Republicans Expose Themselves as Enemies of Millions of Americans Health and Well-bei

[Cigar]

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling, Republicans have revealed their true intention if they are able to repeal the ACA, and it is that they have no plans to help over 31 million Americans gain access to affordable health care. Over the weekend, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said “the lack of healthcare is not an issue” Republicans are concerned about, and Speaker of the House John Boehner was hard-pressed to contain his anger at being questioned on how Republicans would replace the ACA if they repeal it. Boehner admitted “all of those provisions, popular provisions, many of them very sound provisions can, in fact, be done in a common-sense way,” but only in small incremental steps after Republicans were finished “ripping Obamacare out by its roots.”

McConnell revealed the real issue for Republicans and it is not whether Americans had access to healthcare insurance, it is protecting the health insurance industry from providing services policy holders pay for. In fact, Republicans admit that if they cannot win big in November and repeal the ACA in its entirety in 2013, the law’s benefits will be nearly impossible to take away from the people as they begin seeing the real benefits. It is astounding that Republicans are finally admitting the people will love the law once its “popular and very sound provisions” take full effect, and yet they claim vehemently that the American people hate it with a passion. However, as the law takes effect and insurance providers beginning sending out $1.1 billion in rebate checks for failing to spend consumers’ premiums on providing healthcare services, the recent 50% approval rating will increase and that is precisely why congressional Republicans are urging governors to opt out of the program now to prevent the American people from realizing that the ACA is nothing but good news for all the people and anathema to Republicans.

More than anything, Republicans are exposing themselves as enemies of the people they are elected to represent and provide an environment where all Americans are able to prosper in the pursuit of happiness, and that includes access to quality, affordable healthcare insurance. The American people should be aware by now that Republicans have no compassion for anyone who is not in the top one-percent of income earners, and that they will pursue any means to punish the people. The ACA will create jobs, reduce the deficit, and give 31 million Americans healthcare for the first time in their lives and the GOP is panting to “rip it out by its roots” to protect the insurance industry. The past year-and-a-half have given the American people a preview of a Republican-controlled Congress and White House, and it portends a Draconian existence for all but the wealthiest Americans as the GOP rips out social safety nets by their roots and replaces them with more tax cuts for the wealthy and cuts to education, environmental protections, and eliminating Medicare, food stamps, police, firefighter, and construction jobs.

http://www.politicususa.com/republicans-expose-enemies-millions-americans-health-well-being.html


Looks like Voting will resolve this issue once and for all. :wink:

[Peter1469]

Obamacare will increase the cost of health care in America and decrease quality. Why support that?

[coolwalker]

You twist words, but not all that well because unlike the liberal community, not everyone is thick between the ears and succumbs to rethoric that is meaningless. These same people you are so worried about, how about we give them a free car to drive to the hospital too. maybe a free credit card to fill up that car and of course some extra money so they can stop on the way to buy a new outfit. We can't have them getting this new health care looking all shabby, now can we.

[Conley]

You twist words, but not all that well because unlike the liberal community, not everyone is thick between the ears and succumbs to rethoric that is meaningless. These same people you are so worried about, how about we give them a free car to drive to the hospital too. maybe a free credit card to fill up that car and of course some extra money so they can stop on the way to buy a new outfit. We can't have them getting this new health care looking all shabby, now can we.

We kind of did if you count the cluster that was Cash for Clunkers.

[Captain Obvious]

Obamacare will increase the cost of health care in America and decrease quality. Why support that?

How so?

[Peter1469]

How so?

Because American health care is the height of technology. It costs money. I was in Italy with my wife and her family. Her dad's new g/f (an Italian) got sick and the hospital saw her, treated her, and charged her nothing. But it was like a 1950's American doc check up. No tech whatsoever. They were right with there diagnosis, no problem there. And they gave her cheap medicine and it worked. Do you think Americans will go back to that?

[Captain Obvious]

Because American health care is the height of technology. It costs money. I was in Italy with my wife and her family. Her dad's new g/f (an Italian) got sick and the hospital saw her, treated her, and charged her nothing. But it was like a 1950's American doc check up. No tech whatsoever. They were right with there diagnosis, no problem there. And they gave her cheap medicine and it worked. Do you think Americans will go back to that?

Cost and quality is much like the supply and demand graph with an intersection of actuality. If what you're suggesting, and I don't disagree with you to an extent, that our quality is high (that is arguable to some degree though) and our cost is high, how do you suggest that both quality decreases and costs increase?

I'm looking for tangible proof.

[Peter1469]

Cost and quality is much like the supply and demand graph with an intersection of actuality. If what you're suggesting, and I don't disagree with you to an extent, that our quality is high (that is arguable to some degree though) and our cost is high, how do you suggest that both quality decreases and costs increase?

I'm looking for tangible proof.

Stop with the high tech solutions for most patients. Especially the ones not paying the bill (either themselves or through insurance).

[Captain Obvious]

Stop with the high tech solutions for most patients. Especially the ones not paying the bill (either themselves or through insurance).

That's already happening, Obamacare had (has) nothing to do with that progress.

Domestic healthcare has been gravitating toward outcomes-based medicine for years now, reimbursement has been focusing on outcomes and denying frivolous provision. Much of Obamacare moves further into this direction but Obamacare wasn't necessary for the industry to start moving there, it already was.

What I don't understand is your comment that costs will increase and quality will decrease. I'm not convinced that it either will or wont, I'm just trying to understand your POV.

[Peter1469]

That's already happening, Obamacare had (has) nothing to do with that progress.

Domestic healthcare has been gravitating toward outcomes-based medicine for years now, reimbursement has been focusing on outcomes and denying frivolous provision. Much of Obamacare moves further into this direction but Obamacare wasn't necessary for the industry to start moving there, it already was.

What I don't understand is your comment that costs will increase and quality will decrease. I'm not convinced that it either will or wont, I'm just trying to understand your POV.

If you are correct, can you show numbers to show that costs have come down in the last few years?

[Captain Obvious]

If you are correct, can you show numbers to show that costs have come down in the last few years?

I don't think I really could, Peter - it's still a work in progress. Healthcare is much like the fed, things happen slowly but ultimately deliberately.

Right now hospitals are moving into a 5-year phase electronic health record project, to make everyone's healcare records available virtually anywhere, not just on paper where it currently is. That's a 5-year process and we're coming to just the end of the first year. Part of that process is the compilation and submission of statistical quality data for just what I've been blathering on about. There are some quality measures out there now and have been for a while, but the emerging system is much broader and the clear outcome is payment for performance - healthcare providers are going to be reimbursed for providing quality healthcare at minimal costs.

Again, Obamacare has nothing to do with this other than to echo the emerging trend and it's pretty clear that we're behind many other countries in this respect. ICD-10 for example, the coding system for specific services, the US is the last progressive country to implement it, and we haven't yet. Canada has and our deadline was now extended to (I think) 2014.

[Chris]

can you show numbers to show that costs have come down in the last few years?

And not by government price fixing.



supply and demand graph with an intersection of actuality

In actuality there is no equilibrium.

[Captain Obvious]

And not by government price fixing.

What costs is the gubmint fixing?





In actuality there is no equilibrium.

In supply/demand or healthcare? Or both?

Although it really doesn't matter to the discussion at hand, the basic concept was the rational behind that example but I'm always curious when people make somewhat absolute statements.

[Trinnity]

How so?It already has. Premiums have gone up significantly in anticipation of increased costs to ins co's for having to waive pre-existing conditions and other requirements that came with the new law. EVERYONE knows that.

[Captain Obvious]

It already has. Premiums have gone up significantly in anticipation of increased costs to ins co's for having to waive pre-existing conditions and other requirements that came with the new law. EVERYONE knows that.

Oh, well - excuse me, I guess I'm out of the know.

Now let me ask you, if premiums are going up because of, what you stated - pre-existing conditions, then healthcare is being delivered to those conditions that, while pre-existing coverage, are still considered the delivery of healthcare services, how do overall costs increase?

More simply stated - you're adding new healthcare and yeah, that's going to cost more, but costs for the most part are variable - how is the cost per incidence of healthcare delivery increasing?

[Chris]

What costs is the gubmint fixing?






In supply/demand or healthcare? Or both?

Although it really doesn't matter to the discussion at hand, the basic concept was the rational behind that example but I'm always curious when people make somewhat absolute statements.



What costs is the gubmint fixing?

Healthcare for one. Here's another: Cronyism In the Sugar Industry: Comparing U.S. to World Prices (http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/2012/07/02/cronyism-in-the-sugar-industry-comparing-u-s-to-world-prices/).


In supply/demand or healthcare? Or both?

supply/demand--and if it doesn't matter why'd you assert it absolutely?

[Trinnity]

Peter mentioned the cost of healthcare going up. You said "how so?". I said premiums have gone up already. THAT is the cost of HC going up. FOR US.

[Captain Obvious]

Healthcare for one. Here's another: Cronyism In the Sugar Industry: Comparing U.S. to World Prices (http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/2012/07/02/cronyism-in-the-sugar-industry-comparing-u-s-to-world-prices/).



supply/demand--and if it doesn't matter why'd you assert it absolutely?

I'm an idiot, I have zero comprehension skillz.

Instead of copy/pasting a link, what say you just explain your position to me in your own words.

I promise not to whine for links/proof right out of the gate.

[Captain Obvious]

Peter mentioned the cost of healthcare going up. You said "how so?". I said premiums have gone up already. THAT is the cost of HC going up. FOR US.

I don't think you understood my statement.

At the sake of sounding like a pompous jackass (and I'm not trying to either), go back and re-read it. Costs are variable, the cost per unit of service, assumed, aren't impacted by your suggestion unless you convince me otherwise.

[Peter1469]

I don't think I really could, Peter - it's still a work in progress. Healthcare is much like the fed, things happen slowly but ultimately deliberately.

Right now hospitals are moving into a 5-year phase electronic health record project, to make everyone's healcare records available virtually anywhere, not just on paper where it currently is. That's a 5-year process and we're coming to just the end of the first year. Part of that process is the compilation and submission of statistical quality data for just what I've been blathering on about. There are some quality measures out there now and have been for a while, but the emerging system is much broader and the clear outcome is payment for performance - healthcare providers are going to be reimbursed for providing quality healthcare at minimal costs.

Again, Obamacare has nothing to do with this other than to echo the emerging trend and it's pretty clear that we're behind many other countries in this respect. ICD-10 for example, the coding system for specific services, the US is the last progressive country to implement it, and we haven't yet. Canada has and our deadline was now extended to (I think) 2014.


I just think that Obamacare will continue the current high level of spending- just for a lot more people. That = more cost.

[Trinnity]

I don't think you understood my statement.

At the sake of sounding like a pompous jackass (and I'm not trying to either), go back and re-read it. Costs are variable, the cost per unit of service, assumed, aren't impacted by your suggestion unless you convince me otherwise.Okay, there will be more regs, more paper pushers and more load on the system. I think that will increase costs.

[Captain Obvious]

I just think that Obamacare will continue the current high level of spending- just for a lot more people. That = more cost.

Maybe.

Here's my opinion, for what it's worth. Pay for performance and quality outcomes-based healthcare was already in motion, we didn't need Obamacare to further that initiative. What I think Obamacare is ultimately about is a single-payer system. A grand Medicare if you will, force the private insurers out of business and have a Canada-style reimbursement system in place and that scares the fucking shit out of me.

For one thing, you have virtually ALL of healthcare in the hands of the gubmint. ALL of it, they do, pay, demand anything that pleases the monopoly. We are at their mercy and I don't think I have to explain those dangers to you or any other rational, intelligent person.

Blue Cross and the private insurers pay much better than Medicare (and fuck Medicaid, hospitals and providers subsidize Medicaid payments, they don't even cover a fraction of the cost of providing services). Take them out of the mix and what you will get is the WalMartization of healthcare delivery. The huge systems will provide all of the services to everyone and anyone living in a rural town or on the fringe is fucked.

[Peter1469]

Maybe.

Here's my opinion, for what it's worth. Pay for performance and quality outcomes-based healthcare was already in motion, we didn't need Obamacare to further that initiative. What I think Obamacare is ultimately about is a single-payer system. A grand Medicare if you will, force the private insurers out of business and have a Canada-style reimbursement system in place and that scares the fucking shit out of me.

For one thing, you have virtually ALL of healthcare in the hands of the gubmint. ALL of it, they do, pay, demand anything that pleases the monopoly. We are at their mercy and I don't think I have to explain those dangers to you or any other rational, intelligent person.

Blue Cross and the private insurers pay much better than Medicare (and fuck Medicaid, hospitals and providers subsidize Medicaid payments, they don't even cover a fraction of the cost of providing services). Take them out of the mix and what you will get is the WalMartization of healthcare delivery. The huge systems will provide all of the services to everyone and anyone living in a rural town or on the fringe is fucked.

I think that you are correct that the goal is universal Medicare. How are the doctors going to survive on those rates?

[Captain Obvious]

I think that you are correct that the goal is universal Medicare. How are the doctors going to survive on those rates?

Some will, some won't.

Hence my WalMart analogy.

Let me add another angle - "too big to fail"?

[roadmaster]

I don't like this per-existing stuff. How many people here have had the same job over the years? Once you get laid off or say go to a better job the next insurance company can deny you coverage. I am not young but when my daughter was our insurance company tried their best to deny her broken arm even when we got approved beforehand to that hospital that was on their list. I had to fight them because they said we should have gone to a hospital over 100 miles from us because they were cheaper. I won and they did end up paying but they tried their best not to pay but 40% of the bill. Their are still ones like this out their even tho I have a good one now. How many young people in low paying jobs end up paying because they don't know they can fight these people?

[Peter1469]

I don't like this per-existing stuff. How many people here have had the same job over the years? Once you get laid off or say go to a better job the next insurance company can deny you coverage. I am not young but when my daughter was our insurance company tried their best to deny her broken arm even when we got approved beforehand to that hospital that was on their list. I had to fight them because they said we should have gone to a hospital over 100 miles from us because they were cheaper. I won and they did end up paying but they tried their best not to pay but 40% of the bill. Their are still ones like this out their even tho I have a good one now. How many young people in low paying jobs end up paying because they don't know they can fight these people?

Responding to the first part of your post.... That is part of the problem with having health insurance linked to employment. I have long said that states (not the feds) should set up exchanges based on risk factors.

[Captain Obvious]

I don't like this per-existing stuff. How many people here have had the same job over the years? Once you get laid off or say go to a better job the next insurance company can deny you coverage. I am not young but when my daughter was our insurance company tried their best to deny her broken arm even when we got approved beforehand to that hospital that was on their list. I had to fight them because they said we should have gone to a hospital over 100 miles from us because they were cheaper. I won and they did end up paying but they tried their best not to pay but 40% of the bill. Their are still ones like this out their even tho I have a good one now. How many young people in low paying jobs end up paying because they don't know they can fight these people?

If you had a pre-existing condition, you'd feel differently.

Essentially, pre-existing clauses are a way for insurers to avoid paying claims for healthcare services.

So let's say I have a pre-existing condition that requires significant treatment and I lose my coverage. Later on I get other coverage but it doesn't cover my pre-existing condition. I will most likely still get treatment however my inability to pay means the hospital (ie: ultimately YOU) pay for it.

All the while the insurance companies stockholders receive a generous dividend from the company.

I don't think you've thought this through - or maybe you did and this scenario is optimal to you, do you own stock in a private insurance company?

[patrickt]

Okay, there will be more regs, more paper pushers and more load on the system. I think that will increase costs.

And, a big factor is that when it's free there is no effort on the part of the consumer to restrict use. Imagine if McDonalds was free for a month. How many Big Macs would Michael Moore eat? I met a lonely old man who gets four physicals a year. When I asked why he said, "Why not? I don't have to pay for it."

I know people who had surgery, much to their sorrow, that they would not have had if insurance hadn't been footing the bill. A woman was sold a bill of goods on knee surgery. Drive though, don't you know. Arrive at ten, have surgery, drive home at one. She was in the hsopital for three weeks and when all was said and done her knees was worse than it had been to start with. But, it was "free".

Obamacare, and all centralized health services, are not about health care. It's about power and who holds the power. The one who will not hold any power is the patient. Consider the rule that patients of the NHS will be seen within four-hours of the time they enter an emergency room. The government response? When you have 4 hours worth of patients you lock the door.

[Peter1469]

If you had a pre-existing condition, you'd feel differently.

Essentially, pre-existing clauses are a way for insurers to avoid paying claims for healthcare services.

So let's say I have a pre-existing condition that requires significant treatment and I lose my coverage. Later on I get other coverage but it doesn't cover my pre-existing condition. I will most likely still get treatment however my inability to pay means the hospital (ie: ultimately YOU) pay for it.

All the while the insurance companies stockholders receive a generous dividend from the company.

I don't think you've thought this through - or maybe you did and this scenario is optimal to you, do you own stock in a private insurance company?

Health insurance is insurance, it isn't welfare. If you don't have fire insurance and your house starts to burn can you get fire insurance? I imagine only if you give the insurance company 100% of the value of the home and its contents!

[Peter1469]

And, a big factor is that when it's free there is no effort on the part of the consumer to restrict use. Imagine if McDonalds was free for a month. How many Big Macs would Michael Moore eat? I met a lonely old man who gets four physicals a year. When I asked why he said, "Why not? I don't have to pay for it."

I know people who had surgery, much to their sorrow, that they would not have had if insurance hadn't been footing the bill. A woman was sold a bill of goods on knee surgery. Drive though, don't you know. Arrive at ten, have surgery, drive home at one. She was in the hsopital for three weeks and when all was said and done her knees was worse than it had been to start with. But, it was "free".

Obamacare, and all centralized health services, are not about health care. It's about power and who holds the power. The one who will not hold any power is the patient. Consider the rule that patients of the NHS will be seen within four-hours of the time they enter an emergency room. The government response? When you have 4 hours worth of patients you lock the door.

That was the idea behind co-pays. Even a nominal co-pay, say $20, greatly reduces demand for health care.

[Captain Obvious]

Health insurance is insurance, it isn't welfare. If you don't have fire insurance and your house starts to burn can you get fire insurance? I imagine only if you give the insurance company 100% of the value of the home and its contents!

That goes back to the issue of employer provided healthcare. If I have a serious health issue and I lose my job, I can get my pre-existing condition waived in open enrollment if I get a new job and new insurance, but if there is a gap in that insurance for whatever reason I risk losing coverage indefinitely for that pre-existing condition.

[Peter1469]

That goes back to the issue of employer provided healthcare. If I have a serious health issue and I lose my job, I can get my pre-existing condition waived in open enrollment if I get a new job and new insurance, but if there is a gap in that insurance for whatever reason I risk losing coverage indefinitely for that pre-existing condition.

That is why it is a bad idea to link health insurance to employment.

[Chris]

Right, uncouple insurance from job--but you don't need to couple it to government to do that.

[Peter1469]

Right, uncouple insurance from job--but you don't need to couple it to government to do that.

States are in a good position to create risk pools so individuals can take advantage of high volume demand. If you approach insurance companies on your own you will pay a lot more for the same thing.

[Chris]

States are in a good position to create risk pools so individuals can take advantage of high volume demand. If you approach insurance companies on your own you will pay a lot more for the same thing.

That could be because group insurance is supported by company benefits.

Isn't risk pools what Obamacare asks of the states, and some 10 states are rejecting?

[Peter1469]

That could be because group insurance is supported by company benefits.

Isn't risk pools what Obamacare asks of the states, and some 10 states are rejecting?


Yes.

[bladimz]

That is why it is a bad idea to link health insurance to employment.You and i have been in agreement on this point for awhile now. In regard to pre-existing conditions... currently insurance companies are free (aren't they?) to drop you at their discretion, usually because you have become a high risk client who has developed a chronic (and expensive) illness. Ultimately, what's difference between denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions? Either way, such people are screwed so that the company can shield themselves from risk. Insurance charges premiums to its clients to protect them from future unseen illness-related costs. People pay those premiums because they and the insurance company sign an agreement that basically states that as long as company-dictated premiums are paid on time, they (the company) will be financially responsible for whatever medical expenses are agreed to. So it is that i believe that dropping any client who is up to date with their premiums is a breach of contract. It's been sometime since i've had to purchase health insurance, and maybe things are different now, but i don't believe there is a clause in my agreement that gives them an out like that.

[Mainecoons]

Most of us agree the present system is broken. Where we don't agree is that creating something that is even more broken from the get go is a solution. How anyone could think that the U.S. government could administer this really blows me away. You have to be in complete and total la la land to believe that.

[Peter1469]

You and i have been in agreement on this point for awhile now. In regard to pre-existing conditions... currently insurance companies are free (aren't they?) to drop you at their discretion, usually because you have become a high risk client who has developed a chronic (and expensive) illness. Ultimately, what's difference between denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions? Either way, such people are screwed so that the company can shield themselves from risk. Insurance charges premiums to its clients to protect them from future unseen illness-related costs. People pay those premiums because they and the insurance company sign an agreement that basically states that as long as company-dictated premiums are paid on time, they (the company) will be financially responsible for whatever medical expenses are agreed to. So it is that i believe that dropping any client who is up to date with their premiums is a breach of contract. It's been sometime since i've had to purchase health insurance, and maybe things are different now, but i don't believe there is a clause in my agreement that gives them an out like that.

I have never had an insurance company that could drop me because I got sick or some sort of condition. That is why I pay insurance; I am generally healthy and can pay my current medical expenses on my own without insurance if I had too. If something bad happens to me, I expect insurance to cover it, per our agreement.

I am not sure why anyone would buy insurance through a company that reserves the right to drop you for any new condition after the contract was signed.

[Conley]

I have never had an insurance company that could drop me because I got sick or some sort of condition. That is why I pay insurance; I am generally healthy and can pay my current medical expenses on my own without insurance if I had too. If something bad happens to me, I expect insurance to cover it, per our agreement.

I am not sure why anyone would buy insurance through a company that reserves the right to drop you for any new condition after the contract was signed.

Maybe I'm a cynic but I do believe cases like that exist whether or not the company really has the right to. And in many cases they can afford much better lawyers than the sick person. Not to mention it helps the bottom line to spend a few tens of thousands on legal fees versus hundreds of thousands on medical bills multiplied by a number of cases.

[Peter1469]

I have no doubt that such things occur. That is one of the jobs of the State Attorney General and the State Insurance Commissioner. If an insurance company does this, go after them for civil and criminal penalties.

[bladimz]

I have never had an insurance company that could drop me because I got sick or some sort of condition. That is why I pay insurance; I am generally healthy and can pay my current medical expenses on my own without insurance if I had too. If something bad happens to me, I expect insurance to cover it, per our agreement.

I am not sure why anyone would buy insurance through a company that reserves the right to drop you for any new condition after the contract was signed.Well, i sincerely doubt that the client would be made aware of that clause when signing up for coverage. What salesman in their right mind would share that with a potential customer. Just because they aren't made aware of it, doesn't mean it's not in the paperwork.

I know, i know... 'It's up to the client to read the complete agreement before signing.' But if you are willing and able to read 8pt. universe type for 4 or 5 pages (front and back) you're a better person than most. Especially when being pressured and assured by the "representative" that everything's fine.

[Peter1469]

Well, i sincerely doubt that the client would be made aware of that clause when signing up for coverage. What salesman in their right mind would share that with a potential customer. Just because they aren't made aware of it, doesn't mean it's not in the paperwork.

I know, i know... 'It's up to the client to read the complete agreement before signing.' But if you are willing and able to read 8pt. universe type for 4 or 5 pages (front and back) you're a better person than most. Especially when being pressured and assured by the "representative" that everything's fine.

I am a lawyer. I read contracts that I sign. But to be honest, I need to order a magnify glass to be able to read the small font.....

Another thing you can do is purchase insurance through a broker. Tell him or her what you want and then you don't need to read it for yourself.