I'm sure Congress said that when they ratified the 18th amendment, or Parliament when they enacted the Intolerable Acts.
Healthcare Bill
- Thread starter XxNemesis29xX
- Start date
I'm sure Congress said that when they ratified the 18th amendment, or Parliament when they enacted the Intolerable Acts.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,102
- Reaction score
- 14
It's not over yet. If Republicans can regain control of the house come November, they can vote to not fund the bill and essentially kill it
They would need control of both the house and the senate. And then it would be vetoed by Obama.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,102
- Reaction score
- 14
Well, of course, I am not claiming it'll forever be unchanged. But this will be the law until at least 2012.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 0
"President Obama will propose on Monday giving the federal government new power to block excessive rate increases by health insurance companies, as he rolls out comprehensive legislation to revamp the nations health care system, White House officials said."
Anybody know if this federal oversight is IN the bill? I personally didn't know that the federal government had ANY power over insurance rate hikes, but apparently this board COULD block excessive rate hikes with this proposal. If it IS in there, that's amazing - it DOES do something to corral the insurance companies from going rabid. I haven't heard much about it since it was first announced.
Anybody know if this federal oversight is IN the bill? I personally didn't know that the federal government had ANY power over insurance rate hikes, but apparently this board COULD block excessive rate hikes with this proposal. If it IS in there, that's amazing - it DOES do something to corral the insurance companies from going rabid. I haven't heard much about it since it was first announced.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2007
- Messages
- 1,373
- Reaction score
- 25
The thing that really irks me about this whole legislation is that drug prices are controlled in Europe and elsewhere. Here, prices are not controlled, so the US economy is effectively subsidizing low international drug prices.
This healthcare bill does nothing to address this. Drug prices should be controlled here too.
This healthcare bill does nothing to address this. Drug prices should be controlled here too.
Because we "have to" subsidize the international drug prices. Think about it. A company gets like 20yrs of exclusive rights to their product. But, the day that starts is the day they file the patent. They have to file their patent ASAP because, otherwise, someone else may beat them to the punch. So, often these big companies only have around 5 years to make money off of their products. When something both costs several billion to develop and must provide additional profit that can be allocated to future research, it's a simple matter of fact that they'll have to charge high rates.
You can even apply that to orphan drugs with insane, $150,000/yr, price tags. They still often cost around $80-90k to make, and those drugs often subsidize other drugs so that people can get treatment for extremely rare or astronomically expensive treatments.
The irony of the world telling us we charge too much for pharmaceuticals and them getting their low prices at OUR EXPENSE is way too much for me to handle.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2007
- Messages
- 1,373
- Reaction score
- 25
Yea, these insanely priced drugs are insanely costly to produce. So the pharmaceutical companies put together an equation that maximizes profit. The equation takes into account the countries with price controls and those without. The final result is our contributing a larger share than others to the companies' profits.
We will never get them to give up on price controls and contribute their fair share. So we have to institute our own.
Exactly. Genzyme has a policy of "full price or free". I.e. it will strong-arm a government into providing care for someone who needs it if they can afford to sustain the payment for that person. But, if there is no way that a patient can have their meds paid for, they just donate them.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 3,128
- Reaction score
- 132
Current SDN Poll
71% are ambivalent, concerned or angry.
29% are "excited"
How do you feel about the U.S. health care reform bill?
- Angry - it will be a disaster for health care (28%, 222 Votes)
- Concerned - worried about costs and impacts (27%, 216 Votes)
- Ambivalent - a good idea but flawed implementation (16%, 128 Votes)
- Excited - it's a positive step (29%, 237 Votes)
71% are ambivalent, concerned or angry.
29% are "excited"
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,085
- Reaction score
- 4,870
What a terrible idea. If the relative risk pool increases, rates will need to increase. Of course, this is another example of government-sponsored cost increases regardless, since now everyone HAS to buy one. It's like if everyone HAD to buy a car. Do you think cars would really stay "cheap"?
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 8,454
- Reaction score
- 39
Wow ... I get shocked at the furthering decline of this thread every time I read it. It's now to the point that people are saying 'we won, you lost,' like America is in a Civil War or something - this is augmented by ad hominem arguments, extremism, trolling, etc ...
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,724
- Reaction score
- 9
Current SDN Poll
How do you feel about the U.S. health care reform bill?
- Angry - it will be a disaster for health care (28%, 222 Votes)
- Concerned - worried about costs and impacts (27%, 216 Votes)
- Ambivalent - a good idea but flawed implementation (16%, 128 Votes)
- Excited - it's a positive step (29%, 237 Votes)
29% are "excited"
Fixed...
The largest poll category is that of excited people!!!!
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,724
- Reaction score
- 9
This will be awesome, in the absence of public option, we need some concrete way of cost control. Otherwise we risk skyrocketing rates which will make insurance unaffordable for too many.
I doubt they'll propose it, if they don't have the authority. At the very least, they can use Bush tactics like signing statements (we missed the boat on that) or assert executive privileges
What people are missing is that many healthcare professionals do not believe this will do much to contain costs. It will cost plenty though. It would be fine if this country actually had money. It doesn't. We are printing and borrowing money to pay for this. What happens when you borrow and print money? Higher taxes in an inflationary environment. What does inflation do? It makes that dollar in your pocket exponentially less valuable. The costs of goods will rise around you, and we're not talking the usual inflation anymore. It is now highly speculated there will be hyperinflation. Think this won't affect Physicians? You think the SGR rates are flawed now? Imagine that pool of money in Medicare disappearing.
The number one issue in this country is economy and national debt. Sure I'd like insurance for all as well, but now is not the time. They should have taken progressive, steps that have been proven to actually reduce costs first and expand care later. People think this increasing debt and this printing of money is not going to affect them. It's right around the corner. It won't be long before taxes start increasing significantly along with food and gas prices while the dollar that in your pocket now becomes 50 cents. I hope I'm wrong.
The number one issue in this country is economy and national debt. Sure I'd like insurance for all as well, but now is not the time. They should have taken progressive, steps that have been proven to actually reduce costs first and expand care later. People think this increasing debt and this printing of money is not going to affect them. It's right around the corner. It won't be long before taxes start increasing significantly along with food and gas prices while the dollar that in your pocket now becomes 50 cents. I hope I'm wrong.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2009
- Messages
- 1,948
- Reaction score
- 143
Source?
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2005
- Messages
- 3,642
- Reaction score
- 1,150
I don't think this is correct. I believe the house holds the purse strings and can essentially pull the plug. That's how we got out of Vietnam. This wouldn't be a bill, so veto powers wouldn't apply.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2005
- Messages
- 3,642
- Reaction score
- 1,150
I don't know if a source would be particularly helpful in this instance. The government essentially counterfeits money to pay for these bills. As more money is created without a commensurate increase in gold-backing, the money in circulation decreases in value. It's pretty straight-forward.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2009
- Messages
- 992
- Reaction score
- 0
happened to this thread.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2005
- Messages
- 3,642
- Reaction score
- 1,150
Could you be more specific?
True. The House can simply not fund aspects of the bill. The law is still in effect so you couldn't get rid of the additional taxes etc. but anything that needed payment from the government could be frozen using this method.
The normal mechanism the executive branch uses to fight back against this is to simply veto the bill the House presents that is missing the funding so nothing gets funded and they have to compromise on something. That would actually work when the big spenders are in the House and desperate to get funding to all their other programs they love but in this case the big spender will be the one in the executive branch and the House controlled by the conservatives, so they may not care if appropriations bills are stuck in limbo and the government shuts down for however long it takes Obama to cave. The longer something like that went on the better for the country.
Eventually they come up with partial appropriations bills to fund essential mechanisms while they fight out the other areas. Like I said normally it's the big spenders in congress so they usually cave to the executive but when it's the other way around... How did things work for Clinton after 94? I think you could expect it to be about like that.
The more I hear about the legal side the more I think it will be turned off in the Supreme Court. The problem is that'll take a long time. They can't really sue for issues like the illegal mandate until 2014 when it takes force and people are "damaged" by it. Then it might take another 3 to 5 years to actually reach the Supreme Court and a decision to be handed down. The legislative route will be the fastest by far. Obama will be long gone before this thing even gets to the Supreme Court. The law suits right now are based on the Fed trying to take over traditionally State regulated areas that are not granted it in the Constitution, which it could probably be killed on that basis as well, but again that won't come to a final head for 3 to 5 years from now. You could essentially shut the whole health care take over off with the dems losing the House this November.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2009
- Messages
- 1,948
- Reaction score
- 143
Interesting, but probably not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/health/policy/23legal.html?fta=y
As far as it being shut down in November after the elections, I don't think that's going to happen either, although not for lack of trying.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2009
- Messages
- 1,948
- Reaction score
- 143
For those of you who think health care reform is going to ruin the medical profession forever, go ahead and get started on your plan B. This bill isn't going anywhere, and if you're going to be miserable in the new system, save yourself the pain and get out now. Just my $0.02.
Interesting, but probably not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/health/policy/23legal.html?fta=y
As far as it being shut down in November after the elections, I don't think that's going to happen either, although not for lack of trying.
You're using a left wing rag like the NY Times as your authoritative source for the legal status of law suits filed by 10+ States? Gee they don't have any bias do they? Those silly states should probably just drop the suits since the NY Times has spoken now.
Perhaps you could also explain just how you could stop the House from not funding it? Crossing your fingers and closing your eyes tight while repeating, "I Wish, I wish I wish" will not make it so.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 1,748
- Reaction score
- 99
Now that Drad is banned I can read the thread again.
So I live in the headquarter city of one of the large companies expecting to lose $100 million in the first quarter because of this. It's unbelievable to hear in the local news "unemployment" and "higher taxes" in the same program. The company laid off thousands at the beginning at last year (including me) and has been very slow to rehire still. And now this. It's known around here to have the best insurance you could ask for, so now they're being punished? They were extending benefits to retirees because they could afford to and thus reduced them as a medicare burden. Sounds like a good thing to me. The only reason I see it happening is because it's easiest to take down those at the top. "Revenue-grabbing," if you will.
I also heard that 130 economists have signed a document explaining the economic implications of this bill. Why are the flaws of this being ignored in exchange for smiles and high fives and "we did it" "we made history" celebrations??
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 329
- Reaction score
- 0
Some experts think it will be the end of the world, some think it will reduce the debt. There isn't really a consensus on this matter.
However, our nation's habits toward health care spending really need to be reexamined. The way we utilize health care is simply unsustainable under any circumstances.
Unfortunately I think the same person, or it might as well be, is posting under many different names. Just look at all the supporters of socialized medicine that magically just happened to register with SDN in March and are posting constantly in these threads. It must have been the legislation that sparked their interest in the medical profession.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 329
- Reaction score
- 0
Current SDN Poll
How do you feel about the U.S. health care reform bill?
- Angry - it will be a disaster for health care (28%, 222 Votes)
- Concerned - worried about costs and impacts (27%, 216 Votes)
- Ambivalent - a good idea but flawed implementation (16%, 128 Votes)
- Excited - it's a positive step (29%, 237 Votes)
71% are ambivalent, concerned or angry.
29% are "excited"
That was a really poorly worded poll. I am feeling both concerned, ambivalent and excited, at least based on how the poll is worded!
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 329
- Reaction score
- 0
You're using a left wing rag like the NY Times as your authoritative source for the legal status of law suits filed by 10+ States? Gee they don't have any bias do they? Those silly states should probably just drop the suits since the NY Times has spoken now.
Perhaps you could also explain just how you could stop the House from not funding it? Crossing your fingers and closing your eyes tight while repeating, "I Wish, I wish I wish" will not make it so.
You know that always made me kinda irritated. The NY Times is far from a left wing rag. The opinions pieces drift about as far to the left as the WSJ drifts to the right. However, those pieces are in the back and easy to skip.
I really feel it's folks like Fox News talking about how "liberal" it is that convinces everyone that's true. You know, if you repeat something enough people just start to believe it.
Would that be like the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Joke et al talking about how "right wing" Fox News is that convinces everyone that's true. You know, if you repeat something enough people just start to believe it
It was easiest for me to just copy your line, I bolded to make sure you got credit for it.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2009
- Messages
- 1,948
- Reaction score
- 143
Would that be like the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Joke et al talking about how "right wing" Fox News is that convinces everyone that's true. You know, if you repeat something enough people just start to believe it
It was easiest for me to just copy your line, I bolded to make sure you got credit for it.
Please don't tell me you think the NYTimes is anywhere near as biased as Fox News. You've got to be kidding me.
Please don't tell me you think the NYTimes is anywhere near as biased as Fox News. You've got to be kidding me.
No I'd actually say it's worse. How about you show something to support your contention that it's not the case, something beyond "common knowledge." As your cohort above you pointed out, "You know, if you repeat something enough people just start to believe it"
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2009
- Messages
- 1,948
- Reaction score
- 143
If you think the NYTimes is more biased than Fox News, I don't think there's anything I could say that would get through to you. Health reform passed, and now we get to deal with the consequences. If that makes medicine a crappy field to go into in your mind, then don't go into it. There's still time to pursue something else. Who knows, you may be extremely grateful later in life that you tried a different career. Only one way to find out. Best of luck.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 261
- Reaction score
- 1
For those of you who think this bill is reform: http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/6127-health-care
Yes, I know the source is biased. That doesn't mean it is wrong.
Yes, I know the source is biased. That doesn't mean it is wrong.
If you think the NYTimes is more biased than Fox News, I don't think there's anything I could say that would get through to you. Health reform passed, and now we get to deal with the consequences. If that makes medicine a crappy field to go into in your mind, then don't go into it. There's still time to pursue something else. Who knows, you may be extremely grateful later in life that you tried a different career. Only one way to find out. Best of luck.
I didn't expect you to actually have any facts to back up your opinion. You're supposed to be going into an evidenced based profession for heavens sake. Are you going to tell patients, if you don't think homeopathy works there's nothing I could say that would get through to you? This whole Fox news witch hunt the fringe left wing groups are on relies entirely on the method your friend above, that coincidentally registered just this month on SDN
, alluded to, just keep saying it enough without any facts and it will become true.As for there still being time to pursue a different field. Fortunately for me I'm not going in to medicine for money. I'm a non-traditional that's in acceptable financial position already, good income, house almost paid off, no student loans etc. If I didn't want to take Medicare patients I wouldn't have to. I'd be completely content on part-time physician wages and donate the remainder of my time to research. I don't think it'll ever come to that as the majority aren't in my position and will make sure the issue is resolved long before it ever hurts me.
If everyone had your helpless attitude we'd still have slavery, Jim Crowe laws and so on, fait accompli. I suppose the left wing is hoping people will not try to repeal it and just assume it can never be changed. Silly Rabbit.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 261
- Reaction score
- 1
Laws that give the government more power are almost never changed. The only one I can think of is prohibition. Both parties want big government. As long as the only real options are Democrat and Republican, everybody that wants limited government is screwed.
The Republicans are being taken over from the inside, which is the only way to do it without giving free elections to minority party democrats by splitting the vote. Good examples are progressive big government Republicans like McCain and Crist likely being replaced by far more conservative-small government Republicans like Rubio.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 329
- Reaction score
- 0
Would that be like the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Joke et al talking about how "right wing" Fox News is that convinces everyone that's true. You know, if you repeat something enough people just start to believe it
It was easiest for me to just copy your line, I bolded to make sure you got credit for it.
NY Times is much less liberal than Fox News is conservative.
MSNBC is about as liberal as Fox News is conservative.
Huffington is more liberal than Fox News is conservative.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 329
- Reaction score
- 0
I'd imagine you're in the vocal minority about this, but whatevs, you're pretty aggressive in your posting, so I suspect you're more interested in ranting then having an actual discussion.
Don't worry though, there are plenty of equally irrational liberals here you can tussle with.
I find that claim pretty laughable coming from someone who has 100 posts in a matter of 2 or 3 weeks while I have less than 500 in 100 weeks! I think your spam rate obviously puts me to shame.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 329
- Reaction score
- 0
Nice try at deflecting, but like 80% of my posts were to a very interesting person I met on this board, recently. I would have much rather had a conversation with him in person, but alas, this blog was the best I could do. Combine that with insomnia, and well, you get the idea!
Vocal minority isn't a reference to how much you talk, but rather how loudly you shout. The minority comment is due to the fact that your views (that you've mentioned here) aren't terribly mainstream. Think what you will.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2009
- Messages
- 1,948
- Reaction score
- 143
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2009
- Messages
- 856
- Reaction score
- 2
Wow, ad hominem with post counts/frequency of posting as the insult. Pathetic.
Your writing format seems oddly familiar to a known (and hated) poster in the lounge. LOL I thought I'd just point that out.
As to healthcare bill. People, seriously, chill the freak out. Why are you so inclined to believe it'll fail in epic proportions when you haven't even seen it play out AND other countries with more complex and larger health cares reforms are doing just fine?
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,051
- Reaction score
- 4
nvmd
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 261
- Reaction score
- 1
It might help this discussion if people understood what insurance really is. So, I give you this link from the Society of Actuaries. http://www.soa.org/files/pdf/P-21-05.pdf If nothing else, at least read section II - How Insurance Works.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,724
- Reaction score
- 9
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,051
- Reaction score
- 4
Since a republican ***** SDN moderator moved my thread to "the doctor's lounge forum" (WTF), here it is:
Check out these freaking communist groups applauding Obama(socialism)Care.
AAMC March 21 2010 (AAMC represents all 131 accredited U.S. and 17 accredited Canadian medical schools; nearly 400 major teaching hospitals and health systems, including 68 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers; and nearly 90 academic and scientific societies. Through these institutions and organizations, the AAMC represents 128,000 faculty members, 75,000 medical students, and 110,000 resident physicians.)
"Today we have taken the first step towards truly transforming health care in this country. This historic vote by the House of Representatives sets into motion long-overdue efforts to cover 32 million uninsured Americans and to assure their access to high-quality care. The nation's medical schools and teaching hospitals have expressed their full support for this bill to President Obama, and now stand ready to work with the administration and Congress to implement these significant changes to our health care delivery system.
The months ahead will bring both opportunities and challenges for additional adjustments to the "work in progress" of health care reform.
Now more than ever, the nation must expand the physician workforce to accommodate millions of newly covered Americans and a rapidly growing Medicare population. U.S. medical schools are already doing their part by increasing enrollment. We strongly urge Congress to join in this effort by lifting the caps on Medicare-supported residency positions so that future physicians can finish their training.
While the recent short-term freeze on Medicare physician payment cuts was greatly appreciated, it is still only a temporary patch. Now that broad reform legislation has passed, we urge Congress to repeal the current and deeply flawed physician payment formula and establish a new system that appropriately reflects the cost of caring for Medicare beneficiaries.
In order to build upon these initial reforms and continue their efforts to redesign patient care, U.S. teaching hospitals must remain fiscally viable. The cuts to Medicare and Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments included in this bill will significantly reduce funding for teaching hospitals before we know the outcome of coverage expansion. Moving forward, the AAMC will monitor these cuts to guarantee that they do not weaken the nation's health care safety net.
Finally, we look forward to working with Congress and the administration to ensure that the bill's "Independent Payment Advisory Board" does not threaten patient access to the vital health care services provided by teaching hospitals and the clinical providers of the nation's medical schools. We must work together to make certain that efforts to "bend the cost curve" do not produce unintended and detrimental consequences for the American people.
Putting these health care reforms into practice will not be easy, but the AAMC and its members strongly believe that our nation needs to take this difficult first step towards meaningful reform. We are proud to be a part of this historic effort to reshape the future of health care."
If that's not bad enough, here's the AMA (the largest medical association of physicians in the nation):
"The president's signature on historic health reform legislation today is a monumental moment in the health of our nation. While more still needs to be done, this bill makes real progress toward providing coverage to all Americans and improving our nation's health care system.
"Physicians see firsthand the pain and heartbreak that being uninsured causes in the lives of America's patients. Today, we move forward to start to ease that pain.
"By extending health coverage to tens of millions of uninsured, improving competition and choice in the insurance marketplace, promoting prevention and wellness, reducing administrative burdens, and promoting clinical comparative effectiveness research, this bill will help patients and the physicians who care for them. There are increased payments for primary care physicians caring for Medicaid patients and bonus payments for physicians in underserved areas. Those who have insurance will see improvements right away: lifetime caps on coverage end; children can stay on parents' policies until age 26; and insurance companies can't cancel coverage except in the case of fraud.
"We will remain actively engaged to ensure that before Congress adjourns there are additional important changes to our health system that couldn't be addressed in the reconciliation process, including repeal of the Medicare physician payment formula that threatens access to care for seniors and military families and changes to the Independent Payment Advisory Board. We will be relentless in our pursuit for medical liability reform and other important actions that we outlined in a recent letter to Congress."
Why are they supporting a bill that is so harmful for physicians, medicine, kittens and puppies, democracy, capitalism, freedom, liberty, justice, and helpless children and seniors?
For kicks, here's the ACP (ACP is the largest medical-specialty organization and second-largest physician group in the United States. Its membership of 129,000 includes internists, internal medicine subspecialists, and medical students, residents, and fellows.):
Washington, March 21, 2010 - The American College of Physicians (ACP) today applauded the U.S. House of Representatives for passing health care reform legislation. This is a historic time, said ACP President Joseph W. Stubbs, MD, FACP. ACP has long advocated for these and other reforms, and we are pleased that they have passed the House today.
This historic measure advances long-standing ACP policies to provide all Americans with access to affordable health insurance coverage, Dr. Stubbs said. It fills gaps in our current system by providing families and small businesses with competitive and portable private sector options to buy affordable coverage, providing subsidies when they need help, and ending egregious insurance company practices that deny patients with pre-existing conditions access to affordable coverage.
Without reform, Dr. Stubbs said, tens of millions of Americans stood to lose access to affordable health care and out-of-control spending would have triggered an unprecedented fiscal and budgetary crisis.
Dr. Stubbs noted that the legislation includes some important first steps to begin to reverse a catastrophic shortage of primary care physicians, but that more will need to be done to ensure that patients will have timely access to care by an internist or other primary care physician of their choice.
We will continue to urge Congress to make improvements through subsequent legislation, including additional reforms to support the value of care provided by internists in a Patient-Centered Medical Home, to make permanent improvements in Medicare and Medicaid payments, to reduce the costs of defensive medicine, and to end the permanent cycle of Medicare (SGR) physician payment cuts, Dr. Stubbs noted. However, health reform is a process, and enactment of this package is an essential beginning, but not an end, of our continued effort to reform Americas health care system consistent with ACP policies.
Dr. Stubbs concluded by urging the United States Senate to promptly enact the improvements included in the corrections legislation including increasing the subsidies to making coverage affordable, providing equitable support to all states to cover the cost of expanding Medicaid, eliminating the Medicare Part D doughnut hole, and increasing Medicaid payments for primary care physicians.
Seriously, if Obamacare is the devil and the apocolypse, why is it being supported by these groups? Is it blackmailing, confusion, or....
Similar threads
- Question
