Obama Care

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'm not quite sure which portion of my comment your question is directed at, but...

The biggest change with healthcare reform is that eventually providers will be reimbursed for episodes of care, rather than for encounters or procedures performed.

Let's say you fall and break your leg. Right now, every time you come to the hospital for an X-Ray we get $90, every time you come for an outpatient surgery we get $1500, every time you come for an inpatient admission we get $7000. I'm making up numbers and oversimplifying, but you get the picture. You can clearly see that the more we see you, the more we get paid. So there's an incentive to see you over and over. Lots of doctors order unnecessary tests because of this.

Under healthcare reform though, if you fall and break your leg we'll get paid a lump sum $8000 to take complete care of you, from the first time you see us to when you're either healed or the year ends. So then it's up to the doctor to decide when ordering a test is really necessary, which he'll be incented to do to watch his bottom line.

Now, before you freak out about a doctor withholding tests in the name of his (or his hospital's) bottom line, malpractice and licensing issues still are strong incentives to keep them from rationing care.

But it's easy to see; why order 4 x-rays on the leg when all you need is 2? It will reduce redundant tests, which reduces costs to the consumer in the long run.

So clearly testing volume will drop at hospitals, so competition will become more fierce. If testing levels drop enough, some hospitals may not be able to support themselves and may have to close. But that just speaks to the excess capacity of healthcare facilities and equipment that we have in SOME parts of the country. Closing those facilities will be a good thing in the long run, it's a market force that will bring capacity more in line with patient demand.

Lots of doctors order unnessary test so they don't get sued. A good portion of those test are done by specialist and the doctor ordering them makes nothing of them.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

We have our opposing views on Obamacare, as you call it, so there's no need to beat that dead horse again. It's the law of the land and public sentiment is about evenly divided. My guess is as more of these provisions come online it will gain in popularity. As far as the rhetoric about jamming this bill through congress, well, Barack Obama was elected with a mandate and he and the Democrats delivered on the promise of healthcare for all Americans.

If you're looking for a repeat of the mid-terms you just might be misinterpreting the electorate in 2012; it will be a more moderate, more diverse, and young voting bloc. Even if unemployment drops modestly, the president will be hard to unseat and we're already starting to see a shift in his favorables.

Sarah Palin has gone into complete meltdown mode. Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour and, God forbid, Newt Gingrich will just be warm bodies on the stage with old GOP talking points and no new ideas to make us competitive globally. And that pretty much leaves Mitt Romney explaining to the Tea Party why he likes universal healthcare, his signature piece of legislation as governor of Mass, and why he supported bailing out the auto industry. So much for socialism, I guess.

Really last pole I saw had him now under 50%. Not sure why the left keeps saying Sarah Palin is our front runner because that not true at all. Newt Gingrich is smater then anyone in the Whitehouse now or maybe running in 2012.

[12thMan]

First, the ONLY poll that I've seen Obama under 50% is Rassmussen, which is far right. But most he's between 50%- 53%, let's hope it lasts!

Newt Gingrich? Please tell me you're kidding.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

First, the ONLY poll that I've seen Obama under 50% is Rassmussen, which is far right. But most he's between 50%- 53%, let's hope it lasts!

Newt Gingrich? Please tell me you're kidding.

No Newt got a bad rap in the press and is one of the smarter people to have held office lately. You don't have to agree with a person for them to be smart. I thought Bill C was smart I just did not agree with him.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

No Newt got a bad rap in the press and is one of the smarter people to have held office lately. You don't have to agree with a person for them to be smart. I thought Bill C was smart I just did not agree with him.

But see that's the thing, rarely does the smartest guy get elected. It usually boils down to who we like the most. Sarah Palin is exhibit A. Newt has waaaaay too much bagage and he'll just remind people of the Clinton years. No way, no how, no Newt! Great bumper sticker.

[dmek25]

Gingrich has been married three times. In 1962, he married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher, when he was 19 years old and she was 26.[64][65] They had two daughters. In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther.[66][67] According to Battley, Gingrich visited her while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery to discuss the details of their divorce. Six months after it was final, Gingrich wed Ginther in 1981.[68][69]

In the mid-1990s, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior; they continued their affair during the Lewinsky scandal.[70] In 2000, Gingrich married Bisek shortly after his divorce from second wife Ginther. He and Callista currently live in McLean, Virginia.[71] taken from wikipedia

this is a smart guy?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Democrats have the financials on their side on this issue: repealing Obamacare will raise the deficit. That according to the independent CBO.

I know how you lean politically and your HC finance background, however don't buy the left-wing spin.

Reality Check: Repeal of Obamacare Would Not Increase the Deficit | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Obamacare: Impact on Future Generations of the Health Care Reform | The Heritage Foundation

Remember CBO only evaluates the information given it, so doo-doo in = doo-doo out.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I know how you lean politically and your HC finance background, however don't buy the left-wing spin.

Reality Check: Repeal of Obamacare Would Not Increase the Deficit | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Obamacare: Impact on Future Generations of the Health Care Reform | The Heritage Foundation

Remember CBO only evaluates the information given it, so doo-doo in = doo-doo out.

So all these some 30 years, CBO is just sort of irrelavent. Mhmmm...

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

So all these some 30 years, CBO is just sort of irrelavent. Mhmmm...

I never said CBO is irrelevant, but it does not make judgements on the information presented to it by Congress, it only calculates exactly what is presented.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No, the retarded thing is spending time on something that CANNOT help the majority of people, rather than spending time on something that CAN. If you can't get a bill past Obama's desk, then why try? Instead focus your energy on other ways to help your constituents. If you take your eye off that all-important ball, you won't be credited with any successes come 2012.

Further, if repealing this is really important, you work the positives accomplish what you can and then, in 2012, turn to the public and say:

"Look at our successes, we know how to work together. Obama has said he would veto any repeal of his healthcare law so we didn't waste our time with that. HOWEVER, this is it folks, we get one shot at repealing this bill before it gets to entrenched into the business cycle. In order to do so, we need a Republican president to sign the bill; without a Republican Pres., Obamacare will not go away. Vote Republican and let us finish what we started in 2010."

Turn 2012 into a referendum on Obamacare. Assert that a Rep. pres. and Congress can find a way to repeal it at little or no cost (and then come up with a legitimate way to do so). It's a high risk/high reward kind of strategy that requires careful thought out planning and legislative victories now. Which is exactly why the Republicans can't pull it off.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Lots of doctors order unnessary test so they don't get sued. A good portion of those test are done by specialist and the doctor ordering them makes nothing of them.

Right, which is why they'd institute the new methodology. One payment to cover everything, and then it's up to the providers to figure out a way to share that payment.

Then there's a downward pressure on ordering extra tests to counterbalance the risk of getting sued. It makes them walk the line.

[CRedskinsRule]

This was a simple vote that lets the Republican Representatives say we did what you said you wanted, in order to get it accomplished, we need a different Senate and President.

In 2012, when the country "really" votes (and I mean all those who only show up for the presidential elections - about a 20% swing in voter turnout):
the Republicans will point to 2010 saying they tried to repeal it, but need the Senate and Presidency to go along
the Democrats will point to 2008, and say we listened to the whole nation but now the vocal minority is blocking true reform.

Right now, it could go either way (regardless of current polling data)

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I never said CBO is irrelevant, but it does not make judgements on the information presented to it by Congress, it only calculates exactly what is presented.

I've seen presentations from independent consultants back the CBO's findings, at least in terms of order of magnitude. Sorry, I can't take a conservative-leaning publication's word for it. If I'm truly thinking fairly, there's no reason for me to believe this is any more credible than independent sources.

They say x y z was doulbe counted in the numbers, but don't show their math or indicate who did the math.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Further, if repealing this is really important, you work the positives accomplish what you can and then, in 2012, turn to the public and say:

"Look at our successes, we know how to work together. Obama has said he would veto any repeal of his healthcare law so we didn't waste our time with that. HOWEVER, this is it folks, we get one shot at repealing this bill before it gets to entrenched into the business cycle. In order to do so, we need a Republican president to sign the bill; without a Republican Pres., Obamacare will not go away. Vote Republican and let us finish what we started in 2010."

Turn 2012 into a referendum on Obamacare. Assert that a Rep. pres. and Congress can find a way to repeal it at little or no cost (and then come up with a legitimate way to do so). It's a high risk/high reward kind of strategy that requires careful thought out planning and legislative victories now. Which is exactly why the Republicans can't pull it off.

Ahh the fairy dream of positive accomplishments.

The Democratic Senate and Presidency aren't going to give the Republican House any but the smallest of positives, and they will parlay them into big bad negatives. The Democrats have this type political strategy down to a science. Further, Pres Obama will play any "concession" made to the Republicans into the "evil corporations" mode, or some form of fear mongering.

The Republicans had to make this vote now, in order to avoid their constituency attacking them as not doing what they promised. Now the House Republicans can (but probably won't) take any small victories and say we tried to do more, but the Democrats blocked us. I doubt the Republicans have the ability to avoid looking like selfish, corporate suits, (cuz most are), but this initial vote simply set the stage for the 2012 referendum on Obamacare that you talked about.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

First, the ONLY poll that I've seen Obama under 50% is Rassmussen, which is far right. But most he's between 50%- 53%, let's hope it lasts!

Newt Gingrich? Please tell me you're kidding.

NG is a damn genius. No joke. Take away his well earned negative image and just listen to him speak on issues. You may not agree with him but he is the most articulate, well-informed and proactive politician I have ever heard. I think under the bad image is a politician that would do a remarkably good job as president in putting together bipartisan solutions. There's more than one reason he hasn't sought office..one of them is because the idiots who run the 'pubs don't like that he isn't a talking points guy. Gingrich really is an idea guy.