You are not connected. Please login or register

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

26 Re: Something to be aware of in Obamacare on Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:44 pm

SSC


Admin
If you say it worked good for you, I have to take your word.

27 Re: Something to be aware of in Obamacare on Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:11 pm

gypsy


Moderator
Thanks~:)

28 Re: Something to be aware of in Obamacare on Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:24 pm

almajean


Member
First, the easy one: no, cancer care will not be rationed or denied for those over 76 (or whatever age he gave). Here is snopes on that one: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/kithil.asp

For the other claim - that Obamacare has changed Medicare so that it no longer pays for observation services - that one is false, as well. To explain: Medicare only pays for observation services as an outpatient service. In other words, the doctor keeps the patient for a short period of time for observation, to determine if the patient needs to be admitted. If the patient is admitted, it is no longer "observation", but a regular hospital admittance and is paid for. Not only does Medicare not pay for a hospital admittance for "observation",  I checked a couple other insurance companies, and they do not pay, either. The reason is very simple: if you are admitted, there should be a reason! I don't believe this guy's story at all; all the hospital had to do was admit him for a UTI, or kidney infection, or whatever else they thought it might be. Then it would be paid for. The definition of "observation" from both Medicare and other insurance companies means the doctor does not know if you are even sick, or if your symptoms even merit treatment. In this guy's case, if the hospital wanted to admit him, they must have had a reason. There is a difference between "observation" - as in "we don't know if you're sick or not", and "we can see you're very sick, but we're not sure of the cause." In the latter case, that hospital admission would not be considered "observation" - it would be a covered admission. In any case, the fact that Medicare does not pay for inpatient observations has NOTHING to do with the Affordable Care Act. Medicare has been doing that since at least 2000 - before Obama was even in office! Here is a snippet that explains that (from this link https://www.factcheck.org/2014/03/a-false-claim-of-a-medicare-change/ ):
 
“Your hospital status (whether the hospital considers you an ‘inpatient’ or ‘outpatient’) affects how much you pay for hospital services (like X-rays, drugs, and lab tests) and may also affect whether Medicare will cover care you get in a skilled nursing facility,” the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services warns in a pamphlet that urges Medicare patients to clarify their status within hours of arriving at the hospital.
Callow said the issue concerning observation care, which her organization has followed since at least 2000, also has nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act, or which physician is responsible for admitting the patient.

And here's another link that has a lot of coverage about the "observation" rules; it IS a stupid rule, and has been in effect since the beginning of Medicare:
http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/tag/observation-status/

So, my response (after supplying the above links), would be something along the lines of, "There seems to be very little to criticize about Obamacare, since people like this guy have to invent stuff in order to make it look bad. Just like this issue of paying for "observation care", the things people keep blaming the Affordable Care Act for were actually already in practice since Bush's administration or before. In the case of "observation", Medicare has NEVER paid for it as an in-patient service - and this has been a problem for 50 years. So either this guy is deliberately spreading lies for his own political agenda, or that hospital is spreading lies for its own political agenda. I find it hard to believe that a hospital has spent the last 50 years - FIFTY YEARS - not knowing how to bill for observation services. If someone on staff at the hospital actually told this guy that it is because of Obamacare that his inpatient hospital stay would not be covered by Medicare, then that staff member should be reported immediately and relieved of his position, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act."

29 Re: Something to be aware of in Obamacare on Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:06 pm

gypsy


Moderator
Very Good post Alma~

30 Re: Something to be aware of in Obamacare on Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:21 pm

SSC


Admin
All I can say is keep believing and walking two by two.

31 Re: Something to be aware of in Obamacare on Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:23 pm

gypsy


Moderator
  maybe millions by millions!

32 Re: Something to be aware of in Obamacare on Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:29 pm

SSC


Admin
counting all the illegals probably true, more leaches on an already over burdened system, but heck Obama doesn't care he has a pen and a phone, just no money , but China doesn't quite own all of us yet, give them 2 more years.

33 Re: Something to be aware of in Obamacare on Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:30 pm

gypsy


Moderator
again your grasping.maybe gasping :rotflslap: 

34 Re: Something to be aware of in Obamacare on Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:37 pm

SSC


Admin
Hard Numbers on Pharma Campaign Donations

By Kathlyn StoneSeptember 15, 2013
http://pharma.about.com/b/2013/09/15/hard-numbers-on-pharma-campaign-donations.htm


The pharmaceutical industry might trail the financial services and communications/electronics sectors in terms of dollars spent lobbying Congress but it manages to spend more than the defense and energy sectors.

All devote huge financial investments to shape national policies and priorities through political lobbying. Pharma donations to political campaigns tend to increase when the country is debating new initiatives. This was certainly the case during the lead up to Medicare Part D in 2002 and during the 2008 campaign leading up to the Affordable Care Act.

OpenSecrets.org, a project of the Center for Responsive Politics, tracks which firms are making political contributions to which candidate.

Using data released by the Federal Elections Commission, OpenSecrets presents reference charts relating to pharmaceutical manufacturer's campaign donations. As one might expect, the higher up the power chain, the higher the donations.

For example, Barack Obama, running for a second term, received just over $1 million in pharma contributions during the 2011-2012 campaign. His main challenger, Mitt Romney, received $699,000. Senate and House leaders who were in the best position to influence policy (through party leadership roles, chairmanships, etc.) received donations ranging from $131,000 to $217,000. The average donation made to all House members was $19,000; the average senator received $31,000 in contributions from pharmaceutical manufacturers. The industry list includes only donations of at least $200 from individuals or political action committees (PACs).

The industry donated more to high office candidates during the previous cycle in 2007-2008 while major aspects and tiny details of the Affordable Care Act were being worked out.

During the 2007-2008 campaign, Obama received $1.2 million in pharma donations, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, the other leading primary challenger, drew $347,000, while Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, received $317,000. The Senate was clearly the focus in 2008 as the next three highest donations were made to Senate leaders Mitch McConnell, Max Baucus and Arlen Specter. The House's top donation recipient, John Dingell, was a distant $121,000.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers spent nearly $10 million on campaign contributions during the 2011-2012 campaign.
Pharma Lobbying
Pharma Congressional campaign contributions 2011-2012. Credit: Center for Responsive Politics

Who were the biggest contributors in the 2011-2012 cycle?

Pfizer led the pack, spending $1.8 million on campaign donations. Other drug manufacturers spending in excess of $1 million each during the last election cycle were Amgen, Merck, Abbott Laboratories and AstraZeneca.

Mutual Drug, a drug wholesaler headquartered in North Carolina that also provides lobbying services to its independent pharmacy members, spent $2.3 million on donations. Another North Carolina company, Pharmaceutical Product Development, a contract research organization (CRO), spent $1.5 million.

BINGO !!!!!

35 Re: Something to be aware of in Obamacare on Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:44 pm

gypsy


Moderator
The US spends a higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than any other industrialised country – yet 50 million Americans are uninsured, as Obamacare begins. Photograph: Guardian
I start my approach to healthcare from two very basic premises. First, healthcare must be recognized as a right, not a privilege. Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the healthcare they need regardless of their income. Second, we must create a national healthcare system that provides quality healthcare for all in the most cost-effective way possible.

Tragically, the United States is failing in both areas.

It is unconscionable that in one of the most advanced nations in the world, there are nearly 50 million people who lack health insurance and millions more who have burdensome co-payments and deductibles. In fact, some 45,000 Americans die each year because they do not get to a doctor when they should. In terms of life expectancy, infant mortality and other health outcomes, the United States lags behind almost every other advanced country.

Despite this unimpressive record, the US spends almost twice as much per person on healthcare as any other nation. As a result of an incredibly wasteful, bureaucratic, profit-making and complicated system, the US spends 17% of its gross domestic product – approximately $2.7tn annually– on healthcare. While insurance companies, drug companies, private hospitals and medical equipment suppliers make huge profits, Americans spend more and get less for their healthcare dollars.

What should the US be doing to improve this abysmal situation?

President Obama's Affordable Care Act is a start. It prevents insurance companies from denying patients coverage for pre-existing conditions, allows people up to age 26 to stay on their parents' insurance, sets minimum standards for what insurance must cover and helps lower-income Americans afford health insurance. When the marketplace exchanges open for enrollment on Tuesday, many Americans will find the premiums will be lower than the ones they're paying now. Others will find the coverage is much more comprehensive than their current plans.

Most importantly, another 20 million Americans will receive health insurance. This is a modest step forward. But if we are serious about providing quality care for all, much more needs to be done.

The only long-term solution to America's healthcare crisis is a single-payer national healthcare program.

The good news is that, in fact, a large-scale single-payer system already exists in the United States and its enrollees love it. It is called Medicare. Open to all Americans over 65 years of age, the program has been a resounding success since its introduction 48 years ago. Medicare should be expanded to cover all Americans.

Such a single-payer system would address one of the major deficiencies in the current system: the huge amount of money wasted on billing and administration. Hospitals and independent medical practices routinely employ more billing specialists than doctors – and that's not the end of it. Patients and their families spend an enormous amount of time and effort arguing with insurance companies and bill collectors over what is covered and what they owe. Drug companies and hospitals spend billions advertising their products and services.

Creating a simple system with one payer, covering all Americans, would result in an enormous reduction in administrative expenses. We would be spending our money on healthcare and disease prevention, not on paper-pushing and debt collection.

Further, a single-payer system will expand employment opportunities and lift a financial weight off of businesses encumbered by employee health expenses. Many Americans remain at their current jobs because of the decent health insurance provided by their employer. Without the worry of losing benefits, those Americans will be free to explore other, more productive opportunities as they desire. For business owners, lifting the burden of employee healthcare expenditures will free them to invest in growing their businesses.

Congressman Jim McDermott and I have introduced the American Health Security Act. Our bill will provide every American with healthcare coverage and services through a state-administered, single-payer program, including dental and mental health coverage and low-cost prescription drugs. It would require the government to develop national policies and guidelines, as well as minimum national criteria, while giving each state the flexibility to adapt the program as needed. It would also completely overhaul the health coverage system, creating a single federal payer of state-administered health plans.

The American people understand that our current healthcare system is not working. But the time is long overdue for them to understand that there is something fundamentally wrong when the US remains the only country in the industrialized world that does not guarantee healthcare to all its people.

Healthcare is a right and we must ensure provision of that right for Americans. A single-payer system will be good for the average American, good for businesses, good for workers and good for our overall economy.   The US spends a higher proportion of GDP on healthcare than any other industrialised country – yet 50 million Americans are uninsured, as Obamacare begins. Photograph: Guardian
I start my approach to healthcare from two very basic premises. First, healthcare must be recognized as a right, not a privilege. Every man, woman and child in our country should be able to access the healthcare they need regardless of their income. Second, we must create a national healthcare system that provides quality healthcare for all in the most cost-effective way possible.

Tragically, the United States is failing in both areas.

It is unconscionable that in one of the most advanced nations in the world, there are nearly 50 million people who lack health insurance and millions more who have burdensome co-payments and deductibles. In fact, some 45,000 Americans die each year because they do not get to a doctor when they should. In terms of life expectancy, infant mortality and other health outcomes, the United States lags behind almost every other advanced country.

Despite this unimpressive record, the US spends almost twice as much per person on healthcare as any other nation. As a result of an incredibly wasteful, bureaucratic, profit-making and complicated system, the US spends 17% of its gross domestic product – approximately $2.7tn annually– on healthcare. While insurance companies, drug companies, private hospitals and medical equipment suppliers make huge profits, Americans spend more and get less for their healthcare dollars.

What should the US be doing to improve this abysmal situation?

President Obama's Affordable Care Act is a start. It prevents insurance companies from denying patients coverage for pre-existing conditions, allows people up to age 26 to stay on their parents' insurance, sets minimum standards for what insurance must cover and helps lower-income Americans afford health insurance. When the marketplace exchanges open for enrollment on Tuesday, many Americans will find the premiums will be lower than the ones they're paying now. Others will find the coverage is much more comprehensive than their current plans.

Most importantly, another 20 million Americans will receive health insurance. This is a modest step forward. But if we are serious about providing quality care for all, much more needs to be done.

The only long-term solution to America's healthcare crisis is a single-payer national healthcare program.

The good news is that, in fact, a large-scale single-payer system already exists in the United States and its enrollees love it. It is called Medicare. Open to all Americans over 65 years of age, the program has been a resounding success since its introduction 48 years ago. Medicare should be expanded to cover all Americans.

Such a single-payer system would address one of the major deficiencies in the current system: the huge amount of money wasted on billing and administration. Hospitals and independent medical practices routinely employ more billing specialists than doctors – and that's not the end of it. Patients and their families spend an enormous amount of time and effort arguing with insurance companies and bill collectors over what is covered and what they owe. Drug companies and hospitals spend billions advertising their products and services.

Creating a simple system with one payer, covering all Americans, would result in an enormous reduction in administrative expenses. We would be spending our money on healthcare and disease prevention, not on paper-pushing and debt collection.

Further, a single-payer system will expand employment opportunities and lift a financial weight off of businesses encumbered by employee health expenses. Many Americans remain at their current jobs because of the decent health insurance provided by their employer. Without the worry of losing benefits, those Americans will be free to explore other, more productive opportunities as they desire. For business owners, lifting the burden of employee healthcare expenditures will free them to invest in growing their businesses.

Congressman Jim McDermott and I have introduced the American Health Security Act. Our bill will provide every American with healthcare coverage and services through a state-administered, single-payer program, including dental and mental health coverage and low-cost prescription drugs. It would require the government to develop national policies and guidelines, as well as minimum national criteria, while giving each state the flexibility to adapt the program as needed. It would also completely overhaul the health coverage system, creating a single federal payer of state-administered health plans.

The American people understand that our current healthcare system is not working. But the time is long overdue for them to understand that there is something fundamentally wrong when the US remains the only country in the industrialized world that does not guarantee healthcare to all its people.

Healthcare is a right and we must ensure provision of that right for Americans. A single-payer system will be good for the average American, good for businesses, good for workers and good for our overall economy. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/30/single-payer-cure-healthcare-reform

36 Re: Something to be aware of in Obamacare on Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:28 pm

SSC


Admin
how in the world did you double copy this ???

37 Re: Something to be aware of in Obamacare on Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:49 pm

gypsy


Moderator
what do you mean? I copied from my browser President Obama's Affordable Care Act is a start. It prevents insurance companies from denying patients coverage for pre-existing conditions, allows people up to age 26 to stay on their parents' insurance, sets minimum standards for what insurance must cover and helps lower-income Americans afford health insurance. When the marketplace exchanges open for enrollment on Tuesday, many Americans will find the premiums will be lower than the ones they're paying now. Others will find the coverage is much more comprehensive than their current plans.

Most importantly, another 20 million Americans will receive health insurance. This is a modest step forward. But if we are serious about providing quality care for all, much more needs to be done.

38 Re: Something to be aware of in Obamacare on Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:05 pm

SSC


Admin
Tragically, the United States is failing in both areas.
Start at this line, then look for it to repeat the whole article is somehow double posted, do you read your post before submitting it ??

We were talking about pharmaceutical donations to politicians, you wanted proof, you got proof and went off in another direction again.



Last edited by SSC on Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:08 pm; edited 1 time in total

39 Re: Something to be aware of in Obamacare on Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:07 pm

gypsy


Moderator
of course I do  we have been failing along time Obama is fixing it with congress help can you imagine how much more could be done.  like i said he has accomplished more in five years than Bush did in eight, and no new wars. I never said anything about pharmaceutical lol. your the one going in different directions, some of your posts are not making sense.

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum