Health care Bill- ? How do we pay for this?

[bane]

Okay, so the doctor you saw when you were uninsured just handed you a prescription and sent you on your way. Now that you have insurance, your doctor is more thorough, ordering all kinds of tests just to make sure cancer is not currently eating away at you.

Wouldn't that be an argument FOR universal health care?

No, because under a truly social plan, you wouldn't see a doctor, you'd see an MA first. We're going to cut costs right? How do you think we're going to do that? It would start with "doc in the box" care.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Okay, so the doctor you saw when you were uninsured just handed you a prescription and sent you on your way. Now that you have insurance, your doctor is more thorough, ordering all kinds of tests just to make sure cancer is not currently eating away at you.

Wouldn't that be an argument FOR universal health care?

No, because under a truly social plan, you wouldn't see a doctor, you'd see an MA first. We're going to cut costs right? How do you think we're going to do that? It would start with "doc in the box" care.

Why don't you show us where in the health care proposal you find this information? While I don't doubt your integrity, this is long on opinion and supposition and short on facts.

[deathcurse]

No, because under a truly social plan, you wouldn't see a doctor, you'd see an MA first. We're going to cut costs right? How do you think we're going to do that? It would start with "doc in the box" care.

Why would a public system be more concerned about cost than a private, profit-driven system? I'm not saying that the government's aim won't be efficiency but I don't know where you get the idea that insurance companies have no problem with throwing money around.

It seems like you're coming from the perspective of "I got mine, fuck all y'all," which isn't unreasonable. I'm just wondering how disastrous it would be if we also applied it to things like public education.

You know, one of other terrible socialist programs we have.

[tin00can]

No, because under a truly social plan, you wouldn't see a doctor, you'd see an MA first. We're going to cut costs right? How do you think we're going to do that? It would start with "doc in the box" care.

One: cut a hole in the box.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

I'm the doc in the box
Curing all your shit
Won't the government pay me, pay me

[absolutely fabulous]

Okay, so the doctor you saw when you were uninsured just handed you a prescription and sent you on your way. Now that you have insurance, your doctor is more thorough, ordering all kinds of tests just to make sure cancer is not currently eating away at you.

Wouldn't that be an argument FOR universal health care?

No, because under a truly social plan, you wouldn't see a doctor, you'd see an MA first. We're going to cut costs right? How do you think we're going to do that? It would start with "doc in the box" care.

Why don't you show us where in the health care proposal you find this information? While I don't doubt your integrity, this is long on opinion and supposition and short on facts.

no, why don't you show us where it's written that it won't be that way. (i didn't ask you EYU )

there's talk about cutting the costs for unnecessary tests. well, what constitutes that?
the same damn thing bane is saying..
treat as a minor illness and send them on their way, if problem persists, ration tests accordingly.
and isn't there talks of an incentive/bonus program given to doctors who cut back on the best way to keep the medical costs down?
which is pretty funny that the president has said about doctors NOW performing a tonsillectomy due to allergies or removing a leg for i don't remember..

as predicted, medical costs will continue to rise, which people have pointed towards health insurance as the demon, they should look at tort.

has tort reform been added to the bill to help lower medical costs?
what about medical/ medicaid fraud?


and while we're on insurance, why aren't people bitching about car, life, and home insurance agencies?

their dicking us, too.

[absolutely fabulous]

oh, i forgot to answer the question,

everyone will pay for it.

and because you make bukoo moneys, adam,
you'll pay more.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

No, because under a truly social plan, you wouldn't see a doctor, you'd see an MA first. We're going to cut costs right? How do you think we're going to do that? It would start with "doc in the box" care.

Why don't you show us where in the health care proposal you find this information? While I don't doubt your integrity, this is long on opinion and supposition and short on facts.

no, why don't you show us where it's written that it won't be that way. (i didn't ask you EYU )

I'm not making unsubstantiated claims, that's why. I also can't show you the section guaranteeing we won't be abducted by aliens but I'm sure we won't be cowering at home in fear of ET buttfucking us with his glowing index finger. We can imagine all sorts of crazy scenarios like death panels and eugenics boards or we can stick with the facts and reality. Any more stupid-assed questions?

[SmokeyRamone]

It just occurred to me that I have always confused Smokey Ramone with Huey Ramone. So in other words this guy:



is not the dude who resents like hell being forced to buy health insurance. I always thought it was weird that that guy would be so pissed off about health care reform!

no, I'm not Huey Ramone (I'm not C.C Ramone either) and I'm not pissed off about health care reform, but I do resent so much government intrusion into my life, I don't think Obama's plan is a good one, there are too many unanswered questions, especially when it comes to waste and fraud, by and large the government is not fiscally responsible, so I don't think the solution to fixing health care is to raise taxes and give the government more control of our personal lives, Obama has broken more than one of his promises when it comes to health care reform, and has been way too vague on how exactly he's going to eliminate fraud and waste, and so I don't have much faith in him being honest, or forthright as this bill progresses

[bane]

Why don't you show us where in the health care proposal you find this information? While I don't doubt your integrity, this is long on opinion and supposition and short on facts.

There is nothing in the current proposal to support that info. I've been pretty careful in this thread to state that my suppositions are not based on the current proposal, but on a hypothetical universal plan like the one that MoMP brought up. Universal healthcare isn't on the agenda right now (thankfully). This entire argument is based on a hypothetical. I've made pains to state that, but let me reiterate, I'm not talking about the bill that our government has on the table right now. I'm referring to a hypothetical universal plan like the one that the UK or Canada has. For the record, although I'm not exactly sold on it, I'm not overwhelmingly opposed to the current bill, at least as an experiment anyway. I am opposed to a truly universal plan.

EDIT: Apologies for the quote fuck up, it should have been credited to MoMP, not DC. My bad.

[deathcurse]

I would never say "supposition" without giggling.

[bane]

I would never say "supposition" without giggling.

Supposition:
–noun 1. the act of supposing.
2. something that is supposed; assumption; hypothesis

Is it not an accurate term for the situation? Sorry man, was I being a bit too vocab presumtuous or something? I kind of thought it was the right word for the job.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Why don't you show us where in the health care proposal you find this information? While I don't doubt your integrity, this is long on opinion and supposition and short on facts.

There is nothing in the current proposal to support that info. I've been pretty careful in this thread to state that my suppositions are not based on the current proposal, but on a hypothetical universal plan like the one that MoMP brought up. Universal healthcare isn't on the agenda right now (thankfully). This entire argument is based on a hypothetical. I've made pains to state that, but let me reiterate, I'm not talking about the bill that our government has on the table right now. I'm referring to a hypothetical universal plan like the one that the UK or Canada has. For the record, although I'm not exactly sold on it, I'm not overwhelmingly opposed to the current bill, at least as an experiment anyway. I am opposed to a truly universal plan.

EDIT: Apologies for the quote fuck up, it should have been credited to MoMP, not DC. My bad.

I'm not talking about a hypothetical plan, only the one on the table. I would like to see something like the NHS, which provides a public option for people who aren't covered by a private plan. Our private insurance system has failed. It costs way too much and provides too little for too few.

As far as your opposition to a truly universal plan, why? Who does not deserve coverage? Do you truly believe, as deathcurse already asked, "I got mine, fuck all y'all,"? I am curious to know which of us you think should fuck off and die.

[bane]

Why don't you show us where in the health care proposal you find this information? While I don't doubt your integrity, this is long on opinion and supposition and short on facts.

There is nothing in the current proposal to support that info. I've been pretty careful in this thread to state that my suppositions are not based on the current proposal, but on a hypothetical universal plan like the one that MoMP brought up. Universal healthcare isn't on the agenda right now (thankfully). This entire argument is based on a hypothetical. I've made pains to state that, but let me reiterate, I'm not talking about the bill that our government has on the table right now. I'm referring to a hypothetical universal plan like the one that the UK or Canada has. For the record, although I'm not exactly sold on it, I'm not overwhelmingly opposed to the current bill, at least as an experiment anyway. I am opposed to a truly universal plan.

EDIT: Apologies for the quote fuck up, it should have been credited to MoMP, not DC. My bad.

I'm not talking about a hypothetical plan, only the one on the table. I would like to see something like the NHS, which provides a public option for people who aren't covered by a private plan. Our private insurance system has failed. It costs way too much and provides too little for too few.

As far as your opposition to a truly universal plan, why? Who does not deserve coverage? Do you truly believe, as deathcurse already asked, "I got mine, fuck all y'all,"? I am curious to know which of us you think should fuck off and die.

Your comparison to other country's plans (IE the NHS etc.) is what led us down this road. The current bill doesn't remotely resemble the NHS, but I'm pretty sure I've laid out my reasoning for my opposition to that type of system all through this thread. I'm not opposed to everyone in this country having a medical plan. I am opposed to having worse coverage at the same or an even higher cost for myself and my family so that I can help pay for everyone else's. If you can figure out a way that I can keep my current plan at the same expense and give everyone else coverage without costing me a bunch of money, I'm all ears.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Your comparison to other country's plans (IE the NHS etc.) is what led us down this road.

No. My comparison of our exorbitant health care spending compared to countries with universal health care is what lead us down this road.

The current bill doesn't remotely resemble the NHS, but I'm pretty sure I've laid out my reasoning for my opposition to that type of system all through this thread.

You've presented hypotheticals but no supporting facts.

I'm not opposed to everyone in this country having a medical plan.

You are opposed to universal health care but you are not opposed to everyone in this country having a medical plan? Orwell would bitchslap you with a Newspeak dictionary for this quacktalk bullshit.

I am opposed to having worse coverage at the same or an even higher cost for myself and my family so that I can help pay for everyone else's.

The statistics say otherwise. Also, I want to know on what factual basis your belief that health care in the UK, Canada, Germany is shitty and inferior compared to ours is built.

If you can figure out a way that I can keep my current plan at the same expense and give everyone else coverage without costing me a bunch of money, I'm all ears.

It's already been done all over the world. No matter how equitable and inexpensive, you will never accept universal health care. Why don't you just admit as a Conservative you oppose it on ideological principles?

[deathcurse]

I would never say "supposition" without giggling.

Supposition:
–noun 1. the act of supposing.
2. something that is supposed; assumption; hypothesis

Is it not an accurate term for the situation? Sorry man, was I being a bit too vocab presumtuous or something? I kind of thought it was the right word for the job.

I was making a joke. Calm down.

[bane]

I would never say "supposition" without giggling.

Supposition:
–noun 1. the act of supposing.
2. something that is supposed; assumption; hypothesis

Is it not an accurate term for the situation? Sorry man, was I being a bit too vocab presumtuous or something? I kind of thought it was the right word for the job.

I was making a joke. Calm down.

Did I sound like I was upset? I thought about breaking out my thesaraus and going on a vocabularily spiced Cliff style rant, but I figured that was too much like work.

[absolutely fabulous]

I'm not making unsubstantiated claims, that's why. I also can't show you the section guaranteeing we won't be abducted by aliens but I'm sure we won't be cowering at home in fear of ET buttfucking us with his glowing index finger. We can imagine all sorts of crazy scenarios like death panels and eugenics boards or we can stick with the facts and reality. Any more stupid-assed questions?[/quote]


are you going to go with preposterous statements that don't relate to the subject to prove a point?

_________________

[absolutely fabulous]

I'm not talking about a hypothetical plan, only the one on the table. I would like to see something like the NHS, which provides a public option for people who aren't covered by a private plan. Our private insurance system has failed. It costs way too much and provides too little for too few.

As far as your opposition to a truly universal plan, why? Who does not deserve coverage? Do you truly believe, as deathcurse already asked, "I got mine, fuck all y'all,"? I am curious to know which of us you think should fuck off and die.

the one on the table? which are you speaking of, the house or the senate?

and wouldn't it be hypothetical, considering they'll rewrite it after it's been signed?

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

I'm not making unsubstantiated claims, that's why. I also can't show you the section guaranteeing we won't be abducted by aliens but I'm sure we won't be cowering at home in fear of ET buttfucking us with his glowing index finger. We can imagine all sorts of crazy scenarios like death panels and eugenics boards or we can stick with the facts and reality. Any more stupid-assed questions?

are you going to go with preposterous statements that don't relate to the subject to prove a point?

_________________

Yes, but that was a rhetorical question. I didn't think you would actually be stupid enough to even need to ask.

I'm not talking about a hypothetical plan, only the one on the table.

the one on the table? which are you speaking of, the house or the senate?

and wouldn't it be hypothetical, considering they'll rewrite it after it's been signed?

Which one? The final one they hammer out together, if they can agree. If they can't, it dies and the point is moot. Should they pass the bill and the Prez signs it into law, they can't just change it. They have to go through the whole process again. That's not hypothetical, that's how the system works.

[SmokeyRamone]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091115/ap_ ... care_fraud

WASHINGTON – The government paid more than $47 billion in questionable Medicare claims including medical treatment showing little relation to a patient's condition, wasting taxpayer dollars at a rate nearly three times the previous year.

Excerpts of a new federal report, obtained by The Associated Press, show a dramatic increase in improper payments in the $440 billion Medicare program that has been cited by government auditors as a high risk for fraud and waste for 20 years.

It's not clear whether Medicare fraud is actually worsening. Much of the increase in the last year is attributed to a change in the Health and Human Services Department's methodology that imposes stricter documentation requirements and includes more improper payments — part of a data-collection effort being ordered government-wide by President Barack Obama this coming week to promote "honest budgeting" and accurate statistics.

Still, the fiscal 2009 financial report — covering the first few months of the Obama administration — highlights the challenges ahead for a government that is seeking in part to pay for its proposed health care overhaul by cracking down on Medicare fraud. While noting that several new anti-fraud efforts were beginning, the government report makes clear that "aggressive actions" to date aimed at reducing improper payments had yielded little improvement.

In recent years, the suspect claims have included Medicare prescriptions from doctors who were dead, and requests for payment for medical supplies such as blood glucose strips for sexual impotence and diabetic shoes for leg amputees. Patients, many of them new citizens who barely speak English, are sometimes recruited by brokers who go door-to-door offering hundreds of dollars for use of their Medicare numbers.

Obama is expected to announce new initiatives this coning week to help crack down on Medicare fraud, including a government-wide Web site aimed at providing a fuller account of health care spending and improper payments made by various agencies. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services also will launch a Web interactive next month that will allow users to track Medicare payment information by categories such as state, diagnosis and hospital.

According to the report, the Bush administration from 2005-2008 reported improper payments of roughly 4 percent in the fee for service program, or about $17 billion total in 2008. Government officials at the time, however, typically did not consider a Medicare payment improper if the medical documentation was incomplete or a doctor's signature was illegible. Since these were flaws that ordinarily bar payment, that methodology drew complaints from government auditors that the figures were understated.

For fiscal year 2009, the Obama administration began counting those claims as improper, but was unable to complete an official tally based on the new methodology. As a result, it officially reported improper payments for its fee for service program at 7.8 percent, representing a partial tally under the new formula. But it considers the unofficial tally of 12.4 percent to be more representative.

Beginning next year, the 12.4 percent figure — or a total of $47 billion in improper payments when counting both Medicare fee for service and managed care — will be used as the baseline estimate. The federal report sets a target of reducing improper payments in the fee for service program to 9.5 percent by next year, which would represent a savings of roughly $9.7 billion.

The findings come as the Obama administration is making Medicare anti-fraud efforts an important priority. In recent months, HHS has said it was multiplying by 10 the number of agents and prosecutors targeting fraud in Miami, Los Angeles and other strategic cities where tens of billions of dollars are believed to be lost each year. The new partnership seeks to have better sharing of real-time intelligence data on health care fraud patterns.

Officials say they also want to increase training and outreach among Medicare providers to reduce documentation errors, while proposed health overhaul legislation would increase background checks on Medicare claimants and impose stiffer penalties for false claims.

Other findings:

_In the Medicaid program for the poor, roughly $18.1 billion, or 9.6 percent of claims, are believed to be improper payments.

_Using a baseline of 12.4 percent in improper payments in the Medicare fee for service program, HHS is setting targets of reducing fraud and waste to 9.5 percent, 8.5 percent, and 8.0 percent, respectively, for fiscal years 2010 through 2012.

Records released in the past week showed that CMS for three years ignored internal watchdog warnings about swindlers stealing millions of dollars by scamming several Medicare programs. The agency received roughly 30 warnings from inspectors but didn't respond to half of them, even after repeated letters.
______________________________

is it any shock that a lot of us are skeptical of thinking the government can fix health care when they're already wasting billions of dollars on the existing government run health care plans?

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

is it any shock that a lot of us are skeptical of thinking the government can fix health care when they're already wasting billions of dollars on the existing government run health care plans?

Are you shocked that far more people are skeptical of the solution people like you offer, that of doing nothing to fix the problem? Perhaps you offer no solution because you have no problem with the current system. Is this the case?

[absolutely fabulous]

I'm not making unsubstantiated claims, that's why. I also can't show you the section guaranteeing we won't be abducted by aliens but I'm sure we won't be cowering at home in fear of ET buttfucking us with his glowing index finger. We can imagine all sorts of crazy scenarios like death panels and eugenics boards or we can stick with the facts and reality. Any more stupid-assed questions?

are you going to go with preposterous statements that don't relate to the subject to prove a point?

_________________

Yes, but that was a rhetorical question. I didn't think you would actually be stupid enough to even need to ask.

man, do you even get sarcasm?
you look even more asinine to think it was a serious question.

I'm not talking about a hypothetical plan, only the one on the table.

the one on the table? which are you speaking of, the house or the senate?

and wouldn't it be hypothetical, considering they'll rewrite it after it's been signed?

Which one? The final one they hammer out together, if they can agree. If they can't, it dies and the point is moot. Should they pass the bill and the Prez signs it into law, they can't just change it. They have to go through the whole process again. That's not hypothetical, that's how the system works.

when the stimulus plan was set up it did not have a provision for cash for clunkers, yet it was pulled out of those funds that were suppose to be for green jobs. so how does the system work, again?

[absolutely fabulous]

is it any shock that a lot of us are skeptical of thinking the government can fix health care when they're already wasting billions of dollars on the existing government run health care plans?

Are you shocked that far more people are skeptical of the solution people like you offer, that of doing nothing to fix the problem? Perhaps you offer no solution because you have no problem with the current system. Is this the case?

don't be pissy because your party can't pass the bill.
oh, wait. you have majority.

[SmokeyRamone]

is it any shock that a lot of us are skeptical of thinking the government can fix health care when they're already wasting billions of dollars on the existing government run health care plans?

Are you shocked that far more people are skeptical of the solution people like you offer, that of doing nothing to fix the problem? Perhaps you offer no solution because you have no problem with the current system. Is this the case?

I'm not against reform but I'm against the kind of reform Obama is pushing, I don't beleive in giving the goverment more power, taking freedom away from individuals and raising taxes is the answer, espescially since it's been revealed that Obama and his people have been meeting with the parmacutical industry behind closed doors to try and get their approval, he's supposed to be serving the people of this country, not the corporations, compared to what he said on the campaign trail, he's lied more than once about the plan, whether or not he supported a mandate, and raising taxes on the middle class, so I have a hard time him now, the above article I posted just reinforce my belief that more goverment control would likely make things worse than better, for example, there's been no talk of cost control, yet we're all going to be forced to buy insurance, is it going to get to the point where people will have to decide whether to pay their power bill or their insurance bill? I've said it before, but the government already gets 30% of my income, they have no right telling me how I have to spend the rest, this is supposed to be a free society

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

is it any shock that a lot of us are skeptical of thinking the government can fix health care when they're already wasting billions of dollars on the existing government run health care plans?

Are you shocked that far more people are skeptical of the solution people like you offer, that of doing nothing to fix the problem? Perhaps you offer no solution because you have no problem with the current system. Is this the case?

I'm not against reform but I'm against the kind of reform Obama is pushing, I don't beleive in giving the goverment more power, taking freedom away from individuals and raising taxes is the answer, espescially since it's been revealed that Obama and his people have been meeting with the parmacutical industry behind closed doors to try and get their approval, he's supposed to be serving the people of this country, not the corporations, compared to what he said on the campaign trail, he's lied more than once about the plan, whether or not he supported a mandate, and raising taxes on the middle class, so I have a hard time him now, the above article I posted just reinforce my belief that more goverment control would likely make things worse than better, for example, there's been no talk of cost control, yet we're all going to be forced to buy insurance, is it going to get to the point where people will have to decide whether to pay their power bill or their insurance bill? I've said it before, but the government already gets 30% of my income, they have no right telling me how I have to spend the rest, this is supposed to be a free society

You sound like a conservative and probably tend to vote Republican. It seems odd to hear you talking power to the people and fuck the corporations. There are no price controls on the present system either, except for corporate greed. This has not kept them from raising premiums, just cutting benefits and denying coverage. It's a good thing we're not to the point that millions of people can't afford insurance or even basic medical care. Your last statement would also be much less ironic if you were not allying yourself with the same people who instituted a KGB style domestic surveillance program in the land of the free and interfere with basic decisions, like who to marry and when to have children, on a daily basis.

[SmokeyRamone]

nope, not a republican, not affiliated with any political party, have never voted for a republican congressman, senator or president, and have voted for very few democrats, though I admit I am fiscally conservative, and when I see that in the last year medicare and medicaid have paid out over 50 billion in questionable claims, I'm very dubious of giving them more power and more money and don't trust that their reforms are going to work, especially combined with the lies Obama has been called out on. Sure, there are no cost controls in place now, that's why I think it's so scary that now they want to force us to do business with the same companies they're maligning and holding back door meetings to them, the president should serve the people, that's not a partisian issue in my mind, and knowing he's holding meetings with the pharmaceutical companies behind closed doors makes me wonder where his loyalties lie, as a taxpaying citizen, I find that pretty scary, just because I'm opposed to the current reform, doesn't mean I'm aligned with the republicans, I was less of a fan of Bush than I am of Obama, I just think this plan is not the way to go, maybe if Obama made some effort to practice some fiscal responsibility first before trying to bulldoze his plan through the house and the senate, I'd be more open to it, but I think the odds of fraud and waste getting worse as the government takes more control and more tax money are pretty good, as far as I'm concerned, he should go back to the drawing board.

[Ugmo]

Do you have any idea what would happen if Obama didn't negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry? It would mobilize against health care reform, pay off the Republicans to kill the legislation and brainwash the great unwashed into believing they don't need health care reform. Sound familiar? Because that's what happened the first time around under Clinton, who tried the populist approach you are suggesting.

Without the pharmaceutical industry on board there is NO health care reform, period.

[SmokeyRamone]

Do you have any idea what would happen if Obama didn't negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry? It would mobilize against health care reform, pay off the Republicans to kill the legislation and brainwash the great unwashed into believing they don't need health care reform. Sound familiar? Because that's what happened the first time around under Clinton, who tried the populist approach you are suggesting.

Without the pharmaceutical industry on board there is NO health care reform, period.

if the government wanted to step in and start regulating the pharmaceutical industry, they could. They did it with big tobacco, both the federal and most state governments have their hands all over alcohol and how it's distributed, and he sure as hell has no problem dictating how much failing corporations who have been bailed out can pay their CEOs, the fact that he's meeting with them behind closed doors raises, in my mind, a conflict of interest, I don't mean for this to sound racist, but I don't know which master he's serving, the citizens, or the big corporations, with the billions he's doled out in bailout money, and the fact that he wants to force everyone to buy insurance from insurance companies, while maligning them for being greedy, and letting the pharmaceutical industry have a say in shaping public policy, I'm starting to think his loyalties are with the corporations

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Do you have any idea what would happen if Obama didn't negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry? It would mobilize against health care reform, pay off the Republicans to kill the legislation and brainwash the great unwashed into believing they don't need health care reform. Sound familiar? Because that's what happened the first time around under Clinton, who tried the populist approach you are suggesting.

Without the pharmaceutical industry on board there is NO health care reform, period.

Or they would make them scared of changing things. When you are scared, you are an easy mark for those who promise to protect you from your fears. The same conservatives who believed in small, non-intrusive government jumped on the Patriot Act because of their fear. Now conservatives, who prefer the status quo, are dancing on strings made of the fear of change. It produces the same results.