111 New Waivers for Obamacare indication of bad law?

Page 1 of 2 [ 32 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Nov 2010, 4:47 pm

For some large businesses and unions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96Uu_tI0hTw

Oh they also tried to hide it too.

So here is the thing, if it is such a good law why all the waivers.

Update/Edit:

Found a nice little link from Newsbusters with a video clip too.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... nce-budget

The infamous death panels make another appearance.

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

15 Nov 2010, 9:14 am

No surprise...yet again.

The way it was sold and got support was to exempt group from compliance.

waltur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

15 Nov 2010, 2:40 pm

"death panels?" hearing only what you want to, much?

*facepalm*

_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

15 Nov 2010, 2:59 pm

waltur wrote:

"death panels?" hearing only what you want to, much?

*facepalm*

Cut costs by doing away with medical procedures that "do not work." Medical procedures don't always work for some people but will work for other individuals.

Then you have end of life treatments, etc.

The emphasis will be on cutting costs not saving lives.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

15 Nov 2010, 5:44 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

waltur wrote:

"death panels?" hearing only what you want to, much?

*facepalm*

Healthcare is just all cake and eating too for you, huh? Obama's both gonna cut corners to save money but then spend us into oblivion?

Eh, at least he's got some sense of balance. Better than Bush's prescription drug bill that absolutely did not take into account the upcoming baby boomers who would all qualify for it and would drastically inflate the bill's costs.

_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

15 Nov 2010, 5:45 pm

Maybe a maintenance job should be salary based only on results? If you perform life-extending measures and the person dies, then there is no charges or fees. Same with a car mechanic: if they claim they fixed your car but the problem isn't fixed then you don't have to be charged for parts or anything.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

15 Nov 2010, 8:44 pm

skafather84 wrote:

Healthcare is just all cake and eating too for you, huh? Obama's both gonna cut corners to save money but then spend us into oblivion?

So are you now admitting to the death panels. A treatment is too expensive so if someone needs it to live tough luck... Looks like Sarah Palin has just been vindicated.

skafather84 wrote:

Eh, at least he's got some sense of balance. Better than Bush's prescription drug bill that absolutely did not take into account the upcoming baby boomers who would all qualify for it and would drastically inflate the bill's costs.

Wasn't Bush's prescription drug bill actually costing less money than the CBO estimated? Anyways, I would prefer doctors and myself make decisions concerning my health not a pencil pusher in Washington.

number5
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

15 Nov 2010, 9:15 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Healthcare is just all cake and eating too for you, huh? Obama's both gonna cut corners to save money but then spend us into oblivion?

So are you now admitting to the death panels. A treatment is too expensive so if someone needs it to live tough luck... Looks like Sarah Palin has just been vindicated.

skafather84 wrote:

Death Panels. Did you mean the option for people to have a discussion with their docs about what sort of resuscitation efforts they would like to have (or not to have)? This gives patients a better understanding of their choices. Since when does education and discussion = death panel. Nobody's being shipped to mars, yet.

It's also complete nonsense to say that we currently keep decisions between patients and doctors only. Everything must be pre-approved by the insurance company. They are the ones who ultimately decide what's medically necessary - not the doctors.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

15 Nov 2010, 9:38 pm

number5 wrote:

I'm talking about denying treatments to people because it isn't "cost effective." You know like what they have in the UK.

number5 wrote:

It's also complete nonsense to say that we currently keep decisions between patients and doctors only. Everything must be pre-approved by the insurance company. They are the ones who ultimately decide what's medically necessary - not the doctors.

No, they merely decide if they are going to pay for it. Also if your insurance is through your employer the insurance company doesn't want to do anything that will get the employer to find another insurance company over them.

Fun tidbit: did you know there are over 1000 insurance companies in the US but only 3 are allowed to operate in California thanks to the California Government.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

15 Nov 2010, 9:45 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Healthcare is just all cake and eating too for you, huh? Obama's both gonna cut corners to save money but then spend us into oblivion?

So are you now admitting to the death panels. A treatment is too expensive so if someone needs it to live tough luck... Looks like Sarah Palin has just been vindicated.

Admitting to death panels? I don't see that anywhere.

You're really good at seeing what you want to see. Does it work as effectively with mirrors?

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

15 Nov 2010, 10:13 pm

skafather84 wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Healthcare is just all cake and eating too for you, huh? Obama's both gonna cut corners to save money but then spend us into oblivion?

So are you now admitting to the death panels. A treatment is too expensive so if someone needs it to live tough luck... Looks like Sarah Palin has just been vindicated.

Admitting to death panels? I don't see that anywhere.

You're really good at seeing what you want to see. Does it work as effectively with mirrors?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 60914.html

“I don’t know so much that I’m afraid Obamacare would interfere with my doctor and our relationship, as much as I am certain that it will,” Patterson said. “At some point, the doctor is going to have to decide whether he wants to follow the Hippocratic oath or the Obamacratic oath. When the interest of the patient and the doctor are not in alignment, how is he going to make a decision as to what is the right thing to do when faced with the realities of federal law that says something different?”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 92659.html

This article is one you should pay attention to:

Please check out page 203 of the main House version of health care reform. It contains all the evidence you need that the entire bill is a nasty bait-and-switch.

"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter. ..."

Yes, it really says that. The tax shall not be considered a tax. Or at least not "... for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of Section 55."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... tax-hikes/

Article continues:

Meanwhile, as the bill specifically acknowledges imposing a tax without counting it as a tax, it also imposes all sorts of requirements that act as indirect taxes under names such as "mandates" and "requirements." Page 146 requires employers to provide insurance even for part-time workers. Page 280 begins to outline a penalty for hospitals that are adjudged to have "excess readmissions." Federal bureaucrats, of course, will determine which patient readmissions are reasonable and which are excessive. The bureaucrats will do this by following the simple rules for such determinations laid out on pages 281 and 282 ... and 283 ... and 284, 285, 286, and ... oh, forget it; we got lost.

The legalistic gobbledygook in that section is mind-numbing. For instance: "IN GENERAL. -- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), for purposes of this subsection, the term 'base operating DRG payment amount' means, with respect to a hospital for a fiscal year, the payment amount that would otherwise be made under subsection (d) for a discharge if this subsection did not apply, reduced by any portion of such amount that is attributable to payments under subparagraphs (B) and (F) of paragraph (5)."

Another article with a video of interest:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/27/v ... rationing/

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Nov 2010, 4:07 am

skafather84 wrote:

Admitting to death panels? I don't see that anywhere.

You're really good at seeing what you want to see. Does it work as effectively with mirrors?

Any form of rationing that denies the care necessary to stay alive could be regarded as a death decree. The board or entity that administers such rationing could be thought of as a "death panel".

The health care put forth by the Obama Administration is, in effect, a kind of rationing of health care. On the other hand a "free market" in health care is also a rationing system. The ration stamps are dollar bills or their check-book equivalent. Anything that is not free at need is rationing.

ruveyn

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

16 Nov 2010, 11:45 am

ruveyn wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Admitting to death panels? I don't see that anywhere.

You're really good at seeing what you want to see. Does it work as effectively with mirrors?

Any form of rationing that denies the care necessary to stay alive could be regarded as a death decree. The board or entity that administers such rationing could be thought of as a "death panel".

Was referring to him saying that I was "admitting" to death panels when my statement was that he was extrapolating something from my statement that wasn't there.

Insurance companies have death panels, too. They're the ones who figured out pre-existing conditions and how to deny claims.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 Nov 2010, 12:44 pm

skafather84 wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Admitting to death panels? I don't see that anywhere.

You're really good at seeing what you want to see. Does it work as effectively with mirrors?

Any form of rationing that denies the care necessary to stay alive could be regarded as a death decree. The board or entity that administers such rationing could be thought of as a "death panel".

Was referring to him saying that I was "admitting" to death panels when my statement was that he was extrapolating something from my statement that wasn't there.

You were the one talking about cutting costs by not allowing certain treatments. Sounds like a death panel to me.

skafather84 wrote:

Insurance companies have death panels, too. They're the ones who figured out pre-existing conditions and how to deny claims.

If someone gets an insurance policy just so they have someone else paying for their cancer treatment, that is essentially stealing. That is what the Insurance Companies mean by pre-existing conditions, it is so they don't end up going bankrupt because people won't get a policy until they are actually seriously ill. If they go bankrupt, they are then unable to pay for the medical care of someone whom has been paying for an insurance policy for years whom suddenly needs heart surgery.

A better legislative idea would quite frankly be in the advent of shannigans by a prior insurance company forcing an individual to switch companies that the prior company have to reimberse the new insurance company. Not sure that would actually work, but it would sure go a long way to making insurance companies hesitant towards randomly dumping people.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

16 Nov 2010, 12:49 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

You were the one talking about cutting costs by not allowing certain treatments. Sounds like a death panel to me.

No I wasn't. Learn to read. I was commenting on how the conservatives argue on both sides of the healthcare debate (spending too much and yet cutting corners and setting up "death panels" to deny healthcare). Nothing to do with commenting on actual policies in place. Just how stupid conservatives are that some of you jackasses actually argue out of both sides of your mouths at once and have no clue that you're contradicting yourself.

Again, does this miraculous denial of reality work with mirrors, too?

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

16 Nov 2010, 1:13 pm

skafather84 wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

You were the one talking about cutting costs by not allowing certain treatments. Sounds like a death panel to me.

Uh huh, I hate to break this to you but the Jackass is the symbol of the Democrat Party.

skafather84 wrote:

Again, does this miraculous denial of reality work with mirrors, too?

I wouldn't know, I think that is something you would know one way or the other cause I'm not the one denying reality.

Page 1 of 2 [ 32 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Jump to:

111 New Waivers for Obamacare indication of bad law? Post Reply New Topic

111 New Waivers for Obamacare indication of bad law?