ObamaCare Repeal?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by madanthonywayne, Jun 14, 2011.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    OH HOGWASH. The stock markets have more than doubled since the depths of the Great Recession of 2008 hit bottom. Corporations are very profitable, more profitable than they have been in many years.

    The unfortunate fact for Republicans is that the economy is growing. And just how is it that President Obama is any more of a socialist than George II, George I, Ronald Reagan or any other Republican president? The bottom line here is that all of your allegations are baseless. They are just not any where near reality. By the way citing a wing nut who makes his living hyping right wingers is not a credible source.

    Funny, you were not complaining about crony capitalism when it ran unrestrained in the George II administration. Where were you when Republicans were passing the half trillion dollar giveaway to the drug companies? You know full well your accusations are 100 percent bogus.

    And we both know you cannot prove even one of your allegations.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Startraveler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    113
    Here you go: section by section summary. That's 68 pages and will walk you through everything that's in the law in plain English. Please take the time to read it so you can stop playing the "I don't know what's in it!" card. You can even figure out which pieces you like and which you don't.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    This is the advisory board Mad finds so scary

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The board is not allowed to ration healthcare or adversely affect the quality of healthcare. But it is allowed to make changes that drive down price - a pretty scary deal if you are a healthcare provider - might need to do with one less vacation home.

    Sec. 3403. Independent Payment Advisory Board. Creates an independent, 15-member Payment Advisory Board tasked with presenting Congress with comprehensive proposals to reduce excess cost growth and improve quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries. In years when Medicare costs are projected to be unsustainable, the Board’s proposals will take effect unless Congress passes an alternative measure that achieves the same level of savings. Congress would be allowed to consider an alternative provision on a fast-track basis. The Board would be prohibited from making proposals that ration care, raise taxes or Part B premiums, or change Medicare benefit, eligibility, or cost-sharing standards. As amended by Section 10320, requires the Board to make annual recommendations to the President, Congress, and private entities on actions they can take to improve quality and constrain the rate of cost growth in the private sector. Requires the Board to make non-binding Medicare recommendations to Congress in years in which Medicare growth is below the targeted growth rate. Clarifies that the Board is prohibited from making recommendations that would reduce premium supports for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. Beginning in 2020, limits the Board’s binding recommendations to Congress to only every-other-year if the growth in overall health spending exceeds growth in Medicare spending; such recommendations would focus on slowing overall health spending while maintaining or enhancing beneficiary access to quality care under Medicare. Changes the name of the Board to the “Independent Payment Advisory Board.”

    http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill96.pdf
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2011
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    well mad IS one of those providers so i can see why he would be scared, i just dont personally care, the most good for the most people and if that means he doesnt get another BMW thats tough
     
  8. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    given the choice most people would choose a government bureaucrat who doesn't care if they live or die, over an insurance company bureacrat who hopes they die.
     
  9. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    actually if you follow our system the goverment beurocrat just writes checks. I go see my GP whenever i want and he refers me where ever he thinks i need to do and all i do is swipe my medicare card and the bill goes to the federal goverment. Unlike the US system I dont have to ask permission of an insurance company to see a doctor or get a treatment i just do it
     
  10. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    I live in the US and I don't ask permission of my insurance company to see a doctor either.
     
  11. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,267
    indeed - same here in the UK - but if people want to perpetuate the myth that single payer healthcare systems mean greater bureaucracy, it is useful to point out that, even if that were true, they would end up with a better kind of bureaucracy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    That's true of every politician that has ever lived, or will ever live.

    And that's why all the big businesses hedge their bets, and donate heavily to both parties. Even the Koch brothers do that.

    It's strange how you persist in addressing some fantasy world like this. Apparently your preconceptions are taken as axiomatic, and so it follows that reality must conform to them. Hardly a scientific approach, but one that is easily exploited by political parties.

    LOL rhetoric fail.

    Oh dear, now you're going to start citing Reason articles? And here I was thinking there was no way you could exhibit less credibility and acumen than you already do...
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You do. Read the fine print in your insurance contract.

    They grant it in advance, presumptively, in carefully described circumstances. But you have asked, and once outside those circumstances will have to ask again.
     
  14. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    I've read the contract, including the fine print (there is very little fine print by the way).
    You're wrong.
    It's not there.
    I don't have to have any communication with my insurance company prior to seeing my doctor.

    I do have some things, like Hospice care, Non-emergency admissions for substance-use disorders, Transplants etc (not many more) that require prior authorization.

    Arthur
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    As you describe, you already have.

    The conditions under which you already have and have not received permission to see a doctor are spelled out in your contract - and examples of cases in which you have not, and must seek specific further authorization, are also spelled out.

    In case of doubt, you are well advised to ask first if you have time - many people have been saddled with large medical bills in the mistaken belief that they had permission from their insurance company to see a given doctor for a given reason.
     
  16. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Nope, your wrong.

    I don't have to, as Asguard suggested, get permission to see my doctor.
    I can ALWAYS see my doctor without contacting the Insurance company first and all of my office visits are covered.
    If I have to go to the emegency room, that's covered and I don't have to call the insurance company first.
    If my doctor or the emergency room docs think I need to get admitted to the hospital that's covered and they don't have to contact the insurance company.
    If my primary care doctor thinks I need to see a specialist he sends me to them and that's covered and neither he nor I have to get permission from the insurance company first.

    Like I said, there are a few limited PROCEDURES which require pre-authorization, but in EVERY case you are under the care of the doctor already when the issue of any of these procedures come up (you don't schedule yourself for a Transplant for instance), and none of them are emergency procedures and so there is not a time issue and so my Doctor would simply include the pre-authorization step as part of the treatment plan. But again, pre-authorization is about specific TREATMENTS, not about being seen by a doctor.

    Other plans may vary of course.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2011
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You have already received permission for some doctor visits, then - as spelled out in your contract, which you obtained by contacting your insurance company.

    That's nice.

    And we notice that other permissions are spelled out in detail - so you know what you have permission to do already, and what you need further permission to do. That's a good thing, that clarity - as I noted, people often think they have permission from their insurance company when they don't, and it can get expensive. You seem to know better than to simply schedule a short visit with a specialist for some specific problem, for example. Many people haven't read their contract that closely.
     
  18. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Nope.

    I have never had to contact my insurance company at all and saying I recieved permission is silly, since all my visits are covered and that's what we are discussing.

    Of course since I'm not a doctor and so it would be presumptious of me to self diagnose a problem and schedule a visit to a specialist, that's my doctor's job.

    Arthur
     
  19. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    There is that...better indifferent than actively malignant.

    They do actually seem to do that-delay treatment that plans are supposed to cover for long periods of time. It does seem like they are trying to get people to die first.
    I'm not going to name companies I've heard it about, because I believe that would make sciforums liable for slander, m'kay?
     
  20. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Then how did you come to contract an insurance policy with them? It presumably involved you signing a contract spelling all of these policies out (and probably you receiving various updates and changes to the policy by mail in the intervening time).

    Are you being obtuse on purpose?

    So if you had, say, a boil that was bothering you, you wouldn't take it upon yourself to schedule a visit with a dermatologist? You'd instead make an appointment to see your primary care provider, then ask him to refer you to a dermatologist, and only then go and actually get the problem dealt with?

    Are you unaware that the better insurance policies out there explicitly encourage you to go directly to a specialist in such situations, exactly for the purpose of avoiding the unnecessary costs and delay of going through your primary physician? That they actually advertize this feature, in response to widespread public discontent with the HMO-style approach of funneling everything through the primary physician and quarantining the specialists?
     
  21. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Not at all.
    I never contacted them, I simply told my employer, via an on-line form, which policy I wanted. I do that once a year and it has nothing to do with asking permission to see a doctor.

    Anyone claiming this once a year enrollment activity is what Asguard was talking about, about seeking permission from the insurance company prior to seeing a doctor, is being silly.


    I'd expect my GP could handle a boil, so yes I'd go to him.
    If he saw it and because of it's size or location or some other reason he thought I needed to see a specialist, then he'd send me to one.

    Yeah, but so far I haven't seen it as an issue as I've never had to go to any doctor yet but my GP.

    And by the way, I tend to disagree with the issue of unnecessary costs and delays. When my wife was having very mild symptoms of mixing up words, (She'd say something like "I'll be right black, I mean back") I made her make an appointment with her GP, which when she explained the reason for the appointment to the Nurse the Dr arranged to see her the very next day. After the Dr talked to her for just a little while she scheduled a MRI for the next day. They found a brain tumor and she was admitted to the hospital immediately after the MRI was done and operated on 3 days later. Had she tried to schedule an appointment directly with a neurologist as a new patient it would probably have been weeks before she could have been seen for the first consult.

    Never once during this process was the insurance company asked permission for anything, even including for the brain surgery and that hospital bill came to $60,000.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2011
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I don't think getting permission in advance for doctor visits and such, as they are needed, is silly at all. Anyone contracting with an insurance company should make sure they are getting permission for the ordinary medical care they expect.

    And I commend you for paying attention to exactly what your insurance company permits you to do, and what it doesn't.

    Lots of people have found out the hard way that they don't have permission from their insurance company for medical care they wanted or needed - they can maybe still get it, but they foot the bill themselves.
    It would be not only presumptuous but expensive, unless you asked your insurance company for permission - you don't have advance permission to do that.
     
  23. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    But the POINT is, I don't have to ask permission to see my Doctor, and if my Doctor thinks I need to see a specialist, he doesn't have to ask permission from the insurance company before he sends me to them either.

    Also the term "permission" is being used a bit incorrectly.
    I can go see any doctor I want without anyone's permission, the issue is only if the bill will be covered by my insurance company or not.

    Arthur
     

Share This Page