Politics, wow! But Obama Care, I don't know?

[Bob E.]

Robert...we all know (though some don't want to admit it) that Pelosi was referring to all of the misinformation and talking about the public finding out what was really in the bill versus what they were being told about the bill by it's detractors.  I'm getting tired of saying this. 

We do?  I didn't know this.  Where is the fact that says "Pelosi was referring to all of the misinformation and talking about the public finding out what was really in the bill versus what they were being told about the bill by it's detractors. "

Why wasn't the bill posted for us to review in it's pre-pass form?  Obummer said during his campaign that his administration would conduct business in the light of day and use the internet to post probosed legislation for public review (paraphrasing,not his exact words).  Another one of his many lies.

Actually, the full quote is... "Pelosi adds: “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”  I highlighted the part of the quote that puts it in context.  Furthermore, quoting US Rep Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville TX..."Burgess told us it's often true that the ins and outs of legislation aren't widely known until after a measure passes into law".  I clipped these from http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/mar/15/republican-party-texas/texas-gop-says-speaker-nancy-pelosi-said-people-wi/

[Bob E.]

You also reference the IPABS and imply that they are the "death panels" that has already been debunked...yet refuses to die.  

Debunked by whom?
IAPB will develop standards to limit private sector medical care... it is their difined role.
[Section 10320(b); section 10320(a)(5)(o)(1)(A)] Beginning January 15, 2015 and every subsequent 2 years the IAPB is given the duty to make “recommendations to slow the growth in national health expenditures . . . that the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] or other Federal agencies can implement administratively.”  IAPB is directed to limit private health care spending so that it is below the rate of medical inflation.
[Section 10304; section 3014(a); section 1890(b)(7)(B)(I)] The Secretary of Health and Human Services is given the power to impose “quality” and “efficiency” measures  on health care providers (hospices, surgical centers, rehab facilities, home health agencies, physicians, hospitals) who are required to report compliance.

Translation: Health care providers will be told by Washington what diagnostic tests and medical care will meet “quality” and “efficiency” standards.  For not only federally funded health care programs, but for privately paid health care and nongovernmental health insurance, as well.  By definition, these “quality" and "efficiency” standards are designed to limit health care expenditures.  If a person and his doctor decide on particular tests or a course of  treatment that government decides is too costly, they will be precluded from perusing those that are contradictory to the imposed standards, even if the patient is willing to pay for it himself.  Effectually, a uniform national standard of care will be imposed; not based on what is best, but merely on reduction of costs.  

In my experience, health care standards of care are meant to set a MINIMUM level of competent care.  However, the standards of care to be imposed by IAPB, who have no medical expertise, are meant to set a MAXIMUM level of care.  You don't see the inherent problem with that?

Yes, I do work in healthcare... and, yes, I do feel threatened.  It's not about left wing or right wing... it's about the obvious flaws in this particular piece of legislation.

I dont' know what happened.  I had typed a response, but got a 503 error when I hit post.  There is some issue with my internet provider that Scott has been trying to work out.  Usually when this happens, my post still gets posted.  But for some reason it only posted your quote. So let me try this again...

I guess I just interpret it differently.  I see the cost cutting measures being things like we have now with our insurance companies...things like the review and approval process for major medical procedures and medications that docs must go through justify why less expensive measures or meds aren't being used.  Other things might be the requirement of treatment plans with expected numbers of treatments and anticipated outcomes like my chiropractor and physical therapist had to submit to my insurance company.  They then had to follow up at the end of the month with a report indicating my progress (or lack of) and a new treatment plan with modifications as necessary for the following month.  Or another could be the scenario where doctors, in an effort to avoid frivolous lawsuits, overprescribe tests and medications to patients, which costs alot of money.  So while you may be correct in that this section of the bill may be intended to address these sorts of items, I think is is a bit of a stretch to equate "quality and efficiency measures" with a rationing of care in general...or death panels.  I base this interpretation particularly with respect to the section of the bill I posted earlier that specifically prohibits rationing of care on the basis of health status or history.  Like I said, I just interpret it differently.

[Bob E.]

If you think about it, people without coverage are still being seen in ER's.  They just aren't paying for it.  Now they'll just be able to pay for it with insurance.

And who is going to pay for their insurance??  Who will pay for the insurance of all the poor folks who can't afford it?  The answer is us, the insured and the tax payer.  We currently pay for their care because they get it for free at the emergency room and the cost is passed on to the paying insured patients through inflated charges to cover the cost of the uninsured.

I guess I'm not getting your arguement...you are arguing that this is bad because we will have to pay for it because we are already paying for it?     Actually, the plan...whether it works or not remains to be seen I guess...is to get (individual mandate) all of those people who could afford health insurance, or at least could afford a portion of their health insurance, to pay into the insurance pool thereby reducing the costs that the rest of us are already paying 100% of their costs...or in the case of hospitals like oZ works for, eating it and taking the loss.  We also need to remember that many of those people aren't necessarily the poor because most of the poor already get coverage through medicade.  Alot of those people are young healthy people in their 20's and 30's working jobs that don't provide insurance, or if they do, the person chooses to opt out of the cost because they are young and healthy so they don't think they need it.  So they won't likely qualify for full subsidies at our cost.

[billyjakester]

Remember when Prezbo said "if you like your insurance, you can keep it" ? - at the start of the following calendar year my supplemental Medicare plan - that I did like by the way - was CANCELLED.  The company dropped the plan completely.

I now have other insurance (supplemental) but Prezbo's statement was the first of many statements that are not true or only half truths in relation to health care.

By the way, do you have any idea how much money for-profit hospitals  annually lose in Medicare  & Medicaid  payments because they miss the filing deadlines?   Do you honestly believe the new (increased) medical bureaucracy will made hospital debt collections any better?   

[f6gal]

I base this interpretation particularly with respect to the section of the bill I posted earlier that specifically prohibits rationing of care on the basis of health status or history.  Like I said, I just interpret it differently.

You'll note that the section you reference does NOT prohibit rationing of care on the basis of age or cost.  

The key to understanding the evil undertone is limiting PRIVATE health care spending.  If they are truly concerned with managing the costs of publically funded care, then why the verbiage to limit private spending?

To illustrate my point, perhaps Master Blaster's story will strike a cord (hope he doesn't mind):
Tom was diagnosed with a very rare form of cancer, peritoneal mesothelioma.  At the time, there were only 2 doctors in the country that specialized in this hideous disease.  Unfortunately, the treatment was considered experimental and his insurance company refused to cover it.  However, Tom was still able to choose to pay for the treatment himself and is still alive today because he did.

So, in a nutshell, the essential difference between current insurance companies reviewing/refusing treatment and ObamaCare doing the same is the ability to choose to receive the refused treatment by paying for it yourself.  If ObamaCare had been in full swing at the time of Tom's illness, he would not have been allowed to receive the tx, since it would have far exceeded their MAXIMUM standard of care.

Perhaps death panel is a bit harsh... but if you look at this story, what other conclusion is there?

[Trynt]

I base this interpretation particularly with respect to the section of the bill I posted earlier that specifically prohibits rationing of care on the basis of health status or history.  Like I said, I just interpret it differently.

You'll note that the section you reference does NOT prohibit rationing of care on the basis of age or cost.  

The key to understanding the evil undertone is limiting PRIVATE health care spending.  If they are truly concerned with managing the costs of publically funded care, then why the verbiage to limit private spending?

To illustrate my point, perhaps Master Blaster's story will strike a cord (hope he doesn't mind):
Tom was diagnosed with a very rare form of cancer, peritoneal mesothelioma.  At the time, there were only 2 doctors in the country that specialized in this hideous disease.  Unfortunately, the treatment was considered experimental and his insurance company refused to cover it.  However, Tom was still able to choose to pay for the treatment himself and is still alive today because he did.

So, in a nutshell, the essential difference between current insurance companies reviewing/refusing treatment and ObamaCare doing the same is the ability to choose to receive the refused treatment by paying for it yourself.  If ObamaCare had been in full swing at the time of Tom's illness, he would not have been allowed to receive the tx, since it would have far exceeded their MAXIMUM standard of care.

Perhaps death panel is a bit harsh... but if you look at this story, what other conclusion is there?

Am I understanding you correctly? The gov't will eventually prohibit you from spending YOUR OWN MONEY to receive the medical treatment you deem to be most appropriate?

[Bob E.]

I base this interpretation particularly with respect to the section of the bill I posted earlier that specifically prohibits rationing of care on the basis of health status or history.  Like I said, I just interpret it differently.

You'll note that the section you reference does NOT prohibit rationing of care on the basis of age or cost.  

The key to understanding the evil undertone is limiting PRIVATE health care spending.  If they are truly concerned with managing the costs of publically funded care, then why the verbiage to limit private spending?

To illustrate my point, perhaps Master Blaster's story will strike a cord (hope he doesn't mind):
Tom was diagnosed with a very rare form of cancer, peritoneal mesothelioma.  At the time, there were only 2 doctors in the country that specialized in this hideous disease.  Unfortunately, the treatment was considered experimental and his insurance company refused to cover it.  However, Tom was still able to choose to pay for the treatment himself and is still alive today because he did.

So, in a nutshell, the essential difference between current insurance companies reviewing/refusing treatment and ObamaCare doing the same is the ability to choose to receive the refused treatment by paying for it yourself.  If ObamaCare had been in full swing at the time of Tom's illness, he would not have been allowed to receive the tx, since it would have far exceeded their MAXIMUM standard of care.

Perhaps death panel is a bit harsh... but if you look at this story, what other conclusion is there?

Even if you are correct, how does this change MasterBlaster's situation?  It may not cover experimental treatments and he would have to pay himself.  But that is the exact same position he's in now. I don't understand how or where it makes experimental treatments unavailable. If it does, you have a point.  But I don't believe it does.

As to your other point, I guess I equate "health status" with age.  They cannot deny health services coverage on the basis that your health is failing.  On cost, you might have a point.  But we have to get approvals for costly treatments and meds now, don't we? How is that different?

[f6gal]

I base this interpretation particularly with respect to the section of the bill I posted earlier that specifically prohibits rationing of care on the basis of health status or history.  Like I said, I just interpret it differently.

You'll note that the section you reference does NOT prohibit rationing of care on the basis of age or cost.  

The key to understanding the evil undertone is limiting PRIVATE health care spending.  If they are truly concerned with managing the costs of publically funded care, then why the verbiage to limit private spending?

To illustrate my point, perhaps Master Blaster's story will strike a cord (hope he doesn't mind):
Tom was diagnosed with a very rare form of cancer, peritoneal mesothelioma.  At the time, there were only 2 doctors in the country that specialized in this hideous disease.  Unfortunately, the treatment was considered experimental and his insurance company refused to cover it.  However, Tom was still able to choose to pay for the treatment himself and is still alive today because he did.

So, in a nutshell, the essential difference between current insurance companies reviewing/refusing treatment and ObamaCare doing the same is the ability to choose to receive the refused treatment by paying for it yourself.  If ObamaCare had been in full swing at the time of Tom's illness, he would not have been allowed to receive the tx, since it would have far exceeded their MAXIMUM standard of care.

Perhaps death panel is a bit harsh... but if you look at this story, what other conclusion is there?

Am I understanding you correctly? The gov't will eventually prohibit you from spending YOUR OWN MONEY to receive the medical treatment you deem to be most appropriate?

The devil is in the details.  Read the sections regarding IAPB.  Part of its function is to limit PRIVATE health care spending, under the auspices that it would cause a rise in medical care inflation.
  
A similar provision to limit or eliminate private health care spending was in the Clinton's health care proposal and part of the reason it failed.  I guess the Obama folks just hid it better.

[f6gal]

Even if you are correct, how does this change MasterBlaster's situation?  It may not cover experimental treatments and he would have to pay himself.  But that is the exact same position he's in now. I don't understand how or where it makes experimental treatments unavailable. If it does, you have a point.  But I don't believe it does.

The difference is there will be a uniform national MAXIMUM standard of care, established by Washington bureaucrats, that seeks to limit what private citizens are allowed to spend on saving their own lives; primarily citing medical inflation as the reasoning.

As to your other point, I guess I equate "health status" with age.  They cannot deny health services coverage on the basis that your health is failing.  On cost, you might have a point.  But we have to get approvals for costly treatments and meds now, don't we? How is that different?

Age and "health status" are completely different concepts.  A 75 year old can be in great health, whereas a 3 year old may be in extremely poor health.  The "health status" in your reference is primarily aimed at preventing denial of coverage due to preexisting conditions. 

[G-Man]

As a doc, and an employee of a major drug company, I am still surprised when a Democrat, left leaning, liberal, or whatever a supporter of this admin wants to be called, defends this healthcare law.  Especially the ones who don't work within the industry and feel they have to debate the real world experiences of those within the industry.

This law went into effect the minute it was signed.  It does not go into effect sometime in the future.  The benefits kick in in the future, but the taxes and the belt tightening, and the confusion (3000 freaking pages, really?), and brainstorming, and yes....scheming to get by, etc, have all kicked in already.  People have been fired, services have been restricted, rationed, and denied, practices have downsized, and docs have moved to other industries.  How could a 21% decrease in reimbursement to the provider (docs, hospitals, surgicenters, clinics, etc) not have this effect?

This is reality, yet they still need to defend this crap.  They forget the stimulus package with 8000 earmarks within 1400 pages that nobody actually read, which became a flop.  Well, this is more of the same.  YOU"LL HAVE TO PASS IT TO FIND OUT WHAT"S IN IT.  That statement right there should have put the country on alert and the masses should have cried as one loud voice "NO, WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT"S IN IT NOW".  Instead, we let the anti-semite in charge accuse Cantor of grandstanding when he brought all 2700 pages of the bill to that mock debate they had, and then he had to bribe 4 senators with money and goodies for their states in order to get their votes. 

And they still defend this thing?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

[Trynt]

I base this interpretation particularly with respect to the section of the bill I posted earlier that specifically prohibits rationing of care on the basis of health status or history.  Like I said, I just interpret it differently.

You'll note that the section you reference does NOT prohibit rationing of care on the basis of age or cost.  

The key to understanding the evil undertone is limiting PRIVATE health care spending.  If they are truly concerned with managing the costs of publically funded care, then why the verbiage to limit private spending?

To illustrate my point, perhaps Master Blaster's story will strike a cord (hope he doesn't mind):
Tom was diagnosed with a very rare form of cancer, peritoneal mesothelioma.  At the time, there were only 2 doctors in the country that specialized in this hideous disease.  Unfortunately, the treatment was considered experimental and his insurance company refused to cover it.  However, Tom was still able to choose to pay for the treatment himself and is still alive today because he did.

So, in a nutshell, the essential difference between current insurance companies reviewing/refusing treatment and ObamaCare doing the same is the ability to choose to receive the refused treatment by paying for it yourself.  If ObamaCare had been in full swing at the time of Tom's illness, he would not have been allowed to receive the tx, since it would have far exceeded their MAXIMUM standard of care.

Perhaps death panel is a bit harsh... but if you look at this story, what other conclusion is there?

Am I understanding you correctly? The gov't will eventually prohibit you from spending YOUR OWN MONEY to receive the medical treatment you deem to be most appropriate?

The devil is in the details.  Read the sections regarding IAPB.  Part of its function is to limit PRIVATE health care spending, under the auspices that it would cause a rise in medical care inflation.
  
A similar provision to limit or eliminate private health care spending was in the Clinton's health care proposal and part of the reason it failed.  I guess the Obama folks just hid it better.

Talk about governmental overreach! Preventing an individual from spending their own money in an effort to save their life! More people need to know about this! Isn't big government great?

[solo1]

Thank you Connie, Oz, Gman, and all the rest for giving me good info on Obamacare.  Most I already know.  The rest, I hope that I don't find out.  Even tho I'm in reasonably good health for my age, I'm not looking forward to the future if this Law stays in effect.

I'm going to try again to see if the VA will accept me now.  I served in Korea in 1953 but in 2003 the VA arbitrarily added a means test as a new qualification for admission for Class 8 vets (me), and I couldn't get in then, but that's another story.

IMHO, the medical care in the US is the best.  Availability of that care will be rationed or non existent for some if this Abomination continues.  

[f6gal]

I base this interpretation particularly with respect to the section of the bill I posted earlier that specifically prohibits rationing of care on the basis of health status or history.  Like I said, I just interpret it differently.

You'll note that the section you reference does NOT prohibit rationing of care on the basis of age or cost.  

The key to understanding the evil undertone is limiting PRIVATE health care spending.  If they are truly concerned with managing the costs of publically funded care, then why the verbiage to limit private spending?

To illustrate my point, perhaps Master Blaster's story will strike a cord (hope he doesn't mind):
Tom was diagnosed with a very rare form of cancer, peritoneal mesothelioma.  At the time, there were only 2 doctors in the country that specialized in this hideous disease.  Unfortunately, the treatment was considered experimental and his insurance company refused to cover it.  However, Tom was still able to choose to pay for the treatment himself and is still alive today because he did.

So, in a nutshell, the essential difference between current insurance companies reviewing/refusing treatment and ObamaCare doing the same is the ability to choose to receive the refused treatment by paying for it yourself.  If ObamaCare had been in full swing at the time of Tom's illness, he would not have been allowed to receive the tx, since it would have far exceeded their MAXIMUM standard of care.

Perhaps death panel is a bit harsh... but if you look at this story, what other conclusion is there?

Am I understanding you correctly? The gov't will eventually prohibit you from spending YOUR OWN MONEY to receive the medical treatment you deem to be most appropriate?

The devil is in the details.  Read the sections regarding IAPB.  Part of its function is to limit PRIVATE health care spending, under the auspices that it would cause a rise in medical care inflation.
  
A similar provision to limit or eliminate private health care spending was in the Clinton's health care proposal and part of the reason it failed.  I guess the Obama folks just hid it better.

Talk about governmental overreach! Preventing an individual from spending their own money in an effort to save their life! More people need to know about this! Isn't big government great?

Think about it... That's why people from other countries come here for treatment (such as the Canadians oZ wondered about); they can't be treated in their country, even if they are willing to pay for it.  And those countires are the models we are following.