Congress clears historic health care bill...

[trelvis tha thrilla]

Originally Posted by Man E

Originally Posted by Trelvis Tha Thrilla

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

at this point, I am against anything the gov't is trying to push at us but thats just me i dunno

Seriously. That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

The government can barely handle small stuff like education and the DMV, what makes anyone think they are going to be able to run health care properly? I know I have no faith in the government to lay out this system correctly.

Go read a textbook or something, you seem quite soft in the head. 
It's called regulation. The government is making rules that make it easier and more affordable for the average american. They are controlling the private insurance companies from running wild and raising premiums like they have been doing until now, they are also introducing subsidized insurance for those who can't take the private route. 

Nice of you to throw in your smart @%% comment about a text book. That is just so witty of you. Please keep them coming. I sure hope you didnt take offense to my statement, it seems you take this health care stuff personal.

I understand what is going on. I see how it is supposed to "work." I just dont trust the goverment to run it correctly, whether its a democrat or republican in office. I dont trust that this will all work out and everyone will be miraculously better. Im not buying into that nonsense. Until I see the plan in full action, working, and not costing people an arm and leg in taxes and nonsense,  Im going to be skeptical about our government putting us in more debt and worse situation.

 

[wilks592]

The problem with the teabaggers is that they know when this bill passes they will get exposed for who they truely are obstuctionists who were only against the bill for political purposes.

 

[shaunhillftw49]

Here we go

 

[frische produkte]

Originally Posted by Trelvis Tha Thrilla

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

at this point, I am against anything the gov't is trying to push at us but thats just me i dunno

Seriously. That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

The government can barely handle small stuff like education and the DMV, what makes anyone think they are going to be able to run health care properly? I know I have no faith in the government to lay out this system correctly.

Im not against everyone having coverage. Im against the government running it. All young people should get prepared to pay huge chunks of their checks back to the government for a very long time.

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Word for word I agree with you.[/color]

 

[jayamazin]

Republicans are the biggest hipocrits alive. First of all this bill contains hundreds of republican amendments in it and they still think this bill is a "government takeover" of healthcare. If you mandate that everyone have health insurance then it would help cut down the ER visits by people who shouldn't be there, make people have it that choose not to have it because they don't want it.

 

[utvol23]

Im one of the majority of physicians who oppose this bill in fact recent New England Journal of Medicine survey says 46% of  Primary Care Docs will consider leaving medicine if this passes.

First off  the goverment doesnt run anything efficiently. Medicare is already 32 trillion dollars in debt this will just expand medicare and more and more people will join the government funded insurance as com pannies lay people off of their insurance. For example Caterpillar recently said this bill will cost them $100M each year and would put in peril not only some of their 150K employees but also their benefits.

Second Medicare reimbursements are minimal compared to reimbursements from many private insurance companies thus the reason many doctors dont even take medicare patients because they cant afford it and with expected further 21% reimbursement cuts soon to be imposed on medicare fewer and fewer docs will treat pts with medicare.

Third this bill is far from fiscally responsible. The numbers given are all a hoax to make it look good. There will be no 1.3 trillion dollar surplusl. For the first decade the quoted cost of the bill is for 6 yrs of service but collects 10 yrs of taxes! Also the surplus is based on future medicare cuts to stay in the black and if they pass those cuts they wont have any docs to treat these patients especially specialists.

 

[chokeonsmoke]

i dont mind helping a person out, you know if they need it
need a jacket  take it,  need some money? if i got it ill lend it
but there's a lot of people milking that free money that they take 
from our taxes... 


  

 

[jayamazin]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23


Im one of the majority of physicians who oppose this bill in fact recent New England Journal of Medicine survey says 46% of  Primary Care Docs will consider leaving medicine if this passes.

First off  the goverment doesnt run anything efficiently. Medicare is already 32 trillion dollars in debt this will just expand medicare and more and more people will join the government funded insurance as com pannies lay people off of their insurance. For example Caterpillar recently said this bill will cost them $100M each year and would put in peril not only some of their 150K employees but also their benefits.

Second Medicare reimbursements are minimal compared to reimbursements from many private insurance companies thus the reason many doctors dont even take medicare patients because they cant afford it and with expected further 21% reimbursement cuts soon to be imposed on medicare fewer and fewer docs will treat pts with medicare.

Third this bill is far from fiscally responsible. The numbers given are all a hoax to make it look good. There will be no 1.3 trillion dollar surplusl. For the first decade the quoted cost of the bill is for 6 yrs of service but collects 10 yrs of taxes! Also the surplus is based on future medicare cuts to stay in the black and if they pass those cuts they wont have any docs to treat these patients especially specialists.

Thats because they are greedy. Primary Care docs make a fortune off of your basic care like doctor visits. These costs to the patient are outlandish. If you look on your insurance coverage you can see how much the costs are just to go to the doctor and see him/her. Yes you're glad that the insurance company covers it but the costs are very out of line.
  

 

[essential1]

I am against the bill but I want it to pass if the alternative is nothing..... Reason I am against it is because no matter how weak a regulation or how strong a regulation is the health insurance companies will increase their rates.. So the only alternative is MAKE THEM COMPETE WITH THE GOVERNMENT.. Keep them honest...

So I think it is not strong enough against the health care industries...


But the public disapproves of the bill overall. BUT when explained the details separately they approve...

They hate the process of this whole thing. Obama should have came out day 1 stated his position and Stood firm. Twist some arms and get the thing passed in a few months not a year. That's why his numbers went down, he let it play out.

 

[utvol23]

JayAmazin,

Please dont talk about something you know absolutely nothing about. The vast majority of primary care docs do not make a killing in fact many are struggling to keep their doors open and if they keep treating medicare patients they will have to eventually close their doors well that along with the malpractice rates!

 

[daytona 5000]

I wonder how much pork is going to be tacked on to this bill if it manages to get passed.

 

[utvol23]

Some other thoughts from a previous thread since I dont want to have to retype everything. Kinda busy at times.

If you want decreased quality of care sure its a great idea. Right now people in the US get luxury care whether you will be able to pay or not ie one of my pts early 20's male without insurance just got a hundreds of thousands in surgery and will get probably close to a million in care if not more by the end. Sure we can subsidize care for the poor but not everyone can get Bentley type healthcare maybe ford focus type care but you giving everyone the latest and greatest in medical innovations just isnt feasible.

If you want rationing of care its also a great idea.

If you want the country to go bankrupt trying to pay for it sure it is good.

The point is you have to pay for all this care and taxing the "rich" to death still will not give you the funds needed.

Medicare is going broke trying to pay for just the elderly how are they going to be able to pay to cover everyone?

I am FULLY in support of healthcare reform, because our healthcare system is in desperate need of it but this is not the type of reform needed..


Some basic things that should be fixed first:

1. TORT REFORM- so that physicians do not have to practice cover your butt medicine. Fat chance this will happen with a bunch of lawyers in congress and the white house. Funny how tort reform isnt part of Obama's plan.

The cost of healthcare in the US is unsustainable and alot of it comes back to unneccesary tests and procedures which are consistently being performed by physicians to cover their !@! because if they dont a lawsuit is eagerly awaiting them.

2. Provide BASIC care to all citizens- everyone cant have bentley type care thus the wealthy would be able to upgrade their care but everyone cant have the RIGHT to it

3. Law changes banning self-referral

4. Prohibiting insurance companies from dropping patients with so called know previous medical conditions

 

[ap27]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23


Im one of the majority of physicians who oppose this bill in fact recent New England Journal of Medicine survey says 46% of  Primary Care Docs will consider leaving medicine if this passes.

First off  the goverment doesnt run anything efficiently. Medicare is already 32 trillion dollars in debt this will just expand medicare and more and more people will join the government funded insurance as com pannies lay people off of their insurance. For example Caterpillar recently said this bill will cost them $100M each year and would put in peril not only some of their 150K employees but also their benefits.

Second Medicare reimbursements are minimal compared to reimbursements from many private insurance companies thus the reason many doctors dont even take medicare patients because they cant afford it and with expected further 21% reimbursement cuts soon to be imposed on medicare fewer and fewer docs will treat pts with medicare.

Third this bill is far from fiscally responsible. The numbers given are all a hoax to make it look good. There will be no 1.3 trillion dollar surplusl. For the first decade the quoted cost of the bill is for 6 yrs of service but collects 10 yrs of taxes! Also the surplus is based on future medicare cuts to stay in the black and if they pass those cuts they wont have any docs to treat these patients especially specialists.

Not a physician, but this is exactly how I feel about this bill. I think most people see this as, "the government is giving people free insurance now, what a great idea!"...I don't anyone actually bothers to think: how much does this cost? how will this be paid for? what are the economic effects? how does this affect current policy holders? how does this affect companies? how will this affect medical coverage and physicians?

I guess this might be a bigger and different issue, but as I get older it's disheartening and upsetting to see more and more that people don't even care to think about what's going on in the world and learning about the consequences of the government's actions before taking a passionate stance for or against something. They see Democrat/Obama = good/bad, Republican - good/bad and pick a side.

 

[jayznyayallday]

Originally Posted by chokeonsmoke

its all a front...
we dont even control are own money
they pay us when they want to pay us
just to keep us contempt
the only reason this is happenin is to keep the system in check...

what the hell are you talking about?

our,content just in case you were wondering

 

[jayamazin]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

JayAmazin,

Please dont talk about something you know absolutely nothing about. The vast majority of primary care docs do not make a killing in fact many are struggling to keep their doors open and if they keep treating medicare patients they will have to eventually close their doors well that along with the malpractice rates!

Well that New England poll you have doesn't speak for the majority of primary care physicians. I bet most that were polled were in that category of trying to stay afloat. I never look at or pay attention to polls. You ever heard of medicare reimbursements? I do think there are a significant number of primary care docs that are struggling but you cannot tell me that there are not a substantial amount of physicians who make a "killing" off of simple procedures.  

  

 

[5thgearidah]

As someone who has had to spend time at the county hospital I must say it is sad this country cant get insurance for everyone. If you dont have $$$$ you are not in a good position when you get sick.

My girl got hit by a car in front of a police officer. The insurance company of the man that hit her is playing hardball and isnt shelling out any money right now...once the doctors office who is taking care of my girl got wind of this they told her she needed to shell out $5000 the day of surgery!! when she said she didnt have it they told her to leave and go to the county.

Im not about to counter all these points against healthcare, but this system we have now is broken. The country is already going to go broke w/ the system it has now...the Repubs had 12yrs of Bush Sr and Jr to do something, and they chose not to. Stopping this would be a mistake.

There are millions of sick people in this country who cant get care because of how much these insurance companies want...and dont forget about those who have insurance, but the insurance company refuses to pay for the care. Why are people defending these crooks? they take your money for years and then dont want to pay out when its time.
There shouldnt be a price tag on our health.

 

[nick0lis]

dont know how to embed, but this video is disturbing and hilarious at the same time.

 

[jehlers02]

We will be so F'd if this passes, idk if some of you guys realize that "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes. The expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. And if they tax the rich more and the poor less? Thats just 100% communist bull. The people who are getting payed that much worked for it, why does the money come out of their pocket to help the poor when they slacked their whole life. I'm not biased in anyway, i'm an 18 year old going off to college next year and my motivation to do well is to make money, i'll be damned if i work hard get a good job just to give all my money away. If im gonna do that why should i work hard?

Also Patients wont be able to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free. The total costs will be several times what they are now. The will be absolutely no doctor flexibility which will lead to horrendous patient care. How many stories have you heard that in places like Canada someone had something serious happen to them but it took over a year to get treated in which what ever happened cant be treated anymore or they're dead.

Lastly Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. This would limit the options of medical professionals. So pretty much there would be no difference in pay from a good to doctor to a bad doctor. Flexibility in the position, and the pay are two things that attract someone who wants to be a doctor. If you take that away there won't be any students.

Universal Health Care is a terrible idea.

 

[lex starks]

The taxes will trickle down from the rich then to the middle class. Capital flight is a huge consequence of the bill passing.

NT would like this seeing that most of it is left wing.

 

[utvol23]

Originally Posted by JayAmazin

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

JayAmazin,

Please dont talk about something you know absolutely nothing about. The vast majority of primary care docs do not make a killing in fact many are struggling to keep their doors open and if they keep treating medicare patients they will have to eventually close their doors well that along with the malpractice rates!

Well that New England poll you have doesn't speak for the majority of primary care physicians. I bet most that were polled were in that category of trying to stay afloat. I never look at or pay attention to polls. You ever heard of medicare reimbursements? I do think there are a significant number of primary care docs that are struggling but you cannot tell me that there are not a substantial amount of physicians who make a "killing" off of simple procedures.  

  

LOL did you even read my posts? Medicare Reimbursements are the problem they are a fraction of what ins companies pay and they are scheduled to take another 21% cut. The rates medicare pays are an absolute JOKE and are putting many physicians in the red. Yeah a lot of docs are making a killing( if you consider a killing making a few hundred thou a year after 15 yrs off post high school schooling and training and hundreds of thous in school loans) off of procedures many in my field but its not medicare that they are making a killing off of. Many specialists wont see but a few medicare patients not b/c they dont want to but because it is not profitable hence they wouldnt be able to keep their practice open.  

 

[jayamazin]

What is this notion that we're going to have "free healthcare"? What is free about setting up insurance market exchanges so everybody can have a choice in what kind of insurance plan they want?

 

[shaunhillftw49]

Didn't realize the bill had "free health care for all" written on it.

 

[superantigen]

^^^

You know...

But of course, that's just how some people will choose to see it irrespective of the facts...

...

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

Some other thoughts from a previous thread since I dont want to have to retype everything. Kinda busy at times.

If you want decreased quality of care sure its a great idea. Right now people in the US get luxury care whether you will be able to pay or not ie one of my pts early 20's male without insurance just got a hundreds of thousands in surgery and will get probably close to a million in care if not more by the end. Sure we can subsidize care for the poor but not everyone can get Bentley type healthcare maybe ford focus type care but you giving everyone the latest and greatest in medical innovations just isnt feasible.

If you want rationing of care its also a great idea.

If you want the country to go bankrupt trying to pay for it sure it is good.

The point is you have to pay for all this care and taxing the "rich" to death still will not give you the funds needed.

Medicare is going broke trying to pay for just the elderly how are they going to be able to pay to cover everyone?

I am FULLY in support of healthcare reform, because our healthcare system is in desperate need of it but this is not the type of reform needed..


Some basic things that should be fixed first:

1. TORT REFORM- so that physicians do not have to practice cover your butt medicine. Fat chance this will happen with a bunch of lawyers in congress and the white house. Funny how tort reform isnt part of Obama's plan.

The cost of healthcare in the US is unsustainable and alot of it comes back to unneccesary tests and procedures which are consistently being performed by physicians to cover their !@! because if they dont a lawsuit is eagerly awaiting them.

2. Provide BASIC care to all citizens- everyone cant have bentley type care thus the wealthy would be able to upgrade their care but everyone cant have the RIGHT to it

3. Law changes banning self-referral

4. Prohibiting insurance companies from dropping patients with so called know previous medical conditions

Since you just straight up lied in 90% of your post I will ignore that and I will address the first part of your things we need to do... BECAUSE THAT WILL NOT FIX ANYTHING

[table][tr][td]
Political Malpractice
[/td][/tr][tr][td]

[/td][td]
[/td][/tr][tr][td]
Contrary to Republican arguments, tort reform is no health-care cure-all. So why are Democrats seriously considering it?
[/td][td]
[/td][/tr][tr][td]

[/td][td]
[/td][/tr][tr][td]
Paul Waldman | March 2, 2010 | web only
[/td][td]
[/td][/tr][tr][td]

[/td][td]
[/td][/tr][tr][td]

[/td][/tr][/table]

When it became clear that Republicans were going to have to offer their own ideas on health care, if for no other reason than to show they are more than the Party of No, they put on their thinking caps and came up with four. One -- "Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs" -- is essentially meaningless. Another -- "Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices" -- sounds like the exchanges established by the Democrats' plan, just in less effective form. And a third -- "Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines" -- is a spectacularly dumb idea that would bring all the humanity of the credit-card industry to health care.
But the GOP's final health-care proposal might actually end up happening. The Republican Party wants to limit people's ability to sue over medical malpractice, a cause known as "tort reform." President Barack Obama has said many times he supports the idea, as have some other Democrats. There are a number of ways one could go about tort reform, each of which has economic, medical, and moral implications. Before anyone accepts the Republicans' favored version, though, we should understand that their policy won't do what they say it will.

Let's deal with the economic question first, because that's the point from which tort-reform advocates usually begin. The argument goes like this: Jackpot jury verdicts cost too much money, driving up the price of malpractice insurance. Not only that, because of the fear of lawsuits, doctors engage in "defensive medicine," ordering unnecessary tests and increasing the cost of care. If we were to remove the incentive for people to file lawsuits, then malpractice-insurance rates would decline, and so would health spending. Half of the states have already done this, by capping "non-economic damages," which means damages associated not with lost wages or the cost of future care but with "pain and suffering." For instance, if a doctor commits some egregious kind of malpractice and injures you or kills a family member, the most you can sue for in pain and suffering damages is, depending on what state you're in, something like $250,000.

If big jury awards are a significant driver of medical spending, then restricting those awards should result in a dramatic reduction in medical spending. So has that happened in states with caps?

The answer is no. At last week's health-care summit, John McCain gave a glowing endorsement of Texas' experience with caps on non-economic damages, which were instituted there in 2003. The number of malpractice lawsuits has declined there, as have malpractice insurance rates. But has that led to a dramatic decrease in spending? Not even close. In fact, per-patient health-care spending in Texas has gone up at a rate oftwice the national average since the state instituted tort reform, and spending on diagnostic testing -- the kind of "defensive medicine" tort reform is supposed to eliminate -- has also gone up faster than the national average. So while tort reform in Texas has been good for malpractice insurers and good for doctors, it doesn't seem to have done anything for patients.

Does Texas' experience apply nationally? While there's no perfect way to quantify how much defensive medicine goes on, Harvard economist Amitabh Chandra estimates that the total cost of defensive medicine is around $60 billion per year. That's a large amount of money, but still only 3 percent of our nation's total health-care bill. Reduce it somewhat, or even significantly, and you've made only a small dent in overall spending. That's why when the Congressional Budget Office examined the issue, it concluded that a national cap on pain-and-suffering damages would have an impact on spending -- just not a particularly large one. "The combination of direct savings in malpractice costs and indirect savings in health care services would reduce national health spending in response to the proposed reforms by roughly 0.5 percent," the CBO reported.

Then we have the medical question. Malpractice lawsuits happen when malpractice happens. The discussion that comes from tort-reform advocates assumes that these lawsuits are largely "frivolous," but the truth is that thousands of Americans die every year as a result of preventable medical errors. An oft-cited 1999 study from the Institute of Medicine pegged the number at 98,000 per year. Last year an investigation by Hearst newspapers estimated the current figure to be 200,000 deaths per year.

These errors can result in lawsuits -- but usually don't. When the CBO looked at one year, 2003, they concluded that 181,000 severe injuries or deaths were caused by medical negligence. But only 17 percent of those injured actually filed a malpractice claim, meaning that five out of six patients who were injured by malpractice never sued.

Let's also keep in mind that a certain amount of "defensive medicine" is actually desirable, if it means fewer errors and better outcomes for patients. Tort-reform opponents often point to the experience of anesthesiologists. Because of the threat of lawsuits and high insurance costs, they successfully found ways to increase the safety of their practice, and the risk of death during surgery from anesthesia was reduced over 25 years from one in 4,000 to one in 250,000. That saved money, but more important, it saved lives.

Nevertheless, lawsuits are an extremely inefficient backstop against abuse, whether in medicine or any other area of our national life. Which brings us to the political context of this debate. For years, the GOP strategy has been to get people coming and going -- on the one hand, Republicans fight against the regulations that can prevent abuses from happening; on the other hand, they work to strip courts of their ability to punish those abuses when they occur. The keen interest Republicans have in medical malpractice is best explained by this fact: When a jury renders a large award, a trial lawyer makes money. And trial lawyers are significant donors to Democrats. Make large awards go away, and you cut off money to the Democratic Party.

This is standard political gamesmanship, but it affects people's lives. If you live in one of the states that cap non-economic damages, the state has said quite clearly that the value of your suffering, or even of your life, is a function of your income. It assumes that the life of a hedge-fund manager who died because of medical negligence is worth more than the life of a construction worker who died for the same reason.

As vulgar as that calculation is, it is unlikely to change. Nonetheless, there are alternative approaches out there: health courts staffed by medical professionals, "safe-harbor" for doctors who follow accepted guidelines for treatment, and an approach commonly referred to as "sorry works." In this system, doctors report errors immediately to the hospital, which then begins negotiating with the patient for compensation, instead of waiting to see if the patient files a lawsuit (in 2005, Obama and Hillary Clinton introduced a bill to promote "sorry works" systems around the country). The University of Michigan Health System instituted this system a few years ago, and it has seen malpractice suits plummet, all while patients get compensated for errors more quickly. The Michigan system also incorporates peer review to learn from the errors and make them less likely. Which is the point, after all -- not just to save money but to reduce the errors and abuse that give rise to lawsuits in the first place.

In a perfect world, no one would ever need to sue a doctor for malpractice. Until we live in that world, we should be wary of those who claim we can solve our health-care problems simply by taking away patients' right to be compensated when they get injured. That won't solve our medical spending problem, and it's likely to make patients less safe.

 

[utvol23]

I never said a word about this being free healthcare for all, but I did state many reasons as to why this is a BAD idea.