The truth about health care...

stumbler · Sep 12, 2012

richief said: ↑

My doctor told me a short while ago that my chemo tablets cost £5,000 for a months tablets, 5k for 21 tablets, that is fucking expensive, thank you NHS for giving them to me for free.
Click to expand...

I thought it was more than significant that the NHS was celebrated in the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympics. I also thought that was a little bit of a UK Fuck you US for the demonizing of the NHS in US politics where our conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers are constantly lying about how inefficient and deadly the NHS is.

But I also saw this interview with an actual doctor under NHS and he made the best medical argument I've heard. I'll try to paraphrase it. The difference between me and a US doctor is I don't have to worry about who is going to pay. So that allows me to concentrate on the patient and their illness entirely.

stumbler · Sep 26, 2012

Well the conservative/Republican/Tea Baggers in congress appear to be going against the will of the majority of Americans.

7 In 10 Americans Think Obamacare Is Here To Stay | A majority of Americans believe the Affordable Care Act will be implemented while just 12 percent believe it will be repealed, according to a new Associated Press-GFK poll. 63 percent of respondents were also in favor of the state-run insurance exchanges that many Republican governors are refusing to set up in case Mitt Romney wins the election and repeals the health reform law. Just 15 states and DC plan to run their own exchanges. Though they believe the law will not be repealed, many people still hold misconceptions about what exactly Obamacare does, with just 14 percent correctly identifying the provisions and feeling confident about their answers.
Click to expand...

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/09/26/910441/7-in-10-americans-think-obamacare-is-here-to-stay/

stumbler · Nov 9, 2012

:excited::excited::excited::excited::excited::excited::excited::excited:

John Boehner Says Obamacare Is The Law Of The Land, But Still Favors Repealing Legislation

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2095172.html

stumbler · Nov 20, 2012

Now this is just great. It appears that the Republican Governors are going to accomplish what President Obama and the Democrats could not; create a federally run public option health care plan.:excited:

GOP Governors Stonewall Key Obamacare Provision, Inviting Federal Takeover

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...wall-health-care-exchanges.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

And now I just hope the conservative/Republican/Tea Party just keeps obstructing until they end up creating a national single payer health care system.

ace's n 8's · Nov 22, 2012

stumbler said: ↑

Now this is just great. It appears that the Republican Governors are going to accomplish what President Obama and the Democrats could not; create a federally run public option health care plan.:excited:

GOP Governors Stonewall Key Obamacare Provision, Inviting Federal Takeover

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...wall-health-care-exchanges.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

And now I just hope the conservative/Republican/Tea Party just keeps obstructing until they end up creating a national single payer health care system.
Click to expand...

Why should Governors set something up, when the federal government still has the final say??

Late last week more than a dozen Republican governors declared that they will not build the insurance market exchanges called for by the Affordable Care Act, including prominent names like Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, John Kasich of Ohio, Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Rick Perry of Texas.
On Monday, Gov. Mary Fallin of Oklahoma joined them, declaring in a statement that it “does not benefit Oklahoma taxpayers to actively support and fund a new government program that will ultimately be under the control of the federal government.”

Most people still do not want ObamaCare implemented. It still polls negatively. And Republicans will do all they can to gum up the works of a law that was rammed through the Senate and House.

The Obama administration wants states to build the exchanges so they have an incentive to make the law work. If the federal government takes over, state-level Republicans have a scapegoat in case things go wrong.

That’s part of the reason, but, there is a bigger reason

The more states stonewall the exchanges, the more it complicates the task of the federal government. One challenge is that the law lacks an automatic funding mechanism for HHS to set up state exchanges. Enrollment is slated to begin next October, and the exchanges are scheduled to start functioning by January 2014.

So far, over a dozen Republican governors have opted to let the Central Government deal with setting up exchanges. Others have not decided as of yet, but will surely opt for federal exchanges. First, they do not want to be on the hook for helping create an exchange. Second, as mentioned, this puts the blame in Obama’s hands. Third, as mentioned, there is no funding mechanism. When the special interests, healthcare companies, and insurance companies wrote the 2,700 page law that no one who provided a “yea” vote for read, they forgot to provide funding to set up and administrate federally run exchanges. And the slush fund for HHS is “only” a billion dollars, not enough to do the job.
Click to expand...

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-co...tonewall-key-obamacare-provision-2527880.html

This the interesting part of this Obamcare debacle,,all taxing legislation needs to come out of the House,,according to the U.S.Constitution.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Obamacare and ruled that the Federal Government has Taxing authority,,this ''TAX'' did not originate out of the House,,it came out of the Senate,,this is still not over.

Senate can't create taxing legislation;

Okay. So, Obamacare is Funded with a “Tax”. Then, it Originated in the Wrong House…

By: conservativecurmudgeon (Diary) | June 28th, 2012 at 11:50 PM | 0
RESIZE: AAA

Umm. Er. Ah…
Does anyone recall their recent history?
1) Nancy Pelosi’s House in 2009 takes up two versions of a “Health Care Reform” bill. Both versions have squirreled away within their byzantine idiocy, what the libs refer to as the “Public Option” .
2) Both plans are rejected by the Senate, in especial by Senator Joe Lieberman, who threatens to filibuster any bill with the “Option” in it (-thus earning the everlasting scorn of the Radical Unshowered Left). The Senate writes its own version with what they call the “Individual Insurance Requirement”. It passes in late 2009.
3) Knowing that the House would have to write it’s own version of the Senate Bill, and then send THAT version back to the Senate for ratification, Scott Brown runs for the Massachusetts senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy, vowing to be the “40th vote against Obamacare”.
4) The House cannot send another bill back to the Senate now that their filibuster is broken, so they simply take up the Senate bill as-is. Scott Brown never has to threaten to filibuster, because the original Senate version is what the House finally passed. It only comes back to the Senate in a final version after a Kangaroo Conference.
5) The House affirms the Senate version, with a few insignificant amendments in the early spring of 2010. THE SENATE VERSION STANDS.
Is it me, or are we now, truly, a lawless nation? We are penalized –er, excuse me, “taxed”, if we don’t purchase insurance– but foreign national aliens are not penalized for sneaking across our boarder? Lawless, indeed…
The United States Constitution, Article One, Section. 7:

Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

…You know, since were busy re-writing the Constitution on the fly, let’s re-write the Oath of Office, too; something along the lines of “I solemnly swear (or promise) to faithfully execute the Laws of the United States of America, and will, to the best of my ability, ignore, re-write, and shred the Constitution of the United States. So help me Gaia. ”
Click to expand...

xnxxbob · Nov 22, 2012

If you are on Medicare, Jan.1st will be interesting. Doctors who have accepted Medicare patients in the past will see an instant 27% DECREASE in reimbursements for their services. If their sky high overhead remains the same.........will they be inclined to accept new patients?
We shall see.......

ladygodiva123 · Nov 22, 2012

xnxxbob said: ↑

If you are on Medicare, Jan.1st will be interesting. Doctors who have accepted Medicare patients in the past will see an instant 27% DECREASE in reimbursements for their services. If their sky high overhead remains the same.........will they be inclined to accept new patients?
We shall see.......
Click to expand...

They are reducing the payments to Medicare Advantage plans which are privately managed. Previously, Medicare Advantage plans had been receiving higher compensation for the same services. A doctor in private practice getting paid directly by Medicare shouldn't see a large drop in their reimbursement rate.

ace's n 8's · Nov 27, 2012

Supreme Court orders new look at Liberty University's health care challenge

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider Liberty University’s legal argument that President Obama's health care law violates the school’s religious freedom.
The case will be returned to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.
“Today’s ruling breathes new life into our challenge to ObamaCare,” Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which filed the suit on behalf of the school, said Monday. “Our fight against ObamaCare is far from over.”
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-look-at-health-care-challenge/#ixzz2DNjocQGH

stumbler · Dec 2, 2012

ace's n 8's said: ↑

Supreme Court orders new look at Liberty University's health care challenge

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-look-at-health-care-challenge/#ixzz2DNjocQGH

Click to expand...

Antonin Scalia: Health Care Ruling Is 'Water Over The Dam' (VIDEO)

Scalia agreed with Rose that the argument was surprising, but said it's time to move on.
"Water over the dam," Scalia said.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/scalia-health-care-ruling_n_2207417.html

stumbler · Dec 2, 2012

Now here's something I didn't know and makes for great argument against conservatives who are actually trying to argue against what conservatives actually said.

What Simpson-Bowles has to say about health care spending reform (it's not what you think)

"I'm a Very Serious Person™, and I want to ameliorate the crushing debt threatening our children. Entitlements are the biggest threat, so we need to get rid of Obamacare and instead implement Simpson-Bowles."
Please note that any dialogue remotely resembling the above qualifies you for the pundit trash heap. It means you have no idea what you are talking about, and likely have no interest in remedying it. Then again, that's a generic pundit job description, isn't it? But, still... there are are issues on the table about the fiscal cliff and entitlements, so let's take a walk down Memory Lane with Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles' commission.
In December of 2010, the blue ribbon debt reduction commission (aka National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform) chaired by Simpson and Bowles, couldn't get enough votes from commissioners (they needed 14 and got 11) and therefore never issued an official report (for example, Dick Durbin and Tom Coburn voted for it, Paul Ryan and 7 others voted against it.)
Undeterred (and subsequently backed by corporate funds), Simpson and Bowles issued a 66 page report anyway. It's called, portentously enough, The Moment of Truth (.pdf).
The funny thing is, though, when you look to see what the report actually said about health care costs, they whiffed on their moment of truth. The commission report said almost nothing except "let's see what Obamacare does, and if that's not enough to enact savings, we can and should do something else (more on that in a moment.) But don't take my word for it, let's look at their exact language (page 41):

Commission members, and virtually all budget experts, agree that the rapid growth of federal health care spending is the primary driver of long-term deficits. Some Commission members believe that the reforms enacted as part of ACA will “bend the curve” of health spending and control long-term cost growth. Other Commission members believe that the coverage expansions in the bill will fuel more rapid spending growth and that the Medicare savings are not sustainable. The Commission as a whole does not take a position on which view is correct, but we agree that Congress and the President must be vigilant in keeping health care spending under control and should take further actions if the growth in spending continues at current rates.
Get that? "Some say" Obamacare will work to cut costs, "some say" it won't. We don't know. But we should wait and see on whether it does. It's for that reason that Paul Krugman, writing about Simpson-Bowles, concludes:

It offers nothing on Medicare that isn’t already in the Affordable Care Act.
This is no surprise. Back in August 2011, I wrote two posts about Medicare. In Medicare: Why is it on the table? we discuss the demographic time bomb pushing costs up (the number of Medicare recipients nearly doubles by 2035). In Medicare: What can we do about it?, we review savings for Medicare built into ACA:
attribution: Center for American Progress
From Center for American Progress

From that and from the actual commission report, we can only conclude: Actual S-B Position 1:
• Simpson-Bowles recommends finding out whether ACA helps to control costs before implementing anything else to cut Medicare and Medicaid. If you support Simpson-Bowles, you support waiting on discussing Medicare and Medicaid cuts.
I'll bet you didn't know that, and I am certain the pundits didn't, either. But when Republicans have a fit about Obama taking a hard line on this in fiscal cliff discussions, just remember that Republicans Tom Coburn, Judd Gregg and Mike Crapo—all who voted for the report—and other Very Serious People™ in Washington, including Alice Rivlin and Simpson and Bowles themselves, agree with Obama's position.
But wait, there's more below the fold...

The goal of the commission was to rein in costs (see Medicare: Why is it on the table and see this, from The Moment of Truth, page 36, conveniently omitting ACA):

Federal health care spending represents our single largest fiscal challenge over the long-run. As the baby boomers retire and overall health care costs continue to grow faster than the economy, federal health spending threatens to balloon. Under its extended-baseline scenario, CBO projects that federal health care spending for Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the health insurance exchange subsidies will grow from nearly 6 percent of GDP in 2010 to about 10 percent in 2035, and continue to grow thereafter.
Much of the rising cost is from demographics, but some simply the increasing cost of health care per person. Given these two factors, if ACA/Obamacare doesn't reduce cost enough, what should the Federal government do? The suggestion from the commission is a laundry list of options, mostly incompatible, seemingly designed by a committee:
We recommend requiring both the President and Congress to make recommendations whenever average cost growth has exceeded GDP plus 1 percent over the prior five years. To the extent health costs are projected to grow significantly faster than that pace, we recommend the consideration of structural reforms to the health care system. Commissioners have suggested various policy options, including: moving to a premium support system for Medicare; giving CMS authority to be a more active purchaser of health care services using coverage and reimbursement policy to encourage higher value services; expanding and strengthening the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to allow it to make recommendations for cost-sharing and benefit design and to look beyond Medicare; adjusting the federal-state responsibility for Medicaid, such as block grants for acute or longterm care; establishing a robust public option in the health care exchanges; raising the Medicare retirement age; and moving toward some type of all-payer system.
Did you get that? Actual S-B Position 2:
• If Obamacare fails to rein in costs, consider single payer. If you support Simpson-Bowles, you take single payer seriously.
Actual S-B Position 3:
• If Obamacare fails to rein in costs, consider a robust public option. If you support Simpson-Bowles, you take Medicare for All seriously.
Sure, there are other suggestions (I noted they were incompatible) such as vouchers and privitization, and there are even good ideas like allowing CMS more purchasing leeway (e.g., importing drugs form Canada) along with the bad ones (raising Medicare age, cutting back Medicaid support with the block grant dodge) but the hard fact is that Simpson-Bowles endorses consideration of single payer and a public option.
It is perfectly appropriate, therefore, for public option or "Medicare for all" advocates to say "let's do a public option, as suggested by Simpson-Bowles" or "let's consider Medicare for all, as recommended by Simpson-Bowles".
You'd be right, and unlike the pundits, you've actually read Simpson-Bowles.
Oh, and one more thing. Do note that Simpson-Bowles suggests "expanding and strengthening the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to allow it to make recommendations for cost-sharing and benefit design and to look beyond Medicare" as a cost control. By advocating evidence-based medicine for all of health care and not just Medicare, it's an effective way to bring down cost per beneficiary as well as cost per patient overall (don't worry about intrusiveness. Anything that affects Medicare this much is already adopted by the entire health system currently.)
Fox News doesn't like that, and labels it a "death panel". So does The American Spectator:

Contemplating the 2012 election that can already be seen looming on the distant horizon, the President's advisors were no doubt hoping that the "death panel" debate was… well… dead. But Obama himself inadvertently resurrected it when, in response to Republican budget proposals, he claimed that Medicare costs will be kept under control by the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Obamacare opponents have been screaming about this committee since it was first added to the "reform" bill. And, since that time, anyone with the temerity to call it by its proper name -- death panel -- has been vilified by the Democrats and the "news" media. Nonetheless, that's precisely what IPAB will be. Its sole purpose is to cut funding for some health care services seniors now take for granted. And those cuts will kill people.
Actual S-B Position 4: • Simpson-Bowles endorses death panels. If you support Simpson-Bowles, you support death panels.
If you don't support death panels, you must not be a Very Serious Person™.
Who knew?
Click to expand...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...ng-reform-it-s-not-what-you-think?showAll=yes

stumbler · Dec 6, 2012

Obamacare Health Insurance Rules Saved Customers $1.5 Billion Last Year: Study

Health care reform rules aimed at pressuring health insurance companies to become more efficient saved consumers nearly $1.5 billion last year, according to a study released by the Commonwealth Fund on Wednesday.

The health care law enacted by President Barack Obama requires that health insurance companies selling plans to individual consumers spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they collect on medical care. Health insurance companies selling plans to groups of at least 50 people, such as employers offering benefits to workers, must spend 85 percent of premiums on medical care. Companies that fail to meet these standards under the so-called medical loss ratio rule must refund the difference to their customers.

Health insurance companies responded to this requirement by cutting overhead, delivering rebates and, in some cases, reducing profits, according to the study, which was authored by Michael McCue of Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond and Mark Hall of Wake Forest University of Winston-Salem, N.C. The study was issued by the Commonwealth Fund, a research institution.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/obamacare-health-insurance-rules_n_2247380.html

Log in or Sign up

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

xnxxbob Porn Star

ladygodiva123 Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

The truth about health care...

Log in or Sign up

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

xnxxbob Porn Star

ladygodiva123 Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

Useful Searches