DescentBB

So when is everybody going to learn Obama doeasn't really know what he is talking about when he says something. Get to keep your doctor? Tell that to the seniors in New York:

"Elderly New Yorkers are in a panic after getting notices that insurance companies are booting their doctors from the Medicare Advantage program as a result of the shifting medical landscape under ObamaCare.

New York State Medical Society President Sam Unterricht is demanding a congressional probe after learning that one health carrier alone, UnitedHealthcare, is terminating contracts with up to 2,100 doctors serving 8,000 Medicare Advantage patients in the New York metro region."

http://nypost.com/2013/10/25/elderly-pa ... obamacare/

You get to keep your doctor

SO what we have here is a Sit si a tion

on one hand we have this comment

Chairman Pelosi wrote:But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what's in it...

on the other hand we have this comment

President Obama wrote:If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care ..

OBVIOUSLY the later statement is False...

So the question is,

1. was this an intentional false statement by the President?
2. was this gross incompetence by not knowing what was in the Bill?
3. was it both?

Medicare is not Obamacare. What part B plans choose to do is up to them, but blaming it on the ACA is disingenuous, and they know it.

All these years people complain about the broken health care system in America and the second someone does something about it everyone cries. And you can't say we are going in the wrong direction. This is the only direction anyone could come up with because it rides the line between government care and the private sector. Sure it looks like no one is happy, not the people and definitely not the insurance companies, but this is a good thing in a democracy. It means no one is being taken advantage of. We will never have a perfect system but at least the ball is rolling in the right direction. Something this large will take a period of adjustment but will ultimately be better for the country. This is your wish being fulfilled, sorry it's not what you expected. Democracy doesn't mean everyone lives happily every after, it means compromise.

Fix your perspective. The most important thing in life is your health. The most charitable and humane thing you can do is help improve the health of others. Be like Jesus.

oh, yeah, vision, like that will happen. The sad part is that some of the folks delude themselves into thinking they are Christian.

I am more convinced daily that by the mid-point of Hillary Clinton's presidency, the nation will be ready to accept the idea of Universal Healthcare(single payer, cradle-to-grave Medicare, whatever name one wishes).

Vision, the thing about Washington is they don't compromise in the sense that ordinary people would.

See neither the Democrats or the Republicans want to appear weak or to be giving concessions to the other party. Which means when the opportunity to compromise comes along, instead of voting for a true compromise and getting something they wanted, both parties will vote for an alternative that NOBODY wants just to make sure the other side doesn't take advantage of it. So the end result is they vote for and pass stuff that they don't want and the other party doesn't want either. Ultimately is it because the political game is more important to them than actually doing what is right and what the American people want.

I think there should be term limits in congress, because if they cannot be re-elected, then they have that much less reason to play the game.

callmeslick wrote:Medicare is not Obamacare. What part B plans choose to do is up to them, but blaming it on the ACA is disingenuous, and they know it.

So why is the website contractor for the ACA going through the CMS for advice and direction? And why doesn't Medicare have their part B prices posted yet for seniors, well after open enrollment has already started? Something henky is going on about this whole thing.

I think what vision just told us was…STFU and bend over…at least that’s the way I took it.

And JFTR the ACA makes changes to Medicare.

If you don’t believe me…look it up.

callmeslick wrote:Medicare is not Obamacare. What part B plans choose to do is up to them, but blaming it on the ACA is disingenuous, and they know it.

I can tell you are again talking about something you know nothing about. Medicare advantage is a separate policy you buy to augment the plan B part of Medicare and is provided by private insurance companies and charged a separate price. Now you want to start over on who's being disingenuous ?

Krom wrote:Vision, the thing about Washington is they don't compromise in the sense that ordinary people would.

Good point Krom. This also highlights the need for more moderates in the government.

Spidey wrote:I think what vision just told us was…STFU and bend over…at least that’s the way I took it.

More like, let's try this and see how it works, then make changes as needed. I think it is more important we actively work on problems in the health care system than pretending to do something about it, which has been the norm for decades. The true results of the ACA will be much clearer in a few years, just in time for another election. Be patient.

Oh, from a personal standpoint the ACA has had exactly zero effect on me, remarkably. No change to coverage or price. I guess I am one of the lucky ones.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Medicare is not Obamacare. What part B plans choose to do is up to them, but blaming it on the ACA is disingenuous, and they know it.

I can tell you are again talking about something you know nothing about. Medicare advantage is a separate policy you buy to augment the plan B part of Medicare and is provided by private insurance companies and charged a separate price. Now you want to start over on who's being disingenuous ?

how is that subject to the ACA?

callmeslick wrote:

I can tell you are again talking about something you know nothing about. Medicare advantage is a separate policy you buy to augment the plan B part of Medicare and is provided by private insurance companies and charged a separate price. Now you want to start over on who's being disingenuous ?
how is that subject to the ACA?

Did you not read the first paragraph of the link?:

"Elderly New Yorkers are in a panic after getting notices that insurance companies are booting their doctors from the Medicare Advantage program as a result of the shifting medical landscape under ObamaCare. "

did you not read my earlier opinion that the statement was a pantload of crap from insurance companies covering their real motives? Nothing in the ACA dictates policies around Medicare supplemental coverage, that I can find.

callmeslick wrote: real motives?

Which are?

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote: real motives?

Which are?

pumping their profits up and blaming someone else for the price hikes. This problem WILL NOT go away until we, in the US, start to view healthcare as a birthright and a central function of society, instead of a profit center at every step of the delivery process.

Why should health care be a birth right?

CUDA wrote:Why should health care be a birth right?

because it is the civilized way for a nation to conduct itself. I'll put the converse question to you: Why on Earth shouldn't it, especially in a wealthy nation?

Back at you. Conversely since we are such a "wealthy nation" and being "civilized" and all. why isn't a dwelling a birthright? or a job? Or transportation to get to that job? Or a cell phone in case of emergency?

And how about food. Why do we allow farmers to make a profit? Shouldn't it be a birthright for people to be able to eat?

Healthcare should not be a birthright. A birthright as defined by our government is. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I should not have the constitutionally given right to abuse my health because of my choice of lifestyle (for those that do) and expect someone else to be forced to foot the bill violating their constitutionally given right for my medical expenses because of my personal choices.

I posit that "life" is different, and special. We don't have the ability or knowledge tend to our own health issues past a certain point, like we do with getting food or shelter. People can and do find ways to eat and shelter themselves, despite being poor and uneducated. That's why in our modern age, there is medical school, to train people to care for the health issues of others. Why? Because we now have the knowledge. Is our system there for doctors solely to make a profit off the suffering of others? You tell me. That's the "free market" for you.

If you believe that God gave us life, and if it's a God given right, why shouldn't that be protected and maintained by our social system? Our Constitution even mentions it. What do you think the Founding Fathers meant by that phrase? Referring to the abortion debate, Christians, who believe that life begins at birth and thus it should be afforded absolute protection, why is the life of a fetus any different than that of any adult who wants to keep on living? Where's the distinction? Life is life. Does that life protection suddenly vanish AFTER birth? Is that life a throw away commodity because it now exists and it's "technically" on it's own? What a hairsplit argument. If ALL life is God given, then it's ALL precious.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

As for paying for the bad health choices of others, if you don't want companies profiting off of the bad choices of others because YOU have to pay for THEIR health care, BAN THAT PRODUCT OR PRACTICE. Better yet, stop the practice of overcharging the customer, to the point of bankruptcy, for anything and everything medical. It's either that, or let those people die on the streets who can't afford the care. False resentment however, doesn't solve the issue.

Maybe we should quit making and selling guns and knives, ladders, cars, swimming pools, skis, power tools, alcohol and tobacco. So where do you draw the line at what is a "bad choice"? Playing sports, fighting a war, building a house, cleaning the gutters, cutting a steak, driving a car, breathing and eating our own pollution, drinking or smoking? All these activities have health risks and most of them are "choices", and some are "necessities". They can't all be prevented or stopped as "bad choices", because sometimes in life, things need to get done or fixed, or we need to get somewhere, a product needs to be built, we have to breathe poison air, or drink dirty water, or a habit needs a fix because our brain is wired that way. Getting OLD is an inconvenient necessity as well, unless you're into a Logan's Run type of society, where the oldsters are disposed off before they become a burden.

Make no mistake, life is hazardous and fleeting, and since we all want to live no matter what, we're all going to have to make the difficult choice of how to pay for keeping that life. There's no 2 ways around it. Not everyone can get a transplant. Not everyone can get cancer treatment. Not everyone can afford overpriced drugs. Not everyone can even afford a doctor visit, let alone the treatment nowadays. So how do we ration that scarce resource? By the free market, where money get's you want and need, or a socialistic system that everyone pays into, but has that side effect of losing precious choice to maybe get better care. Personally, I don't think choice GIVES anyone better care. ALL doctors and hospitals are equal moneygrubbers and ripoff artists. However, NEITHER system has an outcome that will make people happy. It's your choice of poisons, and how it's finally decided in the future will determine how civil and caring our society will end up.

"

CUDA wrote:Back at you. Conversely since we are such a "wealthy nation" and being "civilized" and all. why isn't a dwelling a birthright?

we provide housing subsidies and shelter for homeless people, so it is.

or a job? Or transportation to get to that job?

lots of variables around doing that, especially the latter, due to geography.

Or a cell phone in case of emergency?

available via federal subsidies.

And how about food

food stamps, food banks, check, check..

Why do we allow farmers to make a profit? Shouldn't it be a birthright for people to be able to eat?

we allow them income which is regulated, actually. Just because something is a birthright, doesn't mean some folks can't make a living providing the service. No one suggested not paying for medication, doctors, or hospital and lab services. Just not some entity that involves a lot of middle men from stockholders to corporate officers siphoning off money.

Healthcare should not be a birthright. A birthright as defined by our government is. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

and, without adequate healthcare, that 'life' part becomes both questionable and potentially costly to the nation in excess of what it should be.

I should not have the constitutionally given right to abuse my health because of my choice of lifestyle (for those that do) and expect someone else to be forced to foot the bill violating their constitutionally given right for my medical expenses because of my personal choices.

judge not, etc, etc. Or, as Jimmy Carter put it,"if you aren't willing to pay tax money to help the sick and poor in our nation, quit saying you want a society based on Christian values, because you clearly don't"

There's something amazingly disingenuous about quoting that famous line from the Declaration while simultaneously denying what makes the "life" part meaningful in any real sense. So thanks for spelling that out there CUDA.

Top Gun wrote:There's something amazingly disingenuous about quoting that famous line from the Declaration while simultaneously denying what makes the "life" part meaningful in any real sense. So thanks for spelling that out there CUDA.

There is something extremely disingenuous thinking that line gives a majority in congress carte blanche to do anything they want under the guise of protecting life....especially a party that has a real problem protecting life in its most innocent and vulnerable state...

I think it’s fairly easy to make the case that basic or fundamental health care can be considered a “birthright” or as I like to call it a “human” right, but it gets much more difficult to make the same case for advanced medical care such as liver transplants, heart transplants, 10 grand a month medicines or 2 million dollars to keep someone alive for 6 months.

callmeslick wrote:did you not read my earlier opinion that the statement was a pantload of crap from insurance companies covering their real motives? Nothing in the ACA dictates policies around Medicare supplemental coverage, that I can find.

Hmmm, where's vision regarding slicks "opinion" as proof of anything.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Why should health care be a birth right?

because it is the civilized way for a nation to conduct itself. I'll put the converse question to you: Why on Earth shouldn't it, especially in a wealthy nation?

Wealthy? 17 trillion in debt and 100's of trillions in unfunded liabilities. Why can't you Libs understand we are broke and 1 crisis away from insolvency. So lets add another scheme where the politicians will take any money going into the AHC and put it in the general fund where they can use it to fund their pork barrel projects .

woodchip wrote:Wealthy? 17 trillion in debt and 100's of trillions in unfunded liabilities. Why can't you Libs understand we are broke and 1 crisis away from insolvency. So lets add another scheme where the politicians will take any money going into the AHC and put it in the general fund where they can use it to fund their pork barrel projects .

First point: The United States is nowhere near broke. Our debt is high, but relative to the GDP we are still in good shape, globally speaking. Bedsides, having debt is good for America because...

Second point: Our debt is valuable. We sell our debt, so having some on hand is better than a surplus, believe it or not. Country debt is not the same as personal debt and sadly many people can't get that through their thick skulls. Imagine if someone wanted to pay your for part of your mortgage? However, even with our debt we still need keep the flow of cash going, so freezing up the system (like what happened a few weeks ago) is far more dangerous than the debt itself. And guess what will probably help reduce out debt in the future?...

Third point: The ACA. The reason we have this law is because of years of debt coming from our disastrous healthcare system. Sure the ACA seems expensive now, but over 10 or 20 years it will not only pay for itself, but reduce the debt of the country. It might take a whole generation to see the effects, but that's how things like this work. Our healthcare related debt didn't appear overnight and we won't see it disappear overnight, or even in the course of a presidency.

Lol…”selling debt” is just another term for borrowing, in this context, and do you really believe billions of dollars paid out in interest to foreign bond holders is really something good…most of that money will probably never return to the US economy.

I can tell by that statement you made, you don’t really understand what “selling debt” really means.

And the government doesn’t have to have debt in order to sell bonds, in fact the government could probably sell more of them without the debt, so your reasoning is flawed.

Better to have debt than a surplus…wow, I don’t think I have ever heard that one before.

Everyone buys everyone else's debt. If we had a surplus people would complain we were propping up other countries by buying their debt as an investment, so you can't win either way. People buy our debt, we buy someone else's, it just keeps going around. The flow of cash is more important than the actual value of that cash. This is the point I'm trying to make.

Look, it's a cycle we can't easily stop and lot's of other countries don't want us to because we are making them rich. Even reducing our deficit by a small margin can slow the global economy. The only choice is to make small adjustments, let the markets breathe, repeat.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Why should health care be a birth right?

because it is the civilized way for a nation to conduct itself. I'll put the converse question to you: Why on Earth shouldn't it, especially in a wealthy nation?

Wealthy? 17 trillion in debt and 100's of trillions in unfunded liabilities. Why can't you Libs understand we are broke and 1 crisis away from insolvency. So lets add another scheme where the politicians will take any money going into the AHC and put it in the general fund where they can use it to fund their pork barrel projects .

I judge wealth by the GDP which is still the envy of the entire planet. Bogus claims like 'we're broke' are foolish, as we could fix that with a few minor tax changes, like going back to the tax code of 1956.

vision wrote:Everyone buys everyone else's debt. If we had a surplus people would complain we were propping up other countries by buying their debt as an investment, so you can't win either way. People buy our debt, we buy someone else's, it just keeps going around. The flow of cash is more important than the actual value of that cash. This is the point I'm trying to make.

Lets see, we just went into a world wide recession because banks were buying up other banks mortgages as a "investment". Care to spout any other loony ideas.

loony is someone reading the clearly written prose:"government debt and private debt are different", and then making the statement above......

callmeslick wrote:loony is someone reading the clearly written prose:"government debt and private debt are different", and then making the statement above......

Again...tell that to Detroit

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:loony is someone reading the clearly written prose:"government debt and private debt are different", and then making the statement above......

Again...tell that to Detroit

More specifically, "federal government debt and private debt are different." Detroit doesn't have trade agreements with hundreds of other countries. Also, there are numerous problems Detroit has and countless factors that led to it's current situation. You can't over simplify it and retain accuracy. Here is an interesting commentary on just that.

It is now official..."some" will not be able to keep health plan:

"White House spokesman Jay Carney explained at today's briefing that "it's true" some Americans will not be able to keep their health care plan under Obamacare:"

Well gee, why lie to us all this time?

The government lies to us for our own good. >panface<

So now we learn Obama knew all along:

"President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years."

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news ... rance?lite

So even as the lying S.O.B. was telling us we could keep our plan...period, he knew we couldn't. I wonder if Obama would of won re-election if we knew that a year ago.

I smelled a rat 2 years ago. Never believe a politician who sugarcoats anything.

tunnelcat wrote:I smelled a rat 2 years ago. Never believe a politician who sugarcoats anything.

You smelled, then you voted for it anyway.

woodchip wrote:So now we learn Obama knew all along:

"President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years."

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news ... rance?lite

So even as the lying S.O.B. was telling us we could keep our plan...period, he knew we couldn't. I wonder if Obama would of won re-election if we knew that a year ago.

The President Lied????? ya wanna see my surprised face