• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

How about,

"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
Here is the 2nd thing which popped up on Google for me. The 1st thing is a Tufts study which requires a big investment in time to understand, but I think says the same thing.




None of that is responsive to the specific point I made about the Oregon study, which is that emergency room use did not go down when insurance coverage was expanded. Paradoxically it went up. Actually, I don't think it's so paradoxical.

That being said, I don't think unnecessary ER usage contributes materially to the financial cost of health care. I do think it contributes materially to the unpleasantness of the ER experience for patients, however.
Click to expand...

Here's yet another data point on that. Hospitals (those in expanded Medicaid states) are reporting fewer uninsureds coming in.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/medicaid-expansion-states-hospitals-fewer-uninsured

I'm not how it's possible that ER visits are unaffected by more people have normal insurance instead of the previous and inefficient model of waiting until the situation is dire. The reason the Oregon study wasn't "perfectly set up" was because they used a very small sample size. In the link I posted, there are multiple objections to using that study to make such bold assertions, the most important one is that the study itself was inconclusive. New studies are coming in and all of them point to the opposite conclusion.
 
More good news here:

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...ort-big-drop-uninsured-admissions-blue-states

The Hospital Corporation of America...saw a 22.3 percent growth in Medicaid admissions, compared to a 1.3 percent decline in non-expansion states. The company also had a 29 percent decline in uninsured admissions in the expansion states, while non-expansion states experienced 5.9 percent growth in uninsured admissions, chief financial officer William Rutherford said.

Community Health Systems, with facilities in 29 states, also noticed an expansion gap. In expansion states it serves, CHS said it saw self-pay [i.e., uninsured] admissions drop 28 percent while Medicaid admissions increased by 4 percent. Self-pay emergency room visits decreased 16 percent in expansion states, but they increased in non-expansion states, the company said in its earnings call last week.

Tenet Healthcare reported last week that it had a 17 percent increase in Medicaid inpatient visits while uninsured visits decreased 33 percent in the four expansion states where it operates. In non-expansion states, Medicaid admissions dropped 1 percent as uninsured care rose 2 percent.
Click to expand...
 
Well, I wanted to check in and let those interested know, I'll know nothing more today ether. I asked the wife for the phone numbers to the doctors and the insurance company, and explained why. (None of this was a mystery to her, she's the one who told me in the first place.) She said it was the insurance company that didn't pay the doctor, and she didn't want, "Mr. Cranky" calling them up and causing a bigger problem, and that she'd get to the bottom of it when she had time. Now, I understand today wasn't a good day, she had to go in for lab work this morning, and go to work this afternoon. Plus help me deliver a customer car in the middle of it all. So, I'll let her slide today. Sorry. I want answers too...
 
sunmaster14 said:
It depends on how important the lie was. How egregious it was, how widely it was believed, and the impact on the political landscape.

Since Obamacare passed by a whisker (in fact, it probably wasn't even passed legally, let alone legitimately), and the lies told to facilitate its passage were both material and widely believed (thanks to misplaced trust in the President and his allies in the media), the impact was probably decisive.

I would be interested to see some examples of Obamacare lies told by Republicans, however (you have some good ones, right?). If those lies were important, there should be political blowback for those who disseminated them.
Click to expand...

So we're going to play this game in which you pretend to have no idea what lies I'm talking about?

Okay then.

This should get you started:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel

I'm sure your unfettered outrage is forthcoming.

And by the way, this:
in fact, it probably wasn't even passed legally, let alone legitimately
Click to expand...
...was adorable.
 
Mike! said:
Well, I wanted to check in and let those interested know, I'll know nothing more today ether. I asked the wife for the phone numbers to the doctors and the insurance company, and explained why. (None of this was a mystery to her, she's the one who told me in the first place.) She said it was the insurance company that didn't pay the doctor, and she didn't want, "Mr. Cranky" calling them up and causing a bigger problem, and that she'd get to the bottom of it when she had time. Now, I understand today wasn't a good day, she had to go in for lab work this morning, and go to work this afternoon. Plus help me deliver a customer car in the middle of it all. So, I'll let her slide today. Sorry. I want answers too...
Click to expand...

You know what - if I was a patient (or parent of a patient) and found I had to shift my doctor because of a change in the conditions of my, I would feel fairly justified in being a bit cranky. They are the ones causing the problem, not you.
 
Unabogie said:
Here's yet another data point on that. Hospitals (those in expanded Medicaid states) are reporting fewer uninsureds coming in.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/medicaid-expansion-states-hospitals-fewer-uninsured
Click to expand...

This is meaningless. Of course if the number of uninsured goes down, the number of hospital visits by the uninsured goes down too. In fact, the holdouts (those who have chosen to not get insurance) are less likely to need health care currently, so the % decline in uninsured hospital visits should have dropped by way more than the % of uninsured people.

I'm not how it's possible that ER visits are unaffected by more people have normal insurance instead of the previous and inefficient model of waiting until the situation is dire. The reason the Oregon study wasn't "perfectly set up" was because they used a very small sample size. In the link I posted, there are multiple objections to using that study to make such bold assertions, the most important one is that the study itself was inconclusive. New studies are coming in and all of them point to the opposite conclusion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the objections don't apply to the ER stuff. The objection was to the small sample size of people in poor health (the vast majority of those in the sample were healthy of course, since they were by definition too young for Medicare, and a disproportionate number were probably children), so it was difficult to draw statistically meaningful conclusions about the effect of Medicaid on general health. Well, at least the paper's critics thought so.

I think ER visits didn't go down as expected for two reasons. First, lower-income people without insurance were already used to going to the ER for treatment. And with insurance, it just made it easier. Second, lower-income people probably have a harder time getting away from work to go to a doctor's office during normal hours.
 
johnny karate said:
So we're going to play this game in which you pretend to have no idea what lies I'm talking about?

Okay then.

This should get you started:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel

I'm sure your unfettered outrage is forthcoming.
Click to expand...
He allowed for that by qualifying what lies he will choose to care about.
It depends on how important the lie was. How egregious it was, how widely it was believed, and the impact on the political landscape.
Click to expand...

As you probably noticed from other threads, you will need to work within his definition of terms. Hilarity will ensue when you hear his definition of bolded words.

My prediction - no Republican lies will approach the Democratic lies.
 
johnny karate said:
So we're going to play this game in which you pretend to have no idea what lies I'm talking about?
Click to expand...

I'm not pretending. I know there must be many claims about Obamacare which you would think of as lies, but which I do not. I just wanted to get the ball rolling ...

Okay then.

This should get you started:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel
Click to expand...

Now we're talking. I don't consider this a lie. While it is true there is no language, in either the statute or the current regulations (most of which has yet to be written), which would call for health care rationing based on age and things such as quality of life remaining, the fact is the statute creates and authorizes a committee of unelected bureaucrats (the IPAB) which has the flexibility to make such rationing decisions within the Medicare program. Furthermore, the decisions of the IPAB can only be overridden by Congress with a supermajority vote.

Now, personally, I only have one issue with the IPAB, which is that it should be more answerable to Congress. The supermajority vote thing is ridiculous, and frankly I don't see how one Congress (the one which passed Obamacare) can bind the hands of a future Congress when it comes to spending decisions. I'm not a lawyer, but I expect this to be litigated all the way up to SCOTUS once the issue becomes ripe.

That being said, the people who dislike the IPAB provision are not lying when they call it a death panel. It is fair, albeit, hyperbolic political commentary.

I'm sure your unfettered outrage is forthcoming.

And by the way, this:

...was adorable.
Click to expand...

So adorable that you don't want to ask me about it?
 
DavidJames said:
He allowed for that by qualifying what lies he will choose to care about.

As you probably noticed from other threads, you will need to work within his definition of terms. Hilarity will ensue when you hear his definition of bolded words.

My prediction - no Republican lies will approach the Democratic lies.
Click to expand...

I'll stipulate that Republicans lie all the time too. But the fact is, the Democrats got Obamacare passed, and it is here to stay (although I suppose some particularly unpleasant parts can be delayed until the end of Hillary's 2nd term in 2024, or maybe Chelsea's in 2032 :jaw-dropp). I have no delusions about that. The Democrats' lies counted for more.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Now we're talking. I don't consider this a lie.
Click to expand...

If your really mean this and you're not just playing sophist, your perception of reality is beyond help.

ETA: For the other posters, here's Palin's original comment for which she was rightly called a liar.

[G]overnment health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.[24]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
If your really mean this and you're not just playing sophist, your perception of reality is beyond help.

ETA: For the other posters, here's Palin's original comment for which she was rightly called a liar.
Click to expand...

But the ACA creates a committee! Sure, this committee isn't technically a death panel, nor does it require people to stand before it nor does it judge their productivity nor does it deny health care to people.

Sure, the IPAB can only make changes to Medicare, and only if they don't decrease quality or coverage, and Congress can overrule any of their decisions.

But a committee and a panel are basically the same thing, so Palin's claim is basically true.
 
Unabogie said:
If your really mean this and you're not just playing sophist, your perception of reality is beyond help.

ETA: For the other posters, here's Palin's original comment for which she was rightly called a liar.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the general usage of the phrase "death panel," not to Palin's quote specifically. But, hey, if it makes you feel any better, I'm willing to call her comment a lie in spirit (technically, she doesn't actually state a claim) and hope she suffers a terrible political backlash. May she retire to Wasilla and never play a role in politics again. That would actually be a terrible thing for Democrats by the way. ;)
 
sunmaster14 said:
I was referring to the general usage of the phrase "death panel," not to Palin's quote specifically. But, hey, if it makes you feel any better, I'm willing to call her comment a lie in spirit (technically, she doesn't actually state a claim) and hope she suffers a terrible political backlash. May she retire to Wasilla and never play a role in politics again. That would actually be a terrible thing for Democrats by the way. ;)
Click to expand...

Palin may have popularized the phrase, but the vicious lie behind it didn't originate with her, nor was this vicious lie only spread by her.

Many prominent Republicans happily accused the president of wanting to kill old people, including the current Speaker of the House:
Boehner/McCotter statement, July 23: Section 1233 of the House-drafted legislation encourages health care providers to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on “the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration” and other end of life treatments, and may place seniors in situations where they feel pressured to sign end of life directives they would not otherwise sign. This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law.
Click to expand...
 
Unabogie said:
The problem with most of these anecdotes is that they attempt to lay blame on Obamacare without actually demonstrating how these things are the fault of Obamacare. It's not enough to simply lay every bad outcome at Obama's feet. We've had dozens on pages of argument in this thread about the number of people who had their plans canceled and then had to pay more for a new plan instead of less. The best estimates I've seen say this only affects ~1% of the population, which is people who had private health insurance, don't get it through work, carried a low quality, high deductible plan, but make too much money to qualify for Medicaid or subsidies. While on the other side,the best estimates are that the ranks of the uninsured have dropped dramatically.
Click to expand...

The crux problem to me is just that the health care access is being enhanced through a reliance on cost shifting :\ rather than strictly eliminating inefficacy in healthcare expenses/pricing. It would certainly help to focus on those things as opposed to "death panels" where the committee in "control" has little dictation over the policies. The amount to which law got politicized is so insane... that opportunities to better the law as is are going pretty unnoticed. And... good and bad gets lost in the noise
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
The problem with most of these anecdotes is that they attempt to lay blame on Obamacare without actually demonstrating how these things are the fault of Obamacare.
Click to expand...

It's because health insurance companies were fair and honest before the ACA...........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom