ObamaCare

[Papasito]

Papasito: Obama signed up and chose to run for President, claimed he was the best guy to fix it, and has no reason to blame his administration's shortcomings on his predecessor knowing good and well what he decided of his own free will to walk into.

Maxx: What a load of Republican crapola!

So I take it when someone takes a job and knows what he has to do beforehand, and then fails miserably, then it's everyone else's fault but theirs? No wonder we have no leaders in government anymore.

[Zacha341]

I hear that. Bigger government usually renders a smaller [[and less personally defined) you: buried in bureaucracy no less cumbersome than the existing 'big-insurance' matrix. Bigger in point of fact.

However, for now, criticism MUST be ascribed as right wing or republican inspired, and therefore dismissible and false, bigoted, extreme and most of all CONTAINABLE.

That which can be 'contained' is always easier to control... in theory... in terms of ascribing certain concerns and opinion as being "what they do", "how they think...a" "what those conservatives believe" etc. etc...

This containment as such changing, as it would have to eventually. Bi-partisan concern is mounting...

More and more dems and others are realizing the problems and even the mainstream media is beginning to respond.... and report.

Papasito: Obama signed up and chose to run for President, claimed he was the best guy to fix it, and has no reason to blame his administration's shortcomings on his predecessor knowing good and well what he decided of his own free will to walk into.

Maxx: What a load of Republican crapola!

So I take it when someone takes a job and knows what he has to do beforehand, and then fails miserably, then it's everyone else's fault but theirs? No wonder we have no leaders in government anymore.

[oladub]

An FDA advisory committee voted recently to revoke the use of Avastin for treating advanced breast cancer. This is not a final FDA ruling. Studies had shown that the drug provided an extra month to 2.9 months of progression free survival. The FDA is something we have and is not new to Obama care but the question arises; Should the doctor and patient make the decision about treatment or government bureaucrats? It costs $9,000/month to take Avastin. For the FDA to make a ruling agaist Avastin would save a huge amount of money for insurance companies and increasingly government when Obamacare kicks in.

A British advisory panel which advises the British government on which drugs to purchase has similarly ruled against Avastin because it isn't cost effective relative to the extension of life it provides. Given that line of thinking though, elders are a lost cause.

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/07/...stin-decision/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/health/06avastin.html

Medicare is also curtailing the use of Avastin for the treatment of macular degeneration because of a bureaucratic gliche although it will still provide money for another drug which is more expensive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/bu...02avastin.html

[Wingnatic]

The healthcare has needed fixing for so long now that George W . made it a campaign promise for both his elections which leads me to believe that alot of people both Dems and Republicans alike had this high on their list of issue's . Now with something trying to be done to fix it , that same people are bitching , whats that all about ? Do people like increasing healthcare premiums , while the coverage decreases ?

[Zacha341]

Yep, let the bean-counting accounting games begin. They certainly are not coming to an end.

An FDA advisory committee voted recently to revoke the use of Avastin for treating advanced breast cancer. This is not a final FDA ruling. Studies had shown that the drug provided an extra month to 2.9 months of progression free survival. The FDA is something we have and is not new to Obama care but the question arises; Should the doctor and patient make the decision about treatment or government bureaucrats? It costs $9,000/month to take Avastin. For the FDA to make a ruling agaist Avastin would save a huge amount of money for insurance companies and increasingly government when Obamacare kicks in.

A British advisory panel which advises the British government on which drugs to purchase has similarly ruled against Avastin because it isn't cost effective relative to the extension of life it provides. Given that line of thinking though, elders are a lost cause.

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/07/...stin-decision/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/health/06avastin.html

Medicare is also curtailing the use of Avastin for the treatment of macular degeneration because of a bureaucratic gliche although it will still provide money for another drug which is more expensive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/bu...02avastin.html

[Papasito]

The Promises:

The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors, and plans. .... Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year

http://change.gov/agenda/health_care_agenda/
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issue...reFullPlan.pdf

With the strokes of 22 pens, President Obama signed his landmark health care overhaul — the most expansive social legislation enacted in decades — into law on Tuesday, saying it enshrines “the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/he.../24health.html

It means an end to the worst insurance company abuses, new rules that treat everyone fairly, and more choices and affordable health insurance for millions ...

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/benefitsofreform

The Reality:

McDonald's [[MCD) has warned federal officials that it may terminate health care benefits for 30,000 workers, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The concern of the huge fast food chain and other employers of low-paid workers is that they will be overwhelmed by the costs of new regulations.

See full article from DailyFinance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/mcdonalds-health-coverage/19655050/?icid=sphere_copyright

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/mc...rage/19655050/

Nortel Networks Corp., the insolvent maker of telecommunications equipment, sought a judge’s permission to cut off medical and disability benefits to more than 4,000 former U.S. employees.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...in-august.html

Small companies begin terminating health care benefits in Massachusetts

As many expected, some businesses in Massachusetts actually have accountants – or maybe just calculators – and have figured out it will be less expensive and more stable for their business plans to drop health care benefits for employees and pay the fine.

http://radioviceonline.com/small-com...massachusetts/

Millions of American workers could discover that they no longer have employer-provided health insurance as ObamaCare is phased in. That's because employers are quickly discovering that it may be cheaper to pay fines to the government than to insure workers.

AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere and Verizon have all made internal calculations, according the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to determine how much could be saved by a) dropping their employer-provided insurance, b) paying a fine of $2,000 per employee, and c) leaving their employees with the option of buying highly-subsidized insurance in the newly created health-insurance exchange

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...943319816.html


THANKS, BUDDY!

[maxx]

So I wonder which regs the businesses don't like.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/yo...2consumer.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061405389.html
"...For instance, health plans would lose their protected status if they significantly raise deductibles or other out-of-pocket charges patients pay when they seek medical care... Employers would lose grandfathered status if they switch insurance companies -- unless the plan is covered by a union contract or the employer pays claims out of its own funds and uses the insurer only to administer the plan.
It isn't clear how much the restrictions on co-payments and deductibles will save consumers, because health plans can still raise premiums. The rules issued Monday say plans would relinquish grandfathered status if they reduce the percentage of the premium they pay by more than five percentage points. The broader health-care law includes checks on unreasonable increases, which have not been defined.."

[Papasito]

Grandfathered?
Employers with existing group plans are having thier rates tripled by providers.
Employers are either terminating benefits or passing on the costs to employees as a result.

People are losing health care under the pressures of this legislation.
More people are going to be without benefits than there were people with them before it was passed.




Anthem Blue Cross dramatically raising rates for Californians with individual health policies
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb...hem5-2010feb05

Ohio's biggest cities see rising health-care costs
http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com...NEWS01/9300316

Health insurance: Double-digit hikes headed to NH
http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...b-89f207bccaa1

Health insurance companies raise rates in Colorado and Michigan
http://www.news-medical.net/news/201...hospitals.aspx

[johnsmith]

The healthcare has needed fixing for so long now that George W . made it a campaign promise for both his elections which leads me to believe that alot of people both Dems and Republicans alike had this high on their list of issue's . Now with something trying to be done to fix it , that same people are bitching , whats that all about ? Do people like increasing healthcare premiums , while the coverage decreases ?

If you weren't listening to what he was saying back then, George W's approach was going to be vastly different than what the turd of a bill Democrats passed.

[maxx]

Which pressures?

Six months after the legislation is enacted, many plans would be prohibited from placing lifetime limits on medical coverage, ...?


and they could not cancel the policies of people who fall ill. ?


Children with pre-existing conditions could not be denied coverage. ?
And dependent children up to age 26 would be eligible for coverage under their parents’ plans — instead of the current state-by-state rules that often cut off coverage for children at 18 or 19.?


...people who have been locked out of the insurance market because of a pre-existing condition would be eligible for subsidized coverage through a new high-risk insurance program.?

That special coverage would continue until the legislation’s engine kicks into a higher gear in 2014, when coverage would be extended to a wider part of the population through Medicaid and new state-run insurance exchanges.

How awful to expect such things from for-profit health insurance companies. There should be no profit in health care. People's health is not just any other commodity.

[maxx]

If you weren't listening to what he was saying back then, George W's approach was going to be vastly different than what the turd of a bill Democrats passed.

So the Republicans had six years when they were totally in charge. Why didn't they pass it if they really intended to do it?

mjs: Now, Dems have the Congress and the White House. Still, no reinstatement of Glass-Steagal despite a Republican [[McCain) pushing for it.

That's nice that one Republican wanted it. Ever hear of the filibuster? It's become automatic since Republicans lost the presidential election. Watch "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". On second thought, don't since filibusters don't operate that way any more although some people think they should. Let's make the Republicans stand up in front of the cameras and show how they are wasting the time of the Congress by doing nothing constructive.

[mjs]

So the Republicans had six years when they were totally in charge. Why didn't they pass it if they really intended to do it?

That's nice that one Republican wanted it. Ever hear of the filibuster? It's become automatic since Republicans lost the presidential election. Watch "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". On second thought, don't since filibusters don't operate that way any more although some people think they should. Let's make the Republicans stand up in front of the cameras and show how they are wasting the time of the Congress by doing nothing constructive.

Ok, lets play your game and pretend the only republican supporter was its author.

Its is nice isn't it. 59 Dems and the 1 Republican. This may be hard for thsoe that do democrat math, but 59 + 1 = 60. Ever hear of how many votes it takes to break a filibuster? 60!!!! Must have passed already.

Lets do it! Lets make the republicans stand before the cameras and filibuster. I'm 100% for it. All a Democrat has to do is introduce just one single bill to the floor that they claim can not get passed because the republicans will filbuster it.

[maxx]

oldub: Fannie and Freddie were required by government to provide loans, sometimes interest only loans at no interest, to people who were not qualified.

http://www.businessinsider.com/10-my...-crisis-2009-7

An analysis of subprime mortgages shows that within the first year of origination, approximately 10 percent of the mortgages originated between 2001 and 2005 were delinquent or in default, and approximately 20 percent of the mortgages originated in 2006 and 2007 were delinquent or in default. This rapid jump in default rates was among the first signs of the beginning crisis.

If deteriorating underwriting standards explain this phenomenon, we would be able to observe a substantial loosening of the underwriting criteria between 2001–2005 and 2006–2007, periods between which the default rates doubled. The data, however, show no such change in standards.

[maxx]

Ok, lets play your game and pretend the only republican supporter was its author.

Its is nice isn't it. 59 Dems and the 1 Republican. This may be hard for thsoe that do democrat math, but 59 + 1 = 60. Ever hear of how many votes it takes to break a filibuster? 60!!!! Must have passed already.

Lets do it! Lets make the republicans stand before the cameras and filibuster. I'm 100% for it. All a Democrat has to do is introduce just one single bill to the floor that they claim can not get passed because the republicans will filbuster it.

I'm willing to admit that there are a lot of so-called Dems who have been elected from the south and who are not being required by their consituents to do much to improve their lives. OTOH, the entire Republican party has appeared to be uninhinged and just dancing to the tune of the big money that funds their campaigns. And some of their candidates are little better than snake oil salesmen.

[mjs]

I'm willing to admit that there are a lot of so-called Dems who have been elected from the south and who are not being required by their consituents to do much to improve their lives. OTOH, the entire Republican party has appeared to be uninhinged and just dancing to the tune of the big money that funds their campaigns. And some of their candidates are little better than snake oil salesmen.

I'm willing to admit that you are right about the Dems and there are a lot of so-called Repubs who have been elected and who are not being required by their consituents to do much to improve their lives. OTOH, some of both parties have appeared to be uninhinged and just dancing to the tune of the big money that funds their campaigns. And some of their candidates are little better than snake oil salesmen.

Name the bills Pelosi and Obama have told you couldn't pass becasue they were filibustered. Hell, I even heard Obama chastise the Republicans for voting down his so called small business bill before the Dems on the committee had even released it for a floor debate. How could they vote yes or no on a bill thats hadn't yet been debated?

[maxx]

http://levin.senate.gov/senate/statement.cfm?id=321021
"...many who are filibustering this defense appropriations bill tonight are filibustering because they want to delay health care..."

[Papasito]

How awful to expect such things from for-profit health insurance companies.

Obamacare is intended to drive up the costs of private insurance providers so high that the government option will be the only option.

There should be no profit in health care.

And Hospitals are going to end up being bailed out by the Government. Medicaid doesn't even pay enough to keep a Doctor's doors open. Hospitals are going to need to be subsidized because they are going to be losing money hand over foot.

50% of U.S. Hospitals Losing Money

http://healthcareers.about.com/b/200...sing-money.htm

For example, if a doctor who accepts Medicare normally charges $100 for an elderly person's sick visit, Medicare pays the doctor about $76. But, should a child with the same illness visit a doctor who takes Medicaid, that doctor will get paid about two-thirds of the Medicare rate, or about $50.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/17/news...ment_problems/

The hospital has said it was losing too much money and earlier this
month stopped accepting inpatients. Because roughly 90 percent of its
11,000 annual inpatients are covered under the Medicare or Medicaid
public assistance programs, Riverview has struggled economically, said
Bob Hoban, a senior vice president for St. John Health, Riverview's
parent company.

Most of the hospital's 1,500 employees will lose their jobs. Janet Scott, a medical records clerk who has been at Riverview for more than 30 years spoke for many of those empolyees. "It's very devastating for me," she said. "It's going to be hard to find another job."

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/...6/msg00068.pdf

[mjs]

http://levin.senate.gov/senate/statement.cfm?id=321021
"...many who are filibustering this defense appropriations bill tonight are filibustering because they want to delay health care..."

That cloture bill vote passed that day, 63-33, and the bill in question passed the following morning.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.ac...81474977953856
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...l-in-wee-hours

Now back to the Democrat claims that they can't sponsor bills that satisfy their campaign promises. List me a recent filibuster attempt that actually blocked the vote of a bill. Filibusters are only effective if they allow the other side to only have to say they support a controversial bill they'd rather not actually vote on. Everyone knows that if you want to prevent the vote on a bill, you kill it in committee and any decent civics class should have taught you that the majority party gets the majority seats on every committee.

I'll even let you dial a friend on this one. E-mail your congressman or just one you like and ask them the question. After he claimed he couldn't get bonus limits on the Wall Street bailouts because others said they'd vote down the bailout if he did, I asked Senator Chris Dodd for names. I'm still waiting. Its a cop out. If you want something, stand tall and sponser a damned bill that says so and make your opponents go on record voting against it. That one Senator did it every year of his career with his health care bill.

[1KielsonDrive]

[quote=Papasito;186846]Obamacare is intended to drive up the costs of private insurance providers so high that the government option will be the only option.
That's seriously funny - in an ironic way. Private insurers need Obama's assistance to drive up their costs?? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! We need a stand-up comedy thread here at DY - starring .......Papasito. Private insurance providers don't now, nor have they ever needed anyone's assistance to drive up their costs. Well, other than their very own CEO's, and their pay, incentive and bonus packages. Oh, I almost forgot, their lobbying costs, too. Is this the WSJ Editorial page?

[1KielsonDrive]

[quote=Papasito;186846]

And Hospitals are going to end up being bailed out by the Government. Medicaid doesn't even pay enough to keep a Doctor's doors open. Hospitals are going to need to be subsidized because they are going to be losing money hand over foot.

And hospitals are going to end up being bailed out by the government??? Have you been drinking the corporate, business, PR, newsfeed Kool-Aid?? When was the last time you were in a hospital? They're building 12 story towers rivaling Casino hotels. Hundred million dollar satellite clinics and hospitals. They're soliciting business from Canada. They give you round-the-clock, 24 hour nurses to sit at your bedside and wheel you around. Gourmet meals. Entertainment. The new children's hospital at UoM is costing a half billion dollars, or more. This isn't a business model, this is a casino. On second thought, you may be correct about bailouts. Just like Wall Street did, after all of this, hospitals may prevail upon OUR government to bail them out, regardless of whether or not it's needed.

[1KielsonDrive]

I'm not defending Obama Care. His was a half-ass, piss poor attempt at health care reform. All this talk about Obama's being the first health reform in a half century, or some such nonsense, is ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned without Single Payer, it isn't reform. It's putting a donut tire on your car to get you from Gnome Alaska to Mexico City. The requirement to have insurance so companies can make you buy a policy and pay a premium will not stand legal scrutiny in the long run. And Obama won't be around to play footsies with the insurance companies and obstructionist politicians in both parties.

[maxx]

I don't like the idea of subsidizing the for-profit healthcare industry. But we were in an untenable situation with premiums rising while insurance companies were denying coverage to lots of people. I guess if you believe in the law of the jungle, then it wouldn't bother you that millions of people in your society are not getting adequate health care. Although diseases are contagious, so if your neighbor or co-workers are sick, you're more likely to get sick too. And many people don't get sick days at work so they come to work sick.
The issue now is that so many people are out of work. In fact around one-third of the population is hovering around the poverty line. They can't afford to contribute much to the insurance pool, and they may not feel compelled to since they receive some sort of medical help in emergency.

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2010..._kneebone.aspx
"... More individuals lived in families with incomes between 100 and 200 percent of poverty line [[52.5 million) than below the poverty line [[39.1 million) in 2008..."

[Papasito]

How has Obama Care effected You Personally?

Have your premiums risen at work? Has your employer dropped coverage alltogether? Are you getting improved health care at lower rates? How has your insurance/coverage changed since Obama Care was passed?

I'd like to hear stories from you real people who post on this forum.

[1KielsonDrive]

How has Obama Care effected You Personally?

Have your premiums risen at work? Has your employer dropped coverage alltogether? Are you getting improved health care at lower rates? How has your insurance/coverage changed since Obama Care was passed?

I'd like to hear stories from you real people who post on this forum.

Didn't have coverage before, don't have it after. I will refuse to buy coverage if it is mandated, unless premiums are very low and no life information is extracted from me by insurance companies. I'm hoping I don't get ill or have an auto accident before SS and Medicare kick in.

[mjs]

Didn't have coverage before, don't have it after. I will refuse to buy coverage if it is mandated, unless premiums are very low and no life information is extracted from me by insurance companies. I'm hoping I don't get ill or have an auto accident before SS and Medicare kick in.

But SS and medicare are mandated coverage! I would never voluntarily sign up for that garbage. Social security shows a negative return on a payment pyramid that would get any insurer in prison. Exact same structure as Madoff's investments. I put 6% into my 401k to get my employer's 6% match. Exact same amount as social security. Even under the worst case scenarios, one of them has a hell of alot higher expected monthly payments than the other. Guess which one is which.

Medicare can't even cover the bills. Despite forcing providers to provide services below cost, half of all medicare recipients require supplemental coverage. On top of that, if either mediare or social security were private, their creditors would force them into bankruptcy for not being able to pay their bills as they come due, a legal definition of bankruptcy.

And talk about big brother watching. Never heard of an insurer screening all our calls with computers or checking to see what books I get from the library.