Oh That Dreaded Health Care Law - Obama Cares!

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...st-115-billion-more-than-previously-assessed/

OOPS!!

 

Excellent!

 

So read it this time; http://www.liberalwhoppers.com/2010...ulation-of-the-cbo-score-to-get-their-number/

 

I do not support any massive pay-outs for lawsuits, I really can't stand lawyers and their willingness to cause inflation for their own greed. And that extends to almost all lawsuits, not those only dealing with mistakes made by doctors. I'd support substantially lower limits on what a person could receive for most of these cases.

I've had similar discussions with my doctor, who hates that the charges he has to impose on people like me (those who are poor and go without insurance) that the system says is required. We both agree the system itself is a problem, and that even with the new law the system will have some of the same problems (co-pay costs may be worse under the new law for people like me) Before last year he was able to charge me less for procedures like examinations but now the system is computerized and that is much more difficult to impossible to charge less than what the sytem requires. That said, he appears to be much more happy lol

An example though, of inflated costs vs true costs: Say the system required my doctor to charge $120 for an examination, a complete physical say. The $120 is artificially inflated to account for the percentage actually paid by insurance, who at the time paid roughly 70% of whatever the system charged, meaning even though the cost was $120, the system only received 70% of that. The rest would never be paid. I should note that this is different than co-pay costs, that this reduction was in the remainder of the costs after the co-pay was accounted for. So previously, since I paid the costs myself, my doc would lower the charge to something like $85... roughly 70% of the charge the system charged insurances, who averaged only a 70% pay-out on the charges. Now though, the system continues to charge the $120, and I pay the full amount, minus a 10% discount for prompt payment.

Another thing to note: It's a system now, as we have no "hospitals" in our area anymore. The era of single, hospital-based care has passed here. In it's place is a conglomeration of former hospitals into a corporate-styled system. With it comes a more intense focus on the bottom-line as well as cookie-cutter care... where you are a product with a certain value to the corporation. If that value is too low, it isn't allowed into the system.

 

So, yes... I support the new law. Hopefully it will force the corporate-styled systems to treat the poor.

 

So if the CBO agrees with you...it's all good, but if the CBO says something you disagree with...Oops!

CBO: Health Care Repeal Would Up Deficit By $230 Billion
WASHINGTON -- Repealing health care reform will add $230 billion to the deficit over the next decade, leave 32 million fewer people with insurance and lead to higher costs for those who are covered, the Congressional Budget Office said in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) Thursday.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...st-115-billion-more-than-previously-assessed/
CBO Budget Outlook: Health Care Costs ‘Will Be Restrained’ By Savings In Affordable Care Act
The Congressional Budget Office has released a new report pinning this year’s deficit at $1.3 trillion – the third-largest in the last 65 years — and predicting that real GDP will rise 2.3 percent this year and 2.7 percent next year. Federal spending on health care will continue to increase faster than GDP, but CBO notes that some of the cost will be contained by the cost-saving mechanisms in the Affordable Care Act:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...restrained-by-savings-in-affordable-care-act/
Competition hasn’t worked in health care
Republicans and Democrats have the same problem with the Congressional Budget Office: it refuses to score competition between health-care plans as a surefire way to lower the cost of health care.
This annoyed Democrats during the health-care reform debate, as it meant the Affordable Care Act didn’t get any credit for the competition it would foster on its exchanges. It’s annoying Republicans now, as it means their Medicare-reform plans need to impose blunt spending caps if the CBO to certify them as deficit reducing.
But the CBO is in the right here: No matter how much sense competition makes in theory, no matter how obvious it is that it will drive down the price of health care, the fact is that it keeps failing when we put it into practice.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...n-health-care/2011/08/25/gIQAyvXPyO_blog.html

 

You really need to read your first link in the above post. Try it. You might learn something. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...st-115-billion-more-than-previously-assessed/

 

So I see that no one is actually going to agree on what the new health care law is actually going to do for the American people. Can we at least wait to see the law go completely into affect before we start bashing it completely. The great thing about this law or any other law, is that it can be changed. We had to do something and we have to more to get health care costs under control. I think everyone agrees on that? I will probably say something here that someone will take and run will negatively. That seems to be the way this forum runs, but we needed to do something, we still need to do more. Now let's do it and see what happens. If it don't work, change it. Don't start changing it before we even know if it is going to work or not. How about we reappeal it completely and start over again? That seems to be the argument for the republicans. Now once it gets repealed, then nothing will probably be done. And it can then fall on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. Now go after me everyone, just waiting on the negative comments. Let's go.

 

Sure, I vote we table this discussion till 2015, when the law is completely in effect (except for all the unconstitutional parts that were discarded and the parts that still lack funding and the parts that are unenforceable . . .). So . . . who does anyone like for the BCS Championship on January 9th?

 

The BO admin can't even answer that question! I've attended forums intended to explain Obamacare to medical professionals & believe me the folks who are supposed to understand & explainObamacare are clueless.

Why?

There are tons of alternatives that do not require the total takeover of our health insurance by the gov't

 

Text of the law is available online.

Incorrect assertion. Read the law.

 

Thanks for helping me prove my point- the law is soooo convoluted, BO's own people can't explain it )even though the text is available on-line).

As to your second assinine comment, how is reading "the law" going to point out alternatives to total gov't takeover of our healthcare?

 

Sorry, but the text is not "available online" except where it tells IRS, DHHS, and other departments to write regulations. It is a bit hard to explain regulations that have not even been written yet

 

So, if I understand you correctly, there are no alternatives but a complete and total takeover of the health care system by our government? No alternatives whatsoever?

 

I said your assertion, that it's a government takeover of our healthcare, was incorrect, not that reading PPACA would point out any alternatives to that incorrect assertion. I don't view my telling you that you're wrong as assinine, though I can understand that if you're touchy about criticisms you may believe otherwise. Honestly, I didn't mean it that way. I'm saying read the law and you'll see why you were wrong to say that.

 

Have you "read the law" yourself? Honestly? If so, please tell me where I would find the alternatives to Obamacare mentioned. Please.

 

True somewhat, but they did pass the law: http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

Not the greatest link... a bit hard for me to load. I'm still looking for the easier-to-load version I found a while back. I thought I had saved the link but I can't find it.

Other, more manageable links:

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/authorities/patient-protection.pdf
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/authorities/reconciliation-law.pdf

So ...what regulations haven't been written anyway?

 

I didn't mention any alternatives so I can't answer that. And yes, I've read it. A dry read for sure, and it's a long read.

 

There are 1800+ directives to write regulations (from memory, don't slaughter me). I have no idea how many have been written, but it is virtually none. Every once in a while, if you listen to real news, you will hear a blurp where they are threatening to set up control panels (AKA death panels), collect everyone's personal records records, etc.

 

You cannot seriously be promoting the false 'death panels' allegations again, especially considering how extreme-right-wing Republicans would prefer to not provide aid to the elderly, the handicapped, and the poor. Restricting funding for those people is a certain death-sentence for some of them, not that extreme-right-wing Republicans care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel

You should seriously stop listening to far-right-wing Republican radio-broadcasts (or whereever you're getting this bs from) and run around spreading their obvious lies.