The real enemy

[daveman]

A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde

Uninsured Americans was a main focus of the legislation. But believe whatever you wish.

What Is (and Isn't) in the Healthcare Bill

1. Insurance for millions

Under the legislation, 32 million more people will have health insurance in 2019 than without the bill. That means that about 94 percent of all U.S. citizens will have insurance by the end of the decade. That still falls short of "universal coverage," but it's a significant increase from the 83 percent of American citizens who are covered today.

Can you figure out the problem, or do I need to spoonfeed you?

I'll have to spoonfeed you, of course.

32 million more people will have coverage. What about people to treat them?

There is a great deal of talk in the news and in the healthcare field regarding a possible shortage of physicians and surgeons in the U.S. in the coming years. According to many, the new healthcare reform plan that President Obama initiated and signed is partially to blame. The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) estimates that 32 million previously uninsured Americans will acquire health insurance as a result of Obamacare. The addition of millions of new patients into the system could cause an estimated shortage of over 39,000 physicians by 2015.​

Sooo...more patients, not enough doctors. Care will be rationed. There is no way around it. People are going to die waiting for treatment.

Remind me again how much an improvement Obamacare is supposed to be...?

Education is the cheap defense of nations.
Edmund Burke

Remind me again how Republican cuts to education have benefited our nation?

Bill would raise cap on Medicare-funded residency slots

Legislation would give preference to positions in primary care, general surgery and other physician shortage specialties.

By Susan J. Landers, amednews staff. Posted May 28, 2009.

Washington -- Bills have been introduced in the Senate and House of Representatives to reduce current and projected physician shortages by increasing the number of Medicare-supported residency positions.

The measures, both called the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2009, would expand the number of positions by 15%. The increase would amount to about 15,000 additional residency slots, bringing the total to approximately 115,000, the bills' sponsors said.

Preference for the positions would be given to primary care, general surgery, non-hospital community-based settings and other areas of need, according to the legislation.

The measures also would change regulations to let residents train in nonhospital settings. And they would allow residency slots from closed hospitals to be used by nearby teaching hospitals so the slots are not lost, as is currently the case.

The bills lift a cap placed by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 on the number of resident physicians each teaching hospital can claim for reimbursement under Medicare. Medicare does not generally reimburse such hospitals for training residents beyond the capped number of slots.

The AMA supports the bills. "Although medical schools are increasing their class sizes and several new allopathic medical schools and colleges of osteopathic medicine are scheduled to open within the next few years, Medicare-funded GME residency positions have not increased," AMA Executive Vice President and CEO Michael D. Maves, MD, MBA, wrote in a letter to Senate and House bill sponsors.

The Senate measure was introduced by Sens. Bill Nelson (D, Fla.) and Charles Schumer (D, N.Y.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, Nev.). The companion House bill was filed by Reps. Joseph Crowley (D, N.Y.), Kendrick Meek (D, Fla.) and Kathy Castor (D, Fla.).

"No health care reform effort will be complete or even adequate unless we address the shortage of doctors in this country," Schumer said in a statement.

amednews: Bill would raise cap on Medicare-funded residency slots :: May 28, 2009 ... American Medical News

That does nothing to address the pay gap between GPs and specialists, the pain-in-the-ass reporting and billing requirements, or the high cost of malpractice insurance -- the things that are really causing the doctor shortage.

 

[CountofTuscany]

No one is doing anything for the middle class. Don't lose site of that.

 

[daveman]

And that will take ten years minimum if you start tomorrow. It takes that long for med school, internship, and residency. Specialties can take even longer.

So the problem is NOT solved -- especially when you factor in the aging boomer population, the increased government interference in medicine, outrageous malpractice insurance premiums, and the decline in general practitioners, who don't make enough money for all the bullshit to be tolerable.

So, it takes 10 years... big deal. We keep bringing in foreign Doctors till we catch up. You see, in other countries, being a Doctor is important... not here... here, it's all about How much money you can make... "Sell your soul, you'll have fine homes and nice cars!"

You know what is the problem with you guys? You want it all NOW, and you are willing to destroy our people to get it.

Really? You haven't been paying attention, have you? It's the GOP that's insisting on financial responsibility. Democrats are printing money as fast as they can, and don't give a damn about who or when it'll be paid for.

Ahhh... the old "aging Boomer" Myth. Ok... I'll bite. I didn't get the memo where boomers are immortal. When did that happen? Yes, Boomers are aging which will be a TEMPORARY spike on our resources(SS, Medicare, etc). But they(we? I was born in '65) will die off, then that problem will be solved also.

Myth?

Okay, now you're just being stupid.

 

[daveman]

Care is already rationed. Unfortunately, it is currently rationed on a price basis rather than a medical basis. There are a number of changes that are currently occurring that are hopeful, the nurse practitioner, the move to pay based on wellness instead of fee for service, the triumph of the anti-smoking faction, transportation safety improvements, etc. But denying maintenance healthcare to the chronically ill ensures that when they finally come in it will be catastrophic, expensive and accounted for by overcharging everyone else.

And yep, the GOP has no love for the wage earner. Much love for the businessman, but not so much his/her employees.

You really think, when the government's running healthcare, that care will be rationed based on medical need?

It won't. It will be rationed based on cost. And, possibly, on which party the patient contributed to.

thats what happened with my dad.....Doctor wanted to send him to the Joslin Diabetes Center at UCI Med Center....Medicare said no....to expensive.....he also was carrying Blue Shield as a supplement.....they ok'd it without a hassle....

Doesn't surprise me a bit.

 

[daveman]

And that will take ten years minimum if you start tomorrow. It takes that long for med school, internship, and residency. Specialties can take even longer.

So the problem is NOT solved -- especially when you factor in the aging boomer population, the increased government interference in medicine, outrageous malpractice insurance premiums, and the decline in general practitioners, who don't make enough money for all the bullshit to be tolerable.

So, it takes 10 years... big deal. We keep bringing in foreign Doctors till we catch up. You see, in other countries, being a Doctor is important... not here... here, it's all about How much money you can make... "Sell your soul, you'll have fine homes and nice cars!"

You know what is the problem with you guys? You want it all NOW, and you are willing to destroy our people to get it.


Ahhh... the old "aging Boomer" Myth. Ok... I'll bite. I didn't get the memo where boomers are immortal. When did that happen? Yes, Boomers are aging which will be a TEMPORARY spike on our resources(SS, Medicare, etc). But they(we? I was born in '65) will die off, then that problem will be solved also.

If foreign doctors aren't concerned with making money then why do they want to come here?

The boomer generation started in 1946. It ended about 1963. That's 17 years at a minimum. Do you want 17 years of strained resources and rationed health care?

He really doesn't give a shit, as long as liberals stay in power.

 

[The Rabbi]

I addressed your point, idiot. If you are counting on foreign doctors to come here and you maintain they aren't concerned about money then why would they want to come?

So you are admitting we need death panels to ration care. That's at least more honest than you've been until now.

No you didn't. You just put up a sentence that you feel was addressing the point.

Who said anything about Death Panels?

Ok... I see what I am dealing with... A fuckin' jerk who only knows Fanatical "Wingerese"

You are dismissed. I won, you lost. When I get you guys to resort to these types of messages instead of actual discussion, I know that you have nothing more to add. Cya.

I asked a question, fuckwad. You are clearly unable to answer it.
If you are in favor of "triage" then you are in favor of rationing care, which is just what triage is. If you ration care, some people won't get it. Therefore they will die. Therefore there must be "death panels" to decide who gets care and who doesn't.
It really doesn't take much brain power to understand all this. But maybe more than you are capable of.

 

[Bfgrn]

You really think, when the government's running healthcare, that care will be rationed based on medical need?

It won't. It will be rationed based on cost. And, possibly, on which party the patient contributed to.

It will be rationed the way it currently is in other government funded healthcare programs. Through the use of best practices and efficacy. Does Medicare and Medicaid currently check your party contributions prior to delivering services? Now, if you want to address marginal benefit or experimental treatments again, the current private insurance system will deny coverage for such also. And again, you can always hit the retail market if you think you really need it. As a plus on govt-funded, I predict it will be really efficient at matching patients seeking new untried treatments with clinical trials.

The government does nothing efficiently. Seriously.

And you base that on what...emotion, dogma...?

Why do you think 'for profit' insurance cartels launched a PR campaign to smear Michael Moore's Sicko and spent millions of dollars trying to defeat the healthcare bill and particularly the public option? Because they knew they could not compete. Medicare has administrative expenses about three percent.

Insurance cartels spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

 

[The Rabbi]

It will be rationed the way it currently is in other government funded healthcare programs. Through the use of best practices and efficacy. Does Medicare and Medicaid currently check your party contributions prior to delivering services? Now, if you want to address marginal benefit or experimental treatments again, the current private insurance system will deny coverage for such also. And again, you can always hit the retail market if you think you really need it. As a plus on govt-funded, I predict it will be really efficient at matching patients seeking new untried treatments with clinical trials.

The government does nothing efficiently. Seriously.

And you base that on what...emotion, dogma...?

Why do you think 'for profit' insurance cartels launched a PR campaign to smear Michael Moore's Sicko and spent millions of dollars trying to defeat the healthcare bill and particularly the public option? Because they knew they could not compete. Medicare has administrative expenses about three percent.

Insurance cartels spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

He basis it on the fact that every gov't social program is bankrupt and every other gov't program is riddled with waste and fraud.
Health care companies were among the biggest supporters of Obamacare, seeing many potential healthy insureds who would be required to buy their product.
THis fact has been shown many many times and you still cling to the old "eevil corps" meme. You haven't learned anything.

 

[Bfgrn]

The government does nothing efficiently. Seriously.

And you base that on what...emotion, dogma...?

Why do you think 'for profit' insurance cartels launched a PR campaign to smear Michael Moore's Sicko and spent millions of dollars trying to defeat the healthcare bill and particularly the public option? Because they knew they could not compete. Medicare has administrative expenses about three percent.

Insurance cartels spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

He basis it on the fact that every gov't social program is bankrupt and every other gov't program is riddled with waste and fraud.
Health care companies were among the biggest supporters of Obamacare, seeing many potential healthy insureds who would be required to buy their product.
THis fact has been shown many many times and you still cling to the old "eevil corps" meme. You haven't learned anything.

How long does it take you Monica's for the elite to cross the street on your knees?

Fraud is being perpetrated by WHOM? Your 'elite'...

INSURERS SPENT HEAVILY TO KILL HEALTH CARE REFORM....

I know there are some critics of the Affordable Care Act on the left who considered the entire reform initiative a "giveaway" to insurance companies.

But private insurers really didn't see it that way.

Health insurers last year gave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce $86.2 million that was used to oppose the health-care overhaul law, according to tax records and people familiar with the donation.

The insurance lobby, whose members include Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Philadelphia-based Cigna Corp., gave the money to the Chamber in 2009 as Democrats were increasing their criticism of the industry, according to one person who requested anonymity because laws don't require identifying funding sources. The Chamber of Commerce received the money from the Washington-based America's Health Insurance Plans when the industry was urging Congress to drop a plan to create a competing public insurance option.

The spending exceeded the insurer group's entire budget from a year earlier and accounted for 40 percent of the Chamber's $214.6 million in 2009 spending.

According to a Chamber of Commerce spokesperson, the business lobby used the insurance industry's $86.2 million to pay for "advertisements, polling and grass roots events to drum up opposition to the bill."

Keep in mind, this only covers anti-reform spending in 2009 -- the crusade to kill the initiative grew even more intense earlier this year, in the months leading up to March passage, though those spending figures are not yet available.

What's more, the $86.2 million from insurance companies only reflects the money the industry quietly gave to the Chamber, all while saying publicly that insurers would play a constructive role.

 

[Meister]

It will be rationed the way it currently is in other government funded healthcare programs. Through the use of best practices and efficacy. Does Medicare and Medicaid currently check your party contributions prior to delivering services? Now, if you want to address marginal benefit or experimental treatments again, the current private insurance system will deny coverage for such also. And again, you can always hit the retail market if you think you really need it. As a plus on govt-funded, I predict it will be really efficient at matching patients seeking new untried treatments with clinical trials.

The government does nothing efficiently. Seriously.

And you base that on what...emotion, dogma...?

Why do you think 'for profit' insurance cartels launched a PR campaign to smear Michael Moore's Sicko and spent millions of dollars trying to defeat the healthcare bill and particularly the public option? Because they knew they could not compete. Medicare has administrative expenses about three percent.Insurance cartels spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

With that low 3% administrative expenses, how many trillions is Medicare in debt?

 

[Bfgrn]

The government does nothing efficiently. Seriously.

And you base that on what...emotion, dogma...?

Why do you think 'for profit' insurance cartels launched a PR campaign to smear Michael Moore's Sicko and spent millions of dollars trying to defeat the healthcare bill and particularly the public option? Because they knew they could not compete. Medicare has administrative expenses about three percent.Insurance cartels spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

With that low 3% administrative expenses, how many trillions is Medicare in debt?

Does this mental disconnect happen often with your brain? Let's do the math. What is the 'premium' consumers pay each month for Medicare?

 

[Meister]

And you base that on what...emotion, dogma...?

Why do you think 'for profit' insurance cartels launched a PR campaign to smear Michael Moore's Sicko and spent millions of dollars trying to defeat the healthcare bill and particularly the public option? Because they knew they could not compete. Medicare has administrative expenses about three percent.Insurance cartels spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

With that low 3% administrative expenses, how many trillions is Medicare in debt?

Does this mental disconnect happen often with your brain? Let's do the math. What is the 'premium' consumers pay each month for Medicare?

Don't try and spin this....how much waste and fraud is part of the Medicare debt?
However you want to spin it....makes no difference to me, it's unsustainable, and even your buddy Bill Clinton is in agreement with that. Right now it's estimated it will all blow up in 2024. But, hey...it's a campaign year, I get it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Sooo...more patients, not enough doctors. Care will be rationed. There is no way around it. People are going to die waiting for treatment.

Remind me again how much an improvement Obamacare is supposed to be...?

And what alternative works better?

 

[Bfgrn]

With that low 3% administrative expenses, how many trillions is Medicare in debt?

Does this mental disconnect happen often with your brain? Let's do the math. What is the 'premium' consumers pay each month for Medicare?

Don't try and spin this....how much waste and fraud is part of the Medicare debt?
However you want to spin it....makes no difference to me, it's unsustainable, and even your buddy Bill Clinton is in agreement with that. Right now it's estimated it will all blow up in 2024. But, hey...it's a campaign year, I get it.

I am not 'spinning' anything. Medicare problems are not due to administrative expenses. The major problems are fraud, not waste. And the perpetrators are hospitals, doctors and medical suppliers.

It is the very people you right wing 'free marketeers' trust and worship who are the fucking crooks. They, not seniors are feeding at the government trough. But they are 'white collar' crooks, not evil crimes by lowly poor people.

 

[Meister]

Does this mental disconnect happen often with your brain? Let's do the math. What is the 'premium' consumers pay each month for Medicare?

Don't try and spin this....how much waste and fraud is part of the Medicare debt?
However you want to spin it....makes no difference to me, it's unsustainable, and even your buddy Bill Clinton is in agreement with that. Right now it's estimated it will all blow up in 2024. But, hey...it's a campaign year, I get it.

I am not 'spinning' anything. Medicare problems are not due to administrative expenses. The major problems are fraud, not waste. And the perpetrators are hospitals, doctors and medical suppliers.

It is the very people you right wing 'free marketeers' trust and worship who are the fucking crooks. They, not seniors are feeding at the government trough. But they are 'white collar' crooks, not evil crimes by lowly poor people.

I'm saying with low administrative costs they have a huge debt. The government can't run anything efficiently...yet you leftwingers believe the government is the only answer. I have to laugh at that.

 

[daveman]

It will be rationed the way it currently is in other government funded healthcare programs. Through the use of best practices and efficacy. Does Medicare and Medicaid currently check your party contributions prior to delivering services? Now, if you want to address marginal benefit or experimental treatments again, the current private insurance system will deny coverage for such also. And again, you can always hit the retail market if you think you really need it. As a plus on govt-funded, I predict it will be really efficient at matching patients seeking new untried treatments with clinical trials.

The government does nothing efficiently. Seriously.

And you base that on what...emotion, dogma...?

Why do you think 'for profit' insurance cartels launched a PR campaign to smear Michael Moore's Sicko and spent millions of dollars trying to defeat the healthcare bill and particularly the public option? Because they knew they could not compete. Medicare has administrative expenses about three percent.

Insurance cartels spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

Wait a minute...you believed Sicko?

Wow. Just...wow.

 

[daveman]

[Sooo...more patients, not enough doctors. Care will be rationed. There is no way around it. People are going to die waiting for treatment.

Remind me again how much an improvement Obamacare is supposed to be...?

And what alternative works better?

The government needs to get their hands out of healthcare. People should be able to buy insurance from anyone. The ridiculous law that says you can't buy insurance across state lines is costing people a lot of money:

New York requires every insurance policy sold there to cover podiatry. Acupuncture coverage is mandated in 11 states, massage therapy in four, osteopathy in 24, and chiropractors in 47. There are an estimated 1,800 or so such insurance “mandates” across the country, and the costs add up.​

To illustrate, a 25-year old male in good health could purchase a policy for under $1,000 in Kentucky, yet in New Jersey it might cost upwards of $6,000. Simply put, the state’s regulations on health insurance cause health insurance costs to be higher and because you can’t buy insurance outside of your state, you are stuck with higher costs if you live in a state with a high number of mandates; this leads to a lack of affordability for many people.​

More regulation (i.e., Obamacare) is not going to help. It will just makes things worse.

That's what government does.

 

[daveman]

Does this mental disconnect happen often with your brain? Let's do the math. What is the 'premium' consumers pay each month for Medicare?

Don't try and spin this....how much waste and fraud is part of the Medicare debt?
However you want to spin it....makes no difference to me, it's unsustainable, and even your buddy Bill Clinton is in agreement with that. Right now it's estimated it will all blow up in 2024. But, hey...it's a campaign year, I get it.

I am not 'spinning' anything. Medicare problems are not due to administrative expenses. The major problems are fraud, not waste. And the perpetrators are hospitals, doctors and medical suppliers.

It is the very people you right wing 'free marketeers' trust and worship who are the fucking crooks. They, not seniors are feeding at the government trough. But they are 'white collar' crooks, not evil crimes by lowly poor people.

Oh, if we're going to use stereotypes instead of thinking, you liberals support criminals, so what are you bitching about?

 

[Steelplate]

I addressed your point, idiot. If you are counting on foreign doctors to come here and you maintain they aren't concerned about money then why would they want to come?

So you are admitting we need death panels to ration care. That's at least more honest than you've been until now.

No you didn't. You just put up a sentence that you feel was addressing the point.

Who said anything about Death Panels?

Ok... I see what I am dealing with... A fuckin' jerk who only knows Fanatical "Wingerese"

You are dismissed. I won, you lost. When I get you guys to resort to these types of messages instead of actual discussion, I know that you have nothing more to add. Cya.

I asked a question, fuckwad. You are clearly unable to answer it.
If you are in favor of "triage" then you are in favor of rationing care, which is just what triage is. If you ration care, some people won't get it. Therefore they will die. Therefore there must be "death panels" to decide who gets care and who doesn't.
It really doesn't take much brain power to understand all this. But maybe more than you are capable of.

I left your post in quotes for your perusal... where in it did you ASK a question? You proffered a right wing, bullshit, extremist comment(me admitting to death panels), and I called you out on it.

Triage happens every day. They take the most critical patients first and the least critical last. If someone is going to die without care... guess what? They go first. You're the moron that doesn't get it. Unless you think Cher's 50th facelift is a terminal case, you're full of shit.

 

[The Rabbi]

No you didn't. You just put up a sentence that you feel was addressing the point.

Who said anything about Death Panels?

Ok... I see what I am dealing with... A fuckin' jerk who only knows Fanatical "Wingerese"

You are dismissed. I won, you lost. When I get you guys to resort to these types of messages instead of actual discussion, I know that you have nothing more to add. Cya.

I asked a question, fuckwad. You are clearly unable to answer it.
If you are in favor of "triage" then you are in favor of rationing care, which is just what triage is. If you ration care, some people won't get it. Therefore they will die. Therefore there must be "death panels" to decide who gets care and who doesn't.
It really doesn't take much brain power to understand all this. But maybe more than you are capable of.

I left your post in quotes for your perusal... where in it did you ASK a question? You proffered a right wing, bullshit, extremist comment(me admitting to death panels), and I called you out on it.

Triage happens every day. They take the most critical patients first and the least critical last. If someone is going to die without care... guess what? They go first. You're the moron that doesn't get it. Unless you think Cher's 50th facelift is a terminal case, you're full of shit.

I realize I am dealing with someone who might have a 6th grade education. Thus communication is hard. But even Miss McGillicuddy, your beloved teacher, taught you that "?" follows a question, right. Note my post where one sentence ends with a "?" indicating a question being asked.
Since you cannot recognize a question I would be shocked if you could actually answer it.
But I'll try again: If you think that foreign doctors are motivated by something other than money then why would they want to come here to practice?
Surely you understand that your use of "triage" means not just this minute but overall. Thus some people will be judged to have medical needs whose cost exceeds what the system is willing to pay. Those people will not get necessary medical care. Therefore they will die.