[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php%5B/quote%5D

No, he doesn’t say that at all. This is exactly what he says:

“we can make sure some of the waste that exists in the system, that is not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests, or additional drugs that the evidence shows that is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help, maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer.”

Nothing about not having a pacemaker installed. Nothing about not having medically indicated surgery. Just not wasting money with tests and drugs that don’t improve care. What exactly is the problem with this statement?

Now I think medical professionals should make help patients make medical decisions, not insurance companies (who do it daily now with their treatment by spreadsheet) or the government. But I have heard no proposals regarding changes to medicare protocols regarding restricting reimbursed care. So all this is creating something where there is nothing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php%5B/quote%5D

No, he doesn’t say that at all. This is exactly what he says:

“we can make sure some of the waste that exists in the system, that is not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests, or additional drugs that the evidence shows that is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help, maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer.”

Nothing about not having a pacemaker installed. Nothing about not having medically indicated surgery. Just not wasting money with tests and drugs that don’t improve care. What exactly is the problem with this statement?

Now I think medical professionals should make help patients make medical decisions, not insurance companies (who do it daily now with their treatment by spreadsheet) or the government. But I have heard no proposals regarding changes to medicare protocols regarding restricting reimbursed care. So all this is creating something where there is nothing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php%5B/quote%5D

No, he doesn’t say that at all. This is exactly what he says:

“we can make sure some of the waste that exists in the system, that is not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests, or additional drugs that the evidence shows that is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help, maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer.”

Nothing about not having a pacemaker installed. Nothing about not having medically indicated surgery. Just not wasting money with tests and drugs that don’t improve care. What exactly is the problem with this statement?

Now I think medical professionals should make help patients make medical decisions, not insurance companies (who do it daily now with their treatment by spreadsheet) or the government. But I have heard no proposals regarding changes to medicare protocols regarding restricting reimbursed care. So all this is creating something where there is nothing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]July 21, 2009
(Video) Obama tells woman instead of a pacemaker we might give old ladies a pill (Updated)

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/07/video_obama_tel.php%5B/quote%5D

No, he doesn’t say that at all. This is exactly what he says:

“we can make sure some of the waste that exists in the system, that is not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests, or additional drugs that the evidence shows that is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help, maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer.”

Nothing about not having a pacemaker installed. Nothing about not having medically indicated surgery. Just not wasting money with tests and drugs that don’t improve care. What exactly is the problem with this statement?

Now I think medical professionals should make help patients make medical decisions, not insurance companies (who do it daily now with their treatment by spreadsheet) or the government. But I have heard no proposals regarding changes to medicare protocols regarding restricting reimbursed care. So all this is creating something where there is nothing.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]I am surprised they are not being sent to some camp in a cattle car in the Obama Health Care Plan. After all, he has no use for the elderly, so why keep the mentally ill. They cannot pay taxes and they are just taking up space. They are incurable. If you do not want to waste a pacemaker on someone who is elderly because it is not worth the cost of the surgery, how can you justify keeping the incurables around. Just asking.[/quote]

I have no idea what any of this refers to. Medicare already exists for the elderly, that would not change. The current House plan doesn’t address the elderly, with the exception of some refined definitions and expanded coverage under medicare. Other than financing problems which have been apparent since at least the early 80’s, it is already a reasonably efficient functioning government plan.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]I am surprised they are not being sent to some camp in a cattle car in the Obama Health Care Plan. After all, he has no use for the elderly, so why keep the mentally ill. They cannot pay taxes and they are just taking up space. They are incurable. If you do not want to waste a pacemaker on someone who is elderly because it is not worth the cost of the surgery, how can you justify keeping the incurables around. Just asking.[/quote]

I have no idea what any of this refers to. Medicare already exists for the elderly, that would not change. The current House plan doesn’t address the elderly, with the exception of some refined definitions and expanded coverage under medicare. Other than financing problems which have been apparent since at least the early 80’s, it is already a reasonably efficient functioning government plan.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]I am surprised they are not being sent to some camp in a cattle car in the Obama Health Care Plan. After all, he has no use for the elderly, so why keep the mentally ill. They cannot pay taxes and they are just taking up space. They are incurable. If you do not want to waste a pacemaker on someone who is elderly because it is not worth the cost of the surgery, how can you justify keeping the incurables around. Just asking.[/quote]

I have no idea what any of this refers to. Medicare already exists for the elderly, that would not change. The current House plan doesn’t address the elderly, with the exception of some refined definitions and expanded coverage under medicare. Other than financing problems which have been apparent since at least the early 80’s, it is already a reasonably efficient functioning government plan.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]I am surprised they are not being sent to some camp in a cattle car in the Obama Health Care Plan. After all, he has no use for the elderly, so why keep the mentally ill. They cannot pay taxes and they are just taking up space. They are incurable. If you do not want to waste a pacemaker on someone who is elderly because it is not worth the cost of the surgery, how can you justify keeping the incurables around. Just asking.[/quote]

I have no idea what any of this refers to. Medicare already exists for the elderly, that would not change. The current House plan doesn’t address the elderly, with the exception of some refined definitions and expanded coverage under medicare. Other than financing problems which have been apparent since at least the early 80’s, it is already a reasonably efficient functioning government plan.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Zeitgeist]I am surprised they are not being sent to some camp in a cattle car in the Obama Health Care Plan. After all, he has no use for the elderly, so why keep the mentally ill. They cannot pay taxes and they are just taking up space. They are incurable. If you do not want to waste a pacemaker on someone who is elderly because it is not worth the cost of the surgery, how can you justify keeping the incurables around. Just asking.[/quote]

I have no idea what any of this refers to. Medicare already exists for the elderly, that would not change. The current House plan doesn’t address the elderly, with the exception of some refined definitions and expanded coverage under medicare. Other than financing problems which have been apparent since at least the early 80’s, it is already a reasonably efficient functioning government plan.

[SK in CV]

Overall, it would greatly reduce “free care” at the local ER. I don’t know how it could possibly cause an increase. Universal coverage, except for some undocumented residents and those that choose to pay the penalty for not having coverage (again, I’m sure we agree on the “mandatory” elements of the plan), means that there wouldn’t be any free care for the tens of thousands of currently uninsured that have income and assets in excess of federal poverty guidelines and are now eligible for medicaid (Medi-Cal here in San Diego). It would also “cover” some employed undocumented, with their employers picking up much of the premiums.

Before the current economic downturn, a high percentage of the downtown homeless were a result of the severe cutbacks over the last 25 years to CMH budgets. When my wife worked in mental health, she hated going downtown because she saw too many of her former patients, former residents of mental health facilities, whose funding was eliminated. Now with the Governors proposed plan for the state budget crisis, cuts in the already meager funding put her current patients at adult day health centers at risk for the same fate.

[SK in CV]

Overall, it would greatly reduce “free care” at the local ER. I don’t know how it could possibly cause an increase. Universal coverage, except for some undocumented residents and those that choose to pay the penalty for not having coverage (again, I’m sure we agree on the “mandatory” elements of the plan), means that there wouldn’t be any free care for the tens of thousands of currently uninsured that have income and assets in excess of federal poverty guidelines and are now eligible for medicaid (Medi-Cal here in San Diego). It would also “cover” some employed undocumented, with their employers picking up much of the premiums.

Before the current economic downturn, a high percentage of the downtown homeless were a result of the severe cutbacks over the last 25 years to CMH budgets. When my wife worked in mental health, she hated going downtown because she saw too many of her former patients, former residents of mental health facilities, whose funding was eliminated. Now with the Governors proposed plan for the state budget crisis, cuts in the already meager funding put her current patients at adult day health centers at risk for the same fate.

[SK in CV]

Overall, it would greatly reduce “free care” at the local ER. I don’t know how it could possibly cause an increase. Universal coverage, except for some undocumented residents and those that choose to pay the penalty for not having coverage (again, I’m sure we agree on the “mandatory” elements of the plan), means that there wouldn’t be any free care for the tens of thousands of currently uninsured that have income and assets in excess of federal poverty guidelines and are now eligible for medicaid (Medi-Cal here in San Diego). It would also “cover” some employed undocumented, with their employers picking up much of the premiums.

Before the current economic downturn, a high percentage of the downtown homeless were a result of the severe cutbacks over the last 25 years to CMH budgets. When my wife worked in mental health, she hated going downtown because she saw too many of her former patients, former residents of mental health facilities, whose funding was eliminated. Now with the Governors proposed plan for the state budget crisis, cuts in the already meager funding put her current patients at adult day health centers at risk for the same fate.

[SK in CV]

Overall, it would greatly reduce “free care” at the local ER. I don’t know how it could possibly cause an increase. Universal coverage, except for some undocumented residents and those that choose to pay the penalty for not having coverage (again, I’m sure we agree on the “mandatory” elements of the plan), means that there wouldn’t be any free care for the tens of thousands of currently uninsured that have income and assets in excess of federal poverty guidelines and are now eligible for medicaid (Medi-Cal here in San Diego). It would also “cover” some employed undocumented, with their employers picking up much of the premiums.

Before the current economic downturn, a high percentage of the downtown homeless were a result of the severe cutbacks over the last 25 years to CMH budgets. When my wife worked in mental health, she hated going downtown because she saw too many of her former patients, former residents of mental health facilities, whose funding was eliminated. Now with the Governors proposed plan for the state budget crisis, cuts in the already meager funding put her current patients at adult day health centers at risk for the same fate.

[SK in CV]

Overall, it would greatly reduce “free care” at the local ER. I don’t know how it could possibly cause an increase. Universal coverage, except for some undocumented residents and those that choose to pay the penalty for not having coverage (again, I’m sure we agree on the “mandatory” elements of the plan), means that there wouldn’t be any free care for the tens of thousands of currently uninsured that have income and assets in excess of federal poverty guidelines and are now eligible for medicaid (Medi-Cal here in San Diego). It would also “cover” some employed undocumented, with their employers picking up much of the premiums.

Before the current economic downturn, a high percentage of the downtown homeless were a result of the severe cutbacks over the last 25 years to CMH budgets. When my wife worked in mental health, she hated going downtown because she saw too many of her former patients, former residents of mental health facilities, whose funding was eliminated. Now with the Governors proposed plan for the state budget crisis, cuts in the already meager funding put her current patients at adult day health centers at risk for the same fate.

[SK in CV]

The “essential, enhanced and premium” refer to 3 different levels of coverage in the insurance exchange. Nobody is required to choose a carrier that participates in the plan. Nobody is required to choose a particular plan. I suspect we share the objection to the plan being mandatory, and the penalties for not participating (as stupid as that choice might be for most). But ignoring that particular objection for the moment, I’m not sure what the objection to this particular clause would be. Since the government is establishing the non-mandatory insurance exchange, it is also establishing the guidelines under which different policies and benefits would be classified.

With regards to the item on page 50, section 152, I would direct you to page 132, section 142. Everyone must have insurance. Affordability credits are granted to those deemed to have income insufficient to pay premiums in full. Those credits are only available to “an individual who
is lawfully present in a State in the United States”. So those illegally present would be required to buy insurance, but get no aid in doing so. They would pay full price for premiums, and be penalized on their tax returns if they don’t. (yes, I smiled when i typed that) I think that makes it so that no one that is here illegally gets anything for free. (existing aid under medicaid notwithstanding)

[Author]

Posts