Oops.. health law blunder

[hal2kilo]

In a normal world, it would be simple to fix it with legislation. But, we know that this current congress is anything but living in a normal world. Any attempt to tweek the flaws in the healthcare bill would be set upon with hundreds of ammendments that would basically be more attempts to repeal the healthcare reform. I'm not surprised that there has been no rush to fix this and many other flaws in the bill.

 

[Texashiker]

I'm not surprised that there has been no rush to fix this and many other flaws in the bill.

Rush to fix what?

I see nothing wrong with providing people with a service they are paying for. If you pay for something, shouldn't you be able to use it?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

They should have done as I suggested, but they weren't any smarter than the Dems. They never listen

 

[PokerGuy]

If they don't need the health care, they won't use the Medicaid, costing taxpayer nothing.

Wrong again, you dimwit. They need the coverage, regardless of whether they need care or not. What they don't need is the government handout, which is supposed to be for the poor, those in real need.

 

[PokerGuy]

I see nothing wrong with providing people with a service they are paying for. If you pay for something, shouldn't you be able to use it?

Apparently you are unable to grasp even the simplest concepts. This is a service meant for those in real need (which is already specifically defined). Because of the poorly crafted legislation those who are not in need of a handout will be getting a nice taxpayer paid for handout, free coverage.

 

[Fern]

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.

Yes, thank you. That's EXACTLY what this is about.

In addition, many here are confusing Medicare with Medicaid. They are two different things. We do not have Medicaid deducted from our paychecks. Only Medicare is deducted form our paychecks.

I see no valid reason that those who can afford to retire early, and make up to $64K, cannot afford to buy HI for a few years. If they cannot, then the obvious answer is to wait until you are 65 yrs old and qualify for Medicare.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

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.

See this shows how little people actually know about this stuff. Pelosi was saying that once it was passed the AMERICAN PEOPLE would see what was in it, not the Congress.

Jesus, people.

 

[fskimospy]

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."

Hahaha, I like how you included a chart from the private insurance companies' lobbying arm as evidence. Keeping it classy you see.

As for your other links, none of them actually address the argument, they just provide anecdotal evidence. See, I linked to a real study... you know... the kind that actually account for macro trends. You link to newspaper articles that says 'THIS GUY DOESN'T LIKE MEDICAID'.

And you wonder why you always seem to lose your arguments here.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

Medical decisions are already regulated, and they have been for a long time now. A basically capitalistic economy interfaces with the nationalization of a ONE trillion dollar system (one of the two trillion already being socialized in Medicare/Medicaid/etc) just fine, the same way it's done so in the basically capitalistic economies across the first world.

It's been done repeatedly the world over with utterly superior results. It takes a truly insane ideologue to look at these successes and ignore them because it doesn't come from your chosen way of doing things.

 

[theeedude]

Wrong again, you dimwit. They need the coverage, regardless of whether they need care or not. What they don't need is the government handout, which is supposed to be for the poor, those in real need.

Family of 2 making $20K is poor enough to not be able to afford health insurance, especially if they are both in their 60s.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2008-01-14-boomer-health-coverage_N.htm

Unfortunately, individual policies for people in their 60s can be hugely expensive, with premiums topping $900 a month for family coverage. And those in poor health might be unable to find a policy at any price.

A family of two 62 year olds making $20K is "too rich" for Medicaid, but private insurance could take half of their income, if they are healthy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Medical decisions are already regulated, and they have been for a long time now.

Well holy shit, who would have thought? Since I deal with this every day I know all about that, much more than you. Did you really think anyone was arguing for complete freedom of action? Only a fool would believe that was what anyone wanted.

A basically capitalistic economy interfaces with the nationalization of a ONE trillion dollar system (one of the two trillion already being socialized in Medicare/Medicaid/etc) just fine, the same way it's done so in the basically capitalistic economies across the first world.

Again you keep bring up other nations. Well that's grand. This isn't France.

It's been done repeatedly the world over with utterly superior results. It takes a truly insane ideologue to look at these successes and ignore them because it doesn't come from your chosen way of doing things.

It takes an utter fool with no knowledge of anything besides headlines and articles to think that because other countries do things well that we must automatically do the same. Hint- I don't know what the best way to get the best medical care is, and neither do you. OH SNAP if we were to really examine things and try to improve the system by an educated means. Oh yeah, we don't need to know anything more. You and Congress know all that there is to know.

That's precisely why I am concerned about an increased government influence in medicine. You already know everything, yet you know less than me or anyone who ever practiced one day. It isn't insane ideology to want to keep the keys to the family car from the 6 year old. You are ignorant and want to stay that way. You don't know the difference between medicine and funding, and apparently Congress doesn't know enough to keep petty politics from screwing up as demonstrated by what you consider a non issue (and I dare say that nothing would warrant concern by those who exhibit religious fervor for it as those who know the least about it).

In short there are other viable systems, but they are focused on health care first and politics last. Our political system minces up ideas and forces them into politically acceptable shapes first, and how well it works? Well embrace it. No matter little understanding they have, someone else looked up something about it. Will regulations prevent giving good care? Well there's France or Sweden. Will party politics make it a mess? Who cares? Ignorance is strength, and that is being practiced to a high art. It's about the quality of care, not your pissing contest.

 

[Jhhnn]

In a normal world, it would be simple to fix it with legislation. But, we know that this current congress is anything but living in a normal world. Any attempt to tweek the flaws in the healthcare bill would be set upon with hundreds of ammendments that would basically be more attempts to repeal the healthcare reform. I'm not surprised that there has been no rush to fix this and many other flaws in the bill.

Repubs are entirely too busy trying to Beat Obama! to engage in any sort of constructive endeavor, it's true. They're purely oppositional.

 

[fskimospy]

Well holy shit, who would have thought? Since I deal with this every day I know all about that, much more than you. Did you really think anyone was arguing for complete freedom of action? Only a fool would believe that was what anyone wanted.



Again you keep bring up other nations. Well that's grand. This isn't France.



It takes an utter fool with no knowledge of anything besides headlines and articles to think that because other countries do things well that we must automatically do the same. Hint- I don't know what the best way to get the best medical care is, and neither do you. OH SNAP if we were to really examine things and try to improve the system by an educated means. Oh yeah, we don't need to know anything more. You and Congress know all that there is to know.

That's precisely why I am concerned about an increased government influence in medicine. You already know everything, yet you know less than me or anyone who ever practiced one day. It isn't insane ideology to want to keep the keys to the family car from the 6 year old. You are ignorant and want to stay that way. You don't know the difference between medicine and funding, and apparently Congress doesn't know enough to keep petty politics from screwing up as demonstrated by what you consider a non issue (and I dare say that nothing would warrant concern by those who exhibit religious fervor for it as those who know the least about it).

In short there are other viable systems, but they are focused on health care first and politics last. Our political system minces up ideas and forces them into politically acceptable shapes first, and how well it works? Well embrace it. No matter little understanding they have, someone else looked up something about it. Will regulations prevent giving good care? Well there's France or Sweden. Will party politics make it a mess? Who cares? Ignorance is strength, and that is being practiced to a high art. It's about the quality of care, not your pissing contest.

What the hell is this wall of babbling nonsense.

This is a pretty great mix of insane rambling, hilariously incorrect statements, wild accusations, emotional frothing, and strawmen. I don't know what else to say other than if you can't argue rationally, maybe you shouldn't.

 

[waggy]

wow. do some of you idiots not understand who is paying for it? its not free..

a family makeing 65k should not be on medicaid oh hell no.

For those saying this is a good thing who do you think is going to be hurt paying for this shit (it has to be paid for..its not FREE) ? the middle class.

i too want to know was this be design or a fuck up? this is why i wanted them to go over it BEFORE they voted on it. i still don't understand why they didnt'

 

[BarneyFife]

Yeah like 65k before taxes is a ton of money. Lets see, 2 adults around 60 years of age you are looking at $900 a month (this is without prescription or doctor visits). So thats $11k right there. Then you add daily life expenses and you don't have much money left. I laugh at minimum wage tea party members here bitching about providing health care but jerk off to million dollar daisy cutter bombs dropping in Iraq and then the US rebuilding the damage. You guys are too stupid to realize you're fucking your own country.