US Government Shutdown

[mystic64]

If you loved what liberals did with the housing bubble you ought to be in high heaven with Obama care's virtues.

1. It was said to lower our private insurance premiums. This is a lie. It has doubled many, added at least 50% to almost all and lowered none unless coverage was drastically reduced.
2. It was said to save us money. That was probably a lie. It is not even going yet and is estimated to cost in the trillions.
3. It was said to improve health care. A lie. Even doctors with sons halfway through are counseling their children to get out of the medical field but the hundreds. Not to mention the ones that gave up servicing Medicare and Medicaid where they were allowed to.
4. It was said to be easy to access. probably a lie. It has a several hundred billion dollar web site that never works. Of course Obama denied responsibility even though the regime mandated only weeks for testing and went against the private companies recommendations.
5. It was said to be the will of the people. A lie. It has had majority rejection almost everyday it has been an issue and it is getting worse marks than ever currently.
6. It was said we could keep our own insurance. A lie. The government exceeding it power has mandated private companies offer additional services they can not pay for. hundreds of thousands of cancellation notices have been issued.
7. It was said to be constitutional. A lie. It had to be turned into a tax to even make it legal. Payment for a service is not a tax. It is a lie.
8. It was said to not ration health care. Thousands of horror stories concerning rationing already existed in all government health care programs. It can't be avoided.
9. It has been claimed as a right. That is a lie and incoherent as well. Who granted that right? Who had it to grant? On what basis?
10. I am getting disgusted doing this and the list will never end.

So call the thing that produced the above good, or blame it on Bush, and lets move on to the next nail in the coffin.

Robin You and I do agree on this! The whole thing is "yuck" and the reasons are without end!

 

[metis]

So, providing 30 million Americans with some health-care insurance is "yuck"?

So, instead of just being boo-birds, why don't some here actually propose what they would do with the 50 million uninsured Americans?

 

[1robin]

Robin You and I do agree on this! The whole thing is "yuck" and the reasons are without end!

Yep, however you will instantly be accosted as being against peoples health by trying to save the whole house of borrowed cards from collapsing under it's own weight. I do not think people know that the check in the mail was paid for by someone else who has finite funds. It is like a parasite that is killing a tree by sucking it dry claiming anyone who wishes to save the tree by getting the parasite off it, is against life. It is the worst tactic in the tiny liberal tool box in my opinion. The old trusty false moral high ground. Gotta love it.

 

[1robin]

So, providing 30 million Americans with some health-care insurance is "yuck"?

So, instead of just being boo-birds, why don't some here actually propose what they would do with the 50 million uninsured Americans?

Let them go the hospitals and get taken care of just like they always have.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There's no denying it. If Christians weren't so busy ignoring politics things would at least be improving. Instead they want to blame Democrats and Liberals and almost anyone for their lack of activity.

 

[metis]

There's no denying it. If Christians weren't so busy ignoring politics things would at least be improving. Instead they want to blame Democrats and Liberals and almost anyone for their lack of activity.

I understand what you're saying, but there's one element that I wish would actually use what the scriptures say as a guideline but all too often don't, and it is this so many in the fundamentalist Christian element that seemingly believe about Jesus but not in him because they don't seem too care to much about even basic compassion.

For example, when we take a look at where the Baptists are the strongest, namely in the American South, we see less support for providing medical insurance for all, less support for programs like food stamps and Medicaid, lower health-care outcomes, lower assistance for the poor, more racism, etc. If reliance on charity works so well, then why isn't it working there?

Now, I certainly am not blaming all fundamentalist Christians for this, or even most of them, but I've seen it over and over again that these people seem to be the least compassionate and least just (fair) people of any religious group. And I have had lots of exposure to this element over the years both in terms of discussions and also personal experience, and the latter is that most of my father's side of the family were Baptists.

 

[McBell]

Yep, however you will instantly be accosted as being against peoples health by trying to save the whole house of borrowed cards from collapsing under it's own weight. I do not think people know that the check in the mail was paid for by someone else who has finite funds. It is like a parasite that is killing a tree by sucking it dry claiming anyone who wishes to save the tree by getting the parasite off it, is against life. It is the worst tactic in the tiny liberal tool box in my opinion. The old trusty false moral high ground. Gotta love it.

I am still waiting for someone, anyone really, to support their claims for or against the ACA by actually citing the part(s) of the ACA that support their claims.

So far no takers...

So it seems to me that both sides are equally full of **** and neither wishes to actually support their claims with anything other than falsely accusing others of whatever pops into their wee little brains.

 

[metis]

I am still waiting for someone, anyone really, to support their claims for or against the ACA by actually citing the part(s) of the ACA that support their claims.

So far no takers...

So it seems to me that both sides are equally full of **** and neither wishes to actually support their claims with anything other than falsely accusing others of whatever pops into their wee little brains.

I wouldn't even know where to start in regards to looking it up myself because it's a massive document. Instead, I rely on those that do, such as the American Medical Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Hospital Association, Consumer's Reports (each of these supports it), and numerous economists. Yes, there's always a danger to second-hand information, which is why I have used multiple sources, including reading medical personelle who are opposed to it.

 

[mystic64]

So, providing 30 million Americans with some health-care insurance is "yuck"?

So, instead of just being boo-birds, why don't some here actually propose what they would do with the 50 million uninsured Americans?

That is what is fun again . When you have insurance you are charged more for medical services and because of high co-pay you still can't pay your medical bill. The only difference is that the medical community will at least get "some" instant money from the insurance folk for their services, at least relative to "catastrophic". Which is probably good because the medical community is a for profit business and if they do not get any money they will go out of business. Something needs to be done, but I am not sure that the way the "Affordable Healthcare Act" is set up is the way it should be done. It is like everything else that Congress does, it is a stopgap measure to save the Medical community which in itself is probably a good idea, at least for now. But it does not really help the people that need the help they are still in the same boat that they were in before, except that they can no longer be denied insurance which raises the insurance costs for everybody else. Yep, if we can get those young people in there to pay for everything, we will be in shining times and who cares if they can't find a living wage job!

 

[mystic64]

Yep, however you will instantly be accosted as being against peoples health by trying to save the whole house of borrowed cards from collapsing under it's own weight. I do not think people know that the check in the mail was paid for by someone else who has finite funds. It is like a parasite that is killing a tree by sucking it dry claiming anyone who wishes to save the tree by getting the parasite off it, is against life. It is the worst tactic in the tiny liberal tool box in my opinion. The old trusty false moral high ground. Gotta love it.

Robin you do have a way with words . The moral high ground is "socialized medicine", everything else is a "crock".

 

[metis]

That is what is fun again . When you have insurance you are charged more for medical services and because of high co-pay you still can't pay your medical bill. The only difference is that the medical community will at least get "some" instant money from the insurance folk for their services, at least relative to "catastrophic". Which is probably good because the medical community is a for profit business and if they do not get any money they will go out of business. Something needs to be done, but I am not sure that the way the "Affordable Healthcare Act" is set up is the way it should be done. It is like everything else that Congress does, it is a stopgap measure to save the Medical community which in itself is probably a good idea, at least for now. But it does not really help the people that need the help they are still in the same boat that they were in before, except that they can no longer be denied insurance which raises the insurance costs for everybody else. Yep, if we can get those young people in there to pay for everything, we will be in shining times and who cares if they can't find a living wage job!

Most of the sections in the ACA actually deal with cost containment, and many economists do believe that in the long run it will at least help keep costs from skyrocketing like they were (for the 11 years preceding the passage of the ACA, medical costs were inflating an average of a bit over 9% per year). Unfortunately, most of what I have read indicates that costs will still go up (btw, over the last several years, the medical inflation rate has been a bit over 4%), but at a likely slower rate.

BTW, how the ACA is being handled was not my choice because I much preferred extending Medicare to cover the uninsured. Also, it is my hope down the line, although I'm not likely to live long enough to see it, that we get away from businesses providing insurance because it makes them less competitive internationally. The Swedes adjusted their system by reducing corporate tax rates (to 10 but with no deductions for most) but then charging a VAT, and this has worked remarkably well. They now have a higher standard of living than we do.

 

[Curious George]

Most of the sections in the ACA actually deal with cost containment, and many economists do believe that in the long run it will at least help keep costs from skyrocketing like they were (for the 11 years preceding the passage of the ACA, medical costs were inflating an average of a bit over 9% per year). Unfortunately, most of what I have read indicates that costs will still go up (btw, over the last several years, the medical inflation rate has been a bit over 4%), but at a likely slower rate.

BTW, how the ACA is being handled was not my choice because I much preferred extending Medicare to cover the uninsured. Also, it is my hope down the line, although I'm not likely to live long enough to see it, that we get away from businesses providing insurance because it makes them less competitive internationally. The Swedes adjusted their system by reducing corporate tax rates (to 10 but with no deductions for most) but then charging a VAT, and this has worked remarkably well. They now have a higher standard of living than we do.

Medicare and Medicaid costs were growing. ACA taxes people to help pay for the costs and helps keep down medical costs. It attacks a problem conservatives have long complained about.

 

[McBell]

I wouldn't even know where to start in regards to looking it up myself because it's a massive document. Instead, I rely on those that do, such as the American Medical Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Hospital Association, Consumer's Reports (each of these supports it), and numerous economists. Yes, there's always a danger to second-hand information, which is why I have used multiple sources, including reading medical personelle who are opposed to it.

Has the American Medical Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Hospital Association, Consumer's Reports, or even one of the numerous economists cited from the ACA in support of their claims?

 

[metis]

Has the American Medical Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Hospital Association, Consumer's Reports, or even one of the numerous economists cited from the ACA in support of their claims?

That I do not know as I just know that they've endorsed the ACA. However, CR just recently asked its subscribers not to enroll for at least a month until they get the website straightened out.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Has the American Medical Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Hospital Association, Consumer's Reports, or even one of the numerous economists cited from the ACA in support of their claims?

Messy,

I like your signature

Cute.

As for the Obamacare fiasco, it looks to me like another waste of taxpayer dollars, except on an unprecedented scale.

As for the website, which is a harbinger of the woes ahead of us, I have this to say:

We supposedly have the best cybersecurity capabilities in the world, but we can't seem to keep our government websites up an running PRE-HACKERS. How many resources are we going to pour into trying to keep this monster going? I suggest that we hire Edward Snowden to fix it, or perhaps the guys who listen in on Angela Merkel's pillow talk.

President Joke! What next???:sad4:

 

[McBell]

We supposedly have the best cybersecurity capabilities in the world,

where in the world did you get that idea?

How many resources are we going to pour into trying to keep this monster going?

that depends entirely upon how much those against the ACA are willing to thwart it.
I mean the Republicans have already dumped like 24 billion (?) in trying to stop it...

 

[mystic64]

Most of the sections in the ACA actually deal with cost containment, and many economists do believe that in the long run it will at least help keep costs from skyrocketing like they were (for the 11 years preceding the passage of the ACA, medical costs were inflating an average of a bit over 9% per year). Unfortunately, most of what I have read indicates that costs will still go up (btw, over the last several years, the medical inflation rate has been a bit over 4%), but at a likely slower rate.

BTW, how the ACA is being handled was not my choice because I much preferred extending Medicare to cover the uninsured. Also, it is my hope down the line, although I'm not likely to live long enough to see it, that we get away from businesses providing insurance because it makes them less competitive internationally. The Swedes adjusted their system by reducing corporate tax rates (to 10 but with no deductions for most) but then charging a VAT, and this has worked remarkably well. They now have a higher standard of living than we do.

Metis you seem to be a very rational person and I learn from the things that you post and I enjoy reading what you post. Well, all chest thumping aside , it is my generation that is the problem. Once my generation bites the dust a lot of the medical community will be out of work and with less people on "both" ends of things, things will be easier to fix. Ultimately the different insurance companies will set up their own provider groups and one company will end up buying out the rest with one united medical community being the result. From there it will be how much the US government wants to supervise the quality of care that one receives. I agree that things will be fixed, it is just all of the "bs" that a lot of folks will have to go through until that happens. "Yuck!"

 

[metis]

Metis you seem to be a very rational person and I learn from the things that you post and I enjoy reading what you post. Well, all chest thumping aside , it is my generation that is the problem. Once my generation bites the dust a lot of the medical community will be out of work and with less people on "both" ends of things, things will be easier to fix. Ultimately the different insurance companies will set up their own provider groups and one company will end up buying out the rest with one united medical community being the result. From there it will be how much the US government wants to supervise the quality of care that one receives. I agree that things will be fixed, it is just all of the "bs" that a lot of folks will have to go through until that happens. "Yuck!"

First of all, thanks for the compliment, but I'd wish you could convince my wife that I'm a "rational person".

I understanding what you're saying about the possible future, and you well might be correct, and I just gotta feeling in my bones (arthritis, I think) that we'll eventually will have to move either a single-payer and/or highly-regulated private system through taxes at both the individual and corporate levels. If we don't, the long-term logistics are terrible.

Also, we must get government spending under control as a long-term strategy, and we need to hold politicians and ourselves accountable if they/we don't. Yes, we can do some deficit spending short-term if absolutely necessary, but long term, if we don't, the interest alone is going to kill us economically.

I think you'll likely agree with me here, no?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

As for the Obamacare fiasco, it looks to me like another waste of taxpayer dollars, except on an unprecedented scale.

Why...?

I think it's a decent idea. It's so good that he actually got the idea from Republicans. It's so good that it's actually up and running in Massachusetts and put into place by 2012 Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. It's been running there since 2006. He was so proud of it that he thought it was a model for the nation. Paul Ryan, Romney's running mate, thinks it's a good idea. He thinks it's so good of an idea that he want's to turn medicare into the same system....

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3547282-post1.html

Medicare | U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan

Beginning in 2024, for those workers born in 1959 or later, Medicare would offer them a choice of private plans competing alongside traditional fee-for-service option on a newly created Medicare Exchange. Medicare would provide a premium-support payment either to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior.


The Medicare Exchange would provide all seniors with a competitive marketplace where they could chose a plan the same way members of Congress do. All plans, including the traditional fee-for-service option, would participate in an annual competitive bidding process to determine the dollar amount of the federal contribution seniors would use to purchase the coverage that best serves their medical needs. Health care plans would compete for the right to serve Medicare beneficiaries.



The second-least expensive approved plan or fee-for-service Medicare, whichever is least expensive, would establish the benchmark that determines the premium-support amount for the plan chosen by the senior. If a senior chose a costlier plan than the benchmark plan, he or she would be responsible for paying the difference between the premium subsidy and the monthly premium. Conversely, if that senior chose a plan that cost less than the benchmark, he or she would be given a rebate for the difference. Private health plans would be required to cover at least the actuarial equivalent of the benefit package provided by fee-for-service Medicare.



Program growth would be determined by the competitive bidding process – with choice and competition forcing providers to reduce costs and improve quality for seniors. The competitive market for Medicare choices would foster innovation and quality while ensuring that the program is financially stable. As opposed to pegging the growth rate to a predetermined formula, competitive bidding offers the ideal means of harnessing the power of choice and competition to control costs, while also securing guaranteed affordability for patients. As a backup, the per capita cost once the program has begun could not exceed not exceed nominal GDP growth plus 0.5 percent. The President has repeatedly proposed empowering IPAB to hold Medicare growth to the same rate; the difference is that this budget proposes to use competition to control costs.



All health plans that participate in the Medicare Exchange, including the traditional Medicare option, would be required to offer insurance to all seniors – regardless of age and health status – thereby preventing insurers from cherry picking only the healthiest seniors for coverage under their plan. Additionally, the federal contribution to seniors’ health plans would be increased to account for a senior’s health status and age.



These reforms also ensure affordability by fixing the currently broken subsidy system and letting market competition work as a real check on widespread waste and skyrocketing health-care costs. Putting patients in charge of how their health care dollars are spent will force providers to compete against each other on price and quality. That’s how markets work: The customer is the ultimate guarantor of value.
Reform aimed to empower individuals — with a strengthened safety net for the poor and the sick — will not only ensure the fiscal sustainability of this program, the federal budget, and the U.S. economy. It will also guarantee that Medicare can fulfill the promise of health security for America’s seniors.

Why is it only a good idea when Republicans do it but when Democrats adopt Republican ideas it's bad or labeled "socialism"

As for the website, which is a harbinger of the woes ahead of us

Republicans thought the same thing back in 2006 when they past Medicare Part D. Yet they moved forward.

Medicare Drug Plan Finder: Still Waiting

The rollout of the new Medicare drug benefit has been anything but smooth.

Problem is, the Medicare folks have had some trouble getting the tool up and running. The original debut date was Oct. 13, but officials delayed it, citing the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur. Next it was promised on Oct. 17, but that day, too, came and went without personalized plan comparisons being available.

Late in the month, McClellan told reporters that the feature definitely would be ready before Nov. 15, the date when seniors can begin signing up for the drug benefit. (Coverage takes effect Jan. 1.)



Yesterday, McClellan announced that the time had come. "Now the cost information is there," he said. "It will show how Medicare's prescription drug coverage can save a beneficiary money. . . . This is an unprecedented program in terms of the level of detail available about prescription drug costs on your medicines at your local pharmacy."



But the tool itself appeared to be in need of fixing yesterday. Visitors to the site could not access it for most of the first two hours. When it finally did come up around 5 p.m., it operated awfully slowly.

HHS Works to Fix Drug Plan Woes

President Bush's top health advisers will fan out across the country this week to quell rising discontent with a new Medicare prescription drug benefit that has tens of thousands of elderly and disabled Americans, their pharmacists, and governors struggling to resolve myriad start-up problems.

Nearly two dozen states have intervened, saying they will pay for medications for any low-income senior who is mistakenly rejected. The District, Maryland and Virginia have not intervened.

Saying "it is time for us to take care of our own," Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said California will spend as much as $150 million to provide medications to as many as 1 million low-income seniors who have been turned away by pharmacists or overcharged co-payments because of glitches in computer databases.



"Right now, the new Medicare Part D prescription drug program is not working as intended," the governor said in a release.



In a letter to Bush, 14 Democratic governors wrote that, "while well-intended, the new Medicare drug benefit has caused confusion, mismanagement, and a bureaucratic nightmare."

REP. JOE BARTON (R-TX): “This is a huge undertaking and there are going to be glitches. My goal is the same as yours: Get rid of the glitches. The committee will work closely with yourself and Dr. Mark McClellan at CMS to get problems noticed and solved.” [Barton Statement via Archive.org, 2/15/2006]

REP. TIM MURPHY (R-PA): “Any time something is new, there is going to be some glitches. All of us, when our children were new, well, we knew as parents we didn’t exactly know everything we were doing and we had a foul-up or two, but we persevered and our children turned out well. No matter what one does in life, when it is something new in learning the ropes of it, it is going to take a little adjustment.” [Murphy Floor Speech via Congressional Record, 4/6/2006]

REP. PHIL GINGREY (R-GA): “I delivered 5,200 babies, but this may be the best delivery that I have ever been a part of, Mr. Speaker, and that is delivering, as I say, on a promise made by former Congresses and other Presidents over the 45-year history of the Medicare program, which was introduced in 1965 with no prescription drug benefit. And what we have done here is add part D, the ‘D’ for ‘drug’ or, if you want, the ‘delivery’ that we have finally provided to our American seniors.” [Gingrey Floor Speech via Congressional Record, 4/6/06]

 

[mystic64]

First of all, thanks for the compliment, but I'd wish you could convince my wife that I'm a "rational person".

I understanding what you're saying about the possible future, and you well might be correct, and I just gotta feeling in my bones (arthritis, I think) that we'll eventually will have to move either a single-payer and/or highly-regulated private system through taxes at both the individual and corporate levels. If we don't, the long-term logistics are terrible.

Also, we must get government spending under control as a long-term strategy, and we need to hold politicians and ourselves accountable if they/we don't. Yes, we can do some deficit spending short-term if absolutely necessary, but long term, if we don't, the interest alone is going to kill us economically.

I think you'll likely agree with me here, no?

I have not any answer to the part about convincing your wife . My wife of twenty-seven years (my third marriage, the first two didn't last very long) has 51% of the vote and her decisions are final. We do usually talk about things first though so I do usually get to add my two cents to things which she usually takes into consideration .

Exploring possible futures is a very interesting game, especially when a person has limited information because there are so many things going on that one does not know about. And on top of that you have chaos mathematics at play. First I would like to say that the average American voter agrees with you about the need for responsibility both as individuals and in government. This last go-a-round with the Tea Party folks has woke a lot of people up that normally do not pay attention to things. Exactly how that factors into possible futures I don't know, but it does change things. A sleeping giant has been awoken.

The possible future of healthcare? the US is going to become predominantly Hispanic and these folks as voters are going to have a major effect on the kind of future healthcare that will be available in the US. They are very family oriented and they want good, no hassle availability to the medical community. And as voters they are united as a group and they are socialistically inclined when it comes to healthcare and they will look after their own, as they are already doing. Possible futures? Two healthcare systems, theirs and everybody else' or everybody uses theirs (except for the more affluent folks of course).

What do you think ? Possible futures? I think it is now like Dorthy said in the movie "The wizard of Oz", "We are not in Kansas anymore Todo."