Oops.. health law blunder

[Hayabusa Rider]

Blunder? Sounds like a good thing.

So was this a good thing done by incompetence or was it a good thing done by deceit?

My bet that either is acceptable since no act is too low.

 

[ProfJohn]

Its a good thing for people.

Its a blunder for the insurance companies who wanted a law to protect their profits.

It has nothing to do with insurance companies!!!!

They will just pass the costs along to the rest of us!


Let me tell you a little secret. Medicare and Medicaid don't pay the full cost of treating people at the hospital or doctor etc etc. So you know what happens? The costs get passed along to the people who do have insurance!

Do you really think the insurance and hospitals are just going to say "3 million people getting free healthcare? No problem"

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Its a good thing for people.

Its a blunder for the insurance companies who wanted a law to protect their profits.

Do you have a job or are you still living off of your parents?

 

[Texashiker]

So was this a good thing done by incompetence or was it a good thing done by deceit?

Why does it have to be incompetence or deceit?

Hopefully, when the mandating that everyone buy insurance is struck down, the general population can get on medicaid.

Do you have a job or are you still living off of your parents?

I moved out of my parents house in 1986.

 

[ProfJohn]

If we have a few billion to rebuild iraq with, we should have the money to pay for medical care.

News Flash!!

Iraq spending this year = $66 billion
Healthcare spending this year = $2,500 billion and about half of that comes from the government.

 

[fskimospy]

It has nothing to do with insurance companies!!!!

They will just pass the costs along to the rest of us!


Let me tell you a little secret. Medicare and Medicaid don't pay the full cost of treating people at the hospital or doctor etc etc. So you know what happens? The costs get passed along to the people who do have insurance!

Do you really think the insurance and hospitals are just going to say "3 million people getting free healthcare? No problem"

Nope, they sure don't.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1788128

But I'm sure you're right Pro-Jo, hospitals and doctors voluntarily accept Medicare and Medicaid patients to work all day and lose money. After all, the rest is just LIBRUL STUDIES AGAINST AMERICA.

 

[CPA]

OMG this is the end of this country!!

The libs are all up in arms over a form letter the Florida Governor is sending out, but indifferent with a fiscal loophole in one of the largest federal grabs in the history of this country. Focus, libs, focus!

 

[Texashiker]

But I'm sure you're right Pro-Jo, hospitals and doctors voluntarily accept Medicare and Medicaid patients to work all day and lose money. After all, the rest is just LIBRUL STUDIES AGAINST AMERICA.

My wife works for a local doctor, the office losses money on every medicaid and medicare patient they see.

Sometimes, the people that drive the medicaid and medicare patients to the doctors office makes more money then the doctor does.

 

[umbrella39]

Let other people handle your finances.

LOL'd

 

[fskimospy]

Really? So this is going to be free? Nice.
BTW, those CBO figures? They themselves said savings are contingent on things like medicare reimbursement cuts. When did that happen? The right hand takes and the left gives back. Smoke and mirrors.

Ahh, so now the savings aren't there because you believe at some point in the future things will change so they won't be. Since that's an argument based upon your fantasy of what the future will bring, all I can do is shrug.

What I said is that in advance of "crafting" the research in the context of implementation by people who know what the heck is going on should be done. Then and only then should a remedy be sought. You pointedly ignore that.

And as you've been told repeatedly, people have engaged in exactly that sort of research and recommended prescriptive policies for decades and decades. You pointedly ignore that.

It isn't about saying, it's about doing. When going about something ass backward, it's more likely that bad things will happen.

You have literally no idea how the individual provisions of this bill were crafted, yet you take the existence of an unintended consequence (that you acknowledge must exist) as being evidence that no such attempts were made. That's a horrible argument.

I've worked in many fields and in every one the best policies came about after those in charge exercised due diligence in getting current and comprehensive guidance. You are displaying a fundamental ignorance of the complexity of the system.

My position is that the system is more complicated than Congress understands, that they exercise minimal effort compared to the task and have no idea what happens next.

Would you explain how Medicaid run health care is vastly superior? I'd love to hear that.

You have provided no evidence that Congress exercised minimal effort, in fact all evidence points to the contrary. Government run health care the world over has been proven over and over and over again to provide similar results at vastly reduced cost. It is superior. Period. Stop trying to stick your head in the sand.

The fact is that I've had this conversation in a way before. No one needed to question the government about Iraq. After all the research was done, the military is vastly superior to any other etc. You are merely playing the counterpoint to the neocons. There is nothing that government can do wrong and it happens there will be a justification for it. Nothing ever changes.

This is easily the dumbest thing you've ever written. There just aren't enough facepalms.

 

[fskimospy]

My wife works for a local doctor, the office losses money on every medicaid and medicare patient they see.

Sometimes, the people that drive the medicaid and medicare patients to the doctors office makes more money then the doctor does.

Then they should stop seeing them, they certainly aren't required to. If you are attempting to state that the hundreds of thousands of doctors that see Medicare and Medicaid patients the country over are all losing money on the proposition, that's an extraordinary claim that would require some pretty extraordinary evidence.

Of course I already provided evidence against that argument, but as usual on here that will be ignored.

 

[bfdd]

Then they should stop seeing them, they certainly aren't required to. If you are attempting to state that the hundreds of thousands of doctors that see Medicare and Medicaid patients the country over are all losing money on the proposition, that's an extraordinary claim that would require some pretty extraordinary evidence.

Of course I already provided evidence against that argument, but as usual on here that will be ignored.

So his claim requires extraordinary evidence, but passing this bill that is super expansive doesn't? WTF? eskimo, you do realize how fucking ridiculous you sound right? Oh they couldn't do a study because the study would take to long? What kind of asinine bullshit is that? You're just making excuse after excuse then using reverse logic to attack the people who are actually making valid points. You are coming off like a complete shill.

 

[fskimospy]

So his claim requires extraordinary evidence, but passing this bill that is super expansive doesn't? WTF? eskimo, you do realize how fucking ridiculous you sound right? Oh they couldn't do a study because the study would take to long? What kind of asinine bullshit is that? You're just making excuse after excuse then using reverse logic to attack the people who are actually making valid points. You are coming off like a complete shill.

I don't even know what you're trying to say right now. 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' means that if you are making a claim that runs significantly contrary to established evidence and procedure up to this point, you need to provide convincing proof for it. Comparing that to how expensive a bill is is apples and oranges.

Not only that, but my argument is the research HAD been done, just not research specifically commissioned by Congress for the passage of that particular bill. Congress almost never does that sort of thing because studies take years to do, and won't be completed until long after the current Congress has come and gone. In this case there were MOUNTAINS of studies, so instead of wasting everyone's time, they used the available evidence. (btw, pretty much all legislation works this way)

I don't think you guys understand how legislating works.

 

[ProfJohn]

Here is cost shifting in California alone
$9.3 billion in 2009.

 

[ProfJohn]

Nope, they sure don't.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1788128

But I'm sure you're right Pro-Jo, hospitals and doctors voluntarily accept Medicare and Medicaid patients to work all day and lose money. After all, the rest is just LIBRUL STUDIES AGAINST AMERICA.

Hospitals have no choice.

As for doctors:
http://www.detnews.com/article/20110621/BIZ/106210327/1001/biz
"Forty-two percent of Medicaid recipients surveyed said their primary-care provider didn't accept their coverage, and 12 percent said their usual source of care was the emergency room, a high-cost option."

http://www.disabilityscoop.com/2011/06/17/doctors-turn-away-medicaid/13367/
"When Medicaid was cited as the child’s insurance provider, the researchers were not able to get an appointment two-thirds of the time. That number dropped to just 11 percent when researchers said the child had private insurance."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/health/policy/16medicaid.html
Dr. Sahouri said. “But after a while you realize that we’re really losing money on seeing those patients, not even breaking even. We were starting to lose more and more money, month after month.”
"In Flint, Dr. Nita M. Kulkarni, an obstetrician, receives $29.42 from Medicaid for a visit that would bill $69.63 from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. She receives $842.16 from Medicaid for a Caesarean delivery, compared with $1,393.31 from Blue Cross."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Government run health care the world

Great. Now tell me about Medicaid. Tell me about how a basically capitalistic economy interfaces with the nationalization of a two trillion dollar system. Tell me about accountability. Do we now have votes of no confidence to have this move along? Tell me how Democrats and Republicans fighting tooth and nail against each other improves medicine. Who makes decisions? Will medical decisions be regulated? How do you know this?

Oh, we worked all that out before writing this. Right.

 

[Texashiker]

Then they should stop seeing them, they certainly aren't required to. If you are attempting to state that the hundreds of thousands of doctors that see Medicare and Medicaid patients the country over are all losing money on the proposition,

If anything, the doctors are breaking even, or making very little profit.

that's an extraordinary claim that would require some pretty extraordinary evidence.

Go talk to someone that works in the medical field

 

[bfdd]

I don't even know what you're trying to say right now. 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' means that if you are making a claim that runs significantly contrary to established evidence and procedure up to this point, you need to provide convincing proof for it. Comparing that to how expensive a bill is is apples and oranges.

Not only that, but my argument is the research HAD been done, just not research specifically commissioned by Congress for the passage of that particular bill. Congress almost never does that sort of thing because studies take years to do, and won't be completed until long after the current Congress has come and gone. In this case there were MOUNTAINS of studies, so instead of wasting everyone's time, they used the available evidence. (btw, pretty much all legislation works this way)

I don't think you guys understand how legislating works.

So much research has been done into it that we were told we had to pass it to find out what was in it. How the fuck could they have done any research when that was their motto? How could they have done any research when they are on record admitting they haven't read it? Where is this research? We wouldn't find holes like this NOW if they had done anything resembling what you are claiming. You are backing this up and saying that they didn't have to do these things because these things needed to be done blah blah blah justifying it by saying it would have got shoved under the rug. You sound like a shill. Deny it all you want, but I bet the majority of the people in this thread will agree with me.

 

[senseamp]

So was this a good thing done by incompetence or was it a good thing done by deceit?

My bet that either is acceptable since no act is too low.

Yeah, providing health care to retirees is a real low blow.

 

[senseamp]

Great. Now tell me about Medicaid. Tell me about how a basically capitalistic economy interfaces with the nationalization of a two trillion dollar system. Tell me about accountability. Do we now have votes of no confidence to have this move along? Tell me how Democrats and Republicans fighting tooth and nail against each other improves medicine. Who makes decisions? Will medical decisions be regulated? How do you know this?

Oh, we worked all that out before writing this. Right.

Republicans should not have been fighting this tooth and nail. It's a lot more like what they've been supporting than what Democrats really want. They made a political calculation that fighting it was better for them politically.

 

[Throckmorton]

This is the best thing yet about the healthcare reform bill.

 

[PokerGuy]

This is the best thing yet about the healthcare reform bill.

Sadly this is probably true. The whole thing is an unmitigated disaster, to the point where a screwup in the legislation might be it's best feature.

 

[PokerGuy]

Yeah, providing health care to retirees is a real low blow.

Hey dimwit, the point is that this is medicaid being provided to people who don't need it. Providing care for those who need it makes sense, providing it to those who don't need it at the taxpayers' expense does not.

 

[senseamp]

Hey dimwit, the point is that this is medicaid being provided to people who don't need it. Providing care for those who need it makes sense, providing it to those who don't need it at the taxpayers' expense does not.

If they don't need the health care, they won't use the Medicaid, costing taxpayer nothing.
BTW, two people in their mid 60s making over $20K for a couple, which is the cutoff, still most likely need Medicaid to afford insurance.

 

[cubby1223]

Yeah, I don't think this was a "blunder". Every conservative in the country was saying this bill had full intentions of going to a single-payer system. When all the liberals, "progressives", and all the Democrats on Capital Hill charged back saying it was not a bill to take us to a single-payer system... well we can all see which group was better at telling the truth there.