Republican/conservative healthcare alternative still MIA 5 yrs later

[werepossum]

There are not enough facepalms in the world to reply to this post.

Looting an entitlement fund pretty much universally refers to benefits cuts. 404 Benefit Cuts Not Found.

Cutting payments to hospitals/providers? If doable (and so far, it has been), then it's a complete and utter no-brainer.

Perhaps you would explain to the class what are benefits. And remember, by your definition they cannot be payments to providers for services. Then perhaps you can explain why we see so many signs saying the practice is not accepting new Medicare/Medicaid payments. Just to shake things up, let's not use "Because they are evil Republicans" this time.

In the "Get a clue" segment, I would like to point out that Obamacare did cut $716 billion from programmed Medicare/Medicaid spending, which is exactly what Democrats accuse Republicans of wanting to do every election cycle. The cut in payments was how he justified this, but it does not change the fact that this much less money is now allocated. Otherwise the plan could not claim this money as savings to the federal government and the Medicare/Medicaid fund would have increased by that much, were it simply reducing what is paid out.

 

[ivwshane]

Perhaps you would explain to the class what are benefits. And remember, by your definition they cannot be payments to providers for services. Then perhaps you can explain why we see so many signs saying the practice is not accepting new Medicare/Medicaid payments. Just to shake things up, let's not use "Because they are evil Republicans" this time.

In the "Get a clue" segment, I would like to point out that Obamacare did cut $716 billion from programmed Medicare/Medicaid spending, which is exactly what Democrats accuse Republicans of wanting to do every election cycle. The cut in payments was how he justified this, but it does not change the fact that this much less money is now allocated. Otherwise the plan could not claim this money as savings to the federal government and the Medicare/Medicaid fund would have increased by that much, were it simply reducing what is paid out.

I don't think you understand what's going on. The $700 billion was a reduction in payments to private insurers that provide Medicare Advantage programs. Saying Medicare benefits were cut is a flat out lie. It's like saying education spending on students has been cut because the government now provides student loans directly instead of offering them through a middleman. If the benefits are the same but the costs of those benefits have been reduced then benefits haven't been cut, no matter how many times you parrot the republican talking point!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/aug/15/checking-facts-700-billion-medicare-cut/

 

[WhipperSnapper]

There's no need to panic. The Republicans do have a plan for health care! It's called Republicare.

(1.) Obamacare/the ACA is to be abolished.

(2.) Medicare and all government funding of health care is to be ended and all regulations on insurance companies and hospitals will be eliminated, resulting in something akin to a laissez-faire system.

(3.) Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly and quietly.

 

[michal1980]

There's no need to panic. The Republicans do have a plan for health care! It's called Republicare.

(1.) Obamacare/the ACA is to be abolished.

(2.) Medicare and all government funding of health care is to be ended and all regulations on insurance companies and hospitals will be eliminated, resulting in something akin to a laissez-faire system.

(3.) Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly and quietly.

Liberals fear mongering since day zero.

How does this fear fit into moonfucks brain disorder theory that all anand liberals believe in?

 

[ivwshane]

Liberals fear mongering since day zero.

How does this fear fit into moonfucks brain disorder theory that all anand liberals believe in?

You don't get satire, do you?

What a blissful life you must have

 

[Jaskalas]

Americans simply cannot afford Healthcare.
Can our government afford it?

 

[werepossum]

I don't think you understand what's going on. The $700 billion was a reduction in payments to private insurers that provide Medicare Advantage programs. Saying Medicare benefits were cut is a flat out lie. It's like saying education spending on students has been cut because the government now provides student loans directly instead of offering them through a middleman. If the benefits are the same but the costs of those benefits have been reduced then benefits haven't been cut, no matter how many times you parrot the republican talking point!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/aug/15/checking-facts-700-billion-medicare-cut/

So how about this: we cut 90% of Medicare/Medicaid funding and reduce all payments to 10% of current. Big savings, no cuts! Still believe no benefits have been cut? Oh, I forgot - you can't answer that without knowing which party did the cut.

In reality, Obama took $716 billion from programmed Medicare/Medicaid spending, reduced benefit payments to make the projected payout the same, and used that money to make Obamacare cost lest than a trillion over the first ten years. You can spin that any way you wish, but that is what happened. Every time Republicans have even discussed cuts to the Medicare/Medicaid spending growth, Democrats have squealed that the Republicans want old people to die. Yet when Obama did the same thing to a greater degree than Republicans ever dreamed, you guys herald that as a great thing. Absolutely everyone knows exactly what this is. It's team politics, nothing more.

Since it's so great, let's do the same thing to other sacred cows. Let's cut 50% from the student loan program. We won't be cutting any benefits because we will still be paying for the same services, we'll just pay half as much for them. Surely professors and universities can take the same cuts we expect from doctors and hospitals.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Liberals fear mongering since day zero.

How does this fear fit into moonfucks brain disorder theory that all anand liberals believe in?

You're just butthurt that under your plan of laissez-faire capitalism, millions of people would die from lack of proper health care while people in those evil socialist nations are able to access health care.

 

[fskimospy]

So how about this: we cut 90% of Medicare/Medicaid funding and reduce all payments to 10% of current. Big savings, no cuts! Still believe no benefits have been cut? Oh, I forgot - you can't answer that without knowing which party did the cut.

In reality, Obama took $716 billion from programmed Medicare/Medicaid spending, reduced benefit payments to make the projected payout the same, and used that money to make Obamacare cost lest than a trillion over the first ten years. You can spin that any way you wish, but that is what happened. Every time Republicans have even discussed cuts to the Medicare/Medicaid spending growth, Democrats have squealed that the Republicans want old people to die. Yet when Obama did the same thing to a greater degree than Republicans ever dreamed, you guys herald that as a great thing. Absolutely everyone knows exactly what this is. It's team politics, nothing more.

Since it's so great, let's do the same thing to other sacred cows. Let's cut 50% from the student loan program. We won't be cutting any benefits because we will still be paying for the same services, we'll just pay half as much for them. Surely professors and universities can take the same cuts we expect from doctors and hospitals.

There are so many basic facts wrong here.

If nothing else, the spending cuts from Medicare have literally zero impact on the cost of the ACA. They would be part of the net budgetary impact, but would play no part in the $1 trillion outlay estimate. This is basic government budget knowledge here. Remember, if you're counting taxes cuts into the cost, then then ACA costs less than $0 over ten years.

I also find it amusing that you're trying to scream partisanship at him when you're someone who advocates for cutting government spending and are then outraged when Obama cuts Medicare spending. Hypocrite.

I don't think you have a strong grasp of this topic, so trying to lecture people on 'how it is' won't go well for you.

 

[ivwshane]

Your CBD is protecting your ego again. I can try and dumb it down for you even more but I think we both know that that would be pointless.


For those reading this thread who don't suffer from CBD or at least are self aware of their CBD I'll give this analogy:

Let's say I was at my local store where I usually buy a cold water from their vending machine for $.50. Well the other day they changed venders and instead of them paying $.25 to the water bottle supplier they went with their in house brand and now pay $.15 per bottle. My costs however are the same, same quality water, same quantity, it's just their costs have been reduced.

In werepossums mind what I get for my dollar has been reduced when in reality the only thing that has changed is the vender I'm going through.

So how about this: we cut 90% of Medicare/Medicaid funding and reduce all payments to 10% of current. Big savings, no cuts! Still believe no benefits have been cut? Oh, I forgot - you can't answer that without knowing which party did the cut.

In reality, Obama took $716 billion from programmed Medicare/Medicaid spending, reduced benefit payments to make the projected payout the same, and used that money to make Obamacare cost lest than a trillion over the first ten years. You can spin that any way you wish, but that is what happened. Every time Republicans have even discussed cuts to the Medicare/Medicaid spending growth, Democrats have squealed that the Republicans want old people to die. Yet when Obama did the same thing to a greater degree than Republicans ever dreamed, you guys herald that as a great thing. Absolutely everyone knows exactly what this is. It's team politics, nothing more.

Since it's so great, let's do the same thing to other sacred cows. Let's cut 50% from the student loan program. We won't be cutting any benefits because we will still be paying for the same services, we'll just pay half as much for them. Surely professors and universities can take the same cuts we expect from doctors and hospitals.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Well looky here, another person is afraid of Moonbeams made up CBD boogieman.

In Moonbeams own words "We create what we fear" and no doubt Moonbeam was the first to characterize differences as being defects AKA CBD.

 

[JSt0rm]

Well looky here, another person is afraid of Moonbeams made up CBD boogieman.

In Moonbeams own words "We create what we fear" and no doubt Moonbeam was the first to characterize differences as being defects AKA CBD.

You do have a brain defect though.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Are you a member of Mensa?

 

[JSt0rm]

Are you a member of Menza?

No. I would never spend my mental capital on such a worthless thing.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

No. I would never spend my mental capital on such a worthless thing.

So in other words your IQ doesn't qualify you to join.

 

[woolfe9998]

Perhaps you would explain to the class what are benefits. And remember, by your definition they cannot be payments to providers for services. Then perhaps you can explain why we see so many signs saying the practice is not accepting new Medicare/Medicaid payments. Just to shake things up, let's not use "Because they are evil Republicans" this time.

Do you have some stats to back this up? I mean, not a picture of a sign, but some actual data that shows fewer docs accept Medicare since the ACA. I can cite loads of articles that say otherwise. Example:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/howardg...ge-of-doctors-willing-take-medicare-patients/

But then, that one is 21 months old so perhaps it's out of date.

 

[Mandres]

What boggles my mind is that both sides work themselves up into a frothing rage arguing over the minutiae of health insurance, but nobody is talking about realistic ways to control health care cost.

Why aren't we breaking up the AMA cartel and increasing the supply of doctors? My company employs a nurse-practitioner and her staff who effectively provide healthcare for 452 employees. They handle everything from antibiotic-type illnesses to broken bones to mole removal. You don't need 12 years of medical school to effectively deliver basic health care. Especially in this day and age where the entirety of human medical knowledge is available at your fingertips instantly online.

Until the cost of healthcare is driven down to an affordable level there is no good solution for how to insure patients. Period.

 

[First]

Perhaps you would explain to the class what are benefits. And remember, by your definition they cannot be payments to providers for services. Then perhaps you can explain why we see so many signs saying the practice is not accepting new Medicare/Medicaid payments. Just to shake things up, let's not use "Because they are evil Republicans" this time.

Exceeeeept there's no evidence doctors and hospitals are refusing to take Medicare now that the $750B cut has gone into effect. So your point is, what, again? Btw, what would happen if some doctors and hospitals stopped taking Medicare?

Btw, benefit cuts still not found.

In the "Get a clue" segment, I would like to point out that Obamacare did cut $716 billion from programmed Medicare/Medicaid spending, which is exactly what Democrats accuse Republicans of wanting to do every election cycle. The cut in payments was how he justified this, but it does not change the fact that this much less money is now allocated. Otherwise the plan could not claim this money as savings to the federal government and the Medicare/Medicaid fund would have increased by that much, were it simply reducing what is paid out.

Huh? It is universally understood that government entitlement programs cost lots of money, so finding a way to cut spending (in this case, clear overpayments) to doctors and hospitals on the order of $750B over 10 years is, again, a complete no-brainer given no senior will see their benefits cut. I suppose there's the possibility that some hospitals and doctors will eventually stop taking Medicare.....annnnnd this has yet to materialize in any significant/verifiable/actual way.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well looky here, another person is afraid of Moonbeams made up CBD boogieman.

In Moonbeams own words "We create what we fear" and no doubt Moonbeam was the first to characterize differences as being defects AKA CBD.

Ah jeez Londo, I've explained this to you how many times. It never gets through, of course, because you have a brain defect, which for the moment, I will just ignore and explain it again. I don't mind doing so because you are worth it.

Scientific peer reviewed research has shown that conservatives and liberals have different brains, the fear parts larger in conservatives and the fear moderating parts larger in liberals. This can be seen in brain scans and suggests that conservatives may be more fear motivated than liberals which lead to numerous other scientific experiments, which showed that indeed, conservatives were more magnetized by fear thinking than liberals. Further experiments revealed that conservative fear thinking apparently slops over into the area of rational thinking, where experiments revealed that conservatives were less able to face facts that caused them to experience unpleasant feelings than liberals, that they have more bias to deflect truths they do not want to believe because believing them would cause pain to their self images. Furthermore, these scientific facts are denied when presented to conservatives.

I presented these facts in threads here and faced that exact experience, conservatives denied that they were less able to face emotionally disturbing facts than liberals so I tried something else.

I postulated that if a person has a bias against truth while maintaining that truth is a good thing to know, that person is defective in their thinking. If you are not what you want to be and deny you aren't what you want to be, then there is something wrong with your thinking, and if your thinking comes from a brain that is fear motivated then you have a brain defect since it is the nature of your brain that keeps you from being who you desire to be.

By attaching a negative word, 'defect' to the condition, I caused a conservative uproar, the very expression of denial I was saying exists.

What has happened here is that the fear of being irrational and biased in your thinking has caused it to exist. You have created what you fear.

Now when you say that liberals have fears, you are correct. For a liberal to think as you do, he would have to be insane, he would have to throw out his capacity to unbiasedly asses truth which any reasonable person would call insane. We have plenty of manifestations of this fear in the fictional media, Zombies are a good example. A Zombie is nothing more than the projection of our fears of being irrational. It's the conservative brain defect in fiction. They scare a lot of people, especially conservatives, I would imagine, since they are looking at themselves.

Just imagine liberals living in a world full of Zombies trying to deny global warming by eating scientists brains. You can see these Zombies in many of our threads.

Remember, when you have a rational means to assess risk, you can statistically show that some fears are rational. Insurance companies do this all the time.

Always remember too that what is defective in one situation may be a plus in another. In a world full of saber-toothed cats, while liberals assessed the risk on the ground, the conservatives would all be in the trees.

Blessed are the knee-jerks among us because they got us where we are today. But please take a well earned break.

 

[JSt0rm]

So in other words your IQ doesn't qualify you to join.

I dunno. I never looked into it. What I do know about intelligence is that people can be smart in different ways. The difference between someone who is stupid and someone who isnt has nothing to do with the knowledge they have right now it, has everything to do with how open they are to change based on new information.

 

[werepossum]

There are so many basic facts wrong here.

If nothing else, the spending cuts from Medicare have literally zero impact on the cost of the ACA. They would be part of the net budgetary impact, but would play no part in the $1 trillion outlay estimate. This is basic government budget knowledge here. Remember, if you're counting taxes cuts into the cost, then then ACA costs less than $0 over ten years.

I also find it amusing that you're trying to scream partisanship at him when you're someone who advocates for cutting government spending and are then outraged when Obama cuts Medicare spending. Hypocrite.

I don't think you have a strong grasp of this topic, so trying to lecture people on 'how it is' won't go well for you.

Your CBD is protecting your ego again. I can try and dumb it down for you even more but I think we both know that that would be pointless.


For those reading this thread who don't suffer from CBD or at least are self aware of their CBD I'll give this analogy:

Let's say I was at my local store where I usually buy a cold water from their vending machine for $.50. Well the other day they changed venders and instead of them paying $.25 to the water bottle supplier they went with their in house brand and now pay $.15 per bottle. My costs however are the same, same quality water, same quantity, it's just their costs have been reduced.

In werepossums mind what I get for my dollar has been reduced when in reality the only thing that has changed is the vender I'm going through.

Perhaps you guys should take this up with Obama, considering I quoted him as saying (A) he cut Medicare and (B) he used that money to pay for Obamacare. Convince him he is wrong and then come back to me, eh?

TAPPER: “One of the concerns about health care and how you pay for it — one third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare.”

BARACK OBAMA: “Right.”

TAPPER: “A lot of times, as you know, what happens in Congress is somebody will do something bold and then Congress, close to election season, will undo it.”

OBAMA: “Right.”

TAPPER: “You saw that with the ‘doc fix’.”

OBAMA: “Right.”

TAPPER: “Are you willing to pledge that whatever cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance, one third of it, that you will veto anything that tries to undo that?”

OBAMA: “Yes. I actually have said that it is important for us to make sure this thing is deficit neutral, without tricks. I said I wouldn’t sign a bill that didn’t meet that criteria.”​

Do you have some stats to back this up? I mean, not a picture of a sign, but some actual data that shows fewer docs accept Medicare since the ACA. I can cite loads of articles that say otherwise. Example:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/howardg...ge-of-doctors-willing-take-medicare-patients/

But then, that one is 21 months old so perhaps it's out of date.

lol No, I do not. In fact, it now occurs to me that I have totally misjudged human nature and missed the fact that people are much more likely to provide a service if paid less for it. Mea culpa, carry on.

 

[woolfe9998]

lol No, I do not. In fact, it now occurs to me that I have totally misjudged human nature and missed the fact that people are much more likely to provide a service if paid less for it. Mea culpa, carry on.

Your sarcasm here is extremely dishonest. First of all, all extant evidence is that there hasn't been a decline in doctor Medicare participation. You want more than I've already provided? I only picked the top article in my google search. You could try replying to the evidence.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/04/Are-Doctors-Really-Ditching-Medicare
http://kff.org/medicare/issue-brief...ss-to-physicians-a-synthesis-of-the-evidence/

You can keep arguing against facts with theory and sarcasm but the facts win.

Second, even your theoretical point is incorrect. Doctors may take patients with private insurance over Medicare, but that only matters for doctors who are at capacity with patients who have private insurance. Most doctors take Medicare, and Medicaid, because doing so gives them more patients. So long as they're making a profit from serving those patients, it doesn't matter that they would make more with another type of patient because they can't just wave their magic wand and have a practice filled to capacity with patients who have private insurance. For all but a small percentage of elite docs, it doesn't matter that Medicare pays less. Medicare need only pay enough that they make money off it, which is quite clearly the case or ~90% of docs would not be taking Medicare.

 

[ivwshane]

Perhaps you guys should take this up with Obama, considering I quoted him as saying (A) he cut Medicare and (B) he used that money to pay for Obamacare. Convince him he is wrong and then come back to me, eh?

TAPPER: “One of the concerns about health care and how you pay for it — one third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare.”

BARACK OBAMA: “Right.”

TAPPER: “A lot of times, as you know, what happens in Congress is somebody will do something bold and then Congress, close to election season, will undo it.”

OBAMA: “Right.”

TAPPER: “You saw that with the ‘doc fix’.”

OBAMA: “Right.”

TAPPER: “Are you willing to pledge that whatever cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance, one third of it, that you will veto anything that tries to undo that?”

OBAMA: “Yes. I actually have said that it is important for us to make sure this thing is deficit neutral, without tricks. I said I wouldn’t sign a bill that didn’t meet that criteria.”​

lol No, I do not. In fact, it now occurs to me that I have totally misjudged human nature and missed the fact that people are much more likely to provide a service if paid less for it. Mea culpa, carry on.

I didn't think you could get dumber but here you are! Congrats! I'm guessing you are a trump fan since he speaks to you at your level, god forbid a politician like Obama dumb something down for the masses and not get into the details of policy! Much better for you to be talked down to instead of looking at the actual facts.

Your last post certainly explains a lot about you. You are all about the sound bites, fuck reality. No wonder you support most republicans

 

[werepossum]

Your sarcasm here is extremely dishonest. First of all, all extant evidence is that there hasn't been a decline in doctor Medicare participation. You want more than I've already provided? I only picked the top article in my google search. You could try replying to the evidence.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2013/09/04/Are-Doctors-Really-Ditching-Medicare
http://kff.org/medicare/issue-brief...ss-to-physicians-a-synthesis-of-the-evidence/

You can keep arguing against facts with theory and sarcasm but the facts win.

Second, even your theoretical point is incorrect. Doctors may take patients with private insurance over Medicare, but that only matters for doctors who at at capacity with patients who have private insurance. Most doctors take Medicare, and Medicaid, because doing so gives them more patients. So long as they're making a profit from serving those patients, it doesn't matter that they would make more with another type of patient because they can't just wave their magic wand and have a practice filled to capacity with patients who have private insurance. For all but a small percentage of elite docs, it doesn't matter that Medicare pays less. Medicare need only pay enough that they make money off it, which is quite clearly the case or ~90% of docs would not be taking Medicare.

From your own first link:

The story detailed how the number of doctors opting out of Medicare has “nearly tripled” last year compared with three years ago and described the mounting frustrations – low reimbursement rates, bureaucratic incentives – behind that apparent trend.

"Family physicians have been fed up for a long time and it's getting worse," Jeffrey Cain, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, was quoted as saying.

So are doctors really abandoning their elderly patients? While many are certainly not taking Medicare patients anymore, the big picture is much more nuanced.

First, a little math helps clarify what’s really been happening. There are about 685,000 physicians in the U.S. who accept Medicare patients. Last year, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), some 9,539 doctors chose to opt out of Medicare. That's up from 3,700 in 2009, but it’s still less than 2 percent, which is hardly a mass exodus.

Ask a doctor and most will tell you that they lose money on Medicare patients. They continue taking them because these people are long time patients and the doctors feel a responsibility toward them. Note also that your articles are mute on doctors accepting new Medicare patients (i.e. patients who are new to the doctor rather than existing patients who transition to Medicare.)

Look, you guys can cut Medicare as much as you wish as long as you can sell 50.1% of voters that cuts on other people are good for them. Just please pick a lane, don't pat yourselves on the back that your cuts have only caused less than 2% of doctors to stop taking Medicare patients whilst simultaneously arguing that there were no cuts - even though the guy at the top not only agrees he cut Medicare by $718 but promises to veto any bill restoring those cuts. And for the love of G-d, please stop accusing Republicans of WANTING to cut Medicare when you ARE cutting Medicare - even if you can argue that the number of physicians dropping Medicare patients is acceptable.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323971204578626151017241898

Fewer American doctors are treating patients enrolled in the Medicare health program for seniors, reflecting frustration with its payment rates and pushback against mounting rules, according to health experts.

Fewer American doctors are treating patients enrolled in the Medicare health program for seniors, reflecting frustration with its payment rates and pushback against mounting rules, according to health experts. Stefanie Ilgenfritz reports.

The number of doctors who opted out of Medicare last year, while a small proportion of the nation's health professionals, nearly tripled from three years earlier, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the government agency that administers the program. Other doctors are limiting the number of Medicare patients they treat even if they don't formally opt out of the system.

Even fewer doctors say they are accepting new Medicaid patients, and the number who don't participate in private insurance contracts, while smaller, is growing—just as millions of Americans are poised to gain access to such coverage under the new health law next year. All told, health experts say the number of doctors going "off-grid" isn't enough to undermine the Affordable Care Act, but they say some Americans may have difficulty finding doctors who will take their new benefits or face long waits for appointments with those who do.

CMS said 9,539 physicians who had accepted Medicare opted out of the program in 2012, up from 3,700 in 2009. That compares with 685,000 doctors who were enrolled as participating physicians in Medicare last year, according to CMS, which has never released annual opt-out figures before.

Meanwhile, the proportion of family doctors who accepted new Medicare patients last year, 81%, was down from 83% in 2010, according to a survey by the American Academy of Family Physicians of 800 members. The same study found that 4% of family physicians are now in cash-only or concierge practices, where patients pay a monthly or yearly fee for special access to doctors, up from 3% in 2010.

A study in the journal Health Affairs this month found that 33% of primary-care physicians didn't accept new Medicaid patients in 2010-2011.

 

[werepossum]

I didn't think you could get dumber but here you are! Congrats! I'm guessing you are a trump fan since he speaks to you at your level, god forbid a politician like Obama dumb something down for the masses and not get into the details of policy! Much better for you to be talked down to instead of looking at the actual facts.

Your last post certainly explains a lot about you. You are all about the sound bites, fuck reality. No wonder you support most republicans

You are certainly giving Jhhnn a good run for title of Stupidest Person on the Internet.