ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Woodruff]

Even further description of what the future will look like under ObamaCare!:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/10 ... ?mobile=nc

Isn't that awful!

[jj3044]

I got a question. Does Obama go to the big farmaceutical companies and to the hospitals to force them to lower their prices? Because this is something very important if you wanna install a system similar to the european health care system. If you don't do this when having an extensive health care system, it'll be like throwing a free party of taxpayer income to those big businesses.

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, the failure of ObamaCare is that it doesn't particularly do this, no. In fact, it really is a matter of throwing a big party for big business. Originally, it wasn't going to be that way, but the big business lobbyists for Congress managed to get it there.

Then you guys haven't heard of some of the provisions in the law such as the implementation of ACO's (Accountable Care Organizations).

"Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are groups of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers, who come together voluntarily to give coordinated high quality care to their Medicare patients.

The goal of coordinated care is to ensure that patients, especially the chronically ill, get the right care at the right time, while avoiding unnecessary duplication of services and preventing medical errors.

When an ACO succeeds both in both delivering high-quality care and spending health care dollars more wisely, it will share in the savings it achieves for the Medicare program."

There are plenty of good things in the law that will reduce cost and improve outcomes, if you choose to LOOK for them.

[Woodruff]

I got a question. Does Obama go to the big farmaceutical companies and to the hospitals to force them to lower their prices? Because this is something very important if you wanna install a system similar to the european health care system. If you don't do this when having an extensive health care system, it'll be like throwing a free party of taxpayer income to those big businesses.

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, the failure of ObamaCare is that it doesn't particularly do this, no. In fact, it really is a matter of throwing a big party for big business. Originally, it wasn't going to be that way, but the big business lobbyists for Congress managed to get it there.

Then you guys haven't heard of some of the provisions in the law such as the implementation of ACO's (Accountable Care Organizations).

"Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are groups of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers, who come together voluntarily to give coordinated high quality care to their Medicare patients.

The goal of coordinated care is to ensure that patients, especially the chronically ill, get the right care at the right time, while avoiding unnecessary duplication of services and preventing medical errors.

When an ACO succeeds both in both delivering high-quality care and spending health care dollars more wisely, it will share in the savings it achieves for the Medicare program."

There are plenty of good things in the law that will reduce cost and improve outcomes, if you choose to LOOK for them.

You seem to be under a very misguided impression of my understanding of this law. I've looked into it a GREAT deal, as you'd know if you have read this thread for any amount of time. I'm actually pretty lukewarm on the law overall...I think there are important things done in it and I think there are things done in it that are thoroughly useless and did nothing to improve the situation at all.

Frankly, nothing that you stated in this post is a refutation of my point at all as regards the insurance industry (my reference to big business, in this particular case).

[Night Strike]

Welcome to the future under Obamacare:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sebelius- ... le/2531097

I certainly don't support this situation. But I'm curious what you believe would have happened in this situation prior to ObamaCare.

Actually, I think this specific example has nothing to do with Obamacare. The reason I brought it up though is because this process will be what ends up happening when the government runs health care. They'll get to decide whether or not a person is allowed to get a procedure rather than the doctor and patient. At that point, the only recourse would be to either be someone powerful or to use the media to help plead your case. Government shouldn't be involved in deciding who should or should not be eligible for certain transplants or any other medical treatment. Why is the government determining transplant eligibility and not the doctors?

[Woodruff]

Welcome to the future under Obamacare:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sebelius- ... le/2531097

I certainly don't support this situation. But I'm curious what you believe would have happened in this situation prior to ObamaCare.

Actually, I think this specific example has nothing to do with Obamacare. The reason I brought it up though is because this process will be what ends up happening when the government runs health care.

This process is really little different than happened before. The only difference is that prior to this, insurance companies were making these decisions. I'm going to be honest with you...as little faith as I have in the government making these sorts of decisions, I have even less faith in someone making decisions when THEIR BOTTOM LINE is involved. So the government making the decision is a step up, in my opinion, to profits guiding the decision.

They'll get to decide whether or not a person is allowed to get a procedure rather than the doctor and patient. At that point, the only recourse would be to either be someone powerful or to use the media to help plead your case. Government shouldn't be involved in deciding who should or should not be eligible for certain transplants or any other medical treatment. Why is the government determining transplant eligibility and not the doctors?

Why is an insurance company's bottom line what decides who should or should not be eligible for certain transplants or any other medical treatment? How is that a better way to decide?

[Night Strike]

Why is an insurance company's bottom line what decides who should or should not be eligible for certain transplants or any other medical treatment? How is that a better way to decide?

It's not. But the government shouldn't have any control over the process either. Insurance's job is to provide payments for treatments for people who meet their premium, co-pay, and out-of-pocket obligations. The government shouldn't have a role in deciding who gets treatments and who doesn't.

[Woodruff]

Why is an insurance company's bottom line what decides who should or should not be eligible for certain transplants or any other medical treatment? How is that a better way to decide?

It's not. But the government shouldn't have any control over the process either. Insurance's job is to provide payments for treatments for people who meet their premium, co-pay, and out-of-pocket obligations. The government shouldn't have a role in deciding who gets treatments and who doesn't.

The problem is that the insurance industry did such a thoroughly shitty job of doing exactly that, that the government felt the need to do so. Seriously...the health insurance industry was becoming well known for not paying out on their contracts AND THEN DROPPING those individuals, leaving them without coverage. They sort of opened the door for the government themselves. You'd legitimately have a lot more people against government-deciding insurance in this country if the previous situation wasn't just so enormously fucked up.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why is an insurance company's bottom line what decides who should or should not be eligible for certain transplants or any other medical treatment? How is that a better way to decide?

It's not. But the government shouldn't have any control over the process either. Insurance's job is to provide payments for treatments for people who meet their premium, co-pay, and out-of-pocket obligations. The government shouldn't have a role in deciding who gets treatments and who doesn't.

The problem is that the insurance industry did such a thoroughly shitty job of doing exactly that, that the government felt the need to do so. Seriously...the health insurance industry was becoming well known for not paying out on their contracts AND THEN DROPPING those individuals, leaving them without coverage. They sort of opened the door for the government themselves. You'd legitimately have a lot more people against government-deciding insurance in this country if the previous situation wasn't just so enormously fucked up.

Sounds like anecdotal evidence, and that magical assumption about government acting to 'do the right thing' "for the people" is at it again.

[jj3044]

I got a question. Does Obama go to the big farmaceutical companies and to the hospitals to force them to lower their prices? Because this is something very important if you wanna install a system similar to the european health care system. If you don't do this when having an extensive health care system, it'll be like throwing a free party of taxpayer income to those big businesses.

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, the failure of ObamaCare is that it doesn't particularly do this, no. In fact, it really is a matter of throwing a big party for big business. Originally, it wasn't going to be that way, but the big business lobbyists for Congress managed to get it there.

Then you guys haven't heard of some of the provisions in the law such as the implementation of ACO's (Accountable Care Organizations).

"Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are groups of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers, who come together voluntarily to give coordinated high quality care to their Medicare patients.

The goal of coordinated care is to ensure that patients, especially the chronically ill, get the right care at the right time, while avoiding unnecessary duplication of services and preventing medical errors.

When an ACO succeeds both in both delivering high-quality care and spending health care dollars more wisely, it will share in the savings it achieves for the Medicare program."

There are plenty of good things in the law that will reduce cost and improve outcomes, if you choose to LOOK for them.

You seem to be under a very misguided impression of my understanding of this law. I've looked into it a GREAT deal, as you'd know if you have read this thread for any amount of time. I'm actually pretty lukewarm on the law overall...I think there are important things done in it and I think there are things done in it that are thoroughly useless and did nothing to improve the situation at all.

Frankly, nothing that you stated in this post is a refutation of my point at all as regards the insurance industry (my reference to big business, in this particular case).

I didn't post that because it refuted that point, it demonstrates a method of lowering the cost of care from the providers (waauw asked about hospitals lowering costs - this is one way). But, while you mention it, because providers will be moving away from the fee-for-service model into this ACO or performance based model, it lowers the number of services that will be billed back to the insurer, lowering revenues. That should in fact have the opposite effect of a "party" for the insurers, right?

[Phatscotty]

Obamacare ‘rate shock’ hits Ohio with 88 percent insurance hikes

State officials aren’t surprised. They’ve cautioned about the “rate shock” since the early days of Obamacare, Forbes reported.

“We have warned of these increases,” said Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor. “Consumers will have fewer choices and pay much higher premiums for their health insurance starting in 2014.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -insuranc/

[ooge]

Welcome to the future under Obamacare:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sebelius- ... le/2531097

I certainly don't support this situation. But I'm curious what you believe would have happened in this situation prior to ObamaCare.

Actually, I think this specific example has nothing to do with Obamacare. The reason I brought it up though is because this process will be what ends up happening when the government runs health care. They'll get to decide whether or not a person is allowed to get a procedure rather than the doctor and patient. At that point, the only recourse would be to either be someone powerful or to use the media to help plead your case. Government shouldn't be involved in deciding who should or should not be eligible for certain transplants or any other medical treatment. Why is the government determining transplant eligibility and not the doctors?

if you did not know better you would say this was an argument against government intrusion into woman's heath issues,Death panels they are insurance company's and it has been the case for a long time.The American tax payers has been over paying for years for a system in which everyone should be covered with adequate heath care,yet we do not even have that. socialized medicines is so bad,then why do those country's that have socialized medicine not vote politicians in who will get rid of it?

[Night Strike]

Welcome to the future under Obamacare:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sebelius- ... le/2531097

I certainly don't support this situation. But I'm curious what you believe would have happened in this situation prior to ObamaCare.

Actually, I think this specific example has nothing to do with Obamacare. The reason I brought it up though is because this process will be what ends up happening when the government runs health care. They'll get to decide whether or not a person is allowed to get a procedure rather than the doctor and patient. At that point, the only recourse would be to either be someone powerful or to use the media to help plead your case. Government shouldn't be involved in deciding who should or should not be eligible for certain transplants or any other medical treatment. Why is the government determining transplant eligibility and not the doctors?

if you did not know better you would say this was an argument against government intrusion into woman's heath issues,Death panels they are insurance company's and it has been the case for a long time.The American tax payers has been over paying for years for a system in which everyone should be covered with adequate heath care,yet we do not even have that. socialized medicines is so bad,then why do those country's that have socialized medicine not vote politicians in who will get rid of it?

It's an argument against ALL government intrusion into health care issues. It's not the government's role to pick and choose who gets health care. And the US has the best health care system in the world, so it's complete BS about it not being adequate. There ARE many problems with the system, but most of those stem from too much government involvement, not too little government. And people in other countries don't vote out such systems because they'd rather get "free", low quality service than make their own choices. That's why when people realize they aren't going to get the treatments they need in a timely manner, they pay for treatment in other countries.

[ooge]

Welcome to the future under Obamacare:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sebelius- ... le/2531097

I certainly don't support this situation. But I'm curious what you believe would have happened in this situation prior to ObamaCare.

Actually, I think this specific example has nothing to do with Obamacare. The reason I brought it up though is because this process will be what ends up happening when the government runs health care. They'll get to decide whether or not a person is allowed to get a procedure rather than the doctor and patient. At that point, the only recourse would be to either be someone powerful or to use the media to help plead your case. Government shouldn't be involved in deciding who should or should not be eligible for certain transplants or any other medical treatment. Why is the government determining transplant eligibility and not the doctors?

if you did not know better you would say this was an argument against government intrusion into woman's heath issues,Death panels they are insurance company's and it has been the case for a long time.The American tax payers has been over paying for years for a system in which everyone should be covered with adequate heath care,yet we do not even have that. socialized medicines is so bad,then why do those country's that have socialized medicine not vote politicians in who will get rid of it?

It's an argument against ALL government intrusion into health care issues. It's not the government's role to pick and choose who gets health care. And the US has the best health care system in the world, so it's complete BS about it not being adequate. There ARE many problems with the system, but most of those stem from too much government involvement, not too little government. And people in other countries don't vote out such systems because they'd rather get "free", low quality service than make their own choices. That's why when people realize they aren't going to get the treatments they need in a timely manner, they pay for treatment in other countries.

you ever see the life expectancy rates of the country's that have socialized medicine verses the U.S. or just how less their taxes payers pay per citizen vs the U.S. Man look at the numbers,when you do you will only come to one conclusion,U.S. tax payers have been getting ripped off for a very long time.

[Woodruff]

It's an argument against ALL government intrusion into health care issues. It's not the government's role to pick and choose who gets health care.

I would suggest that it is the government's role to provide for the general welfare of its' citizens. It seems very obvious to me that basic preventative health care would fall under "general welfare".

And the US has the best health care system in the world, so it's complete BS about it not being adequate.

But it really doesn't. Well, it does if you have a lot of money. Otherwise, no.

[Night Strike]

you ever see the life expectancy rates of the country's that have socialized medicine verses the U.S. or just how less their taxes payers pay per citizen vs the U.S. Man look at the numbers,when you do you will only come to one conclusion,U.S. tax payers have been getting ripped off for a very long time.

There are a LOT more factors to life expectancy than the amount of government control over health care.

And I completely agree that we're getting ripped off with our massive taxes and horrible government, which is why I'm in favor of drastically cutting both. Giving them control over health care is the complete opposite of that.

[Night Strike]

It's an argument against ALL government intrusion into health care issues. It's not the government's role to pick and choose who gets health care.

I would suggest that it is the government's role to provide for the general welfare of its' citizens. It seems very obvious to me that basic preventative health care would fall under "general welfare".

And you would be very wrong. Under that definition, the government would have unlimited power because they can just deem that it's good for people. Health care is a specific welfare because it's based on the individual. The General Welfare clause exists as a framework to explain why the government is to enact policies that create an ordered and secure society, not as an excuse to micromanage every individual life.


And even if we accept your false premise, Obamacare doesn't even involve only "basic preventative health care". It's way larger in scope and control.

[ooge]

you ever see the life expectancy rates of the country's that have socialized medicine verses the U.S. or just how less their taxes payers pay per citizen vs the U.S. Man look at the numbers,when you do you will only come to one conclusion,U.S. tax payers have been getting ripped off for a very long time.

There are a LOT more factors to life expectancy than the amount of government control over health care.

And I completely agree that we're getting ripped off with our massive taxes and horrible government, which is why I'm in favor of drastically cutting both. Giving them control over health care is the complete opposite of that.

There is mountains of data showing how socialized medicine is cheaper and has better results. were you aware that in the U.S. infant mortality rates are comparable to third world country's with the worst state in the union being Mississippi?

[Woodruff]

you ever see the life expectancy rates of the country's that have socialized medicine verses the U.S. or just how less their taxes payers pay per citizen vs the U.S. Man look at the numbers,when you do you will only come to one conclusion,U.S. tax payers have been getting ripped off for a very long time.

There are a LOT more factors to life expectancy than the amount of government control over health care.

That depends, of course. I would certainly say that access to good preventative health care is a primary indicator of life expectancy, though, and many people in this country do not have access to that.

[Woodruff]

It's an argument against ALL government intrusion into health care issues. It's not the government's role to pick and choose who gets health care.

I would suggest that it is the government's role to provide for the general welfare of its' citizens. It seems very obvious to me that basic preventative health care would fall under "general welfare".

And you would be very wrong.

Well that's a hell of a rebuttal.

Under that definition, the government would have unlimited power because they can just deem that it's good for people.

And you would be very wrong. Not everything the government wants can be classed under "general welfare".

Health care is a specific welfare because it's based on the individual.

What the hell does that even mean? Did you just strive so hard to create a sentence that included the word "specific" just so you could claim it wasn't "general welfare"? Come on, Night Strike, you've gotta know better than that. While an individual's health is obviously specific to that individual, that has nothing at all to do with the general health of the public (i.e. "general welfare").

The General Welfare clause exists as a framework to explain why the government is to enact policies that create an ordered and secure society, not as an excuse to micromanage every individual life.

Health security is about as important of a security as you can manage. Without health security, not much else really matters.

And even if we accept your false premise, Obamacare doesn't even involve only "basic preventative health care". It's way larger in scope and control.

You and Phatscotty keep falling under the misguided notion that I'm a fan of ObamaCare despite the fact that I keep pointing out (and explaining why) that I'm not. I think it's a very mild improvement over what we had previously as far as capabilities and not worth the cost of implementing. The problem is that you guys so stridently go against everything Obama does that it necessarily gives the appearance that I support things he does simply because I'm correcting your stupidity.

[Night Strike]

This site explains the false argument of the General Welfare words in the Constitution better than I can: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/does- ... insurance/

[AndyDufresne]

This site explains the false argument of the General Welfare words in the Constitution better than I can: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/does- ... insurance/

--Andy

[thegreekdog]

It's an argument against ALL government intrusion into health care issues. It's not the government's role to pick and choose who gets health care.

I would suggest that it is the government's role to provide for the general welfare of its' citizens. It seems very obvious to me that basic preventative health care would fall under "general welfare".

And you would be very wrong.

Well that's a hell of a rebuttal.

Under that definition, the government would have unlimited power because they can just deem that it's good for people.

And you would be very wrong. Not everything the government wants can be classed under "general welfare".

Health care is a specific welfare because it's based on the individual.

What the hell does that even mean? Did you just strive so hard to create a sentence that included the word "specific" just so you could claim it wasn't "general welfare"? Come on, Night Strike, you've gotta know better than that. While an individual's health is obviously specific to that individual, that has nothing at all to do with the general health of the public (i.e. "general welfare").

The General Welfare clause exists as a framework to explain why the government is to enact policies that create an ordered and secure society, not as an excuse to micromanage every individual life.

Health security is about as important of a security as you can manage. Without health security, not much else really matters.

And even if we accept your false premise, Obamacare doesn't even involve only "basic preventative health care". It's way larger in scope and control.

You and Phatscotty keep falling under the misguided notion that I'm a fan of ObamaCare despite the fact that I keep pointing out (and explaining why) that I'm not. I think it's a very mild improvement over what we had previously as far as capabilities and not worth the cost of implementing. The problem is that you guys so stridently go against everything Obama does that it necessarily gives the appearance that I support things he does simply because I'm correcting your stupidity.

I don't think either of you know what general welfare means (in the constitutional context). So your argument is kind of weird. Ultimately, Woodruff is right though (based on Supreme Court jurisprudence), but the notion that "health care is general welfare" is off-base. Woodruff isn't right because of that, he's right because the clause allows the federal government to collect money and use it any way they want.

[Woodruff]

This site explains the false argument of the General Welfare words in the Constitution better than I can: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/does- ... insurance/

See, here's the problem...you're starting from a false argument. This article does not at all talk about what I'm talking about. This article is, in comparison to what I'm talking about, a strawman. Well done in setting fire to the strawman though.

[Woodruff]

I don't think either of you know what general welfare means (in the constitutional context). So your argument is kind of weird. Ultimately, Woodruff is right though (based on Supreme Court jurisprudence), but the notion that "health care is general welfare" is off-base. Woodruff isn't right because of that, he's right because the clause allows the federal government to collect money and use it any way they want.

That is unfortunately how it was originally interpreted, and thus codified by the Supreme Court who first took it on. So I do recognize what you're saying. Yet the US Constitution stands as an aberration in that regard in comparison to not only the use of the same phrase (where it exists) in almost every other national Constitution but also a rational reading of it. The idea that basic preventative health care is not a part of the public's welfare just seems incomprehensible to me.

[jj3044]

Obamacare ‘rate shock’ hits Ohio with 88 percent insurance hikes

State officials aren’t surprised. They’ve cautioned about the “rate shock” since the early days of Obamacare, Forbes reported.

“We have warned of these increases,” said Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor. “Consumers will have fewer choices and pay much higher premiums for their health insurance starting in 2014.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -insuranc/

And yet, it is already working well in states like California, Oregon, and Washington...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... ium-rates/

Cohn is saying that, despite the political naysayers, the healthcare exchange concept appears to be working very well indeed in states like California, Oregon and Washington—the first states to publish the expected health exchange prices for purchasing coverage. These are also states that are actually committed to seeing the program work as opposed to those states whose leaders have a vested political interest in seeing the Affordable Care Act fail.

One reason for the misplaced expectations may be that actuaries have been making worst-case assumptions, even as insurers—eyeing the prospects of so many new customers—have been calculating that it’s worth bidding low in order to gobble up market share.

So, it seems as though the government mandated exchanges are helping to increase competition among private insurers... isn't that exactly what some of you guys were saying that you wanted??