Obama is a Muslim so they are not going to understand that if we had univeral healthcare that we wouldn't make us a socialist country.

It comes down to fear as usual. Keep Americans afraid, and tell them that they will lose their freedom if every American had healthcare.

Who gives a shit about all of the Americans that die everyday because they do not have healthcare.

I have lived in the US and the UK, I know about universal healthcare and I know about the crap healthcare system in the US.

Until ppl start to care about someone other than themselves, we will never have a healthcare system that works.

what is scary is how so many think that just because it will help people that it should be upheld!

or how people actualy say the republicans are against people having health care...

or that the have no ideas

or that they want people to die....

OnlyNDaUsa said:

what is scary is how so many think that just because it will help people that it should be upheld!

or how people actualy say the republicans are against people having health care...

or that the have no ideas

or that they want people to die....

Too bad all of the above are true......That's what is really scary.

13cjk13 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

what is scary is how so many think that just because it will help people that it should be upheld!

or how people actualy say the republicans are against people having health care...

or that the have no ideas

or that they want people to die....

Too bad all of the above are true......That's what is really scary.

and my point is proven!

[Edited 6/24/12 8:37am]

OnlyNDaUsa said:

13cjk13 said:

Too bad all of the above are true......That's what is really scary.

and my point is proven!

[Edited 6/24/12 8:37am]

Or not. Republicans ARE against people having healthcare. Republicans have NO ideas. Republicans WANT people to die. And MY point is proven!

13cjk13 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

13cjk13 said:

Or not. Republicans ARE against people having healthcare. Republicans have NO ideas. Republicans WANT people to die. And MY point is proven!

Okay.

Okay.

13cjk13 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

13cjk13 said: Okay.

Okay.

And OK by me. I haven't heard anything from Only, or any so-called conservative for that matter, about what should be done about healthcare, and about the uninsured. Remember, what they call "Obamacare" is essentially the REPUBLICANS plan from the 1990s in opposition to the Clintons' heathcare initiatives. But now that Obama proposes the same ideas, the obsessive Barack haters see it as some sort of socialist commie plot. Not to mention that Mitt the Magic Underwearer imposed this same system in Massachusetts. But all he needs to say is "I was for it then, but I'm against it now", and the saps just buy that and eat it up

I wish the ppl that had the powers to make decisions about healthcare were ppl that actually had to worry about thier healthcare.

Real citizens that struggle with paying for their healthcare and ones that are going in debt and losing their homes due to the debt from healthcare.

Healthcare is a basic need. If we continue to have citizens struggling and losing their homes because of the problems within our healthcare system, it is only going to add strains to our ecomomy.

I guess the rich don't care about the middle class and the poor.

jjhunsecker said:

13cjk13 said:

Okay.

And OK by me. I haven't heard anything from Only, or any so-called conservative for that matter, about what should be done about healthcare, and about the uninsured. Remember, what they call "Obamacare" is essentially the REPUBLICANS plan from the 1990s in opposition to the Clintons' heathcare initiatives. But now that Obama proposes the same ideas, the obsessive Barack haters see it as some sort of socialist commie plot. Not to mention that Mitt the Magic Underwearer imposed this same system in Massachusetts. But all he needs to say is "I was for it then, but I'm against it now", and the saps just buy that and eat it up

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president .

Shanti0608 said:

tmo1965 said:

Why can't it work here? What about all of the other countries that have successful univeral healthcare?

The problem is whenever anyone in America mentions universal healthcare the word socialism comes up. Stupid Americans still believe that Obama is a Muslim so they are not going to understand that if we had univeral healthcare that we wouldn't make us a socialist country.

It comes down to fear as usual. Keep Americans afraid, and tell them that they will lose their freedom if every American had healthcare.

Who gives a shit about all of the Americans that die everyday because they do not have healthcare.

I have lived in the US and the UK, I know about universal healthcare and I know about the crap healthcare system in the US.

Until ppl start to care about someone other than themselves, we will never have a healthcare system that works.

And that is the root of the whole problem. I find it ironic that a country that claims to be a Christian nation does not have basic compassion for the next person, as is the foundation of Jesus' teachings. Yet, countries that, from the perspective of some, are "godless", show more love and compassion for their fellow man.

13cjk13 said:

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president .

I agree! just like kerry wanted for bush... it is all about November.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

13cjk13 said:

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president .

I agree! just like kerry wanted for bush... it is all about November.

The SINGLE, MOST IMPORTANT THING.....not the economy, not jobs, not immigration, not the war......cool.

13cjk13 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I agree! just like kerry wanted for bush... it is all about November.

The SINGLE, MOST IMPORTANT THING.....not the economy, not jobs, not immigration, not the war......cool.

that fails as the other party will always think it has the better answers to all those issues. just like you did in 2004. you wanted bush out of office over all that stuff because you thought kerry would be better.

seekingtruth said:

RodeoSchro said:

Once again, if you think any doctor is going to give up the only thing he knows - the profession for which he went to school for 8 years, did 3 years' residency, and then spent years establishing a practice - if you think any doctor is going to give up that hard-earned livelihood (his only livelihood in most cases) because he isn't going to make as much money as he used to, well then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to show you.

You don't understand the profession.

I have had conversations with 2 different doctors who are in that 46%. There are other areas they can work where they don't have to deal with all the headaches that are going to comprise their profession.

You don't understand the issue. It's not the lack of money. Doctors can recoup that income in other ways. It's about the headaches and hurdles that come with endless regulation.

Because insurance companies and health care plans have none of that, just the government.

BS . . . .

Shanti0608 said:

So what is the solution to many Americans not being able to afford healthcare and going into debt over it?

I would like a viable solution if you are going to shoot down what the current president has to offer.

[Edited 6/19/12 5:45am]

It's not about solutions. It's merely shooting down what the current president has to offer.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

rudedog said:

10 points and you have one source, congradulations! THe funny this is that that one source doesn't support very much as Obamacare hasnt' been fully implemented.

again with this nacy pelosi-esk idea that we can not know what is in it until we pass it... we cannot be critical of it until it is in full effect? even when obama himself admitted lowing cost was a lie as he said we always knew it would raise the costs!

when the idea of death panels was mentioned what's her name was attacked! yet it is in the law! onaba himself said that 'we' should be able to decide based on cost if a person is valuable enough to provide option A or B. Now did I paraphrase? hell yeah! but that was his message. (and he also said obama care was not good enough for himself or his family! just for you and yours)

But why aren't you screaming at insurance companies and health care providers who make profit now doing exactly that?!!!!

The government can't have a death panel but your insurer can keep theirs?!!!

You make no sense complaining that the government wants to act like the insurance company you hold as sacred.

seekingtruth said:

RodeoSchro said:

You said they were going to "exit the industry". If they leave medicine altogether, what industry is next for them? Plumbing?

You either misspoke, or exaggerated your claim.

I am 100% confident that there will not be a mass exodus of doctors leaving the only industry for which they are trained. Will some retire? Sure. But quit?

Nope.

We'll just have to see then. I'll gladly concede if I am wrong.

i am going on multiple conversations with multiple medical providers; my personal doctor included.

There are areas they can provide medical care, privately, without having to do so in the general, medical market.

They can do that as doctors now and even with a single payer system. They don't have to leave the system, they can just NOT take government money. Fewer patients, less paperwork. What's not to like?

seekingtruth said:

Shanti0608 said:

So what is the solution to many Americans not being able to afford healthcare and going into debt over it?

I would like a viable solution if you are going to shoot down what the current president has to offer.

[Edited 6/19/12 5:45am]

There absolutely needs to be changes to how healthcare is deployed in this country. I agree with that.

What do you guys say about the fact that the Healthcare Bill's false premise of debt reduction has already been realized under the governments own budgetary rules? What was sold to the American public as a viable option was bogus.

There were a total of 13 other bills offered up during the healthcare debate with alternative measures.......the democratic house and senate would not allow debate on 1 of them other than Obamacare....so much for transparency.

Obamacare is a Health INSURANCE bill, not a healthcare bill. It's like putting a new battery in a car that is out of gas, and expecting it to run; it doesn't address the problem.

The problem with our healthcare system is cost of care. If you only deal with how individuals are insured without addressing more poignantly the cost of the care, than you are going to run into a bankrupt government.

All insurance is is liability coverage. If that liability (cost of care) increases, than the cost of insurance increases. The cost of insurance cannot keep up with the cost of care, so there will ALWAYS be a gap in our current system. The more the government tries to cover, the more they are going to have to tax us.....

What does transparency have to do with what is voted on or debated?

IF there were 13 other bills, everyone in Congress received a copy of it. Nothing hidden.

Do you really watch committee hearings on bills? Who airs them and when?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

jjhunsecker said:

What those who oppose "Obamacare" want is basically nothing - they simply don't care about anybody else, and if they get sick and die, too fucking bad, they should have earned more money to take care of themselves. "I ain't gonna help some lazy slacking muthafuckas...."

that is just totally untrue..there is nothing at all that is true about any of that. it is so far from any factual basis as to be almost hateful. No one thinks that.

Oh, so this is not about refusing to take care of fellow Americans? Just about how we pay to do so?

So why are you opposed to a single payer system? Because more people would have healthcare?

seekingtruth said:

tmo1965 said:

The solution is outright universal health care, where people are taxed and everyone gets decent healthcare. It works in other countries and the people in those countries are healthier, have lower infant mortality rates, and live longer than in the US.

That works in SOME socialist countries, but it cannot with our current economic structure. Sorry. That's like saying a coffee maker will work great under the hood of a car.

There are also other countries with more socialized healthcare, that are having to regress.

Canada and UK both are having to go more and more privatized with their healthcare. Why would we want to go through the same cycle they are going through?

Source? Britain is beefing up its NHS but also trying to control costs.

Congress won't let the Federal government negotiate to control costs.

tmo1965 said:

SuperFurryAnimal said:

Employers can outsource the jobs and pay less of the new tax.

That's another reason to have individual citizens to pay the tax. Corporations can be taxed but not based upon the number of employees - for example a flat 3%, 4% or whatever of net profits or something along those lines.

If you don't know why I find it funny . . . . . . think about it.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

what is scary is how so many think that just because it will help people that it should be upheld!

or how people actualy say the republicans are against people having health care...

or that the have no ideas

or that they want people to die....

Oops. Wouldn't want to be caught helping someone in need would we?

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

again with this nacy pelosi-esk idea that we can not know what is in it until we pass it... we cannot be critical of it until it is in full effect? even when obama himself admitted lowing cost was a lie as he said we always knew it would raise the costs!

when the idea of death panels was mentioned what's her name was attacked! yet it is in the law! onaba himself said that 'we' should be able to decide based on cost if a person is valuable enough to provide option A or B. Now did I paraphrase? hell yeah! but that was his message. (and he also said obama care was not good enough for himself or his family! just for you and yours)

But why aren't you screaming at insurance companies and health care providers who make profit now doing exactly that?!!!!

The government can't have a death panel but your insurer can keep theirs?!!!

You make no sense complaining that the government wants to act like the insurance company you hold as sacred.

I actually WORKED in the healthcare industry,at a very large insurance company. If you had any idea what went on there in the industry , people would be BEGGING for a single payer system !! There's no way that could be worse than what already exists... I will leave it at that

[Edited 6/28/12 13:25pm]

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

that is just totally untrue..there is nothing at all that is true about any of that. it is so far from any factual basis as to be almost hateful. No one thinks that.

Oh, so this is not about refusing to take care of fellow Americans? Just about how we pay to do so?

So why are you opposed to a single payer system? Because more people would have healthcare?

It's all about the "undeserving" poor- you know, the "welfare queens in Cadillacs" and the "strapping bucks buying filet mignon with food stamps" that St. Ronnie Reagan used to talk about. We don't WANT any of THOSE people getting healthcare they didn't "pay for", now do we ???

jjhunsecker said:

SUPRMAN said:

But why aren't you screaming at insurance companies and health care providers who make profit now doing exactly that?!!!!

The government can't have a death panel but your insurer can keep theirs?!!!

You make no sense complaining that the government wants to act like the insurance company you hold as sacred.

I actually WORK in the healthcare industry,at a very large insurance company. If you had any idea what went on there in the industry , people would be BEGGING for a single payer system !! There's no way that could be worse than what already exists... I will leave it at that

i used to work in an IR (investor relations as opposed to public relations) firm that represented pharmaceutical development companies, and it was some of the most disgusting and unmitigated greed and money wasting i had ever seen... and i also previously worked at halliburton.

people should be begging for single payer system

.

[Edited 6/28/12 12:28pm]

OnlyNDaUsa said:

13cjk13 said:

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president .

I agree! just like kerry wanted for bush... it is all about November.

The difference is that Kerry was actually a declared candidate, running against Bush for Bush's job.

The GOP publicly instituted their version of that philosophy the very first day Obama took the job, before they even had any candidates. It wasn't a candidate-vs-candidate situation - it was an entire-party-vs-one-man deal.

But you knew that.

I don't get it.

Shouldn't the cost of health care be plummeting now that Republican sponsored tort reforms have been implemented in so many places? It was a key promise they made in Florida ages ago when they got it approved.

Something....doesn't.....add....up.

Well, there's always the possibility there's no correlation, or the assumption Universal coverage will bring it up is just false and baseless.

imago said:

I don't get it.

Shouldn't the cost of health care be plummeting now that Republican sponsored tort reforms have been implemented in so many places? It was a key promise they made in Florida ages ago when they got it approved.

Something....doesn't.....add....up.

Well, there's always the possibility there's no correlation, or the assumption Universal coverage will bring it up is just false and baseless.

Tort reform has absolutely NOTHING to do with the cost of health care. It only affects how much money a doctor makes.

We've had tort reform in Texas for more than 10 years. It hasn't affected our insurance premiums one iota.

The reason is that tort reform makes it harder to sue your doctor, which means he has less lawsuits to defend, which means his insurance company pays less to defend him.

Therefore, the doctor's malpractice costs go down. But that's where it ends.

The doctor does NOT pass those savings to his patients. The insurance company does NOT pass those savings on to individual policy holders.

Both entities retain the savings, therefore making more money.

It's great for them. It's meaningless for the rest of us. It's devastating for those injured by medical malpractice.

cborgman said:

jjhunsecker said:

I actually WORK in the healthcare industry,at a very large insurance company. If you had any idea what went on there in the industry , people would be BEGGING for a single payer system !! There's no way that could be worse than what already exists... I will leave it at that

i used to work in an IR (investor relations as opposed to public relations) firm that represented pharmaceutical development companies, and it was some of the most disgusting and unmitigated greed and money wasting i had ever seen... and i also previously worked at halliburton.

people should be begging for single payer system

.

[Edited 6/28/12 12:28pm]

I used to work in clinical research, the company I worked for got paid by pharmaceutical companies. There is so much greed with the drug manufacturing industry. Insurance companies and drug companies have been making out big time. I just paid $124 for a bottle of nasal spray for my sinus infection. I have health insurance, if I didn't I would have had to pay $165.

Someone is making a huge profit and it isn't me!

I lived in the UK and NEVER saw ONE ad for prescription medications.

It was wonderful!

This country needs to get their priorities in order!

RodeoSchro said:

imago said:

I don't get it.

Shouldn't the cost of health care be plummeting now that Republican sponsored tort reforms have been implemented in so many places? It was a key promise they made in Florida ages ago when they got it approved.

Something....doesn't.....add....up.

Well, there's always the possibility there's no correlation, or the assumption Universal coverage will bring it up is just false and baseless.

Tort reform has absolutely NOTHING to do with the cost of health care. It only affects how much money a doctor makes.

We've had tort reform in Texas for more than 10 years. It hasn't affected our insurance premiums one iota.

The reason is that tort reform makes it harder to sue your doctor, which means he has less lawsuits to defend, which means his insurance company pays less to defend him.

Therefore, the doctor's malpractice costs go down. But that's where it ends.

The doctor does NOT pass those savings to his patients. The insurance company does NOT pass those savings on to individual policy holders.

Both entities retain the savings, therefore making more money.

It's great for them. It's meaningless for the rest of us. It's devastating for those injured by medical malpractice.

i so :heart: you

RodeoSchro said:

imago said:

I don't get it.

Shouldn't the cost of health care be plummeting now that Republican sponsored tort reforms have been implemented in so many places? It was a key promise they made in Florida ages ago when they got it approved.

Something....doesn't.....add....up.

Well, there's always the possibility there's no correlation, or the assumption Universal coverage will bring it up is just false and baseless.

Tort reform has absolutely NOTHING to do with the cost of health care. It only affects how much money a doctor makes.

We've had tort reform in Texas for more than 10 years. It hasn't affected our insurance premiums one iota.

The reason is that tort reform makes it harder to sue your doctor, which means he has less lawsuits to defend, which means his insurance company pays less to defend him.

Therefore, the doctor's malpractice costs go down. But that's where it ends.

The doctor does NOT pass those savings to his patients. The insurance company does NOT pass those savings on to individual policy holders.

Both entities retain the savings, therefore making more money.

It's great for them. It's meaningless for the rest of us. It's devastating for those injured by medical malpractice.

Yeah, I was being facetious.

My point was that the idea that Obamacare will cause healthcare prices to spike is probably just as trustworthy as Republican predictions that tort reform would cap rising healthcare prices. I doubt that it will.

cborgman said:

RodeoSchro said:

Tort reform has absolutely NOTHING to do with the cost of health care. It only affects how much money a doctor makes.

We've had tort reform in Texas for more than 10 years. It hasn't affected our insurance premiums one iota.

The reason is that tort reform makes it harder to sue your doctor, which means he has less lawsuits to defend, which means his insurance company pays less to defend him.

Therefore, the doctor's malpractice costs go down. But that's where it ends.

The doctor does NOT pass those savings to his patients. The insurance company does NOT pass those savings on to individual policy holders.

Both entities retain the savings, therefore making more money.

It's great for them. It's meaningless for the rest of us. It's devastating for those injured by medical malpractice.

i so :heart: you

Sorry, just felt the need to get in on the love.

I love all of you btw.

Shanti0608 said:

cborgman said:

i used to work in an IR (investor relations as opposed to public relations) firm that represented pharmaceutical development companies, and it was some of the most disgusting and unmitigated greed and money wasting i had ever seen... and i also previously worked at halliburton.

people should be begging for single payer system

.

[Edited 6/28/12 12:28pm]

I used to work in clinical research, the company I worked for got paid by pharmaceutical companies. There is so much greed with the drug manufacturing industry. Insurance companies and drug companies have been making out big time. I just paid $124 for a bottle of nasal spray for my sinus infection. I have health insurance, if I didn't I would have had to pay $165.

Someone is making a huge profit and it isn't me!

I lived in the UK and NEVER saw ONE ad for prescription medications.

It was wonderful!

This country needs to get their priorities in order!

Shanti0608 said:

cborgman said:

i so :heart: you

Sorry, just felt the need to get in on the love.

I love all of you btw.

cborgman said:

RodeoSchro said:

Tort reform has absolutely NOTHING to do with the cost of health care. It only affects how much money a doctor makes.

We've had tort reform in Texas for more than 10 years. It hasn't affected our insurance premiums one iota.

The reason is that tort reform makes it harder to sue your doctor, which means he has less lawsuits to defend, which means his insurance company pays less to defend him.

Therefore, the doctor's malpractice costs go down. But that's where it ends.

The doctor does NOT pass those savings to his patients. The insurance company does NOT pass those savings on to individual policy holders.

Both entities retain the savings, therefore making more money.

It's great for them. It's meaningless for the rest of us. It's devastating for those injured by medical malpractice.

i so :heart: you

imago said:

RodeoSchro said:

Tort reform has absolutely NOTHING to do with the cost of health care. It only affects how much money a doctor makes.

We've had tort reform in Texas for more than 10 years. It hasn't affected our insurance premiums one iota.

The reason is that tort reform makes it harder to sue your doctor, which means he has less lawsuits to defend, which means his insurance company pays less to defend him.

Therefore, the doctor's malpractice costs go down. But that's where it ends.

The doctor does NOT pass those savings to his patients. The insurance company does NOT pass those savings on to individual policy holders.

Both entities retain the savings, therefore making more money.

It's great for them. It's meaningless for the rest of us. It's devastating for those injured by medical malpractice.

Yeah, I was being facetious.

My point was that the idea that Obamacare will cause healthcare prices to spike is probably just as trustworthy as Republican predictions that tort reform would cap rising healthcare prices. I doubt that it will.

Oh, I knew that! I just wanted to make sure I stayed on your poo list.

It's the only list I'm on!

MORE LIES. Here is the truth:

• Mitt Romney and Republicans are firing off distortions about Obamacare after the Supreme Court confirmed that the health care law is constitutional and that every American deserves access to affordable, quality health coverage. But Romney and his Republican allies are attacking this principle with tired political falsehoods about health care reform—and making the repeal of health reform their first priority.

  With all the recycled myths they’re pushing, it’s important to get the facts about a law that is already helping millions of Americans. Here’s a look at what Republicans are saying—and what’s actually true—about health care reform.

  #1 Republican distortion: “The President promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class by a penny with this health care law. Well, that’s been proven false now.”

  The facts: President Obama has cut taxes by $3,600 for the average middle-class family over the last three years, and the Republicans fought him nearly every step of the way. From cutting taxes for every working American through the Making Work Pay and payroll tax cuts to the American Opportunity Tax Credit—a tax credit worth up to $10,000 to help families pay for four years of college—the President has put more money in the pockets of middle-class Americans.

  Here’s another fact: Obamacare includes the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history. According to the independent Congressional Budget Office, 19 million people will receive tax credits worth an average of about $4,800 each to help them afford health care. These tax credits will finally put health insurance within reach for millions of American families.

  Around 1 percent of people—those who can afford to buy coverage but instead choose to opt out, shifting their costs to the rest of us—will pay a penalty. The Supreme Court acknowledged yesterday that this penalty will be charged through the tax code—but that doesn’t change its purpose of ensuring everyone who can afford insurance buys it, or its effect of lowering costs for everyone.

  It’s also the same policy Romney implemented when he signed health reform in Massachusetts. In fact, for many folks in Massachusetts, the penalties under Romney’s reform were even bigger. Here’s a video of him extolling the virtues of his penalty.

  #2 Romney distortion: Romney said Obamacare meant “a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life—separating you and your doctor.”

  The facts: This is one of the most dishonest claims in American politics. First, this isn’t about government. Obamacare builds on and improves the nation’s private health care system.

  Second, here’s what it fixes. Before Obamacare, insurance companies had free rein to arbitrarily cap and cancel coverage, and they could waste our premiums on overheads and big bonuses for CEOs. With Obamacare, there will now be clear rules of the road to give patients and doctors more control over health care. These rules will make sure that you and your doctor—not your insurance company, and certainly not a Washington bureaucrat—have control over your health.

  #3 Romney distortion: “Obamacare also means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have.”

  The facts: False: If you like the insurance you have, you can keep it. The only thing that’s changed is that your coverage is stronger. Here’s how:

  • If you had a lifetime limit (and about 60 percent of employer-based plans did), it’s been lifted.

  • If you have a child under the age of 26, they can stay on your plan.

  • Insurance companies can no longer discriminate against children with pre-existing conditions.

  • Starting in 2014, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny anyone insurance based on pre-existing conditions, helping up to 129 million Americans get the care they need.

  • Insurance companies will no longer be able to charge women more than men for the exact same coverage.

  • 54 million Americans already have access to better preventive services, free of charge.

  • If you get sick, your insurance company can’t drop your coverage, and if they deny you a treatment, the law makes sure you have a chance to appeal.

  #4 Republican distortion: “Costs are going up.”

  The facts: Health care costs have been going up for decades—that’s one of the reasons President Obama fought to pass the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare makes targeted changes to hold costs down. The President started by taking on the insurance companies. As he said yesterday, the law ensures that insurance companies spend 80 percent of your premium dollars on your health care, not administrative costs or CEO bonuses. If they don’t follow that rule, they have to send you a rebate. This month, more than 12 million Americans will receive over $1 billion in rebate checks, and we’re all seeing lower premiums because of it.

  The law also takes on waste in our health care system. Let’s take just one example: We spend billions of dollars every year treating people for infections they get while they are in the hospital. The health care law helps hospitals take simple but necessary steps to prevent infections. These types of reforms will save up to $35 billion and 60,000 lives.

  #5 Romney distortion: “Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt.”

  The facts: Wrong. The Affordable Care Act cuts the deficit by over $100 billion during the first 10 years. In the following decade, it cuts the deficit by another $1 trillion. Not only is the Romney campaign misleading people about the President’s deficit plan, they won’t tell the truth about their own. Romney would grow the deficit by as much as $5 trillion by giving tax cuts that favor millionaires and billionaires while taking away health care benefits that people rely on. We can’t let them get away with it.

  If elected, Mitt Romney promised to do what the Supreme Court did not do and get rid of Obamacare on “day one” in the Oval Office. But he and his Republican colleagues will have to convince Americans with outright distortions and falsehoods to get there. Share these facts with your friends to make sure everyone knows what is at stake in this election.

^

PoorLonelyComputer said:

MORE LIES. Here is the truth:

• Mitt Romney and Republicans are firing off distortions about Obamacare after the Supreme Court confirmed that the health care law is constitutional and that every American deserves access to affordable, quality health coverage. But Romney and his Republican allies are attacking this principle with tired political falsehoods about health care reform—and making the repeal of health reform their first priority.

  With all the recycled myths they’re pushing, it’s important to get the facts about a law that is already helping millions of Americans. Here’s a look at what Republicans are saying—and what’s actually true—about health care reform.

  #1 Republican distortion: “The President promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class by a penny with this health care law. Well, that’s been proven false now.”

  The facts: President Obama has cut taxes by $3,600 for the average middle-class family over the last three years, and the Republicans fought him nearly every step of the way. From cutting taxes for every working American through the Making Work Pay and payroll tax cuts to the American Opportunity Tax Credit—a tax credit worth up to $10,000 to help families pay for four years of college—the President has put more money in the pockets of middle-class Americans.

  Here’s another fact: Obamacare includes the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history. According to the independent Congressional Budget Office, 19 million people will receive tax credits worth an average of about $4,800 each to help them afford health care. These tax credits will finally put health insurance within reach for millions of American families.

  Around 1 percent of people—those who can afford to buy coverage but instead choose to opt out, shifting their costs to the rest of us—will pay a penalty. The Supreme Court acknowledged yesterday that this penalty will be charged through the tax code—but that doesn’t change its purpose of ensuring everyone who can afford insurance buys it, or its effect of lowering costs for everyone.

  It’s also the same policy Romney implemented when he signed health reform in Massachusetts. In fact, for many folks in Massachusetts, the penalties under Romney’s reform were even bigger. Here’s a video of him extolling the virtues of his penalty.

  #2 Romney distortion: Romney said Obamacare meant “a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life—separating you and your doctor.”

  The facts: This is one of the most dishonest claims in American politics. First, this isn’t about government. Obamacare builds on and improves the nation’s private health care system.

  Second, here’s what it fixes. Before Obamacare, insurance companies had free rein to arbitrarily cap and cancel coverage, and they could waste our premiums on overheads and big bonuses for CEOs. With Obamacare, there will now be clear rules of the road to give patients and doctors more control over health care. These rules will make sure that you and your doctor—not your insurance company, and certainly not a Washington bureaucrat—have control over your health.

  #3 Romney distortion: “Obamacare also means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have.”

  The facts: False: If you like the insurance you have, you can keep it. The only thing that’s changed is that your coverage is stronger. Here’s how:

  • If you had a lifetime limit (and about 60 percent of employer-based plans did), it’s been lifted.

  • If you have a child under the age of 26, they can stay on your plan.

  • Insurance companies can no longer discriminate against children with pre-existing conditions.

  • Starting in 2014, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny anyone insurance based on pre-existing conditions, helping up to 129 million Americans get the care they need.

  • Insurance companies will no longer be able to charge women more than men for the exact same coverage.

  • 54 million Americans already have access to better preventive services, free of charge.

  • If you get sick, your insurance company can’t drop your coverage, and if they deny you a treatment, the law makes sure you have a chance to appeal.

  #4 Republican distortion: “Costs are going up.”

  The facts: Health care costs have been going up for decades—that’s one of the reasons President Obama fought to pass the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare makes targeted changes to hold costs down. The President started by taking on the insurance companies. As he said yesterday, the law ensures that insurance companies spend 80 percent of your premium dollars on your health care, not administrative costs or CEO bonuses. If they don’t follow that rule, they have to send you a rebate. This month, more than 12 million Americans will receive over $1 billion in rebate checks, and we’re all seeing lower premiums because of it.

  The law also takes on waste in our health care system. Let’s take just one example: We spend billions of dollars every year treating people for infections they get while they are in the hospital. The health care law helps hospitals take simple but necessary steps to prevent infections. These types of reforms will save up to $35 billion and 60,000 lives.

  #5 Romney distortion: “Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt.”

  The facts: Wrong. The Affordable Care Act cuts the deficit by over $100 billion during the first 10 years. In the following decade, it cuts the deficit by another $1 trillion. Not only is the Romney campaign misleading people about the President’s deficit plan, they won’t tell the truth about their own. Romney would grow the deficit by as much as $5 trillion by giving tax cuts that favor millionaires and billionaires while taking away health care benefits that people rely on. We can’t let them get away with it.

  If elected, Mitt Romney promised to do what the Supreme Court did not do and get rid of Obamacare on “day one” in the Oval Office. But he and his Republican colleagues will have to convince Americans with outright distortions and falsehoods to get there. Share these facts with your friends to make sure everyone knows what is at stake in this election.

Thank you

I don't fully understand the "Obamacare" debacle, but from what little I DO know...it mandates that insurance companies spend AT LEAST 80% of the premium money on actual HEALTHCARE as opposed to "administration costs".

THAT RIGHT THERE is a positive first step. Our premiums should be going towards doctors & hospitals, not executives at the insurance companies.

I will leave off with this little "food for thought"...

WHAT GOOD IS IT TO HAVE THE WORLD'S BEST HEALTHCARE IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD IT????

I cannot afford it currently. I have Emblem Comprehealth (formerly HIP) because it's the only policy that my company offers that I can AFFORD. AND it's a P.O.S.

The list of doctors is so limited that it's laughable. I recently sought out a specialist...only three within a 20 mile radius...1 of those retired, the other 2 never returned my calls. So now I have to decide whether or not it's worth it to drive 30 or 40 miles out for someone that I need to pay a $50 co-pay at each visit (would be $200/month). Or look into natural remedies.

My kids need to go to a pediatrician...only three available within a normal driving radius FOR A PRIMARY CARE PROFESSIONAL.

One is in the ghetto, the other two have horrible office hours. If I could afford to go back to Blue Cross then they could have their old pediatricians, who were awesome. But I can't. So we deal with substandard care.

So to all the pundits who are trying to scare me into thinking that our glorious healthcare system is going to suddenly go to pot b/c of Obama....

It's already crap...unless you're either wealthy or are lucky to work for a big company that contributes generously to your policy.