What do you think of the Supreme Court's decision re the Affordable Care Act?

Slicef18 wrote:

alecto wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:
More people are not being put into the system. These people are already in the system as they now go to the E.R. for healthcare and they pay nothing.
Under Obama's plan they will be forced to go the a Dr.s office or a clinic. which has a fraction of the cost of an E.R. visit.

You will always have a segment our society that will pay absolutely nothing, that will not buy insurance from the exchanges, that are to poor. These people will still be using the ER's as doctors offices. You still have the problem of the 20+ million illegal immigrants who will still use the ER.

You are wrong sir. When these runny nosed patients realize they are not going to be seen in the E.R. but will be seen in the Outpatient Clinic. the word will get around.

Slicef18 wrote:

chrissy8 wrote:oh, one more thing. Europe doesnt have a succesful medical system.

and they are bankrupt.

You are so very wrong. Where in the world did you get that information.
You'll look long and hard to find any person who would be willing to trade their healthcare for what we have here in America. Europe financial problems have nothing to do with healthcare.
Your "and they are bankrupt" is not true, All of Europe is not bankrupt. One could use your, "and they are bankrupt" and apply it to automobiles , housing, and even cheese or wine

You dont need to know my way of living. all you need to know is my life is and has been dedicated to providing superior healthcare to patients. i am a extreme advocate for quality, I am well versed in all major compliance legalities. federal and state.

Hospitals have been scared of this since 2010. All kinds of medical companies have been worried about this since then.

I think your the one who has mis-represented yourself as something your not. because you couldnt be this nieve. or maybe your just old and retired and dont know what the deal is anymore, like many here.

alecto wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

chrissy8 wrote:oh, one more thing. Europe doesnt have a succesful medical system.

and they are bankrupt.

You are so very wrong. Where in the world did you get that information.
You'll look long and hard to find any person who would be willing to trade their healthcare for what we have here in America. Europe financial problems have nothing to do with healthcare.
Your "and they are bankrupt" is not true, All of Europe is not bankrupt. One could use your, "and they are bankrupt" and apply it to automobiles , housing, and even cheese or wine

I have a good friend who left England because it was a two year wait for his wife to get her appendix removed. The day after they arrived here it was removed and they never went back to England. He rails about the rationed care, the long waits for the simplest procedures, and the poor quality of healthcare professionals. If our quality of care was so bad people wouldn't be coming here to get things done.

PBulldog2 wrote:

You dont need to know my way of living. all you need to know is my life is and has been dedicated to providing superior healthcare to patients. i am a extreme advocate for quality, I am well versed in all major compliance legalities. federal and state.

Hospitals have been scared of this since 2010. All kinds of medical companies have been worried about this since then.

I think your the one who has mis-represented yourself as something your not. because you couldnt be this nieve. or maybe your just old and retired and dont know what the deal is anymore, like many here.

You're an "extreme advocate" for quality care yet you "don't give a shit" about one person's experience? Wow. Double wow, actually.

chrissy8 wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:

You dont need to know my way of living. all you need to know is my life is and has been dedicated to providing superior healthcare to patients. i am a extreme advocate for quality, I am well versed in all major compliance legalities. federal and state.

Hospitals have been scared of this since 2010. All kinds of medical companies have been worried about this since then.

I think your the one who has mis-represented yourself as something your not. because you couldnt be this nieve. or maybe your just old and retired and dont know what the deal is anymore, like many here.

You're an "extreme advocate" for quality care yet you "don't give a shit" about one person's experience? Wow. Double wow, actually.

I care about each individual patient. But in the BIG PICTURE you cant get so emotional with a bad experiance. You continue to focus on doing the best for all.

heres your idea, my momma blah blah had a bad experiance, the whole hopistal is bad boo hoo.

fact is 10,000 other people came in and got exactly what they needed and some of their lives were saved< purpose of healthcare.

Qualioty of care means measurments/stats and yes there is a deviation that is acceptible. hey, go look up HCAPS, all hospitals values are posted on line.

satisfaction measured, pay based

In the BIG picture, you cant spend all your time on one person, that one person IS part of the process and IS valuble. But at the end of the day, its always the big picture. sorry you dont like it. I realize this type of thinking is only for movers and shakers. You cant be a whiny baby in this harsh bussiness.

Slicef18 wrote:

alecto wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

chrissy8 wrote:oh, one more thing. Europe doesnt have a succesful medical system.

and they are bankrupt.

You are so very wrong. Where in the world did you get that information.
You'll look long and hard to find any person who would be willing to trade their healthcare for what we have here in America. Europe financial problems have nothing to do with healthcare.
Your "and they are bankrupt" is not true, All of Europe is not bankrupt. One could use your, "and they are bankrupt" and apply it to automobiles , housing, and even cheese or wine

I have a good friend who left England because it was a two year wait for his wife to get her appendix removed. The day after they arrived here it was removed and they never went back to England. He rails about the rationed care, the long waits for the simplest procedures, and the poor quality of healthcare professionals. If our quality of care was so bad people wouldn't be coming here to get things done.

That sir is crap. Elective procedures such as getting a tummy tuck or circumcision do have a waiting period that can be long. Emergency procedures such as heart attack, broken bone or appendicitis are emergencies and get immediate medical attention. Let me assure you, anyone who had an appendicitis and waited two years would have developed peritonitis after a few days and would have been long dead. this is a medical certainty. Up until the early 20th century and anesthesia was developed, people died of an appendicitis by the tens of thousands. In those days it was called "Inflamed Bowel Syndrome."

"If our quality of care was so bad people wouldn't be coming here to get things done?"

This is easy, people from Europe don't come to Pensacola, Milton, Panama City or Montgomery for their medical care. They go to the Mayo Clinic, MD Anderson, Sloan Kettering, Cleveland Clinic, or John Hopkins.

PBulldog2 wrote:Allow me to give another view on current ED care and the effect it has on those who are truly ill.

Several days ago, I took a friend to a local ED with chest pain. Instead of being taken back immediately, as would have happened in the old days of true triage nursing, he was left to stand at the desk. After standing there for about five minutes, he was directed to sign in and state his complaint in writing.

I wrote "chest pain" as his complaint. About five minutes later, he was taken in to the so-called triage area and assessed.

Fortunately, after being kept in the hospital for two days, my friend AK is doing well. He didn't have an MI.

In the old days, patients saw the triage nurse first thing, as soon as they walked through the door. They did NOT have a clipboard pushed at them by a bored clerk who asked them to sign in. Also, chest pain was a priority back then. No more. Instead, all patients sign in and then wait to have their vital signs taken. That is NOT triage.

The quality of emergency health care has declined incredibly over the last 30 years. I have to wonder if it's not partially because the ED staff are complacent and lackadaisical due to the high number of non-emergent patients they see now.

As an aside: As I sat with my friend in the ED room, he was asked by another clerk if he could pay anything on his bill that day. He was also told his deductible would be higher since he was being admitted. This was said to a person who was having chest pain and may have had an MI (heart attack.) I told the clerk to get the hell out.

VectorMan wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:Allow me to give another view on current ED care and the effect it has on those who are truly ill.

Several days ago, I took a friend to a local ED with chest pain. Instead of being taken back immediately, as would have happened in the old days of true triage nursing, he was left to stand at the desk. After standing there for about five minutes, he was directed to sign in and state his complaint in writing.

I wrote "chest pain" as his complaint. About five minutes later, he was taken in to the so-called triage area and assessed.

Fortunately, after being kept in the hospital for two days, my friend AK is doing well. He didn't have an MI.

In the old days, patients saw the triage nurse first thing, as soon as they walked through the door. They did NOT have a clipboard pushed at them by a bored clerk who asked them to sign in. Also, chest pain was a priority back then. No more. Instead, all patients sign in and then wait to have their vital signs taken. That is NOT triage.

The quality of emergency health care has declined incredibly over the last 30 years. I have to wonder if it's not partially because the ED staff are complacent and lackadaisical due to the high number of non-emergent patients they see now.

As an aside: As I sat with my friend in the ED room, he was asked by another clerk if he could pay anything on his bill that day. He was also told his deductible would be higher since he was being admitted. This was said to a person who was having chest pain and may have had an MI (heart attack.) I told the clerk to get the hell out.

If you believe ObamaCare is going to make your experience in the ER better, I have a bridge to sell you.

All you have to do is look at how our government has handled all of our other "social" programs. They screw it up, every time and all the time.

In the end, I don't think this is really the legacy Obama wants. Time will tell and then it'll be history.

November is going to be pretty amazing.

There is no need to go to the ER if you have Obamacare.BTW, Medicare and Tricare are govt. run programs-they're pretty successful.

ABO

VectorMan wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:Allow me to give another view on current ED care and the effect it has on those who are truly ill.

Several days ago, I took a friend to a local ED with chest pain. Instead of being taken back immediately, as would have happened in the old days of true triage nursing, he was left to stand at the desk. After standing there for about five minutes, he was directed to sign in and state his complaint in writing.

I wrote "chest pain" as his complaint. About five minutes later, he was taken in to the so-called triage area and assessed.

Fortunately, after being kept in the hospital for two days, my friend AK is doing well. He didn't have an MI.

In the old days, patients saw the triage nurse first thing, as soon as they walked through the door. They did NOT have a clipboard pushed at them by a bored clerk who asked them to sign in. Also, chest pain was a priority back then. No more. Instead, all patients sign in and then wait to have their vital signs taken. That is NOT triage.

The quality of emergency health care has declined incredibly over the last 30 years. I have to wonder if it's not partially because the ED staff are complacent and lackadaisical due to the high number of non-emergent patients they see now.

As an aside: As I sat with my friend in the ED room, he was asked by another clerk if he could pay anything on his bill that day. He was also told his deductible would be higher since he was being admitted. This was said to a person who was having chest pain and may have had an MI (heart attack.) I told the clerk to get the hell out.

If you believe ObamaCare is going to make your experience in the ER better, I have a bridge to sell you.

All you have to do is look at how our government has handled all of our other "social" programs. They screw it up, every time and all the time.

In the end, I don't think this is really the legacy Obama wants. Time will tell and then it'll be history.

November is going to be pretty amazing.

I wasn't saying the ACA would make care any better. What I was saying is care already stinks at some places, even though we supposedly have the best health care in the world.

ABO

Slicef18 wrote:

chrissy8 wrote:oh, one more thing. Europe doesnt have a succesful medical system.

and they are bankrupt.

You are so very wrong. Where in the world did you get that information.
You'll look long and hard to find any person who would be willing to trade their healthcare for what we have here in America. Europe financial problems have nothing to do with healthcare.
Your "and they are bankrupt" is not true, All of Europe is not bankrupt. One could use your, "and they are bankrupt" and apply it to automobiles , housing, and even cheese or wine

Dreamsglore wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

alecto wrote:

Slicef18 wrote:

chrissy8 wrote:oh, one more thing. Europe doesnt have a succesful medical system.

and they are bankrupt.

You are so very wrong. Where in the world did you get that information.
You'll look long and hard to find any person who would be willing to trade their healthcare for what we have here in America. Europe financial problems have nothing to do with healthcare.
Your "and they are bankrupt" is not true, All of Europe is not bankrupt. One could use your, "and they are bankrupt" and apply it to automobiles , housing, and even cheese or wine

I have a good friend who left England because it was a two year wait for his wife to get her appendix removed. The day after they arrived here it was removed and they never went back to England. He rails about the rationed care, the long waits for the simplest procedures, and the poor quality of healthcare professionals. If our quality of care was so bad people wouldn't be coming here to get things done.

That sir is crap. Elective procedures such as getting a tummy tuck or circumcision do have a waiting period that can be long. Emergency procedures such as heart attack, broken bone or appendicitis are emergencies and get immediate medical attention. Let me assure you, anyone who had an appendicitis and waited two years would have developed peritonitis after a few days and would have been long dead. this is a medical certainty. Up until the early 20th century and anesthesia was developed, people died of an appendicitis by the tens of thousands. In those days it was called "Inflamed Bowel Syndrome."

"If our quality of care was so bad people wouldn't be coming here to get things done?"

This is easy, people from Europe don't come to Pensacola, Milton, Panama City or Montgomery for their medical care. They go to the Mayo Clinic, MD Anderson, Sloan Kettering, Cleveland Clinic, or John Hopkins.

Yes, it is crap and typical of the lies of the right but in this case it is almost insulting to think people would believe that. My mother got sick in Germany and spent a week in the hospital during a vacation.The care was excellent and way above what she gets here. She had a procedure there three times in that week that when she came back home took 6 months to schedule here.

Markle wrote:

Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

alecto wrote:

Admin wrote:And where has alecto ran off to?

Sorry some people have to work to pay for your healthcare. I have posted links that talk about the new taxes which you apparently want to ignore or you just do not comprehend what is in those links. So here is another link for you to ignore so you can come back and ask "The question is how is this the largest tax increase in American history?"

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/Seven-new-taxes

The reality is when you put more people into a system you have to pay for it, to pay for it you have to raise taxes. If I do not buy insurance I will have a extra $2085 added to my taxes at the end of the year. I don't know what planet you live on but I have never had a tax increase like that before. Have you? Now keep in mind when the government argued there case before the supreme court it was all about interstate commerce but the supreme court saw it for what it was, a TAX.

salinsky wrote:The CBO has said the mandate penalty will raise $27 billion over the next decade. Do the math. Calling this a "tax increase" is debatable, but even if it is one, it's clearly one of the smallest increases ever. Anyone claiming that this is the largest tax increase in history is either completely ignorant or a liar.

ButtMan wrote:

Markle wrote:

Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

what's your source for that?

salinsky wrote: The CBO has said the mandate penalty will raise $27 billion over the next decade. Do the math. Calling this a "tax increase" is debatable, but even if it is one, it's clearly one of the smallest increases ever. Anyone claiming that this is the largest tax increase in history is either completely ignorant or a liar.

Markle wrote:

salinsky wrote: The CBO has said the mandate penalty will raise $27 billion over the next decade. Do the math. Calling this a "tax increase" is debatable, but even if it is one, it's clearly one of the smallest increases ever. Anyone claiming that this is the largest tax increase in history is either completely ignorant or a liar.

You are clearly playing with a short deck. Please show us a couple of examples, of government entitlement programs, which have ended up costing LESS than the initial estimates prior to our being sold the bill of goods.

PLUS the penalties, "taxes" PLUS what is collected from Insurance Companies.

Are you including the $500 BILLION CUT in Medicare?



You're quite humorous!

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

salinsky wrote: The CBO has said the mandate penalty will raise $27 billion over the next decade. Do the math. Calling this a "tax increase" is debatable, but even if it is one, it's clearly one of the smallest increases ever. Anyone claiming that this is the largest tax increase in history is either completely ignorant or a liar.

You are clearly playing with a short deck. Please show us a couple of examples, of government entitlement programs, which have ended up costing LESS than the initial estimates prior to our being sold the bill of goods.

PLUS the penalties, "taxes" PLUS what is collected from Insurance Companies.

Are you including the $500 BILLION CUT in Medicare?



You're quite humorous!

According to your chart, the affordable care act equates to an increase in tax revenue of $675.3 billion over 10 years - or, $67.5 billion per year. We could debate this figure as well, but who cares. Let's just assume for a second that Markle is correct. Cough.

Given a GDP of roughly $15 trillion dollars, the affordable care represents a tax increase of 0.48% of GDP.

Now, Markle, is a tax increase that amounts to 0.48% of GDP the greatest tax increase in American history?

Alecto?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/28/rush-limbaugh/health-care-law-not-largest-tax-increase-us-histor/

1. Revenue Act of 1942: 5.04 percent of GDP;

2. Revenue Act of 1961: 2.2 percent of GDP;

3. Current Tax Payment Act of 1943: 1.13 percent of GDP;

4. Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09 percent of GDP;

5. Excess Profits Tax of 1950: .97 percent of GDP;

Here are more modern tax increases for comparison:

1. Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09 percent of GDP;

2. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982: .8 percent of GDP;

3(t): Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980: .5 percent of GDP

3(t): Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; .5 percent of GDP;

5: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990; .49 percent of GDP.


Are you two ready to stand corrected now?

othershoe1030 wrote: Not so fast. They're not done yet!

Response to the Supreme Court’s Decision Regarding the Affordable Care Act

2
june 28, 2012
CBO is in the process of reviewing the Supreme Court’s decision related to the Affordable Care Act to assess the effect on CBO’s projections of federal spending and revenue under current law. We expect that this assessment will probably take some time.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43362

Markle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:

salinsky wrote: The CBO has said the mandate penalty will raise $27 billion over the next decade. Do the math. Calling this a "tax increase" is debatable, but even if it is one, it's clearly one of the smallest increases ever. Anyone claiming that this is the largest tax increase in history is either completely ignorant or a liar.

You are clearly playing with a short deck. Please show us a couple of examples, of government entitlement programs, which have ended up costing LESS than the initial estimates prior to our being sold the bill of goods.

PLUS the penalties, "taxes" PLUS what is collected from Insurance Companies.

Are you including the $500 BILLION CUT in Medicare?



You're quite humorous!

According to your chart, the affordable care act equates to an increase in tax revenue of $675.3 billion over 10 years - or, $67.5 billion per year. We could debate this figure as well, but who cares. Let's just assume for a second that Markle is correct. Cough.

Given a GDP of roughly $15 trillion dollars, the affordable care represents a tax increase of 0.48% of GDP.

Now, Markle, is a tax increase that amounts to 0.48% of GDP the greatest tax increase in American history?

Alecto?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/28/rush-limbaugh/health-care-law-not-largest-tax-increase-us-histor/

1. Revenue Act of 1942: 5.04 percent of GDP;

2. Revenue Act of 1961: 2.2 percent of GDP;

3. Current Tax Payment Act of 1943: 1.13 percent of GDP;

4. Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09 percent of GDP;

5. Excess Profits Tax of 1950: .97 percent of GDP;

Here are more modern tax increases for comparison:

1. Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968: 1.09 percent of GDP;

2. Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982: .8 percent of GDP;

3(t): Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980: .5 percent of GDP

3(t): Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; .5 percent of GDP;

5: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990; .49 percent of GDP.


Are you two ready to stand corrected now?

CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs

March 13, 2012

President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/1175831

You're gullibility is what got this president elected.