PDA

View Full Version : Congressman Wiener earns his name ...



LWW
03-24-2011, 03:52 PM
Snoopy's hero, and OBAMACARE pimp ... with feigned righteous indignation, exposes himself as a fake and a phony with a hairdo that looks like it was cut from the tail of a pony:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>Rep. Anthony Weiner said Wednesday he was looking into how a health law waiver might work for New York City.</span>

Weiner, who is likely to run for mayor of New York, said that because of the city’s special health care infrastructure, his office was looking into alternatives that might make more sense.</div></div>

Do as we say, not as we do! (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51840.html)

bobroberts
03-24-2011, 04:05 PM
I hate that SOB.

Soflasnapper
03-24-2011, 04:51 PM
Not a fake and not a phony on this evidence.

He supports the right of various kinds of organizations to seek waivers to do things either better or more cheaply or to better address the peculiarities of their individual cases and contracts in place, than the ACA itself provides. As he said, many of those who have sought those waivers are our friends (guessing he means the union plan waivers that have been sought and granted).

As a supporter of that right, and in favor of those asking to receive such waivers, he's also looking into whether NYC might benefit from a waiver.

Now you may have a point about his hairstyle, but that is subject to the old nostrum, gustibus non disputandum.

ugotda7
03-24-2011, 05:24 PM
How about a waiver for the entire country...

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 05:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not a fake and not a phony on this evidence.

He supports the right of various kinds of organizations to seek waivers to do things either better or more cheaply


As he said, many of those who have sought those waivers are our friends (guessing he means the union plan waivers that have been sought and granted).

As a supporter of that right, and in favor of those asking to receive such waivers, he's also looking into whether NYC might benefit from a waiver.


</div></div>

And who will make the determination what is "better" than Obamacare?
And what are the deciding factors? Seems to be if your organization spent a bundle to get Obama elected, or if you helped him get his "legacy bill" passed, and now need to get some voter support by opting out of Obamacare.

The way it looks, the waivers are little more than political favors being paid to their supporters.

And it doesn't even address the question of why would anyone want or need to opt out of the law, if it was such a great thing for everyone, as we were told.

And weren't we told that the basis for the whole program working would be that everyone was going to participate? What will happen when we lose all of these participants to the waivers?

Steve

Steve

Soflasnapper
03-24-2011, 06:12 PM
The granting of waivers to states on how they do their Medicaid programs is routine. I remember when Clinton was doing this same thing, and he was far from the first president under whose administration such waivers were granted.

There are two different kinds of waivers. The first, which we've seen to date, are temporary waivers that only apply during the startup phases, until the exchanges are up and running in place.

The second kind have only recently been explained and allowed, and they are more long-lasting permanent kind of waivers, similar to the kinds I mention for Medicaid which have been going on in differing states for some time.

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 06:54 PM
But who is getting the waivers? Union workers? ok, no surprise there. Members of Congress? REALLY no surprise there!
Wal-Mart?
McDonalds?

Aren't the poor minimum wage workers at places like this the ones that the whole Obamacare plan was supposed to be designed to help?

It's either a good law, or it's not a good law. And if we are having to grant so many waivers (over a thousand so far, so it's not just to the states. Last I heard, there are only 57 of them)
doesn't that tell us that the law was not well thought out in the first place?

Of course, they had the bill in rush mode, so they probably didn't have time to make sure they got it right...they just wanted to get something passed.

Now even a lefty has to admit that is a pretty sorry way to run the country. Half-azzed, poorly thought out, poorly planned, and rushed through while they still had a chance...how can anyone defend that?

Steve

bobroberts
03-24-2011, 07:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But who is getting the waivers? Union workers? ok, no surprise there. Members of Congress? REALLY no surprise there!
Wal-Mart?
McDonalds?

Aren't the poor minimum wage workers at places like this the ones that the whole Obamacare plan was supposed to be designed to help?

It's either a good law, or it's not a good law. And if we are having to grant so many waivers (over a thousand so far, so it's not just to the states. Last I heard, there are only 57 of them)
doesn't that tell us that the law was not well thought out in the first place?

Of course, they had the bill in rush mode, so they probably didn't have time to make sure they got it right...they just wanted to get something passed.

Now even a lefty has to admit that is a pretty sorry way to run the country. Half-azzed, poorly thought out, poorly planned, and rushed through while they still had a chance...how can anyone defend that?

Steve </div></div>

You can't argue with close minded people.

Soflasnapper
03-24-2011, 08:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But who is getting the waivers? Union workers? ok, no surprise there. Members of Congress? REALLY no surprise there!
Wal-Mart?
McDonalds?

Aren't the poor minimum wage workers at places like this the ones that the whole Obamacare plan was supposed to be designed to help?

It's either a good law, or it's not a good law. And if we are having to grant so many waivers (over a thousand so far, so it's not just to the states. Last I heard, there are only 57 of them)
doesn't that tell us that the law was not well thought out in the first place?

Of course, they had the bill in rush mode, so they probably didn't have time to make sure they got it right...they just wanted to get something passed.

Now even a lefty has to admit that is a pretty sorry way to run the country. Half-azzed, poorly thought out, poorly planned, and rushed through while they still had a chance...how can anyone defend that?

Steve </div></div>

I disagree. It's instead SMART to allow for hardship cases to be granted waivers, but that does not mean the overall plan is wrong, just that it is being phased in, and until it is phased in, there are certain dislocations that when severe enough, ought to be addressed with waivers.

For instance, in this dysfunctional yet very high priced insurance market, some employers can only afford to supply high-deductible coverage for catastrophic events. Some of ACA's provisions, such as the requirement that the premium cost be used at an 80% rate for provision of care, might cause such employers to have to cancel their entire (although inadequate, substandard) insurance plan, WITHOUT the ability of the employees to go to the exchanges to obtain guaranteed (and more solid, regular) coverage, until they actually exist, 4 years or more down the road.

Rather than cause the employers to make this business decision, and thereby deprive their workers whatever they get in the meantime, without any adequate replacement, they are granted a waiver for the 4 year or so period until the exchanges become reality.

The important thing was to finally get a handle on the cancer that is health care costs, which are otherwise scheduled to consume most of the economy and the federal budget. If the handle isn't quite right, later amendments can be passed as fixes as required.

If individual states can accomplish what ACA does in a manner more consistent with their population mix and budgetary concerns, again, it is sensible to allow that to happen, and a sign of wisdom rather than failure.

As I mention, and I doubt is much known, that is exactly what has happened for decades in states' provision of Medicaid. If they want to do it a different way, while meeting the core requirements, why wouldn't that entirely precedented flexibility be an obvious policy to allow?

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 08:41 PM
That is a great summary of the sales pitch coming from the party.
Now, please, tell me you don't really believe it.

I'm still trying to figure out how you can defend such a poorly planned, poorly executed, rush job bill that was only passed because Obama needed healthcare on his resume'.

Steve

LWW
03-25-2011, 12:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The way it looks, the waivers are little more than political favors being paid to their supporters.

Steve </div></div>

I see the "WAIVERS" for Ocultists as amounting to nothing but a de facto tax and series of penalties to be inflicted upon non (D) supporters.

Sort of like the mob selling you "PROTECTION" coverage from fire and vandalism.

LWW
03-25-2011, 12:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I disagree. It's instead SMART to allow for hardship cases to be granted waivers </div></div>

I can't believe you posted that.

The entire reason, per dear leader, for the bill to exist was because of the hardship cases.

So now all of a sudden it's OK to make people who could afford, and had, health insurance pay more while granting waivers so those who weren't covered remanin uninsured?

WOW! Just WOW!

Soflasnapper
03-25-2011, 02:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is a great summary of the sales pitch coming from the party.
Now, please, tell me you don't really believe it.

I'm still trying to figure out how you can defend such a poorly planned, poorly executed, rush job bill that was only passed because Obama needed healthcare on his resume'.

Steve </div></div>

No, these talking points are the reason I support the admittedly flawed legislation as a starting point. Its admitted flaws and the obvious truth that no legislation can ever be perfect are why I support the granting of waivers.

This was passed because it is absolutely critical to stop the malignant growth of health care expenses which threatens to crush all other aspects of the economy. Even Nixon described it as a crisis when he himself proposed a national health care reform plan some 40 years back, and the situation has done nothing but worsen in the meantime. Since Clinton failed in his own effort, health care costs have been doubling every 10 years, since the costs of health care have been compounding at annual double-digit rates each and every year since that time.

The legislation's flaws stem mainly from the many compromises forced upon it by the process, the obdurate opposition from the GOP at nearly 100% levels, and the huge economic forces that benefit from the unchecked growth of health care expenses.

So to get this done, O had to ditch the public option, promise to disallow the promised importation of drugs from Canada and other overseas locations that could have reduced the amount of money going to prescription meds, and some other things, to gain the support or promise not to strongly oppose this bill from big insurance and big pharma. Ditto for the idea of allowing a buying in to Medicare for older American who haven't reached the age of eligibility currently in law, which I believe Sen. Lieberman (I-Insurance Industry) single-handedly blocked late in the game.

To strenuously avoid characterizing what people had to pay as a tax, as a political matter, which would have wholly disposed of any Constitutional objection, instead it was called a premium or something (which it actually is), which then created a colorable Constitutional challenge.

ANY large scale reform bill that gets through Congress will suffer from similar faults for similar reasons, and there is nothing unusual about starting off with a law with flawed compromises. These can be remedied by later legislation, since the heavy lifting of getting this in place has been accomplished, just as the original SS and Medicare legislations were tweaked and improved/strengthened, once the original laws were put in place.

Soflasnapper
03-25-2011, 02:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I disagree. It's instead SMART to allow for hardship cases to be granted waivers </div></div>

I can't believe you posted that.

The entire reason, per dear leader, for the bill to exist was because of the hardship cases.

So now all of a sudden it's OK to make people who could afford, and had, health insurance pay more while granting waivers so those who weren't covered remanin uninsured?

WOW! Just WOW! </div></div>

Nope. Not at all. These waivers are so that (perhaps inadequately, but still) insured parties can remain insured until the backup plan for getting them covered if their plans go away can be instituted.

Mostly, those granted waivers are health care insurance systems, HMOs, PPOs, self-financed plans of companies, unions, municipalities, etc., which cannot be called only Democratic partisan organizations.

pooltchr
03-25-2011, 03:28 PM
So tell us specifically how this bill is going to bring down the cost of healthcare.
Is it going to make it less expensive for a hospital to conduct an MRI?
Is it going to bring down the price pharmacutical companies spend on R&D for new drugs?
Will it lower the cost of an overnight stay in a hospital?
Will it lower the cost of labratory equipment necessary to run blood tests, or other tests needed to identify specific patient problems?

Or is it just designed to make sure more people have insurance coverage, which theoretically would spread the cost of the country's healthcare over a larger group, but would more likely send more people to the doctor more frequently, reducing the availability of doctors and healthcare workers by increasing demand.

Or, does it force doctors and other healthcare facilities to operate on less income, thereby discoruaging people from entering the field, and decreasing the supply of healthcare services.

And, if you increase demand for healthcare, while decreasing the supply of providers, which direction do you think costs will go???

But, back to the original point. We were told that the only way to bring down costs (not likely, as stated above) was to get more people into the system. So how does granting waivers get more people into the system? Does it not, in fact, mean that those poor minimum wage workers at McDonalds will not be forced into the system?

Can you not see that the bill and the talking points supporting it are completely inconsistent?

Steve

LWW
03-25-2011, 04:32 PM
Name for me the non democrook affiliated unions that got a waiver?

Soflasnapper
03-25-2011, 05:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Name for me the non democrook affiliated unions that got a waiver? </div></div>

Show me any who weren't Democratic affiliated who applied and were turned down for such a waiver.

LWW
03-26-2011, 03:26 AM
Ahhh ... the old dodge to the left trick.

Oddly enough, HHS claims that waivers have been denied ... but doesn't wish to release who they might have been.

Now ... how about simply answering the question?

OH MY! (http://mayrantandrave.com/2011/01/20/investigating-obamacare-waivers/)

Soflasnapper
03-26-2011, 03:21 PM
The link doesn't say they don't wish to release that information, just that they didn't, and not even that they were asked that question and then refused.

How this has been done, and whether it has been done fairly with a defensible criterion or not, is rightfully subject to Congressional oversight, which is correctly about to occur.

I have neither the list of the 222 waivers said to have been issued, nor any insight into what kind of leanings any of those allowed, or denied, may have.

You have implied only allies to the administration have received waivers, and you are the one who hasn't presented a scintilla of evidence to show that is true. Burden of proof is on you.

Soflasnapper
03-26-2011, 03:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So tell us specifically how this bill is going to bring down the cost of healthcare.
Is it going to make it less expensive for a hospital to conduct an MRI?
Is it going to bring down the price pharmacutical companies spend on R&D for new drugs?
Will it lower the cost of an overnight stay in a hospital?
Will it lower the cost of labratory equipment necessary to run blood tests, or other tests needed to identify specific patient problems?

Or is it just designed to make sure more people have insurance coverage, which theoretically would spread the cost of the country's healthcare over a larger group, but would more likely send more people to the doctor more frequently, reducing the availability of doctors and healthcare workers by increasing demand.

Or, does it force doctors and other healthcare facilities to operate on less income, thereby discoruaging people from entering the field, and decreasing the supply of healthcare services.

And, if you increase demand for healthcare, while decreasing the supply of providers, which direction do you think costs will go???

But, back to the original point. We were told that the only way to bring down costs (not likely, as stated above) was to get more people into the system. So how does granting waivers get more people into the system? Does it not, in fact, mean that those poor minimum wage workers at McDonalds will not be forced into the system?

Can you not see that the bill and the talking points supporting it are completely inconsistent?

Steve </div></div>

Steve, these are TEMPORARY, TRANSITIONAL waivers of limited terms-- a lot are just for one year, and the others for only two years. That doesn't put those persons whose organizations or health care plans have been waived permanently out of the system at all-- it simply relieves them of the onus of having to immediately comply with various technical requirements, such as ensuring that as of NOW they meet the 80-85% of all expenditures going to actual health care cost spending.

pooltchr
03-26-2011, 03:58 PM
I noticed you skipped over the first part of my post.

Steve

Soflasnapper
03-26-2011, 04:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So tell us specifically how this bill is going to bring down the cost of healthcare.</div></div>

The total cost of health care will be going up, not down. This is inevitable, given that the 40 million people on Medicare will be doubled as of the full retirement of the baby boomers to 80 million people. This issue is how much of an increase, and the claim is (and CBO agrees) that it will be $500 billion less extra cost over 10 years for Medicare expenses, and the balance of the extra costs of insuring about 95-98% of the people somewhat less than $500 billion, making the 10 year projection lower by a total of $100 billion from baseline projections of cost prior to the passage of ACA. (The independent actuary hired by Medicare disagrees, and says the total costs will be increased by 0.9% over the baseline projection, and even that would be an essentially outstanding result, actually.)

As to how this can be accomplished, there are many factors. One is to take the very expensive care of the uninsured, who receive their care generally way late in their illness or condition in ERs, which increases every insured persons premiums by $1,200 a year or so, into a more regular health care provision model, which includes preventative care through regular checkups. On the theory of an ounce of prevention amounts to a pound of cure, this will save a lot of money by keeping the illness or condition's going into late stages, which indeed cost far more than palliative or preventive treatments early on.

Then we can work on correcting the single greatest preventible cause of illness and medical problems causing unnecessary hospitalizations and those costs, not to mention premature death-- which is the medical and hospital industries themselves. As Newt Gingrich has said, using the hygiene and other protocols pioneered by the Mayo Clinic drastically reduces nosocomic infections, prolonged hospital stays, readmission to hospitals because of preventible relapses due to nosocomic problems, etc., if adopted system-wide, would save between $100 billion to $200 billion a year without any reduction in health care provision.

One key to harmful medical treatment is the lack of full knowledge of the patient's entire medical situation, due to lack of access to various paper forms at the primary physician's office, or the difficulty of having all that data looked through each time. Using electronic records will harmonize all the data into one place that is readily available to all treatment facilities, and using artificial intelligence protocols, immediately flag when certain standard medications are contraindicated. So, for instance, someone with given allergies will be less likely to get an IVP which could cause permanent renal failure (as occurred with my uncle), saving the cost of $75,000 a year in dialysis treatments.

Comparative effectiveness analysis will be performed, so that treatments that are expensive which do not work to provide a greater beneficial outcome will cease being used. One example to show how this works has been known for a while-- for certain stages of breast cancer, a lumpectomy followed by radiation treatment has shown as good a result as the modified radical mastectomy followed by chemo-therapy, without the extra trauma and cost of the far more serious surgery, the attendant extra hospital recovery time, etc., AND the $200k to $400k cost of the chemo-therapy regime. A win-win case, and THIS has already taken place without any thorough-going review of all medical treatments on this standard.

There are many more tracks upon which the costs can be reduced, but I'll mention just one more. End of life care. As is common knowledge, end of life care can amount to some huge amount of the cost of the total health care cost for an individual. Yet this is often futile care that the patient would refuse if they were competent, but which physicians cannot decline to provide on their own without the surviving family's approval, and which the family may be reluctant to do if they do not know their loved ones wishes. Simply providing everyone with the ability to make their wishes known in advanced directives such as the living will could provide the grounds for DNR directives, stopping the maintenance of life at a vegetative level, both improving the (remaining) quality of life for that person's last days, providing the comfort of that knowledge of what to do to the family, and saving a ton of money.

pooltchr
03-26-2011, 05:29 PM
I'm betting you have never been in a position where you had a loved one faced with a terminal illness, and you were the one who had to make the decision, with the doctor, as to how to proceed.

I have, and I am thankful to this day that I had all options available, and didn't have some government agency deciding whether or not the cost of treatment was worth extending someone's life. In my case, treatments continuing after one doctor told us it was "hopeless" meant that my daughter got to spend an extra 6 months with her mother. No government agency can put a price on that!

So until you have been there, don't even attempt to sell me on the government deciding what is and is not cost effective.

If I'm ever on the other end of that situation, I hope my family has every option available.

Steve

Sev
03-26-2011, 06:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm betting you have never been in a position where you had a loved one faced with a terminal illness, and you were the one who had to make the decision, with the doctor, as to how to proceed.

I have, and I am thankful to this day that I had all options available, and didn't have some government agency deciding whether or not the cost of treatment was worth extending someone's life. In my case, treatments continuing after one doctor told us it was "hopeless" meant that my daughter got to spend an extra 6 months with her mother. No government agency can put a price on that!

So until you have been there, don't even attempt to sell me on the government deciding what is and is not cost effective.

If I'm ever on the other end of that situation, I hope my family has every option available.

Steve </div></div>

Been there as well.

This law is a boondoggle. It needs to be eviscerated.

Soflasnapper
03-27-2011, 02:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm betting you have never been in a position where you had a loved one faced with a terminal illness, and you were the one who had to make the decision, with the doctor, as to how to proceed.

I have, and I am thankful to this day that I had all options available, and didn't have some government agency deciding whether or not the cost of treatment was worth extending someone's life. In my case, treatments continuing after one doctor told us it was "hopeless" meant that my daughter got to spend an extra 6 months with her mother. No government agency can put a price on that!

So until you have been there, don't even attempt to sell me on the government deciding what is and is not cost effective.

If I'm ever on the other end of that situation, I hope my family has every option available.

Steve </div></div>

Advanced directives are the person's choice, made when they are competent and able to consider things rationally. They are not dictated by anyone else, and the person can change their mind.

I did have my own experience in the case of my mother, whose heart attack was treated by a clot buster drug, which stroked out her brain because of a massive unknown meningioma (non-malignant brain tumor). She lapsed into a vegetative coma, in essentially brain death, not needing a ventilator but with a stomach peg for hyperalimentation. Although nobody in our family agrees with keeping any of us alive only formally, when there is no hope of regaining consciousness, still, you can imagine the emotional horror of deciding to order withdrawal of nutrition and fluids to allow her passing. We couldn't even consider it for a while, hoping against hope that her prognosis would change to the better.

Thankfully, we were comforted with the knowledge that she had already expressed her own wishes for that situation in her living will, and that not only were we doing the right thing we all agreed with, but that it was her own directive.

Without the benefit and comfort of that certain knowledge, many families could not bring themselves to 'pull the plug,' even knowing it might be what the loved one actually wanted, even knowing that continuing 'life' was both futile and painful and destructive of human dignity.

If on the other hand, we'd known she wanted any life at any level maintained, we could have made that alternate decision in relative peace as well, knowing that whatever indignities and medical tortures were involved, it had been her decision.

So, getting everyone to do advanced directives, which btw WILL BE DONE IN ANY CASE but if not before grave medical conditions, DURING the treatment for such grave conditions when the emergency situation will not allow best consideration, has NOTHING to do with the government controlling final care treatments. Instead, it has everything to do with the person and their family controlling these events, with their considered opinion made before the logic-impairing emergency situation coming up, when the family may well be paralyzed with guilt if they do not have their loved ones wishes ahead of time.

pooltchr
03-27-2011, 02:32 PM
But you keep missing one huge point. If the government determines that certain treatments are not cost effective, they will not be available to anyone, regardless of what the patient's wishes are.

There were some very expensive treatments used that kept my late wife alive for an additional 6 months...6 months that a little girl got to spend with her mother. You can't put a price on that.

Steve

Soflasnapper
03-27-2011, 04:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But you keep missing one huge point. If the government determines that certain treatments are not cost effective, they will not be available to anyone, regardless of what the patient's wishes are.

There were some very expensive treatments used that kept my late wife alive for an additional 6 months...6 months that a little girl got to spend with her mother. You can't put a price on that.

Steve </div></div>

That's the case now when the insurance companies make that determination, isn't it?

And in any event, this is not the issue of advanced directives whatsoever.

Soflasnapper
03-27-2011, 04:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Across the Country, Some Systems Are Getting It Right

One of the biggest components missing in the current health debate is health. We must ensure that health is always the driving focus of any reform effort. We at the Center for Health Transformation call this "health-based health reform." To accomplish this, we must determine what is actually working today to save lives and save money and then design public policy to encourage widespread adoption. We need to make best practice the minimum practice. Two examples:

More than 20 percent of all Medicare spending occurs in the last two months of life. Gundersen Lutheran Health System in La Crosse, Wisconsin has developed a successful end-of-life, best practice that combines: 1) community-wide advance care planning, where 90 percent of patients have advance directives; 2) hospice and palliative care; and 3) coordination of services through an electronic medical record. The Gundersen approach empowers patients and families to control and direct their care. The Dartmouth Health Atlas has documented that Gundersen delivers care at a 30 percent lower rate than the national average ($18,359 versus $25,860). If Gundersen's approach was used to care for the approximately 4.5 million Medicare beneficiaries who die every year, Medicare could save more than $33 billion a year.

Another example. If the 5,500 hospitals in the country provided care at the level of Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Medicare alone would save 32 percent of total spending every year -- with better health outcomes, according to the Dartmouth Atlas of Healthcare.

I give President Obama high marks for his recent letter to Sens. Max Baucus and Edward M. Kennedy which noted that health reform must entail more than insurance coverage. He stressed the importance of finding what works and then creating incentives for its widespread adoption. What he needs to do is put specific policies behind his words.

We propose creating a private-sector led best-practice initiative that educates the industry on documented practices that work. This initiative should support the development and diffusion of knowledge for the purposes of expanding care, improving outcomes, and lowering costs -- with the explicit prohibition that government cannot use the data to ration care. Government health programs should reward organizations that adopt these best practices through higher reimbursements.

Migrating everyone to what works will truly transform the delivery of care. </div></div>

Newt Gingrich, 2009, WaPost op/ed (http://views.washingtonpost.com/healthcarerx/panelists/2009/07/right-gingrich.html)

LWW
03-27-2011, 09:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So tell us specifically how this bill is going to bring down the cost of healthcare.</div></div>

The total cost of health care will be going up, not down. </div></div>

Then you admit OBAMACARE is a lie ... as one of it's primary promises was that it would lower health care costs.

By $2,500.00 per family per year to be exact.

LWW
03-27-2011, 09:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But you keep missing one huge point. If the government determines that certain treatments are not cost effective, they will not be available to anyone, regardless of what the patient's wishes are.

There were some very expensive treatments used that kept my late wife alive for an additional 6 months...6 months that a little girl got to spend with her mother. You can't put a price on that.

Steve </div></div>

That's the case now when the insurance companies make that determination, isn't it?</div></div>

No, it isn't.

Soflasnapper
03-28-2011, 12:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So tell us specifically how this bill is going to bring down the cost of healthcare.</div></div>

The total cost of health care will be going up, not down. </div></div>

Then you admit OBAMACARE is a lie ... as one of it's primary promises was that it would lower health care costs.

By $2,500.00 per family per year to be exact. </div></div>

I'm sorry you fail to understand these issues better.

The total cost is made up of the number of people times their costs. The individual's cost, and a family's cost, can go down, and the total cost still go up. Why? Millions of extra people in the system.

Saving $500 billion from the projection of baseline increase STILL means the cost has gone up, just by less that amount. I thought Gingrich had beaten that point into the nation's head quite thoroughly during the '90s discussion, when he refused to allow the cuts he was proposing to be called cuts, when it was only a cut when considering the baseline projection, and costs (and expenditures) would still be rising.

If the projections of reduction from the baseline increases are met, guess what? They still go up from there, but with a reduced annual compounded rate from current baselines.

Soflasnapper
03-28-2011, 12:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But you keep missing one huge point. If the government determines that certain treatments are not cost effective, they will not be available to anyone, regardless of what the patient's wishes are.

There were some very expensive treatments used that kept my late wife alive for an additional 6 months...6 months that a little girl got to spend with her mother. You can't put a price on that.

Steve </div></div>

That's the case now when the insurance companies make that determination, isn't it?</div></div>

No, it isn't. </div></div>

Sure it is. My mother couldn't have her ceramic hip paid for by one Medi-Gap insurance company, and had to switch to have it covered.

Insurance companies have many such coverage exclusions. They are not going to cover organ transplant costs for someone with terminal cancer, for example. Nor should they, in my view.

LWW
03-28-2011, 03:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So tell us specifically how this bill is going to bring down the cost of healthcare.</div></div>

The total cost of health care will be going up, not down. </div></div>

Then you admit OBAMACARE is a lie ... as one of it's primary promises was that it would lower health care costs.

By $2,500.00 per family per year to be exact. </div></div>

I'm sorry you fail to understand these issues better.

The total cost is made up of the number of people times their costs. The individual's cost, and a family's cost, can go down, and the total cost still go up. Why? Millions of extra people in the system.</div></div>

Your condescension doesn't mask that it is you who lacks understanding.

If you use $13,770 as the average cost per family, then the $2,500 represents a 18.2% cost decrease. At an average household size of 2.59 this means that we could add an additional 68,488,362 in the first year without spending an extra dime. Being that the US is reproducing at a rate barely exceeding the death rate, our population growth is almost entirely from immigration.

Also, even the most ridiculous far left mangling of the facts only comes up with 45M or so "UNINSURED" even if you count illegals.

So, bottom line, I do understand the numbers while you are desperately trying to hide the fact that the regime is simply pimping their supporters with fabricated numbers which they regurgitate with glee ... but without question.

The cabal will eat up your version of "TRUTH" ... the rest of us know better.

OH MY! (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/families_households/cb10-174.html)

OH MY! (http://ehbs.kff.org/?page=charts&id=1&sn=6&p=1)

LWW
03-28-2011, 03:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm sorry you fail to understand these issues better.

The total cost is made up of the number of people times their costs. The individual's cost, and a family's cost, can go down, and the total cost still go up. Why? Millions of extra people in the system. </div></div>

Now, being that I'm still in a celebratory mood after UK's win yesterday, I'll throw you a bone.

I'm going to suspend disbelief and imagine that you mysteriously find these new 68.5 million ... and with the regime needing millions more unregistered democrook voters this might even happen as if you make Mexico unsafe enough refugees will head north ... please explain how OBAMACARE will reduce the healthcare costs of the average family of 2.59 by $2,500 per year?

Soflasnapper
03-28-2011, 12:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm sorry you fail to understand these issues better.

The total cost is made up of the number of people times their costs. The individual's cost, and a family's cost, can go down, and the total cost still go up. Why? Millions of extra people in the system. </div></div>

Now, being that I'm still in a celebratory mood after UK's win yesterday, I'll throw you a bone.

I'm going to suspend disbelief and imagine that you mysteriously find these new 68.5 million ... and with the regime needing millions more unregistered democrook voters this might even happen as if you make Mexico unsafe enough refugees will head north ... please explain how OBAMACARE will reduce the healthcare costs of the average family of 2.59 by $2,500 per year? </div></div>

Reduced from the baseline projection of increase, taking that increase down to about an 8% annualized compounded rate from something in the double digits, maybe 14%. But still going up, just not as much up, over the 10-year scoring window.

You really don't understand anything about this I guess.

Here's an example from the business world.

Assume you have a lease costing $1,000 a month, which includes an annual compounding increase of 5%, over a 10-year lease term.

The lease cost for years 2-10 would look like this:

1050.0
1102.5
1157.6
1215.5
1276.3
1340.1
1407.1
1477.5
<u>1551.3</u>

Totaling $11,577.9 in total lease payments in the last 9 years.

If you knocked that annual increase down to zero, you save a little each year (paying $1,000 instead of the increasingly larger amounts of that column), and the total savings over the last 9 years would be $2,577.90, even though you never paid any less than you did in the first year.

This is exactly the analysis of the health care cost increase decrease, although the reduction of annual increases isn't to zero, but to 8%.

LWW
03-28-2011, 12:23 PM
I'll grant you that dear leader's pitch sounded a lot like a late night UHF car dealer's pitch.*

* Plus taxes, fees, and tanning booth surcharge. Offer not valid in the lower 48 states, Alaska, or Hawaii. See regime for details. Your savings may vary.

Soflasnapper
03-28-2011, 08:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll grant you that dear leader's pitch sounded a lot like a late night UHF car dealer's pitch.*

* Plus taxes, fees, and tanning booth surcharge. Offer not valid in the lower 48 states, Alaska, or Hawaii. See regime for details. Your savings may vary. </div></div>

I've explained SO many things that you've been perplexed about ("but Soflasnapper, how can the national debt go UP if there's a surplus?"), but you never acknowledge (OR dispute) the explanation. Either would be better that this kind of a fart of an answer.

I guess the Biblical admonition about not throwing your pearls is correct.

LWW
03-29-2011, 03:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll grant you that dear leader's pitch sounded a lot like a late night UHF car dealer's pitch.*

* Plus taxes, fees, and tanning booth surcharge. Offer not valid in the lower 48 states, Alaska, or Hawaii. See regime for details. Your savings may vary. </div></div>

I've explained SO many things that you've been perplexed about ("but Soflasnapper, how can the national debt go UP if there's a surplus?"), but you never acknowledge (OR dispute) the explanation. </div></div>

That's because your "EXPLANATION" is never anything beyond party spoon fed talking points.

So lond as you are willing to practice "BLACKWHITE" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwhite#Blackwhite) you will remain willingly deceived.

Your willingness to believe that up is actually down when the regime says up is down clouds your thinking.

LWW
03-29-2011, 03:35 AM
For those unfamiliar with the term:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. ”
—Orwell, 1984

The word is an example of both Newspeak and doublethink. It represents the active process of rewriting the past, control of the past being a vital aspect of the Party's control over the present.

The ability to blindly believe anything, regardless of its absurdity, can have different causes: respect for authority, fear, indoctrination, even critical laziness or gullibility. Orwell's blackwhite refers only to that caused by fear, indoctrination, or repression of one's individual critical thinking ("to know black is white"), rather than caused by laziness or gullibility. A true Party member could automatically, and without thought, expunge any "incorrect" information and totally replace it with "true" information from the Party. </div></div>

This phenomenon is on display on this very forum by several members.