Obama Care Could Be Deadly

And every conservative in America will collectively forget that Republicans voted to KEEP the Cornhusker Kick Back, Louisiana Purchase, and all other sweetheart deals that the Democrats just cut out of the bill right about....

now.

And moments ago, Rep. Paul Ryan was on the floor of the House, bellowing against Democrats who would dare propose "across-the-board cuts to Medicare." This is breathless opportunism from Ryan -- he has proposed far deeper across-the-board cuts to Medicare, and is making arguments against the Democrats' bill that would be far more potent and accurate if aimed at his own
Click to expand...
Yesterday I saluted the Democrats members that just knowingly voted themselves out of office. Today I'm wondering what the hell the Republicans have left. They just got whupped like bitches and it seems Obama is in complete control. Nate Silver puts Republican chances at taking the Senate at 5-10%, so it looks like the Dems will still have 2 out of 3 (assuming they lose the house). What on earth those guys are going to try to do.. I have no idea. Nothing looks like a winner for them.
 
I think he was saying that you guys would become a socialist state leeching (leaching?) off of India, not that India was socialist.

Also, dollars to donuts he's trollin'.
 
Crotch it is almost literally impossible to tell a right wing troll from what passes for a normal right winger nowadays, hell Poe's Law is barely in effect and that includes right wing politicians and what passes for their intelligentsia.
 
The incredulity within the right is hilarious. David Brooks and David Gergen are being lambasted as phonies, and David Frum (guys, get another first name, willya?) writes an op-ed that might hurt to read, but is lacking the naive shortsighted "we're gonna win it all in november" optimism that's going to cause a lot of problems for the right in the fall...and is summarily lambasted for exposing the right-wing entertainment industry for what it is:

When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.
Click to expand...

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
 
Not to go off topic but,

what's up with news on the immigration reform march to Washington? There isn't much being reported. I thought this was going to be this big deal with over hundreds of thousands of people coming together. Wheres the coverage on that?
 
[quote name='D_Icon']Not to go off topic but,

what's up with news on the immigration reform march to Washington? There isn't much being reported. I thought this was going to be this big deal with over hundreds of thousands of people coming together. Wheres the coverage on that?[/QUOTE]

Good amount of coverage of it on MSNBC yesterday, talking about the strange bedfellows you found in the crowd supporting immigration reform (e.g., Urban League leaders, union leaders).

HCRA was *that* big, though. Immigration reform was covered, just by no means as much.
 
[quote name='Msut77']There is more than one right wing blog talking armed uprising.

This bill is a gift that keeps on giving.[/QUOTE]

Given the general tenor in town over the last week, as a Washingtonian I'm simply relieved no one was shot.

Completely unrelated, but one of my roommates who is a waitress in a popular DC restaurant has passed this on to me: The tea party crowd, as a rule, are abysmal tippers. I guess waitresses who make $2.50 an hour should be doing more to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Tipping = teh socialism.

Even more unrelated, but this is the same restaurant where John Edwards watched the health care proceedings while getting tanked at the bar last night, all the while explaining the minutiae of legislation to two attractive twenty-somethings. Both of whom he left with. I love this city.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Welcome to socialism. Bread line's over there, sock line's over there. We gather in the square to salute the statue First Citizen around 10:30 every day. You definitely don't wanna be late for that. And, uh... yeah, that's the essentials. You'll figure out the rest. Have fun!


Um... move to British Columbia? The west coast barely even gets a winter.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the tips, i was wondering why i was given crew socks for dinner.
 
Glad it finally passed, even if it only does a fraction of what I'd like to have seen. But still, it's a big change and does a lot of good from covering millions more people a few years down the road, to more immediate impacts like stopping denials for pre-existing conditions, stopping dropping people who become sick, extending the age kids can stay on parents insurance etc.

Now the real key is for Obama and the democrats to keep selling these positives from now to November, to lambast republicans who campaign on repeal and taking this positives away etc. Tie them to the the tea party lackeys (easy to do with reps shouting "baby killer" etc.). Get the democratic base riled up and out to the polls. Mid-term elections are base elections, turn out is poor among Joe Six Packs who don't follow politics and only vote in presidential elections.
 
*The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and puts in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions.


So does anyone see a problem here? Doing whatever it takes to not allow re admittance? Kind of like the companies that track accidents discouraging those from filing a claim cause they have a good run of accident free days.
 
You missed the key word there--reduce PREVENTABLE readmission.

I'd presume that means things like improving out patient care etc. so fewer people end up back in the hospital in cases where the illness returning/worsening could have been prevented.

EDIT: Myke beat me to it by a few minutes. Had a tab open but got a phone call before replying. :D
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Do you think you'll still be in College in 4 years? Because that's when it'll take effect.[/QUOTE]
No. Just said my College Health Insurance was pointless. I'm not even in college right now...
 
Broly's post was wrong anyway, as most college students are under 26 and the change of being able to stay on parents insurance through age 26 is one of those that takes place immediately.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Broly's post was wrong anyway, as most college students are under 26 and the change of being able to stay on parents insurance through age 26 is one of those that takes place immediately.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. I have several friends who work fulltime but are not covered by their employers and have been paying for their own health insurance, all of whom I've advised to get back on their parents' insurance as soon as this goes into effect.
 
Except that a lot of carriers allow through age of 23 or even 25 here.

Let me ask this then given no one sees it the same way i do. I mean financial incentives are going to mean that they do what it takes to look good.

So now the beds are full as they dont want to let anyone go until they are 100% sure that they will not be re admitted... therefore the people needing to get admitted are shut out due to not enough beds...

This will happen as well. I mean its like the issues of useless medications and tests so the doctors dont get hit with a malpractice claim. Lets make sure we are 1000% on this before we let them go.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Krugman's take.[/QUOTE]


Myke, thanks for the link.

And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Question for the community. How effective was the White House at curbing the special backdoor deals? Article below is just one of many referencing the subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031803914_pf.html
 
It depends what the incentives are for. If they're tied to improving outpatient care, then your concern won't be a big deal.

If it's not, then there could be problems.
 
[quote name='bvharris']Given the general tenor in town over the last week, as a Washingtonian I'm simply relieved no one was shot.

Completely unrelated, but one of my roommates who is a waitress in a popular DC restaurant has passed this on to me: The tea party crowd, as a rule, are abysmal tippers. I guess waitresses who make $2.50 an hour should be doing more to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Tipping = teh socialism.

Even more unrelated, but this is the same restaurant where John Edwards watched the health care proceedings while getting tanked at the bar last night, all the while explaining the minutiae of legislation to two attractive twenty-somethings. Both of whom he left with. I love this city.[/QUOTE]

Ha, John Edwards is such a pimp.
 
paddle, I thought Republicans managed to help keep the Nebraska stuff *in* the final bill (after all, its existence is to their political advantage).

Also, I now know why John Boehner was so pissed off last night when he gave his last speech before the vote. It was legitimate, it wasn't an act. Found within the HCRA, taking effect this year: 10 percent sales tax on indoor tanning.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Also, I now know why John Boehner was so pissed off last night when he gave his last speech before the vote. It was legitimate, it wasn't an act. Found within the HCRA, taking effect this year: 10 percent sales tax on indoor tanning.[/QUOTE]

000000boehner2.jpg
 
oh my god thats HILARIOUS!!! hahaha

@paddle
yeah BigPhRMA cut a deal with Obama early on, and to make sure he didn't renege on the deal, they publicly announced the deal. Dicks.

Oh and they negotiated away the public option. Here's hoping it comes back in exchange for the Kucinich vote.
 
[quote name='Strell']Kind of like how one year into spending a fraction of the cash we needed for stupid wars, the deficit is all Obama's fault.[/QUOTE]

The "stimulus" cost more than the Iraq war by itself. That doesn't include all the other spending. Not saying the war spending wasn't massive itself (and isn't, since it's still taking place), but what you're saying is just not correct.

EDIT: hahaha, just saw those pics of Boehner...that is some funny shit.
 
[quote name='paddlefoot']Myke, thanks for the link.

And on the other side, here’s what Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House — a man celebrated by many in his party as an intellectual leader — had to say: If Democrats pass health reform, “They will have destroyed their party much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years” by passing civil rights legislation.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[/QUOTE]

Before you get too happy about the Gingrich quote, please see the Editor's note at the bottom of the article. Furthermore, note where the quotation marks end and realize how Krugman manipulates a quotation...
 
Gingrich could have been referring to medicare and medicaid.

But why would he lambast programs that his supporters...well, support?

There's enough room to give the benefit of the doubt, but there's a few things to note:

Medicare and medicaid are still incredibly popular - quite popular with those, indeed, who were against the HCRA.

But to say the Democrat party was shattered for 40 years ignores how wonderful life was under Clinton that it wasn't under Reagan and it wasn't under 12 years of Bushes.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']Except that a lot of carriers allow through age of 23 or even 25 here.

Let me ask this then given no one sees it the same way i do. I mean financial incentives are going to mean that they do what it takes to look good.

So now the beds are full as they dont want to let anyone go until they are 100% sure that they will not be re admitted... therefore the people needing to get admitted are shut out due to not enough beds...

This will happen as well. I mean its like the issues of useless medications and tests so the doctors dont get hit with a malpractice claim. Lets make sure we are 1000% on this before we let them go.[/QUOTE]

Well, since I do quite a bit of hospital medicine, I can comment on this.

What Medicare does and will probably do more in the future is to not reimburse hospitals for inappropriate readmissions. The theory is that you take the incentive away from discharging people prematurely. Unfortunately this is sometimes quite subjective --

There are clear cut cases: E.g., a patient is admitted for congestive heart failure (CHF) and they are discharged without an appropriate diuretic dose and then they come back after gaining >10 lbs of water weight in one week. That is a mistake...

Unfortunately, the much more common reason for readmission, is that the patient goes home after a CHF admission and returns to his regular diet, not heeding fluid and salt intake restrictions. Then they come back >10 lbs heavier and severely short of breath... but since you can't "prove" that a patient actually did this, Medicare could theoretically argue that it was an inappropriate readmission especially since the patient returned so soon...

If this happens too often, I'm sure that administrators will be pissed... if anything today, we get lots of pressure put on us to discharge patient's as early as possible since it is so expensive to keep someone in house... one of the fun games we do when we're board is to check how much each patient's hospital stay has racked up in charges... yes, we've had our million dollar men (and usually they have no health insurance for good measure).
 
Open enrollment just began at my work place. HMO coverage cost up 8.5%, PPO up 21.9%. Thank god they control costs so well or it might outpace inflation.

Can't wait to see how much higher they go in 6 months during the next opening.
 
Apparently the Republicans really are going to try and run on repealing the bill.

Although actually getting the power to do so is wishful thinking.

They lost and they lost bad, they look like tools to their base so this is their gambit to keep those fools out, about and angry.

Right now they are keeping the pot on the boil by planning to torpedo the senate votes on the fixes after the parliamentarian overruled their first objection.

There might be some big fallout if they ever have to admit they got nothing.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Apparently the Republicans really are going to try and run on repealing the bill.

Although actually getting the power to do so is wishful thinking.

They lost and they lost bad, they look like tools to their base so this is their gambit to keep those fools out, about and angry.

Right now they are keeping the pot on the boil by planning to torpedo the senate votes on the fixes after the parliamentarian overruled their first objection.

There might be some big fallout if they ever have to admit they got nothing.[/QUOTE]

and im sure theyll get plenty of seats with that platform. many aspects of the healthcare bill wont be seen for years and wont be able to be measured for even more. in the meantime the gop can moan, groan and gain seats.
 
Define "plenty". Even I am not really doubting they will make gains, but enough to get a majority (and more to the point a big enough majority) to actually change things?

If so, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Of course I am replying to someone who thinks grown men acting like tetchy toddlers is a dynamite strategy...
 
[quote name='Msut77']Define "plenty". Even I am not really doubting they will make gains, but enough to get a majority (and more to the point a big enough majority) to actually change things?

If so, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Of course I am replying to someone who thinks grown men acting like tetchy toddlers is a dynamite strategy...[/QUOTE]

i dont think theyll get a majority. and i certainly wouldnt describe it as a dynamite strategy, but its one that will yield results in november.
 
Yeeeeeeaah, *but*.

Yeah, but progressivism is particularly insidious. So insidious that after awhile, it's no longer progressive, but the status quo. Social security, medicare/medicaid, civil rights, the end of slavery, women's suffrage, equal employment opportunity act - all progressive ideas (I mean progressive as in changing the direction/pace of the nation) that were opposed to by people who were ostensibly "conservative," i.e. people who wanted the status quo to remain in place.

But these ideas exist largely outside the "liberal/conservative" spectrum in the US, and with few exceptions (yes, including medicare/medicaid and social security), are no longer considered 'progressive' ideas. They're considered important foundations of our social structure. In fact, people on the right are convinced that Republicans saved us from Jim Crow laws, and Democrats were the representatives of "suth'un" states that didn't want to pass the CRA. Well, of course, that's silly for two reasons: (1) LBJ was president, and (2) those democrats *became* Republicans over time, like Zell Miller, and they rejected the progressivism inherent in the Democrat party at the time.

point being people identify as "conservative" as they age - but they also take their ingrained progressive ideas, at least socially, with them. When we age we'll be more understanding of the rights of GLBTQ populations than the current crop of old folks, for instance.
 
Can someone tell me the difference between

This so called health bill and What STATE insurance offers now ??


they already have this insurance its called STATE INSURANCE and it cost a ass load of money per month
 
[quote name='mykevermin']When we age we'll be more understanding of the rights of GLBTQ populations than the current crop of old folks, for instance.[/QUOTE]

I honestly have no idea what that stands for, and wouldn't mind knowing.
 
I've seen a number of variants - some with many more letters than LGBT, but those four are the typical foundation. I've always understood Q to be "questioning" rather than 'queer,' but can see how gender queer folks would fit in.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Yeeeeeeaah, *but*.

Yeah, but progressivism is particularly insidious. So insidious that after awhile, it's no longer progressive, but the status quo. Social security, medicare/medicaid, civil rights, the end of slavery, women's suffrage, equal employment opportunity act - all progressive ideas (I mean progressive as in changing the direction/pace of the nation) that were opposed to by people who were ostensibly "conservative," i.e. people who wanted the status quo to remain in place.

But these ideas exist largely outside the "liberal/conservative" spectrum in the US, and with few exceptions (yes, including medicare/medicaid and social security), are no longer considered 'progressive' ideas. They're considered important foundations of our social structure. In fact, people on the right are convinced that Republicans saved us from Jim Crow laws, and Democrats were the representatives of "suth'un" states that didn't want to pass the CRA. Well, of course, that's silly for two reasons: (1) LBJ was president, and (2) those democrats *became* Republicans over time, like Zell Miller, and they rejected the progressivism inherent in the Democrat party at the time.

point being people identify as "conservative" as they age - but they also take their ingrained progressive ideas, at least socially, with them. When we age we'll be more understanding of the rights of GLBTQ populations than the current crop of old folks, for instance.[/QUOTE]

There's a difference between progressive ideas that provide fairness and equal rights for all and massive entitlement programs that will invariably become insolvent.

Sure, it would be nice to give great healthcare coverage to all, but unfortunately, this is way too expensive. We cannot cover every 100 year old person who comes into the hospital clinging to life and running up $300K per hospitalization. We cannot cover every single person's self-imposed problems - and most medical problems are either 1) self imposed or 2) related to old age; a small minority of cases are related to simply bad luck.

Despite the CBO's estimates, I can guarantee you that this entitlement program will cost a lot unless they slash reimbursements greatly (they did not include the doc fix in the CBO estimates to make them look good).

I think that we are approaching the health care problem all wrong. Our health "insurance" is not an insurance program anymore! I would propose that we should have a true high deductible insurance system that is for emergencies. The rest of medical care should be provided on a fee for service basis. Instead we have this weird concept that medical care is a right... and this leads to cases like the following - illegal aliens crossing the border and visiting an ER to get care -98 y/o people with no quality of life being admitted repeatedly to the hospital at a great cost - terminally ill patient's who are being kept alive at the state's cost because they provide nice social security or pension checks for the family - Guys with alcoholic cirrhosis (even illegal aliens) getting liver transplants while paying only a small fraction of the cost, etc., etc.

With this program, we are going to go bankrupt eventually! Just watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top