ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Night Strike]

And in a completely unrelated story to the horrible federal law, doctors are threatening to abandon medicaid patients.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... c062b.html

Government health care sounds so great.

[King Doctor]

Government health care sounds so great.

Can't engage with the high-level arguments about a topic?

Struggling to write coherent answers to people cleverer than yourself?

Finding expressing your simplistic and poorly considered views too challenging?



Then just go find a random news story about something bad happening in a system you don't like, then copy and paste it into the thread alongside a sarcastic remark!!!

How can you possibly lose?!?!?!?!

[PLAYER57832]

And in a completely unrelated story to the horrible federal law, doctors are threatening to abandon medicaid patients.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... c062b.html

Government health care sounds so great.

You put only the most expensive patients on the plan (diabled and poor people for Medicaid), give them FAR more care than the average working person gets, do it for free and yes, you have a broken system. (even add in Vets and Older people in the more expensive to cover groups)

BUT.. the answer is to put more people on the plans and stop letting the insurance companies skim off only those that are profitable.

And... again, all the "doomsday" stuff you keep "predicting" already is happening, right now OR will be lessoned by the new healthcare changes.

[Night Strike]

As the Obama administration sets its sights on overweight Americans, demanding obesity ratings for all citizens by 2014, the White House has promoted the Obamas' personal cook to a senior advisory position.

Sam Kass, the 20-something Chicago chef, is now the White House "Food Initiative Coordinator," Kass' title reportedly was upgraded last month from food initiative coordinator to senior policy adviser for health food initiatives. His duties have not changed.

The change comes as the Health and Human Services announced this week that under the stimulus law, health care providers must establish "meaningful use" of electronic health records to qualify for federal subsidies or risk seeing their Medicare and Medicaid payments slashed. The electronic health records must include Americans' body mass index, or BMI, height and weight.

Critics say the BMI is unreliable and the ratings will lead to more government intrusion.

Supporters say the ratings will serve as motivation for weight loss.

"The fact we're now tracking BMIs', I think knowledge is power for us," nutrition expert Mitzi Dulan told Fox News."There are a lot of people that don't know their BMI and it's denial.

Dulan noted that a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that $147 billion is spent annually on obesity-related costs, or 10 percent of medical costs.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07 ... -position/

Why does the government need to know everybody's BMI? It's just the start of their attempts through the health care law to regulate how we live our lives.

[Phatscotty]

Yeah, I think my "crazy and outrageous" prediction that US "subjects" would be forced to meet an acceptable level BMI in order to qualify for the benefits of healthcare, was on page 60 something....

[Baron Von PWN]

Yeah, I think my "crazy and outrageous" prediction that US "subjects" would be forced to meet an acceptable level BMI in order to qualify for the benefits of healthcare, was on page 60 something....

I think it would be acceptable to charge a premium though not outright deny service.

[Night Strike]

Yeah, I think my "crazy and outrageous" prediction that US "subjects" would be forced to meet an acceptable level BMI in order to qualify for the benefits of healthcare, was on page 60 something....

I think it would be acceptable to charge a premium though not outright deny service.

You would think that, but that whole premise was one of the rallying cries of the left when passing the legislation. "Being a woman will no longer be considered a pre-existing condition!" High-risk patients like smokers and people who are very obese should be charged higher premiums, but that is supposedly disallowed in the health care law. Instead they plan to make sure everyone changes their lives to fit the government's model of health.

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah, I think my "crazy and outrageous" prediction that US "subjects" would be forced to meet an acceptable level BMI in order to qualify for the benefits of healthcare, was on page 60 something....

I think it would be acceptable to charge a premium though not outright deny service.

High-risk patients like smokers and people who are very obese should be charged higher premiums, but that is supposedly disallowed in the health care law. Instead they plan to make sure everyone changes their lives to fit the government's model of health.

A high BMI IS the primary way they use to determine who is obese. And this "government model", is based on science, not politics. It is imperfect, definitely, but so is any such medical evaluation.

Being pregnant, on the other hand, and other issues specific to women are not tied to lack of good health. More risk to insurers, but not lack of health.

[King Doctor]

High-risk patients like smokers and people who are very obese should be charged higher premiums

... but obviously people like diabetics shouldn't; which is why the whole 'pre-existing conditions' thing ever became an issue. Of course, once you take those kind of high-risk people into account it leaves the whole 'higher premiums' idea somewhat high and dry.


The other alternative that got suggested was withholding care from those who caused themselves injuries because of voluntary stupid decisions (i.e. the obese and the smokers), but that got hysterically shouted down as 'rationing' and 'death panels'.

[rockfist]

Yeah, I think my "crazy and outrageous" prediction that US "subjects" would be forced to meet an acceptable level BMI in order to qualify for the benefits of healthcare, was on page 60 something....

I think it would be acceptable to charge a premium though not outright deny service.

High-risk patients like smokers and people who are very obese should be charged higher premiums, but that is supposedly disallowed in the health care law. Instead they plan to make sure everyone changes their lives to fit the government's model of health.

A high BMI IS the primary way they use to determine who is obese. And this "government model", is based on science, not politics. It is imperfect, definitely, but so is any such medical evaluation.

Being pregnant, on the other hand, and other issues specific to women are not tied to lack of good health. More risk to insurers, but not lack of health.

BMI is a joke...I had an astronomically high BMI when I was body building and yes I could and did run up to ten miles in a day at that time despite being 250 pounds and my basal heart rate was in the low 40's...two kids later and no working out like that and things are different but BMI is too basic to be super accurate in determining health.

[PLAYER57832]

Yeah, I think my "crazy and outrageous" prediction that US "subjects" would be forced to meet an acceptable level BMI in order to qualify for the benefits of healthcare, was on page 60 something....

I think it would be acceptable to charge a premium though not outright deny service.

High-risk patients like smokers and people who are very obese should be charged higher premiums, but that is supposedly disallowed in the health care law. Instead they plan to make sure everyone changes their lives to fit the government's model of health.

A high BMI IS the primary way they use to determine who is obese. And this "government model", is based on science, not politics. It is imperfect, definitely, but so is any such medical evaluation.

Being pregnant, on the other hand, and other issues specific to women are not tied to lack of good health. More risk to insurers, but not lack of health.

BMI is a joke...I had an astronomically high BMI when I was body building and yes I could and did run up to ten miles in a day at that time despite being 250 pounds and my basal heart rate was in the low 40's...two kids later and no working out like that and things are different but BMI is too basic to be super accurate in determining health.

Yes, I am a good example, as is my husband, as is my son. Ergo the "imperfect" qualifier. I was once chastised by a nurse for being overweight until I told her my body fat percentage was 18% (true!).

Even so, it is heading us in a generally good direction. Sometimes an imperfect, but simple indicator is better than a complex, more accurate one. The key is to know how to use the information. AND, on that note, let me be clear that I will have to see the details of how BMI will be used before I say it is OK. I was merely responding to Night Strike's comment about this being yet another "government" thing. This one happens to come from science.

[rockfist]

It disturbs me that we are so large that we need to use something so basic rather than a more nuanced and studied measure of things. I think populations and governments are just too big to take the time to do things right. I don't have a solution to that, its just an observation.

I can say this also: a body fat below 5% is unhealthy; many people would think its awesome. When your body fat is too low its almost like you are on drugs when you get hungry...you'd almost kill to get food. 10% is about as low as a normal male should have.

[john9blue]

One of those handheld BMI things told me I had a BMI of 7 percent back in high school. I'm kind of skinny but not THAT skinny! Hopefully they use a more accurate test than that. Actually, hopefully they scrap the whole dumb idea altogether.

[jbrettlip]

BMI measurements put something like 50% of NFL athletes in the morbidly obese category. It is a math calculation of height and weight, and does not take anything else into account. I wouldn't base my health on it, but it is a decent guide for people starting to evaluate themselves.

[rockfist]

Some of the lineman are morbidly obese.

[PLAYER57832]

It disturbs me that we are so large that we need to use something so basic rather than a more nuanced and studied measure of things. I think populations and governments are just too big to take the time to do things right. I don't have a solution to that, its just an observation.

I can say this also: a body fat below 5% is unhealthy; many people would think its awesome. When your body fat is too low its almost like you are on drugs when you get hungry...you'd almost kill to get food. 10% is about as low as a normal male should have.

I believe the initial idea was to use it alone, but that it will now be used with modifiers.

As for "why", this happens all the time in biology/medicine. To take all the factors needed into account is so complex, it becomes almost impossible to use. So, "short" versions are used. As long as they are used with that understanding, they are fine. The problem, as you have pointed out, is that too often they start out that way and then the mass media, lazy folks get ahold of the thing and misuse it.. decide to "cut out" the "extra stuff" for even more "expediency". In part, you can lay the blame on all these "efficiency" experts/business types and "reduce the government" types. Doing real life science, be it biology or medicine is very, very complex and unweildy.. or it is, by necessity, biased.

[jbrettlip]

I don't see how "reducing the governemnt" types supports your argument at all. (Which I agree with)

[PLAYER57832]

I don't see how "reducing the governemnt" types supports your argument at all. (Which I agree with)

Because the primary way biological research and processing, etc is made cheaper is by cutting out "details". Trouble is, biology and medicine are all about the details.

So, when you put pressure to cut funding, cut the "size of government", then you inherently force scientists to rely on "quick and dirty" estimates and figures, rather than taking the time, money and energy needed to do a more comprehensive study.

.... but that doesn't stop those same folks from complaining most vociferously when the "short versions" wind up being off.

Ergo, yet again, why it is absolutely critical for kids to learn real and true science and critical thinking in school.

[PLAYER57832]

Now, in many cases in Biology, as I argued, we HAVE to use semi-short versions of things. The key is to let the science be the guide. You want to pick indicators that give a reasonable approximation of the best data without costing too much time and energy. The problem is when people trained just to "look at the numbers" without really understanding the full complexity of natural systems, decide that "this little thing just doesn't matter".

[Woodruff]

Some of the lineman are morbidly obese.

Not only that, but even many of those who are not are still not in good health as far as their heart goes. Carrying around all of that muscle/weight is hard on the heart, even when it's not fat.

[King Doctor]

Some of the lineman are morbidly obese.

Not only that, but even many of those who are not are still not in good health as far as their heart goes. Carrying around all of that muscle/weight is hard on the heart, even when it's not fat.

Not when you're pumped full of steroids it's not!


Seriously, those guys are professional athletes with armies of dieticians, doctors and nutritionists to advise them, I'm pretty sure that they're all extremely healthy and are not abusing their bodies in a way that would maximise short-term results at the cost of making future suffering and health defects inevitable in the longer term.

[Phatscotty]

Some of the lineman are morbidly obese.

Not only that, but even many of those who are not are still not in good health as far as their heart goes. Carrying around all of that muscle/weight is hard on the heart, even when it's not fat.

They will make sure the gladiators are protected.

[Nobunaga]

How it all turns out...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/79087 ... vices.html

[notyou2]

Some of the lineman are morbidly obese.

Not only that, but even many of those who are not are still not in good health as far as their heart goes. Carrying around all of that muscle/weight is hard on the heart, even when it's not fat.

Not when you're pumped full of steroids it's not!


Seriously, those guys are professional athletes with armies of dieticians, doctors and nutritionists to advise them, I'm pretty sure that they're all extremely healthy and are not abusing their bodies in a way that would maximise short-term results at the cost of making future suffering and health defects inevitable in the longer term.

Mr. Dr. sir, you are mumbling with your tongue planted in your cheek like that. Please remove your tongue from your cheek so we may understand you better.

[PLAYER57832]

perhaps frivilous suits seeking to fleece every dollar out of the "greedy system" or even gov't madated/unaffordable insurances and licenses and fees and premiuims and mandates and paperwork and administrators and regulators and oversight committees and illegal immigrant abuse represents a wee bit more than the 3% (give or take) in profits

Oh look, Phattscotty has just typed out a whole list of problems that are endemic to the privatised healthcare model in the USA. Only, instead of admitting this, he's trying to pretend that they're only going to suddenly start existing in a nationalised system.

The only reason they're endemic to the privatized healthcare model in the US is because the government is involved. The government defines minimum plan levels, even though some of those plans include completely frivolous things like hair replacement surgery. Allow companies to sell across state lines and provide a variety of packages that have varying levels of benefits/coverages, and you will see the price of insurance decline. Remove the employer-based health care in favor of individual-choice plans where the buyer picks exactly what they want covered and prices will go down even more.

NIce try, but the REASON so many things are a part of the government plans is the heavy lobbying by private interests. THAT is the problem, and you feel the solution is to simply turn all this over to those very same private interests?

The REAL solution is to take them OUT of the equation, put the decision of what is covered and how much in hands of independent groups that take the evidentiary research into account and weigh it with ethics, practical issues (numbers of doctors and specialized machines available at any given time, for example), business, etc. .