Negative effects of Healthcare Reform on Medicare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


OrionTheWolf -> Negative effects of Healthcare Reform on Medicare (11/14/2009 8:45:33 PM)

I have been a big proponent of reducing Medicare waste, but the new Healthcare Reform bill is obviously not the way to do it.

" In the face of greatly increased demand for services, providers are likely to charge higher fees or take patients with better-paying private insurance over Medicaid recipients, "exacerbating existing access problems" in that program, according to the report from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. "




Musicmystery -> RE: Negative effects of Healthcare Reform on Medicare (11/14/2009 8:49:00 PM)

So what is the way to do it?




rulemylife -> RE: Negative effects of Healthcare Reform on Medicare (11/14/2009 9:16:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

So what is the way to do it?


Single-payer, which seems to have lost out.




Sanity -> RE: Negative effects of Healthcare Reform on Medicare (11/14/2009 9:55:45 PM)


This is essentially what I suspected about Obama's Medicaid cuts, when the actual substance is examined it doesn't live up to what is being promised in any way.

From Orions link:

quote:

A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending -- one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system -- would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.


The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether. Congress could intervene to avoid such an outcome, but "so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" than is currently projected, according to the analysis by the chief actuary for the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. That would wipe out a big chunk of the financing for the health-care reform package, which is projected to cost $1.05 trillion over the next decade. More generally, the report questions whether the country's network of doctors and hospitals would be able to cope with the effects of a reform package expected to add more than 30 million people to the ranks of the insured, many of them through Medicaid, the public health program for the poor.


In the face of greatly increased demand for services, providers are likely to charge higher fees or take patients with better-paying private insurance over Medicaid recipients, "exacerbating existing access problems" in that program, according to the report from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.




Lorsan -> RE: Negative effects of Healthcare Reform on Medicare (11/15/2009 4:44:30 AM)

You know, if it were up to me, I'd try out a charitable system.  First I'd set up a series of free clinics/hospitals in each state.  Each state would be responsible for maintaining the basic cost of each facility.  I'm thinking things like doctor/nurse/whoever salary along with the utility bills.  To help recruit good doctors I would implement a program like ROTC.  Basically set it up so any person that wanted to attend medical school for free, would be willing to work in the free clinic/hospitals for X amount of time.  The state could afford to pay them less since they wouldn't have any student loans or such to pay back.  And hopefully you'd get enough so that the state could offer set hours and days off without being on call.  I would cover the costs of drugs through the charitable donations.  We've all heard how America is the most charitable country on Earth, so let that be shown.  Any left over cost I think Washington should cover, though it shouldn't be much.  Now the places might not be fancy (say no private rooms or things of that nature) but it would give everyone access to medical care and I think it could cut back on the expense.  It might balloon out of control and cost a fortune, but I think it'd be worth a shot.  And it would keep the gov. out of our lives as much as possible.  You'd have no problems with reimbursements or anything since the doctors and nurses would essentially be state employees.  And no mandates or fines or anything stupid along those lines.




housesub4you -> RE: Negative effects of Healthcare Reform on Medicare (11/15/2009 5:04:57 AM)

I like how the report is ordered by the GOP members of congress, it also does not take into effect any of the items on the floor about the bill that would include hundreds of millions of dollars

So basically what they are doing is looking at the bill, but not looking at any type of funding for it and saying it won't work.  Which of course is what the GOP does, they write bills that become law but never fund them.  So the GOP requested them to analyze the bill without the funding, and gee they say it will cost to much and things will have to be cut.  More fear-mongering from the right, it's all they have left.

here is a study that says everything you claim is false

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/09/frank-hiatt-house/




pahunkboy -> RE: Negative effects of Healthcare Reform on Medicare (11/15/2009 9:05:36 AM)

If medicare slides too much.  I doubt many seniors will pay the premium on it.   Not when food and utilities are needed.

we could return the the hill burton standard.




Lorr47 -> RE: Negative effects of Healthcare Reform on Medicare (11/15/2009 11:04:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

If medicare slides too much.  I doubt many seniors will pay the premium on it.   Not when food and utilities are needed.

we could return the the hill burton standard.



Is the Hill Burton Act still viable?




Lorr47 -> RE: Negative effects of Healthcare Reform on Medicare (11/15/2009 11:09:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorr47

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

If medicare slides too much.  I doubt many seniors will pay the premium on it.   Not when food and utilities are needed.

we could return the the hill burton standard.



Is the Hill Burton Act still viable?




I guess it is in another form:

"The reality, however, did not nearly meet the written requirement of the law. For the first 20 years of the act’s existence, there was no regulation in place to define what constituted a "reasonable volume" or to ensure that hospitals were providing any free care at all. This did not improve until the early 1970s, when lawyers representing poor people began suing hospitals for not abiding by the law. Hill-Burton was set to expire in June 1973, but it was extended for one year in the last hour. In 1975, the Act was amended and became Title XVI of the Public Health Service Act. The most significant changes at this point were the addition of some regulatory mechanisms (defining what constitutes the inability to pay) and the move from a 20-year commitment to a requirement to provide free care in perpetuity. Still, it was not until 1979 that compliance levels were defined."




Brain -> RE: Negative effects of Healthcare Reform on Medicare (11/15/2009 12:59:31 PM)

-- It's because of the worm Lieberman and the Bluedog moron democrats.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Negative effects of Healthcare Reform on Medicare (11/15/2009 3:52:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

So what is the way to do it?


Single-payer, which seems to have lost out.



You must actually mean this to be funny.




pahunkboy -> RE: Negative effects of Healthcare Reform on Medicare (11/15/2009 10:22:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorr47

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorr47

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

If medicare slides too much.  I doubt many seniors will pay the premium on it.   Not when food and utilities are needed.

we could return the the hill burton standard.



Is the Hill Burton Act still viable?




I guess it is in another form:

"The reality, however, did not nearly meet the written requirement of the law. For the first 20 years of the act’s existence, there was no regulation in place to define what constituted a "reasonable volume" or to ensure that hospitals were providing any free care at all. This did not improve until the early 1970s, when lawyers representing poor people began suing hospitals for not abiding by the law. Hill-Burton was set to expire in June 1973, but it was extended for one year in the last hour. In 1975, the Act was amended and became Title XVI of the Public Health Service Act. The most significant changes at this point were the addition of some regulatory mechanisms (defining what constitutes the inability to pay) and the move from a 20-year commitment to a requirement to provide free care in perpetuity. Still, it was not until 1979 that compliance levels were defined."


When we dumped it- we legalized HMOs.

Ron Paul spoke of how this worked before.

Larouche pac  supports a return to this standard.

I cant say I trust any side on this debate... as both will be funded by corporations who want a de facto bail out- to their own piece of the industry.

I am NOT a fan of more centralized power.   Surely reform will do that.   It also will push in the 30 million illegal aliens, who will be asked to pay back tax.

Jail time if a person does not buy health insurance... and to get insurance one must get all vaccinations.   ie  h1n1.  and more to come....

this debit card will line up with your carbon allotment.   Sort of like a chip.   The global carbon tax is to fund global government.

You will have to put a license on your home- just like you do a car or camper or boat.  Then a code officer will inspect for green.  This bill will be on YOU to pay.    So- lets suppose the code guy finds a small infraction.   $1000 a day fine for inhabiting a non licensed unit.  (home)    This billed to YOU.    You also can not see a house that is not inspected-, in other wards licensed.

Check to see if your house is in ollidial title.   Those homeowners own a better title to it.   =will have less trouble.






chiaThePet -> RE: Negative effects of Healthcare Reform on Medicare (11/15/2009 10:24:45 PM)


Soylent Green.

chia* (the pet)




rulemylife -> RE: Negative effects of Healthcare Reform on Medicare (11/15/2009 10:43:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

So what is the way to do it?


Single-payer, which seems to have lost out.



You must actually mean this to be funny.


Yes, thank you Willbeur.

Yet another well thought out rebuttal.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Negative effects of Healthcare Reform on Medicare (11/16/2009 1:48:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

So what is the way to do it?


Single-payer, which seems to have lost out.



You must actually mean this to be funny.


Yes, thank you Willbeur.

Yet another well thought out rebuttal.



Its better thought out than your original answer. Hint: Medicare IS single payer.




tazzygirl -> RE: Negative effects of Healthcare Reform on Medicare (11/16/2009 2:57:56 PM)

The United States, Canada and Australia have single-payer health insurance programs named Medicare; however, Australia's and Canada's programs provide universal health care, while U.S. Medicare is only for senior citizens and some of the disabled.[2] Government is increasingly involved in U.S. health care spending, paying about 45% of the $2.2 trillion the nation spent on individuals' medical care in 2004.[3] However, studies have shown that the publicly-administered share of health spending in the U.S. is closer to 60%.[4]

Single-payer healthcare may be operated in a number of ways. In some cases doctors may be employed, and hospitals run by, the government. This is the case in the United Kingdom, and is referred to in the US as socialized medicine. Alternatively the government may purchase healthcare services from outside organizations. This is the approach taken in Canada.

According to Princeton University health economist Uwe E. Reinhardt, U.S. Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP represent "forms of 'social insurance' coupled with a largely private health-care delivery system" rather than forms of "socialized medicine." In contrast, he describes the Veterans Administration healthcare system as a pure form of socialized medicine because it is "owned, operated and financed by government."[5]

The Veterans Administration is a single-payer system and provides excellent quality, said Reinhardt. In a peer-reviewed paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers of the RAND Corp. reported that the quality of care received by Veterans Administration patients scored significantly higher overall than did comparable metrics for patients currently using U.S. Medicare.[6]

Some writers describe publicly administered health care systems as "single-payer plans." Some writers have described any system of health care which intends to cover the entire population, such as voucher plans, as "single-payer plans,"[7] although this is an uncommon usage. The standard usage refers to health insurance, as opposed to healthcare delivery, operating as a public service, like fire departments, community libraries, and other publicly-funded services, offered to citizens and legal residents towards providing near-universal or universal health care. The fund can be managed by the government directly or as a publicly owned and regulated agency.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125