Originally Posted by The Rani

Seriously people, take care of your own health and don't rely on the government to do it for you:

Questions for Medicare in meningitis outbreak

Come on! The single most important reason this happened in the first place was the lack of oversight. COmpounding pharmacies have no business being drug compnaies, and the Federal, not the state, governement should make certain that happens.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Could someone kindly clear something up for me?

If Mitt Romney does get elected, can he merely issue an executive order nullifying ObamaCare, or would it have to be repealed by Congress?

Certain putative Fox News addicts I have gone back and forth with on facebook and elsewhere seem to think that he can.

It's not a simple answer one way or the other. The executive office has a lot of influence over congressionally created federal agencies, and unless an order blatantly violates law, it is itself legally binding. Or, at least, professionally binding to the next person down the chain of command.

It isn't ever exactly certain how any large new piece of legislation will be enforced, and in this case there's been some rumbling from folks at the IRS who don't want their departments stuck with the job of determining who qualifies for a credit and who qualifies for a penalty. Romney could bump those complainers to the top of the bureaucracy and/or issue some sympathetic executive orders that effectively nullify enforcement of the law.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I don't know why the "come on!" is in there. Lack of oversight is the entire point.

You made the comment about too much reliance on the Feds. In fact, the Feds, given a chance, would do a much better job of it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I didn't mention any "Feds."

OK, but when you wrote

Originally Posted by You in an previous post

Seriously people, take care of your own health and don't rely on the government to do it for you

I assumed you were serious. Maybe you only dislike State governement.

"Obamacare will prove to be a gold mine for astute traders and investors"

NOTE: Do not bother reading this article; simply take only three seconds to skim it. Its essence can be elucidated by reading this one sentence gleaned from the article: "Obamacare will prove to be a gold mine for astute traders and investors on the long side and the short side."

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2012/novemb...-and-investors

Comment about above article:

By Don McCanne, MD

The SEC will affirm that shareholders of health care firms must always have priority over the patients that should benefit from their products and services. The Affordable Care Act has expanded investor ownership within our health care system. As this article states, "Obamacare will prove to be a gold mine for astute traders and investors."

Is this what our health care system is all about?

It doesn't have to be this way

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

It's not a simple answer one way or the other. The executive office has a lot of influence over congressionally created federal agencies, and unless an order blatantly violates law, it is itself legally binding. Or, at least, professionally binding to the next person down the chain of command.

It isn't ever exactly certain how any large new piece of legislation will be enforced, and in this case there's been some rumbling from folks at the IRS who don't want their departments stuck with the job of determining who qualifies for a credit and who qualifies for a penalty. Romney could bump those complainers to the top of the bureaucracy and/or issue some sympathetic executive orders that effectively nullify enforcement of the law.

Well it hardly matters now!

Originally Posted by The Rani

It looks like someone finally figured out that "coverage does not equal access:"

Doc Shortage Could Cause Healthcare Crash

Ah, no.

I realize this zombies-are-coming-for-YOUR-doctor's-appointment appeals to the I-got-mine-so-screw-you crowd, but it simply is sophmoric.

The real scope? Simple, people are getting older -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rss_ezra-klein

Maybe Obamacare isn’t driving the doctor shortage


It’s well-known in the health-care world that we have a looming doctor shortage, with a growing gap between the medical services we need and the doctors who can provide them.

This often gets chalked up to the Affordable Care Act: Expanding insurance, the thinking goes, will hugely increase demand for doctors’ services. It’s an issue I’ve written about, as have others.

New research in the Annals of Family Medicine throws some cold water on that theory: Researchers there suggest that it’s population growth and aging largely driving the demand for doctors, with the Affordable Care Act playing a more minor role.

A team of six researchers, led by Stephen Pettersen of the Graham Center, looked at how heavily various groups use medical services. They used that data to project out the disparity between medical demands and providers to meet them.

They estimate that the United States will need 52,000 additional primary care doctors by 2025. Of those, about 33,000 are due to population growth and 10,000 would be needed to meet the needs of the aging. Then, there would be 8,000 doctors demanded by the insurance expansion.

In the graph below, the impact of the Affordable Care Act is the very top, very skinny bar:

[see chart at site]

How, exactly, does a country expand insurance to about 30 million Americans without driving huge demand for doctors? Pettersen and his colleagues offer one plausible explanation: The uninsured are already seeking out health care, albeit to a lesser degree than those with coverage. Here’s one chart showing the rates of office-based doctor visits by those who lack coverage.

[see chart at site]

These numbers are near certain to grow over the next decade. This study estimates that the coverage expansion will lead to 19.5 million more doctor appointments than would have occurred without the Affordable Care Act.

The biggest growth in demand, however, has nothing to do with expanding insurance. It has everything to do with the fact that the United States is getting bigger and older.

Oh, and instead of just whining about it, the ACA actually puts its money where its mouth by allocating $500 million dollars to support the training and development of primary care professionals who frequently deliver preventive services to patients, and supports training of public health providers to advance preventive medicine, health promotion and disease prevention, and improve the access and quality of health services in medically under-served communities -

http://www.healthreform.gov/newsroom/acaprevention.html

Originally Posted by Deb C

"Obamacare will prove to be a gold mine for astute traders and investors"

NOTE: Do not bother reading this article; simply take only three seconds to skim it. Its essence can be elucidated by reading this one sentence gleaned from the article: "Obamacare will prove to be a gold mine for astute traders and investors on the long side and the short side."

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2012/novemb...-and-investors

Comment about above article:

By Don McCanne, MD

Let's think this through.

Under Obamacare, the federal govt is going to inject billions of dollars into the economy so that (taking the list of those that will profit)

- millions of people can now afford to go to the hospital
- millions of people can now get their health care coverage by Medicaid HMOs
- millions of people can now get Medicare Part D
- millions of people will be able to afford drugs and medical devices

Oh, and 10s of thousands of jobs will be created with incomes to support their own families with those federal expenditures.

This is just awful! What next, Nazis??!!!!

I wonder how true this might be.

How Obamacare's Victory Makes it Easier to Raise Medicare's Retirement Age

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/11/12/how-obamacares-victory-makes-it-easier-to-raise-medicares-retirement-age/

Originally Posted by Deb C

I wonder how true this might be.

How Obamacare's Victory Makes it Easier to Raise Medicare's Retirement Age

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/11/12/how-obamacares-victory-makes-it-easier-to-raise-medicares-retirement-age/

Yes, and if the sun comes up tomorrow, there will be a better chance that Medicare's Retirement Age will rise as well!

Here's the big thing that is really going on right now -

Seventy-eight percent of the uninsured Americans who are likely to qualify for subsidies were unfamiliar with the new coverage options in a survey by Democratic polling firm Lake Research Partners. That survey, sponsored by the nonprofit Enroll America, also found that 83 percent of those likely to qualify for the expansion of Medicaid, which is expected to cover 12 million Americans, were unaware of the option.

In separate October polling data from the Kaiser Family Foundation, 41 percent of voters described themselves as "confused" about the health-care law. Even in Maryland, one of the states that has most aggressively implemented the Affordable Care Act, awareness is low.

A survey released Monday found that 30 percent of likely Maryland voters describe themselves as knowing "a lot" about the coming changes.

"Most Maryland voters don't fully understand the law," said Nikki Highsmith Vernick, president of the Horizon Foundation, the nonprofit based in Howard County that sponsored the study. "The people who stand to benefit the most know the least about it."

Even as Congress was finishing the debate that led to the law, a coalition of health-care advocates formed to help promote it. Led by Families USA co-founder Ron Pollack, the group started Enroll America, a nonprofit largely funded by health-care industry and philanthropy groups.

In the coming months, the group will begin an advertising campaign meant to encourage Americans to sign up for the health-care law's subsidized insurance coverage. Still in its planning stages, it is likely to start in the summer or fall of 2013, just before the state-based insurance marketplaces open for enrollment.

The still-unnamed campaign is likely to put more intensive resources toward a handful of key states. Those could include Florida and Texas, which have a combined 10 million uninsured residents, and have made little effort to do such outreach.

The group has raised $6 million from a coalition that includes the American Hospital Association, pharmacy chain CVS-Caremark, physician groups and individual health insurance companies. Although that initial funding has covered survey research and the hiring of seven staff members, board chairman Pollack said the group hopes to raise "tens of millions" more for the outreach campaign.

"We know now that the Affordable Care Act has to be implemented," said Rachel Klein, Enroll America's executive director. "It's imperative that the people who will benefit hear about the new coverage available and learn how to sign up."

Currently, 48.6 million U.S. residents lack health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 30 million will gain coverage. That would leave nearly 19 million uninsured.

About a quarter of those are illegal immigrants, who aren't eligible for the reform law's subsidies. Two million, the CBO projects, live in states that will opt out of the Medicaid expansion.

The rest, however, probably are eligible for new benefits. The CBO, for example, expects that nearly 6 million of those newly eligible for Medicaid just won't sign up for the program.

Even though the subsidies for currently uninsured people won't go out until Jan. 1, 2014, the state exchanges that will offer health plans are being set up now, and participants will need to start signing up next Oct. 1. Supporters of the health-care law say the plan won't be a success without a massive public relations campaign to build awareness.

"That part is a going to be a real challenge," said Rich Umbdenstock, president of the American Hospital Association, one of Enroll America's funders. "If we want to see high enrollment achieved, we have to figure out how to get the word out."

Enroll America held focus groups in Philadelphia in mid-November, working exclusively with those who probably would qualify for benefits. Looking to understand how much public education will be needed, the researchers came back with a simple answer: a lot.

Participants' hands shot up when researchers asked whether they had heard about a requirement to buy health insurance. But when asked about whether they had heard about any provisions that might make insurance more affordable, none of the 31 participants in the four groups answered yes.

"They might find a way to reject or judge me," said Tim Perot, 30, a focus group participant. Perot lost his insurance two years ago after he was laid off from a job as a cook.

He said he lost welfare benefits in his early 20s, after he gained a full-time job, and the drug and alcohol treatment those benefits covered. He fears a similar situation with the health-care law.

"I don't think I'm going to be accepted or approved for it," Perot said. "I'll supposedly have too much money, and I'll get denied."

Other participants questioned the quality of the benefits. That included Marina Sokolvosky, 26, who has not had insurance since she was 17 and makes about $1,500 a month by selling jewelry online. A bike accident last year, in which Sokolvosky broke her collarbone, left her with a $6,000 emergency room bill she has not paid.

"All I know is not having health insurance, and then needing it," she said. "There wasn't anything affordable. For how complicated insurance is, it would be very difficult to create something functional. I don't think it's possible."

More here -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rss_ezra-klein

and here -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rss_ezra-klein

People who have a clue about what is really going on: when they see the type of elite village people (e.g. Lieberman) idiocy that well-intended people propagate, they just scratch their heads and wonder if they can ever beat that level of sophisticated mass manipulation and actually help 10s of millions of people.

Is it better to help get millions of people health insurance who have never had it before or to continue to whine about the latest non-horror of Obamacare served to you by the village people? I guess we each have to decide the best use of our time.

Obamacare: Good intentions won’t make health care affordable

"It is way too complicated, and complications are expensive. To make it work will require thousands of federal regulations."

The ability of individuals to make intelligent choices among insurance plans is an illusion. A recent column written by a Harvard-trained health-care economist drives this point home. Despite her extensive education and experience with health insurance, she was unable to choose the most appropriate coverage for herself when she really needed to. With deteriorating health and rising anxiety about her illness, worries about incurring a huge bill to get the potentially life-saving treatment for her brain tumor added to her stress.

Although some groups are more vulnerable than others to some diseases or injuries, when it comes to individuals, it’s nearly impossible to predict where and when illness or injury will strike or what its nature will be. Unless one has a pretty good crystal ball, the basic information needed to make an informed choice about a health insurance or prescription drug plan simply doesn’t exist.

The dilemma the health-care economist faced was not because of a lack of expertise, but rather a lack of necessary information.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2012/novemb...are-affordable

Originally Posted by Deb C

Obamacare: Good intentions won’t make health care affordable

BUT, the only viable political alternative was to keep it as it was - which was putting a lid on demand for medical care by rationing it, by denying 45 million from participating in the insurance-based approach.

I strongly recommend viewing the new movie, Lincoln. What he had to do to move the 13th Amendment through Congress.

There's a point where the fire-breathing abolitionist, Thaddeus Stevens, is asked to cool his temperament in the debates and not be suckered in by the pro-slavery forces to say something in the Congressional debates that will doom the amendment’s passage. Stevens tells Lincoln he can't, it's not his nature; he has "a compass" that makes him always "bear north."

Lincoln agrees that a compass will always bear its holder to true north, but it gives no guidance on how to ford the many mountains, deserts and swamps along the way.

In the end, Stevens keeps Lincoln's council, keeps his mouth relatively shut when the moment of baiting comes ("what next, the vote for women?!), and he gets to deliver the actual vote tally paper for the 13th's passage that evening to his black house servant, his beloved mistress.

One of those great movies that can teach some valuable lessons.

From one of my activist buddies.

Okay, righties. Tell me again how "Obamacare" is a socialist takeover of our health care system. And lefties? Splain to me how it's anything but another corporate bailout.


From the article: "Whatever one's views on Obamacare were and are: the bill's mandate that everyone purchase the products of the private health insurance industry, unaccompanied by any public alternative, was a huge gift to that industry; as (Marcy) Wheeler wrote at the time: 'to the extent that Liz Fowler is the author of this document, we might as well consider WellPoint its author as well.'"

"The pharmaceutical giant that just hired Fowler actively supported the passage of Obamacare through its membership in the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) lobby. Indeed, PhRMA was one of the most aggressive supporters - and most lavish beneficiaries - of the health care bill drafted by Fowler. Mother Jones' James Ridgeway proclaimed "Big Pharma" the "big winner" in the health care bill. And now, Fowler will receive ample rewards from that same industry as she peddles her influence in government and exploits her experience with its inner workings to work on that industry's behalf, all of which has been made perfectly legal by the same insular, Versailles-like Washington culture that so lavishly benefits from all of this."

Yeah, BCBS sent me a nice letter today to let me know the premium on my seven-month-old insurance plan is going up 21%, effective immediately. Since I went self-insured four years ago, my total premium has more than doubled with no corresponding increase in coverage. I also haven't been to the doctor in that time-frame except to prove to the insurer that I am healthy.

I don't wanna go so far as to say that there's nothing good in Obamacare, I just don't see how the little bits of good here and there can outweigh all of the bad.

Worst of all? Opportunity cost of political capital:



Passing InsurerCare not only makes us all in to permanent customers of the for-profit insurance system, it has also effectively swayed public opinion against a federal role in universal healthcare.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Yeah, BCBS sent me a nice letter today to let me know the premium on my seven-month-old insurance plan is going up 21%, effective immediately. Since I went self-insured four years ago, my total premium has more than doubled with no corresponding increase in coverage. I also haven't been to the doctor in that time-frame except to prove to the insurer that I am healthy.

I don't wanna go so far as to say that there's nothing good in Obamacare, I just don't see how the little bits of good here and there can outweigh all of the bad.

Worst of all? Opportunity cost of political capital:



Passing InsurerCare not only makes us all in to permanent customers of the for-profit insurance system, it has also effectively swayed public opinion against a federal role in universal healthcare.

Very good examples of where this is headed.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Yeah, BCBS sent me a nice letter today to let me know the premium on my seven-month-old insurance plan is going up 21%, effective immediately. Since I went self-insured four years ago, my total premium has more than doubled with no corresponding increase in coverage. I also haven't been to the doctor in that time-frame except to prove to the insurer that I am healthy.

I don't wanna go so far as to say that there's nothing good in Obamacare, I just don't see how the little bits of good here and there can outweigh all of the bad.

Worst of all? Opportunity cost of political capital:



Passing InsurerCare not only makes us all in to permanent customers of the for-profit insurance system, it has also effectively swayed public opinion against a federal role in universal healthcare.

Individual cases vary (are you eligible for a subsidy under Obamacare?), but from a macro viewpoint -

If you're on the Right, you're disappointed because you believe the best way to hold down cost is to deny about 45 million people health insurance, i.e. you got yours, F them.

If you're on the Left, you're disappointed because your magic pony didn't poop out single payer or a national public option; consolation prize, you get to whine incessantly that Obama is to blame for everything that goes wrong in your life as well as the rest of the world.

If you're self-centered, you tell us how you're not getting the health care that Parris Hilton gets and why you think you pay too much for what you do get.

If you're nihilist, you take occasional breaks from studying your naval to distribute snark.

If you're anarchist, you tell us how other people should revolt against big evil govt

If you're a realist and care enough about your fellow countrymen, you fall somewhere in the range between (a) sitting back and seeing how this plays out (most of Obamacare doesn't get implemented until late 2014) and (b) getting involved in the real politics of setting up the exchanges and lobbying for the expansion of Medicaid in the key states.

Maybe we should just number these options and people limit their posts on this thread with their chosen number and include the appropriate number of frown faces to reflect the current magnitude of their disappointments. It could be a big time saver.

If you're a realist and care enough about your fellow countrymen, you fall somewhere in the range between (a) sitting back and seeing how this plays out (most of Obamacare doesn't get implemented until late 2014) and (b) getting involved in the real politics of setting up the exchanges and lobbying for the expansion of Medicaid in the key states.

Being an apologist for the corrupt status quo might be "realistic," but it isn't useful. Similarly, embracing corruption is NOT the same as compassion and empathy.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Maybe we should just number these options and people limit their posts on this thread with their chosen number and include the appropriate number of frown faces to reflect the current magnitude of their disappointments. It could be a big time saver.

Well, you certainly have no shortage of hot air when it comes to stating what other people believe.

Universal healthcare is a dead concept now, and we can thank Obama and apologists like you.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Maybe we should just number these options and people limit their posts on this thread with their chosen number and include the appropriate number of frown faces to reflect the current magnitude of their disappointments. It could be a big time saver.

What a good idea! But the administrator won't allow that many smilies. So just a few will have to do.

Individual cases vary (are you eligible for a subsidy under Obamacare?), but from a macro viewpoint -

1. If you're on the Right, you're disappointed because you believe the best way to hold down cost is to deny about 45 million people health insurance, i.e. you got yours, F them.

2. If you're on the Left, you're disappointed because your magic pony didn't poop out single payer or a national public option; consolation prize, you get to whine incessantly that Obama is to blame for everything that goes wrong in your life as well as the rest of the world.

3. If you're self-centered, you tell us how you're not getting the health care that Parris Hilton gets and why you think you pay too much for what you do get.

4. If you're nihilist, you take occasional breaks from studying your naval to distribute snark.

5. If you're anarchist, you tell us how other people should revolt against big evil govt

6. If you're a realist and care enough about your fellow countrymen, you fall somewhere in the range between (a) sitting back and seeing how this plays out (most of Obamacare doesn't get implemented until late 2014) and (b) getting involved in the real politics of setting up the exchanges and lobbying for the expansion of Medicaid in the key states.


I am number six

Universal Health Care is not dead, but it's on life support for a while until the reforms kick in and people see that it works but that more is needed.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I am number six

"There are six kinds of people in the world: five of them are awful and the sixth is a compassionate realist"

Yeah... right.

In this thread: PW's rhetoric reaches a new intellectual low while self-proclaimed leftist boomers congratulate the tortured logic as a way to justify bad policy and cronyism. It really is a microcosm of the nation!

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

"There are six kinds of people in the world: five of them are awful and the sixth is a compassionate realist"

Yeah... right.

In this thread: PW's rhetoric reaches a new intellectual low while self-proclaimed leftist boomers congratulate the tortured logic as a way to justify bad policy and cronyism. It really is a microcosm of the nation!

So which number are you?

Or do you have another alternative to add to the list?

And I guess you could re-write #6 as "self-proclaimed leftist boomers congratulate the tortured logic as a way to justify bad policy and cronyism."

(I guess if you're not a boomer, you're not allowed to choose #6? Obama wouldn't qualify?)

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Being an apologist for the corrupt status quo might be "realistic," but it isn't useful. Similarly, embracing corruption is NOT the same as compassion and empathy.



Well, you certainly have no shortage of hot air when it comes to stating what other people believe.

Universal healthcare is a dead concept now, and we can thank Obama and apologists like you.

Whoops, on re-reading what I wrote I could see that being interpreted as me pigeon-hole'ing you into self-center category.

My apologies. I didn't mean to imply that. And, I certainly don't believe that of you.

Also, I think most people, including myself, would include that in their personal mix of categories. We all get frustrated with health care systems. I'm sure even Paris gets frustrated when she runs into a doc who won't give her any prescription drug she may have a desire for that day.

Also feel free to add categories to your liking.

For now I have you at:

1
2 :-(
3 :-(
4 :-( :-(
5 :-( :-( :-(
6

- just my impression.

For me

1
2 :-( :-(
3 :-(
4
5
6 :-( :-( :-( :-(

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

2. If you're on the Left, you're disappointed because your magic pony didn't poop out single payer or a national public option; consolation prize, you get to whine incessantly that Obama is to blame for everything that goes wrong in your life as well as the rest of the world.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I thought you voted for the dude ... buyers remorse already???

Just in case you were wondering your rating -

1.:-( :-(
2.
3.:-( :-(
4. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
5.
6.

Some of you dudes are just too mean to us magic ponies.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I wonder how true this might be.

How Obamacare's Victory Makes it Easier to Raise Medicare's Retirement Age

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/11/12/how-obamacares-victory-makes-it-easier-to-raise-medicares-retirement-age/

I was talking to an insurance actuary about some of the nuts and bolts of the law, and when I heard the math behind it I immediately thought of this post you brought up.

Right now, insurance companies are not only shifting costs from sick people to healthy people (which is fine, because when you're sick you can't really afford extra bills) but they're also heavily shifting the cost from older customers to younger ones. Why? Certainly a "healthy" 55 year old has a much greater risk and much greater ability to pay than a "healthy" 25 year old.

On the surface, this requirement won't do much except sustain the generational disposable income gap... but if you think about it, it makes it a LOT easier for Congress to raise the Medicare age, or possibly phase out Medicare altogether.

Of course, it looks like you've also pointed out that the Democrats are already responding favorably to this idea!

What was PW's response? "Get a clue?"

Thanks for all the clues, Deb, you're light-years ahead of your generation