ObamaCare…coming soon

[briansd1]

[quote=mike92104] I will point out that this works both ways. There have been several people on this board who will argue to death on behalf of one political party no matter how many facts are presented to prove them wrong.[/quote]

Arguing of behalf of a party is not the same as accepting falsehoods as facts.

Was Jesus really born of an immaculate conception?

[Veritas]

[quote=CONCHO][quote=Veritas]Just curious how you pick a physician in TJ. Do you have someone who recommended one or?[/quote]

Yeah, I know someone who’s been down there and had good experiences. There is a pretty big medical tourism business there now, just google “medical tourism tijuana” and lots of stuff will pop up. People from all over the US fly to SD to go down there for treatments. Of course I haven’t been yet so maybe it’s not that great, I will know soon though…[/quote]

Thanks. It might get to that for me, too.

[Aecetia]

Obamacare: Impact on the Uninsured
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/04/obamacare-impact-on-the-uninsured

[Anonymous]

Aecetia,

Although collecting information from a variety of sources can be valuable, any “analysis” from the Heritage Foundation is going to suspect since it is an extremely partisan organization. Their agenda is to make Obama look bad, not to educate you and I.

HCR isn’t perfect, you say? No one will disagree with that. The unfortunate part is that there was plenty of opportunity to improve upon it when the legislation was being debated. But as you recall, one large group of politicians was unified and unwavering in their determination to avoid any adult discussion, instead of choosing to resort to cries of “socialism” and “you lie!”

Now the agenda is to repeal HCR and take us back to square one. This “solution” doesn’t address any of the issues you describe above – e.g. illegal immigrants will still be going to the ER – but somehow it will make the world right again.

Healthcare is an extremely complex issue – probably the most complex there is. We can poke holes in any system. But it is clear to the majority of Americans that the US healthcare system is broken and there is substantial room for improvement.

The process of improving it will require some mature debate, educated discussions about the various trade-offs, and ultimately some compromise from all involved. If there’s a better plan, let someone propose it.

If your representative is a Republican, you may want to write them a letter asking why the refuse to participate in the discussion like adults.

[Aecetia]

pri-

Excellent points. I think the middle class is really getting squeezed and the poor are also getting the shaft if they are being given substandard medical through medicaid. What concerns me is will physicians continue to practice if they are forced to accept patients who are not going to reimburse them as well as those with “good insurance”. I have some friends who lived in England and they said there were two levels of insurance. You used the government for some things and your own if you needed treatment that would not wait. These folks were millionaires and could afford to pay for their own and are now here and not worried about Obamacare because they know they can go anywhere to get what they need. Unfortunately, we all do not have that option.

I hope things get worked out before more people drop or are dropped from their insurance because they cannot pay for it and more people start going to the ER. Last time I had to go there, there was a really long wait and yes, it did look like the cafe scene in Star Wars. I think we all want high quality and affordable medical care, but I am not sure that this bill provided that. And yes, Heritage is biased, but it is hard to find any media that do not have either a left or right leaning bias to quote.

[Arraya]

[quote=pri_dk]So another cranky old scientist who does not even study climate writes a letter.
[/quote]

He must feel good about himself. He made it onto a list of profession industry shills and “experts” that argued that cigarettes causes no harm.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/257775_Ivar_Giaevers_links_to_Exxon_M

[quote]Some might think that this does not prove a sell out – only a collaboration with these groups. That would require believing that a well known scientist with no history of climate research of his own comes out with a list of wingnut talking points that are easily scientifically refuted just because of the goodness of his heart – because he believes his contrary “science” so much that he had to speak out – but he does not bother to publish a single paper on the topic that can be peer reviewed.

If he truly had some data to take down climate science, he would publish it somewhere. But he hasn’t.

Of course he is getting paid. Of course Heartland pays its “experts.” There is no other motivation for a respected scientist to act so unscientifically and tarnish an otherwise sterling reputation.

Update:
From Real Climate… hat tip to PublicityStunted[/quote]

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]pri-

Excellent points. I think the middle class is really getting squeezed and the poor are also getting the shaft if they are being given substandard medical through medicaid. What concerns me is will physicians continue to practice if they are forced to accept patients who are not going to reimburse them as well as those with “good insurance”. I have some friends who lived in England and they said there were two levels of insurance. You used the government for some things and your own if you needed treatment that would not wait. These folks were millionaires and could afford to pay for their own and are now here and not worried about Obamacare because they know they can go anywhere to get what they need. Unfortunately, we all do not have that option.

I hope things get worked out before more people drop or are dropped from their insurance because they cannot pay for it and more people start going to the ER. Last time I had to go there, there was a really long wait and yes, it did look like the cafe scene in Star Wars. I think we all want high quality and affordable medical care, but I am not sure that this bill provided that. And yes, Heritage is biased, but it is hard to find any media that do not have either a left or right leaning bias to quote.[/quote]

I think the fallacy that you’ve kind of alluded to (based on this and prior comments) is that somehow the reform law is responsible for the middle class getting squeezed, or the poor getting the shaft in the quality of care. More people, including more of the middle class and poor will be covered, and more will be covered by higher quality insurance than prior to the new law. (At least once it fully takes effect in 2014.) It is possible that some may lose coverage (or more likely, have to pay for 100% of the cost of their insurance) as a result of the ACA, though many fewer than opponents of the bill claim. And tens of millions fewer than those newly insured solely as a result of the bill.

The law, as enacted will be a huge windfall for the insurance industry. The mandate will more than make up for additional burdens placed on insurance companies. (Without the mandate, probably not so much.) And if the mandate remains, it should not increase the cost of medical insurance. (Please don’t read this as my support for the mandate. I think it was bad law, policywise. But in the context of the full law, it was a necessity. As a whole, the law does not work without it.)

But there is nothing that will require physicians to accept medicaid patients nor medicare patients. Medicaid is a problem. Particularly for hospitals. Medicare, currently not so much. Over 85% of primary care physicians accept medicare reimbursements. Pending changes will make that more problematic (particularly in cities like San Diego, which is reimbursed at rural rates, rather than the higher rates in Los Angeles). Those problems may, in part, be mitigated by shared savings programs designed into the law, but the results of those programs are mostly untested and unknown.

Overall, I think most of your arguments are ill timed. Doing nothing would not have cured any of those problems. They should have been made when the bill was being negotiated. Many in both houses of congress, and the white house wanted a stronger bill. Instead, they negotiated with an opposition that would not support any bill presented, regardless of the content. A humungously flawed tactic which resulted in a humungously flawed bill. Substantially better than nothing. But still flawed.

[Aecetia]

SK- Fair comments. I think we are all hoping for a positive outcome, but we probably differ in what that means for each of us. I did argue quite vocally against the bill but to no avail to many members of Congress. Many of the ones I wrote to (and not just e-mail) lost their seats in 2012. Some decided not to run. The good that may have come from the bill is the realization (by Congress) that the current system is not working for many. Why is San Diego reimbursed at a rural rate? With the cost of most college education outpacing even insurance rates, I hope we can continue to attract the best and the brightest to this field. Thanks.

[Zeitgeist]

“Premiums for employer-provided health insurance jumped 8-9 percent in 2011, passing $15,000 for family coverage — which is more than the cost of a Ford Fiesta. That’s a big jump from the 3 percent increase in 2010. But it’s in line with historical increases that have averaged just over 10 percent per year since 2001, according to the annual Kaiser Family Foundation’s Employer Health Benefits survey.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64525.html#ixzz1ZHADljip

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]”Premiums for employer-provided health insurance jumped 8-9 percent in 2011, passing $15,000 for family coverage — which is more than the cost of a Ford Fiesta. That’s a big jump from the 3 percent increase in 2010. But it’s in line with historical increases that have averaged just over 10 percent per year since 2001, according to the annual Kaiser Family Foundation’s Employer Health Benefits survey.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64525.html#ixzz1ZHADljip%5B/quote%5D

Thanks for this Zeitgeist, I hadn’t seen it. Pretty much validates that the law did exactly as it was supposed to do. It slowed the rate of increases dramatically in the eighteen months since the law was passed.

[Zeitgeist]

You are welcome. I could use a roll back in prices, but I do not think that is going to happen.

[Jazzman]

[quote=pepsi][quote=sd_matt]I was listening Dennis Prager interview a doctor. To shorten what the doc said; You are more likely to lose your savings here in the USA and more likely to die from a major illness in the more socialized systems.

I asked a nurse practitioner if she agreed with that assessment and she said yes.

Any docs here in the house? Do you agree or disagree?

[/quote]

I would agree to this one:

You are likely to lose your saving (first) in USA , and to die (first) from a major illness in other system.[/quote]

I think that the quote was probably you are more likely to lose your savings THAN die from a major illness, THAN you would in a normal healthcare system. BTW what does “socialized” mean? According the to the principles of socialism, or behaving in a socially acceptable manner?

[Author]

Posts