Government shutdown looms over ObamaCare

[TerryMathews]

So then my original point was correct, you and the republicans are a bunch of whiners.

Well I would offer my opinion but you would:

A) disregard it
B) tell me not to slight the ACA until there's something better
C) call me a whiner

It's hard to argue with such perfectly circular logic, you know?

 

[Balt]

Lets see... We could have worked on real solutions but this thing was pushed.

Honestly, I don't like the ACA, but I disagree with that. It was painstakingly negotiated to get enough votes (among Democrats only). I think that's part of why it ended up so convoluted.

In the end, I don't think Republicans were going to accept any expansion of medical care to the middle or lower class, which is what Obama was going for. I do think they might have been willing to accept a reduction in government subsidies of medical care for wealthier older Americans, though, which might have helped to reduce the budget burden.

 

[berzerker60]

Honestly, I don't like the ACA, but I disagree with that. It was painstakingly negotiated to get enough votes (among Democrats only). I think that's part of why it ended up so convoluted.

In the end, I don't think Republicans were going to accept any expansion of medical care to the middle or lower class, which is what Obama was going for. I do think they might have been willing to accept a reduction in government subsidies of medical care for wealthier older Americans, though, which might have helped to reduce the budget burden.

Not if Obama proposed it they wouldn't. If there's one true North Star in politics these days, it's that if it can somehow be perceived as Obama being for it, Republicans are deathly, zealously, absolutely against it no matter what forever.

 

[Jhhnn]

Honestly, I don't like the ACA, but I disagree with that. It was painstakingly negotiated to get enough votes (among Democrats only). I think that's part of why it ended up so convoluted.

In the end, I don't think Republicans were going to accept any expansion of medical care to the middle or lower class, which is what Obama was going for. I do think they might have been willing to accept a reduction in government subsidies of medical care for wealthier older Americans, though, which might have helped to reduce the budget burden.

False. MediScare was one of their most effective lies in 2010.

Ebil Obama gon' take yer Medicare! Give it to the white trash & the colored!

Since then, they've tried to destroy Medicare with vouchers, a fave rightwing scam, talking out of both sides of their mouths, apparently with great success.

 

[cmdrdredd]

False. MediScare was one of their most effective lies in 2010.

Ebil Obama gon' take yer Medicare! Give it to the white trash & the colored!

Since then, they've tried to destroy Medicare with vouchers, a fave rightwing scam, talking out of both sides of their mouths, apparently with great success.

Yeah more talking points with false accusations and lies.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Honestly, I don't like the ACA, but I disagree with that. It was painstakingly negotiated to get enough votes (among Democrats only). I think that's part of why it ended up so convoluted.

In the end, I don't think Republicans were going to accept any expansion of medical care to the middle or lower class, which is what Obama was going for. I do think they might have been willing to accept a reduction in government subsidies of medical care for wealthier older Americans, though, which might have helped to reduce the budget burden.

That's why I'm thinking that we should circumvent the government entirely at the beginning. Perhaps private and consumer organizations for funding. Not having official standing would be problematic.

 

[ivwshane]

Well I would offer my opinion but you would:

A) disregard it
B) tell me not to slight the ACA until there's something better
C) call me a whiner

It's hard to argue with such perfectly circular logic, you know?

Lol well then why are you even replying?


You will note that in your previous attempt to offer a solution I agreed with what you wrote but I asked for more detail, I then responded to your request for me to provide a solution.

So...so far you are 1 for 3 on your list😉 (hint: A and B are wrong)

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah more talking points with false accusations and lies.

Is that a challenge?

 

[TerryMathews]

Lol well then why are you even replying?


You will note that in your previous attempt to offer a solution I agreed with what you wrote but I asked for more detail, I then responded to your request for me to provide a solution.

So...so far you are 1 for 3 on your list😉 (hint: A and B are wrong)

looks like I'm 3 for 3 to me.

In fact I did. The point of my post was to get past the political bullshit and whining and actually provide solutions, no one other than me has done so.

A)

Then perhaps you shouldn't complain about the ACA until there are better solutions.

B)

 

[Jhhnn]

Well I would offer my opinion but you would:

A) disregard it
B) tell me not to slight the ACA until there's something better
C) call me a whiner

It's hard to argue with such perfectly circular logic, you know?

In other words, what you've got is nothin' but you'll turn coy & pretend it's something, just to keep up appearances.

The only place that works is in your own mind.

Your accusations of circular reasoning by others are pathetic, given that they're a product of entirely circular reasoning themselves.

 

[ivwshane]

looks like I'm 3 for 3 to me.

A)

B)

Nope, you are 1 for three. All you have done is whine (in fact your last two replies didn't even address the issue). You have yet to provide any detailed solution other than feel good statements (of which only a masochist would disagree with) and as I already stated I haven't disregarded anything you've said on the subject.

Now you can quote my reply to hayabusa and pretend it was directed at you but it wasn't. Hayabusa basically said experts should be the ones discussing it and he won't comment until a study by those experts comes out. By his own standards he shouldn't be commenting on anything with regards to the ACA or healthcare.


It's quite telling though that after multiple posts you still can't provide a solution to the healthcare issue but you have no problem condemning the ACA for what one can only assume superficial reasons (have you said anything meaningful other that the ACA is bad).

 

[ivwshane]

Lets see... We could have worked on real solutions but this thing was pushed.

Yeah I'll complain because a better solution wasn't wanted. Hey if someone offers you crap is not cyanide. Eat up.

I'm interested in real solutions, I prefer to lobby my representatives or elect politicians that support real solutions. The only solutions I've heard have been from democrats with very little differences between them and from a republican think tank, aka the ACA.

That doesn't mean I won't ask questions about your solutions or agree with them but I certainly do want to hear them. What are you worried about? Is your reputation and e-penis so delicate that you don't want to take the chance of having your ideas looked at?

 

[palehorse]

It's quite telling though that after multiple posts you still can't provide a solution to the healthcare issue but you have no problem condemning the ACA for what one can only assume superficial reasons (have you said anything meaningful other that the ACA is bad).

Do you support the ACA in its current form even if it means that MILLIONS of Americans will be reduced to less than 30 hours of work per week, or converted to contract employees, so that the companies and public services that employ them can avoid the mandates?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Or, do you consider these legitimate criticisms and concerns "superficial"?

 

[ivwshane]

Do you support the ACA in its current form even if it means that MILLIONS of Americans will be reduced to less than 30 hours of work per week, or converted to contract employees, so that the companies and public services that employ them can avoid the mandates?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Or, do you consider these legitimate criticisms and concerns "superficial"?

It's not a simple question, if it was then you fucks would be able to have a real discussion about better alternatives.


To answer your question; the ACA is better than what we had before, which was exponential growth in health care costs, less people having coverage year over year, a system where money went to advertising instead of actual healthcare, and a system setup to auto deny claims and not cover per existing conditions, it was a system where it was the number one cause of bankruptcy.

Now if you have a better solution, I'd gladly support that too but guess whats missing from this discussion from you and others?...

Give up?

What's missing is alternative solutions. Not only are you guys incapable of coming up with your own solutions, the people whome you voted for are also incapable of coming up with solutions.

So here is a real "simple" question for you; were you happy with the healthcare system we had before the ACA was passed? Yes or no?

 

[Matt1970]

It's not a simple question, if it was then you fucks would be able to have a real discussion about better alternatives.


To answer your question; the ACA is better than what we had before, which was exponential growth in health care costs, less people having coverage year over year, a system where money went to advertising instead of actual healthcare, and a system setup to auto deny claims and not cover per existing conditions, it was a system where it was the number one cause of bankruptcy.

Now if you have a better solution, I'd gladly support that too but guess whats missing from this discussion from you and others?...

Give up?

What's missing is alternative solutions. Not only are you guys incapable of coming up with your own solutions, the people whome you voted for are also incapable of coming up with solutions.

So here is a real "simple" question for you; were you happy with the healthcare system we had before the ACA was passed? Yes or no?

You don't push through a turd that will probably cause more problems than it solves just on the premise that until something better comes along we have to accept this.

 

[palehorse]

To answer your question; the ACA is better than what we had before, which was exponential growth in health care costs, less people having coverage year over year, a system where money went to advertising instead of actual healthcare, and a system setup to auto deny claims and not cover per existing conditions, it was a system where it was the number one cause of bankruptcy.

I'm pretty sure the substitute teachers in Wake County, NC, along with the millions of other Americans who will either lose hours (lower income) or their entire jobs (no income), disagree with you.

I honestly feel that the ACA will do much more harm than good for millions of Americans; which, in turn, will dramatically damage our entire economy in ways we can't even fathom.

Now if you have a better solution, I'd gladly support that too but guess whats missing from this discussion from you and others?...

Give up?

What's missing is alternative solutions. Not only are you guys incapable of coming up with your own solutions, the people whome you voted for are also incapable of coming up with solutions.

So here is a real "simple" question for you; were you happy with the healthcare system we had before the ACA was passed? Yes or no?

Personally, yes, I was very content with the old system. Then again, that's a very selfish answer since the old system took care of me and my family just fine.

My alternative suggestion is a simple one or two page alternative bill that accomplishes three things:

1. Extends child coverage to age 26
2. Prevents HI companies from denying, dropping, or price-gouging those with pre-existing conditions
3. Creates/funds a research project staffed by genuine experts in the HI and HC industry to study the problem for 12 months and come up with other line-item suggestions to modify or further regulate the old system ONE STEP AT A TIME. (See Hayabusa's posts for a more detailed explanation).

KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid.

The ACA is the most bloated and dangerous single piece of legislation ever passed in this country. Period.

 

[berzerker60]

1. Extends child coverage to age 26
2. Prevents HI companies from denying, dropping, or price-gouging those with pre-existing conditions
3. Creates/funds a research project staffed by genuine experts in the HI and HC industry to study the problem for 12 months and come up with other line-item suggestions to modify or further regulate the old system ONE STEP AT A TIME. (See Hayabusa's posts for a more detailed explanation).

KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid.

The ACA is the most bloated and dangerous single piece of legislation ever passed in this country. Period.

You've basically described the NY state system that was so awful before the ACA corrected it and lowered premiums be a huge amount, because no one carried health insurance until they HAD a 'pre-existing' condition. Pre-existing protection only works with an individual mandate.

Also, let's keep some perspective here before you go saying the ACA is the worst bill ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9835
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066
etc

 

[marvdmartian]

So you'd be fine if the Democrats required compromise was a national gay marriage act that superseded state law or a national standardization of abortion laws that set them equal to the most liberal of state abortion laws act that superseded state law?

Because in the end the GOP isn't negotiating a "you get your way if we get our way" they're negotiating with "we get our way OR THE COUNTRY FUCKING FAILS".

Actually, neither of the issues you bring up (gay marriage or abortion laws) is something that should be taken care of at a federal level. All the feds can do is ensure that the laws the states pass do not violate federal equal opportunity laws.
Health care shouldn't have been handled at the federal level either. Health insurance overhaul should have been, instead. :thumbsup:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's not a simple question, if it was then you fucks would be able to have a real discussion about better alternatives.


To answer your question; the ACA is better than what we had before, which was exponential growth in health care costs, less people having coverage year over year, a system where money went to advertising instead of actual healthcare, and a system setup to auto deny claims and not cover per existing conditions, it was a system where it was the number one cause of bankruptcy.

Now if you have a better solution, I'd gladly support that too but guess whats missing from this discussion from you and others?...

Give up?

What's missing is alternative solutions. Not only are you guys incapable of coming up with your own solutions, the people whome you voted for are also incapable of coming up with solutions.

So here is a real "simple" question for you; were you happy with the healthcare system we had before the ACA was passed? Yes or no?

As I said you aren't interested in what works. You want a political solution. I'm on the road so lengthy lists aren't happening now but what you advocate are a bunch of people spending a tiny fraction of the time required to understand even the basics determining what practitioners are limited to in treating patients.

Serious question. Do you have a job and what is it?

 

[palehorse]

You've basically described the NY state system that was so awful before the ACA corrected it and lowered premiums be a huge amount, because no one carried health insurance until they HAD a 'pre-existing' condition. Pre-existing protection only works with an individual mandate.

The three specific items I listed do not resemble the old NY State system... at all.

Also, let's keep some perspective here before you go saying the ACA is the worst bill ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9835
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066
etc

None of those singlehandedly threatened to destroy our entire economy. I believe the ACA will do just that.

 

[TerryMathews]

Nope, you are 1 for three. All you have done is whine (in fact your last two replies didn't even address the issue). You have yet to provide any detailed solution other than feel good statements (of which only a masochist would disagree with) and as I already stated I haven't disregarded anything you've said on the subject.

Now you can quote my reply to hayabusa and pretend it was directed at you but it wasn't. Hayabusa basically said experts should be the ones discussing it and he won't comment until a study by those experts comes out. By his own standards he shouldn't be commenting on anything with regards to the ACA or healthcare.


It's quite telling though that after multiple posts you still can't provide a solution to the healthcare issue but you have no problem condemning the ACA for what one can only assume superficial reasons (have you said anything meaningful other that the ACA is bad).

Yes, I have. You've replied to it you sanctimonious ass.

 

[berzerker60]

The three specific items I listed do not resemble the old NY State system... at all.


None of those singlehandedly threatened to destroy our entire economy. I believe the ACA will do just that.

No, they only completely revoked free speech and freedom of association, led to the murder of tens of thousands of people, abolished civil liberties, and ignored any number of constitutional rights during internment of US citizens without having committed a crime of any kind. But gosh, if this law could cost us some dollars, it might be on the scale of what bankers did with no punishment a decade ago!

 

[werepossum]

I'm sure no one has every proven to be extremely productive and valuable for society after growing up in poverty. Therefore, poor children don't deserve health care if they can't pay for it with their own money.

Oh wait
Andrew Carnegie
John Rockefeller
Sheldon Adelson
Ralph Lauren
Oprah Winfrey
Howard Shultz
JK Rowling
Sam Walton
etc
etc
etc

Why it's almost as if the Free Market isn't that great at pairing talented people up with rich parents to make sure they can afford quality health care at a young age! Surely that's wrong, though, because the Free Market knows all and can only ever rewards good, moral people with wealth and success and punish lazy, immoral people with well-earned poverty.

I guess all the potential Stephen Hawkings and FDRs of the world who weren't born to rich families who could look after their extremely expensive medical needs should have just chosen their parents better. Not like the world needed them anyway.

You've just posted a list of people who grew up poor and became massively successful as justification for poor children needing Uncle Sugar's benevolent dictatorship.

Let us hope Obamacare offers something for the irony-impaired.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm interested in real solutions, I prefer to lobby my representatives or elect politicians that support real solutions. The only solutions I've heard have been from democrats with very little differences between them and from a republican think tank, aka the ACA.

That doesn't mean I won't ask questions about your solutions or agree with them but I certainly do want to hear them. What are you worried about? Is your reputation and e-penis so delicate that you don't want to take the chance of having your ideas looked at?

Well I have a bit of time now. First, I've been a provider for decades and have witnessed the influence of managed care and government policies during that time, so I've had more time to think about this than Congress, and certainly more knowledge of what happens in the real world than most of them. I also don't give a crap about partisanship. In fact I don't want it getting in the way.

So- First of all a top down approach is about as stupid as a mud fence. All of health care comes down to the fundamental relationship between provider and patient. That's what's important, and everything else is fluff.

That being the case things which enhance it are good, those which harm it are bad. If a patient cannot communicate effectively to the provider and the provider is handicapped in giving proper care for whatever reason then we are less likely to have a satisfactory outcome.

This is all pretty basic stuff that seems to elude those who are making laws and regulations. Not surprising, because they are ignorant. How could they not be?

So what to do. First we need more time, not less to spend on each patient. The idea of increasing work per unit time is absolutely insane. We aren't making marshmallows, we're trying to help people, real people, not some averaged statistics. It's been demonstrated that the most effective thing to improve outcomes is for a trained person to spend a minimum of an hour with someone gathering patient history, observing the person, questioning them and so on. So they have a pain in the knee. Well, that's grand. Get them in and out like fast food. How economical. Unfortunately you missed that obvious melanoma, or the asymmetric motor function indicative of a stroke, or a hundred other things that might be present, but because it's not the principle complaint gets missed so we get em in and out. That means future visits for things which could be addressed when they weren't so serious becomes a major personal and financial ordeal later. There's also the problem that many people have no idea why they are taking a medicine, or forgot they were supposed to make an appointment, or they are seeing multiple practitioners who really don't know about the other because the patient forgot to mention them. I don't see that in the ACA.

This leads into the next problem. There is little interconnectedness in the system as a whole. Hospitals call me routinely to find out what medications those admitted are taking. The patient doesn't recall exactly and just who prescribed what. OK I can answer that, but what about services provided by someone else for which I have no access? Was something already ruled out? Was some test done and the results someplace somewhere? What is the relevant medical history of the admitted? Ignorance isn't strength. It's a hazard to those treated. So we could fund a centralized database updated in real time which practitioners could access when needed. Getting into the database is restricted to whose giving care, not Uncle Sam or insurance except for what is needed for billing purposes. The security would be a challenge, and an effective and reliable system would cost billions, but the two things I mentioned would save an incredible amount, far more than what they cost and the patient benefits.

That reduces the costs of treatments and that makes health care more affordable, not by some artificial means which is already having adverse consequences, but as a natural consequence.

That's two things that make a huge difference. Being something that addresses fundamental needs there are minimal unintended consequences.

That's a start.

And know what? I'm one person with decent reasoning skills. Imaging a concerted effort by those who know far more than myself and infinitely more than Congress, which by my suggestion would still be the ones voting on anything proposed. If they want to slaughter it for political purposes then it's entirely on their heads, but they were given the best possible solutions created by the best people in relevant fields spending the time needed to do the job right.

While your wonderfully competent representatives are rejecting alternatives, why don't you suggest they come up with a comprehensive theory of quantum gravity, or design a fusion plant, you know something equally amenable to political hackery.

 

[berzerker60]

You've just posted a list of people who grew up poor and became massively successful as justification for poor children needing Uncle Sugar's benevolent dictatorship.

Let us hope Obamacare offers something for the irony-impaired.

And how many potential Carnegies and Rockefellers weren't as lucky and died because they couldn't afford basic medical care? How many potential FDRs and Stephen Hawkings weren't born to rich families and instead of contributing hugely to the world, ended up in institutions or bankrupting their families because of their medical difficulties they had to overcome? The list just proves that poor people can be massively talented, and it's in our national interest to make sure that everyone has opportunities to achieve what's within their abilities. That means medical care even if they're born to poor families. It means food so they don't go malnourished and distracted during school. It means good schools. It means a safety net for when they temporarily fall down, like how Rowling wrote the first Harry Potter book while temporarily on welfare after a period of bad luck - would the world be a better place if she'd just been left to starve?