Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually, CNN had noted this all day--if nobody else did. The National Health Care Plan is actually supported, and including in the direction of having it expaned.
Six Nuggets from the 2010 Exit Polls : CJR
The Democrats are easily said to have undersold their own agenda. The Phony "Red Tide" was not entirely Conservative About It! 31% actually want it expanded, of the 48% in support of it.
Mostly, tacking on law books full of settled case law in its support, or repeal: Will mostly help to really piss the "Red Tide" off!
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred.
(White Eyes Leprechaun, At End Of Rainbow, Find False readings Instead of Shiny Trinkets!)
So IF, Medicare is overpaying insurance companies $202 Billion for Med Ad plans, should those Medicare Govt employees not be prosecuted for malfeasance, dereliction of duty, terminal stupidity, or something?
the mandate is the most important part of the bill unfortunately. mandates are historically responsible for private healthcare as we know it. i'm left with the impression that irresponsible use from uninsured has brought our system to the verge or insolvency (insurance is a ponzi) and that a further mandate was the top solution.
the mandate is what your more than funded characterization relies on, too.
It's interesting because it sort of gets at a philosophical point. If you look at the health care bills Paul Ryan and Tom Coburn were pushing, on the insurance side they were structurally pretty similar to the ACA. They called for state-based exchanges to be built, subject to certain protections against pre-existing condition exclusions and offering benefit packages comparable to that of the FEHBP. Now you'd generally need a mandate if you're going to limit underwriting (though their bills were a little less stringent in doing so) and you don't want destructive amounts of free-riding to happen.
But in their bills what they have instead of a mandate is autoenrollment into their exchanges. That is, if you don't pick a plan of your choice, you're automatically enrolled into a default option but with the ability to opt-out. They relied on research into soft (or "libertarian") paternalism developed by folks like Cass Sunstein that found that, by and large, if you default people into an option they're pretty unlikely to go through the effort of opting out. Thus the state "nudges" people into a certain direction by defaulting them into it and relying on people's natural inertia to keep the vast majority in. It ostensibly leaves you freedom of choice while relying on the fact that you probably won't exercise it.
Is that a more palatable system? I couldn't say, though I imagine if the circumstances are right it's worth a shot.
So IF, Medicare is overpaying insurance companies $202 Billion for Med Ad plans, should those Medicare Govt employees not be prosecuted for malfeasance, dereliction of duty, terminal stupidity, or something?
Sure. But the "Medicare Govt employees" you speak of are Congressmen (hence "politically-motivated"). Instead of being set by competitive bidding--which was introduced in an earlier iteration of the ACA--the payments to Medicare Advantage are set through administrative pricing, i.e. through a formula set up by Congress. A process that's--obviously--susceptible to lobbying and other influences. Hence the vast amount of wasteful spending in that program.
the HMO act of 1973the mandate is the most important part of the bill unfortunately. mandates are historically responsible for private healthcare as we know it. i'm left with the impression that irresponsible use from uninsured has brought our system to the verge or insolvency (insurance is a ponzi) and that a further mandate was the top solution.
the mandate is what your more than funded characterization relies on, too.
What do you mean "mandates are historically responsible for private healthcare as we know it"? I'm talking specifically about the mandate that says you have to get insurance or we are going to fine you.
insurance can only pay out if more people continue to enroll. ponzi.Insurance is not a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is an investment that can only pay out if more people continue to invest.
this shit wasn't gradual, captain. see the bill referenced above. mandate. HMOs -- the all-american healthcare model which i think produces better care than hardly anywhere else -- sprung swiftly to the front of the pack when this bill was drafted. now they've come back to the well. most people will find under the ACA that they will be covered by their employers as before, but obviously it goes further.I'm not sure what you mean by uninsured people have brought the system to the verge of insolvency. Insurance companies gradually decided that their original business model of charging people for protection when they needed it wasn't making them enough money, so they changed it.
the ponzi model. its not just health insurance.The new model? Charge people money for protection, then when they need it do everything in your power to prevent them from getting what you promised.
the deficit figures which the CBO came up with combine the massive tax levied on the insurers (carers too?) for delivering all of these customers on a silver platter through the mandate. next the mandate is actually a comply or pay system, so non-compliers pay into the slush-fund the bill establishes too. this is where all of the revenue comes from. it is all dependent on the mandate.The mandate doesn't fix that problem and it doesn't have anything to do with how the Affordable Care Act impacts the deficit AFAIK, but if you have some evidence of that I'd be happy to know.
Actually, CNN had noted this all day--if nobody else did. The National Health Care Plan is actually supported, and including in the direction of having it expaned.
Six Nuggets from the 2010 Exit Polls : CJR
The Democrats are easily said to have undersold their own agenda. The Phony "Red Tide" was not entirely Conservative About It! 31% actually want it expanded, of the 48% in support of it.
Mostly, tacking on law books full of settled case law in its support, or repeal: Will mostly help to really piss the "Red Tide" off!
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred.
(White Eyes Leprechaun, At End Of Rainbow, Find False readings Instead of Shiny Trinkets!)
Using that reasoning, there is about 2 or 3 TRILLION in savings available for the picking.
Using that reasoning, there is about 2 or 3 TRILLION in savings available for the picking.
If you're suggesting that the values of DRGs and modifiers under FFS Medicare are susceptible to political influence, sure. That's why the IPAB was created.
Actually, CNN had noted this all day--if nobody else did. The National Health Care Plan is actually supported, and including in the direction of having it expaned.
Six Nuggets from the 2010 Exit Polls : CJR
The Democrats are easily said to have undersold their own agenda. The Phony "Red Tide" was not entirely Conservative About It! 31% actually want it expanded, of the 48% in support of it.
Mostly, tacking on law books full of settled case law in its support, or repeal: Will mostly help to really piss the "Red Tide" off!
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred.
(White Eyes Leprechaun, At End Of Rainbow, Find False readings Instead of Shiny Trinkets!)
Without the mandate, I don't see how it can work.Other polls show that voters are against "obamacare."
Personally, the only thing I see wrong with Obama's health care reform is the mandate. The bill was more than funded, so actually reduced the deficit. It got rid of preexisting conditions and set up the exchange (something McCain supported).
If you want to fix "obamacare" you really want more regulation on the insurance industry and something that will actually LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS.
man·date (mndt)
n.
1. To make mandatory, as by law; decree or require:
Some of you quite obviously did not know the definition of MANDATE.
Now you do.
To ALLOW the creation of a HMO is NOT a mandate. NO one must join a HMO.
Just as there is NO mandate to have Auto insurance. IF one chooses to have a drivers license or license a vehicle to drive on public owned roads, THEN one must be insured. If one wishes to keep and drive their vehicle only on their own private land, no insurance in necessary.
You might actually agree with the part you are talking about if you knew what it really said. The first "death panel" scare was about a part of the legislation that provided optional "advance care planning" which is a euphemism for talking with your doctor about what to do when you have a terminal illness. It's something that people already have the option to do in this country through many private insurance plans. It had nothing to do with euthanasia or killing granny.
There have been other "death panel" scares, but I promise you that if they had any substance to them, the actual text of the bill would be printed everywhere. Sarah Palin said they were in Section 1233 of HR 3200 because she was betting people would be too lazy to look it up and see that she was full of shit.
Great, now you can tell us what Palin's real intentions where......
While you are at it, can you explain what the 3.8% sellers tax is for when you sell your home? It couldn't be wealth redistribution could it??
Saikron said:Just to be sure we both know exactly what the topic at hand is: A 3.8 Percent Sales Tax on Your Home? | FactCheck.org
Yes, graduated taxes like that one are for wealth redistribution (sort of). The federal government is what pays for public schools, roads, parks and other stuff that all Americans make use of somehow. To control the value of currency, the government collects taxes.
Correction, we the people pay for these things, that is the 49% of us who actually pay in....
Saikron said:That 3.8% sales tax helps keep inflation down while the government spends money to do the stuff that helps us all in some way. If you check that link, it's a tax on rich people who aren't exactly hurting right now.
I would argue it does quit the opposite in regards to inflation......please point out the justification in our Constitution that if you are wealthy you should pay even more to the government in taxes, your "it's a tax on rich people who aren't exactly hurting right now" doesn't align with our FF intentions at all, more along the lines of socialism, furthermore the seller will already face capital gains in this situation, so just add another 3.8% to their bill, that's a crap and how in the hell is this part of the HC Bill?
Saikron said:EDIT: Oh, and how would you explain Palin citing section 1233 as evidence of death panels when there is no such panel?
I think you missed this comment from Palin:
"And Sarah Palin. She quotes Charles Lane and Eugene Robinson, and the bill, in her FB follow-up to Obama's dismissal of this issue in Portsmouth on Tuesday:
With all due respect, its misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.
Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]
Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipients health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is to reduce the growth in health care spending. [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If its all about alleviating suffering, emotional or physical, whats it doing in a measure to bend the curve on health-care costs? [6]"
For a wild-eyed trailer-trash hillbilly breeder, she sure makes a lot of sense....