Yes, it was all a lie about Obamacare

[Antares]

Here's another lie about obamacare:

"There are no death panels!"

In fact, as we all knew, there will be death panels in obamacare. Kathleen Sebelius just conducted the first death panel when she denied the lung transplant for that little girl. Thank God a judge told her to fuck off and allowed the girl to get her lung and have her life saved.

Sarah Palin is credited with the death panel myth. In August 2009, she claimed Democrats would create a “death panel,” in which government bureaucrats would decide whether disabled and elderly patients are “worthy of healthcare.” Despite being debunked by fact-checkers and mainstream media outlets, this myth has persisted.

The rules that govern who get's organs is determined by UNOS, a nonprofit corporation whose board is made up of half organ transplant doctors and half organ recipients. The determination of who gets the transplants must be made based on science not emotions. Sebelius did exactly what she should have done. To have the HHS step in and attempt to override transplant rules based on emotional appeals would be wrong.

UNOS

You can believe there won;t be death panels if you wish.
The first item Obama mentioned after he LIED and said we would see our insurance get cheaper by $2500 per year was the term "efficiency"..
That is a buzz term for " we will decide what we will cover and if it's too expensive, we won't cover it".
Senior citizens are going to get the short end of the stick. They will be told "we will medicate you to keep you comfortable. You're 68 years old and we're not going to absorb the cost of a heart bypass that we know will allow you to live a normal life. We suggest you get your affairs in order. Thanks for contributing to the system, but we have younger people who's lives are of more value to save."
Of course the gate keepers from the federal government won't actually use those words. They will soft pedal the message.
Obamacare is a multi-trillion dollar boondoggle that will increase costs and decrease access to care.

Bammy already said that he'd just give gramma pill to make her "comfortable".

 

[thereisnospoon]

No. Obamacare hasn't been implemented yet so you can't attribute slower spending growth, which is not the same as a reduction, to Obamacare.

Its payment and delivery system reforms have been launching for three years now.

I asked how Obamacare was supposed to lower health care costs. Remember that one? Bending down the cost curve? Ring any bells? Hello??

Bending the cost curve refers to slowing the rate of increase of health spending. That's what's happening now. Hence my point.

What a joke. Obamacare does not anc CANNOT control 'costs"..
The plan will for a the short term control "prices", but even that will be short lived. The money to pay for education of medical professionals, nurses, technicians, pharmaceuticals, wages, etc has to come from somewhere.
Do you people think institutes of higher learning are just going to stop increasing tuition costs? Do you think medical personnel are going to accept pay freezes? DO you think the cost to research and develop new medical technologies is not going to rise any further?
ACA has but one goal. That is single payer. A 100% taxpayer funded socialized medicine system. A system where all medical personnel essentially become federal employees. Oh, it gets better. Because the legislative branch refuses to entertain any bill on tort reform, the lawsuits will continue to fly and malpractice insurance will continue to increase in price. Who the hell is going to pay for that?...
ACA is a plan to increase dependency on government. Period.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I think one thing that always seems missing when discussing costs and benefits of ACA is the value to the country of greater access to healthcare. I'm sure it's hard to put a dollar value on limiting the spread of disease or catching serious health problems in the early stages but that doesn't mean there is no benefit to the nation.

I have no idea what healthcare costs will be in the future but I am confident that the nation will be healthier which is pretty damn important.

There is zero evidence for any of that. The fact is that 97% of people already had access to health care. So ACA didnt really change any of that. It did impose enormous costs on everyone involved and will result in worse treatment and earlier deaths, just like every similar system has done before.

The US has the best healthcare that money can buy.

Not for long.

 

[thereisnospoon]

In 2009, 97% of those over 65 had access to ongoing healthcare due to Medicare/Medicaid. In the age group 18-44, the percentage was 74%. Among the unemployed it's just over 60%. This translates into tens of millions of people that have no ongoing healthcare. What I mean by healthcare is ongoing care, not just access to and ER or a prescription mill. Treatment of chronic diseases such a Cancer, Heart Disease, and Diabetics require ongoing treatments and monitoring which is what most people without health insurance do not get. The primary goal of the ACA is provide this level of medical care to everyone.

People 18-44 typically don't need ongoing healthcare. Between ages 18 and 40 I might have seen a doctor twice. They are the ones getting royally fucked by Obamacare, forced to buy expensive coverage they don't need and will likely never use in order to subsidize the old, fat, lazy, and substance abusers.

Yep, the young are always invincible until they aren't.

A girl I knew age 36, never a sick day in her life who was diagnosed with Leukemia. She had one of those temporary in between job insurance policies that could not be renewed. She was able to get a bone marrow transplant during the policy period but after that she got really sick. She applied for Medicaid but it took almost two months before she was able to see a doctor. Then it was getting to see a specialist. By the time she got the care she really needed it was too late.

Medicaid..A government run health insurance provider....Worked real well, didn't it?
And you want the federal government in charge of the whole ball of wax.
Good thinking.

 

[Greenbeard]

What a joke. Obamacare does not anc CANNOT control 'costs"..

What is you want to see? For starters, it's got:

• Movement toward high deductible plans that can be coupled with HSAs.
• For the first time, a cap to the tax distortion that formerly provided the limitless subsidy for ever more generous employer-sponsored plans.
• New pricing transparency requirements for hospitals.
• Administrative simplification and limits on the portion of premium revenue that can go toward non-medical costs.
• New competitive insurance markets.
• Seed money for homegrown (and consumer-operated) insurance plans in markets that have been devoid of competition.
• New allowances for selling insurance across state lines in multiple states simultaneously.
• Funds for state-level premium oversight (which, when used aggressively, has shown potential in being able to help hold down rising costs).
• Payment reforms (particularly within Medicare) that shift the system away from encouraging high-volume, low (or mediocre) value service provision and toward higher value.
• Reforms and opportunities promoting and assisting health care providers in delivering better care more efficiently and less expensively, while holding them accountable for quality outcomes.
• Grants for state-level tort reform (taken right out of multiple pieces of GOP legislation).

Is there some additional magic bullet you wish it had?

 

[Troubled_CA]

ACA has but one goal. That is single payer.

Be nice.
Single payer is the most efficient.
one giant insurance company, instead of a hundred.

How exactly does the ignorant con think that is going to happen when congress
DOES NOTHING.
you think Congress is going wake up and ram some RADICAL healthcare changes through?

That kind of loony makes sense to the average conservative?

You Doom and Gloom Conservatives have predicted the end of the US economy for the past several years.

AND
the Romney landslide.

When you gonna learn your lied to constantly and live in world of delusion.

 

[Flopper]

Aren't decisions like this basically what private insurance companies do, too?

Yes, but not as much so as in years past.

Well, would it still not be fair to say, then, that these so-called death panels aren't really different than the decision-making bodies of private insurance firms?

Insurance companies make decisions as to whether a procedure is covered under the terms of the policy. Their decision is not really about healthcare but an interpretation of the contract. If you appeal, you are no longer at the mercy of the insurance company's medical panel. Also due to ACA, pre-existing conditions and lifetime maximums are no longer an issue.

Since there are no government death panels, I can't make a comparison with a myth.

 

[Flopper]

People 18-44 typically don't need ongoing healthcare. Between ages 18 and 40 I might have seen a doctor twice. They are the ones getting royally fucked by Obamacare, forced to buy expensive coverage they don't need and will likely never use in order to subsidize the old, fat, lazy, and substance abusers.

Yep, the young are always invincible until they aren't.

A girl I knew age 36, never a sick day in her life who was diagnosed with Leukemia. She had one of those temporary in between job insurance policies that could not be renewed. She was able to get a bone marrow transplant during the policy period but after that she got really sick. She applied for Medicaid but it took almost two months before she was able to see a doctor. Then it was getting to see a specialist. By the time she got the care she really needed it was too late.

Medicaid..A government run health insurance provider....Worked real well, didn't it?
And you want the federal government in charge of the whole ball of wax.
Good thinking.

Medicaid is a state operated program that receives about half it's funding from the federal government. The states set their own policies and are quite different from state to state. The states can reject federal funding if they so choose.

 

[Flopper]

Here's another lie about obamacare:

"There are no death panels!"

In fact, as we all knew, there will be death panels in obamacare. Kathleen Sebelius just conducted the first death panel when she denied the lung transplant for that little girl. Thank God a judge told her to fuck off and allowed the girl to get her lung and have her life saved.

Sarah Palin is credited with the death panel myth. In August 2009, she claimed Democrats would create a “death panel,” in which government bureaucrats would decide whether disabled and elderly patients are “worthy of healthcare.” Despite being debunked by fact-checkers and mainstream media outlets, this myth has persisted.

The rules that govern who get's organs is determined by UNOS, a nonprofit corporation whose board is made up of half organ transplant doctors and half organ recipients. The determination of who gets the transplants must be made based on science not emotions. Sebelius did exactly what she should have done. To have the HHS step in and attempt to override transplant rules based on emotional appeals would be wrong.

UNOS

You can believe there won;t be death panels if you wish.
The first item Obama mentioned after he LIED and said we would see our insurance get cheaper by $2500 per year was the term "efficiency"..
That is a buzz term for " we will decide what we will cover and if it's too expensive, we won't cover it".
Senior citizens are going to get the short end of the stick. They will be told "we will medicate you to keep you comfortable. You're 68 years old and we're not going to absorb the cost of a heart bypass that we know will allow you to live a normal life. We suggest you get your affairs in order. Thanks for contributing to the system, but we have younger people who's lives are of more value to save."
Of course the gate keepers from the federal government won't actually use those words. They will soft pedal the message.
Obamacare is a multi-trillion dollar boondoggle that will increase costs and decrease access to care.

I'm really interest in the death panels. Who's on these panels? Where is it specified in the ACA? I have gone through all 906 pages of the ACA. That's right; the law as passed is 906 pages, not 1200 or 2500 as the opposition stated. The only reference to anything that might even come close to a death panel is end of life counseling by the patient's physician. Could it be that the death panel is nothing more than Sarah Palin's Aug 2009 statement that Democrats would create a death panel?

http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

 

[EriktheRed]

Sarah Palin is credited with the death panel myth. In August 2009, she claimed Democrats would create a “death panel,” in which government bureaucrats would decide whether disabled and elderly patients are “worthy of healthcare.” Despite being debunked by fact-checkers and mainstream media outlets, this myth has persisted.

The rules that govern who get's organs is determined by UNOS, a nonprofit corporation whose board is made up of half organ transplant doctors and half organ recipients. The determination of who gets the transplants must be made based on science not emotions. Sebelius did exactly what she should have done. To have the HHS step in and attempt to override transplant rules based on emotional appeals would be wrong.

UNOS

You can believe there won;t be death panels if you wish.
The first item Obama mentioned after he LIED and said we would see our insurance get cheaper by $2500 per year was the term "efficiency"..
That is a buzz term for " we will decide what we will cover and if it's too expensive, we won't cover it".
Senior citizens are going to get the short end of the stick. They will be told "we will medicate you to keep you comfortable. You're 68 years old and we're not going to absorb the cost of a heart bypass that we know will allow you to live a normal life. We suggest you get your affairs in order. Thanks for contributing to the system, but we have younger people who's lives are of more value to save."
Of course the gate keepers from the federal government won't actually use those words. They will soft pedal the message.
Obamacare is a multi-trillion dollar boondoggle that will increase costs and decrease access to care.

I'm really interest in the death panels. Who's on these panels? Where is it specified in the ACA? I have gone through all 906 pages of the ACA. That's right; the law as passed is 906 pages, not 1200 or 2500 as the opposition stated. The only reference to anything that might even come close to a death panel is end of life counseling by the patient's physician. Could it be that the death panel is nothing more than Sarah Palin's Aug 2009 statement that Democrats would create a death panel?

Yes.

 

[American_Jihad]

If you dislike Obamacare, support the Read the Bills Act

By James Wilson
March 13, 2013

Quote of the Day: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." — Nancy Pelosi

"Unforeseen" costs of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) are higher than projected.

Is this a surprise?

It's the natural result of supporting bloated bills no one reads or understands.

That's why I told Congress to introduce and pass the Read the Bills Act.

You may borrow from or copy this letter...

...

If you dislike Obamacare, support the Read the Bills Act

If the obongocare was so great why do the unions and other liberal ilk want waivers...

 

[Flopper]

If you dislike Obamacare, support the Read the Bills Act

By James Wilson
March 13, 2013

Quote of the Day: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." — Nancy Pelosi

"Unforeseen" costs of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) are higher than projected.

Is this a surprise?

It's the natural result of supporting bloated bills no one reads or understands.

That's why I told Congress to introduce and pass the Read the Bills Act.

You may borrow from or copy this letter...

...

If you dislike Obamacare, support the Read the Bills Act

If the obongocare was so great why do the unions and other liberal ilk want waivers...

Bills are long, complicated and expensive in order to get support from both parties. The immigration bill is now up to 1075 pages more 150 pages longer than Obamacare. Originally, it was about 500 pages. We are already spending 18 billion on boarder security and this bill will add 4.5 billion just for boarder security. We will have an immigration agent for every 1000 feet of boarder. We will be spending more on immigration control and security than all other law enforcement combined This is why you will have strong GOP support from the House because it allows those congressman to return home and campaign on what they have done to secure our borders. In addition to this we have grants to boarder states for training, public relations, FEMA, local enforcement and all kinds of crap in order to get support for the bill.

This is how the game is played.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you dislike Obamacare, support the Read the Bills Act

By James Wilson
March 13, 2013

Quote of the Day: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." — Nancy Pelosi

"Unforeseen" costs of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) are higher than projected.

Is this a surprise?

It's the natural result of supporting bloated bills no one reads or understands.

That's why I told Congress to introduce and pass the Read the Bills Act.

You may borrow from or copy this letter...

...

If you dislike Obamacare, support the Read the Bills Act

If the obongocare was so great why do the unions and other liberal ilk want waivers...

Bills are long, complicated and expensive in order to get support from both parties. The immigration bill is now up to 1075 pages more 150 pages longer than Obamacare. Originally, it was about 500 pages. We are already spending 18 billion on boarder security and this bill will add 4.5 billion just for boarder security. We will have an immigration agent for every 1000 feet of boarder. We will be spending more on immigration control and security than all other law enforcement combined This is why you will have strong GOP support from the House because it allows those congressman to return home and campaign on what they have done to secure our borders. In addition to this we have grants to boarder states for training, public relations, FEMA, local enforcement and all kinds of crap in order to get support for the bill.

This is how the game is played.

The game is WRONG.

 

[Flopper]

If you dislike Obamacare, support the Read the Bills Act

By James Wilson
March 13, 2013

Quote of the Day: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." — Nancy Pelosi

"Unforeseen" costs of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) are higher than projected.

Is this a surprise?

It's the natural result of supporting bloated bills no one reads or understands.

That's why I told Congress to introduce and pass the Read the Bills Act.

You may borrow from or copy this letter...

...

If you dislike Obamacare, support the Read the Bills Act

If the obongocare was so great why do the unions and other liberal ilk want waivers...

Bills are long, complicated and expensive in order to get support from both parties. The immigration bill is now up to 1075 pages more 150 pages longer than Obamacare. Originally, it was about 500 pages. We are already spending 18 billion on boarder security and this bill will add 4.5 billion just for boarder security. We will have an immigration agent for every 1000 feet of boarder. We will be spending more on immigration control and security than all other law enforcement combined This is why you will have strong GOP support from the House because it allows those congressman to return home and campaign on what they have done to secure our borders. In addition to this we have grants to boarder states for training, public relations, FEMA, local enforcement and all kinds of crap in order to get support for the bill.

This is how the game is played.

The game is WRONG.

Yes, you're right but that's politics in this highly polarized environment in which a vote for a bill sponsored by the opposition has to be bought at often a high price.

If both sides were on board on legislation, the cost would be far less. The idea that he opposition checks the party in power, doesn't really work because votes are always for sale.

 

[Greenbeard]

No. Obamacare hasn't been implemented yet so you can't attribute slower spending growth, which is not the same as a reduction, to Obamacare.

In honor of this brilliant tidbit, I share KFF's handy new Health Reform Implementation Timeline.

Very cool feature making it very easy to see what's already happened and what's about to happen. Health reform has been going on for more than three years now.

 

[Antares]

No. Obamacare hasn't been implemented yet so you can't attribute slower spending growth, which is not the same as a reduction, to Obamacare.

In honor of this brilliant tidbit, I share KFF's handy new Health Reform Implementation Timeline.

Very cool feature making it very easy to see what's already happened and what's about to happen. Health reform has been going on for more than three years now.

You should just give it up pop's....you've had your ass kicked here over and over...despite your alighnment with flopper

You both have singular yet over used response to being bitch slapped....the well worn Lib NUH-UH!!!!!

 

[EriktheRed]

No. Obamacare hasn't been implemented yet so you can't attribute slower spending growth, which is not the same as a reduction, to Obamacare.

In honor of this brilliant tidbit, I share KFF's handy new Health Reform Implementation Timeline.

Very cool feature making it very easy to see what's already happened and what's about to happen. Health reform has been going on for more than three years now.

You should just give it up pop's....you've had your ass kicked here over and over...despite your alighnment with flopper

You both have singular yet over used response to being bitch slapped....the well worn Lib NUH-UH!!!!!

What have you kicked their asses on, exactly?

 

[Antares]

In honor of this brilliant tidbit, I share KFF's handy new Health Reform Implementation Timeline.

Very cool feature making it very easy to see what's already happened and what's about to happen. Health reform has been going on for more than three years now.

You should just give it up pop's....you've had your ass kicked here over and over...despite your alighnment with flopper

You both have singular yet over used response to being bitch slapped....the well worn Lib NUH-UH!!!!!

What have you kicked their asses on, exactly?

(smile) Poor erik...if you aren't capable of keeping up it is not my problem.

Here is a hint for you in the case of Greenie...he has 3 main defenses...he
A) Creates his own "interpretations".
B) Simply uses the "Nuh-Uh" defense or....
C) Disappears for a few days and the starts again as if nothing ever happened.

Now I know that that much concentration is beyond you, but I am trying to help you.

Flopper is a late bloomer but he is mirroring the Greenie line

 

[EriktheRed]

You should just give it up pop's....you've had your ass kicked here over and over...despite your alighnment with flopper

You both have singular yet over used response to being bitch slapped....the well worn Lib NUH-UH!!!!!

What have you kicked their asses on, exactly?

(smile) Poor erik...if you aren't capable of keeping up it is not my problem.

Here is a hint for you in the case of Greenie...he has 3 main defenses...he
A) Creates his own "interpretations".
B) Simply uses the "Nuh-Uh" defense or....
C) Disappears for a few days and the starts again as if nothing ever happened.

Now I know that that much concentration is beyond you, but I am trying to help you.

Flopper is a late bloomer but he is mirroring the Greenie line

About the only halfway decent argument I've seen you make so far is the idea that it's not really appropriate to call the healthcare exchanges "competition" when the insurance companies on them have to meet certain criteria set by the state. BFD.

Otherwise, you've either been making arguments that have been answered or pretty much just trash-talking (kinda like what I just responded to).

 

[thereisnospoon]

What have you kicked their asses on, exactly?

(smile) Poor erik...if you aren't capable of keeping up it is not my problem.

Here is a hint for you in the case of Greenie...he has 3 main defenses...he
A) Creates his own "interpretations".
B) Simply uses the "Nuh-Uh" defense or....
C) Disappears for a few days and the starts again as if nothing ever happened.

Now I know that that much concentration is beyond you, but I am trying to help you.

Flopper is a late bloomer but he is mirroring the Greenie line

About the only halfway decent argument I've seen you make so far is the idea that it's not really appropriate to call the healthcare exchanges "competition" when the insurance companies on them have to meet certain criteria set by the state. BFD.

Otherwise, you've either been making arguments that have been answered or pretty much just trash-talking (kinda like what I just responded to).

Why do you think you are entitled to taxpayer funded medical care?