News Count Me As Grateful For The Changes Coming In Us Health Care

[The Albatross]

I'm having difficulty comprehending how a "law" can be revised after passage without Congress. Heard the claim that it has been rewritten 5 times and that the President's position is that he can do so by "executive authority". I also heard that the cost has already reached 1.8 trillion dollars (nearly double of the claimed cost for the program) and it's still not ready to be implemented... so more costs are going to be forth coming.

The Chicago Tribune pretty much sums up my take: "... any president may decline to enforce statutes he believes are unconstitutional. But Obama is making no such claim here. Basically, he is admitting that parts of law are impossible to enforce on the deadlines imposed by Congress — deadlines he signed into law. He's also admitting he doesn't want to have Congress make these changes, for fear that if lawmakers get their mitts on this unpopular program, they would at least debate far more extensive changes than he'd like."

Though the music of the video is dramatic... this is a pretty decent rehash of this pig in a poke "law of the land". Astro turfed and fast tracked, peddled as a reform, upheld in the Supreme court because it was argued successfully as a "tax". Skeptical is putting it lightly for me basically and I do not want socialized medicine or the IRS to be the federal authority that is the administration arm of this program.

I do not want to subsidize federal staff and congress members, many of whom make triple our household wage with my taxpayer dollars. I do not want to create a "ruling elite" that has the luxury of riding on my back for platinum health care insurance when employers are rapidly dumping people into the program (Walgreen's 160,000 employees being the most recent). I vote "no confidence" in my governments ability to manage healthcare based on their ability to manage the U.S. Postal Service, Amtrak being two big examples.

Though melodramatic, the average citizen would do well to remember that by 2025, 1 in 4 will be age 65 or older. Imagine what that might look like. This is not the time, we can not afford it. This morning we decided to urge our representatives to defund or to delay the implementation of the Affordable Heath Care Act. In good conscience, I just can't get behind an administration's tactics and manipulation no matter how noble the cause.

Obama Care, Deconstructed

 

[The Albatross]

If you don't think this can happen with the IRS heath care mandate under the Affordable Health Care Act, think again.

No, no, no. I don't want the federal government or the IRS involved in my health care or my patient information.

 

[BloomInWinter]

BlueCross /Blue Shield is the model plan we're building my state's healthcare exchange around.

Here's a Factsheet on affordability and premiums - http://www.bcbsil.com/pdf/il_tax_credits_factsheet.pdf

Here's many factsheets from the AARP - http://www.aarp.org/health/health-care-reform/health_reform_factsheets/

Medicare has been a lifesaver for many, and is more efficient than any insurance out there. It's a successful government program.

Here's another opinion piece, written by someone who actually has the credentials, experience, and research background necessary to give an informed opinion. Yes, it's hard to get good information about the Affordable Healthcare Act to the general public, but it's not because the law is flawed.

"Originally, Obamacare was expected to come with more than half a billion dollars to be spent on outreach and education efforts about the exchanges. This money was supposed to be used to help people understand how Obamacare was supposed to work for everyone. But the Republican-led House of Representatives cut the whole implementation budget."

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/18/opinion/carroll-obamacare-poll/index.html?hpt=op_t1

Just imagine what it would be like if the republicans had actually lifted a finger to help, and hadn't squandered taxpayer resources trying to kill it...while proposing nothing. Other than "no", that is.

Obamacare sure beats no care, and really beats I-don't-care.

And the American Medical Association supports it.

"While the law is not perfect, the AMA, the nation's largest physician organization, supported it because it makes necessary improvements to our health care system. We are pleased the law expands coverage to millions of uninsured who live sicker and die younger than those with insurance. It allows physicians to see patients earlier before care is more expensive, provides funding for research on drugs and treatments, increases Medicare and Medicaid payments for primary care physicians and includes Medicare bonus payments for general surgeons in underserved areas."

Source: Link Removed

 

[The Albatross]

With all due respect Bloom, I would think that the principle author of the law (Senator Max Baucus) would certainly have the credentials, experience, and research background necessary to give an informed opinion. I'm no fan of Baucus, as he is deep in the pockets of pharmaceutical and allied health industries. In fact, he has announced in his home state that he has decided to retire instead of seeking re-election. If he says it's a train wreck, I believe him.

The AMA by the numbers so far as last year, 2012 according to the Washington Times: "... the American Medical Association, venerated representative of the American physician, right? Wrong.

This long-lived and generally respected organization, one that represented more than 70 percent of American doctors in the 1960s, has become a shell of its former respectable self, now representing less that 15 percent of America’s practicing physicians. But, you say, wait - how can that be? Didn’t the AMA support President Obama’s Affordable Care Act?

Yes, it did, and as a result of that very public support and the incorrect notion that the organization still had the support of most American doctors, the act passed. The majority of American doctors were not pleased. That is an understatement.

You see, the once-proud AMA of the 1960s, the organization that fought a battle against Medicare in its current form, the one whose president, Dr. Edward Annis, famously predicted the problems we face today, sold its soul to the government in 1983."

Not only has that been spent, costs are skyrocketing and the administration arm of the federal government for the program (the IRS) impartiality has been called into question.

 

[The Albatross]

Just imagine what it would be like if the republicans had actually lifted a finger to help, and hadn't squandered taxpayer resources trying to kill it...while proposing nothing. Other than "no", that is.

Following the adoption of an individual mandate as a central component of the proposed reforms by Democrats, Republicans began to oppose the mandate

Interesting comment considering the bill was passed without it being read ("You have to pass to bill to find out what's in it") without being debated significantly on the floor, with back room concessions and deal making (sweetheart deals or to put it in more current terms, "cash for votes." Payoffs included $100 million for the Corn Husker Kickback, $300 million for the Louisiana Purchase, $100 million for the Connecticut Hospital, SEIU and many more.)

Grabbing 1/6th of the economy by cloture circumventing the possibility of Republican contribution or open debate for the American people.

Don't even get me started on AARP, but since you mentioned Medicare, here's the scoop from Forbes with a click through link from a report by Senator Jim DeMint: How the AARP Made $2.8 Billion By Supporting Obamacare's Cuts to Medicare

 

[BloomInWinter]

Sure, Sen. Max Baucus is very knowledgeable. He never said Obamacare would be a train wreck. "A conservative TV ad misconstrues Sen. Max Baucus’ infamous “train wreck” statement to claim “there’s bipartisan agreement that Obamacare isn’t working.” A Baucus aide tells us that the Democratic senator “remains a major supporter of the law,” and that the ad takes his words out of context.

It’s true that Baucus warned four months ago of “a huge train wreck coming down.” But Meaghan Smith, an aide to the Montana senator, said, “He was clearly commenting specifically on a concern he had regarding one aspect of implementation of the law — the rollout of the public awareness campaign,” not the law itself."

Further..."But Baucus didn’t say “Obamacare isn’t working,” and he wasn’t referring to the law itself when he said “it’s a huge train wreck.” He was referring to the education and outreach efforts of the administration during implementation of the law."
Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2013/08/train-wreck-ad-goes-off-the-rails/

Also, Senator Baucus's feelings about it now - "We'll see Oct. 1, but I think they are doing a pretty good job," Baucus said in an interview with Fox Business Network. "I think the train is going to keep running, maybe not totally on time, but it's going to be pretty efficient."

Source: [DLMURL]http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/322405-baucus-obamacare-train-wreck-remark-sent-a-message#ixzz2fTeDYGak[/DLMURL]

An extensive list of Factchecking lies about Obamacare - http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

Many parts of the bill have been in the making since before Clinton was in office. They have been written and re-written, based on fact-based evidence. No legislation is perfect, but it's better than no legislation to help those without access to healthcare. But it wasn't passed without people being given a chance to read it. It's been in the process for many years. There was plenty of open debate, and it passed by the votes needed...hardly a closed, secret debate. There were many senate hearings on it before it was passed. It was being broadcast live, and is available on the web for viewing.

All bills go through committees. That is a part of the process, and not one gets to go through as written. Concessions and negotiation is a part of the political process.

The individual mandate is necessary to make the pool large enough that a few cannot bankrupt it. Yes, it will cost money. But we already pay, dearly, for all the care for the uninsured. This actually will help those people save us all money down the road because they will be healthier and their care will cost us all far less in the long run. It's not creating debt that wasn't already there. Most bankruptcy are from medical bills, costing our society much more.

As for the falsehood that congress is exempt,
"Claim: Congress is exempt from the law.
FactCheck.org says: False.

Several versions of this claim have been circulating since before the Affordable Care Act was passed. But no matter how many different ways the critics spin it, Congress isn’t exempt from the law. In fact, members and their staffs face additional requirements that other Americans don’t. Beginning in 2014, they can no longer get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as they and other federal employees have done. Instead, they are required to get insurance through the insurance exchanges." Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/obamacare-myths/

The opinion article in the Chicago Tribune was just that, an opinion. They listed no reliable source for fact-based evidence for any of their claims. The Chicago Tribune fired many of their reporters and photographers in preparation for being purchased by the KOCH brothers and ALEC. They are not an unbiased source, but if they at least linked to reliable sources, their opinion pieces could show some credibility.

The AARP is a private entity. Why would they be more worthy of being criticized than say, all the health insurance companies and PHARMA for denying healthcare to Americans? The AARP has not gotten rich by letting people die.

As for the "cuts to Medicare,"

"Politifact: Health Care Reform Does Not “Cut A Dollar From The Medicare Program’s Budget,” But Saves Money By Reducing Payments To Insurance Companies And Hospitals. In August 2012, Politifact reported: “First things first: Neither Obama nor his health care law literally cut a dollar amount from the Medicare program’s budget. Rather, the health care law instituted a number of changes to try to bring down future health care costs in the program. At the time the law was passed, those reductions amounted to $500 billion over the next 10 years. What kind of spending reductions are we talking about? They were mainly aimed at insurance companies and hospitals, not beneficiaries. The law makes significant reductions to Medicare Advantage, a subset of Medicare plans run by private insurers. Medicare Advantage was started under President George W. Bush, and the idea was that competition among the private insurers would reduce costs. But in recent years the plans have actually cost more than traditional Medicare. So the health care law scales back the payments to private insurers.” Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-said-barack-obama-first-history-rob-me/

Also, "Finally, Romney said Obama is the "only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare." In reality, several presidents have reduced Medicare spending.

We reviewed this history in detail in a fact-check of Romney’s statement from December, "Only one president has ever cut Medicare for seniors in this country . . . Barack Obama." We rated that False. Many presidents have sought to rein in Medicare spending.

Here are a few highlights from that fact-check:

- President Ronald Reagan cut Medicare by reducing payments to hospitals, and he cut benefits by raising deductibles.
- President George H.W. Bush cut benefits by repealing a law that would have expanded coverage for drugs and catastrophic illness.
- President Bill Clinton cut Medicare by changing payments to doctors and other providers, which could be considered to have an indirect effect on beneficiaries.

Our ruling - Romney said, "There's only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare, $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare."

The only element of truth here is that the health care law seeks to reduce future Medicare spending, and the tally of those cost reductions over the next 10 years is $716 billion. The money wasn’t "robbed," however, and other presidents have made similar reductions to the Medicare program.

We rate this statement Mostly False." Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-said-barack-obama-first-history-rob-me/

I am working to help make it a success. I am working with many wonderful good people who all care about issues of poverty, class, social justice. I am trying very hard to make the Affordable Care Act a success. Because this is an issue I've been working on since the early 90's, I am very hopeful that this will be the beginning of helping most of us receive better care with fewer costs.

Maybe the naysayers are right. Maybe it will fail. If it does fail, it won't be because of those of us who chose to assist the efforts of the many health care agencies, anti-poverty groups, professionals, community agencies, scientists, economists, nurses, academics, community health educators, health departments, politicians, and citizens who gave it their all.

I am proud that instead of doing nothing or just attacking it, I am working to make it successful for those who need it. Before my current job, I was a credentialed community health education specialist. So, I choose to go with the information I have which can be sourced to reliable evidence-based science.

If it does fail, we'll always have what we have now. Or, what the republicans come up with, whatever that is. They've had years to unveil their plan. Is there a link to it somewhere? If not, I'm sure it's coming out any day to help us all. That's a little snark, but it's also true. They've offered nothing but NO.

It will be interesting to see what happens over time.

 

[Barberian]

I don't mind the law. I think universal coverage is a good thing. I just don't like the politics of how it was rammed down the throats of Americans. The Supreme Court saying it is a tax.... What's next?

I'm in the fortunate position, most of my medical care and all of my psychiatric care is service connected which I have a small co-pay for. The rest is pretty cheap insurance I'm eligible for from retiring from the military with a "reasonable" co-pay for the Mrs. and I.

 

[DharmaGirl]

I am paying 640 USD a month for cobra health insurance. I am on disability. This does not cover my son. I will be really happy when I can choose a cheaper plan to tide me over until I go back to work, or get medicare.

 

[Barberian]

$7,680 a year for only one person for basic coverage?!? ^#^*&!*&^@ Words fail me, other than I'm sorry you have to be robbed like this.

 

[BloomInWinter]

Re: professional medical associations who support the affordable care act, in case one wants to ignore the American Medical Association's endorsement.

"A better way to gauge these issues is to examine how physicians and the organizations which represent them actually behaved during last year’s health reform. One wouldn’t know from Pipes’ article that the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Surgeons, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the American Osteopathic Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American College of Cardiology all endorsed last year’s health reform. These groups represent hundreds of thousands of physicians across a wide range of medical sub-specialties." Source: http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/99827/no-doctors-dont-hate-obamacare

 

[squireparty]

I'm glad I started this thread as it has really made me do some thinking. It seems as if the ACA brings out very strong reactions in many people, and since we're talking about health care here, I guess that's understandable.

My take on this is that since I have been economically challenged - nice way to put it - for not all but a goodly chunk of my life - I see the ACA as a blessing. I wonder though - supposing I had had a more stable life economically and had been covered by insurance non-stop - would I see the ACA the same way?

Given what I have experienced, I feel my take on the ACA is valid. But what I find interesting is that not everyone has experienced what I have - why should others with different life experiences have a take that is any less valid than mine?

This to me is a "perk" of PTSD if there is such a thing - since I am moving slower these days, I'm more able to look at things from a different perspective - well, some things anyway.

 

[dnp]

This is my problem as far as I understand the Act as it is being implemented. If I have the wrong facts please let me know:

The plans offered are too expensive. Even the terrible ones that don't give you anything are too expensive. I previously had the option of getting the most cheap catastrophic insurance and I did what I could to treat myself if possible and I have also travelled to a developing country for very cheap medical care. Now I am FORCED to buy an expensive plan because they are all expensive!

It is my understanding that rates are dropping in New York and rising almost everywhere else. People are struggling with rent, student loans, rising food prices, rising gas prices and we can't pay these kinds of insurance prices. We have bills to pay and can't pay a massive part of our income on health insurance and for those with bad plans we have to pay all the massive health care costs on top of our massive insurance costs.

If you enter the market as an individual and don't have fat government or corporate insurance, which more and more people are forced to do these days, the insurance companies will charge you a rate profitable to them. So you may get a decent rate while you are healthy but if you ever file a claim the next chance they get they will jack your rate up so it becomes profitable to them again.

The poverty guidelines for the tax credit as I understand it do not have a cost of living adjustment. They treat someone living in San Francisco the same as someone living in a hippie commune in New Mexico. If you live in certain large cities if you just want to live somewhere relatively safe and with access to public transportation you have to pay for it. $40,000 may sound like a lot of money but it just doesn't go as far in New York as it does elsewhere. There are cities where $1,000 per month rent near public transportation can get you something potentially dangerous, there will be gunfire sometimes, drug dealers, etc. So you have to spend money and get something safer, now you don't have $500 left over for health insurance.

Now, I understand that with the Medicaid expansion it will be possible for us to quit our jobs and move to a Medicaid expansion state and get free health care. Believe me, I am absolutely considering it. But if tons of people do that there will hardly be anyone left to pay the taxes to pay for all of this.

It is not fair that I have to pay for someone else to get ten years of therapy and they can go every week, while three months of therapy nearly wiped out my whole Health Savings Account that I spent years building up. There are people who have been in therapy for years and don't appreciate how lucky they are that they can go. I am related to one of those people. Every single appointment I went to I knew I had to cherish it and make the most of it because it was costing me so much.

Now I am looking for someone unlicensed to go to that will be cheaper. Even the unlicensed people charge a lot! When I started therapy I felt I needed someone licensed because I wasn't really stable and I wasn't diagnosed (now I am both stable and diagnosed).