The British drug company GlaxoSmithKline today, 7/2, pled guilty to the largest health-care fraud in U.S. history. Most of the medical fraud is in Medicare and Medicaid.
Location: Back in Ohiya, for now ... Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Jul 2, 2012 - 6:53pm
steeler wrote:
It can be written on one page? I can say without any doubt whatsoever that is not accurate. If you believe that then you are advocating for the status quo — i.e., no reform, just repeal.
Here's your single page ...
A Patient Bill of Rights.
No previous conditions exclusion, same as Medicare. Portabilty and ownership of a plan. The ability to purchase a plan across state lines. Universal acceptance of the payee. Preventive screening coverage. Routine physicals and preventive care and instruction. Gender related needs coverage. Perscription drug coverage, with the government mandated to negotiate prices. Vision and Dental coverage. Dependent children covered until age of 26. A doctor's decision always precludes any administrator's decision in urgent or time sensitive actions. No lifetime limit of benefits. Ambulance and other transportation services provided through public systems funded by below. a tax credit for personally paid for insurance (non work provided)
Use Medicare as the template for designing the system and items covered.
Have a payroll tax as in Medicare to fund optional governemnt provisions and coverage for the uninsured, coupled with a national 1% sales tax on all items except for food. That insures everyone pays in.
Eh ? Pass it out and all future changes and planning incorporates these standards. The agencies involved will make necessary changes as provided by current IRS standards already on record.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 2, 2012 - 6:32pm
kurtster wrote:
steeler wrote:
Repealing and starting over will not happen. Don't fool yourself, or others. After Bill and Hilary's attempt at massive health care reform was derailed as legislation in the 1990s, it took approximately 15 years before anything like that gained any traction. And that is ACA.
Legislatively, the prudent approach would be to attempt to eliminate provisions that are not necessary or that prove unworkable, modify others to make them work better, and add new provisions considered necessary.
The only way that repeal it and start completely over makes any sense is if the entire bill, in the aggregate, is bad — meaning that it contains few, if any, provisions worth keeping.
miami laid out the case pretty well in my opinion.
I'll add ...
2700 pages of legaleze that cannot be interpreted by any member of Congress on demand is just plain unnaceptable. The good parts can be written on one page single spaced.
Now that the ACA has been called a tax, it can be repealed with a simple majority in the Senate. 60 votes are no longer required. It would require a signature in the oval office however.
Should the R's get an upset this November that allows them to repeal and replace, I am sure that they will come up with something. They did try and offer admendments along the way of this one, but not one vote was allowed in either House on any of them. There is not one Republican fingerprint on the ACA and at least 60% of Americans still disapprove of the ACA as it stands. The ACA is a one party solution crafted exclusively by lobbyists behind closed doors. Should the R's get the opportunity to repeal, they will surely offer something in its place. For them not to would be the end of the party. We already know many of their proposals which have been ignored by the D's.
Do you really believe that given the opportunity to repeal and replace, the R's would fail to come up with a replacement ? Saying that they would not is coming from a Democrat fear based talking pointm IMO.
It can be written on one page?
I can say without any doubt whatsoever that is not accurate.
If you believe that then you are advocating for the status quo — i.e., no reform, just repeal.
Location: Back in Ohiya, for now ... Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Jul 2, 2012 - 5:38pm
pjcle wrote:
The American Medical Association also released a statement:
"The American Medical Association has long supported health insurance coverage for all, and we are pleased that this decision means millions of Americans can look forward to the coverage they need to get healthy and stay healthy." http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2012-06-28-supreme-court-health-care-reform-decision.page The American Association of Family Practicioners also released a statement: "By upholding the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court has ensured that all Americans have access to affordable, sustainable health care coverage and that they receive high-quality, coordinated and efficient care," said Stream. "It is a future that family physicians happily anticipate."
I think Kurster posted yesterday that his doctor was leaving practice because he didn't like Obamacare. If your doctor is more concerned about making some political point instead of treating patients, and if he thinks he's so special that it's some kind of slap in the face, then good riddance. Where's he going to go practice medicine? All first world countries have government regulated or government run healthcare. Maybe he can join Doctors Without Borders and see the way healtcare works in countries like Nigeria that aren't burdened by government regulation. Another great thing about free-for-all countries, where the meanest and greediest rule, and everyone else suffers, is that they don't have a lot of illegal immigrants to complain about. Winning!
P.S. Hi John!
If you had read my post a little more closely you would have a diferent understanding, maybe.
This is about what the ACA is doing to Medicare, something you prolly know very little about as you have prolly already written it off as something you will never see.
The ACA steals a half a trillion dollars from Medicare to help fund the ACA. My father's doctoris quitting because of what the ACA is doing to Medicare who pays for the bulk of his patients. The doc is a pulminary specialist, not a General Practioner as we used to call them or a Family Practitioner as your source now calls them. They are not heavily involved with Medicare patients as a rule.
I have first hand knowledge as a health care professional as well as a cancer patient. I talk to doctors on a regular basis who unanimously have the same take on Obamacare or the ACA as it is actually named. Even über liberal romeotuma, who has extemsive medical problems and sees a fair amount of doctors has said that all of his doctors say the same thing that I have said.
How many doctors do you see on a regular basis ? How often have you discussed this first hand with your doctors ? Do you have anything to trot out other than press releases and talking points ?
What the ACA does to Medicare is criminal. The Medicare Trust Fund is being robbed to pay for other peoples problems. Medicare is part of a universal medical coverage that you should be encouraging, not seeing as a source of funding for your own personal immediate problems. We who are on Medicare have only Medicare as the source of our Health Care. It was set up as the safety net for those who lived long enough and were no longer able to work. We had no choice about paying in and no choice of provider.
Your age tells me about your focus and Medicare is clearly not of your concern. The ACA may be a good deal for you and others, but you are robbing your parents and everyone else's parents or grandparents of the only medical care they will ever have by approving it as it currently stands. If it did not touch Medicare, I might have a different opinion. But it hits Medicare so hard that it will be worthless and without any doctors willing to accept it for payment of their elderly and disabled patients.
Good for you, bad for me and everyone over 65. Thanks a lot. Push us aged and disabled over the cliff. Fine. We will spend your inheritence paying for the medical care that we might not have had to pay for our needs if you hadn't stolen our care to pay for yours. Edit: I already know of the coming cuts next year with my Medicare Advantage Plan. They strip away many services including what little dental and vision coverage there was. It was also supposed to take effect this year, but someone named Obama granted a waiver to these cuts and delayed then until after the election. You are going to hear an uproar as soon as the new Medicare books come out in the fall. They will be released before the election. Remember the deal with the Democrat Senator Florida to get a special exemption of Medicare Advantage Plans for Floridians ? It will be a key point in Obama winning Florida. You do remember the Louisana Purchase with Sen Landreau (?) and the Cornhusker deal with Sen Nelson of Nebraske to get their votes as well. The Florida waiver will exempt Florida seniors from even seeing what cuts they are being spared. They will not be pissed at Obama and likely to vote for him and give him enough to secure the state. A state Obama cannot lose.
The American Medical Association also released a statement:
"The American Medical Association has long supported health insurance coverage for all, and we are pleased that this decision means millions of Americans can look forward to the coverage they need to get healthy and stay healthy." http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2012-06-28-supreme-court-health-care-reform-decision.page The American Association of Family Practicioners also released a statement: "By upholding the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court has ensured that all Americans have access to affordable, sustainable health care coverage and that they receive high-quality, coordinated and efficient care," said Stream. "It is a future that family physicians happily anticipate."
I think Kurster posted yesterday that his doctor was leaving practice because he didn't like Obamacare. If your doctor is more concerned about making some political point instead of treating patients, and if he thinks he's so special that it's some kind of slap in the face, then good riddance. Where's he going to go practice medicine? All first world countries have government regulated or government run healthcare. Maybe he can join Doctors Without Borders and see the way healtcare works in countries like Nigeria that aren't burdened by government regulation. Another great thing about free-for-all countries, where the meanest and greediest rule, and everyone else suffers, is that they don't have a lot of illegal immigrants to complain about. Winning!
The wording of the questions is tricky and biased towards the liberal agenda. Specifically the term undocumented immigrants. Had I not read most of the bill and discussed it here extensively, I'm sure I would have done worse. Prolly 7 / 10.
Then there should be no governement solution.
And bicameral means two Houses, much different from bipartisan. I'm assuming you knew that as you used it. With one House in the hands of one party and the other House in the hands of the other party, the statement is likely correct.
Liberal agenda? The Kaiser foundation is pretty non-partisan. They are an information source. They are liberal only if you take the view that the facts have a liberal bias.
Why is it that EVERY OTHER major industrialized nation has managed to come up with a workable version of universal health care, most with significant government participation? Come on, we're as good as Norway right?
Yes, bicameral meaning it has to get through both houses with cooperation for it to be put into effect. Just because you can get one member of the opposing party to vote your way doesn't really symbolize working together.
hobiejoe
Oh Lord above, send down a dove; With wings as sharp as razors; To cut the throats of them mean blokes; That sells bad beer to sailors.
Location: Still in the tunnel, looking for the light. Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Jul 2, 2012 - 4:39pm
hobiejoe wrote:
I got 8/10, got 9 & 10 wrong, but I guess that's just me being a pinko commie socialist who was hoping for the best.
And I also know that I can get virtually any treatment that I or my family might need without having to worry about how to pay any extra for it. "Free at the point of delivery".
Yes, we pay National Insurance, and as an employer, I pay an extra levy for each employee. This all pays for the NHS and social security, hence the name. We all pay, and we can all draw on it if needs be.
Sadly our current government are a bunch of right-wing loons in thrall to neo-liberal thinking of the Chicago School of economic idiocy, who are very much not letting a crisis go unused by using the fall-out of the '07-08 banking crisis to slash public spending in the expectation that the private sector will jump in and fill the gap.
So here we are, back in recession with the private sector refusing to invest because of, well, the recession.
Laugh? I nearly....no.
And in the firing line? Our NHS, being chopped and hacked into pieces so that corporations can pick the fleshy profitable bits and leave the rest to shrivel and die.
Bastards. Sixty five years of work, the finest, most effective, most efficiant national health care system in the world being thrown to the scavenging wolves.
Be thankful for what Obama has done for you - it is only a start, but you're heading in the right direction. And feel for us - turns out that some of your Tea Partiers have passports after all, and they've got the ears of ministers, and ex-ministers (hello Liam Fox) through such creepy organisations as Atlantic Bridge.
Location: Back in Ohiya, for now ... Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Jul 2, 2012 - 4:26pm
islander wrote:
As demonstrated by the quiz below and a lot of the ongoing debate, most people don't even understand what's really in it.
And no. I don't think there is a chance that the Republicans would come up with a replacement. I'm frankly surprised the Dems managed to get it in place this time. This is a hot button issue that most pols don't really want any part of unless it makes for a good campaign soundbite (truthiness be damned). The chance of bicameral collaboration for the benefit of the populace is effectively zero.
The wording of the questions is tricky and biased towards the liberal agenda. Specifically the term undocumented immigrants. Had I not read most of the bill and discussed it here extensively, I'm sure I would have done worse. Prolly 7 / 10.
Then there should be no governement solution.
And bicameral means two Houses, much different from bipartisan. I'm assuming you knew that as you used it. With one House in the hands of one party and the other House in the hands of the other party, the statement is likely correct.
Location: Back in Ohiya, for now ... Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
Jul 2, 2012 - 4:18pm
9 / 10.
Missed # 9. Having read much of the bill, I do remember seeing specific levels of coverage along with premiums for these coverages. This is a misleading question having read that part of the bill. How could this not be the reflection of a government plan with these specifics mentioned ?
I am also highly offended by the use of the term undocumented immigrants.
Repealing and starting over will not happen. Don't fool yourself, or others. After Bill and Hilary's attempt at massive health care reform was derailed as legislation in the 1990s, it took approximately 15 years before anything like that gained any traction. And that is ACA.
Legislatively, the prudent approach would be to attempt to eliminate provisions that are not necessary or that prove unworkable, modify others to make them work better, and add new provisions considered necessary.
The only way that repeal it and start completely over makes any sense is if the entire bill, in the aggregate, is bad — meaning that it contains few, if any, provisions worth keeping.
miami laid out the case pretty well in my opinion.
I'll add ...
2700 pages of legaleze that cannot be interpreted by any member of Congress on demand is just plain unnaceptable. The good parts can be written on one page single spaced.
Now that the ACA has been called a tax, it can be repealed with a simple majority in the Senate. 60 votes are no longer required. It would require a signature in the oval office however.
Should the R's get an upset this November that allows them to repeal and replace, I am sure that they will come up with something. They did try and offer admendments along the way of this one, but not one vote was allowed in either House on any of them. There is not one Republican fingerprint on the ACA and at least 60% of Americans still disapprove of the ACA as it stands. The ACA is a one party solution crafted exclusively by lobbyists behind closed doors. Should the R's get the opportunity to repeal, they will surely offer something in its place. For them not to would be the end of the party. We already know many of their proposals which have been ignored by the D's.
Do you really believe that given the opportunity to repeal and replace, the R's would fail to come up with a replacement ? Saying that they would not is coming from a Democrat fear based talking pointm IMO.
As demonstrated by the quiz below and a lot of the ongoing debate, most people don't even understand what's really in it.
And no. I don't think there is a chance that the Republicans would come up with a replacement. I'm frankly surprised the Dems managed to get it in place this time. This is a hot button issue that most pols don't really want any part of unless it makes for a good campaign soundbite (truthiness be damned). The chance of bicameral collaboration for the benefit of the populace is effectively zero.
Posted by AliGator on FB. She and I got 10 out of 10 but it's not simple.
