Obamacare and the Destruction of the Elderly

Make no mistake, if medicare and government funded healthcare are around, the amount of doctors willing to suck at the government money tit will do nothing but grow...The age demographics state the largest growing demographic are those persons born from 1947 to 1964...

We know from reading the PPACA law that much power has been delegated to HHS.

HHS is the one creating all these boards and panels.

Has anyone seen a complete list of HHS authorities ?

Especially Medicare related powers.

Many HHS authority may not be "reversible" by Congress ?

And I wonder what future administrations will do with present rules and regulations set up by HHS?

reply to post by neoholographic

The IPAB(Independent Payment Advisory Board). This ghoulish board will decide what procedures are necessary and which ones are not from Washington D.C. See my thread on the horrible death panel called the IPAB.

I wonder if there are any "protections" provided against bureaucratic errors that may affect people's medical care.

IPAB sounds like it could be the death panel we keep hearing about.

I don't want my Grandmother dropped over a cliff by a bureaucratic boondoggle.

They make mistakes and then offer excuses.

All they will do is say "We are deeply sorry for your loss".

and, "there's always somebody that slips through the cracks".

and, "we can't do everything for everybody, who do you think we are?".

and, "we are taking steps to ensure this never ever happens again".

or, "we are taking disciplinary actions against the employees who made the fatal error".

along with a hundred other excuses for failure.

The second post in this thread, by TheOneElectric, provides a very good link at Reddit's ELI5 (Explain Like I'm 5). This wasn't meant as an insult but is a good site where complicated things are simply explained. And if you like the complicated version, a link is provided, in the Reddit article, to the full text of "Obamacare" online.

Since no one except myself, so far, seems to have actually bothered to check out that link...Benevolent Heretic excepted, since she obviously has educated herself already, I will quote some of what is found on that page. This is a partial listing of what is 'already in effect':

• It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices) ( Citation: An entire section of the bill, called Title VII, is devoted to this, starting on page 766 )
  
  
• It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less) ( Citation: Page 235, sec. 2501 )
  
  
• It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 684, sec. 1181 )
  
  
• It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 518, sec. 4205 )
  
  
• It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them. ( Citation: Page 49, sec. 1101, Page 64, sec. 2704, and Page 65, sec. 2702 )
  
  
• It forbids insurance companies from discriminating based on a disability, or because they were the victim of domestic abuse in the past (yes, insurers really did deny coverage for that) ( Citation: Page 66, sec. 2705 )
  
  
• It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
  
  
• It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 942, sec. 5000B )
  
  
• It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 33, sec. 2711 )
  
  
• Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26. ( Citation: Page 34, sec. 2714 )
  
  
• No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19. ( Citation: Page 64, sec. 2704 and Page 76, sec. 1255 )
  
  
• Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans. ( Citation: Page 66, sec. 2794 )
  
  
• People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend. ( Citation: Page 398, sec. 3301 )
  
  
• Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 33, sec. 2712 )
  
  
• Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
  
  
• Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down. ( Citation: Page 42, sec. 2719 )
  
  
• Anti-fraud funding is increased and new ways to stop fraud are created. ( Citation: Page 718, sec. 6402 )
  
  
• Medicare extends to smaller hospitals. ( Citation: Starting on page 363, the entire section "Part II" seems to deal with this )
  
  
• Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
  
  
• Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly. ( Citation: Page 511, sec. 4202 )
  
  
• A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: www.healthcare.gov... ). ( Citation: Page 55, sec. 1103 )

i'll tell you what.............there was such an outrage in Arizona over illegals with children receiving benefits, while tax paying citizens were denied.........lawsuit after lawsuit........
It's gong to get dirty and nasty, because while illegals in Arizona were receiving benefits, single people in Arizona who had paid taxes were denied unless they had a catastrophic illness........like cancer.

It has been eye opening for people who pay taxes in this state, and outrageous!

Wait shouldn't you be happy about this? Most people on ATS rattle on about how they don't want anyone receiving government benefits.

Obamacare is set up to be implemented progressively, over time. Two things scheduled to change at the start of 2014 are:

• No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history. ( Citation: Page 64, sec. 2704, Page 65, sec. 2701, and Page 76, sec. 1255 )
  
  
• If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it. (Note: On 6/28/12, the Supreme Court ruled that this is Constitutional, as long as it's considered a tax on the uninsured and not a penalty for not buying insurance... nitpicking about wording, mostly, but the long and short of it is, it looks like this is accepted by the courts) ( Citation: Page 164, sec. 5000A, and here is the actual court ruling for those who wish to read it. )

I don't see that second item as being at all what everyone is railing against. It is basically protecting against excess losses in exchange for doing away with the pre-existing condition nonsense that has left many people outside the reach of any financial help when they are suddenly confronted with a terminal or chronic illness and are not insured, for whatever reason.

I'm sure we have all at least heard of someone put in that situation, if not ourselves or a friend or family member. It can happen to anyone and not being able to afford insurance happens more and more...this way, no one is penalized for hard times by having to forgo health care but no one is encouraged to pick up insurance only at the last possible minute, also unexpectedly costing everyone covered by the same insurance group by way of increased premiums on short notice, etc. These things will have to be written into policies and I think it would eliminate a lot of instability in premium rates.



The 'cuts' everyone is concerned about are NOT cuts in coverage or care provided but cuts on the excess profiteering currently infesting health care:

• Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( Citation: Page 33, sec. 2711 )
  
  
• Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers. ( Citation: Page 81, sec. 1302 )
  
  
• Cut some Medicare spending
  
  
• Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them. ( Citation: Page 820, sec. 9005 )
  
  
• Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage. ( Citation: Page 107, sec. 1311 )
  
  
• Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen. ( Citation: Page 100, sec. 1312 )
  
  
• A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
  
  
• A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
  
  
• A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.

The one about no longer footing the bills for congressional health insurance is WONDERFUL.

Basically, these are measure to limit and/or eliminate the price-gouging and other ways by which the average person is taken advantage of when it comes to health care.

In my previous post, the first item about having more generic drugs also seems like a good thing for all. The price difference between name-brand pharmaceuticals and their generic equivalent is sometimes unbelievably astronomical. For older people, this can mean doing without a drug treatment they might need simply because they also need to eat. With Plan D in effect now, it isn't as catastrophic as it once was but this would be an even further improvement as well as the second item on the previous list which would also work to lower the cost of medications for the elderly.

Finally, the last change but a very important one in regard to 'gramma' is planned for the year 2020...with the elimination of the 'medicare gap.'

Right now, my mom pays between $200 to $250 a month for medicare gap coverage...aka a medicare supplement insurance policy. That's a big expense when fixed income is a little over a grand a month. Better not to have to pay that at all and still receive the same care.

Originally posted by Sulie
i'll tell you what.............there was such an outrage in Arizona over illegals with children receiving benefits, while tax paying citizens were denied.........lawsuit after lawsuit........
It's gong to get dirty and nasty, because while illegals in Arizona were receiving benefits, single people in Arizona who had paid taxes were denied unless they had a catastrophic illness........like cancer.

It has been eye opening for people who pay taxes in this state, and outrageous!

Was it about private insurance coverage or was it medicaid?
Medicaid isn't available to single people who are able-bodied and not indigent...evidenced by their ability to pay taxes...I'm assuming they were employed?

Also, considering it being in Arizona...with the controversy already going on related to immigration and legal and illegal residents...makes it rather muddy and I don't think it is so much about Obamacare but more about Arizona's state laws vs federal rulings.

From what I understand.

Originally posted by xuenchen
We know from reading the PPACA law that much power has been delegated to HHS.

So you've read all 900-something pages of the bill?
Or just some of it?

HHS is the one creating all these boards and panels.

Has anyone seen a complete list of HHS authorities ?

Especially Medicare related powers.

Many HHS authority may not be "reversible" by Congress ?

And I wonder what future administrations will do with present rules and regulations set up by HHS?

I don't think it is about rules and regulations but more about protecting people when they are denied coverage for treatment...creating another recourse other than suing the insurance company....as well as setting up some sort of watchdog over the excessive waste and over-pricing so prevalent in health care.

Obamacare has death panels!: That sounds so cartoonishly evil it must be true, right? Well, no. No part of the bill says anything about appointing people to decide whether or not someone dies. The decision over whether or not your claim is approved is still in the hands of your insurer. However, now there's an appeals process so if your claim gets turned down, you can challenge that. And the government watches that appeals process to make sure it's not being unfair to customers. So if anything the PPACA is trying to stop the death panels. ( Citation: Page 42, sec. 2719 )

What about the Independent Medical Advisory Board? Death Panels!: The Independent Medical Advisory Board is intended to give recommendations on how to save Medicare costs per person, deliver more efficient and effective care, improve access to services, and eliminate waste. However, they have no real power. They put together a recommendation to put before Congress, and Congress votes on it, and the President has power to veto it. What's more, they are specifically told that their recommendation will not ration health care, raise premiums or co-pays, restrict benefits, or restrict eligibility. In other words, they need to find ways to save money without reducing care for patients. So no death panels. In any sense of the (stupid) term. ( Citation: Page 426, sec. 3403 )

Originally posted by seeker1963
If you can't find a doctor to accept you, how is that NOT cutting benefits??? I will say it again, "GO AND TALK TO YOUR DOCTOR!".

Any issues with not accepting a patient whose primary insurance is Medicare probably has everything to do with 'accepting medicare assignment.'

That means that the physician in question has agreed to only charge the Medicare insured patient the 80% of treatment cost that is approved by Medicare. Doctors don't have to accept this...it is their choice. If they don't, and a patient is only insured by Medicare, that means the patient will then be responsible for everything not covered by Medicare. And if a patient can not afford supplemental insurance (medicare gap coverage) then odds are they will not be able to easily pay the remainder of the fee charged by the physician.

This is something that has been around for a long time.

Originally posted by Sulie
i'll tell you what.............there was such an outrage in Arizona over illegals with children receiving benefits, while tax paying citizens were denied.........lawsuit after lawsuit........
It's gong to get dirty and nasty, because while illegals in Arizona were receiving benefits, single people in Arizona who had paid taxes were denied unless they had a catastrophic illness........like cancer.

It has been eye opening for people who pay taxes in this state, and outrageous!

Yeah.

Well people in Arizona are crazy.

Originally posted by neoholographic
Secondly, if you cut money that goes to healthcare providers then you're cutting benefits. It's a way to try and say you're not cutting benefits but you're cutting money that goes to the people that give out those benefits.

How do you think they will make up the cost? Some of them will stop accepting Medicare patients while others will reduce services for Medicare patients.

Obamacare is designed to kill Grandma and take money away from the elderly healthcare providers because they use too many healthcare services and put that money into younger, uninsured people that don't use a lot of healthcare.

No.

It is because most everything related to health care is OVER-PRICED.
It is the age-old practice of charging more for something because people NEED it rather than WANT it.

Have you ever seen an itemized hospital bill and noticed that the price charged, for let's say...two regular (generic Tylenol) acetaminophen...is something like $8 EACH?

I can go to Walgreen's and buy 200 of those same tablets for $3! And a hospital pharmacy is surely given a bulk discount...you'd think so, anyway.

Check out this table comparing costs for various medical treatments/tests/etc: Medical Markup

And that is an old article, from 2004. I'm sure it has gotten worse in the last 8 years. The amount that even Medicare is somewhat forced to pay 80% of, due to the excess of private insurance and corporate health care (that is, healthcare for profit) and the resulting high prices, is RIDICULOUS.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


Exactly.

Enter: 'the reverse mortgage.'

Sounds like stuff from Americans for Prosperity.

SOME Americans will prosper..the most will continue to struggle...more and more.

reply to post by queenannie38


Everything you copied and pasted is just nonsense. This occurs because people don't understand the system so they copy and paste large portions of talking points.

For instance, you said:

Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen. ( Citation: Page 100, sec. 1312 )

Again, this just means they will be OFFERED the same insurance as the exchanges. Most of them will not take it but the American people will not have this choice. They will be forced into the exchanges.

Again, the reason this is occurring is because the increase in life expectancy. This means older people are living longer and collecting benefits longer. So Social Security and Medicare are Pyramid schemes. This is why you have heard so much talk about the baby boomers over the years.

These systems depend on workers at the bottom of the Pyramid to pay out benefits to those retiring at the top of the Pyramid. In a Global economy with cheap labor, workers will decrease while retiree's will increase and collect benefits longer. So Obama and the Democrats are basically killing people as they get older because they use more health care.

This is why Obama told the elderly woman that her mom should have taking a pain pill instead of getting the surgery she wanted. He also talked about all these Doctors taking tonsils out for no reason.

Doctors have to do a lot of tests to find out what's wrong with you. For instance, I had a friend go to the Doctor because he was having a persistent headache. The Doctors did blood work and test and found out he had a tumor. They caught it early and now he's doing fine. Doctors are not psychics so they have to do these tests. I bet if Obama's family gets sick, he's not worried about how many tests the Doctors carry out to find out what's wrong.

Is there abuse? Yes. But you don't need a death panel like the IPAB board to try and fix the problem. The Independent payment advisory board is designed to slow life expectancy. It's basically death panels. This board will decide what procedures can and can't be done. There decisions are basically final. It will be almost impossible to overturn their decisions. Judicial review of the IPAB board is prohibited by Obamacare. These will be 15 unelected officials with unlimited power.

The reason Obama takes 716 billion from Medicare is to basically take services away from the elderly and spread that money to the uninsured who are mostly young people that don't use a lot of healthcare. Again, Obama said they were cuts and they are.

YOU CAN'T CUT MONEY TO HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS WHO GIVE OUT THE BENEFITS TO THOSE ON MEDICARE AND NOT EXPECT THE BENEFITS OF THOSE ON MEDICARE TO BE CUT!

So, you take from the elderly because they use more healthcare than the younger, uninsured. It's a horrible and GHOULISH way to do this.

Basically the elderly have become enemies of the state to Obama and the Democrats because they're living longer and that threatens Social Security and Medicare.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by neoholographic

 

The ACA will be the death knell for far more than the elderly.

But S&F for posting this.

Seniors are for target practice!

Social Security Administration Requests 174,000 Bullets

www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply to post by Char-Lee


Exactly!!

People need to remember, it's the increase in life expectancy that has made Seniors Persona Non Grata to Obama and the Democrats.

Instead of reforming the systems that cannot withstand an increase in life expectancy, Obama and the Democrats are just killing off the elderly with things like the IPAB.

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by queenannie38

 

Everything you copied and pasted is just nonsense. This occurs because people don't understand the system so they copy and paste large portions of talking points.

For instance, you said:

Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen. ( Citation: Page 100, sec. 1312 )

Again, this just means they will be OFFERED the same insurance as the exchanges. Most of them will not take it but the American people will not have this choice. They will be forced into the exchanges.

Like I said, the more complicated version is available, too.
So let's look at what the bill actually says (emphases are mine):

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.—
(i) REQUIREMENT.—Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, after the effective date of this sub-
title, the only health plans that the Federal Govern-
ment may make available to Members of Congress and
congressional staff with respect to their service as a
Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be
health plans that are—
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment
made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established
under this Act (or an amendment made by this
Act).
(ii) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(I) MEMBER OF CONGRESS.—The term ‘‘Mem-
ber of Congress’’ means any member of the House
of Representatives or the Senate.
(II) CONGRESSIONAL STAFF.—The term ‘‘con-
gressional staff’’ means all full-time and part-time
employees employed by the official office of a
Member of Congress, whether in Washington, DC
or outside of Washington, DC.

They will ONLY be offered the SAME coverage as their constituents are offered.
I guess they can either choose accordingly or go without and pay the fee for being able to afford health coverage but opting to forego it.

What do they have now?
This page gives some details.

The most notable being, imo, the following, again emphases my own:

According to the Congressional Research Service, the FEHBP offers about 300 different private health care plans, including five government-wide, fee-for-service plans and many regional health maintenance organization (HMO) plans, plus high-deductible, tax-advantaged plans. All plans cover hospital, surgical and physician services, and mental health services, prescription drugs and “catastrophic” coverage against very large medical expenses. There are no waiting periods for coverage when new employees are hired, and there are no exclusions for preexisting conditions. The FEHBP negotiates contracts annually with all insurance companies who wish to participate. There is plenty of competition for the business; FEHBP is the largest employer-sponsored health plan in the U.S.

From what this same article also says, it seems to be more of a case of setting standards a little higher for the average joe rather than knocking down those set for congress:

As President Bush’s chief of personnel Kay Coles James said in 2003, while lecturing at the conservative Heritage Foundation, “the FEHB program is not centralized, government-run health care.” It has drawn praise both from conservatives and liberals, including President Obama, who held it up as a model for his own health care proposals.

So, also, it would mean that while standards on the average would go up, there would be no commensurate bump up the ladder for congress...however one levels the playing field, the end result is an even surface on which everyone must make their play.

So Obama and the Democrats are basically killing people as they get older because they use more health care.

As opposed to killing people while they are still young with unnecessary wars? I guess it IS more efficient to do it the old fashioned way.

Doctors have to do a lot of tests to find out what's wrong with you. For instance, I had a friend go to the Doctor because he was having a persistent headache. The Doctors did blood work and test and found out he had a tumor. They caught it early and now he's doing fine. Doctors are not psychics so they have to do these tests.

I am glad of that for your friend. Good thing he went in early and knew his body well enough to suspect something might be amiss. Diagnostic tests are good. Overpriced superfluous bilking is not. That's the issue. And most people have no idea what is necessary and what is not...or what is involved...and what is more or less automatic p&p. There's a LOT of room for more efficiency...and patient education.

Originally posted by neoholographic
Is there abuse? Yes. But you don't need a death panel like the IPAB board to try and fix the problem. The Independent payment advisory board is designed to slow life expectancy. It's basically death panels. This board will decide what procedures can and can't be done. There decisions are basically final. It will be almost impossible to overturn their decisions. Judicial review of the IPAB board is prohibited by Obamacare. These will be 15 unelected officials with unlimited power.

Designed to slow life expectancy?
Unlimited power?

I think you might want to look into that a little further...the function of the IPAB is the same function that MedPAC was designed to serve...WITHOUT being held back by the 'opinions' of congress on their findings. How many members of congress know much more about health care than any other person who has only been on the receiving side of things?

It would be like being told that you need a complete overhaul, new pistons, etc., when taking your car to a repair shop for an oil change because you don't even know how to check your oil (much less change it)...not being sure of this, you decide to ask your little sister who is only in possession of a learning permit and has no idea about how to check the oil, either...she says that you better just go along with it because she has no clue what a piston is, either.

So you do it...and shell out $2000 that you cannot afford but more so than 6 times that much for a new car...but it was all just a scheme based on your lack of knowledge and their monopoly on same...your sister in this case would represent MedPAC and you would be congress ...in the old way of trying to keep costs legitimate and fair. And of course the healthcare industry is the auto repair shop.

In the new way, with IPAB, you have an older brother who is not only experienced in car repair but actually graduated from an accredited school, is ASE certified, and has worked for 10 years in a big city like L.A. where everyone has to have a car that actually RUNS all the time. So he tells you that you only need an oil change and it should only cost you $40. You go back to the repair shop and tell them what you know, armed with facts they cannot deny and they perform the service needed for the same place that their local competitors would do it for...fair market price and no markup on the oil or filter.

The reason Obama takes 716 billion from Medicare is to basically take services away from the elderly and spread that money to the uninsured who are mostly young people that don't use a lot of healthcare. Again, Obama said they were cuts and they are.

Well, it is either that or cut defense. Congress won't have that if they can help it...even if it means robbing from Peter (Medicare) to pay Paul (the war machine).

IPAB "has the explicit task of achieving specified savings in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality."

YOU CAN'T CUT MONEY TO HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS WHO GIVE OUT THE BENEFITS TO THOSE ON MEDICARE AND NOT EXPECT THE BENEFITS OF THOSE ON MEDICARE TO BE CUT!

The health care providers are not the ones who give out Medicare benefits...nor are they the ones that determine the cost of health care supplies and services. The influence comes largely from private insurances and medical supply companies and for-profit hospitals and other facilities.

No benefits are going to be cut...it is the unchecked expense that the cuts and incentives are directed toward.

In fact, if the plan is to eliminate the Medicare gap completely in 8 years, then that means the elderly will get the same or better care for only the amount they pay for Medicare...no more out of pocket 20% or overpriced supplemental insurance premiums.

So, you take from the elderly because they use more healthcare than the younger, uninsured. It's a horrible and GHOULISH way to do this.

How do you figure that? The elderly will still have Medicare and the younger will have better insurance for things such as catastrophic illness and terminal disease...which happens at any age, and is totally unexpected in most cases...and not covered usually...because if the uninsured healthy young person finds out they are now in need of insurance because of a terrible diagnosis and no longer are healthy...and try to get some coverage, because they now have a 'pre-existing' condition, they are most likely on their own to cope with the expense.

Basically the elderly have become enemies of the state to Obama and the Democrats because they're living longer and that threatens Social Security and Medicare.

So suddenly the Democrats see the elderly as enemies of the state?
Yet it is Republicans who would require valid photo ID's to cast one's vote for President...something that many elderly people don't have anymore?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by seeker1963

I rarely see a doctor for anything unless I am deathly sick or in severe pain. Maybe been to a doctor twice in the past 7 years. The last time I went, I called to make my appointment and one of the first things I was asked, "Are you already a patient?".

I didn't go to a doctor for 12 years. I just recently went because once you go on Medicare you get a free physical if you do it within the year.

I searched online for a doctor taking new patience with Medicare. Love my doc. Great choice.

I really think we're doctor happy. I think its weird people go to a doctor for a cold.

Anyway - - mostly when people are complaining about "killing gramma" - - - they're talking about the provision of not extending life. Which I fully agree with.

And you can thank "Obamacare" for that free annual physical. That's partly where the $716B in savings go to pay for. Without the ACA, you'd have to pay for that visit, which would cause some folks not to go. The ACA is not perfect, but it is a start in the right direction as it tries to move us from reactionary care (more expensive) to preventative care.

The OP is brain dead. For people like him, Obama just waking up and stretching is proof of some nefarious conspiracy.

OP, you want to talk death panels? Talk to anyone who has had a doctor-ordered procedure denied by some bean counter at the insurance company. Private insurance companies are the death panelists, and that is not even a debatable point.

And finally, just ask any current senior and you'll learn the ACA has already reduced the out of pocket expenses. I challenge to find a SINGLE senior that has noticed reduced benefits or denial of a needed procedure resulting from the ACA.

It is depressing how poorly informed so many ATS members are. People, you embarrass yourself when you come on spouting talking points from either side without really having any clue of reality. You reveal yourself to be easily played by the media because you accept verbatim your "side's" talking points without doing any independent research.

reply to post by queenannie38


First off, I'm glad the Republicans forced Congress to be in the exchanges but again, Congressmen and Women along with the President can afford any coverage or pay for most treatments that they want. They had to say this because they would look like the hypocrites they are.

Obama was asked about this by Dr. Orrin Devinsky. Obama's answer explains why Seniors are in deep trouble.



Here's an article about the interview:

President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people -- like the president himself -- wouldn't face.

The probing questions came from two skeptical neurologists during ABC News' special on health care reform, "Questions for the President: Prescription for America," anchored from the White House by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson.

Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it's not provided by insurance.

Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.

The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care."

"Oftentimes we know what makes sense and what doesn't," the president responded, making a push for evidence-based medicine.

abcnews.go.com...

Well of course he does. He wants to control the test that others can get based on what "expert" say in Washington D.C. versus what Doctors say. He said Oftentimes we know what makes sense and what doesn't.

THIS LINE ENCAPSULATES LIBERALISM!

Obama isn't a Doctor and he doesn't have a clue as to what works and what doesn't. But Liberals will read a study done by other liberals and say they know what's best for everyone.

Also notice how Obama went directly to end of life care after the question. This is what it's all about. IT'S ABOUT KILLING OFF THE ELDERLY BECAUSE THEY USE MORE HEALTHCARE THAN YOUNGER PEOPLE WHO ARE UNINSURED!

The IPAB will be full of unelected officials who try to control healthcare from Washington because like Obama said they know what works and what doesn't so you will just have to conform to the experts in Washington over your Doctor.

This is what they mean when they say "slow the growth of Medicare."

Medicare is growing not just because of Hospital Costs but because people are living longer.

There's just not enough workers to pay out benefits for S.S. and Medicare as people live longer. So of course retiree's will outgrow these programs as they live longer.

THESE PROGRAMS ARE PYRAMID SCHEMES THAT CAN'T TAKE AN INCREASE IN LIFE EXPECTANCY.

Obama himself said they were cuts to Medicare in an interview with Jake Tapper:



Obama cut Medicare by 716 billion because him and his "experts" know the elderly are getting too much healthcare. They take that money and give it to the uninsured because many of them are young and don't use healthcare as much as the elderly.

This is why Obama is fixated on end of life care even when he's not asked a question about it. They want the elderly to die sooner rather than later so they will stop collecting the benefits.

This is why Obama told a woman that her Mom should have just taken the pain pill instead of getting the surgery she wanted.



JUST LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAYS!

He again talked about end of life care. He didn't answer the question about the womans will to live because that doesn't matter. What matters is that she's living to long and she should just take a pain pill and die.

Obama then said, AT LEAT WE CAN LET DOCTORS KNOW AND YOUR MOM KNOW THAT THIS ISN'T GOING TO HELP!

Think about that. Obama and his unelected officials are going to let Doctors know what isn't going to work. THE AUDACITY OF LIBERALISM!!

Finally, your post shows the hypocrisy of the Democrats position. On one hand you say they're cutsz and you talk about wars and defense spending and then on the other hand you say benefits will not be affected.

The whole system is designed to reduce healthcare services to the elderly. The programs cannot withstand the increase in life expectancy and this is why Obama is fixated on end of life care. Message to Elderly:

JUST DIE ALREADY AND STOP COLLECTING SS AND MEDICARE