- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 63,577
- Reaction score
- 28,946
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Noticed how you ran from my post and tough questions as you continue to parrot the liberal talking points without doing any actual research to verify the rhetoric you are told. How would you know that conservatives are wrong about other things as well since results don't matter to you and other Obama supporters
LOL. You mean when I nailed you to the wall on misstatements (because health care is a field that is my profession and I've been involved in both the public and private sectors for 25 years - which I'm pretty sure qualifies as 'research') and you ignored it and started screaming about liberals taking your tax money, and then demanded I answer to your ideological cartoon position?
LOL. You mean when I nailed you to the wall on misstatements (because health care is a field that is my profession and I've been involved in both the public and private sectors for 25 years - which I'm pretty sure qualifies as 'research') and you ignored it and started screaming about liberals taking your tax money, and then demanded I answer to your ideological cartoon position?
I know it so funny how some who are so opposed to " Obamacare " think having private insurance means they don't have " Obamacare".
My sister in law is totally against the ACA which she calls Obamacare but she was so happy she was able to help her 23 year son who lives out state ( and save a lot of money too ) by adding him to her policy.
She doesn't even know that if were not for the ACA ( " Obamacare ") she would not be able to do that. She thinks since she has private insurance she does not have that dreaded " Obamacare". :lol:
where do you think the subsidies come from to fund ACA?
MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who helped develop the law, says about half the costs are offset by projected savings in Medicare payments to insurers and hospitals. Another quarter is offset by added taxes on medical-device makers and drug companies.
"The other source of revenue is a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans," he says. "Those families with incomes above $250,000 a year will now have to pay more in Medicare payroll taxes."
Those provisions actually make the bill a net positive for the federal budget, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. By the CBO's accounting, Obamacare will produce a surplus. Gruber says the law will "actually lower the deficit by about $100 billion over the next decade and by $1 trillion in the decade after."
According to a MIT economist who helped develop the law about half the money comes from medicare savings, another 25 percent from the added taxes on medical-device makers and drug companies and the rest rest from those families who make over $250,000 a year.
How The Affordable Care Act Pays For Insurance Subsidies : Shots - Health News : NPR
Was that the same Gruber who called the American electorate stupid? So you have no problem with someone else paying subsidies for your health insurance? Is that how you were raised? Only in the liberal world can you add more people to the insured role with many of them being high risk people and lower costs. Why do you believe anything coming out of a govt. that created the 18.2 trillion dollar debt we have today. Seems you don't understand who truly funds most of the uninsured expenses and continue to buy liberal rhetoric
Actually I do not need subsidies our family is one of the higher income families that is paying the higher taxes that is helping to pay for the subsidies.
Maybe the Cons will finally stop trying to rely on legislation from the bench. Perhaps they will get smart and actually work WITH the PPACA (fix the legislation, where appropriate and expand state exchanges), because they are out of options in working against it.
So you have no problem sending tax dollars to the Federal Govt. to supplement uninsured in other states or communities rather than doing it locally through your state? Where exactly does it state that it is the Federal Government's responsibility to provide health insurance for uninsured individuals? Do results matter in your world? 18.2 trillion dollar debt, trillions in unfunded liabilities for SS and Medicare, and now another Federal entitlement program none of which ever cost what they were supposed to cost and always grew in size and scope?
where do you think the subsidies come from to fund ACA?
We make more money.
We pay more federal , and state taxes.
Hopefully some of those taxes are used to help my fellow US citizens.
I care about all my citizens not just those in my community or in my state.
I highly value good health care and I think everyone should have access to good healthcare.
I especially like the fact that the ACA has a lot of preventative healthcare with no co pay included in the plan.
From me.
You're welcome.
Why don't you send your money directly to local charities or free clinics instead of the Federal Bureaucrats that created the 18.2 trillion dollar debt? You think the Federal govt is going to assure good quality healthcare? Where does quality appear in ACA?
The field of quality measurement is at a critical juncture. The Affordable Care Act (ACA)—which mentions “quality measures,” “performance measures,” or “measures of quality,” 128 times—heightened an already growing emphasis on quality measurement. With so much focus on quality, the resource burden on health care providers of taking and reporting measures for multiple agencies and payers is significant.
Furthermore, the field itself is being transformed with the continued adoption of electronic health records (EHRs). Traditional measures are largely based on administrative or claims data. The increased use of EHRs create the opportunity to develop sophisticated electronic clinical quality measures (eQMs) leveraging clinical data, which when linked with clinical decision support tools and payment policy, have the potential to improve quality and decrease costs more dramatically than traditional ones.
Innovative electronic measures on the horizon include “delta measures” calculating changes in patient health over time and care coordination measures for the electronic transfer of patient information (i.e., hospital discharge summary or consultant note successfully transmitted to the primary care physician). Additionally, traditional data abstraction methodologies for clinical data require labor intensive, chart review processes, which would be eliminated if data could be electronically extracted.
We do give directly to charities.
...
Since the ACA was passed more doctors have computerized records. More patients can monitor their lab results online and communicate with their doctors online. Hospitals and nurses use the computers bedside to make sure the correct patient is receiving the correct meds at the correct dosage. Duplicate tests are being elimated since nurses and doctors can view the results on previous tests even when those tests were taken out of state.
This article also tells more quality results from the ACA
Read more:
The Melody Of Quality Measures: Harmonize And Standardize
So send me your address so I can publish it for others who have seen their deductibles skyrocket. I am sure you will be happy to pay those as well.
Where does quality appear in ACA?
Thanks for the reply & friendship request Fearandloathing, and sorry for the delay in my response.Connections are one thing, but you have obviously taken the time to inform yourself, and it's largely accurate, surprising for Americans today.
I agree with the difference in perception, and is where the right in the US is in the dark ages, as bound to ideology as any left wing gruber. The for-profit model is simply not sustainable and, is yet another indicator of the division in the US. The resistance to it has nothing to do with merit, cost or effectiveness, it is all politics. The financial argument, which should sell them, is there. And I agree, they are stupid enough to try to repeal Obamacare and leave nothing as an alternative.
<snip>
...ain't no such thing as common sense nor common knowledge. You make the assertion that the earth is round with me, you better be prepared to show credible third party evidence to support that assertion. I sure as hill won't simply take your rank amateur word for it....
... than again, I probably would pass on the earth is round claim.... we have yahoos on this board that have never studied law yet claim there is NO legal defense of certain SCOTUS decisions... they have ZERO expertise, but tell us they know more than every lawyer in the country (I just love that deadly mix of arrogance and ignorance) .... them's are the id**ts that need to do the 'splainin' (or need to find themselves an AOL chatroom)..
Thanks for the reply & friendship request Fearandloathing, and sorry for the delay in my response.
Wow!
You've got a lot of good content in this post, and I'm not at all surprised you're a journalist (I note your ability to see the big picture in a cause-effect manner). I was a big-city newspaper-boy during the tail-end of the newspaper era in the city that many considered the top investigative 'hard news' newspaper town in the country, and I read & worshiped the local newspapermen along with the local authors & novelists: Royko, Terkel, Algren, Hemingway (all extant then, except Hemingway); these were the men that shaped my mind as a young child - enough, so that I seriously considered attending the Medill School of Journalism (Northwestern University), which was only an 'el' ride away. In the end, I decided upon a degree in technology, because I thought it was the fastest way to make some money. But my heart never left reading, and I still love the process of writing.
You're definitely right in that the problems we have here are not GOP specific, but that of the entire political process - both parties included. I beat harder on the GOP in this instance because I saw them as the primary opponents to UHC, but the Dems are often just as culpable in many matters. I do tend go after the GOP more often because I usually lean more progressive than conservative, but not always.
Edited for space ....
They can afford it. That's the concept of the ACA. If you want to pay less in premiums, you get a higher deductible.
It's all about personal responsibility, something the Conservatives constantly squawk about but don't want to face when it impinges upon their handouts.
They can afford it. That's the concept of the ACA. If you want to pay less in premiums, you get a higher deductible.
It's all about personal responsibility, something the Conservatives constantly squawk about but don't want to face when it impinges upon their handouts.
So you ignorantly oppose a law you don't even understand?
Quality is a linchpin of the ACA, especially when it comes down to reimbursement! And reimbursement is the driver of healthcare in our system.
In fact, this comment is so fantastically stupid, it deserves highlighting...the move from pay for service to pay-for-quality has been a dramatic change over the last few years. I could describe why and how, but that's easy to look up, and my guess is you don't want to know, because it will conflict with your imaginary facts.
This truly illustrates how the core of ACA opposition is mostly abjectly ignorant of the ACA itself.
Sorry but it is your ignorance that ignores reality, basic civics and the Constitution. Quality never was the issue in ACA and it is obvious it won't provide quality but rather just coverage and it won't reduce costs as no federal entitlement program does that.
That's the same thing. If you're accepting those studies that happen to align with your assumptions and ignoring those studies that conflict with your assumptions, that is no different than just ignoring all studies and going with your assumptions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?