Can someone "dumb down" what Obamacare really means? - page 5

I don't have time to watch the news or read articles so I don't understand much of what is being talked about. Can someone explain to me how it changes for citizens and what it will do to the future... Read More

  1. Visit  cdsga profile page
    1
    As for socialism-
    I don't want a national police force, I don't want a national ed system or anything else. At this point-we do have a voice in our local states and municipalities. I don't want a socialized gov't. Federal gov't should be limited as was the intent. For example if you like the IRS being all in your business. You know how that causes fear, when they audit you. Just think about that for all things in our lives.

    The middle class will be the people that will be squeezed the most, unless something is done with the tax code. The shrinking tax base, is killing us. So while healthcare is available to all-for a fee, you won't be able to get blood out of a turnip. And those that can afford, will always get the best. So not so much has changed. A strong middle class is the backbone of this country. We are thing that separates us from just another 3rd world country and keeps politicians in check.
    Szasz_is_Right likes this.
  2. Visit  Sensibility profile page
    2
    You don't necessarily need to be a nurse to be a member of this board. Nobody checks to make sure. Please be careful of people that might very well be plants who are obviously giving fallacious information to support socialized medicine. The one guy that said that we have 700 billion dollars in reserve for this is flat out lying. Jeweles26 is giving the right information. We are going to see huge cuts in our salaries and our taxes will go out of the stratosphere meaning less money. Will we be able to reverse this once we're in? Probably not. Most people who support the democratic agenda are constantly arguing that republicans put money into the pocket of the rich. I am sick to death of that argument because it is not true. What a system like the republicans propose does is allow people to prosper, which then causes others to prosper. It means that those people have ability to hire other people and more and more money is available to spend on the things we like. It is just a fact of life that some folks are have more money than others but those people generate jobs for others and hire small businesses to do work etc. My husband's small business is nearly going under with this democratic government especially because of food and gas prices and taxes. See, if you start out with a small business idea, you can prosper under a republican government. Often those who don't have money are the ones who don't want to work. Technically, you could get by in this world with just a few basic items and they want the government to provide those things instead of working hard and making something of themselves. Under a democratic government, it is impossible to prosper because if you make more money, it is less because it places you in a tax bracket where you have to pay more out. So in essence, your situation hasn't changed even though you are supposedly making more. Can you see that? The socialized health care will only further that agenda. Eventually, some treatments will be denied and people will die. Why? Simply because there is not enough money for chronic illnesses that might burden the system. Guess who will survive those things? People who happen to have money. So again, the rich are the only ones who prosper under this where today, those same people get excellent care.
    Szasz_is_Right and More to Learn like this.
  3. Visit  wooh profile page
    6
    Quote from Sensibility
    You don't necessarily need to be a nurse to be a member of this board. Nobody checks to make sure. Please be careful of people that might very well be plants who are obviously giving fallacious information to support socialized medicine.
    I don't think "fallacious" means what you think it means if you're calling the fact that countries with socialized medicine have lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancies "fallacious."

    But good warning. You don't have to be a nurse. The Koch brothers certainly have the money to pay people to spread lies like calling the ACA "socialized medicine." Quite a few people in this thread that could be right wing plants trying to scare nurses into thinking we're going to make less money and all wait in line for pap smears because of ACA. When most of us (the vagina owning ones) already had our pay threatened by Paul Ryan voting against the equal pay for women act. Which I guess is good for small business, if they only have to pay their penis owning employees a fair wage, they can afford the goods and services whose prices have skyrocketed thanks to the Republican deregulation of the financial industry... Which apparently Barack Obama was supposed to wave a magic wand to fix our economy overnight even though those bankers had a few years to screw it up? Maybe he should have taken a page out of Mitt Romney's business model and sent the job of fixing our economy overseas?
    Last edit by wooh on Aug 15, '12
    txredheadnurse, Susie2310, elkpark, and 3 others like this.
  4. Visit  Sensibility profile page
    2
    Quote from wooh
    I don't think "fallacious" means what you think it means if you're calling the fact that countries with socialized medicine have lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancies "fallacious."
    Regulating people like this does not create goodness. Laws do not make people good and honorable. People who want to be yucky will take your boundary and find a way around it. And what in the world are you talking about in terms of mortality in infants? Give me a break.

    This health care is going to bury us in a financial ditch. It is going to make this country so poor until it will boggle the mind.

    Obama has done nothing for this country in terms of financial improvements and please do not point to the last government as the problem. It is his socialist ideology. The gas prices are his fault.

    When you take money away from business and give it to the slackers of the world, it causes a trickle down effect so that people do not have money for extras and those who could hire people can't hire them because they don't have the means. So that means less jobs and less money. Corporations hire people and to do that, they have to prosper. I tell you this because democrats constantly tell the public that they support the little guy and the republicans support the rich when nothing could be further from the truth. The little guy can't get a job or make his small business work because nobody is hiring and the price for running the business is through the roof. You can't get anywhere because the minute you step into the next tax bracket, your profit stays the same so that you stagnate at one level or go under. The only people who can prosper in a democratic government are the rich who were rich to begin with because they still have a few buck socked away. The rest of us suffer greatly.

    Small businesses should create competition, which keeps prices under control. In a democratic government, the corporation has a monopoly putting the small business out of business because as I said, the corporation already has money.

    Obamacare is going to send us over the cliff so that we are completely dependent on the government. And those who own corporations will put everyone else out of business. There is no way for a small business to pay X$ for every employee to have health care. So they will close shop. The business will be sucked into a monopoly and the prices will go through the roof because there's no competition. Hope you enjoy standing in line for your bread along with your health care.
    Szasz_is_Right and SC_RNDude like this.
  5. Visit  tntrn profile page
    1
    Other countries dont figure survival birth rate on gestational weels as earlymas rhe US does. So their percentages will be better. If they tried to save infants as early as the US does, their percentages would be far less rosy.
    Szasz_is_Right likes this.
  6. Visit  cdsga profile page
    0
    Will this ACA have a yearly cap on what you can claim? How will it sustain itself with trauma or other catastrophic illness that render people in the hospital for months? Will we also be paying into a catastrophic health addendum? No one has asked that question. Wellness initiatives sound great-but guess what...we have county health depts that do many cutrate or free screenings on a daily basis.

    I know with homeowners insurance-if I have tornado damage 2-3 years in a row, they threaten to drop your coverage-and as I have personally witnessed, all the natural disasters in the country have driven up my insurance premium to pay for other's loss/claims. Will that be the same deal-constantly reassessing the rate we have to pay dependent on the amount paid out per year?
  7. Visit  SC_RNDude profile page
    1
    Quote from joshsc
    The original post asked NO ONE of their OPINION. Opinions aren't facts. Opinions don't answer the question. But you didn't hesitate to jump in there and start bashing and looking the most unprofessional. Feel free; your credibility just keeps declining.

    "3:29 pm by SC_RNDude So, those who have a different opinion then yours must be making up facts for have politicial motives? How disheartening that you believe that."
    Sorry you feel the need for a personal attack.

    Anyway... yes, I did include some opinions as well as facts. I hate to burst your bubble, but you aren't the only one smart enough to seperate the two. I'm sure the OP and everyone else can figure it out for themselves.

    All those statements in this same thread about how great the ACA is going to be are also opinions. Including when they say that healthcare quality is going to be of better quality and more affordable for everyone. My new insurance year started July 1, and unless more expensive somehow equals more affordable, those opinions are wrong.

    I don't see you calling all those people unprofessional or hear you questioning their credibility.
    LearningByMistakes likes this.
  8. Visit  SC_RNDude profile page
    4
    Quote from wooh
    I'm asking now. TELL US. All I've heard from the right is voucher this and voucher that. Because in Paul Ryan's world, private insurance companies are going to willingly take on elderly people with pre-existing conditions? Vouchers don't work if there's nobody that will accept the vouchers. (Of course, if they die from lack of medical care, that's fewer vouchers, which will help his budget ideas.)
    There have been plenty of other ideas, including some discussed in other threads in this forum. You haven't been paying attention or taken it upon yourself to look into it.

    Here is a post I made a few weeks ago:
    "What we need is true health insurance in a true healthcare market. Right now, there isn't a true market or true prices for healthcare. Insurance should be for catastophic circumstances, and people should pay for routine care out of pocket. If people bought policies based on real risk against illness, trauma, etc, insurance companies would be competing for business like they do with car, home, flood, etc. insurance. When you buy car insurance, they will pay you for damages to your car in a accident. They aren't paying for your oil changes, tune-ups, new tires, car washes, etc. They also don't tell you how to repair your car. They give you the value of your damages in cash. Then you decide how the repair will be made and by who. You control your $$$, and this leads to competition, quality, and innovation in the marketplace.

    Right now health insurance companies try to enroll healthier people, and try to avoid higher risk people. This is because they have to charge the same for all. This is why many with pre-existing conditions have such a hard time getting covered. If they could charge less for lower risk people, and more for higher risk people, more people would be covered. And if they were competing against each other, they would be motivated to offer the lowest premiums they could.

    Insurance companies now pay for many services that many people would pay on their own. People then consume services more often. This makes insurance and healthcare services more expensive for all.

    When you are sick, you often have limited choices of who and where and how you will be treated. Limited competition equals less motivation to offer a better product at a better price.

    Imagine what would happen if people paid for routine care on their own (you could still use HSA's and FSA's) and when something big happened your insurance company gave you the money to be treated. Then you decided who, what, where, and how you would be treated.

    A true market for health insurance and healthcare services would equal better quality and lower healthcare costs for everyone."

    I would add that insurance shouldn't be tied to your employer. You should be able to buy insurance and keep it between jobs, and they can't kick you out as long as you keep paying. As a benefit, instead of providing insurance, your employer could contribute to you HSA.
  9. Visit  MunoRN profile page
    0
    Quote from SC_RNDude
    What is VRBO?
    VRBO is what my mac autocorrected IPAB to (I'm surprised it didn't correct to IPAD). My bad.

    Quote from SC_RNDude
    And, I did slow down and mention that the bill states that care rationing of care isn't supposed to happen. Who is going to make sure they don't? It also states a whole bunch of other nice things they are supposed to do, many of which we already have MedPac for. The White House blog does do a nice job though of making it sound so good!

    This new board does not have any oversite that a "committee" or a policy administor would have. They are creating the policy. And, not just policy, they are creating law in a unprecednted and unconstitutional manner.

    They have one job, to reduce Medicare costs, and no no one will be overseeing them.
    Just like the various boards and committees just like this one that exist in other departments, they are legally required to abide by the limitations stated in the same law that defined their scope and purpose. If they "go rogue" then action can be taken in court. Take the laws that define your Nursing practice for instance. Most of what you are held to legally was not actually written by lawmakers, rather lawmakers set general parameters, goals, and guidelines then established a BON to come up with the specifics. (Do you really want a lawmaker telling you how to be a Nurse?)

    Medpac is similar and some of what both Medpac and IPAB do may overlap, but currently Medpac does not perform the duties that IPAB was established for.

    Quote from SC_RNDude
    Here is a scenerio that is easy to imagine.

    The board decides that to save x number of $$$, no one over 80 will get a knee replacement. Is this rationing? I would say yes, some might say no. Doesn't matter. Who is going to say they can't implement this?
    Nobody would say no, that would clearly be rationing. If there were clear and substantial evidence that it was impossible for anyone over 80 to benefit from knee replacement then that would not be rationing, that would be using evidence based practice to stop flushing money down the toilet, which is very different from rationing.

    Quote from SC_RNDude
    Or, they could raise taxes to pay for Medicare? The bill says they can't, but it also makes them immune from any process that could stop them from doing so.
    They have no mechanism to raise taxes. They are not immune from the legal limits placed on them.

    Quote from SC_RNDude
    "Congress will stop them", you say. Well, to do that, both houses of Congress AND the President have to agree on an alternative. They have to figure out an alternative way to save the same amount of $$$. They aren't going to. Why would they? They created this board to make the decisions they don't want to be responsible for.
    You lost me there.
  10. Visit  HolisticNurse97 profile page
    0
    quote from: MBARNBSN: "I have yet to meet one in person that agrees. I also have yet to meet a person living and working in Massachusetts that hates his/her government-run health program."

    I just had a recent conversation with a friend who's elderly mother has had her healthcare benefits cut she also has a huge deductable ($4000.00) leaving her to pay 100% of her perscription medications. She, by the way, lives in Massachusetts.

    This quote below is from this article Consumer Power Report: In Massachusetts, Government-Run Health Care Forever | Heartlander Magazine

    "In Massachusetts, the ramifications of then-Governor Mitt Romney's health care law are clear: more people are covered (though not everyone), the overwhelming number of whom are taxpayer-subsidized, by health insurance; access is an increasingly troublesome issue; and costs have only continued to rise."

    Tax payer subsidized healthcare??? I wouldn't mind having a health insurance policy that "someone else paid for & I had no deductable or co-pays either. But that is not reasonable, it is a system that is failing.

    There are a few details of The Affordable Healthcare Act that I do agree with, such as children being covered through their parents until 26 yrs of age, and for pre-existing conditions. It is our prior disfunctional system that has cause both of those details to be an issue in the first place, namely greedy health insurance companies given such control over healthcare. Young adults should have access to their own insurance without the need to forfiet and entire weeks pay, and pre-existing conditions should have never been a reason for decline in payment. We do need affordable health care, maybe universal healthcare is the answer, but the way it is being transitioned right now is neither affordable or equally universal to all.
  11. Visit  elkpark profile page
    2
    Quote from HolisticNurse97
    quote from: MBARNBSN: "I have yet to meet one in person that agrees. I also have yet to meet a person living and working in Massachusetts that hates his/her government-run health program."

    I just had a recent conversation with a friend who's elderly mother has had her healthcare benefits cut she also has a huge deductable ($4000.00) leaving her to pay 100% of her perscription medications. She, by the way, lives in Massachusetts.
    I'm curious about why your friend's "elderly mother" isn't on Medicare? This story sounds extremely fishy to me -- sort of like all the stories of how people are dying in the streets from lack of care in Canada and the other countries with universal coverage.
    Sisyphus and wooh like this.
  12. Visit  SC_RNDude profile page
    0
    Quote from MunoRN
    VRBO is what my mac autocorrected IPAB to (I'm surprised it didn't correct to IPAD). My bad.



    Just like the various boards and committees just like this one that exist in other departments, they are legally required to abide by the limitations stated in the same law that defined their scope and purpose. If they "go rogue" then action can be taken in court. Take the laws that define your Nursing practice for instance. Most of what you are held to legally was not actually written by lawmakers, rather lawmakers set general parameters, goals, and guidelines then established a BON to come up with the specifics. (Do you really want a lawmaker telling you how to be a Nurse?)

    Medpac is similar and some of what both Medpac and IPAB do may overlap, but currently Medpac does not perform the duties that IPAB was established for.



    Nobody would say no, that would clearly be rationing. If there were clear and substantial evidence that it was impossible for anyone over 80 to benefit from knee replacement then that would not be rationing, that would be using evidence based practice to stop flushing money down the toilet, which is very different from rationing.



    They have no mechanism to raise taxes. They are not immune from the legal limits placed on them.



    You lost me there.
    Although I have seen various opinions to exactly what extent, IPAB's actions are at least somewhat immune from judicial review. Here is text from the law:
    ‘‘(5) LIMITATION ON REVIEW.—There shall be no administrative or judicial review under section 1869, section 1878, or otherwise of the implementation by the Secretary under this subsection of the recommendations contained in a proposal.”
  13. Visit  SC_RNDude profile page
    0
    Quote from MunoRN
    VRBO is what my mac autocorrected IPAB to (I'm surprised it didn't correct to IPAD). My bad.



    Just like the various boards and committees just like this one that exist in other departments, they are legally required to abide by the limitations stated in the same law that defined their scope and purpose. If they "go rogue" then action can be taken in court. Take the laws that define your Nursing practice for instance. Most of what you are held to legally was not actually written by lawmakers, rather lawmakers set general parameters, goals, and guidelines then established a BON to come up with the specifics. (Do you really want a lawmaker telling you how to be a Nurse?)

    Medpac is similar and some of what both Medpac and IPAB do may overlap, but currently Medpac does not perform the duties that IPAB was established for.



    Nobody would say no, that would clearly be rationing. If there were clear and substantial evidence that it was impossible for anyone over 80 to benefit from knee replacement then that would not be rationing, that would be using evidence based practice to stop flushing money down the toilet, which is very different from rationing.



    They have no mechanism to raise taxes. They are not immune from the legal limits placed on them.



    You lost me there.
    Your example of what is "very different from rationing", to me, clearly is rationing. Which is another problem with the law as it describes what IPAB is prevented from doing. That is, it does not define what rationing is.

    And when they do ration, it will be more indirect than what I described. They will not say "people over 80 will not get a knee replacement". Instead, they will simply cut down reimbursement rates for knee replacements for people over 80.

    So, you believe that if EBP says that people over 80 can not benefit from a knee replacement, that NO ONE over 80 should get one? You believe that a gov't committee should determine this instead of a physician and patient working together?


    Substitute "heart valve replacement" for "knee replacement", and you sound like one of those conservatives who supposedly "want to throw grandma over a cliff."

Need Help Searching For Someone's Comment? Enter your keywords in the box below and we will display any comment that matches your keywords.



Nursing Jobs in every specialty and state. Visit today and find your dream job.

A Big Thank You To Our Sponsors
Top
close
close