| ObamaCare; All HealthReform News / Comments | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 17 2009, 12:52 PM (1,676 Views) | |
| Lodge Pro 345 | Jun 17 2009, 12:52 PM Post #1 |
|
. All ObamaCare Thread ONE THREAD Old thread for Reference: ABC Turns Programming Over to Obama http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/1810462/ . |
![]() |
|
| Lodge Pro 345 | Jun 17 2009, 03:24 PM Post #2 |
|
. Dem's Health Care Bill is 200 Pages larger than the gargantuan Stimulus Bill! Do you see a strategy here? . |
![]() |
|
| wingedwheel | Jun 17 2009, 03:33 PM Post #3 |
|
Not Pictured Above
|
Are they going to hire a speed reader to read it? |
![]() |
|
| Lodge Pro 345 | Jun 17 2009, 03:47 PM Post #4 |
|
. "Imported" from Old Thread.
. |
![]() |
|
| retiredLEO | Jun 17 2009, 05:42 PM Post #5 |
|
Joan remarked about FOX FOX needs to preempt its programming and have its own special with opposing views...immediately following. Maybe other interested parties can pay for ads on other stations advising viewers to ... "Don't surrender your brain, your benefits and your tax buck...to Obama ...watch both!" Rush Limbaugh recommended that today on his radio show. He thought all the hosts, from Glenn Beck to Greta, should have guest the oppose this "Obama Care" plan. |
![]() |
|
| Texas Mom | Jun 17 2009, 05:48 PM Post #6 |
|
Advertise on stations people will watch- USA, TNT, Fox. Advertise on the Colbert Report, the Daily Show, Family Guy. I am totally disgusted with the state-run media. I've started to see a few "cracks"- Tapper, Phil Bronstein, Mika Brezinski, etc.- but they are few and far between. Mika, on Morning Joe, has slightly started to wake up, but she won't be able to say much on the Obamacare issue- her husband works for ABC. |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jun 17 2009, 05:55 PM Post #7 |
|
Remember the book I mentioned about the history of nursery rhymes. People find ways. We must make sure we use what we have: Talk Radio and the Internet. |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Jun 17 2009, 05:58 PM Post #8 |
|
"Lobbyists representing every nook and cranny of the economy were on high alert - even if they were on their best behavior. Majority Democrats running the Finance Committee have told lobbyists that their views will be taken into account as long as their groups don't mount public campaigns against the legislation, numerous lobbyists say. So far, health industry groups have not launched aggressive attacks against Democrats' emerging plans." How's THAT for stifling dissent. Change you can beliieve in, guys. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090617/D98SLSMG0.html |
![]() |
|
| Lodge Pro 345 | Jun 17 2009, 06:01 PM Post #9 |
|
. Obama was just interviewed by Tom Brokaw/NBC - on the heels of the interview, Brokaw is appointed to a Presidential committee by Obama. There's a thread up. This is something we've never seen before in history. . |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Jun 17 2009, 07:31 PM Post #10 |
|
Let me get this straight...spend $1.6 trillion of money you do not have on health care...to cut costs? Let me get this straight...currently, according to statistics, the average premium/person/year is about $4,700 right now...but the future spending comes to over $6,000/person. I feel better! http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/stocks/commentary/gkitermi/The-Ice-is-getting-Thinner-81470.cfm about says it all |
![]() |
|
| Lodge Pro 345 | Jun 17 2009, 08:00 PM Post #11 |
|
. That mirrors his new energy plan too. He needs to take an efficiency course. |
![]() |
|
| wayne fontes | Jun 17 2009, 08:13 PM Post #12 |
|
Hey LodgePro, Read This blog post about what meaningful health care reform would entail. |
![]() |
|
| Lodge Pro 345 | Jun 17 2009, 08:17 PM Post #13 |
|
. Excellent dose of reality, Wayne! "True reform will provide equal or greater medical care at a lower cost." Doesn't the Post Office have running losses? . |
![]() |
|
| Lodge Pro 345 | Jun 17 2009, 10:55 PM Post #14 |
|
. ObamaCare shifts costs to Private Sector! Health-Care Cuts Could Shift Costs Private Sector May Face Greater Burden, Economists Say By David S. Hilzenrath Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, June 18, 2009 President Obama's plan to rein in federal spending on health care could end up shifting costs to the private sector, economists say. Unless doctors and hospitals are able to respond to the government cuts by becoming more efficient, the result could be higher costs for insurers, employers, and people with private medical coverage, they say. Historically, health-care spending has been a bit like a balloon: If it is squeezed in one place, it tends to bulge in another. "I think there's definitely risk that a portion of the reduction in hospital payments from Medicare will wind up as increased payments by private insurers," said Paul B. Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change. Depending on the circumstances, hospitals may have the motive and means to "transfer those charges to somebody else," and "we'll see costs increasing on the private side and not necessarily falling everywhere," said Harold S. Luft, director of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute. The biggest health-care proposal that Obama announced last weekend is especially likely to move costs to the private sector, because it would cut Medicare payments without giving hospitals the tools to deliver care more cost-effectively, Luft said. The administration predicts that measure -- adjusting Medicare payments to reflect productivity changes in the overall economy -- would save the government $110 billion over 10 years. Squeezing from the government's end could make health care more efficient for everybody. "If you push on one side, you're actually pushing on the whole thing," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget. But a report issued Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office portrayed that outcome as speculative. There is no guarantee that the health-care system's response to pressure would be greater quality or efficiency, according to the CBO analysis. Throwing cold water on hopes for effective health-care reform, the CBO described a variety of problems that could make it hard to slow federal spending on care -- and to do so without putting quality at risk. "At this point, experts do not know exactly how to structure such reforms so as to reduce federal spending on health care significantly in the long run without harming people's health," the CBO said. "Examples of efficient care certainly exist today. . . . Yet applying the methods of those efficient providers throughout the health-care system cannot be accomplished through fiat or good intentions," it added. The challenge is that the administration and Congress are trying to extend medical coverage to the uninsured without increasing the federal budget deficit over the next decade. As a result, they are bound by the budgetary scoring process -- meaning they must come up with solutions that can predictably and measurably reduce federal outlays. Some steps that might prove cost-effective over the long run do not necessarily mean savings for the federal budget. Conversely, some steps that save the government money would not necessarily translate into overall reductions in national health-care spending. If Medicare cuts payments to hospitals but the costs of treating patients stay the same, "then you have the potential for cost-shifting," said Kenneth E. Thorpe, a professor of health policy at Emory University. But Obama is trying to implement policies "that would lead to hospitals reducing their expenditures," he said. One of the president's signature proposals would reward hospitals for reducing readmission rates and penalize hospitals whose patients must return for another stay because they did not receive adequate treatment the first time. That proposal is unlikely to create a bulge in private medical costs, because it would lead hospitals to change the way they function, Thorpe said. The administration is counting on improved readmission rates to save the government $25 billion over 10 years. Not all hospitals would have the ability to foist additional costs onto the private sector. Those most likely to make up elsewhere for cuts in government payments are major hospitals that are essential to local health networks and therefore able to wield more market clout, Ginsburg said. The consolidation of hospitals in many communities limits private insurers' ability to push back. Cutting payments by Medicare, the federal program for the elderly, is a relatively blunt instrument of reform. "Imposing slower growth in [Medicare] payments would create ongoing pressure on providers to identify and adopt efficiencies; it would also, however, create risks for providers and patients if the efficiency gains were not achieved," the CBO said. Part of the problem is what the CBO described as the difficulty in measuring the quality of care. If quality cannot be gauged, it is hard to reward doctors and hospitals for delivering it -- and it is hard to penalize them for not doing so. Various popular ideas about how to save money have limitations and downsides, the CBO reported. Increasing access to preventive care, for example, is widely considered a powerful way to reduce spending, but "one study of health and economic effects of preventive services found that only 20 percent of the services that were assessed yielded net financial savings," it said. In some instances, the cost of delivering preventive care to a large population would actually exceed the savings on the relatively few people who avoided illness as a result, CBO said. Similarly, improving public health can reduce Medicare spending on particular problems. However, helping people live longer and healthier lives can increase the burden they put on the federal government, partly because they will spend more time collecting Medicare and Social Security benefits, the CBO reported. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061703671.html . |
![]() |
|
| retiredLEO | Jun 17 2009, 11:05 PM Post #15 |
|
We had a fairly young actress die in Canada, because the government health care there, had to do a Cost Benefit Analysis, to determine whether it was worth doing further testing and medical care for her. Is that what we are going to become, is it really worth saving your life, if not, goodbye. All the regular networks are standing behind Obama, even most of the cable networks are, with one exception, which Obama can tell you, he won't even make an appearance on their news shows. Does anyone posting here get Medicare or Medicaid, if so what is that like? How about any vets that are being treated by the VA, any comments about your health care. What does supplemental health care cost for Medicare recipients, just talked to a friend he pays $155.00 a month and a $15.00 copay. I still have my insurance from work pay nothing and a $2.00 copay. Now Obama wants to tax that benefit. I have never seen a more arrogant POTUS in my entire life. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |






3:23 AM Jul 11