Obama Care Could Be Deadly

It kills me how politicians in general act like once something has passed, it's buried forever, as if no one can go back and call them on their bullshit.
 
In a newly released report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates that, in fiscal year 2010, $48 billion in taxpayer money was squandered on fraudulent or improper Medicare claims. Meanwhile, the nation's ten largest health insurance companies made combined profits of $12.7 billion in 2010 (according to Fortune 500). In other words, for every $1 made by the nation's ten largest insurers, Medicare lost nearly $4...
Click to expand...

Mind you, that's just money that Medicare wasted on "fraudulent or improper" claims.

1,040.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Mind you, that's just money that Medicare wasted on "fraudulent or improper" claims.

1,040.[/QUOTE]

I am sorry, can you explain your point to me. I honestly do not know what your trying to get across. I mean honestly we were already up to 47 billion in 2009, before the health care bill passed. Considering the nice estimates of the same problem present in the private sector is holding at 10 percent, that's what like 200 Billion plus that they lost? Did you form your opinion in context of the overall health care situation, or did you just push something to confirm your own bias.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='cindersphere']Considering the nice estimates of the same problem present in the private sector is holding at 10 percent, that's what like 200 Billion plus that they lost?[/QUOTE]

Everyone, raise your hands if you care how much money the private sector lost.

[quote name='IRHari']That thing Bob quoted was from The Weekly Standard, in case anyone was curious.[/QUOTE]

Would you feel better if I found a different source for counting? I mean, I know you think anyone with a conservative slant is a complete moron, but I like to think they can at least count. 1,040 *is* a big number though....
 
bob, you really have absolutely no integrity or honesty, do you? You know exactly what Hari was getting at, but you try to flip it around like "ha you liebrals think we conservatives are all morans, ha ha".
 
Oops. I admit that I was wrong.

Yes, the part I originally quoted originally came from the Weekly Standard (which is not where I got it from). I thought IHari was commenting on the source of the 1,040 number. I admit I was wrong.

However, I would like to point out the Weekly Standard quote includes sources from the GAO and CNN - are these two sources unreliable?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Would you feel better if I found a different source for counting? I mean, I know you think anyone with a conservative slant is a complete moron, but I like to think they can at least count. 1,040 *is* a big number though....[/QUOTE]

Is 2 a big number?
 
My comment was an attempt to address SpazX's comment...

[quote name='SpazX'] Those don't really look like two numbers that should be compared for any informative reason.[/QUOTE]

...about what source would compare those two numbers.

Stay classy Bob. You know I wasn't questioning the veracity of the numbers.
 
[quote name='IRHari']My comment was an attempt to address SpazX's comment...[/QUOTE]

Ah. I see. It makes complete sense why you'd directly quote my post (and not SpazX's) in an attempt to reply to SpazX. I know on internet forums, I typically quote the person I'm replying to - perhaps I've been doing it wrong all this time?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Ah. I see. It makes complete sense why you'd directly quote my post (and not SpazX's) in an attempt to reply to SpazX. I know on internet forums, I typically quote the person I'm replying to - perhaps I've been doing it wrong all this time?[/QUOTE]I never quoted your post (#4119) in any way whatsoever. Since the thing you quoted was not sourced, all I did was point out that the source was TWS. Once again, fail.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I never quoted your post (#4119) in any way whatsoever. Since the thing you quoted was not sourced, all I did was point out that the source was TWS. Once again, fail.[/QUOTE]

Damn me again. You're 100% correct and I apologize for my sarcastic remark. I could have sworn you quoted me, but I see now you did not. I admit I was wrong and offer my humblest apologies.
 
Wow, you talk about ideological horseshoes then post an Op-Ed by Mitt Romney? Of all people? That man doesn't believe in anything, except 'i'll say or do anything i have to to become President.'
 
i wonder what you all think about this case which illustrates how opaque and arbitrary health care costs are.

Aetna is suing doctors for overcharging for services. On one hand, billing almost $60,000 for an ultrasound is outrageous. However, I also feel a physician getting reimbursed only $74 for the same test is equally outrageous. And it seems pot calling the kettle black for insurance companies to complain about doctors overcharging when they and other health insurers themselves settled lawsuits for underpayments to doctors. Also if insurance companies can use their size to leverage discounted rates to doctors, why shouldn't doctors that are out-of-network not be able to leverage for better rates?

While I think the doctors are in the wrong here, I have to admit part of me is pulling for them. And it's not as if Aetna is hurting (net income up 38% in 2010).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've never met a doctor who liked insurance companies. They probably have varying reasons, but they certainly don't make their jobs any easier. Add in the fact that insurance companies have doctors on the payroll who's job it is to second guess your own doctor, I can see why they would get pissed sometimes. In the past when I had insurance I had to get my doctor to fill out forms just so I could get the exact medication I needed, rather than what the insurance company said would work just as well. Imagine how insulting it must be to have some corporation try and overrule you in regards to what you think is best for your patient.
 
I've never met a human being who likes health insurance companies. That they continue to exist is proof positive that Obama is a moderate corporate capitulator. Aside from single payer being the most sensible policy for reform, there would be the sheer joy of seeing health insurance companies cease to exist as well.
 
I really like dealing with private insurance companies when it comes to health care. When half of the hospital's administrative staff is devoted to chasing down claims from insurance companies, that's not inefficient, that's pure awesome.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Wow, you talk about ideological horseshoes then post an Op-Ed by Mitt Romney? Of all people? That man doesn't believe in anything, except 'i'll say or do anything i have to to become President.'[/QUOTE]

Well then if patterns and statistics of the past 20 years have anything to do with anything, that makes him frontrunner to be our next president for sure.

As long as the Marketing is done well and the package is flashy enough, the American people love nothing more than to embrace or consume shit products.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I've never met a human being who likes health insurance companies. That they continue to exist is proof positive that Obama is a moderate corporate capitulator. Aside from single payer being the most sensible policy for reform, there would be the sheer joy of seeing health insurance companies cease to exist as well.[/QUOTE]
I really fail to see how they benefit anyone but themselves. Patients hate delaing with them, doctors hate dealing with them, who doesn't? Even those working for the insurance companies hate dealing with insurance when they have some medical problem. And I'm not even saying that government run health care would be perfect, but at least I could feel secure knowing that I'm covered if I have to have something done.
 
I'm getting really sick of hearing about "medicare reform", it isn't reform if you're killing it. Reforming it implies it will be around but changed, not dead on the floor being beaten with a bat.
 
That article is correct. The Republican approach to healthcare reform is not only wrong, their entire line of thinking is demented. I am not a fan of what we got with the Democrats' plan, but at least they are trying to get people covered.
 
[quote name='dopa345']I was also planning to post that editorial, dmaul1114. It's rare that I say this, but I agree with Krugman 100%.[/QUOTE]

I find it interesting that you agree with Krugman's sentiment. Since you've long been a critic of ACA, yet agree that applying market philosophies to medical care is wrong, what are a few of the key aspects of reform you'd like to see?
 
The problem with the conservative mind is that everything is looked at from a business perspective, you'd think they were all MBAs or something. You can't (or rather shouldn't) apply business models to everything. These are probably the same people who demand a refund from their doctor when a medication doesn't work.
 
The only thing I've ever agreed with the current health care reform plan are the so called "death panels." Somehow, we have to draw the line when care is futile or not cost effective, at least from the perspective of society paying for it (if you're independently wealthy and want to pay for it out of pocket, go ahead). If we have a health care advisory panel that does this based on agreed medical guidelines, this would go a very long way in cutting health costs and take the pressure off hospitals that often end up expending a huge amount of resources on care that does nothing to improve outcomes, largely for fear of medicolegal exposure or bad publicity. I resent the intrusion of third parties in the clinical care of patients but the fact remains, it's already entrenched in the system (the insurance company, not me, decides what tests I can order or what medications I can prescribed). Since I, as the treating doctor, have already lost my automony to care for my patients and I deem best, I might as well let the government take over the thankless task of telling patients when we should pull the plug.
 
As a health care professional, I would like to say that ObamaCare WILL be deadly. However, having things the way they are is not any good either. We need a reform, preferably one that the government does not interfere in so that prices remain reasonable and not sky high as they presently are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top