quote:

How long did we hear the battle cry of death panels because a Doctor will now be able to bill that 15 minutes he spends talking to a patient about their advanced directives?

quote:

Cost burdens to individuals and families are considerable. A national study found that: “In 20% of cases, a family member had to quit work;” 31% lost “all or most savings” (even though 96% had insurance); and “20% reported loss of [their] major source of income.”[14] Yet, studies indicate that 70-95% of people would rather refuse aggressive medical treatment than have their lives medically prolonged in incompetent or other poor prognosis states

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

What are tax revenues right now, slvemike? Oh, yeah. Higher than during Clinton's reign. Whoops. Time to end that fairy tale.

You listen to too much talk radio.
Tax revenues declined from $2.5 trillion in 2008 to $2.1 trillion in 2009, and remained at that level in 2010. During 2009, individual income taxes declined 20%, while corporate taxes declined 50%. At 15.1% of GDP, the 2009 and 2010 collections were the lowest level of the past 50 years. (Since 1970, tax revenue had been 18% of GDP).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

My tastes in coffee run to dark columbian pedestrian fare.

Love Tanzania Peaberry.

regarding the socks, as part of the wardrobe, thats where we are bogged down, we need to get the suit.

that was pretty much my point.

Single payer Universal, move on with America, get at least into the '70s cuz its nearly the '20s.

Suits can be ill fitting, ugly and uncomfortable. The suit you desire is very expensive and getting more so each day. I prefer my suit to not be government designed. Rather buy it on the open market too.

quote:

Since we don't set our spending at some %GDP, using those stats to show that revenues are down is meaningless. Even if we would have remained at Clinton's 21% GDP high in 2000 (or close to that%), Obama's budgeting would still show massive deficits while Bush's would have remained surpluses until '08/'09. And, praytell, why are revenues (as %GDP) down?

Why is it that after the Bush tax cuts, a larger income tax burden was shouldered by the top tax bracket while the ranks of those with no Federal income tax liability rose?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Ooookay, so health care is expensive now, so fuck it, it's always going to be expensive? Sorry, that's not the way I roll. I say we address the causes of health care being so damn expensive (I used damn instead of fuck! gotta ward off the strokes, yeah?).

Here is the issue for almost 1/3 of the country who are either uninsured or underinsured.... they have waited and waited and waited for all this to be addressed.. and it still hasnt been. How much longer do they have to wait while politicians and the health care industry continues to pick their noses?

quote:

quote:

The people in power are the ones who have told us what was in it, but they're also the ones who want it. The only way your comment makes any sense is if the people in power were trying to get rid of it. They aren't. The ones who want us to keep it are in power still. And they aren't telling much, either.

How long did we hear the battle cry of death panels because a Doctor will now be able to bill that 15 minutes he spends talking to a patient about their advanced directives?

quote:

Read the law.

quote:

That's the whole point of insurance from the customer's standpoint. Yes, insurance companies see profit and work to realize it. Profit ain't truly a bad thing. But, it's the cost of care that is the problem, not insurance being too expensive. If care costs were slashed, what do you think would happen to insurance costs? Yup. They'd drop like a rock, too.

Profit is never a bad thing.. greed is. 88 million people in this country are either underinsured... and could lose that by simply losing their job, or having their company take away that benefit all together... or they have no insurance at all.
let me be more correct.. 28% of the country are in those boats.
As to the bolded part above.... Why do you think costs are so expensive?

quote:

Tying costs of health care into the cost of insurance is way off base. As I pointed out, health care costs wont drop by sheer fact that insurance companies have their digits into almost every aspect of health care. Do you honestly think an HCA hospital will cut its costs? Nope. They will close beds, even doors, lay off employees, increasing the number of those who need insurance, while maintaining the costs.

quote:

Surely you arent saying our government should be promoting cost fixing measures.

quote:

quote:

quote:

Answer this, tazzygirl: If the Federal Government has the authority to force you to purchase health insurance against your will, where does their power to force you to do stuff end?

You are forced to pay into FICA, you are forced to pay your taxes, you are forced to pay excise taxes, you are forced to have an idetification that you pay for. You are forced to pay for a lot of things.

Okay, so, a non-answer. Or, shall I say, "one more ain't gonna hurt no one?"

quote:

quote:

And don't forget what I've said previously about the Federal Government needing to get the fuck out of higher ed. And, what does your point have to do with this, anyway? How is Obamacare stopping the public funding of physician education?

You are so off course here.
Medicare funds the residency programs in this country.
Who pays into Medicare?
Everyone who works.
It should be that everyone who works should be able to have access to those Doctors by sheer fact that every worker put them through training. Yet 88 million people dont have that access, or its extremely limited.

quote:

quote:

If I want to see a Chiro, I should be reasonably sure that he/she is a chiro. But, if I decide to spend my health care dollar on a witch doctor, I should be allowed to do that. I'm not going to go to a chiro for heart surgery. Upfront costs are another good thing to know.

IF you arent sure what kind of Doctor you are seeing, why are you seeing them?

quote:

quote:

Nope. If I buy raw milk under the assumption that it isn't going to get me sick (and it won't necessarily get you sick, btw) and it has been marketed as not illness inducing, then the dairy is on the hook.

Is it legal to buy or sell raw milk?
Yes, in some states. Because of the potential for serious illness, federal law prohibits dairies from distributing raw milk across state lines in final package form (packaged so that it can be consumed). This means that raw milk can only be distributed across state lines if it is going to be pasteurized or used to make aged (over 60 days) cheese before being sold to consumers. Each state makes its own laws about selling raw milk within the borders of the state. In about half of states, sale of raw milk directly to consumers is illegal. In the remaining states, raw milk may be sold to directly to consumers.
Its not the federal government that is preventing you from drinking raw milk.
How many outbreaks are related to raw milk?
CDC collects data on foodborne disease outbreaks voluntarily reported by the state, local, territorial, or tribal health departments. The health departments conduct most outbreak investigations reported to CDC. The data reported may change frequently as reporting agencies enter new records and modify or delete old ones.
Among dairy product-associated outbreaks reported to CDC between 1973 and 2009 in which the investigators reported whether the product was pasteurized or raw, 82% were due to raw milk or cheese. From 1998 through 2009, 93 outbreaks due to consumption of raw milk or raw milk products were reported to CDC. These resulted in 1,837 illnesses, 195 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths. Most of these illnesses were caused by Escherichia coli O157, Campylobacter, or Salmonella. It is important to note that a substantial proportion of the raw milk-associated disease burden falls on children; among the 93 raw dairy product outbreaks from 1998 to 2009, 79% involved at least one person less than 20 years old.
Reported outbreaks represent the tip of the iceberg. For every outbreak and every illness reported, many others occur, and most illnesses are not part of recognized outbreaks.
Are there more outbreaks related to raw milk in states where it is legal to sell?
Yes. States that allow the legal sale of raw milk for human consumption have more raw milk-related outbreaks of illness than states that do not allow raw milk to be sold legally.
http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html#legal

quote:

quote:

Hmmm...and, how would one go about doing that? Oh, yeah, I know. Get the Government out of the fucking way! Wait, is that an implied agreement with what I've been saying pretty much since I've been posting to CollarChat?!?

So you are perfectly fine with a hospital being able to dump patients based upon ability to pay, skin color, race, education, ect? Interesting.

quote:

quote:

That will never happen until the cost of care is reduced. It isn't going to be reduced by forcing "the rich" to pay for insurance for "the poor." As I have been stating all along, this isn't about cutting the cost of health care. It's about shifting the cost to others. Won't work.
Romneycare isn't working so hot, either.

And you have again bought into the talking points of the unintelligent. Perhaps you should talk to those from other countries to find out exactly how it works for them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Since we don't set our spending at some %GDP, using those stats to show that revenues are down is meaningless. Even if we would have remained at Clinton's 21% GDP high in 2000 (or close to that%), Obama's budgeting would still show massive deficits while Bush's would have remained surpluses until '08/'09. And, praytell, why are revenues (as %GDP) down?
Why is it that after the Bush tax cuts, a larger income tax burden was shouldered by the top tax bracket while the ranks of those with no Federal income tax liability rose?

You've just supported my point.
Btw, we absolutely do set our budgeting process around GDP, as well as our debt. Hitting your credit card for $10,000 means a lot more to someone making $20,000/year than to someone earning $200,000/year.
But in short, yup, these are recessionary policies. Trickle down never worked, and it doesn't work now. The economy is stuck because we now have two economies; the top one is growing moderately, while the bottom one is stagnant.

quote:

No answer to my questions, then?

quote:

Not a good reason to make matters worse. If the police haven't caught an at-large murderer, are you allowed to hunt him down and kill him? Still illegal. Look at the bullshit the Feds are throwing at AZ's immigration enforcement measures, even though the borders are still far from secure. Instead of taking care of the problem, this Administration is playing games.

quote:

The only reason nothing has been done about rising health care costs is because it is too profitable for the health care industry and politicians.

quote:

The Death Panel originally in the bill was the panel of bureaucrats that was going to be deciding which strategies were most effective and would, therefore, be covered.

quote:

Variety of reasons. Insurance exec's pay, hospital administration pay, labor needs to efficiently comply with Gov. regulation, ease of raising costs, etc.

quote:

So, what you're saying is that if care costs drop, insurance costs would stay high or rise higher? Did I get that right, or am I interpreting you wrong (honest question)?

quote:

price fixing doesn't work and leads to even worse market dysfunction than it was proposed to prevent. Btw, the IPAB would be filled with Political appointees charged with setting reimbursement rates. If THAT isn't price fixing, I'm not sure what is.

quote:

So, the ones we already have are hurting 88M Americans. Your recommended course of action is to add one more?

quote:

And, I'm way off base by saying that the students should pay for their own educations?!? Really?

quote:

Thus the full disclosure thing, tazzygirl. If I have a pinched nerve in my neck (and I've had enough to know when I have), I don't think I should have to go to my PCP to get a referral to see a chiro. That is an extra cost that I and my insurance would have to cover. Instead of me going to the chiro, getting manipulated and on my way. One stop. One co-pay. One insurance covered expense.

quote:

So, there is a higher risk. As long as a consumer understands that there is a higher risk, why is can't we buy it? Why does the Federal Government prohibit interstate commerce in raw milk direct to consumers?

quote:

Where did skin color, race, education, etc. come in?

quote:

quote:

quote:

That will never happen until the cost of care is reduced. It isn't going to be reduced by forcing "the rich" to pay for insurance for "the poor." As I have been stating all along, this isn't about cutting the cost of health care. It's about shifting the cost to others. Won't work.
Romneycare isn't working so hot, either.

And you have again bought into the talking points of the unintelligent. Perhaps you should talk to those from other countries to find out exactly how it works for them.

Talking points of the unintelligent?!?!? Thanks for not answering the question, either. Regarding other countries, hasn't the Left been trumpeting that PPACA was based on RomneyCare? Why wouldn't I check into RomneyCare, if that's what PPACA is based on? Why would I check in Germany, the UK, France, Canada, or Russia, when PPACA is based on RomneyCare and is constantly mentioned as not being the same as a "European-style national health care?"

• The major components of the state and federal law are similar, but details vary. The federal law put a greater emphasis on cost-control measures, for instance. Massachusetts is just now tackling that.
  
• The state law was successful on one big goal: A little more than 98 percent of state residents now have insurance.
  
• Claims that the law is “bankrupting” the state are greatly exaggerated. Costs rose more quickly than expected in the first few years, but are now in line with what the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation had estimated.
  
• Small-business owners are perhaps the least happy stakeholders. Cheaper health plans for them through the state exchange haven’t materialized, as they hoped.
  
• Despite claims to the contrary, there’s no clear evidence that the law had an adverse effect on waiting times. In fact, 62 percent of physicians say it didn’t.
  
• Public support has been high. One poll found that 68.5 percent of nonelderly adults supported the law in 2006; 67 percent still do.
  
  

quote:

7.50 an hour... you do the math. Here is where you are in error.... people are complaining that their health care isnt free. They are complaining that it isnt affordable. Pull out that little plastic card from an insurance company and you have a co pay for that visit. Dont have one? That will be at least 150.

quote:

Im all ears. How. You have the questions, come up with the solutions. How DO we get insurance companies out of hospitals, physician groups and the likes.

quote:

Now that you have seen the obvious, what many of the rest of us see.... Any solutions?

quote:

You cannot discuss how to fix something until you understand why it needs fixing.

quote:

Thats the problem, we have left it up to them. And look where we are now.

quote:

How many decades did it take to pass the Food Stamp program? Obama's biggest task he proposed was health care reform. If you think that didnt have a lot to do with his election numbers, you need to talk to more people.

quote:

Because, under the current system, people simply walk away from their bills, or lose their homes and savings to pay for their illnesses. Under a national health care system, everyone pitches in.

quote:

Did you mean that people aren't complaining that their health care isn't free?

If so, then:

Well, there are some people who complain that health care isn't free but that wasn't what I was getting at. A great many people do seem to think that they should have to pay only a little and get more back... that is just not sustainable.

quote:

We once had some laws that limited commercial banks affiliations with securities firms. Why can't we have some laws that limit insurance companies affiliations with health care providers. The insurance company's job should be pay for the health care... not actually provide it.

quote:

I thought we were past the "it needs fixing" point.

quote:

By "them" I mean the States and the people of those States. We have not left it up to them. We have left it up to the insurance companies and the Federal Government and the lobbyists. The States basically get dictated to, with very little (if any) leeway to act on their own.

quote:

I don't doubt that he got some of his votes for his health care ideas but most of the votes he got were simply from people who automatically vote democrat regardless of who the nominee is... and a great many people voted for him because they were disgusted with the Republican party (an anti-party vote is not necessarily a pro-opposition party vote) or because they didn't like McCain or Palin (I know a woman - a life long, dedicated Republican - who voted for Obama because she was insulted by McCain's VP choice).

quote:

The voter turnout for this election was broadly predicted to be high by American standards,[195][196][197] and a record number of votes were cast.[198] The final tally of total votes counted was 131.3 million, compared to 122.3 million in 2004 (which also boasted the highest record since 1968, the last presidential election before the voting age was lowered to 18). Expressed as a percentage of eligible voters, 131.2 million votes could reflect a turnout as high as 63.0% of eligible voters, which would be the highest since 1960.[199][200] This 63.0% turnout rate is based on an estimated eligible voter population of 208,323,000.[200] Another estimate puts the eligible voter population at 212,720,027, resulting in a turnout rate of 61.7%, which would be the highest turnout rate since 1968.[201]

quote:

quote:

Because, under the current system, people simply walk away from their bills, or lose their homes and savings to pay for their illnesses. Under a national health care system, everyone pitches in.

Except the people who don't pay taxes... so it is still a case of some paying for others. I am not criticizing the idea of a national health care system on that basis... I am simply pointing out that, in either case, you have some people paying for others so it is not really valid reason in and of itself. People who argue over this aren't really complaining that "some have to pay for others" but who that "some" are and who the "others" are. That's what most politics comes down to... who gets to screw over who. It is why I am a registered Independent. Voting in Democrats or Republicans doesn't change the paradigm of "screwer" and "screwie." It just changes who the "screwers" and "screwies" are.

quote:

Voting in Democrats or Republicans doesn't change the paradigm of "screwer" and "screwie." It just changes who the "screwers" and "screwies" are.

quote:

No, they arent.

quote:

We did. Politicians made sure those laws went bye bye.

quote:

Um, no, past that point would mean everyone has access... or dies.

quote:

I disagree. States run the programs that take care of 43 million Americans. States also set their own rules with regards to insurance policies offered within their state. Some states started pushing back against insurance companies. If you want to sue an insurance company, its the state level you have to go to. To say that states have no say is in error.

quote:

A record voter turnout. These arent people who usually vote democratic, these were people who typically didnt vote at all. His platform was large, with the centerpiece being universal health care, something that did not materialize. But, give the man his due, he mamaged to get something passed despite the lies, manipulations and lobbying money tossed out in favor of the other direction.

quote:

Yep, except people who dont pay their taxes. The IRS eventually catches up with them. They dont exscape forever.

quote:

Doesnt matter if you are a registered Martian. You are complaining here because "some" people might not have to pay. And that other's may "have" to pay for them. The current program allows for those at certain levels of poverty to have it paid for them. We pay for the blind, the elderly, the pregnant, the disabled.

quote:

Allow me to explain how else we pay. Curative care is expensive care. Preventative is far cheaper and a better use of resources.

quote:

And so you toss your vote towards Paul... congrats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

The only reason nothing has been done about rising health care costs is because it is too profitable for the health care industry and politicians.

Bingo. What makes you think that will change any time soon to include lowering costs?

quote:

quote:

Variety of reasons. Insurance exec's pay, hospital administration pay, labor needs to efficiently comply with Gov. regulation, ease of raising costs, etc.

Get insurance companies out of health care wallets and costs would drop dramatically.

quote:

quote:

So, what you're saying is that if care costs drop, insurance costs would stay high or rise higher? Did I get that right, or am I interpreting you wrong (honest question)?

What I am saying is that health care costs wont drop, irregardless of insurance costs. Assuming such is crazy.

quote:

The more you limit the availability of something, the more it costs. Cutting the supply would only raise prices, supply being access or people to use a product.

quote:

You can go without a cell phone, you can go without a car, you can go without eating out, you cannot go without health care. The prices will remain high because the alternative is death.

quote:

quote:

price fixing doesn't work and leads to even worse market dysfunction than it was proposed to prevent. Btw, the IPAB would be filled with Political appointees charged with setting reimbursement rates. If THAT isn't price fixing, I'm not sure what is.

The president appoints 12 of the 15 members, who undergo confirmation by the Senate.
Once appointed to the board, the members become full-time government employees and are not allowed to hold other full-time employment.
The IPAB is forbidden from submitting "any recommendation to ration health care," as Section 3403 of the health care law states. It may not raise premiums for Medicare beneficiaries or increase deductibles, coinsurance or co-payments. The IPAB also cannot change who is eligible for Medicare, restrict benefits or make recommendations that would raise revenue.
What it can do is reduce how much the government pays health care providers for services, reduce payments to hospitals with very high rates of readmissions or recommend innovations that cut wasteful spending. Some may argue that because the IPAB can reduce the money a doctor receives for giving chemotherapy to a Medicare patient, this could lead to an indirect form of rationing.
Furthermore, the IPAB is barred from making policy recommendations that would block patients from receiving needed care, experts told PolitiFact Georgia.
"The legislation explicitly forbids the board from rationing care," said Stuart Guterman, a health policy expert with the Commonwealth Fund, a nonpartisan group which works to improve health care access, quality and efficiency. Guterman said he thinks the IPAB can help with health care savings.
Our analysis of the bill only found language designed to avoid the result Gingrey foretells.
For instance, the IPAB may not submit "any recommendation to ration health care," Section 3403 states.
Its been debunked time and time again. Both Palin and Bachmann, among others, never read the bill, they have no clue whats in it.

quote:

quote:

So, the ones we already have are hurting 88M Americans. Your recommended course of action is to add one more?

If you knew what was in it, instead of listening to those who have no clue, you might feel differently. Research, dont listen to Palin et al.

How the fuck is it that you seem to think I listen to Palin and Bachmann? You keep saying that we only know what "those in power" tell us is in the bill. I keep pointing out that the people who are "in power" are the very ones who are supporting the bill. So, if I only hear what "those in power" [Democrats] tell us is in the bill, how is it I don't know what the fuck is in the bill?

quote:

quote:

And, I'm way off base by saying that the students should pay for their own educations?!? Really?

Pull residency funding and you will see a mass exodus of physicians because no one will train them.

Or, residency costs will drop. Or the hospital will pick up the tab in exchange for a negotiated length of remaining at that hospital after residency. Or - and this is actually what I think would be best - set up "free clinics" for the indigent and have the residencies at those clinics, and those clinics only. Government would pay for the residency and could even require a physician practice in some "disadvantaged" area for a specified length of time. If a new Med School grad isn't willing to go through residency on the Gub'mint dime, he or she can arrange for his or her own residency program.

quote:

quote:

Thus the full disclosure thing, tazzygirl. If I have a pinched nerve in my neck (and I've had enough to know when I have), I don't think I should have to go to my PCP to get a referral to see a chiro. That is an extra cost that I and my insurance would have to cover. Instead of me going to the chiro, getting manipulated and on my way. One stop. One co-pay. One insurance covered expense.

And I have no issue with a gate keeper for health care. I love my PCP, I enjoy his intelligence and he actually listens. I go to a managed care clinic. I have a resident who is my "direct access" with an attending who follows her work. She comes in and we discuss my issues, she makes her notes, she listens and shares information, then she leaves to talk to the attending, who makes an effort to see me during each visit (which at this time is once a month). According to him, my diagnosis of fibromyalgia was a misdiagnosis and what I have is multiple ares of bursitis. I was skeptical, but he was right. His treatment is working wonders. My shoulder has been bothering me for a couple of years, I talked to him, he manipulated and prodded my shoulder, and sent me off to the ortho, who diagnosed it as a partial tear in my rotator cuff. It could have been a pinched nerve. I had seen a chiro for the same issue and it didnt help. Self diagnosing can be dangerous. You may think you have a pinched nerve. But a chiro, as much help as they can give, and yes, I adored mine as well (crazy hands, god, how I lusted after his hands) but never an xray or mri was done. He helpd my back and neck, but my shoulder never got better.

I very much enjoy my PCP. He listens. He answers my questions, providing any insights he has as a physician. My previous PCP (switched when he retired) didn't discuss things with me and blew off my neck issue (even though an X-Ray clearly showed a narrowing of the opening between the cervical vertebrae). I don't go to a Dr. much and tend to self-diagnose and self-medicate when I am sick. I am pretty familiar with me (known me pretty much all my life) and know when I have maladies that don't require prescription med's. I do have anat./phys. background, so I'm not just guessing. Regarding my neck/nerve issue, I have textbooks showing which nerves ennervate which muscles and which nerves have to do with sensation. Trace the majority of the issues I ascribe to a pinched nerve and they all emanate from a nerve bundle that includes the nerve that exits through the narrowed opening. As I can not self-manipulate my neck, I'm limited in my options.

quote:

quote:

So, there is a higher risk. As long as a consumer understands that there is a higher risk, why is can't we buy it? Why does the Federal Government prohibit interstate commerce in raw milk direct to consumers?

Interstate commerce isnt within the domain of the federal government? If you dont like this law, then vote in people who agree with you. I wont be one of the lambs being lead around by the nose. Pasteurized please, I like my kidneys functioning.

Yet, you are one of those lambs. Plus, raw milk isn't necessarily dangerous. The point of the Federal regulations is for our "safety" even though it isn't necessarily a danger. They regulate the interstate commerce of raw milk because they can. If you have kids, I'm sure you're familiar with the "just because you can doesn't mean you should" situations. I think I see that damn near every day with my sons.

quote:

quote:

Where did skin color, race, education, etc. come in?

Because many hospitals were either denying care or dumping on other hospitals before that law came about based upon those criteria and financial ability.

So, what does it have to do with the discussion between you and me? Skin color, race, education, etc. have nothing to do with our discussion of PPACA. Our discussion is all about paying for insurance and paying for care.

quote:

quote:

quote:

That will never happen until the cost of care is reduced. It isn't going to be reduced by forcing "the rich" to pay for insurance for "the poor." As I have been stating all along, this isn't about cutting the cost of health care. It's about shifting the cost to others. Won't work.
Romneycare isn't working so hot, either.

And you have again bought into the talking points of the unintelligent. Perhaps you should talk to those from other countries to find out exactly how it works for them.

Talking points of the unintelligent?!?!? Thanks for not answering the question, either. Regarding other countries, hasn't the Left been trumpeting that PPACA was based on RomneyCare? Why wouldn't I check into RomneyCare, if that's what PPACA is based on? Why would I check in Germany, the UK, France, Canada, or Russia, when PPACA is based on RomneyCare and is constantly mentioned as not being the same as a "European-style national health care?"

You didnt ask a question in that section before. It isnt the rich paying for the poor.

quote:

In reference to Romneycare...
Even the fiscally conservative, but nonpartisan, Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation is on board. President Michael J. Widmer calls the law “a well thought-out piece of legislation” that his group supported because, “we believe in public investments.” Widmer says: “There have been critics from the left and the right … that have not wanted the Massachusetts experiment … to succeed from the outset for different reasons. Most of those critics are either out of state,” or academics or single-payer advocates. “And then, of course, you get the politicians on top of that.”
Yes, the politicians. The Massachusetts plan has been attacked by opponents of the national law, liberal advocates of Canadian-style single-payer insurance for all, and conservative Republicans hoping to derail Romney’s presidential aspirations. For example, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, in a February interview with the Associated Press, said Romney should essentially apologize for the law and acknowledge that it “cost more, waiting times were higher, quality of care went down, people were greatly dissatisfied and it ended up having almost the polar opposite effect of what was intended.” We found that there’s not much truth in any of that
As the 2012 presidential campaign gets under way in just a few months (believe it or not), we expect to see an increasing number of attacks on so-called “RomneyCare.” So as part primer and part preemptive fact-checking, this article is our attempt to set the record straight. We found:

• The major components of the state and federal law are similar, but details vary. The federal law put a greater emphasis on cost-control measures, for instance. Massachusetts is just now tackling that.

quote:

• The state law was successful on one big goal: A little more than 98 percent of state residents now have insurance.
  
• Claims that the law is “bankrupting” the state are greatly exaggerated. Costs rose more quickly than expected in the first few years, but are now in line with what the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation had estimated.

quote:

• Small-business owners are perhaps the least happy stakeholders. Cheaper health plans for them through the state exchange haven’t materialized, as they hoped.

quote:

• Despite claims to the contrary, there’s no clear evidence that the law had an adverse effect on waiting times. In fact, 62 percent of physicians say it didn’t.
  
• Public support has been high. One poll found that 68.5 percent of nonelderly adults supported the law in 2006; 67 percent still do.
  

http://factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/12/tim-pawlenty/pawlenty-says-obamacare-patterned-after-romneycare/
If I had my way, we would have a more European style.. and we may end up with that.

quote:

PPACA doesn't address health care costs. If anything, it rewards insurance companies by increasing their pool base. If you think government is going to reduce costs by price/premium caps, what would their motivation be? Insurance will simply lobby and buy the politicians off. Again.

quote:

Which is what I've been saying for quite some time. But, you are supporting a system that only makes insurance companies even more necessary.

quote:

I'm not saying that at all. My claim is that insurance costs will drop when care costs drop; not the other way around.

quote:

Huh?!?!? Supply isn't access to a product or people to use a product. Supply of a good is the service being provided. Slashing reimbursement rates, for instance, will make the supply of a product decrease, raising cost. Access to the service is demand. Higher demand will result in a higher cost unless supply is increased, too. With the goal of reducing price increases and yet increasing demand, I'm not sure how anyone expects care costs to drop.

quote:

You can't go without health care. Well, that is both correct and incorrect. Can I go without childbirth services? I can now. Can I go without neonatal or NICU care? I can now. Can I go without Rx medications? Sure. My life may end sooner, but that is still my choice.

quote:

But you are still changing the discussion. PPACA isn't about health care. It's about health insurance (aka paying for health care). Can I go without health insurance? Yes. Yes I can. Will it be expensive? Most probably. It all depends on what care I need and what care I receive. If care costs were reduced, more people could afford it without insurance and insurance costs would drop, making insurance that much less expensive, too.

quote:

So, what does it have to do with the discussion between you and me? Skin color, race, education, etc. have nothing to do with our discussion of PPACA. Our discussion is all about paying for insurance and paying for care.

quote:

Yet, you are one of those lambs. Plus, raw milk isn't necessarily dangerous. The point of the Federal regulations is for our "safety" even though it isn't necessarily a danger. They regulate the interstate commerce of raw milk because they can. If you have kids, I'm sure you're familiar with the "just because you can doesn't mean you should" situations. I think I see that damn near every day with my sons.

quote:

It's the implied question underlying this whole thing. How does this lower care costs?

quote:

How is PPACA going to manage cost control?

quote:

And we are to assume that they will under PPACA, right?

quote:

Allowing the Market to work properly (which does include some consumer protection regulations) will result in better and less expensive care. Adopting lifestyles akin to our European friends could easily reduce the cost of care, too. It might be a great idea for people to cycle from the 'burbs into the cities to work, but I don't see that happening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

PPACA doesn't address health care costs. If anything, it rewards insurance companies by increasing their pool base. If you think government is going to reduce costs by price/premium caps, what would their motivation be? Insurance will simply lobby and buy the politicians off. Again.

It addresses access to health care which is the first step. No sense in making it cheaper if people who still make 7.50 an hour cant afford the 50 dollar payment instead of 150 to see a PCP before any tests or diagnostic work.

quote:

quote:

Which is what I've been saying for quite some time. But, you are supporting a system that only makes insurance companies even more necessary.

I am supporting whatever it takes to get people in better health. Isnt that what you are supporting as well? Or should we allow people to wait even longer while the politicians work out the back room deals?

quote:

quote:

I'm not saying that at all. My claim is that insurance costs will drop when care costs drop; not the other way around.

And insurance costs are only one part of the issue. Do you honestlybelieve care costs will follow insurance premium costs? Or will insurance companies demand even more cuts in service to overcome the loss in revenue?

quote:

quote:

Huh?!?!? Supply isn't access to a product or people to use a product. Supply of a good is the service being provided. Slashing reimbursement rates, for instance, will make the supply of a product decrease, raising cost. Access to the service is demand. Higher demand will result in a higher cost unless supply is increased, too. With the goal of reducing price increases and yet increasing demand, I'm not sure how anyone expects care costs to drop.

No, you can give the best service in the world. If it isnt a desired service, your level wont matter. Access is limited now. What do you suppose will happen when insurance rates fall and those companies start losing money, using your theory?

quote:

quote:

You can't go without health care. Well, that is both correct and incorrect. Can I go without childbirth services? I can now. Can I go without neonatal or NICU care? I can now. Can I go without Rx medications? Sure. My life may end sooner, but that is still my choice.

Health care isnt just prenatal care, or neonatal care or medications. Heath care is the whole spectrum. It isnt just the medical offices, or the pharmacy. You need to think broader.

quote:

quote:

But you are still changing the discussion. PPACA isn't about health care. It's about health insurance (aka paying for health care). Can I go without health insurance? Yes. Yes I can. Will it be expensive? Most probably. It all depends on what care I need and what care I receive. If care costs were reduced, more people could afford it without insurance and insurance costs would drop, making insurance that much less expensive, too.

And you dont see the ability of paying for health care as being a part of health care?

quote:

You are still insisting that insurance costs will drop if care costs drop. Yet you have not explained how care costs are going to drop if insurance companies are running that care? Do you actually expect the insurance industry to release its stranglehold on health care simply because its the right thing to do? How many decades have they had to do just that?

quote:

quote:

So, what does it have to do with the discussion between you and me? Skin color, race, education, etc. have nothing to do with our discussion of PPACA. Our discussion is all about paying for insurance and paying for care.

Because all of that is a part of the reasoning behind the patient dumping law that forces hospitals to treat emergency cases.. which is a huge part of what is driving up the cost of health care

quote:

quote:

Yet, you are one of those lambs. Plus, raw milk isn't necessarily dangerous. The point of the Federal regulations is for our "safety" even though it isn't necessarily a danger. They regulate the interstate commerce of raw milk because they can. If you have kids, I'm sure you're familiar with the "just because you can doesn't mean you should" situations. I think I see that damn near every day with my sons.

I am one who works in the field. I have seen the effects of certain bacteria on the body. No thanks. I will not take my chances with something that cannot be controlled.

quote:

It's the implied question underlying this whole thing. How does this lower care costs?

quote:

quote:

How is PPACA going to manage cost control?

read the law.

quote:

quote:

And we are to assume that they will under PPACA, right?

Not my assumption.

quote:

quote:

Allowing the Market to work properly (which does include some consumer protection regulations) will result in better and less expensive care. Adopting lifestyles akin to our European friends could easily reduce the cost of care, too. It might be a great idea for people to cycle from the 'burbs into the cities to work, but I don't see that happening.

How much longer do we have to wait for the market to work "properly"?

quote:

Yes they do. I've met them.

quote:

And politicians can bring those laws back.

quote:

I thought we were past the point of needing to even debate that there is a problem that needs fixing... that we are in agreement that there is a problem. It is the proposed solutions that are now being debated.

quote:

I didn't say that they have no say but that they have very little.

quote:

His centerpiece was "I'm not a Republican."

quote:

I'm not talking about tax cheats. I'm talking about people who don't have to pay taxes: Children, the very poor, and the very rich.

quote:

I'm not complaining... I'm pointing out the reality of the situation. Everyone will not pay, therefore some will have to pay for others.

quote:

I do not vote for racist nutcases and I resent the implication that I would.

quote:

Access is already there. Walk into an ER and you'll get your care. It's there, tazzy.

quote:

How about we end the back-room deals? Gee, wouldn't that be a better idea?

quote:

You keep switching things up, tazzy. I'm saying that when care costs drop, insurance costs will drop

quote:

Don't make any assumptions about my "theory." You can't seem to keep my "theory" straight. How is access limited?

quote:

I know what health care is. I have an education in that general field (as a provider).

quote:

However, why isn't it okay for me to choose what coverages I want, based on my needs?

quote:

Why shouldn't my plan be tailored to my expected costs?

quote:

Why is it that I'm going to be lumped into a group with others that may require prenatal, maternity care?

quote:

I'm done with that stuff. That isn't going to happen in my life. If I were in the proper age group and hadn't been snipped, that's another story. I'm old enough to know that I'm done with that, and I've taken care of my little swimmers.

quote:

Paying for health care is part of health care. Yes. But, health insurance is not the only way for someone to pay for health care. It certainly is a way, and as our system is right now, it's damn near the only way.

quote:

And, since insurance companies (and their bought minions in DC) are a huge part of why our care costs are so high, how is it you're plan to push everyone onto insurance plans is going to lower the cost of care?

quote:

Insurance companies pay for care. If their payouts drop, they will lower their premiums to keep their customers.

quote:

If we allow competitive actions by health insurance companies, there will be a price war.

quote:

There isn't that competition now, so what's the point? Plus, the cost of care isn't going down.

quote:

That's not germane to our discussion. The discrimination based on race, skin color, education, etc. is against civil rights.

quote:

Not being able to get a service because you can't pay isn't any sort of civil discrimination. Don't change the subject.

quote:

They could easily go back and amend the law to allow lack of ability to pay as an acceptable reason to turn someone away. That keeps all the civil discrimination illegal.

quote:

LMAO!! It can't be controlled? I suppose people are dying in the streets from raw milk illnesses, eh? If 10 people out of a million people get sick from pasteurized milk and 15 people out of a million get sick from raw milk, that's a 50% increase in the cases of illness.

quote:

How are they going to control cost without sacrificing anything? Access was not limited. Anyone can walk into an ER and get care.

quote:

No, answer the question. It's your claim to defend, not mine to defend for you.

quote:

You're not assuming PPACA will be able to contain costs?

quote:

Well, we should give it a chance, for starters.