 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jun 12 - 10:28 PM No it's NOT!!..Just because you got BUSTED for your one sided, double standard, talking point propaganda crap..and want to weasel out of it, instead of making it right!!! What kind of constructive dialogue is THAT????? You, and your buddy, have been bullshitting the people on here, and probably other places, too...and instead of seeking the truth, you pull this shit????????? Finally, you got pinned down!!....Now, why don't you proceed to get into the TRUTH...and improve your act?...or, when you're on stage, do you hit wrong notes, and tell the audience that they heard it wrong..and they were at fault? ADJUST! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Bobert Date: 07 Jun 12 - 08:27 PM You are insane!!! End of discussion... Get help!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jun 12 - 07:55 PM I KNOW big pharma is ripping us off....and through their shady deals with Obamacare, TOO! You're the one who needs to get a grip on reality! ..except when it's ripping everybody off, it doesn't count when they are doing it though 'your guy'...then you think it's just honest support!..Jeez, you and your double standards!!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Bobert Date: 07 Jun 12 - 07:27 PM Well, lets put it this way... If we are going to discuss health care reform to bring the US into a competitive position and every time I talk policy all I get from you is Obama this, Obama that then how in the Hell are we ever going to talk policy... Leave Obama the heck out of this or check in with Betty Ford... I was talking about how BIG PHARM is rippin' US off... You want to talk about that??? Yes, no will do... Sheesh... B~ BTW, Google up N.I.H. and breeze thru the propaganda that BIG PHARM is using to try to clog up the truth and you'll find that almost every major clss of drugs being sold to US at monster prices came out of N.I.H. (ours, not theirs)... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jun 12 - 12:52 PM Knock it off with the accusations of 'Obama Hate' will ya'? You are too far off with that crap to give any attention to. There are a LOT of people who just plain don't like him because of his performance as President...including those in his own 'party'...even people who voted for him that hare disillusioned of him and his crap-ass rhetoric! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Bobert Date: 07 Jun 12 - 09:30 AM You have tunnel vision and an unhealthy Obama-hate jones going, GfinS... Reality, as I have pointed out over and over is that the right wing packs search engines on subjects they don't want discussed... They would rather write the same garbage over and over 100 different ways then (((horrors)) ever have a real world discussion about how Pfizer has ripped off the American taxpayer... BTW, if you want to get to the real meat and taters on any controversial issue you have to bust thru the right wing bloggers wall... And that ain't easy... BTW, part 2... Where do these people get the money to clog up search engines??? Take a guess... Pfizer has netted over $200B on a drug that the was discovered by N.I.H. Guess who doesn't want that story out and you'll have some idea who pays these people to clog up the search engines... It's called, "Follow the $$$"... I'm not saying that Obama is a saint... I am suggesting that there are much, much larger issues that are being covered up by Obama-haters... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jun 12 - 01:54 AM Bobster: "Right wing bloggers go to extreme to invent conspiracies and rewrite history... This one has tin foil dripping all over it." Here, Bobert, try this Then go to page TWO....and THREE!!...etc. etc. Smiling as usual, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Jun 12 - 06:33 PM ...and I assure you, it will keep getting forwarded!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: bobad Date: 06 Jun 12 - 05:06 PM I take no credit for my previous post - I lack the time and cleverness to come up with something like that - I received it as an unattributed email. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Jun 12 - 03:50 PM GREAT POST BOBAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Don Firth Date: 06 Jun 12 - 01:11 PM And as an endocrinologist who was specializing in growth hormones comment, "That's about the size of it!" Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: bobad Date: 06 Jun 12 - 01:00 PM The American Medical Association has weighed in on Obama's new health care package. The Allergists were in favor of scratching it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves. The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve. Meanwhile, Obstetricians felt certain everyone was laboring under a misconception, while the Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted. Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said, "Oh, grow up!" The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it. Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing and the Internists claimed it would indeed be a bitter pill to swallow. The Plastic Surgeons opined that this proposal would "put a whole new face on the matter". The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea. Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and those lofty Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no. In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Jun 12 - 12:29 PM Bobert: "More hate and personal attacks..." Must be..I just cut and pasted YOUR post! The courts convicted 'YOUR' guy, I didn't!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Bobert Date: 06 Jun 12 - 11:28 AM More hate and personal attacks... ((((((((((((yawn))))))))))))) B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Jun 12 - 10:08 AM AND..... Bobert: "BTW, anyone Google up Jimmy Traficant??? Very interesting man and one of Congresses most non-conformist and colorful representatives in the last century... The fact that he got busted doing what politicians do doesn't change that..." Yeah, I guess the FACT that he was a corrupt crook doesn't matter! You have an interesting criteria....it's just that you seem to endorse, the very same politicians and companies that are ripping us off...but you like it that way! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Jun 12 - 10:04 AM You don't seem to mind when $500, billion of of our taxes goes to China, a another unaccounted for trillion, or where the money went for all those 'shovel ready jobs', which you keep avoiding talking about, so I guess your 'concern' doesn't run that deep....and BTW those weren't bloggers.... There are PLENTY of news articles on what I posted. I couldn't fit the other addresses on to the 'Clicky link. Sorry, your double standard just don't wash!..Speaking of which, you might try a new rap to clean up your guy's act!...but I forgot: Bobert: Bobert: "Jimmy Traficant who represented Youngstown, Ohio until he was arrested and convicted of mis-appropraiting some $$$... ... My kinda guy... Too bad about the misunderstanding that got him jailed .... they were glad to be rid of him... Not me." Got any other candidates you are endorsing?????? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Bobert Date: 06 Jun 12 - 08:46 AM Nice try, insane one... Right wing bloggers go to extreme to invent conspiracies and rewrite history... This one has tin foil dripping all over it... Reality isn't about some righties imagination... Reality is that Pfizer ripped off you and me by getting a patent on a drug that was developed by the N.I.H.(our tax dollars at work) and has been ripping US off @ $100/mo. for each American using Lipitor ever since... But you are only concerned with promoting Obama hate... In other words, you don't really care about anything in the way of a discussion about how it is that we spend 17% of our GNP on health care but don't crack the Top Twenty in health among developed countries... Now back to the GfinS Obama-Hate-Show... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Jun 12 - 01:14 AM Hey Bobert, You're on the right rack...for once!!! Ever wonder about this, while you're wondering about pfizer?? or this???? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Bobert Date: 05 Jun 12 - 05:57 PM Thanks for posting the Pfizer profits, Q... BTW, N.I.H. developed the statin drugs, not Pfizer... That's our tax dollars at work being ripped off by BIG PHARM... The amount the Pfizer has made on Lipitor would make a nice e dent in that National debt that George W. Bush has created... I'd love to know how many million$ of under-the-table $$$ went to whom for Pfizer to end up with a patent on an N.I.H. product??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Jun 12 - 04:10 PM Correction: that was 'John in Kansas', not 'John P'...but regards to both of you, anyway. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Jun 12 - 03:53 PM John P: "Some minor quibbles might be made over the ignorance of anyone who claims that "Everything is the Democrats' fault"..." I agree with you, on this one. Not EVERYTHING is the Democrats fault. There are a lot of decent folks who are Democrats, and Republicans, and of any group. Problem is, that if any one of those groups is criticized, for any number of legitimate reasons, the frothing radicals(of ANY of them) try to lump you into 'the enemy'...instead of considering another valid point of view. We see it on here...and it is ridiculous, and limits any real good that could come from an otherwise productive discussion. Old adage: "Arguments wouldn't last so long, if the wrong were only on one side." The chief problem of the Democrats, in the last 30 years, or so, is that it has given too much voice to petty whiners, and wannabe activists...and it is THOSE people who screw up the productive things that could otherwise be accomplished. The same is true for the Republicans. As it is now, we have a whole host of morons 'crying wolf' and sensationalizing every petty bitch, and worn out 'cause'. As far as either party, BOTH should be wary of corrupt leaders, who promote bullshit, for their personal gain..and get the people who believe in them all stirred up, for no real reason, except their profiteering. There are legitimate concerns about this bill....and I hope, that the re-action, and over re-actions to this particular bill, do not scuttle any further recognition for yet, a better bill. Regards John, GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: JohnInKansas Date: 05 Jun 12 - 03:11 PM Two slight weaknesses in the arguments here: 1. Every year my employer, now the one paying my retirement benefits, has published "financials" for the employee benefit plans. EVERY REPORT for the past 40 or so years has claimed "increasing costs of the health care insurance," with the recent annual increases being nearly always greater than 10% per year, and up to 17% or so in several years. 7.5 per cent IS MORE AFFORDABLE than the rate that extrapolates based on the decades prior to this plan. 2. EVERY DAY we receive AT LEAST TWO advertisements from health care insurers wanting us to switch to their "more affordable" policies. At least once per week we get FIVE OR MORE in the same day's mail. Obviously the new system is a "GOLD MINE" for the insurers, completely contrary to what they claim. (Even at "advertising bulk rates" the postage for all the ads is more than our insurer pays us in claim benefits over any given period - and it's very good insurance and we're old enough to be in a "not really cheap" category.) Some minor quibbles might be made over the ignorance of anyone who claims that "Everything is the Democrats' fault" but knowing that ANY SINGLE SENATOR under Senate Rules can single-handedly block ANYTHING INTRODUCED in the Senate means that "since the Democrats controlled both houses" is a rather John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Jun 12 - 12:30 PM Q: "Affordable health care should be available to everybody." Absolutely TRUE.....but this bill passed by a bribed Democratic Congress, (bribed, in a way meaning waivers for them)..and they didn't care at the time that the backlash, to this bill, was going to be so, strong. Being as they had control of both houses, and the White House, they must have figured that they were firmly entrenched and, therefore, immune that the country would ever swing the 'other way'. Problem was/(is), that a lot of the country swung to Obama, and the Democrats because of the policies of the Bush administration, and the fact that they were spending, and passing bills like drunken sailors, that the country was NOT in favor of. Already, people were questioning the credibility of the 911 incident, and why we went to Iraq, when the reasons were found out to be bogus...not only that, but most of the participants in 911 were from Saudi Arabia...why then Iraq? Anyway, that's another subject...the problem with this 'Health Care(?) bill, is the provisions and the requirements that comes along with it. when the Supreme Court rules on it, they may rule out certain things, but leave the requirements in..which then, would leave us with the shitty part, and NO Health Care. The issue is NOT single payer vs. public option, that is somewhat of a diversion. the REAL issue should be reported, and isn't, the central data base that would be enacted, to facilitate the rest of the bill. THEREFORE, the whole thing should be struck down, and perhaps another put in its place, that isn't a Trojan Horse for absolute control over every thing you are and do! Besides, the present bill only allows 6-8 thousand dollars, per year of 'health care', per person. The trillion dollars that went somehow 'missing' would have provided more. Something is very fishy here, and once again, a huge segment of the American people a VERY suspicious. To keep them diverted from pursuing getting to the bottom of this mess, the national dialogue has been purposely steered to the partisan bickering IE. Democrat vs. Republican nonsense....of which, is clearly demonstrated even here...a music based forum. Now I'm sure the wannabe 'activists' will come rushing in here to denounce this as 'right wing' or Tea party rhetoric, or something just as silly..and of course, they will do this without thinking, or doing ANYTHING other than a knee-jerk re-action, along 'party lines'. This is absolutely stupid, and the symptoms of corrupted party leaders, who are more concerned with the payoffs from their 'financiers' than representing the well being of their country, or fellow countrymen. As Bill Clinton says, "In politics there is no loyalty". Go figure. Good posts, Sawzaw, and Q. Regards, GfS P.S. The above post, I'm sure is not endorsing of ANY party or group...just an observation from an politically unaffiliated musician. (It keeps me objective, instead of making excuses!!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Jun 12 - 10:49 AM Bobert: blinded by hate of Obama and said, "Screw you, weren't not playing" More hateful quotes dreamed up by Bobert and put into the mouths of people he hates. As a matter of fact. Obama said "I won" to Eric Cantor. When Republicans brought a copy of the health care bill to a televised meeting about the bill, Obama said "you brought a prop" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Jun 12 - 09:29 AM Two years on, health care bill is like a plague "I think that the manner in which the issue was dealt with ... cost Obama a lot of credibility as a leader," said Sen. James Webb, D-Va. Webb, who voted for passage and is retiring after one term, added that if Obama had gone for a small, simple measure, he could have won some Republican votes. Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., who is also retiring, remarked that "[w]e would all have been better off if we had dealt first with the financial system" and said Democrats wasted time and political capital creating problems that dragged the economy down. Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif., who is also retiring, said the bill should have been done in "digestible pieces," and they should have 'figure[d] how they were going to pay for the bill, and then figure[d] out what they could afford." Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., of all people, says the Democrats should have stopped after Scott Brown won his election. Former Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., who lost a gubernatorial primary after voting against it, got it right when he said "the Affordable Care Act is the single least popular piece of major domestic legislation in the past 70 years." Two years after passing their dream legislation, Democrats are in a bad place. They lose if the Supreme Court leaves it alone and gives the Republicans their dream of an issue. They lose if the Supreme Court calls it unconstitutional, as that would mean they wasted two years of effort and lost the House in exchange for nothing at all. How did the Democrats get themselves in this position? Jonathan Alter explains: "Democrats are wondering if it was worth it to lose the House ... and perhaps the White House ... over a bill that may be declared unconstitutional," he said last week in his column. "The answer is yes." "We need to be clear about the purpose of politics," he explains further. "It is not to win elections. ... Public approval as expressed in elections is the means to change the country, not the end in itself." So the purpose of politics is to change the country in ways voters cannot stomach, while telling terrified congressmen it's their moral duty to stiff their constituents by enacting a bill they abhor. Alter and friends spent 2009 and 2010 telling doomed members of Congress it was an honor to lay down their jobs for their party. Alter kept his job, so he has lots of time to praise them for courage. Perhaps Democrats should have paid some attention when the Tea Party rose, independents deserted and an unknown Republican in blue Massachusetts won the "Ted Kennedy seat." The purpose of politics is to build a base of support under your programs that will tend to sustain them. It is not to use a transient majority to force bills down the throat of a howling public, which will subsequently take all possible steps to undo them, having in the interim kicked in all of your teeth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 01 Jun 12 - 08:17 PM Affordable health care should be available to everybody. I am a conservative, but in the U.S. the leaders of both parties, but especially the Republican leadership, stands in the way of reform. The plan voted in by the Democrats did little (nothing) to simplify health care, but it did provide a little more for the poor who lack insurance and the means to pay for it. Reduction of costs and overall applicability requires cooperation of insurance, hospital and clinic, pharmaceutical, university and private research institutions, medical education, governmental taxation bodies and all other institutions involved. (And public education as well). Canada has medicare programs, but they vary from province to province and are inadequate to help the consumer who requires expensive treatments and/or drugs. Some treatments are not covered uniformly from province to province, or are not covered that are covered in the U.S., UK and Scandinavia. The programs do cover the general needs of the general public, but I think most provinces, like Alberta, charge the average health care enrollee some $1000 or more in addition to what is taken in provincial taxes. Alberta has a shortage of hospital facilities and specialists, and waits for specialists can be long and frustrating and ultimately may come too late for best prognosis. Most doctors will not accept new patients, leaving families scrambling to get a new doctor if their physician retires or moves on. Some of you may think a Canadian has no business commenting on the U.S. problems, but many Canadians, if they have the resources, use U.S. specialized medical institutions for serious problems. Similarly, we see Americans coming to Canada for laser eye surgery and laser cosmetic surgery. Moreover, drug costs for Canadians depend largely on medications from U.S. or companies abroad. The two countries have interwoven costs. It is difficult for an individual to understand the complexities involved in reducing the costs of medical care. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,999 Date: 01 Jun 12 - 08:09 PM Q, does BIG PHARM have workers who are not covered by some sort of health care? Probably not, because they too know the stats between healthy workers and days lost to the job with sicknesses. Given that, why wouldn't a larger corporation (a country for example) see it the same way? It's great that BIG PHARM has supported inexpensive drugs and treatment for poor people. I applaud them. So, I didn't read Pfizer's annual report; I simply took your word for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: pdq Date: 01 Jun 12 - 07:42 PM About 20 years ago, a bunch of Left-leaning Democrats came up with something they called the "Clean Air, Clean Water, Healthy Baby and Safe Neighborhood Park Act". Really. How could anybody vote against that! "What, you want sick babies and dirty water and air!" they would ask? Like "The Affordable Care Act", the name is a form of propaganda. What was the actual goal of the aforementioned proposition? It was to RAISE TAXES! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 01 Jun 12 - 07:29 PM Statements about BIG PHARM ripping off the system always seem to appear in health care threads. Pfizer (NY registered). The largest. Consolidated income- $66.4 billion Earnings /common share- $1.27 (Total assets ca. $188 billion) Very complex annual report- http://www.pfizer.com/files/annualreport/2011/financial/financial2011.pdf See p. 111 and 115 for summary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Bobert Date: 01 Jun 12 - 06:52 PM That's not a plan!!! That is surrender!!! Your Republicans were invited over and over and over to be part of shaping the legislation... They, like you, were blinded by hate of Obama and said, "Screw you, weren't not playing"... That's what you are doing, too... 50,000,000 Americans consuming $120B a year in health care and not paying for it... You don't know anything about this entire issue... You are bankrupt when it comes to ideas... You are just another Obama hater hoping to screw up as much of America as it takes to get Obama out... You are as squarely in the middle of the Tea Party... I don't care if it's because you are a racist... Ignorant... Rich or whatever... You preach Tea and Hate!!! Yo8u may be delusional enough to think that you have won any debating points with me... But y6ou haven't... All you do is parrot rather uneducated pablum... Anyone want to have a discussion about ideas rather than promoting hate??? This one ain't worth the time... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Jun 12 - 06:26 PM Bobert: "Great, insane one... Now, seein' as you have proclaimed yourself and expert on the Affordable Care Act... ...what is your alternative plan... No, we don't need a 2000 page plan... Just give us the overview... Looking forward to it..." First of all, I'll make it short, because you don't seem to be able to read very much without being completely disoriented..... Scrap the whole fucking thing, every provision, every requirement, every fucking page! That's a start! Don't wet your pants. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Jun 12 - 06:22 PM Sawzaw Date: 31 May 12 - 09:42 AM Sawzaw: "Read the Law Here we provide two ways for you to read the text of the Affordable Care Act. Full Text of the Affordable Care Act (PDF – 2.6 MB) Read the Affordable Care Act and its amendments. Note: The text is searchable within the PDF file. The Affordable Care Act, Section by Section" Response: Bobert: "From: Bobert Date: 31 May 12 - 08:52 AM How is this related to the Affordable Care Act??? Bobert, you've said it all!....I couldn't have insulted you any better! This is too good to be made up! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Bobert Date: 01 Jun 12 - 02:56 PM Yup, reminds me of Teribus during the mad-dash-to-Iraq days... Always wanting to steer the conversation to minute little areas that really had nothing to do with the big picture... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Don Firth Date: 01 Jun 12 - 02:52 PM As you have undoubtedly figured out by now, Bobert, it wouldn't be wise to hold your breath until he comes up with it, if ever. You won't just be able to sing blues, you'll BE blue! All talk, no deliver. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Bobert Date: 01 Jun 12 - 11:29 AM Great, insane one... Now, seein' as you have proclaimed yourself and expert on the Affordable Care Act... ...what is your alternative plan... No, we don't need a 2000 page plan... Just give us the overview... Looking forward to it... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Jun 12 - 04:32 AM Bobert: "I know my way around the bill... So what???" Wanna bet? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Bobert Date: 31 May 12 - 09:22 PM I know my way around the bill... So what??? Give us the overview of your alternative... Richard was right... We weren't going to get Medicare for all... What's your plan, GfinS??? No stall... Just spit it out and then we'll have something to discuss... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 May 12 - 09:18 PM Hey Bobert...the bill is there to find, Sawzaw, provided the link..instead of making 'belittling remarks', to those, and about those who read it..why don't you just read it?..with and open mind?...then when you want to talk about it, or those who have, you might know what you're talking about....and therefore, have an intelligent conversation...without all the picky little snipe...and that goes for anybody and everybody....because some of these comments are really immature in nature, and in motive. Now come on, now...perhaps you might consider to stop embarrassing yourselves. Just a friendly suggestion. GfS P.S. Bobert: "Now if you are going to nit-pick, GfinS without giving us an overview of your plan, forget it..." Well, if you haven't even read the original(two), what would you compare my ideas to???? See above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Bobert Date: 31 May 12 - 07:10 PM Nope, the Ayn Rand crowd has theirs and they are out to get yours... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Greg F. Date: 31 May 12 - 05:40 PM You betcha, Richard- spot on. But don't expect the TeaPublican "Invisible Hand Of The Free Market" crowd to accept reality or fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Bobert Date: 31 May 12 - 04:41 PM What Richard said... Now if you are going to nit-pick, GfinS without giving us an overview of your plan, forget it... That's a typical trick... Teribus used it during the mad-dash-to-Iraq... Look who was wrong on that... Teribus was... So, overview of your plan or don't waste OUR or YOUR time sandbagging... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Richard Bridge Date: 31 May 12 - 04:24 PM The fundamental problem with the Affordable Health Care Act was that the lunatic right and its propaganda machine had effectively poisoned the only sensible option - what we used to have in the UK - a National Health Service. With that off the table, the Affordable Health Care Act was the least bad of the available options. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: dick greenhaus Date: 31 May 12 - 02:12 PM THere seems to be a sizable bloc of folks that would prefer to spend $7000 or so in medical bills, than $5000 in taxes to provide better services. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 May 12 - 01:11 PM This one has been corrected. delete the other one. Sawzaw, I read this thing..and the original bill, before it went back to 'reconciliation'. It took quite me a bit of time...and they've been bugging me, relentlessly, to give my feedback about it. I've started the process, because I made extensive notes(BTW there is some 'supplements' to it, as well)....and prematurely, I've been alluding to the FACT that there are some rather caustic 'supporters'(who also have NOT read it), who are going to be shocked, or maybe sorely disappointed, in the crap that is in it. It has more to do with a LOT more than 'Affordable'(?) health care!...It's definitely a 'set up' for a controlling power grab...AND there are provisions in it, that your 'health care' decisions are NOT made between you and your physicians, but by a 'panel' who are not physicians, but consult your 'profile' from a data base, which has 'other data', besides your 'health...but at least, when they decide that one is NOT worth it, they MAY offer you, 'counseling' to cope with the FACT that you've been mislead, and have been ripped off...that way you can fuck off and die knowing you weren't worth it! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 31 May 12 - 12:23 PM Sawzaw, I read this thing..and the original bill before it went back to reconciliation. It took quite a bit of time...and they've been bugging me, relentlessly to give my feedback about it. I've stated the process, because I made extensive notes(BTW there is some 'supplements' to it, as well)....I've been alluding to the FACT that there are some 'supporters(who also have NOT read it), who are going to be shocked, or maybe sorely disappointed, in the crap that is in it. It has more to do with a LOT more that 'Affordable'(?) health care!...It's definitely a 'set up' for a controlling power grab...AND there are provisions in it, that your 'health care' decisions are NOT made between you and your physicians!!!...but at least, when they decide that one is NOT worth it, the MAY offer you, 'counseling' to cope with the FACT that you've been mislead, and ripped off...that way you can fuck off and die knowing you weren't worth it! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Sawzaw Date: 31 May 12 - 11:01 AM Obama Reverses Stand on Drug Industry Deal New York Times WASHINGTON — Caught between a pivotal industry ally and the protests of Congressional Democrats, the Obama administration on Friday backed away from what drug industry lobbyists had said this week was a firm White House promise to exclude from a proposed health care overhaul the possibility of allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices under Medicare. The reversal underscored the delicate balancing act the White House has pursued in its strategy of negotiating behind-the-scenes deals [What? I thought Obama said it will be on C-Span? No lobbyists. Open government for a change.] to win industry support without alienating liberal supporters on Capitol Hill. Pressed by drug industry lobbyists, a White House deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, confirmed in an e-mail message on Wednesday that the White House shared the drug lobbyists' interpretation of the deal: that any health care overhaul would not include allowing direct government negotiation of drug prices or require certain additional price rebates. Since Wednesday, other representatives of the White House had also stood by Mr. Messina's statement as well. After reading reports about Mr. Messina's e-mail message, House and Senate Democrats loudly protested that they would not be bound by any such agreement to remove clauses allowing government negotiation of drug prices under Medicare — something Democrats have sought for years. Several Senate Democrats said Friday that, in a private meeting, White House officials had told them there was no such deal, sowing yet more confusion. House Democratic leaders vowed to fight against it. Then, after contending for two days that the Senate Democrats had misunderstood the White House aide's comments, the White House appeared Friday night to back away. In a telephone interview, Linda Douglass, a White House spokeswoman on health matters, said the question of government drug-price bargaining "was not discussed during the negotiations." Asked if that meant such a provision was excluded, as the top drug lobbyists had previously said, Ms. Douglass declined to comment, repeating, "It was not discussed." White House officials said Friday that Mr. Messina, the deputy chief of staff who sent the e-mail message, had not intended to confirm that the deal ruled out price negotiations. The drug industry lobbyists appeared to make peace with the White House over the terms the deal as well. The industry had reached an agreement with the White House in June to contribute $80 billion over 10 years to the cost of the health care overhaul but cap its share of the costs at that level. And since striking the deal, the drug industry lobbyists had become a vital and thus powerful White House ally, even helping to bankroll a million-dollar advertising campaign in support of the health care overhaul. But the industry reacted with alarm when, despite its deal the White House, a House version of the health care measure included both new price rebates and government price negotiations. House leaders talked of trying to extract far more. As recently as Wednesday, Billy Tauzin, president of the PhRMA, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, had all but threatened to reverse the group's support for the health care overhaul if the White House did not affirm its commitment to cap the industry's costs at the agreed-upon $80 billion. He insisted that adding government price negotiations or additional drug price rebates would both violate the agreement, saying each idea had been discussed and discarded in negotiations with the Senate Finance Committee that the White House later approved. On Friday night, however, the drug industry lobby appeared to line up once again with the White House, perhaps satisfied that the White House had at least ruled out the price rebates in the House bill. Asked about the White House statements, Ken Johnson, a senior PhRMA official, said, "All of the questions about what was in the agreement distract from our shared goal of making sure everyone has access to health care coverage." Several people involved in the negotiations of the original drug industry deal with the White House said there had been some ambiguity in the original discussions, conducted primarily through the Senate Finance Committee, over whether the overhaul might include the government negotiations of drug prices. Because the Congressional Budget Office has questioned whether government price negotiation would, in fact, save the government or cost the drug industry much money in any event, White House officials might have intended to argue that the $80 billion cap still left room for such a provision. The full terms of the White House agreement with the drug makers, like a similar deal with the hospital industry, have never been disclosed. Perhaps capitalizing on his leverage as the political battle heated up over the health care measure, Mr. Tauzin insisted early this week that the deal clearly precluded drug price negotiations as well as any other additional costs. Drug companies have long opposed government price negotiations on the grounds that they would effectively set prices and cripple the industry. As Mr. Tauzin spoke up, the White House initially chose not to argue. But faced with a chorus of Congressional complaints, the administration appears to have recalibrated its position. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Sawzaw Date: 31 May 12 - 10:16 AM CBO Update Shows Lower Costs for the New Health Care Law Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office released updated cost estimates for some parts* of the Affordable Care Act. In this update, CBO projects that net spending on several parts of the health care law are about $50 billion less than it projected last year. That partly* reflects CBO's confirmation of a trend we've been following – slower growth in health insurance premiums. CBO said. * denotes weasel words However: Health Care Costs To Exceed A Record $20,000 Per Year For Families With Insurance, Study Says The Huffington Post Health care costs for a family of four covered by workplace health insurance will exceed $20,000 for the first time ever this year -- $20,728 to be precise -- according to a new study released Tuesday. That's $1,335 more than in 2011. A family of four will pay $5,114 in premiums for a preferred provider organization plan, a common type of health insurance, along with $3,470 in out-of-pocket costs like co-payments for doctor visits and prescription drugs, according to the report issued by Milliman, a firm that consults with companies on employee benefits. The remainder of the expenses will be paid by employers, though money spent on health care and other fringe benefits is money not spent on higher wages. Relentless increases in health care costs, which the federal government says rose to $2.6 trillion in 2011, are squeezing employers, workers, families and government budgets every year. Almost 50 million Americans had no health insurance as of the 2010 census, more people are going without medical care they need because of cost, employees are being asked to shoulder a greater share of the burden for health care costs while seeing their benefits scaled back, and more companies are dropping coverage for workers. Meanwhile, the United States falls behind other industrialized nations on measures of health care quality, in spite of all this spending. Family health care costs grew by 6.9 percent between 2011 and 2012, slower than in previous years, but Milliman suggests there's little comfort in that. "The rate of increase is not as high as in the past but total dollar increase was still a record," the report says. "The dollar amount of the increase overshadows any relief consumers might derive from the slowing percentage increase." The health care reform law enacted by President Barack Obama in 2010 "has had only a limited effect" on health care costs, the report continues. Spending on physician services will reach $6,647 and spending on hospital stays will rise to $6,531, making them the two biggest components of a typical family's annual health care expenses, the report says. Health care costs varied among the 14 metropolitan areas that Milliman analyzed. Miami and New York City are the most expensive, with costs about 20 percent higher than the national average. The report says that Phoenix, Atlanta and Seattle were the only three cities where annual costs are projected to be less than $20,000 this year. Earlier on HuffPost: These 10 states saw the greatest increase in percentage of residents who had unmet health care needs due to cost, according to a report by the Urban Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. #10: Texas #9: North Carolina #8: Michigan #7: Illinois #6: New Jersey #4/5: Oklahoma #4/5: Louisiana #3: Georgia #2: Florida #1: Tennessee |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Bobert Date: 31 May 12 - 09:53 AM Ahhhhh, now we are talking about the Affordable Care Act... Thanks for posting the link, Sawz... BTW, the reason that health care costs have been going up, up and up isn't the usual boogie man that the crooks parade out, you know, law suits... No, it's because the providers and BIG PHARM are ripping US off... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Sawzaw Date: 31 May 12 - 09:42 AM Read the Law Here we provide two ways for you to read the text of the Affordable Care Act. Full Text of the Affordable Care Act (PDF – 2.6 MB) Read the Affordable Care Act and its amendments. Note: The text is searchable within the PDF file. The Affordable Care Act, Section by Section Below you will find all 10 Titles of the Affordable Care Act, with amendments to the law called for by the reconciliation process. Click on a Title to read the law section by section. Title I. Quality, Affordable Health Care for All Americans Title II. The Role of Public Programs Title III. Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care Title IV. Prevention of Chronic Disease and Improving Public Health Title V. Health Care Workforce Title VI. Transparency and Program Integrity Title VII. Improving Access to Innovative Medical Therapies Title VIII. Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act (CLASS Act) Title IX. Revenue Provisions Title X. Reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Certified Full-Text Versions The PDFs above are full-text versions of each title and related content. They have been excerpted because presenting the Act in a single PDF results in a very large file which may present download difficulties. While no language was changed above, the full certified versions of the two bills are available here: Affordable Care Act (PDF - 4.27 MB) Reconciliation Act (PDF - 282 KB) Use our interactive FAQ tool at answers.healthcare.gov to find answers to your questions about health care and insurance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Bobert Date: 31 May 12 - 08:52 AM How is this related to the Affordable Care Act??? You should change the title of this thread... B~ |
|
Subject: BS: The 'Affordable' Health Care act From: Sawzaw Date: 31 May 12 - 08:33 AM Healthcare costs to rise 7.5 percent in 2013 Reuters WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The cost of healthcare services is expected to rise 7.5 percent in 2013, more than three times the projected rates for inflation and economic growth, according to an industry research report released on Thursday. But premiums for large employer-sponsored health plans could increase by only 5.5 percent as a result of company wellness programs and a growing trend toward plans that impose higher insurance costs on workers, said the report by the professional services firm Price Waterhouse Coopers, or PwC. The projected growth rate of 7.5 percent for overall healthcare costs contrasts with expectations for growth of 2.4 percent in gross domestic product and a 2.0 percent rise in consumer prices during 2013, according to the latest Reuters economic survey. Healthcare costs have long been known to outstrip economic growth and inflation rates, driving up government spending on programs such as Medicare and Medicaid at a time when federal policymakers and lawmakers are wrangling over how to trim the budget deficit of $1 trillion a year. But PwC's Health Research Institute, which based its research on input from health plan actuaries, industry leaders, analyst reports and employer surveys, said data for the past three years suggest an extended slowdown in healthcare inflation from earlier decades when annual costs rose by double-digits. "We're in the early beginnings of a shift toward consumerism in healthcare. And we think that you'll see more of that in the coming months and years," said Ceci Connolly, the health institute's managing director. More than half of the 1,400 employers surveyed by the firm are considering increasing their employees' share of health benefit costs and expanding health and wellness programs in 2013, according to the report. Connolly said health plans with higher deductibles and co-pays for workers tend to dissuade unnecessary purchases and offer lower premium costs for employers, while successful wellness programs can reduce the need for medical services. The report said prospects for higher growth are also being held back by the consolidation of hospitals and physician practices, insurance industry pressure on hospital expenses, a growing variety of primary care options such as workplace and retail health clinics, price transparency and the increasing use of generic drugs. Upward pressure on healthcare costs comes in part from a rebounding economy and the growth of new medical technologies, including robotic surgery and the nuclear medicine imaging technique known as positron emission tomography. PwC's projection of 7.5 percent growth is nearly double a 3.9 percent rise in healthcare spending that the federal government says occurred in 2010, the last year for which official figures are available. The government survey includes Medicare and Medicaid spending, as well as over-the-counter pharmacy purchases, while PwC's report focuses on the private insurance sector of the $2.6 trillion healthcare system. (Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Jan Paschal) |