quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
And yet they never mentioned it. But as I told you several times it really doesn't matter if that particular law is part of it or not. You were wrong when you said the ACA is the only thing effecting medical costs. CMS sets pricing which the physicians have to follow in order to accept medicare patients. Are you going to try and claim that doesn't effect medical inflation? Or any of the other things they have implemented?

One more time, read the document I linked. The authority to cut Medicare costs is in the ACA so all of these new rules that cut costs coming out of the CMS are under the authority granted by the ACA. Prior to the ACA Medicare could not cut costs in the manner they are doing now. That's where the $700+ billion in savings are coming from.

CMS has been around long before the ACA and has been effecting medical costs long before ACA. You claimed that the ACA was the only thing that effected medical inflation and you were wrong. Dragging the 700+ billion in savings into the conversation will not change that.

As you point out the CMS has been around for decades and the medical inflation rate has been going steadily upward. A big part of that was that the CMS was very restricted in how it could reduce Medicare costs. Only since the ACA have they gotten real cost cutting powers.
Just look at the medical devices field. CMS put the powered chair scam artists out of business and reduced the number of suppliers of many items to only those that could come in at reasonable prices and that is all because CMS got new powers to constrain costs in the ACA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Guffaw.

Parts of the ACA have been implemented since about 2010.

Wonder which ones were the immediate implementations.

Snicker.

Nothing to do with nutsackers......Laughing like a hyena.

And how long has CMS been around? Mid 60's I think. And I guess according to DK they have done nothing but sit on their thumbs waiting for the ACA to come out so they could save some money. But you are right, it has nothing to do with the nutsackers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Guffaw.

Parts of the ACA have been implemented since about 2010.

Wonder which ones were the immediate implementations.

Snicker.

Nothing to do with nutsackers......Laughing like a hyena.

And how long has CMS been around? Mid 60's I think. And I guess according to DK they have done nothing but sit on their thumbs waiting for the ACA to come out so they could save some money. But you are right, it has nothing to do with the nutsackers.

Well, now I wonder, perhaps you will chart for us the decline in healthcare costs due the CMS since the mid 60's ....

I think the fucking thing is laughable, sorry. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
And yet they never mentioned it. But as I told you several times it really doesn't matter if that particular law is part of it or not. You were wrong when you said the ACA is the only thing effecting medical costs. CMS sets pricing which the physicians have to follow in order to accept medicare patients. Are you going to try and claim that doesn't effect medical inflation? Or any of the other things they have implemented?

One more time, read the document I linked. The authority to cut Medicare costs is in the ACA so all of these new rules that cut costs coming out of the CMS are under the authority granted by the ACA. Prior to the ACA Medicare could not cut costs in the manner they are doing now. That's where the $700+ billion in savings are coming from.

So now you are switching from the ACA is the only thing that cut costs to the ACA allows CMS to cut costs? Maybe you should study CMS a bit before making up your mind because I really don't think you understand how they work. But I guess in the mean time that's the closest you are going to come to admitting you were wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
And yet they never mentioned it. But as I told you several times it really doesn't matter if that particular law is part of it or not. You were wrong when you said the ACA is the only thing effecting medical costs. CMS sets pricing which the physicians have to follow in order to accept medicare patients. Are you going to try and claim that doesn't effect medical inflation? Or any of the other things they have implemented?

One more time, read the document I linked. The authority to cut Medicare costs is in the ACA so all of these new rules that cut costs coming out of the CMS are under the authority granted by the ACA. Prior to the ACA Medicare could not cut costs in the manner they are doing now. That's where the $700+ billion in savings are coming from.

CMS has been around long before the ACA and has been effecting medical costs long before ACA. You claimed that the ACA was the only thing that effected medical inflation and you were wrong. Dragging the 700+ billion in savings into the conversation will not change that.

As you point out the CMS has been around for decades and the medical inflation rate has been going steadily upward. A big part of that was that the CMS was very restricted in how it could reduce Medicare costs. Only since the ACA have they gotten real cost cutting powers.
Just look at the medical devices field. CMS put the powered chair scam artists out of business and reduced the number of suppliers of many items to only those that could come in at reasonable prices and that is all because CMS got new powers to constrain costs in the ACA.

I said they effected cost. I never claimed they did a good job at it. But they are not the only ones out there passing laws that effect medical costs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

New York times report that

CMMS (you know.. obamacare) spends more money than the department of defense.

http://www.collarchat.com/m_4605084/mpage_5/key_/tm.htm#4610812

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
And yet they never mentioned it. But as I told you several times it really doesn't matter if that particular law is part of it or not. You were wrong when you said the ACA is the only thing effecting medical costs. CMS sets pricing which the physicians have to follow in order to accept medicare patients. Are you going to try and claim that doesn't effect medical inflation? Or any of the other things they have implemented?

One more time, read the document I linked. The authority to cut Medicare costs is in the ACA so all of these new rules that cut costs coming out of the CMS are under the authority granted by the ACA. Prior to the ACA Medicare could not cut costs in the manner they are doing now. That's where the $700+ billion in savings are coming from.

CMS has been around long before the ACA and has been effecting medical costs long before ACA. You claimed that the ACA was the only thing that effected medical inflation and you were wrong. Dragging the 700+ billion in savings into the conversation will not change that.

As you point out the CMS has been around for decades and the medical inflation rate has been going steadily upward. A big part of that was that the CMS was very restricted in how it could reduce Medicare costs. Only since the ACA have they gotten real cost cutting powers.
Just look at the medical devices field. CMS put the powered chair scam artists out of business and reduced the number of suppliers of many items to only those that could come in at reasonable prices and that is all because CMS got new powers to constrain costs in the ACA.

I said they effected cost. I never claimed they did a good job at it. But they are not the only ones out there passing laws that effect medical costs.

No. The CMS never even could reduce costs before the ACA.

As to these mysterious other laws, name them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
yes they could and did. Here are a couple of other ways they effect medical cost http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/CFCsAndCoPs/index.html that one includes setting pricing for procedures and dr visits. This one effects administrative costs http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/index.html.

quote:

This is another bit of legislation that effects medical costs and has nothing to do with the ACA http://www.hitechanswers.net/about/about-the-hitech-act-of-2009/

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
yes they could and did. Here are a couple of other ways they effect medical cost http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/CFCsAndCoPs/index.html that one includes setting pricing for procedures and dr visits. This one effects administrative costs http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/PaperworkReductionActof1995/index.html.

Setting costs does not equal reducing costs. The CMS was, before the ACA, required to pay what was called the prevailing price for all services.
The paperwork reduction act reduced the amount of paperwork produced by the federal government and could have nothing to do with reducing medical costs and the link you provided doesn't actually point to a page.

quote:

This is another bit of legislation that effects medical costs and has nothing to do with the ACA http://www.hitechanswers.net/about/about-the-hitech-act-of-2009/

And this affected medical costs, at least in the short term, by increasing them not decreasing them.

Are you done making a fool of yourself?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

New York times report that

CMMS (you know.. obamacare) spends more money than the department of defense.

http://www.collarchat.com/m_4605084/mpage_5/key_/tm.htm#4610812

According to NYT: 800billion.

quote:


Those who gained coverage made 40 percent more visits to the emergency room than their uninsured counterparts.

quote:


New study finds that entending medicaid *increased* emergency room costs 40%, completely contradicting a basic obamacare tenet that extending health care to the poor would save money by decreasing ER costs.

quote:


Supporters of President Obama’s health care law had predicted that expanding insurance coverage for the poor would reduce costly emergency room visits as people sought care from primary care doctors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/health/oregon-study-reveals-benefits-and-costs-of-insuring-the-uninsured.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

it agrees with the abstract to the article from the journal of science. (a pay for article).

quote:


Those who gained coverage made 40 percent more visits to the emergency room than their uninsured counterparts.

It does not say as your unattributed nutsacker article:

quote:


New study finds that entending medicaid *increased* emergency room costs 40%, completely contradicting a basic obamacare tenet that extending health care to the poor would save money by decreasing ER costs.

quote:


Supporters of President Obama’s health care law had predicted that expanding insurance coverage for the poor would reduce costly emergency room visits as people sought care from primary care doctors.

The 18 month study did not look at the long term, old habits die hard, and uninsured go to emergency rooms to get treated by habit. That was 2008, what is that trend today?

And I should point out it lowers cost, since those guys going to the ER are insured now, so the hospital gets paid, where they won't for the uninsured.

I think it is much pants shitting for nothing without some long term proof.

And of course the article is from June of 2012, and Obamacare signups................well, you know..........LOLOLOLOLOFUCKINGL, nutsackers are trying to shit their pants away!!!!!


The word rigourous does not mean what you think it means.