Obama Care is working
(12-31-2014, 12:45 PM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(12-30-2014, 10:51 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(12-30-2014, 10:39 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: Gruber: The gift that keeps on giving. "Obamacare will not be affordable and the only way to control costs is to deny treatment (death panels)"

Death panelsRazzRazzRolling Eyes

What would you call it when a procedure or treatment, some potentially life saving, are denied in order to save money? Let's hope you don't need a heart bypass or a treatment that may save you from cancer only to have the bureaucrats deny it because the deem it costs too much, and they think you are too old and not worthy of the money it would cost to save you.

I call it something BETTER than not having ANY insurance. I call it BS and hyper BS to call it Death panels.
I call it typical Right wing the sky is falling horseshit.
Reply
(12-31-2014, 12:45 PM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(12-30-2014, 10:51 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(12-30-2014, 10:39 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: Gruber: The gift that keeps on giving. "Obamacare will not be affordable and the only way to control costs is to deny treatment (death panels)"

Death panelsRazzRazzRolling Eyes

What would you call it when a procedure or treatment, some potentially life saving, are denied in order to save money? Let's hope you don't need a heart bypass or a treatment that may save you from cancer only to have the bureaucrats deny it because the deem it costs too much, and they think you are too old and not worthy of the money it would cost to save you.

There MUST be limits.
Another question:
What would you call it when a 90 year old man wants to have a penal implant, a hair transplant, and a "nose job"?

I can answer that. The bastards turned me down and here I've been paying into Social Security all my life. Not fair, I tell you. Razz
Reply
(12-31-2014, 05:26 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(12-31-2014, 12:45 PM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(12-30-2014, 10:51 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(12-30-2014, 10:39 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: Gruber: The gift that keeps on giving. "Obamacare will not be affordable and the only way to control costs is to deny treatment (death panels)"

Death panelsRazzRazzRolling Eyes

What would you call it when a procedure or treatment, some potentially life saving, are denied in order to save money? Let's hope you don't need a heart bypass or a treatment that may save you from cancer only to have the bureaucrats deny it because the deem it costs too much, and they think you are too old and not worthy of the money it would cost to save you.

There MUST be limits.
Another question:
What would you call it when a 90 year old man wants to have a penal implant, a hair transplant, and a "nose job"?

I can answer that. The bastards turned me down and here I've been paying into Social Security all my life. Not fair, I tell you. Razz
So, at your age, if you need a spendy treatment, they tell you you are just old. I mean, there MUST be limits. Why not make it a certain age?
Reply
(12-31-2014, 05:26 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: There MUST be limits.

Not exactly the way they SOLD it, is it?

On the other hand, I'm glad you are ready to step up and "take one for the team".

Bye.
Reply
(12-31-2014, 11:21 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(12-31-2014, 05:26 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: There MUST be limits.

Not exactly the way they SOLD it, is it?

On the other hand, I'm glad you are ready to step up and "take one for the team".

Bye.

Well, it is insurance. Are you aware of health insurance that doesn't have a limit?
Reply
(12-31-2014, 11:58 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-31-2014, 11:21 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(12-31-2014, 05:26 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: There MUST be limits.

Not exactly the way they SOLD it, is it?

On the other hand, I'm glad you are ready to step up and "take one for the team".

Bye.

Well, it is insurance. Are you aware of health insurance that doesn't have a limit?

Exactly! Health, Car, Home, Life... they all have limits.
Reply
(01-01-2015, 09:36 AM)Scrapper Wrote:
(12-31-2014, 11:58 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-31-2014, 11:21 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(12-31-2014, 05:26 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: There MUST be limits.

Not exactly the way they SOLD it, is it?

On the other hand, I'm glad you are ready to step up and "take one for the team".

Bye.

Well, it is insurance. Are you aware of health insurance that doesn't have a limit?

Exactly! Health, Car, Home, Life... they all have limits.

Exactly 2!

If insurance limits are death panels, we have had death panels for a long time, even when Bush was boss.
Reply
(12-31-2014, 11:58 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-31-2014, 11:21 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(12-31-2014, 05:26 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: There MUST be limits.

Not exactly the way they SOLD it, is it?

On the other hand, I'm glad you are ready to step up and "take one for the team".

Bye.

Well, it is insurance. Are you aware of health insurance that doesn't have a limit?

You are mixing up apples and oranges. Must health insurance plans have caps, usually in the $1-2 million range. We are not talking about being denied treatment because you have reached your cap. We are talking about denying treatment because you are deemed too old, too young, too sick or because the cost of the treatment is too expensive even if you are not even year your lifetime cap. A bureaucrat in an office somewhere, not your doctor, is making the critical medical treatment decisions. He/she is deciding who lives or who dies..... a death panel.
Reply
(01-01-2015, 01:09 PM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(12-31-2014, 11:58 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-31-2014, 11:21 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(12-31-2014, 05:26 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: There MUST be limits.

Not exactly the way they SOLD it, is it?

On the other hand, I'm glad you are ready to step up and "take one for the team".

Bye.

Well, it is insurance. Are you aware of health insurance that doesn't have a limit?

You are mixing up apples and oranges. Must health insurance plans have caps, usually in the $1-2 million range. We are not talking about being denied treatment because you have reached your cap. We are talking about denying treatment because you are deemed too old, too young, too sick or because the cost of the treatment is too expensive even if you are not even year your lifetime cap. A bureaucrat in an office somewhere, not your doctor, is making the critical medical treatment decisions. He/she is deciding who lives or who dies..... a death panel.

No, I don't think so. My insurance, through a prominent health insurance company, requires pre-approval for some treatments and operations. That kind of makes them equivalent of your "bureaucrat in an office, not my doctor" having final say of my medical treatment decisions. It's been that way for quite some time now.
Reply
(01-01-2015, 03:11 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(01-01-2015, 01:09 PM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(12-31-2014, 11:58 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(12-31-2014, 11:21 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(12-31-2014, 05:26 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: There MUST be limits.

Not exactly the way they SOLD it, is it?

On the other hand, I'm glad you are ready to step up and "take one for the team".

Bye.

Well, it is insurance. Are you aware of health insurance that doesn't have a limit?

You are mixing up apples and oranges. Must health insurance plans have caps, usually in the $1-2 million range. We are not talking about being denied treatment because you have reached your cap. We are talking about denying treatment because you are deemed too old, too young, too sick or because the cost of the treatment is too expensive even if you are not even year your lifetime cap. A bureaucrat in an office somewhere, not your doctor, is making the critical medical treatment decisions. He/she is deciding who lives or who dies..... a death panel.

No, I don't think so. My insurance, through a prominent health insurance company, requires pre-approval for some treatments and operations. That kind of makes them equivalent of your "bureaucrat in an office, not my doctor" having final say of my medical treatment decisions. It's been that way for quite some time now.

We are dancing around the "real issue" here.
Many of us feel we need a national program that allows almost all our citizens to be free from the burden of living without access to decent medical care.
To accomplish this we understand it will have to be paid in part by taxes. Often that means the more wealthy will bear the burden of that tax.
The conservative model of government opposes this because they see it as "income redistribution". In fact it is.
The concept of the social contract accepts "redistribution" as part of the glue that helps binds a society and is critical to the stability of a government.
Without a national plan, sick people do finally get care, but in the most costly way available and often disease had progressed and becomes even more expensive to treat.

"Obmacare" does not include a "death panel". Never did, never will.

And Obamacare is a flawed and incomplete program that needs tweaks and fixes. In a government that worked, that would be possible and could be done in a timely way.

We are the only industrial society on the planet without a decent health care plan that covers all our citizens. With Obamacare we have a start. It would be shameful if it failed.

Let the critics of this law propose and explain an better option.
Reply
(01-01-2015, 08:28 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: We are dancing around the "real issue" here.
Many of us feel we need a national program that allows almost all our citizens to be free from the burden of living without access to decent medical care.
To accomplish this we understand it will have to be paid in part by taxes. Often that means the more wealthy will bear the burden of that tax.
The conservative model of government opposes this because they see it as "income redistribution". In fact it is.
The concept of the social contract accepts "redistribution" as part of the glue that helps binds a society and is critical to the stability of a government.
Without a national plan, sick people do finally get care, but in the most costly way available and often disease had progressed and becomes even more expensive to treat.

"Obmacare" does not include a "death panel". Never did, never will.

And Obamacare is a flawed and incomplete program that needs tweaks and fixes. In a government that worked, that would be possible and could be done in a timely way.

We are the only industrial society on the planet without a decent health care plan that covers all our citizens. With Obamacare we have a start. It would be shameful if it failed.

Let the critics of this law propose and explain an better option.

This is exactly right, every word. Great post Wonky. The only thing I can add is that those that oppose any kind of healthcare for those that can't afford it don't realize that healthy workers are more productive workers. Great companies worldwide provide their workers with affordable healthcare. The international corporation I worked for even offered extra opportunities for advancements and pay for health changes employees made. (ie quit smoking, lose weight, join gym)
Reply
(12-31-2014, 11:20 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(12-31-2014, 05:26 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(12-31-2014, 12:45 PM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(12-30-2014, 10:51 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(12-30-2014, 10:39 AM)SFLiberal Wrote: Gruber: The gift that keeps on giving. "Obamacare will not be affordable and the only way to control costs is to deny treatment (death panels)"

Death panelsRazzRazzRolling Eyes

What would you call it when a procedure or treatment, some potentially life saving, are denied in order to save money? Let's hope you don't need a heart bypass or a treatment that may save you from cancer only to have the bureaucrats deny it because the deem it costs too much, and they think you are too old and not worthy of the money it would cost to save you.

There MUST be limits.
Another question:
What would you call it when a 90 year old man wants to have a penal implant, a hair transplant, and a "nose job"?

I can answer that. The bastards turned me down and here I've been paying into Social Security all my life. Not fair, I tell you. Razz
So, at your age, if you need a spendy treatment, they tell you you are just old. I mean, there MUST be limits. Why not make it a certain age?

I wanted to return to this because "why not a certain age" is a good question. At least is brings to our attention a good question that at some point must be considered.

This much we know: We ALL will someday day.

Some will die of awful invasive stuff like cancer long before they should. Sad and tragic, we feel terrible and suffer the loss of those we know and love. We can hope that better medical care for the entire population will reduce the numbers, but life being what it is, disease with always be with us, and so premature death.

Others will die simply because they wear out. The body is not meant to go on forever.

We know that a huge percentage of the cost of medical costs are spent for the last months of life for older people. (I've seen so many different figures that I won't quote one, but they all show the costs to be high)

It only makes sense, both moral and fiscal, that the goal for that time when life is about to end simply due to advanced "wearing out" is to make the end of life as pain free as possible.

A given age? No, we don't all "wear out" at the same rate or number of years. But it does not take physicians who are scientific giants to evaluate this condition. An aging person who's organs are no longer functioning is near death. It is stupid (and cruel) to postpone what must soon happen by using expensive procedures to extend life for a few days or even months. And those costs rob those who are in real need of medical attention.

So the simplistic bumper sticker mentality of "Death Panels" to frighten the public and force political events is "cruel and unusual, dishonest and shameful.

We need serious and considered debate about the methods we can adopt to provide good national health care for our citizens. Phrases like "death panels" only poision that discussion.

"A time to die" the proverbs tell us. We need to face that fact and consider it when we plan for ways to provide health care. We need not fear a "good death".
Reply
There are age limits for almost everything. For instance, kidney transplant eligibility is cut off at 65, from all I can ascertain. my nephrologist thinks my chances are marginal because of other health problems(heart etc.)
Reply
(01-02-2015, 11:09 AM)bbqboy Wrote: There are age limits for almost everything. For instance, kidney transplant eligibility is cut off at 65, from all I can ascertain. my nephrologist thinks my chances are marginal because of other health problems(heart etc.)

Sorry to hear that. It must cause lots of anxiety. (Would for me)

I don't know your age but if you are over 65 you no doubt would like the cut-off age to be 75. And yes, other health issue have to be factored in no doubt. Still, I bet your would want the kidney done a take whatever risks the other stuff throws at you.

But "limits" are a fact and for this whole thing to work there have to be procedures not allowed when conditions dictate a lousy outcome. But ONLY when those conditions are present and acknowledged by a group of qualified physicians.

This stuff gets real personal when actually applied to OUR lives, as apposed to general discussions about policy.

Good luck with all that's on your plate.
Reply
(01-02-2015, 11:09 AM)bbqboy Wrote: There are age limits for almost everything. For instance, kidney transplant eligibility is cut off at 65, from all I can ascertain. my nephrologist thinks my chances are marginal because of other health problems(heart etc.)

I better schedule one for when I'm 64 1/2, whether I need one or not.
Reply
(01-02-2015, 01:51 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(01-02-2015, 11:09 AM)bbqboy Wrote: There are age limits for almost everything. For instance, kidney transplant eligibility is cut off at 65, from all I can ascertain. my nephrologist thinks my chances are marginal because of other health problems(heart etc.)

I better schedule one for when I'm 64 1/2, whether I need one or not.

I hope for your sake that remains funny.
BBQ might tell you it's not a joke.
Reply
Get ready to pay up deadbeats........

Quote:Half of Obamacare subsidy recipients may owe refunds to the IRS
By Justin Green | January 2, 2015 | 11:37 am



As many as 3.4 million people who received Obamacare subsidies may owe refunds to the federal government, according to an estimate by a tax preparation firm.

H&R Block is estimating that as many as half of the 6.8 million people who received insurance premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act benefited from subsidies that were too large, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

“The ACA is going to result in more confusion for existing clients, and many taxpayers may well be very disappointed by getting less money and possibly even owing money," the president of a tax preparation and education school told the Journal.

While the Affordable Care Act fines those who don't have health insurance, it also provides subsidies for people making up to four times the federal poverty line ($46,680).

But the subsidies are based on past tax returns, so many people may be receiving too much, according to Vanderbilt University assistant professor John Graves, who projects the average subsidy is $208 too high, the Journal reports.

Tax preparers, who frequently advertise their ability to deliver big refunds, have been working feverishly to avoid customer anger stemming from lower-than-expected refunds due to insurance premiums. They also are trying to make sure customers understand the potential fines for not having insurance.

"Eighty-five percent of our customers get a refund," said Kathy Pickering, who directs the H&R Block Tax Institute, according to the Washington Post. "That refund could be offset by the penalty. And if that happens, they're going to be understandably angry."

The fine for not having insurance in the second year of Obamacare is $325 or 2 percent of taxable income, whichever is greater.

But the IRS is also working on a budget that limits its ability to aggressively enforce reporting on insurance.

“As always, taxpayers are responsible for the accuracy of the information on the tax returns that they sign," an IRS spokesman told the Journal.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/half-o...le/2558106
Reply
Then there's this "bitter pill", from the author of America's Bitter Pill, Steven Brill: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/01/...-wont-work
While reporting on the rollout of the Affordable Care Act, journalist Steven Brill was diagnosed with a life-threatening condition that required heart surgery.

"There I was: a reporter who had made hospital presidents and hospital executives and health care executives and insurance executives sweat because I asked them all kinds of questions about their salaries and about their profit margins," Brill tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "And now I was lying on a gurney in a hospital in real fear of my life."

Brill had a bubble on his heart that the doctors said had a 15 to 17 percent chance of bursting each year, he says. If it did, he would die. The experience, Brill says, helped him analyze health care from a patient's perspective.

"At that moment I wasn't worried about costs; I wasn't worried about a cost benefit analysis of this drug or this medical device; I wasn't worried about health care policy," Brill says. "It drove home to me the reality that in addition to being a tough political issue because of all the money involved, health care is a toxic political issue because of all the fear and the emotion involved."

Brill's surgery happened not long after he had written a special report for Time magazine investigating the inflated charges in hospital bills. The article Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us won a National Magazine Award. After winning the award, Brill ended up with pages and pages of his own inflated and confusing hospital charges.

"A patient in the American health care system has very little leverage, has very little knowledge, has very little power," Brill says.

More at the link.
Reply
(01-05-2015, 07:44 PM)tornado Wrote: Then there's this "bitter pill", from the author of America's Bitter Pill, Steven Brill: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/01/...-wont-work
While reporting on the rollout of the Affordable Care Act, journalist Steven Brill was diagnosed with a life-threatening condition that required heart surgery.

"There I was: a reporter who had made hospital presidents and hospital executives and health care executives and insurance executives sweat because I asked them all kinds of questions about their salaries and about their profit margins," Brill tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "And now I was lying on a gurney in a hospital in real fear of my life."

Brill had a bubble on his heart that the doctors said had a 15 to 17 percent chance of bursting each year, he says. If it did, he would die. The experience, Brill says, helped him analyze health care from a patient's perspective.

"At that moment I wasn't worried about costs; I wasn't worried about a cost benefit analysis of this drug or this medical device; I wasn't worried about health care policy," Brill says. "It drove home to me the reality that in addition to being a tough political issue because of all the money involved, health care is a toxic political issue because of all the fear and the emotion involved."

Brill's surgery happened not long after he had written a special report for Time magazine investigating the inflated charges in hospital bills. The article Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us won a National Magazine Award. After winning the award, Brill ended up with pages and pages of his own inflated and confusing hospital charges.

"A patient in the American health care system has very little leverage, has very little knowledge, has very little power," Brill says.

More at the link.

Just heard this guy interviewed on NPR today. I'd suggest listening to the link Tornado provided...good stuff...not a lot of political ranting. I'm looking forward to reading his book.
Reply
(01-05-2015, 08:38 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(01-05-2015, 07:44 PM)tornado Wrote: Then there's this "bitter pill", from the author of America's Bitter Pill, Steven Brill: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/01/...-wont-work
While reporting on the rollout of the Affordable Care Act, journalist Steven Brill was diagnosed with a life-threatening condition that required heart surgery.

"There I was: a reporter who had made hospital presidents and hospital executives and health care executives and insurance executives sweat because I asked them all kinds of questions about their salaries and about their profit margins," Brill tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "And now I was lying on a gurney in a hospital in real fear of my life."

Brill had a bubble on his heart that the doctors said had a 15 to 17 percent chance of bursting each year, he says. If it did, he would die. The experience, Brill says, helped him analyze health care from a patient's perspective.

"At that moment I wasn't worried about costs; I wasn't worried about a cost benefit analysis of this drug or this medical device; I wasn't worried about health care policy," Brill says. "It drove home to me the reality that in addition to being a tough political issue because of all the money involved, health care is a toxic political issue because of all the fear and the emotion involved."

Brill's surgery happened not long after he had written a special report for Time magazine investigating the inflated charges in hospital bills. The article Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us won a National Magazine Award. After winning the award, Brill ended up with pages and pages of his own inflated and confusing hospital charges.

"A patient in the American health care system has very little leverage, has very little knowledge, has very little power," Brill says.

More at the link.

Just heard this guy interviewed on NPR today. I'd suggest listening to the link Tornado provided...good stuff...not a lot of political ranting. I'm looking forward to reading his book.

And still more:
From The New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell reviews Brill's book and drills deep giving us even more to think about. For instance:

Gladwell writes:
It is useful to read “America’s Bitter Pill” alongside David Goldhill’s “Catastrophic Care.” Goldhill covers much of the same ground. But for him the philosophical question—is health care different, or is it ultimately like any other resource?—is central. The Medicare program, for example, has a spectacularly high loss ratio: it pays out something like ninety-seven cents in benefits for every dollar it takes in. For Brill, that’s evidence of how well it works. He thinks Medicare is the most functional part of the health-care system. Goldhill is more skeptical. Perhaps the reason Medicare’s loss ratio is so high, he says, is that Medicare never says no to anything. The program’s annual spending has risen, in the past forty years, from eight billion to five hundred and eighty-five billion dollars. Maybe it ought to spend more money on administration so that it can promote competition among its suppliers and make disciplined decisions about what is and isn’t worth covering. Goldhill writes:

Medicare is cheaper to run than private insurance. So what? Cheaper doesn’t mean more efficient. It may be cheaper to run banks without security guards, hotels without housekeepers, and manufacturers without accountants, but that wouldn’t make those businesses more efficient.


Good read. I hope to read both books.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)