Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Am I reading this wrong? From the article I only get that doctors are now supposed to tell fat people they're fat, and that insurance companies are now required to cough up the money for counseling/treatment if the patient wishes to follow up on his doc's recommendation.

Am I missing the part with the black van and the handcuffs? I expected more from this headline.

azazel the cat wrote:And as for the cost: in Canada, we have universal health care, 1/10 your population, and 1/24 your national debt. So obviously it's very possible to implement the system, economically speaking.

Yeah, it's funny. In Europe, healthcare costs less per person, and people are healthier. It really must be the lobby propaganda, combined with a deep-rooted belief in the "established ways" that have sort-of worked for the last couple centuries.



This one is pure irony:

ok...

Obama's healthcare law requires adoption of certain recommendations from the task force, such as this one on obesity.

There was nothing in the "recommendation" about the patients wishes.
Yes, the Ins will have to pay for it, but they will also be allowed to make weight loss required to continue coverage, or face raised rates.

The two biggest problems with "Obamacare" are
1) It doesn't address the real issue of out of control patient/ins cost of treatment... for example $2500 to have 4 stitches put in, by a trainee (not an intern, a PA Trainee) with no tests done, and less than $30 in supplies used.
2) It mainly benifits the ins companies who, while being "forced" to accept everyone, also collect payments fron those same people. You only need to have car insurance if you own a car..... "everyone" does not have to buy it, just people who own cars, or drive.

Under Obamacare, is there any government intervention as to the prices that are being set? Because the introduction of legislation like this into a laissez-faire free market really is something out of dystopian sci-fi.

azazel the cat wrote:Under Obamacare, is there any government intervention as to the prices that are being set? Because the introduction of legislation like this into a laissez-faire free market really is something out of dystopian sci-fi.

As far as I know... Nope, no regulation of prices.... and if you don't have ins and need medical care.. you not only pay for treatment, but also pay a "fine" that is collected by the IRS. Can you say "Tax"?

Wow that's fethed up.

Oh well, just another example of why laissez-faire capitalism screws everyone over except the corporations.

You kidding, it takes doctors forever to get any sort of payment from the government when it comes to medicare and medicaid so I'm sure that they'll get their payments on a timely manner.

abclocal wrote:Dr. Joseph Shanahan was up front with the I-Team about the challenges of accepting Medicare patients.

"I don't do medicine for the money. I never got into it to get rich," he said. "The real reward in medicine is taking care of patients and making them feel better."

But Shanahan says the system doesn't pay enough to cover costs.

"The reimbursement is so low for that - in some cases 60, 80 dollars - it costs you more to get a plumber to come to your house than to get a rheumatologist to come to the hospital," said Shanahan.

Shanahan says he's one of only a few rheumatologists treating Medicare patients in the Triangle. They make up about 60 percent of his business but pay for a small percentage of the cost to run it.

"The less physicians get paid, the poorer care you're going to receive," said Shanahan.

Right now, Shanahan said Medicare pays him between $40 and $190 to see a new patient and $19 to $134 for follow-up visits. If proposed Medicare cuts kick in by the end of the year, the payments will be about 30 percent less.

Best of all doctors run up the best student debt and the government doesn't feel inclined to lessen the burden of becoming a doctor. So all in all our government feels that by screwing over the medical field it will be best for the populace as a whole. However there is the hope that everyone will be forced to pay the new taxes, and by everyone I also mean the poor. Some reasons why doctors don't like medicare.

about wrote:
Medicare regularly cuts the rates of reimbursement, which means doctors earn less for office visits and various procedures
There is a longer delay than ever before for doctors to get reimbursements from Medicare
Medicare has a very convoluted, bureacratic process that allows some tests and treatments, refuses to pay for others, and limits how a doctor can practice medicine
Private insurers set low reimbursement rates for various services and treatments, rates that may not even cover a doctor's overhead.
Insurers often systematically make reimbursement deliberately difficult, complicated and time-consuming.
When reimbursement is approved, payments from insurers can be extremely slow to reach the physician.
Doctors may need additional staff to handle the extra paperwork, phone calls, resubmissions, and negotiation with insurance companies.

So whats the chances of financialy breaking the US?

helgrenze wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Under Obamacare, is there any government intervention as to the prices that are being set? Because the introduction of legislation like this into a laissez-faire free market really is something out of dystopian sci-fi.

As far as I know... Nope, no regulation of prices.... and if you don't have ins and need medical care.. you not only pay for treatment, but also pay a "fine" that is collected by the IRS. Can you say "Tax"?

That's why people are supposed to have an insurance, duh. Healthcare only works if everybody pays - not only those who are sick. The money for treatment has to come from somewhere; universal healthcare only forces people to set some aside rather than allowing them to become expensive ER cases or die because they were too stupid to plan ahead. I've heard horror stories of people doing surgery on themselves ... that's just fethed up!

I guess you could call it a tax - just like your tax money is used to pay for the roads you're driving on, now your tax money is also used to pay for the body you're using daily. Why is one acceptable but the other a reason to threaten civil war?

As for the "dystopian sci-fi", just like before, no-one forces anyone to undergo surgery or whatever. The US is only finally starting to adapt to the rest of the modern western world in setting up a healthcare system where everybody has access to medical treatment, not just the upper classes. From now on, insurance companies are legally required to insure anyone. Before Obamacare, 17 million children with pre-existing conditions were thus exempt. Make a wild guess how many had parents able to afford treatment on their own.
In short: good news for 17 million children.

Before Obamacare:


With Obamacare:

Jihadin wrote:So whats the chances of financialy breaking the US?

That's a tricky question. I'm sure it will become quite expensive in the near future, simply because there are so many cases who can now afford to have their conditions and illnesses treated.

On the long run, it should get much cheaper than before, simply because people will be healthier. That's how it worked in Europe.

Maybe, in 20 to 30 years, people will look back and realize what Obama has achieved with this. Right now, the attitude portrayed by some protester crowds makes me question whether the US of A would have actually been able to form, if such opinions would have already been around during the time of the founding fathers. "You want money to levy more troops against the Redcoats? But that's a tax!" "You want to replace the King's constitutional monarchy with a Continental Congress? That's socialism!"

threaten civil war

Alright...wo mention this?....you all know I'm itching for the water cannon...

Jihadin wrote:Alright...wo mention this?....you all know I'm itching for the water cannon...

Just an exaggeration - but it is a bit scary with how much enthusiasm so many people throw themselves behind resistance against something that is designed to help them. The ongoing protests, those signs with the silly (and often simply misinformed) statements, some people's efforts at demonizing the Prez ...

For Europeans who have grown up in and benefited from a system like this, it is extremely difficult to understand, especially as it clashes with what I was led to believe are American and Christian ideals ("love thy neighbor" etc).

Here's an English article from a German website, just in case you want to see how people across the pond think:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-attitude-toward-barack-obama-s-healthcare-reform-a-832002.html

Lynata wrote:Am I reading this wrong? From the article I only get that doctors are now supposed to tell fat people they're fat, and that insurance companies are now required to cough up the money for counseling/treatment if the patient wishes to follow up on his doc's recommendation.

Am I missing the part with the black van and the handcuffs? I expected more from this headline.

azazel the cat wrote:And as for the cost: in Canada, we have universal health care, 1/10 your population, and 1/24 your national debt. So obviously it's very possible to implement the system, economically speaking.

Yeah, it's funny. In Europe, healthcare costs less per person, and people are healthier. It really must be the lobby propaganda, combined with a deep-rooted belief in the "established ways" that have sort-of worked for the last couple centuries.



This one is pure irony:

In all probability, the person in the picture with the no socialism sign is already having to shovel out a third of each paycheck to government programs. They have a right to medicare since they were forced to pay for it in the first place.

Lynata wrote:

helgrenze wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Under Obamacare, is there any government intervention as to the prices that are being set? Because the introduction of legislation like this into a laissez-faire free market really is something out of dystopian sci-fi.

As far as I know... Nope, no regulation of prices.... and if you don't have ins and need medical care.. you not only pay for treatment, but also pay a "fine" that is collected by the IRS. Can you say "Tax"?

I guess you could call it a tax - just like your tax money is used to pay for the roads you're driving on, now your tax money is also used to pay for the body you're using daily. Why is one acceptable but the other a reason to threaten civil war?

The govenrment created the roads.... they did not create my body. Notice the difference?
Even the Supreme Court says it's a tax.
The issue is Obama isn't giving people a choice. We did not get a chance to vote for this, it was forced on us by a bunch of polititians whose biggest fear is not getting re-elected. It does not guarentee health care, only that you will have insurance, neither with any established quality. If the Pres, Congress, and Scotus had to get the same level of health care they just approved that normal working americans have to accept, they would work on fixing the actual system instead of putting money in the pockets of the insurance companies that paid for this BS piece of crap. It only allows for the minimal level of care needed to avoid defying the law.

As for that 17 million children.... how many do you think will be heading to the Mayo Clinic any time soon? My guess..... Thats not covered by the insurance their parents can afford.

helgrenze wrote:The govenrment created the roads.... they did not create my body. Notice the difference?

The government did not create the car you are using for traversing that road.
And what difference does that make, anyways, when in both cases it's money used to support you? Would you honestly rather come up with an illness you can't afford to have treated just so you can claim you have preserved your precious right to get sick? Because in that case I'd deem that a pretty silly ideal. People shouldn't have a right to get sick, they should have the right to medical treatment when they are ill.

helgrenze wrote:The issue is Obama isn't giving people a choice.

Of course not. People had choice before, and it led to a general decline in health and a rise in healthcare costs. Sometimes, the government needs to enforce what is good for the country over what an individuum (many of whom seem to operate on flawed information likely received from biased sources) thinks is good for him/herself. This isn't a socialist/communist concept, it's common sense.

On the other hand, I'm also a big fan of referendums and direct democracy, so you actually do have a point there. I suppose the question would thus be: Should a people be free to run themselves into the ground - and drag down the minority that would have been fine with universal healthcare with them? I'm tempted to say the US didn't deserve Obama; perhaps (given the resistance he seems to face) the states just weren't ready for something like this yet. I would feel bad for those that have to suffer under the self-destruction currently going on in the government and the bureaucracy, though, at least if the election campaigns are any indication of how US politics normally look like.

helgrenze wrote:It only allows for the minimal level of care needed to avoid defying the law.

I'd wager that even this is much, much better than not being able to afford going to a doc at all.

Really. from what I've read it doesn't sound very different to what we have in Europe, and it works. Perhaps you should just, y'know, give it a try? From what it looks like from here it cannot get much worse than it already is.

Relapse wrote:In all probability, the person in the picture with the no socialism sign is already having to shovel out a third of each paycheck to government programs. They have a right to medicare since they were forced to pay for it in the first place.

Really? In all probability, I'd have thought it is one of those crazies who believe what certain lobbies have spoonfed them. If universal healthcare is socialism, then so are firefighters and the police. People using these "shock words" to generate upheaval in the US (whose people are apparently still so paranoid that this works) just don't strike me as very informed. They don't use arguments, they do not use fancy flowcharts and statistics (who would prove that this system works fine in Europe, so no wonder they aren't interested in facts) - all they do is scribble Obama's face on a red poster and draw a hammer and sickle next to him, and call it a "threat". Yeah, right.

Right now there's actually a big drive among private insurers here in Australia to provide healthy living stuff, particularly focussed on weightloss (if any Aussies are wondering that's what all those stupid 'a healthier you' ads from BUPA are about). They've decided to do this because the cost of helping people to lose weight actually saves the private insurers money in the long run.

This idea works in Australia because we are directly insured as individuals, and therefore likely to stay with one insurer for a long time. So $100 spent now for me to lose weight means when I'm 50 my insurer will likely save $1,000 (or whatever the numbers are). On the other hand, in the US the same incentive doesn't work, because your employer pays your health insurance, and so the people being covered for health changes constantly as people move from job to job. As such, $100 spent now helping someone lose weight is probably a bad investment, because that person will almost certainly be with another provider by the time their weight is starting to cost money.

This is another of the reasons why the US system of employer provided healthcare has all the problems of a for-profit health system, without any of the benefits.

Platuan4th wrote:Yes, we pay for those, but aside from volunteer firefighters, we massively underpay them and constantly have problems properly finding the numbers we need.

Considering we're already having problems getting people to go into medicine, asking people to spend the massive amount it takes to get a doctorate in medicine then paying them less than they would make now in that field doesn't make much sense, does it?

It's hard to pay that off on a government doctor's salary, I remember how it was when my father worked at a little place called Carville while trying to do that.

Your assumption that government pay won't give a doctor enough money to attract people is a huge, and completely unfounded assumption.

The problem with attracting the best and brightest into medicine is that there's a whole lot of jobs out there for the smartest, most hard working people that are all in the 'enough money so that any more doesn't really change your lifestyle' range, but most of the rest see you earning the big dollars sooner and with less hard work. That is, there's less education, and less on the job training in finance or engineering before you can command stupid money than there is in medicine, and once you get there doctors work worse hours than the others.

These things are a problem, and whether the average doctor's remuneration is $250,000 under a government scheme, or $300,000 under a private system changes that not one bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:So whats the chances of financialy breaking the US?

Given the Affordable Healthcare Act will reduce the cost of healthcare in the country, the chance is zero.

So I guess you can be relieved now.

Lynata wrote:As for the "dystopian sci-fi", just like before, no-one forces anyone to undergo surgery or whatever. The US is only finally starting to adapt to the rest of the modern western world in setting up a healthcare system where everybody has access to medical treatment, not just the upper classes. From now on, insurance companies are legally required to insure anyone. Before Obamacare, 17 million children with pre-existing conditions were thus exempt. Make a wild guess how many had parents able to afford treatment on their own.
In short: good news for 17 million children.

You obviously missed my point.

I was trying to say that if everyone is forced to purchase 3rd party health insurance, but the prices of that insurance are not regulated, then the insurance providers can charge astronomically high rates because the consumer has no option to decline.

I'm in favour of universal health care, but my understanding of this current situation does not lead me ot believe that this is anything close to universal health care; at least not as it's defined in Canada or Europe.

So I guess you can be relieved now

Wasn't concern. My medical free...something to do with 20+ yrs army and being wounded twice pretty good. To me its unsustainable unless our gov't can get a rein on its spending.

azazel the cat wrote:You obviously missed my point.

I was trying to say that if everyone is forced to purchase 3rd party health insurance, but the prices of that insurance are not regulated, then the insurance providers can charge astronomically high rates because the consumer has no option to decline.

I'm in favour of universal health care, but my understanding of this current situation does not lead me ot believe that this is anything close to universal health care; at least not as it's defined in Canada or Europe.

But you're not forced into it. You have the choice to either get insurance, or pay the fine, and the cost of that fine is pretty minor.

In exchange for that, it means you cannot be denied health insurance for a pre-existing condition. Given the number of people who have been bankrupted after being denied medical coverage, or the number of people living with serious conditions because they simply cannot afford treatment, that fine looks pretty minor.

And yeah, it isn't universal coverage, but it's a lot better than what you had before. I'd hope that once this goes through, people see that the people declaring this socialism that'll destroy the country are revealed for the liars and lunatics they really were, and so further reform becomes possible.

sebster wrote:And yeah, it isn't universal coverage, but it's a lot better than what you had before. I'd hope that once this goes through, people see that the people declaring this socialism that'll destroy the country are revealed for the liars and lunatics they really were, and so further reform becomes possible.

I agree with you in principle; but I have a feeling that placing marginalized people between a rock and a hard place isn't going to win the hearts & minds.

The point I was getting at is that in the US, the insurance companies have all but colluded to fix prices. If those companies decide to set a standard rate for insurance at $500 (random figure here to prove a point) per month, per person, and the fine is $250 per person, then anyone barely above the poverty line is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

All I'm trying to say is that half measures toward social change generally never accomplish anything.

@Lynata,

Yes, really. I, as well as any one else I know, get a fair chunk earnings deducted for social security and medicare each check.

The ACA is the worst possible system, except for the one that we had before it.

Relapse wrote:@Lynata,

Yes, really. I, as well as any one else I know, get a fair chunk earnings deducted for social security and medicare each check.

Don't forget FICA! That's socialism too!

Jihadin wrote:

So I guess you can be relieved now

Wasn't concern. My medical free...something to do with 20+ yrs army and being wounded twice pretty good. To me its unsustainable unless our gov't can get a rein on its spending.

True, economy is already in the toilet, might as well add on to it. Actually wait, that penalty that they wanted to have can be used as a tax so if you don't have healthcare you get taxed. Then again if you don't have healthcare there's a chance that you will be reimbursed anyways. The system is hemorrhaging money and Obamacare decided that bloodletting is the best cure around, in the future we might get leeches.

helgrenze wrote:The two biggest problems with "Obamacare" are
1) It doesn't address the real issue of out of control patient/ins cost of treatment... for example $2500 to have 4 stitches put in, by a trainee (not an intern, a PA Trainee) with no tests done, and less than $30 in supplies used.

You are 100% correct. Poor people without insurace will still go to hospitals for treatment. Hospitals will still pass on that expense to paying customers. Insurace companies still work hard to make as big a profit as they can. None of that changes under Obamacare.

Vulcan wrote:

helgrenze wrote:The two biggest problems with "Obamacare" are
1) It doesn't address the real issue of out of control patient/ins cost of treatment... for example $2500 to have 4 stitches put in, by a trainee (not an intern, a PA Trainee) with no tests done, and less than $30 in supplies used.

You are 100% correct. Poor people without insurace will still go to hospitals for treatment. Hospitals will still pass on that expense to paying customers. Insurace companies still work hard to make as big a profit as they can. None of that changes under Obamacare.

One thing that Obama has accomplished was to mess up the insurance for myself and the other 850 people where I work.

in

the future we might get leeches.

funny you mention that.....they still do use leeches..certain kind that breed in a med lab for use on wounds....."shiver"

Lynata wrote:For Europeans who have grown up in and benefited from a system like this, it is extremely difficult to understand, especially as it clashes with what I was led to believe are American and Christian ideals ("love thy neighbor" etc).

<snerk> Whoever said Americans ideals and Christian ideals are even remotely similar?

American ideals involve being wealthy and having lots of toys with which to enjoy your freedoms.

Christian ideals involve helping others even at great expense to yourself.

The two clash quite horribly, great expense helping others is not great expense used to enjoy your freedoms. But it amazes me how much the conservative Christians will get all uppity about gay people (who Jesus never mentions) being 'against the will of God' while they ignore the parts (as in more than once) where Jesus tells his followers to give up everything and help their neighbors.

Because the Christian faith includes more then what is said in the new testament. It includes everything in the bible, including Leviticus which condemms homosexuality as a crime(punishable by death)

Of course all sin is punishable by death so its a moot point.

Excellent. We've now converted a thread about government going after fatties to a "lets bash Christians thread #2,465" thread.

Next we know it'll turn into an anti-jew thread

But Gwad made me be fat......who am I to go against Gawd...
"Gwad created Fatties to train the faithful." One cannot go against the word of Gwad.