Angry Mob of Racist Extremists Beats Black Man at Town Hall Meeting

[shel90]

Yup. Inequality of results is simply inevitable. The only way to iron them out is to give a dangerous amount of power to a few elite, which creates a great inequality of power. We see from history what happens when such schemes are taken to an extreme. In the Soviet Union, the elites got the cool cars and got their own special stores to shop in. They enjoyed a pretty cozy life while everyone else got crapped on.

This bill obviously isn't going that far, but inequalities would still exist. Congress is refusing to put themselves on this plan. They're going to have a much better deal than the rest of us. I'm not willing to dump our freedoms and prosperity just because of something like inequality of results that may be unpleasant but is inevitable in any society.

This reminds me of this kid from Rhode Island who got this really nasty disease called RSD that is apparently one of the most painful things to have. His only hope was this treatment available in Germany and not here due to stringent FDA restrictions (thanks government!). If his family was super rich, they could have afforded it no problem, but they weren't. They set up a website, got in the media, and were able to raise the $75,000 to make it happen.

Government has a terrible track record of solving these problems, so I don't know why we keep trusting it. As I said before, in whatever system, people will always fall through the cracks and that's why this society should place more emphasis on personal giving and charity. This is a compassionate country- I think we should tap into that more instead of forcing people to fork money over to utopian schemes with track records of failure.

This isn’t about inequality of results. It is about inequality of opportunity.

 

[shel90]

We don't have the money. Period. What parts do you not understand?

Controlling health spending is critical for the fiscal health of the federal government and the states. For example, health care spending today consumes 30 percent more of state and local budgets than it did 20 years ago, forcing governments to choose between cutting services and raising taxes.
And the Council of Economic Advisors recently released a sobering report on the impact of health care spending on the federal government. It found that if we do nothing by 2019,
· Health care expenditures will be 21 percent of GDP—one fifth of our economic output.
· Spending on Medicare and Medicaid will be 8 percent of GDP.
· Nineteen percent of the non-elderly population, or 54 million Americans, will be uninsured. The cost of caring for the uninsured burdens all of us. Families with insurance pay a hidden tax of $1000 to cover the cost of uncompensated care in this country.
For working Americans who rely on employer-sponsored health insurance, rising costs mean that an even greater proportion of their compensation will be in the form of health benefits rather than take-home pay. In ten years, the estimated percentage of average total worker compensation that comes in the form of health insurance will be 26 percent.
In addition:
· Resources that are devoted to health care cannot be used to provide the other goods and services that Americans want, including education, investment, and infrastructure.
· The federal deficit will continue to rise and, if meaningful health care reform is not enacted, more painful choices about how to deal with our unsustainable fiscal situation will be unavoidable in the future.
· That is why the President has been clear that he will not sign a health care reform bill unless it is deficit neutral and on a stable trajectory as the decade ends.
· We have to expand coverage and bring down costs for families as well as transform health care so that it costs less and delivers high quality in years to come. Adding more people to a broken system will only cost us more in the long run.
Frequently Asked Questions about Health Insurance Reform | Health Insurance Reform Reality Check

 

[shel90]

Rationing??? Where, exactly, does that occur in the current bill? And what do you call an insurance company who denies a service? Or one that tells its subscribers when they can have a service performed, or how often it can be performed? Or one that cancels coverage for an employee of 20 years because they had to quit work due to illness? Sounds like rationing to me.

 

[Reba]

The VA hospitals discuss "end of life" matters now. Last time my uncle went for my annual physical they asked if he had a living will, and if they could keep a copy on file at the clinic. It was not a "patient initiated discussion."

Here is the explanation for that:

The government requires hospitals to ask adult patients if they have a living will, or "advance directive." If the patient doesn't have one, and wants one, the hospital has to provide assistance. The mandate on hospitals was instituted during a Republican administration, in 1992, under President George H.W. Bush.

Just thought that it would be interesting that conservatives and die hard Republicans, yet, one of the things that they are objecting to in health care reform something that was mandated under a Republican…George Bush.

The first time my VA clinic asked me about the living will was this year.

You posted that your uncle was asked about it at his last annual physical. When was that?

 

[Reba]

Rationing??? Where, exactly, does that occur in the current bill? And what do you call an insurance company who denies a service? Or one that tells its subscribers when they can have a service performed, or how often it can be performed? Or one that cancels coverage for an employee of 20 years because they had to quit work due to illness? Sounds like rationing to me.

If the current bill follows VA medical guidelines it will be able to ration services.

VA medical will not routinely do colonoscopies for its patients unless they are at high risk or have prior related problems.

VA coverage doesn't include routine eye exams or glasses.

VA patients cannot directly make appointments with specialists. They have to be screened by their primary care physicians. If the physician decides the patient might need a specialist, then the physician requests an appointment for the patient. The patient may or may not be accepted by the specialty clinic. It sometimes takes months for the process.

VA patients must justify rescheduling or canceling appointments. Even then, they will sometimes be put at "the back of the line" and have to start the waiting process over again. Appointments are not made locally but thru a toll-free number. I've been left on hold so long (45 minutes+) that my phone battery died and I got disconnected. So I switched phones, and started the long wait again.

Hubby had VA hospital surgery. It was a surgery that can be done more than one way. The VA surgeon explained that, and then told him, "But the VA does it this way." So that was that--no choice.

Certain medical tests can be done only at prescribed intervals, not more often.

Maybe it's not called rationing but it's not unlimited either.

 

[kokonut]

Better read the bill, Shel, since you are so high-minded in support of choices and employer insurance.

Look for bold "re-evaluation of passages" as a summary explaination found in HR 3200, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” to explain what each section was about.

1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?

This is what the bill says, pages 284-288, SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS:

‘(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.

and, under “Definitions”:

‘‘(A) APPLICABLE CONDITION.—The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the Secretary . . .

and:

‘‘(E) READMISSION.—The term ‘readmission’ means, in the case of an individual who is discharged from an applicable hospital, the admission of the individual to the same or another applicable hospital within a time period specified by the Secretary from the date of such discharge.

and:

‘‘(6) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of— . . .

‘‘(C) the measures of readmissions . . .


EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. This section amends the Social Security Act

2. The government has the power to determine what constitutes an “applicable [medical] condition.”

3. The government has the power to determine who is allowed readmission into a hospital.

4. This determination will be made by statistics: when enough people have been discharged for the same condition, an individual may be readmitted.

5. This is government rationing, pure, simple, and straight up.

6. There can be no judicial review of decisions made here. The Secretary is above the courts.

7. The plan also allows the government to prohibit hospitals from expanding without federal permission: page 317-318.



2. Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?

What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.



3. what constitutes “acceptable” coverage?

Here is what the bill says, pages 26-30, SEC. 122, ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED:

(a) IN GENERAL.—In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 124 to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security . . .

(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED.—The items and services described in this subsection are the following:

(1) Hospitalization.

(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services . . .

(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.

(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician’s or a health professional’s delivery of care . . .

(5) Prescription drugs.

(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.

(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.

(8) Preventive services . . .

(9) Maternity care.

(10) Well baby and well child care . . .

(c) REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COST-SHARING AND MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE . . .


(3) MINIMUM ACTUARIAL VALUE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The cost-sharing under the essential benefits package shall be designed to provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the reference benefits package described in subparagraph (B).


EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill defines “acceptable coverage” and leaves no room for choice in this regard.

2. By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal.


4. Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?

Here is what it requires, for businesses with payrolls greater than $400,000 per year. (The bill uses “contribution” to refer to mandatory payments to the government plan.) Pages 149-150, SEC. 313, EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE

(a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of the average wages paid by the employer during the period of enrollment (determined by taking into account all employees of the employer and in such manner as the Commissioner provides, including rules providing for the appropriate aggregation of related employers). Any such contribution—

(1) shall be paid to the Health Choices Commissioner for deposit into the Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund, and

(2) shall not be applied against the premium of the employee under the Exchange-participating health benefits plan in which the employee is enrolled.

(The bill then includes a sliding scale of payments for business with less than $400,000 in annual payroll.)

The Bill also reserves, for the government, the power to determine an acceptable benefits plan: page 24, SEC. 115. ENSURING ADEQUACY OF PROVIDER NETWORKS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan that uses a provider network for items and services shall meet such standards respecting provider networks as the Commissioner may establish to assure the adequacy of such networks in ensuring enrollee access to such items and services and transparency in the cost-sharing differentials between in-network coverage and out-of-network coverage.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The bill does not prohibit a person from buying private insurance.

2. Small businesses—with say 8-10 employees—will either have to provide insurance to federal standards, or pay an 8% payroll tax. Business costs for health care are higher than this, especially considering administrative costs. Any competitive business that tries to stay with a private plan will face a payroll disadvantage against competitors who go with the government “option.”

3. The pressure for business owners to terminate the private plans will be enormous.

4. With employers ending plans, millions of Americans will lose their private coverage, and fewer companies will offer it.

5. The Commissioner (meaning, always, the bureaucrats) will determine whether a particular network of physicians, hospitals and insurance is acceptable.

6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.

5. Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS?


Here is what the bill says, pages 197-198, SEC. 441. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS

‘‘SEC. 59C. SURCHARGE ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—In the case of a taxpayer other than a corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to—

‘‘(1) 1 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $350,000 but does not exceed $500,000,

‘‘(2) 1.5 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000, and

‘‘(3) 5.4 percent of so much of the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer as exceeds $1,000,000.


EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Tax surcharges are levied on those with the highest incomes.

3. The plan manipulates the tax code to redistribute their wealth.

4. Successful business owners will bear the highest cost of this plan.


6. Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?

What it says, page 124, Sec. 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority to correct for payments that are excessive or deficient, taking into account the provisions of section 221(a) and the amounts paid for similar health care providers and services under other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.

(e) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed as affecting the authority of the Secretary to establish payment rates, including payments to provide for the more efficient delivery of services, such as the initiatives provided for under section 224.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. The government’s authority to set payments is basically unlimited.

2. The official will decide what constitutes “excessive,” “deficient,” and “efficient” payments and services.


7. Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?

What it says, pages 195-196, SEC. 431. DISCLOSURES TO CARRY OUT HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE SUBSIDIES.

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary, upon written request from the Health Choices Commissioner or the head of a State-based health insurance exchange approved for operation under section 208 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, shall disclose to officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, return information of any taxpayer whose income is relevant in determining any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Such return information shall be limited to—

‘‘(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer,

‘‘(ii) the filing status of such taxpayer,

‘‘(iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer (as defined in section 59B(e)(5)),

‘‘(iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer,

‘‘(v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof), and

‘‘(vi) the taxable year with respect to which the preceding information relates or, if applicable, the fact that such information is not available.

And, page 145, section 312, EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS EMPLOYEE AND DEPENDENT COVERAGE:

(3) PROVISION OF INFORMATION.—The employer provides the Health Choices Commissioner, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of the Treasury, as applicable, with such information as the Commissioner may require to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this section.

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code

2. The bill opens up income tax return information to federal officials.

3. Any stated “limits” to such information are circumvented by item (v), which allows federal officials to decide what information is needed.

4. Employers are required to report whatever information the government says it needs to enforce the plan.



8. Does the plan automatically enroll Americans in the GOVERNMENT plan?

What it says, page 102, Section 205, Outreach and enrollment of Exchange-eligible individuals and employers in Exchange-participating health benefits plan:

(3) AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT OF MEDICAID ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS INTO MEDICAID.—The Commissioner shall provide for a process under which an individual who is described in section 202(d)(3) and has not elected to enroll in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is automatically enrolled under Medicaid.

And, page 145, section 312:

(4) AUTOENROLLMENT OF EMPLOYEES.—The employer provides for autoenrollment of the employee in accordance with subsection (c).

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. Do nothing and you are in.

2. Employers are responsible for automatically enrolling people who still work.


9. Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?

What it says, page 124, Section 223, PAYMENT RATES FOR ITEMS AND SERVICES:

(f) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review of a payment rate or methodology established under this section or under section 224.

And, page 256, SEC. 1123. PAYMENTS FOR EFFICIENT AREAS.

‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, 1878, or otherwise, respecting—

‘‘(i) the identification of a county or other area under subparagraph (A); or

‘‘(ii) the assignment of a postal ZIP Code to a county or other area under subparagraph (B).


EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGES:

1. Sec. 1123 amends the Social Security Act, to allow the Secretary to identify areas of the country that underutilize the government’s plan “based on per capita spending.”

2. Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.

The Health Care Bill

Instead of protecting Obama at every turn, especially this insurance thing that WILL impact you and your private insurances, including the ones you have under your employer you'll find out soon enough that there are no choices when it comes to insurances. It'll all be govt controlled and govt insurances....not private. Hmm...there's that word again...slippery slope.

No wonder citizens of all persuasions and political parties are up in arms over this deal. It is a very, very bad insurance deal designed to wrench the private insurance industry out from under them and force Americans to go with govt health insurances only.

READ THE BILL, SHEL.

 

[shel90]

The first time my VA clinic asked me about the living will was this year.

You posted that your uncle was asked about it at his last annual physical. When was that?

…exactly. Insurance companies are already rationing health care. So why the big “OMG! Rationed health care under the reform!!!” The VA does it, the HMOs and the PPOs do it, the fee-for service insurance plans do it. Why haven’t people been protesting it for years? Why now? It isn’t like it is something new, or something that will become new under reform. And why on earth would you want to have a colonoscopy unless you were at risk for developing a disease or were having symptoms of a disease that required a colonoscopy for diagnosis? It is not a routine screening procedure. It is used for diagnosis when symptoms are present. There is no logical basis for doing one as a routine exam.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Again, it's the simple fact that the U.S. doesn't have the money for "free healthcare" and get the same kind of quality care for those who can afford it. People just do not get it thinking money grow from a tree.

We don't have the money. Period. What parts do you not understand?

Liebling, it's all about simple math. As darkdog explained, we are $1.8 trillion dollars over our budgeted amount for this year alone. That's the equivalent of each Americans owing $7000, so for families of four would owe $28,000 all across Amerika.

Liebling, understand just for once that the United States does not have the money. For you to talk about taxes shows how little you understand about the U.S. Gross Domestic Product, how our taxation works and the fact that we already owe almost $1 trillion dollars to China for borrowing money to help pay for our programs here in the U.S. We owe hundreds of billions to many other countries for borrowing money from them as well.

Again, once more, we do not have the money to fund a healthcare for all. Obama already spent $1.8 trillion dollars on top of some several trillion dollars in deficit over the last few decades or so. Money does not grow on trees.

I know from your posts that you are against to pay more taxes, keep on post the links of Republicans´ side without look the fact and keep on saying over no money.

I’m not wealthy but I am willing to pay more taxes to help people’s needs and make sure that the people won’t lost everything and then end homeless or dying.

It’s sad that the people have become so selfish and greedy for not want to see how/why important Health care reform is.

1. Why can’t you say the same “we have no money…” under Bush Admin. when you know that $5.7 trillion was still in National debt before Bush took office?

2. The debt was runs up fast to almost $11 trillion before Obama took office. Right?

3. If it’s okay to spend trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan war then why it’s not okay to spend trillions on healthcare for the people in their own country as well?


4. It’s too early to compare Obama’s debt with other previous president’s debt. We don’t know either Obama can reduce few trillions or billions of almost $11 trillion National Debt or not. I would suggest to wait until 4 or 8 years time then we will know more.


The problem is the people like you said nothing that when Bush throw $$ trillions away for 7 unnecessary war years, bailout to Wall Street last year but all what I see is accuse/bash Obama as a fraud when Obama is trying to help the people in his country as he promised the people during Election 2008 and fix the mess (huge national debt, foreign debt, economy crisis, jobs, unnecessary war, Gitmo and go on… ) Bush & his co. left to him and America?

I fail see why you use those word “we have no money” if you know about US National Debt history since 1940s? Nobody knows how long will National Debt, foreign debt, etc pay off to Zero? Maybe other 60 years time? That’s why I see your argument is “we have no money” is a feeble excuse and accuse Obama as a fraud and compare Obama’s spending with Medicare/Medicaid fraud is a moot.

kokonut´s post.
People just do not get it thinking money grow from a tree.

Simple is raise the tax to boost the debts, economy, etc.

Medicare fraud? We lose about $60 billion dolllars a year to fraud. What's Obama's fraud? About $1.8 trillion dollars worth for this year alone. A factor of 30 times more than Medicare fraud.

I don’t know what should I say or laugh. You said nothing about Medicare/Medicaid fraud but accuse Obama as a fraud for want to help the people in his country with money? Don’t you know that you PAY tax for Medicare/Medicaid? You as taxpayer are being cheat by that doctors and people.

Medicare/Medicaid fraud was start a few years before Obama took office.

60 billions fraud is a lot of money. We know that US doctor salary is 3 times more than Europe countries and Canada. Why do they cheat Medicare/Medicaid for money? It shows itself that the doctors are greedy and want people’s money, not their health… They ripped off private insurance companies off as well.

it is no excuse to blindly overlook a crucial fiscal issue and to make an ignorant statement - "no but it's about people's life"

Ignorant? I don’t know why you said this because I thought you know the National Debt history since 1940s ,don’t you?

And I don’t know why you accuse me as an ignorant when I say that healthcare reform is a value and necessary.

See my response to Kokonut’s post.

You cannot blame Obama for over 60 years of bad management. The debt was already since 1940s. It’s a feeble excuse to say “we have no money”…
when I offered my suggestion to check with PoliFact to rebut the list Kokonut posted but all what Kokonut say is: “we have no money….” without look the fact.

Various emails about the proposed Health Care Bill - Truth! Fiction! & Disputed!

Feel free to check PolitiFact if you disagree with that link, I post .

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Everything you just said is exactly why we need less government involvement in health care, not more. If you're trying to prove that government programs are ripe for fraud, then you just made the case against Obama's health care plan.

Huh?

It´s people including doctors who abuse government program.

The doctors also abuse private insurance companies as well. I remember the one example of several healthcare debate threads that insured person went to dental, to have her teeth done cost $900 which different as they charge uninsured person for $700 to $800.

The problem is people have become disconnected from the costs. They only pay a small copay for a doctor visit and then the doctor can turn around and charge the government program or insurance company $800 for the 10 to 15 minute visit. The patient probably doesn't know or even care. If people bought their own insurance and used it only for catastrophes, they would have to pay the full costs of routine doctor visits. That means they have to care what a doctor charges. Doctors couldn't get away with charging $800 for a visit. Nobody would go to that doctor. Now that everybody cares what doctors are charging and are calling around comparing prices, doctors would have to compete with each other by lowering their prices. That's the way private clinics work. I've gone to them before and they're great. You don't need insurance to cover it and some are as low as $50. Even the poor can afford that. That's what I want to happen to the entire medical industry.

There´re many horror stories over doctors ripped off. I saw TV 2 days ago to yesterday...

I found 2 example links of person´s own experience.

Rip Off Report: By Consumers, For Consumers University Medical Center patient neglect, discrimination of uninsured, unfair treatment of uninsured Lebanon Tennessee

Is my doctor more interested in her pocket or my health? - Yahoo! Answers

yep! I go to private clinics as well. I told my chiropractor that I'm on new insurance so I had x-ray and some procedure for my back. He charged me about $300+. I found out that my insurance doesn't cover it so I contacted him about it. He sympathized and charged me just $40.

we need to bring back that good ole' fashioned doctor who made house call and carried that little black doctor bag. It was a fair price and honest work.

Should I fresh your memory over your own post in other thread which different as what you say here?

I had my oral surgeries done at the Medical University of SC School of Dentistry. I paid cash for those surgeries. The school cost is about 1/3 what a dentist charges, and the service is excellent.

I had an emergency crown done at a regular dentist's office. I paid cash, and because it was cash I got a 10% discount on the price.

Can you tell me how much it cost?

There's no projection for Obama care fraud and you just make up the story.

Unfortunlately, some people are being brainwashed by media´s lies. :roll: If they want the fact then look at PolitiFact, CheckFact or Snope.com

 

[darkdog]

I'm curious because I'm trying to understand this...

What part of "government intervention in health care IS the problem" do people not understand?
What part of "Medicare is going bankrupt" do people not understand?
What part of "Government bureaucracies only add inefficiencies to an already inefficient system" do people not understand?
What part of "Obama has blatantly lied about this" do people not understand?

It's all spelled out in this thread and others.

And before you say "Well, Bush did <whatever>", think about that defense really carefully. I understand people have a vested interest in seeing Obama succeed, but is comparing him to Bush actually a good defense? That sounds more like an attack to me. I thought Obama was supposed to be a change from Bush. If it can't be defended on its merits, you're better off demanding better from your guy.

 

[Barbaro]

We know that US doctor salary is 3 times more than Europe countries and Canada.

Do you have the European nations list of annual salaries of hospital doctors?

Any German version link is fine.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

So we should add more programs with more opportunities for fraud??? How does that solve anything? It would be better to crack down on the existing programs to eliminate fraud and waste.



How would Obama's plan eliminate or even reduce fraud?

See the example of healthcare card what I have.

gesundheitskarte - Google Bilder

How to prevent from fraud... Very simple is:

The doctor or Professor wrote their statement what kind of treatment I received by them in clinic, original including bill for my health insurance company, copy for themselves and me to read and then pass my family doctor.

 

[Jiro]

See the example of healthcare card what I have.

gesundheitskarte - Google Bilder

How to prevent from fraud... Very simple is:

The doctor or Professor wrote their statement what kind of treatment I received by them in clinic, original including bill for my health insurance company, copy for themselves and me to read and then pass my family doctor.

I don't see the difference. We do same - a copy of statement of what kind of treatment we receive and the bills.

 

[Reba]

…exactly. Insurance companies are already rationing health care. So why the big “OMG! Rationed health care under the reform!!!” The VA does it, the HMOs and the PPOs do it, the fee-for service insurance plans do it. Why haven’t people been protesting it for years? Why now? It isn’t like it is something new, or something that will become new under reform. And why on earth would you want to have a colonoscopy unless you were at risk for developing a disease or were having symptoms of a disease that required a colonoscopy for diagnosis? It is not a routine screening procedure. It is used for diagnosis when symptoms are present. There is no logical basis for doing one as a routine exam.

Colonoscopy is usually recommended at age 50 years, and then every 10 years, BEFORE symptoms occur.

"For now, doctors recommend scheduling your first colonoscopy at age 50 unless you're at higher-than-average risk for colorectal cancer or you develop symptoms."
Johns Hopkins: Colon Cancer on age of first colonoscopy screening

That was just one example.

The VA is a government-run medical service with lots of problems. Is that what you want?

 

[Reba]

..We know that US doctor salary is 3 times more than Europe countries and Canada. Why do they cheat Medicare/Medicaid for money? It shows itself that the doctors are greedy and want people’s money, not their health… They ripped off private insurance companies off as well. ...

If you believe that the US doctors are cheating, then what makes you think the doctors won't rip off Obama's plan?

That salary of three times more is often used to cover doctors' malpractice insurance coverage. We need tort reform to cap punitive judgments.

 

[Reba]

It´s people including doctors who abuse government program.

The doctors also abuse private insurance companies as well. I remember the one example of several healthcare debate threads that insured person went to dental, to have her teeth done cost $900 which different as they charge uninsured person for $700 to $800.

So? That's not abuse or fraud. That's good business practice. If patients pay cash, the doctor gets paid quicker than waiting for the insurance process. That keeps the cash flowing. Almost all businesses, not just medical, offer cash discounts.

 

[darkdog]

Liebling, what would you have us do? Put caps of doctor salaries? That would be a great way to discourage people from becoming doctors, which would lead to a shortage in doctors. It's already hard enough with 4 years pre-med, then 4 years med school, then at least 4 years exhausting residency. After that, they have to worry about frivolous lawsuits, working long hours and weekends, getting called in the middle of the night, etc. I don't know why people do it, but they do. Destroying their incentives to do it won't help much.

 

[Jiro]

So? That's not abuse or fraud. That's good business practice. If patients pay cash, the doctor gets paid quicker than waiting for the insurance process. That keeps the cash flowing. Almost all businesses, not just medical, offer cash discounts.

gas stations do it too - cash discount by like 20-40 cents difference. My home contractors too - about 20% discount under the table.

 

[Reba]

Can you tell me how much it cost?

Original cost was $970. Cash payment was $873. That was a 10% savings.

 

[Reba]

gas stations do it too - cash discount by like 20-40 cents difference. My home contractors too - about 30% discount under the table.

Under-the-table means illegal.

I'm talking about legal discounts.

Another example: Car windshield replacement is about 1/3 less when uninsured motorists pay. If the car has full coverage, windshield replacement is free to the driver but it costs the insurance company more.

Only some states charge more for credit card gas purchases. We don't do that in the South. I notice when we travel it is more common in the North and Northeast.