Another nail in ObamaCare

[EagleKeeper]

Link

Obama plan for health care quality dealt a setback

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's main idea for getting quality health care at less cost was in jeopardy Wednesday after key medical providers called his administration's initial blueprint so complex it's unworkable.
Just over a month ago, the administration released long-awaited draft regulations for "accountable care organizations," networks of doctors and hospitals that would collaborate to keep Medicare patients healthier and share in the savings with taxpayers. Obama's health care overhaul law envisioned quickly setting up hundreds of such networks around the county to lead a bottom-up reform of America's bloated health care system.
But in an unusual rebuke, an umbrella group representing premier organizations such as the Mayo Clinic wrote the administration Wednesday saying that more than 90 percent of its members would not participate, because the rules as written are so onerous it would be nearly impossible for them to succeed.
"It's not just a simple tweak, it's a significant change that needs to be made," said Donald Fisher, president of the American Medical Group Association, which represents nearly 400 large medical groups around the country providing care for roughly 1 in 3 Americans. Its members, including the Cleveland Clinic, Intermountain Healthcare in Utah, and Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania, had been seen as the vanguard for accountable care.
The medical groups say they are worried they will be left holding the bag for losses, that the government has designed things so there is no easy way to tell which patients are part of the program, and that there's no reliable way to adjust for patients who are sicker and require closer follow-up and more expensive treatments.


<more in link>

Government makes regulations such that they are impractical to follow.

More of the Obama ideals that they know better than the professionals on how to solve the problem.

We will make you well or kill you in the process.

The sooner the appeals court gets this to the SCOTUS, the better.

Ammunition such as this will make it harder to justy this administrations boondoggle.

 

[Thump553]

Instead of buying into the public relations flack, why don't you look at the real facts? AEtna announced yesterday it is actually going to LOWER it's premiums this year-as significant portions of the Obama health care law come into effect (primarily the requirement that they spend at least 80&#37; of the premium dollars on health care).

Link: http://www.courant.com/health/connecticut/hc-aetna-rate-decrease-20110511,0,6277761.story


We've seen what the Republican concept of health care reform is-gut Medicare and turn it into a subsidy program for so-called private insurers. Hopefully the electorate has common sense and will see through their BS smokescreens.

 

[werepossum]

Instead of buying into the public relations flack, why don't you look at the real facts? AEtna announced yesterday it is actually going to LOWER it's premiums this year-as significant portions of the Obama health care law come into effect (primarily the requirement that they spend at least 80% of the premium dollars on health care).

Link: http://www.courant.com/health/connecticut/hc-aetna-rate-decrease-20110511,0,6277761.story


We've seen what the Republican concept of health care reform is-gut Medicare and turn it into a subsidy program for so-called private insurers. Hopefully the electorate has common sense and will see through their BS smokescreens.

That requirement is one of the (few) good things about Obamacare. As far as Republicans gutting Medicare and turning it into a subsidy program for "so-called private insurers", perhaps you missed the part where the Democrats alone cut hundreds of billions from Medicare and required everyone to purchase health insurance - with public subsidies for the poor of course.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Instead of buying into the public relations flack, why don't you look at the real facts? AEtna announced yesterday it is actually going to LOWER it's premiums this year-as significant portions of the Obama health care law come into effect (primarily the requirement that they spend at least 80&#37; of the premium dollars on health care).

Link: http://www.courant.com/health/connecticut/hc-aetna-rate-decrease-20110511,0,6277761.story


We've seen what the Republican concept of health care reform is-gut Medicare and turn it into a subsidy program for so-called private insurers. Hopefully the electorate has common sense and will see through their BS smokescreens.

Aetna's proposed decrease, which would take effect Sept. 1, is a result of the company's seeing a drop in spending on medical services

They are spending less and therefore will have to charge less. State regulations will see those numbers and force the issue otherwise.

The spending is not from Obama directives.

It is PR for Aetna - volunteering to reduce premiums before being ordered to by the state.

 

[Genx87]

Current regulations are nearly unworkable. Piling it on wasnt going to make it better. No matter how hard brain dead liberals tried to say it would.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

OMG stop the presses! A trade organization representing dr's opposes regulations and finds them onerous! I bet they are the only trade org in history that ever opposed increase regulations

I bet Wall street bankster groups oppose financial regulations also, maybe we should remove all those nasty regulations too. Opps, already did that and it didn't turn out so well.



Just maybe the folks who profit most from our broken healthcare system are more concerned about protecting thier profits than reducing overall healthcare costs and increasing the quality.

 

[Genx87]

OMG stop the presses! A trade organization representing dr's opposes regulations and finds them onerous! I bet they are the only trade org in history that ever opposed increase regulations

I bet Wall street bankster groups oppose financial regulations also, maybe we should remove all those nasty regulations too. Opps, already did that and it didn't turn out so well.



Just maybe the folks who profit most from our broken healthcare system are more concerned about protecting thier profits than reducing overall healthcare costs and increasing the quality.

A trade organization representing such profit driven ogranizations as the Mayo Clinic.

But lets not listen to them. Obama and Pelosi have told us otherwise. All will be well.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Current regulations are nearly unworkable. Piling it on wasnt going to make it better. No matter how hard brain dead liberals tried to say it would.

Oh damn, the new regulations are unworkable! They won't let us run lots of extremely profitable superflous tests in our privately owned labs unless an unbiased third party agrees they are necessary! This is unacceptable!
How dare they try and control how much I gouge my patients!

 

[dainthomas]

That requirement is one of the (few) good things about Obamacare. As far as Republicans gutting Medicare and turning it into a subsidy program for "so-called private insurers", perhaps you missed the part where the Democrats alone cut hundreds of billions from Medicare and required everyone to purchase health insurance - with public subsidies for the poor of course.

You're getting off-message. It's all bad.

Are you also saying that socialized medicine is bad, but so is cutting socialized medicine and making people buy private insurance?

 

[Genx87]

Oh damn, the new regulations are unworkable! They won't let us run lots of extremely profitable superflous tests in our privately owned labs unless an unbiased third party agrees they are necessary! This is unacceptable!
How dare they try and control how much I gouge my patients!

Do you want the best care or not? The best care requires those tests you complain about.

That said, the level of regulation is crazy at its current level. Tack on more and watch it implode. In a sick way, I would like to watch it go down in flames. The only reason why I hope it doesnt is because dumb liberals wouldnt own the ashes they created anyways.

 

[a777pilot]

BoboCare is here to stay. Get use to it. Yes, it sux and will greatly contribute to the bankruptcy of this country.

Elections, especially of fools, have consequences.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

A trade organization representing such profit driven ogranizations as the Mayo Clinic.

But lets not listen to them. Obama and Pelosi have told us otherwise. All will be well.

Yeah, gotta love how the author of that biased POS article threw the Mayo Clinic's name in there for effect. Yet if your not to "brain dead" to do a little research on your own you would find out the trade organization quoted represents over 68,000 dr's in thousands of groups of which only a handfull work at the Mayo clinic.

But I understand your position, haters gonna hate. You will suck up this bias partisan drivel with out the slightest thought or research because it fits your political agenda

 

[PokerGuy]

OMG stop the presses! A trade organization representing dr's opposes regulations and finds them onerous! I bet they are the only trade org in history that ever opposed increase regulations

First, this trade association actually backed the president and his plan when the battle in congress was raging. Now they're saying 90% of their membership -- ie, the ones who actually provide the care -- will not participate. That's pretty much a direct killshot.

 

[Genx87]

Yeah, gotta love how the author of that biased POS article threw the Mayo Clinic's name in there for effect. Yet if your not to "brain dead" to do a little research on your own you would find out the trade organization quoted represents over 68,000 dr's in thousands of groups of which only a handfull work at the Mayo clinic.

But I understand your position, haters gonna hate. You will suck up this bias partisan drivel with out the slightest thought or research because it fits your political agenda

So a group representing the care providers is telling us 90% of them wouldnt participate because the legislation is written so it cant succeed and all you have is haters gonna hate? Is this what we have been reduced to on this debate? When the people providing the care are telling us they cant adhere to the legislation because it is impossible. Maybe, just maybe we should open our ears.

 

[PokerGuy]

Yeah, gotta love how the author of that biased POS article threw the Mayo Clinic's name in there for effect. Yet if your not to "brain dead" to do a little research on your own you would find out the trade organization quoted represents over 68,000 dr's in thousands of groups of which only a handfull work at the Mayo clinic.

But I understand your position, haters gonna hate. You will suck up this bias partisan drivel with out the slightest thought or research because it fits your political agenda

So the organization represents 68000 health care providers.... and more than 90% indicate they will not participate. Yeah, that's going to work out well

 

[umbrella39]

Strange looking nails...

 

[SunnyD]

"It's not just a simple tweak, it's a significant change that needs to be made," said Donald Fisher

Which is EXACTLY what we need. Let's face it, current medical care programs need a hell of a lot more than just a "simple tweak", otherwise we wouldn't be here, would we?

 

[Texashiker]

The government is already choking Medicare down to nothing. My wife works for a doctors office, if Medicare where not a majority of their patients, the doctor would stop taking Medicare all together.

~~ EDIT ~~

A couple of months ago, the doctor my wife works for, Medicare stopped sending in payments. Some little piece of paperwork had not been filled out properlly. It took almost a month for payments to start rolling in again. Doctors can not lose 65&#37;, 75% of their income without notice for weeks on end.

Doctors need the Medicare system streamlined and less complex, and not more confusing.

 

[classy]

Current regulations are nearly unworkable. Piling it on wasnt going to make it better. No matter how hard brain dead liberals tried to say it would.

I have to agree. The provision requiring people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. There are some very good things about the bill, but a good portion of it is not. I think it needs a redo.

 

[Axon]

Which is EXACTLY what we need. Let's face it, current medical care programs need a hell of a lot more than just a "simple tweak", otherwise we wouldn't be here, would we?

Virtually unsolvable beyond gutting the entire system and starting over.

 

[Thump553]

They are spending less and therefore will have to charge less. State regulations will see those numbers and force the issue otherwise.

The spending is not from Obama directives.

It is PR for Aetna - volunteering to reduce premiums before being ordered to by the state.

Nice job of selective reading in the very partial quote you posted-a quote which greatly distorts the article. AEtna specifically said medical costs are going up, not down. I'd suggest anyone without an opinion already formed in stone read the article I linked in post #2-where AEtna itself attributes the premium drop directly to the provisions of the Obama health care plan.

 

[werepossum]

You're getting off-message. It's all bad.

Are you also saying that socialized medicine is bad, but so is cutting socialized medicine and making people buy private insurance?

Very few things are all bad or all good. Neither party are caped crusaders or costumed villeins. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of accusing one party of attempting to do exactly what the other party in fact just did.

Both parties are more alike than not. If you think that one party is always right and one party is always wrong, you are not thinking. You may FEEL that you are thinking, but you are not. I lean much more toward the Republicans because my primary concerns are First and Second Amendment rights, private property rights, IP rights, self reliance, small government, business climate, low taxes and regulation. But in general, Democrats are better in civil rights, environmental issues, and trade issues, in my judgment. And even within general issues, there are subdivisions - although I am stridently pro-gay marriage, in the end the threat to private property rights from the left as witnessed by Kelo v. New London weighs more heavily on me - and neither party is completely right on even the issue subdivisions.

To answer your specific question, neither socialized medicine nor forcing people to buy insurance are inherently good or bad. Both have advantages and disadvantages, and I lean toward forcing people to buy health insurance as probably the most effective way to maintain freedom and provide health care to all. But we all need to understand a couple of things. If the problem is that people cannot afford health insurance, a law forcing them to buy it is NOT a solution. We cannot afford as a society to subsidize something as major as health care for people earning three or four times the average income. And when you mandate something for people who cannot afford full access to it, inevitably the total cost goes up or the quality goes down, or both. There are no free rides, and several thousand pages of federal law and empowerment does not change reality.

 

[theeedude]

Have the professionals solved the problem before Obamacare?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Have the professionals solved the problem before Obamacare?

Obama refused the advise of the professionals. Had he wanted to listen to their advice and concerns; there is a good possibility that many of the unworkable ideas would have been identified and addressed.

Instead, the bill was written so that all the problems were hidden over or stated that it will be worked out at a later date.

How can one analyze what as not been written. IT was done that way so nobody could question the rules before the votes.

 

[theeedude]

Obama refused the advise of the professionals. Had he wanted to listen to their advice and concerns; there is a good possibility that many of the unworkable ideas would have been identified and addressed.

Instead, the bill was written so that all the problems were hidden over or stated that it will be worked out at a later date.

How can one analyze what as not been written. IT was done that way so nobody could question the rules before the votes.

That's your theory. But even before Obamacare, the professionals have not fixed the problem. Why would they? It's not a problem for them. Runaway healthcare costs are only a problem if you are paying them, not if you are on the receiving end of twice the money for providing worse results.