WHO isn't my care provider?

The shortage of doctors and nurses in the U.S. is reaching a critical level.  Applications to U.S. medical schools fell almost 20% between 1995 and 2010. There are over 500,000 unfilled nursing positions in the U.S.  In 2010, there were 120 available positions for training in heart surgery -- sixty people applied.

Doctors caring for Medicare or Medicaid patients are now paid at levels below their cost of doing business.  They will either have to close their practices or see only privately insured patients -- that is, those not covered by the ACA or Medicare.

With ACA cutting provider reimbursements even further (to pay for more bureaucrats), doctors have become an endangered species.  The conversion of 30 million uninsured Americans to the lists of the insured, with fewer and fewer doctors, takes a critical personnel shortage approach and makes it terminal.  As Robert Moffit of Heritage Foundation succinctly testified before Congress, "[y]ou cannot get more of something by paying less for it."

Most doctors must refuse to see ACA-covered patients because they cannot afford to.  Those who agree to see these patients will soon be financially forced out of practice.  Either way, the ACA may provide insurance coverage, but it won't provide care.

President Obama's promise, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," was a cruel play on words.  You may keep your doctor, but your doctor can't keep you.

And it gets worse.

You (rightly) expect that you, in consultation with your doctor, make your own medical decisions.  Wrong!  Before the ACA, it was the insurance company that decided.  After the ACA, a government agency called IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board) will decide.

Behind closed doors, IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board) will determine what it believes are nationally cost-effective medical treatments.  What they deem "not cost-effective" will become unavailable.

In England, the IPAB is called NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) -- possibly a new standard for disingenuous labeling.  NICE has declared that kidney dialysis after age 55 and heart surgery after 65 are nationally "not cost-effective."  So, if my 69-year-old British brother Stewart develops renal or heart failure, he just...dies?!  Even though effective treatments are readily possible?!

IPAB decides your health care plan without regard to your health.  The doctor can study all the hard evidence she wants and carefully recommend what is scientifically best for you.  The health care you actually get is what IPAB decides is best for the federal budget.

John stimulated this article by asking, "Is there case law allowing insurance companies to make these [medical] decisions without actually seeing the patient?"  The answer is an emphatic no.  Case law strongly opposes anyone except your personal doctor from practicing medicine on you.

In an Arizona case, Murphy v. the Board of Medical Examiners, the Court ruled that a medical doctor working for an insurance company could not overrule a patient's personal physician.  The insurance doctor cannot substitute his or her judgment for that of the patient's chosen physician.

In Tallahassee Memorial v. Cook, the U.S. District Court held that a medical organization such as an MCO (Medical Care Organization), or presumably now an ACO (Accountable Care Organization), could not overrule the patient's personal physician as to "appropriate medical care."

Thus, case law holds that only you and your doctor decide -- not the insurance doctor, and not a medical organization.  Apparently, a political organization called the federal government can be and will become your care decider.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/m...ew_md.html

The health care nightmare gets worse for millions. Everything Obaffoon says is a lie.

Quote:President Obama's promise, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," was a cruel play on words. You may keep your doctor, but your doctor can't keep you.

Who will get the best healthcare? The one's who can pay any price. Great job Dims.

Jan. 2013, when Romney repeals the ACA by Executive order.

ObamaCare Halts Firm's Expansion

AP

Indiana-based medical equipment company says it's scrapping plans to open five new plants in 'hard-pressed' Midwestern communities because of looming device tax tied to health law.

One statistic is all you need to know:

In the U.S., roughly 90% of all men survive prostate cancer.

In the U.K., roughly 50% of all men survive prostate cancer.

There you go ... a head-to-head comparison between two medical systems.

Socialism does not work. If you don't understand that, you are an freaking moron.

NHS does a good job with bumps and bruises. It, like all single-payer/single-provider systems, does a poor job with seriously ill people.

The Bismarck universal insurance systems handle bumps and bruises as well as single-payer/single-provider systems, and seriously ill people about as well as we do. And they do it for a cost that's generally somewhere between single-payer/single-provider and us, usually closer to the single-payer/single-provider end.

OWL,

We both agree. We've said this over and over, but someone needs to make sense out of it and needs the right to get engaged. Without input from the right this gets worse and worse. The GOP was more concerned about keeping a feather out of Obama's cap then getting something constructive done on health care.

They ***** and moan but they have no ideas or solutions.

Crock of ****. Your memory about the passage of that bill is very poor.

feebee has no memory.

They ***** and moan but they have no ideas or solutions.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
EXACTLY HOW I FEEL.

(07-28-2012 11:09 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  OWL,
We both agree. We've said this over and over, but someone needs to make sense out of it and needs the right to get engaged. Without input from the right this gets worse and worse. The GOP was more concerned about keeping a feather out of Obama's cap then getting something constructive done on health care.

No, the GOP was more concerned that the bill would do more harm than good. The GOP actually offered several good suggestions which were never given serious consideration by Obama and the democrats. Health care reform would have gotten bipartisan support if there had been bipartisan input and if the bill had included bipartisan ideas.

And no the mandate and the exchanges were not republican ideas, at least not in the context of Obamacare. They were proposed as part of a totally different conceptual approach advanced by Heritage at the time of Hillarycare. But using the same words in a different context doesn't mean they mean the same thing.

And BOTH the right and the left need to get engaged. What was painfully missing at any stage in the Obamacare debate was any effort to do some fact-finding about what really are good and bad approaches to health care worldwide. That's why I can't give the democrats any props for making a serious attempt to improve health care. They just said, "We have the 37th best health care system in the world, and this is what we need to do to fix it." Ignoring the fact that the study they're relying on didn't really say we had the 37th "best" health care in the world (and there's actually room to interpret it as saying we have the best in terms of quality), does it really makes sense to say, "We have the 37th best health care system in the world, therefore we are going to solve the problem by copying number 30?"

(07-28-2012 11:14 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  They ***** and moan but they have no ideas or solutions.

Try again.

House GOP solutions

Op Ed by Bobby Jindal listing out GOP solutions

Quote:Voluntary purchasing pools: Give individuals and small businesses the opportunities that large businesses and the government have to seek lower insurance costs.

-- Portability: As people change jobs or move across state lines, they change insurance plans. By allowing consumers to "own" their policies, insurers would have incentive to make more investments in prevention and in managing chronic conditions.


-- Lawsuit reform: It makes no sense to ignore one of the biggest cost drivers in the system -- the cost of defensive medicine, largely driven by lawsuits. Worse, many doctors have stopped performing high-risk procedures for fear of liability.

-- Require coverage of preexisting conditions: Insurance should not be least accessible when it is needed most. Companies should be incentivized to focus on delivering high-quality effective care, not to avoid covering the sick.

-- Transparency and payment reform: Consumers have more information when choosing a car or restaurant than when selecting a health-care provider. Provider quality and cost should be plainly available to consumers, and payment systems should be based on outcomes, not volume. Today's system results in wide variations in treatment instead of the consistent application of best practices. We must reward efficiency and quality.

-- Electronic medical records: The current system of paper records threatens patient privacy and leads to bad outcomes and higher costs.

-- Tax-free health savings accounts: HSAs have helped reduce costs for employers and consumers. Some businesses have seen their costs decrease by double-digit percentages. But current regulations discourage individuals and small businesses from utilizing HSAs.

-- Reward healthy lifestyle choices: Providing premium rebates and other incentives to people who make healthy choices or participate in management of their chronic diseases has been shown to reduce costs and improve health.

-- Cover young adults: A large portion of the uninsured are people who cannot afford coverage after they have "aged out" of their parents' policies. Permitting young people to stay on their parents' plans longer would reduce the number of uninsured and keep healthy people in insurance risk pools -- helping to lower premiums for everyone.

-- Refundable tax credits (for the uninsured and those who would benefit from greater flexibility of coverage): Redirecting some of the billions already spent on the uninsured will help make non-emergency care outside the emergency room affordable for millions and will provide choices of coverage through the private market rather than forcing people into a government-run system. We should trust American families to make choices for themselves while we ensure they have access to quality, affordable health care.

The lie that republicans have offered no solutions is a fantastic talking point you liberals love to perpetuate, either through ignorance or malice, but it is a lie none the less.

These were put into alternate bills, presented to Obama at his "conferences" and brought up in the media. Some are bi partisan ideas (i.e. preexisting conditions) but the key difference is that the GOP solutions are market based whereas Obama and the Dems were hell bent on ensuring that it was ran by the government and paid for by huge tax increases. Because control is what they wanted. Not reform.

Liberal honesty is a contradiction in terms. Republicans need to get on message and show the lies in their ownd liberal words.

Even during the election, McCain had a plan. As I recall, it was basically 7500 to buy a policy of your choice or to augment/subsidize your purchase

(07-28-2012 12:05 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(07-28-2012 11:14 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  They ***** and moan but they have no ideas or solutions.

Try again.

House GOP solutions

Op Ed by Bobby Jindal listing out GOP solutions

Quote:Voluntary purchasing pools: Give individuals and small businesses the opportunities that large businesses and the government have to seek lower insurance costs.

-- Portability: As people change jobs or move across state lines, they change insurance plans. By allowing consumers to "own" their policies, insurers would have incentive to make more investments in prevention and in managing chronic conditions.


-- Lawsuit reform: It makes no sense to ignore one of the biggest cost drivers in the system -- the cost of defensive medicine, largely driven by lawsuits. Worse, many doctors have stopped performing high-risk procedures for fear of liability.

-- Require coverage of preexisting conditions: Insurance should not be least accessible when it is needed most. Companies should be incentivized to focus on delivering high-quality effective care, not to avoid covering the sick.

-- Transparency and payment reform: Consumers have more information when choosing a car or restaurant than when selecting a health-care provider. Provider quality and cost should be plainly available to consumers, and payment systems should be based on outcomes, not volume. Today's system results in wide variations in treatment instead of the consistent application of best practices. We must reward efficiency and quality.

-- Electronic medical records: The current system of paper records threatens patient privacy and leads to bad outcomes and higher costs.

-- Tax-free health savings accounts: HSAs have helped reduce costs for employers and consumers. Some businesses have seen their costs decrease by double-digit percentages. But current regulations discourage individuals and small businesses from utilizing HSAs.

-- Reward healthy lifestyle choices: Providing premium rebates and other incentives to people who make healthy choices or participate in management of their chronic diseases has been shown to reduce costs and improve health.

-- Cover young adults: A large portion of the uninsured are people who cannot afford coverage after they have "aged out" of their parents' policies. Permitting young people to stay on their parents' plans longer would reduce the number of uninsured and keep healthy people in insurance risk pools -- helping to lower premiums for everyone.

-- Refundable tax credits (for the uninsured and those who would benefit from greater flexibility of coverage): Redirecting some of the billions already spent on the uninsured will help make non-emergency care outside the emergency room affordable for millions and will provide choices of coverage through the private market rather than forcing people into a government-run system. We should trust American families to make choices for themselves while we ensure they have access to quality, affordable health care.

The lie that republicans have offered no solutions is a fantastic talking point you liberals love to perpetuate, either through ignorance or malice, but it is a lie none the less.

These were put into alternate bills, presented to Obama at his "conferences" and brought up in the media. Some are bi partisan ideas (i.e. preexisting conditions) but the key difference is that the GOP solutions are market based whereas Obama and the Dems were hell bent on ensuring that it was ran by the government and paid for by huge tax increases. Because control is what they wanted. Not reform.

More of the same BS. Propose things that you know have 0% of passing. Thanks for the help.

(07-28-2012 02:49 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  More of the same BS. Propose things that you know have 0% of passing. Thanks for the help.

Please expound on what the problems are with the proposed solutions and why they could never pass. I would be very interested to hear your expertise on the subject.

(07-28-2012 02:54 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(07-28-2012 02:49 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  More of the same BS. Propose things that you know have 0% of passing. Thanks for the help.

Please expound on what the problems are with the proposed solutions and why they could never pass. I would be very interested to hear your expertise on the subject.

They could never pass because the democrats would vote against them en masse because they didn't come from the socialist/communist playbook.

(07-28-2012 03:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2012 02:54 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(07-28-2012 02:49 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  More of the same BS. Propose things that you know have 0% of passing. Thanks for the help.

Please expound on what the problems are with the proposed solutions and why they could never pass. I would be very interested to hear your expertise on the subject.

They could never pass because the democrats would vote against them en masse because they didn't come from the socialist/communist playbook.

That's the real reason. I was interested in firm's fantasy reasons.

(07-28-2012 02:54 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(07-28-2012 02:49 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  More of the same BS. Propose things that you know have 0% of passing. Thanks for the help.

Please expound on what the problems are with the proposed solutions and why they could never pass. I would be very interested to hear your expertise on the subject.

What are you trying to do? Do you want to expand access to healthcare? The problems that I see are an aging population that will need more healthcare, and an inefficient system that doesn't engage the population in preventative healthcare which saves money long-term. That House GOP "solution" is DOA. It has no chance at passing and the people who propose it know that.

(07-28-2012 03:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-28-2012 02:54 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(07-28-2012 02:49 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  More of the same BS. Propose things that you know have 0% of passing. Thanks for the help.

Please expound on what the problems are with the proposed solutions and why they could never pass. I would be very interested to hear your expertise on the subject.

They could never pass because the democrats would vote against them en masse because they didn't come from the socialist/communist playbook.

What's your point? A single-payer system would never pass because the republicans do the bidding of big business and not the American people.

(07-28-2012 03:19 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  What are you trying to do? Do you want to expand access to healthcare? The problems that I see are an aging population that will need more healthcare, and an inefficient system that doesn't engage the population in preventative healthcare which saves money long-term. That House GOP "solution" is DOA. It has no chance at passing and the people who propose it know that.

That's nice. But you didn't answer the question.

Please expound specifically on why the solutions as outlined above will not meet the problems you articulate above. I'm not interested in the fact that it won't pass because you liberals refuse anything that isn't run by the government. I want you to tell me why they are bad ideas and won't solve the problem.

Remember you claimed they had no ideas. I've proven that wrong. I'd like you now to tell me why those ideas you said don't exist won't fix the problem.