What will you do when it passes?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I don't follow your reasoning, I'm sorry. Rationing? It talked about rationing in the bill? Rationing what? You read about longer waits in the bill? This is news to me.

That is because everyone ignores the other part of the equation. The Doctor.

Medicare does not pay his expenses let alone a decent salary. The only reason medicare works is because doctors only take a percentage of medicare patients and bill other patients more to make up for the loss. DOCTOR are NOT happy. One figured her pay at $7/hr. Some have already opted out of the system like my doctor. Cash only, no check no insurance, but he costs a lot less. One doctor even dropped his Malpractice insurance, transfered all his assets to family members and lets his patients know that up front.

see the article When Doctors go Galt

I accepted Medicaid for about 2 months of my practice. Even thought the reimbursement was substantially lower than my stingiest insurance, I figured it would allow me to treat kids that needed it and at least cover my staff costs. How wrong I was. They denied procedures all the time, delayed billing ( I didn’t get paid for up to 8 months post-op) and were a pain in the ass generally. The support was rude and clueless. Now insurance companies suck too, but Medicaid was like dealing with Nazi nurse Wratched. So I dropped out and now just see poor kids for free. No way in the world I will ever deal with a Government controlled care system again. Ever.

If we want to create shortages of medical services here in the US, single-payer care is the way to go. The red tape of Medicare and Medicaid is already creating such shortages among those patients the system is designed to help.

Hells Bells Captain, that’s pretty much the whole (unstated) point of nationalized health care in the first place. Why are you surprised? The point is to ration health care. One way of doing that is to explicitly refuse to pay for various tests and treatments. But, another is to just make it plain hard for patients to get in to see a doctor. That’s something that the HMOs have done for many years by refusing to allow certain competent physicians on their panels even though those physicians would have been happy to accept the level of reimbursement the HMO was offering. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Americans are not going to tolerate the kind of system they have in Canada or the UK. Too bad most of them won’t have a choice. I don’t think the Democratic Party has any idea how much damage nationalizing health care is going to do to them. The GOP better have the balls to step aside and make this a Democratic issue.

I saw exactly one MA pt early in my career and said, “Enough”. So for a long time I have done school physicals for free. I also see recent vets free, too, but only through personal contact or direct consult with another Doc. This is usually when a long term treatment plan is the only way to “get back to normal”-whatever that is. Single visits and shorter plans are cash, baby. I do see families at a reduced fee as well, and yes I know this could spell trouble as one is not supposed to have separate fee schedules. But, here is where the revenue hungry missing links can kiss my ass. If they can dictate fee schedules, along with every other entity out there, so can I. Like I said, don’t get me started.

Here is what happens to hospitals when "government paid"

I am the head of a Nuclear Medicine department here in East Texas. We recently stopped doing Octreotide studies, a cancer and infection-seeking test we had offered for more than 19 years because our cost for the procedure was about $1500.00 and our reimbursements were south of $700.00. Even with the hospital donating all services, we were losing money on the Indium 111 radioactive dose. After losing tens of thousands of dollars in 2008 on this procedure, I was informed that we no longer offered this service. Now my patients are referred to a facility 60 miles away, a difficult and uncomfortable drive if you are sick and miserable. I don’t blame my hospital; we are laying off and cutting costs just to stay viable in our network. We know who is to blame; Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement.

It’s not just that doctors stop seeing Medicare patients. Sometimes, hospitals stop doing procedures which Medicare will not reimburse them for. I remember when the hospital I worked for stopped doing cataract surgery because we had so many Medicare patients, and the reimbursement didn’t begin to cover the expense. So we stopped doing them. I believe we are doing them again now, but it’s because we now have a smaller percentage of Medicare patients.

Unfortunately you can not tell the leftists that the Doctors and hospitals have overhead expenses AND expect to be paid. the 2.5 to 6% increase in taxes estimated in the bill is a laugh. It will cost more like 15% to 25%. That will raise our real tax rate to close to 90%

An Aussie said there are 56 taxes on a loaf of bread in his country. In the USA:

The government imposes 30 different taxes on bread . They are federal income taxes, state income taxes, state and local property taxes, federal payroll taxes, sales taxes, capital gains taxes, unemployment compensation taxes, workmen’s compensation taxes, retailers’ excise taxes, business license taxes and fees, utility taxes, and state wheat farmer checkoff taxes......sSource

If citizens ever had to actually hand over the cash to the government there would definitely be a revolution. That is why they hide them as business taxes.

reply to post by inthesticks
Let me share my experience: I am on total disability from a head injury. I signed up for Kaiser Permanente as a provider. There is some real lame brain stuff going on in the medical field now. When there is something wrong with you, they prescribe an expensive patented drug, that has many unwanted side effects, like, oh, say sudden death. Not all the time, but any is more than I want. So Kaiser was into this greedy mindset, and I wanted a treatment that was more holistic. They refused.
So I tried for years to get out from under their thumb. FINALLY, some lame brain in Social Security screwed up and dropped me from Disability. Meanwhile, I was automatically withdrawn from Kaiser. When they finally rectified their stupid mistake and put me back on Disability, I was free from Kaiser. So I went to a different doctor. She wasn't able to do much different, but at least she tried to work with me. And now I am finally figureing it out, no thanks to Kaiser. But with her help.
The point is, I tried to get a different provider, but the government would not 'allow' me to. Medical incompetence is not an excuse.
California recently reneged on the health coverage we all had been forced to pay into, for optical and dental. Noone is going to sue the government and win. So I am looking for a low cost dental insurance. I think I will get an insurance that I can only use in Tijuana. I go to the border, they pick me up there. 1/3 the cost, and I know they are competent. Maybe optical, too.

Originally posted by mikerussellus

A narrow win for Obama brought with it a "land slide" of government change.

Depends on what you mean by narrow
Obama won the presidency with 52.9% of the popular vote to McCain's 45.7%, and 365 electoral votes to 173
365 to 173 isn't even close.

So, ATS-folk, what are you going to do when this passes?

Take the red pill? The blue one? Or stand in line and wait for what ever it is they want to give you?

Well we have 2 choices:
1. Make sure we get the health care reform we have the RIGHT to OR
2. Ignore our neighbors, family, etc.. pain and suffering and say, "every man for themselves" as it has been to this point.

The health care system is broken and needs to be fixed. The system itself REFUSES to do the repairs which means the government must do it.

Originally posted by centurion1211
So what you are saying is that outrage against what the previous administration was doing was OK, but not against what the current administration is doing?
kinda kurious? No, kinda hypocritical ...

Excuse me? Hypocritical? I don't think do.

The Democratic party is trying to SAVE American lives by offering Healthcare to it's citizenry.

The Republican party COST thousands of American lives with an unnecessary war and ruined thousands more.

Do you see any difference? BTW, Kindly stifle the character attacks.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by kinda kurious
The Republican party COST thousands of American lives with an unnecessary war and ruined thousands more.

The Democrats had their hands in approving the wars too, so they too are responsible for the lives that have been lost. You can't put that solely on the Republicans.

reply to post by dooper


Nice "story" but................
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4ea38d1ac1c1.jpg[/atsimg]

Got any? Or should we just take your objective, unbiased word on it?

A preliminary search turns up no data to substantiate your claim.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by kinda kurious
The Republican party COST thousands of American lives with an unnecessary war and ruined thousands more.

The Democrats had their hands in approving the wars too, so they too are responsible for the lives that have been lost. You can't put that solely on the Republicans.

FACT CHECK: (Apologies,I have already posted elsewhere).

For starters, as an acknowlegement of the Brave few who saw through this ruse and voted AGAINST the rush to war:

UNITED STATES SENATE
In the Senate, 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Representatives in voting NAY, on October 11, 2002, to the unprovoked use of force against Iraq.

126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.

Source

Here are the actual tallies by party.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/355328bbd546.jpg[/atsimg]

Source

Do you see my point? You like FACTS right?

Oh and uh, Who "declared" the war?

You were saying?



[edit on 13-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

reply to post by kinda kurious


You know what the odd thing about the tallies you linked is?

Democrats still voted AYE.

Edit: IS. Not are.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by Credge]

reply to post by kinda kurious


Did you not see all the democrats that voted yes? Had they all voted against it, you'd have a point, but they didn't. The ones who voted yes are just as responsible as the republicans who did. You can't hold one party accountable and excuse the other just because you prefer one party more. That would be hypocritical.

Originally posted by Credge
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

You know what the odd thing about the tallies you linked is?
Democrats still voted AYE.

And @ Jenna.

Sad but true, However, I am pointing out the OVERWHELMING majority of the Republican vote. 98% and 97%.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8516f21ec683.jpg[/atsimg]

Source

Nice try, but thems the facts.

Besides, Guess who "declared" the war? Anybody?




[edit on 13-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by kinda kurious
And @ Jenna.

Sad but true, However, I am pointing out the OVERWHELMING majority of the Republican vote. 98% and 97%.

. . .

Nice try, but thems the facts.

Besides, Guess who "declared" the war? Anybody?

Like I said, ignoring the facts that don't support your point even though you're posting them yourself is hypocritical.

Originally posted by Jenna
Like I said, ignoring the facts that don't support your point even though you're posting them yourself is hypocritical.

I'll gladly accept being labeled a hypocrite, if you'll agree that it was the Republican controlled Whitehouse, Congress and Senate that cast us into an unnecessary war based on lies and deception. Fair enough?

We both know the vote was a "formality." Bush was going to war regardless.

The president did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress. But he did seek congressional support, he said, to demonstrate to the United Nations and to the world that military action against Iraq was not just his own

The current president Bush also never sought a formal declaration of war from Congress. Instead, he requested, and received, the authority to use armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend American interests against "the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

Source

Furthermore, some have argued that the constitutional powers of the president as commander-in-chief invest him with broad powers specific to "waging" and "commencing" war.

Instead of formal war declarations, the United States Congress has begun issuing authorizations of force.

Source

I vehemently oppose any history rewriters who attempt to mischaracterize the now proven false basis for an unnecessary and tragic war which continues to cost American lives.

If THAT makes me a hypocrite, so be it.

I question the morals, sanity, motives and wisdom of ANYONE who would defend it given what we now know.

Regards. . . Kurious



[edit on 14-8-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by kinda kurious
I'll gladly accept being labeled a hypocrite, if you'll agree that it was the Republican controlled Whitehouse, Congress and Senate that cast us into an unnecessary war based on lies and deception. Fair enough?

Never denied it. Just was pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of blaming it all on the republicans when over half the democrats in the senate voted yes and just under half of them in the house did as well. It has nothing to do with revising history and everything to do with being honest about the facts and not just ignoring the ones you don't like.

I like how you try to call my "morals, sanity, motives and wisdom" into question by implying that I ever supported going to war or that I'm defending the decision. Especially since I've done neither of those things. If you feel the need to try to demonize me to take the attention off your own hypocrisy, have a blast. Those who know me or have read anything I've posted on the war know better.

Now, perhaps we can move on from the finger-pointing and get back to discussing what people will do when this bill passes, if it does, since that is the topic of the thread.

reply to post by mikerussellus


Can you tell me why you are against public heathcare....As a Canadian--who has enjoyed free healthcare all my life--I am interested to hear what frightens you so much.

reply to post by mikerussellus


I recommend a class action lawsuit , many in fact, filed simultaneously, across the country against the bill as being not only unconstitutional but illegal until Obama can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he is a legal citizen.
First there is no amendment to the Constitution that gives the federal governemtn control of our health, thus leaving it to the states of the people respectively.

All together enmass, just as the jews brought down the wall of Jericho. They did it together.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Do you have a link for that quote? And I don't mean someone saying what he said, I mean, do you have a link to Emanuel's quote? Because I think that's one of the rumors.

Ya' think? Well, here's a link to some of the good doctor's quotes from a paper that was published in the British medical journal Lancet in Jan. 2009. There is also a link to the whole paper and you can read it and confirm for yourself if it's a rumor or not.

Originally posted by Melissa101
WAccording to the bill we will all be commiting a crime if we do not have some type of health insurance. It will be manditory, now you do not have to have the gov't insurance but you have to have insurance. Read the bill it's in there.

You need to show that. Just saying it isn't good enough.

Originally posted by Paroxysm
but in the bill we would be surrendering some of our freedoms of choice, and our privacy, so it seems.

So if you get a job and the employer offers insurance.....how much choice do you get? Isn't it a "take it or leave it" type of proposition?

Now, show us in the bill how it causes anyone to surrender their "freedom of choice" and "privacy".

Would you do that for us please?

Originally posted by Ethera
I don't believe mandating coverage is the proper way.

Insurance is not always an option,

So why aren't people up in arms about the mandated auto insurance required in most of the states in the union? What? That isn't causing a huge fuss and ruckus? I wonder why?

Originally posted by ag2000
Those of us who can afford insurance will be paying for those that can't. So my responsibility is now to pay for others?

*ring*

*ring*

Hello?.....who's this?.....clue phone?....

What's that you say?......those of us with health insurance are already paying for the un-insured?..........wow, clearly I had no clue....thanks for the call.....