Obamacare, what could go wrong?

Nurses Activism

Published

"Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a... President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!

What the hell could possibly go wrong?'"

-Donald Trump

Specializes in Neuro ICU/Trauma/Emergency.
Umm, I did say facts. ie: links.

I am not doing the work for you! You have the information, utilize google.

You will receive your political information from the sources you choose. But, I am here to rebuttal your information with facts!

The information I posted about Donald Trump..Fact! The Information I posted about Fox News...Fact! The information you receive from Fox news...Subjective!

Have a nice day!

Well, I did research and all I found was some extensively long diatribe from Rachel Maddow (the Glenn Beck of the left) making accusations. Whatever. (rollseyes) Once again....you make accusations without the facts...

AND all the web linked ACA's are all just a touch over 900 pages and on democrat or left sites. WHERE is the WHOLE thing?!?! They claim it is because the size of the law would be too large and cause download problems. SO,,,,,,,, why don't they post it in pieces. Those with nothing to hide....hide nothing.

Have a great day too!

Specializes in ICU.

Dang, now I have to go to work with the memory of The Donald's face, staring back at me on my computer screen!

I think you would have been better off giving a quote from Donald Duck rather than Donald Trump. This is the same guy who has filed bankruptcy 3 years back to back( what kind of economics courses did Wharton provide him with?). This is the same guy who attacked President Barack Obama for being a non U.S. citizen because he was born in Hawaii( Did he not take a geography course with that Ivy league education). This is the same guy who proposed eliminating corporate taxes all together and placing the burden on the U.S. working class.

Is this really the go to guy for policy discernment?

LMAO! Yeah, everyone knows what a failure Trump is.

Bankruptcy is a legal process to reorganize. You think Trump's investor's would rather he reorganize, or just shut down altogether? Fourth Time's A Charm: How Donald Trump Made Bankruptcy Work For Him - Forbes

Maybe he took the same geography class Obama took? Obama claimed he campaigned in 57 states.

The idea behind eliminating corporate taxes was that corporations would quit relocating to other countries and it would stimulate job growth here. It wasn't to further burden the working class.

A question for you....suppose you had money to invest and Obama and Trump each had a business they wanted you to invest in. Were would your money go?

Well since Obama does nothing but spend other peoples money and Trump has made money for some of his investors, the better bet would be Trump!

I am not doing the work for you! You have the information, utilize google.

You will receive your political information from the sources you choose. But, I am here to rebuttal your information with facts!

The information I posted about Donald Trump..Fact! The Information I posted about Fox News...Fact! The information you receive from Fox news...Subjective!

Have a nice day!

I used Google....never found anything that said Fox News told viewers that black organizers were coming to take white people's rights away. Please enlighten me.

The only thing I could find about Katrina vicitms being held hostage by the gov't was on a liberal blog. BTW, Bush was in charge of the gov't then. So, supposing that is true, that really wouldn't prove that Fox is biased. I happen to believe they are biased, but what makes them immoral?

I don't know of Rush Limbaugh to ever organize a protest. And, if he did why would he be protesting against the Tea Party? And why would he need permission from Fox news?

there are plenty of mds.

yes more people will go see a doc and get treatment. not millions (remember you have to pay for it).

nobody gives a crap about trump.

corporations aren't going to quit keeping cash - we should stop wasting time listening to their excuses as it's not about doing the right thing. they are never gonna care about jobs, got that? good.

the problems the medical community have, are specifically regarding reimbursement. most people (at first) will buy a known commercial insurance plan (bcbs, etc.). the government brand is the cheapy brand people will opt against. knowing this, the insurers will skyrocket premiums after the first year or two once they get everybody on plans, and cash in like crazy. this, will cause a huge move into the government plans - which will quickly become even more notorious for slow pay/low pay/tied to performance to providers than commercial insurance is already. you simply will not be able to afford commercial plans anymore - just like it is now for many. thus, the main worry of all mds at this point might be realized.

just an fyi. i have owned a business (bought full comprehensive health insurance on the commercial market for in excess of 10 years while in business). i also was a insurance coordinator for pp for 5 years. i know how it all goes down. from the provider to the patient - from purchasing group plans to individual plans. as well as working with the congressional lobby contact i made to force payments on denied claims.

nursing is not the noble, altruistic,

self-sacrificing job it used to be.

sorry, charlie.

florence nightingale is dead.

[color=#a52a2a]

[color=#a52a2a]mclennan

agree with bcgradnurse. i am a small business owner, live in the commonwealth of massachusetts, and (having no employer) pay for my own insurance. this is the state where mitt romney enacted the same kind of plan six years ago when he was running for president for the first--or second, or third?-- time. at the time he pitched it to solid republican values such as personal responsibility, and i have no doubt that multiple videos and print quotations of him saying that, smiling broadly as he sits at his desk in the state house signing the bill into law (with ted kennedy standing behind him beaming) will be resurrected in the coming months. watch for them. people should not write those off as just something he was doing to look good, although lord knows that's most of what's behind everything mitt has ever done, so maybe at the time he thought that personal responsibility was a good thing. we were proud of it then, and are still.

the results: 98% of all commonwealth adults and children are insured (contrast to the fewer than 25% of children in tx with any health insurance). self-insured people can get the best deal for them in a state-managed market that connects people to private companies to decide which to get. poor people have subsidies tied to their income to support premiums. i was watching tv last night and you wouldn't believe the number of ads rushed into production to get people to sign up for insurance, touting the benefits to them. the hospital companies' stocks have gone up with the news.

it works, people. no matter what the donald says, no matter the wink-wink comments about "i'm from the government, i'm here to help you," this is something that government has done that really does help people. there is no reason why that should not be true.

@netglow, re "cashing in": the aca says that if an insurance company spends less than 80% of premium paid on actual care, they have to make rebates to policyholders. ours sets that threshold at 88%--i'm getting a rebate on my insurance this month, just got the letter. furthermore, our experience gives the lie to the idea that this plan will result in increased unemployment. ours is 6% as compared to the national 8% and has improved during the time this has been in place, and plenty of states would like to be able to say that.

people may not remember that far from being nearly universally hated by the population, this law's provisions are very popular. many of the people in this country are discovering the benefits of this law and liking them. to wit:

- i just scheduled my colonoscopy, which the law mandates my insurance to pay for 100%.

- all routine gyn care (mammo tomorrow!), paps, contraceptive care, etc: covered in full.

- the "doughnut hole" for seniors: shrinking to the size of a munchkin (those are a local donut chain's product--the doughnut holes).

- college aged kids to age 26 still covered on their parents' insurance: a boon when these same kids are having a hard time getting work that will cover them.

- not being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions when you get insurance. did you stop to think that in the past, if we lost our jobs and no longer had health insurance, the pre-existing exclusion came up to bite us when (if) we got coverage at another job? no more.

how do they know whether i have insurance or not? when i make out my state income tax, i tell them. they can check via my ssn. if i don't have insurance, i pay a tax of around $300 if memory serves. what's to stop me from doing that the day i fall and break a leg or get a bad diagnosis? nothing, but i will still need to pay the insurance premium plus that pesky tax, which i anticipate will be increasing, and nothing the matter with that.

why should we pay for health insurance for people who aren't our family? well, why should i pay for schools when my children are grown, or the county hospital when i would go to the university hospital, or for the upkeep of the state parks when i never get a chance to visit one? because it's my civic responsibility as a citizen of the commonwealth to address everyone's health and welfare, that's why. because we care about each other. we live here together. this is our state.

this is the same thing. in my opinion, if people were less concerned with "getting theirs" and more concerned with "getting everyone's," we'd be a far healthier nation in many ways.

i did field case mgmt for a long time, and once asked an ortho doc of my frequent acquaintance about the idea of a single-party (government) insurer vs. many private companies. this is what he told me:

in their office, they had three docs. their practice was about 50% elders on medicare/medicaid (hips, knee replacements, arthritis, and the like) and about 50% sports / trauma with "regular" insurance (younger people mostly). they had a billing office with four people working full-time. one of those people worked one half day a week on the medicare claims; the other three, plus this one on the other four and a half days, did the private claims.

the average delay in payment for medicare (which were all electronically submitted and electronically paid direct to the practice's bank account) was

and besides, he said, we didn't go into medicine to make a huge pot of money. we did it to fix ortho problems and make a decent living, and be good community members. there are more of those out there than you think.

and don't forget all those great signs that say, "keep the government's hands off my medicare!" people like that "cheapie" insurance.

now, i know this isn't much of a sound bite. but you might want to consider the economies of volume, the fact that the medicare system doesn't have to pay dividends to shareholders, as a public concern they get regularly audited, and not too dang many of their upper management are flying to vail in private jets for the holidays.

Specializes in L & D; Postpartum.

Wasnt the legislature cotrolled by the Democrats when the law in MA was passed? It seems more to me that Romney signed a law may not have really wanted because he wanted to actually work with the other party. Are we to believe it was a law he, as a republican, wanted and democrats there, including ted kennedy, said, "of course, Mitt, we will do that for you.". Really?

Specializes in Emergency.
Wasnt the legislature cotrolled by the Democrats when the law in MA was passed? It seems more to me that Romney signed a law may not have really wanted because he wanted to actually work with the other party. Are we to believe it was a law he, as a republican, wanted and democrats there, including ted kennedy, said, "of course, Mitt, we will do that for you.". Really?

A few years back I heard Mitt doing a debate. He continually pointed to "My success in MA with insurance" so he may not have wanted it, but he sure used it to his advantage during that debate.

Wasnt the legislature cotrolled by the Democrats when the law in MA was passed? It seems more to me that Romney signed a law may not have really wanted because he wanted to actually work with the other party. Are we to believe it was a law he, as a republican, wanted and democrats there, including ted kennedy, said, "of course, Mitt, we will do that for you.". Really?

More importantly, the people of Massachussetts wanted it and they got it. In contrast, the law we have now was signed while disregarding the People's wishes.

+ Add a Comment