Is anyone noticing differences with their employers because of Obamacare?

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.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
A friend of mine was in this Union...
Union dumps AFL-CIO for its positions on ObamaCare, immigration reform
Citing both the ACA and the proposed Immigration Reform. o.O

I would like to point out that the longshoremen left the AFL-CIO primarily over jurisdiction disagreements, their frustration with automation at ports and its effect on their collective bargaining, and because they accused the AFL-CIO for violating their picket lines.

Some of their dissatisfaction over the PPACA is because of a lack of clarification in the bill in regards to Taft-Hartley (multi-employer) benefit plans. Their leadership is in favor of a single-payer health care program, something that would never be backed by Republicans (and probably most Democrats) in Congress. The way the PPACA is written, it treats Taft-Hartley plans (which are nonprofit health care plans administered by unions and paid for by companies) differently than a "normal" employer-run health care plan.

They are also upset at immigration reform, not because Obama is pushing for it, but because the current plan is not progressive enough. Their leadership feels that the current plan will make it too difficult for middle-class immigrants to achieve citizenship, because in their eyes the current plan is “designed to give [only] highly-paid workers a real path to citizenship.”

I'd like to remind everyone that the longshoremen have only been in the AFL-CIO for 25 years. They join in 1988 after they were kicked out the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) in 1950 for being "dominated by communists." Now that Fox News story mentions it, but a lot of right-leaning new sources outright omit that information (or at the very least, severely downplay it) because, on the surface, they see it they see it as a victory over Obama and a reaffirmation of their own politics.

**Jihadin**

ACA is getting the perception of a house of cards. Its "Robbing the Mary to Rape the Paul to sustain a Jeffery" Obama delayed the employer mandate by a year but doing so the government biting like ten billion. So where does that ten billion come from to make up the difference? Who is making up the difference for the those who qualify for subsidizing those that qualify? Perception is its all the Employers fault for creating the "Boogey Man" so the public is blaming them. My view most of it is being caused by the ACA itself. Obama haven't even started on the "Board" member selection of the Death Panel or whatever it is that was suppose to be done past couple of months. The perception on the roll back for the employers is to help the Democrats for reelection is there.

What's funny is that if we were in the same position as the employers we be doing the same damn thing to what they are doing. Find whatever means to lesson the impact on my profit to the share holders or my own personnel business. Its easy taking the high road on the internet but its a different story in RL

**ScootyPuffJunior**

You do know that the "death panel" myth is from 2009 and has been routinely debunked shortly after Sarah Palin came up with it. On top of all that, the section of the bill she charged with creating "death panels" (it didn't, not even by a long shot) didn't even make into the final bill.

**whembly**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
You do know that the "death panel" myth is from 2009 and has been routinely debunked shortly after Sarah Palin came up with it. On top of all that, the section of the bill she charged with creating "death panels" (it didn't, not even by a long shot) didn't even make into the final bill.

Dude... it's called the "Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)" and it function exactly as Palin described.

Even Howard Dean, a stalwart Democrat who's a MD himself, wrote an OP-ED on the WSJ opposing this.

Now, as far as the IPAB... it's rightly getting a bad rap

Can we simply go to the Canadian Medicare already yet...

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
You do know that the "death panel" myth is from 2009 and has been routinely debunked shortly after Sarah Palin came up with it. On top of all that, the section of the bill she charged with creating "death panels" (it didn't, not even by a long shot) didn't even make into the final bill.

Dude... it's called the "Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)" and it function exactly as Palin described.

Even Howard Dean, a stalwart Democrat who's a MD himself, wrote an OP-ED on the WSJ opposing this.

Now, as far as the IPAB... it's rightly getting a bad rap

Can we simply go to the Canadian Medicare already yet...

Negative.
This is what what Palin referred to as "death panels". She even has gone on record stating it. That is not the same thing as the IPAB, which according to the law is an advisory board that Congress has the power to override. The members of the panel are chosen by the President but must be confirmed by Congress. Argue on the merits of it all you want, but to call it a "death panel" is ludicrous. Because one Democrat, a lobbyist on top of that, doesn't like it proves nothing.

**whembly**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
whembly wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
You do know that the "death panel" myth is from 2009 and has been routinely debunked shortly after Sarah Palin came up with it. On top of all that, the section of the bill she charged with creating "death panels" (it didn't, not even by a long shot) didn't even make into the final bill.

Dude... it's called the "Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)" and it function exactly as Palin described.

Even Howard Dean, a stalwart Democrat who's a MD himself, wrote an OP-ED on the WSJ opposing this.

Now, as far as the IPAB... it's rightly getting a bad rap

Can we simply go to the Canadian Medicare already yet...

Negative.
This is what what Palin referred to as "death panels". She even has gone on record stating it. That is not the same thing as the IPAB, which according to the law is an advisory board that Congress has the power to override. The members of the panel are chosen by the President but must be confirmed by Congress. Argue on the merits of it all you want, but to call it a "death panel" is ludicrous. Because one Democrat, a lobbyist on top of that, doesn't like it proves nothing.

Okay... keep on trucking.

What is your definition of a "Death Panel" then?

**Ouze**

IMO, it's irrelevant what his definition is. The term "death panel" was overwhelmingly - even universally - associated with Sarah Palin's use of it in reference to a specific piece of legislation that not only didn't make it into the bill, but that was a reasonable initiative that she herself had previously endorsed. Of course you don't make headlines by saying that, so that's not what she did.

I mean, we can have a discussion the ACA, but we can't do so if you wish to hitch your wagon to Mrs. Palin, whose primary interest was, is, and probably will continue to be; being as much of an attention whore as humanly possible without any regard to workable government, honest dialogue, the truth, or common sense.. I doubt there is any point in trying.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
whembly wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
You do know that the "death panel" myth is from 2009 and has been routinely debunked shortly after Sarah Palin came up with it. On top of all that, the section of the bill she charged with creating "death panels" (it didn't, not even by a long shot) didn't even make into the final bill.

Dude... it's called the "Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)" and it function exactly as Palin described.

Even Howard Dean, a stalwart Democrat who's a MD himself, wrote an OP-ED on the WSJ opposing this.

Now, as far as the IPAB... it's rightly getting a bad rap

Can we simply go to the Canadian Medicare already yet...

Negative.
This is what what Palin referred to as "death panels". She even has gone on record stating it. That is not the same thing as the IPAB, which according to the law is an advisory board that Congress has the power to override. The members of the panel are chosen by the President but must be confirmed by Congress. Argue on the merits of it all you want, but to call it a "death panel" is ludicrous. Because one Democrat, a lobbyist on top of that, doesn't like it proves nothing.

Okay... keep on trucking.

What is your definition of a "Death Panel" then?

death panel noun;
1. political ruse created to deceive and distract the uninformed public late in the first decade of the 21st century.
2. a pejorative used by opponents of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act any time they hear the word "committee" or "panel" in relation to the bill, typically in order to drum up fear amongst the uninformed (see #1).

One Democrat has voiced an opinion in an Op-Ed against the IPAB and that somehow translates to "OMG! Death panels? Obama wants to kill us all"? Should I insert my 'facepalm' emoticon here because of your blatant conformation bias? I would like to remind you that Howard Dean is "retired" from politics and now works as a paid lobbyist for McKenna Long & Aldridge. Of course, since he is a politician by trade, I'm sure his personal convictions far out weigh the opinion of his bosses, you know, the ones stroke his paychecks...

**Blokus**

Yes, I have noticed a difference, and that difference is that we are getting insurance.

**zman111**

no one sept the managers get more than 20 hours a week now

**Monster Rain**

I hadn't really thought about it being a result of ACA, but my employer is doing some serious restructuring right now with their staff they're firing practically an entire department and replacing their function with a guest operated computer interface.

It all makes a lot more sense now in this context.

**Jihadin**

Wait. The owner went with the automated operator/guide because of ACA or something that was on the grape vine that was going to happen? Curious if going with the Automated system being cheaper then paying a customer service department overall instead of the pending result of ACA

**Monster Rain**

I can't read the dude's mind. The move is couched in the usual talk about "streamlining" and "improving guest experience" and whatnot, but it's a massive cut and the timing is suspect.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
IMO, it's irrelevant what his definition is. The term "death panel" was overwhelmingly - even universally - associated with Sarah Palin's use of it in reference to a specific piece of legislation that not only didn't make it into the bill, but that was a reasonable initiative that she herself had previously endorsed. Of course you don't make headlines by saying that, so that's not what she did.

I mean, we can have a discussion the ACA, but we can't do so if you wish to hitch your wagon to Mrs. Palin, whose primary interest was, is, and probably will continue to be; being as much of an attention whore as humanly possible without any regard to workable government, honest dialogue, the truth, or common sense.. I doubt there is any point in trying.

Guys...

They're the same fething thing. And I'm NOT hitching my wagon to Palin... she's a numbnut... but a successful numbnut nonthenless.

The IPAB will ration care through payment policy. Much like the current system... one major difference between the current system and the IPAB is that in the current system, it takes MANY hurdles to make significant changes (which isn't a good or bad thing... ). Now, via the IPAB (as in non-elected officials), they CAN make sweeping changes and can ONLY be stopped when Congress passes laws to counter the board's decision.

Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing... the IPAB may end up being a great thing. But, it's not "operational" right now... so we won't see the results till likely after 2020.

If nothing changes, I can see one bad thing about he IPAB/ACA...

It's going to drive doctor offices to close or move to larger Hospital system... that's bad.

**Relapse**

whembly wrote:
Ouze wrote:
IMO, it's irrelevant what his definition is. The term "death panel" was overwhelmingly - even universally - associated with Sarah Palin's use of it in reference to a specific piece of legislation that not only didn't make it into the bill, but that was a reasonable initiative that she herself had previously endorsed. Of course you don't make headlines by saying that, so that's not what she did.

I mean, we can have a discussion the ACA, but we can't do so if you wish to hitch your wagon to Mrs. Palin, whose primary interest was, is, and probably will continue to be; being as much of an attention whore as humanly possible without any regard to workable government, honest dialogue, the truth, or common sense.. I doubt there is any point in trying.

Guys...

They're the same fething thing. And I'm NOT hitching my wagon to Palin... she's a numbnut... but a successful numbnut nonthenless.

The IPAB will ration care through payment policy. Much like the current system... one major difference between the current system and the IPAB is that in the current system, it takes MANY hurdles to make significant changes (which isn't a good or bad thing... ). Now, via the IPAB (as in non-elected officials), they CAN make sweeping changes and can ONLY be stopped when Congress passes laws to counter the board's decision.

Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing... the IPAB may end up being a great thing. But, it's not "operational" right now... so we won't see the results till likely after 2020.

If nothing changes, I can see one bad thing about he IPAB/ACA...

It's going to drive doctor offices to close or move to larger Hospital system... that's bad.

One of things my friends that are doctors really bitch about is all of the extra paperwork they will have to do and how it cuts down on the number of patients they are able to see.

**Monster Rain**

Ouze wrote:
IMO, it's irrelevant what his definition is. The term "death panel" was overwhelmingly - even universally - associated with Sarah Palin's use of it in reference to a specific piece of legislation that not only didn't make it into the bill, but that was a reasonable initiative that she herself had previously endorsed. Of course you don't make headlines by saying that, so that's not what she did.

I mean, we can have a discussion the ACA, but we can't do so if you wish to hitch your wagon to Mrs. Palin, whose primary interest was, is, and probably will continue to be; being as much of an attention whore as humanly possible without any regard to workable government, honest dialogue, the truth, or common sense.. I doubt there is any point in trying.

Calling a female public figure any kind of "whore" is pretty classy.

Either way, death panels or policy based care rationing, are twoi sides if the same coin. The reductio ad Palin argument is intellectually dishonest at best. The only difference between the two concepts are levels of hyperbole and rhetoric.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
Ouze wrote:
IMO, it's irrelevant what his definition is. The term "death panel" was overwhelmingly - even universally - associated with Sarah Palin's use of it in reference to a specific piece of legislation that not only didn't make it into the bill, but that was a reasonable initiative that she herself had previously endorsed. Of course you don't make headlines by saying that, so that's not what she did.

I mean, we can have a discussion the ACA, but we can't do so if you wish to hitch your wagon to Mrs. Palin, whose primary interest was, is, and probably will continue to be; being as much of an attention whore as humanly possible without any regard to workable government, honest dialogue, the truth, or common sense.. I doubt there is any point in trying.

Guys...

They're the same fething thing. And I'm NOT hitching my wagon to Palin... she's a numbnut... but a successful numbnut nonthenless.

The IPAB will ration care through payment policy. Much like the current system... one major difference between the current system and the IPAB is that in the current system, it takes MANY hurdles to make significant changes (which isn't a good or bad thing... ). Now, via the IPAB (as in non-elected officials), they CAN make sweeping changes and can ONLY be stopped when Congress passes laws to counter the board's decision.

Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing... the IPAB may end up being a great thing. But, it's not "operational" right now... so we won't see the results till likely after 2020.

If nothing changes, I can see one bad thing about he IPAB/ACA...

It's going to drive doctor offices to close or move to larger Hospital system... that's bad.

Are you serious? The IPAB is the same thing as Section 1233 of HR 3200? Really? Have you even bothered to read it or do you just that afraid to admit you were wrong? In case it is the former, the IPAB is "designed" to cut cost without affecting coverage (on paper, of course) and Section 1233 authorized physicians to be reimbursed for work they already did. You are exhibiting a clear case of backfire effect so let's all move on.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
And I'm NOT hitching my wagon to Palin... she's a numbnut... but a successful numbnut nonthenless.

It depends on what you consider her profession to be. If she's a politician, then she's been pretty spectacularly unsuccessful by any reasonable measure, with her most remarkable contribution to the American political landscape being an oft-repeared bald-faced lie. However, if by successful you mean in the Farrah Abraham, Lindsay Lohan way; then I will certainly have to cede you that point, no qualms about it.

zman111 wrote:
no one sept the managers get more than 20 hours a week now

Obviously you have a better feel for what is going on at your job than strangers on the internet who you have never met do; but I would like to say that an hourly cut that dramatic seems... dubiously connected to the ACA, at least directly; as it considers full-time employees ones who work over 30 hours a week (or on average in excess of, if you're a hospitality employee). Reducing hours to 20 is so, so far short of that... seems unlikely, to an outsider.

Have you heard anyone say specifically why the reduction in hours?

**whembly**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Are you serious? The IPAB is the same thing as Section 1233 of HR 3200? Really? Have you even bothered to read it or do you just that afraid to admit you were wrong? In case it is the former, the IPAB is "designed" to cut cost without affecting coverage (on paper, of course) and Section 1233 authorized physicians to be reimbursed for work they already did. You are exhibiting a clear case of backfire effect so let's all move on.

*sigh*

Uh... you keep thinking that brah.

I'm just content to let it ride while the ACA stuff is being implemented. Hold tight... it'll take awhile.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
And I'm NOT hitching my wagon to Palin... she's a numbnut... but a successful numbnut nonthenless.

It depends on what you consider her profession to be. If she's a politician, then she's been pretty spectacularly unsuccessful by any reasonable measure, with her most remarkable contribution to the American political landscape being an oft-repeared bald-faced lie. However, if by successful you mean in the Farrah Abraham, Lindsay Lohan way; then I will certainly have to cede you that point, no qualms about it.

Yup... you got it.

**sebster**

"My work place is cutting some jobs, must be because of obamacare" is about the least scientific way of doing anything I've ever seen.

Workplaces cut jobs. Any workplace that gets big enough that isn't constantly looking for ways to trim payroll is ignoring how the modern economy works. And so picking out any instance of jobs being cut, especially when it's being replaced by an automated process, and concluding it must be due to ACA is hopelessly vague thinking.

It's also quite interesting to see Republicans attempt to drag their attack on ACA away from 'OMG slavery' to 'job killing'. Predictable, given how stupid the slavery thing was, but it's just as telling that this job killing nonsense is being attempted with as much honesty.

Monster Rain wrote:
Calling a female public figure any kind of "whore" is pretty classy.

Ignoring the word 'attention' at the front of 'whore' in order to invent some nonsense about misogyny is a gakky, gakky attempt at debating.

Do better.

**Cheesecat**

It's like thinking that being called a grammar Nazis is somehow about extreme political beliefs.

**Monster Rain**

sebster wrote:
"My work place is cutting some jobs, must be because of obamacare" is about the least scientific way of doing anything I've ever seen.

Workplaces cut jobs. Any workplace that gets big enough that isn't constantly looking for ways to trim payroll is ignoring how the modern economy works. And so picking out any instance of jobs being cut, especially when it's being replaced by an automated process, and concluding it must be due to ACA is hopelessly vague thinking.

It's also quite interesting to see Republicans attempt to drag their attack on ACA away from 'OMG slavery' to 'job killing'. Predictable, given how stupid the slavery thing was, but it's just as telling that this job killing nonsense is being attempted with as much honesty.

Monster Rain wrote:
Calling a female public figure any kind of "whore" is pretty classy.

Ignoring the word 'attention' at the front of 'whore' in order to invent some nonsense about misogyny is a gakky, gakky attempt at debating.

Do better.

I said "any kind" which kind of negates your silly, angry premise Clarence. You'll note I didn't say it diminished the point. I said it was classy, which it totally was. Almost as classy as yours.

Do better.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheesecat wrote:
It's like thinking that being called a grammar Nazis is somehow about extreme political beliefs.

Actually no.

No it isn't.

**Ouze**

sebster wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
Calling a female public figure any kind of "whore" is pretty classy.

Ignoring the word 'attention' at the front of 'whore' in order to invent some nonsense about misogyny is a gakky, gakky attempt at debating.

Do better.

Sorry, I would have responded to Monster Rain earlier, but obviously I only see his posts if someone with a better track record of saying things worth reading quotes them first. The phrase "attention whore" is pretty unisex, and in fact, the very first image result for that phrase is the (arguably) male Perez Hilton. Furthermore, googling myself shows that my previous usage of that phrase on this site is 100% restricted to men, specifically the clearly male (if dubiously tressed) Julian Assange.

I decided it was time for me to stop being a sexist and finally allow women to shatter the glass ceiling into attention whoredom; an activity which is wholly without sexual connotation. However, I don't expect this to be any sort of damper on your faux outage, and I wish you the best of luck with your quest.

**Monster Rain**

Ouze wrote:
Sorry, I would have responded to Monster Rain earlier, but obviously I only see his posts if someone with a better track record of saying things worth reading quotes them first. The phrase "attention whore" is pretty unisex, and in fact, the very first image result for that phrase is the (arguably) male Perez Hilton. Furthermore, googling myself shows that my previous usage of that phrase on this site is 100% restricted to men, specifically the clearly male (if dubiously tressed) Julian Assange.

Oooh... catty.

There's some pretty good reading on the subject out there if you ever decide to look into it.

Ouze wrote:
I decided it was time for me to stop being a sexist and finally allow women to shatter the glass ceiling into attention whoredom; an activity which is wholly without sexual connotation. However, I don't expect this to be any sort of damper on your faux outage, and I wish you the best of luck with your quest.

Cute. A few points:

1. There's no outrage.
2. You sadly don't know what you're talking about re: "attention whore" and sexual connotation.
3. The macro really isn't appropriate in this context, and it's ironic that you of all people are using it.

I'm glad you did, though. Now I know.

**sebster**

Cheesecat wrote:
It's like thinking that being called a grammar Nazis is somehow about extreme political beliefs.

Yeah, exactly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
I said "any kind" which kind of negates your silly, angry premise Clarence. You'll note I didn't say it diminished the point.

Doesn't matter. Words don't work that way. Attention whore, despite sounding very similar to whore, isn't actually a kind of whore. Because no-one has sex with attention. A person who runs around looking for attention doesn't actually have loose sexual morals of any kind.

Instead, it's just a colourful phrase added to a term used to describe a certain kind of entirely non-sexual behaviour, much like grammar nazis don't actually have any connections to National Socialism.

I said it was classy, which it totally was. Almost as classy as yours.

I'm not trying to be classy. gak tits. See, complete lack of class.

But I am trying to be honest and fair in how I argue my points. You weren't. You were trying to score a cheap win by reading a term incorrectly and then scoulding them over your incorrect interpretation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Sorry, I would have responded to Monster Rain earlier, but obviously I only see his posts if someone with a better track record of saying things worth reading quotes them first.

I thought that might be the case when I saw you didn't respond

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Are you serious? The IPAB is the same thing as Section 1233 of HR 3200? Really? Have you even bothered to read it or do you just that afraid to admit you were wrong? In case it is the former, the IPAB is "designed" to cut cost without affecting coverage (on paper, of course) and Section 1233 authorized physicians to be reimbursed for work they already did. You are exhibiting a clear case of backfire effect so let's all move on.

*sigh*

Uh... you keep thinking that brah.

I'm just content to let it ride while the ACA stuff is being implemented. Hold tight... it'll take awhile.

Yeah, that silly "thinking" I do... I can't believe I would base my opinions on printed words instead my own preconceived notions. I'm not arguing whether or not the IPAB is good or even whether the entire PPACA is good. But the simple fact remains you were incorrect. You used two completely different pieces of legislation in an attempt to prove "death panels" exist (and in turn, further your own beliefs on the topic) and when people called you out on it, all you did was put your finger in your ears and go, "Hey brah, you guys are wrong! I am right! I can't hear you! La la la la la la!" Classic backfire effect.

I would also agree that Sarah Palin is successful. She is proof that you can get rich, get a book deal, and a TV show in America by really doing anything worthwhile. Kind of like Paris Hilton or James St. James.

**whembly**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
whembly wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Are you serious? The IPAB is the same thing as Section 1233 of HR 3200? Really? Have you even bothered to read it or do you just that afraid to admit you were wrong? In case it is the former, the IPAB is "designed" to cut cost without affecting coverage (on paper, of course) and Section 1233 authorized physicians to be reimbursed for work they already did. You are exhibiting a clear case of backfire effect so let's all move on.

*sigh*

Uh... you keep thinking that brah.

I'm just content to let it ride while the ACA stuff is being implemented. Hold tight... it'll take awhile.

Yeah, that silly "thinking" I do... I can't believe I would base my opinions on printed words instead my own preconceived notions. I'm not arguing whether or not the IPAB is good or even whether the entire PPACA is good. But the simple fact remains you were incorrect. You used two completely different pieces of legislation in an attempt to prove "death panels" exist (and in turn, further your own beliefs on the topic) and when people called you out on it, all you did was put your finger in your ears and go, "Hey brah, you guys are wrong! I am right! I can't hear you! La la la la la la!" Classic backfire effect.

Looks... wanna know a secret? The IPAB is a necessary thing for the PPACA.

I'm not sure it's a great idea either... my gut feeling is that it's bad because it increases even more bureaucratic red-tape to a system already overflowing with this non-sense.

Look... call me out if you want.... I'm telling you that you're wrong. You ignoring one simple fact:

EVERY healthcare system in the WORLD (Azazel objects that Canada ration care tho...) has some sort of rationing mechanism (ie, death panels). Insurance plans, CMS, IPAB, etc... those entities are different forms of rationing.

Is the term "Death Panels" hyperbolic? Sure... isn't that what politicians (or ex in this case) are known for?

These sorts of rationing functions, ie, "Death Panels" exist, and they will exist in any conceivable system of health-care delivery... and we all know they are necessary but prefer to ignore it.” For these people, it’s either us or them. That is, somebody has to say no to the terminal patient who refuses to acknowledge that he or she is terminal and demands hopeless if expensive treatment.… Somebody has to have the power to rule that Procedure A more cost-effective than Procedure B…

Read that relevant part in the PPACA for IPAB...

The board’s fifteen “experts” will impose old-fashioned price controls... in practice, the IPAB can only "propose" changes to Medicare’s payment rates. Once proposed, however, it will take effect automatically unless Congress passes contrary legislation and the President signs that into law instead. Which is radically different to how Medicare adjusted their coverage/reimbursements pre-PPACA.

That looks to me that Congress is abdicating this responsibility to un-elected officials. I'll be honest... I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing. The way politics has permeated these topics, it may make sense to do this. *shrugs*

While the PPACA has text that prohibits "rationing"... that word is very ambiguously defined. The worry is that the IPAB will set the price of expensive procedures/medicines so low, that the providers WON'T offer it to begin with. The impact isn't so much what the PPACA directly does... it's what the providers (Hospitals, clinics, physicians, etc...) would or would not perform in that type of environment.

Remember, the PPACA isn't a puppet master. The Providers will adapt to these changes, but that doesn't mean they'll perform their services at a detriment to their business/career.

The argument isn't that we shouldn't do something to fix our healthcare problems... the argument is that the current attempt is all kinds of fugly.

I would also agree that Sarah Palin is successful. She is proof that you can get rich, get a book deal, and a TV show in America by really doing anything worthwhile. Kind of like Paris Hilton or James St. James.

Yup... that's what I meant.

My dad is an Alaskan... most of them generally like her, but when she was Governor, she was waay over her head. One classic evidence was that she forcibly had all the oil leases on state land re-done with hire oil tax on the oil companies... guess who paid for the "increase" taxes? Yup... regular alaskans at the pump.

**whembly**

The AFL-CIO has formalizing their ObamaCare criticism with a resolution, despite the White House's intensive lobbying.
AFL-CIO resolution criticizes Obamacare, seeks major changes

Delegates to the AFL-CIO convention in Los Angeles approved a resolution Wednesday calling for major changes to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

The resolution passed by voice vote despite furious lobbying from White House officials calling on Big Labor leaders to table the resolution.

The resolution states: "The ACA should be administered in a manner that preserves the high-quality health coverage multi-employer plans have provided to union families for decades and, if this is not possible, we will demand the ACA be amended by Congress."

The resolution put the nation's largest organized labor federation, representing more than 12 million workers, on record saying that President Obama's health care law is harming their existing health insurance.

Terry O'Sullivan, president of the Laborers' International Union of North America, said in a speech on the convention floor that, if the administration could not address their concerns, then organized labor should call for the law's full repeal.

“[To] the men and women that I represent, it could have a devastating impact on our ability to provide health insurance to them and their families," O'Sullivan told the Nation.

The vote is a major embarrassment to the administration. Prior to the law's passage, Obama had repeatedly promised it would not harm existing employer-provided insurance.

It is an embarrassment to many union leaders as well. They had urged their members to support the president's legislation and praised it after its passage.

The labor leaders had done so with the tacit understanding that the administration would later fix potential problems with the legislation regarding union-backed multi-employer health care plans. The fixes never came though, leaving many leaders in a difficult position with their members.

International Association of Fire Fighters President Harold Schaitberger told the Hill Wednesday that administration officials had called "several leaders, particularly those directly involved in development of the resolution" prior to the vote in the hopes of soothing tensions.

"My understanding is that they would have preferred that no resolution be brought to the floor," Schaitberger said.

The problem for most unions with Obamacare is that the law does not extend its subsidies to multi-employer health insurance plans, while penalizing the plans in other ways. Most unions provide these for their members, and many are worried that employers will limit coverage or pull out altogether.

Labor leaders have lobbied the administration hard on the issue but the White House has thus far refused their request for a fix. Administration officials are leery of doing that because extending subsidies to multi-employer plans as the union leaders want would cause Obamacare's costs to soar at a time when they're already struggling to keep them under control.

One study found that extending the subsidies to the plans would cost taxpayers $187 billion over a decade.

Labor Secretary Tom Perez and While House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett both spoke at the convention, but neither promised anything beyond further talks with the administration on the subject.

"I know this president. He is here is for you. We may not agree on everything, but we always talk it through. We always resolve it," Perez said in his speech Tuesday.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Is the term "Death Panels" hyperbolic? Sure... isn't that what politicians (or ex in this case) are known for?

When did you become a political figure?

whembly wrote:

These sorts of rationing functions, ie, "Death Panels" exist, and they will exist in any conceivable system of health-care delivery... and we all know they are necessary but prefer to ignore it.”For these people, it’s either us or them. That is, somebody has to say no to the terminal patient who refuses to acknowledge that he or she is terminal and demands hopeless if expensive treatment.… Somebody has to have the power to rule that Procedure A more cost-effective than Procedure B…

Why is this an "us or them" situation, and who are "these people"?

**whembly**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Is the term "Death Panels" hyperbolic? Sure... isn't that what politicians (or ex in this case) are known for?

When did you become a political figure?

I was referring to Palin and other politicians.

I can't schmooze good enough to be a politician... ain't no ass kisser here.

whembly wrote:

These sorts of rationing functions, ie, "Death Panels" exist, and they will exist in any conceivable system of health-care delivery... and we all know they are necessary but prefer to ignore it.”For these people, it’s either us or them. That is, somebody has to say no to the terminal patient who refuses to acknowledge that he or she is terminal and demands hopeless if expensive treatment.… Somebody has to have the power to rule that Procedure A more cost-effective than Procedure B…

Why is this an "us or them" situation, and who are "these people"?

Um... that's how insurance works. I will admit that those are poor choices of words there...

What you pay the insurance company is called the "premium". The "deductible" is a part of your medical expenses that you pay even with insurance.

The money to pay your medical bills comes from other people's premiums. So the insurance administrators need to create policy/plans to determine what's covered.