Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[DogofWar1]

On 2/14/2017 at 2:22 PM, visionary said:

 

Yes.

 

Next question.

[visionary]

 

[LadySkinsFan]

He's such a sleazy salesman, he's not even a businessman. Snake oil salesman.

 

The ACA was first passed in MA, by Republicans, it's a Republican plan in essence.

 

I just finished paying for my Medicare Supplement insurance and Plan D. I can afford these policies. I couldn't afford insurance before I retired. At least I don't have to worry about medical bills anymore.

[The Sisko]

17 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

[PeterMP]

So my understanding is that the large issue with Obamacare is that the people being ensured on the markets were sicker than expected.  Anybody know how much that's tied to the failure of states to expand medicaid?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 hours ago, visionary said:

Remember the good old days where sighing or checking your watch during a debate, or saying "oops" because you forgot Which agency you wanted to get rid of could cost you an election?

[PeterMP]

I'm going to put this here because it is interesting and is at least related:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/when-evidence-says-no-but-doctors-say-yes/517368/

 

" In 2012, Brown had coauthored a paper that examined every randomized clinical trial that compared stent implantation with more conservative forms of treatment, and he found that stents for stable patients prevent zero heart attacks and extend the lives of patients a grand total of not at all. In general, Brown says, “nobody that’s not having a heart attack needs a stent.” (Brown added that stents may improve chest pain in some patients, albeit fleetingly.) Nonetheless, hundreds of thousands of stable patients receive stents annually, and one in 50 will suffer a serious complication or die as a result of the implantation procedure. "

 

 

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

A doctor in Md was sued a few years ago for implanting anyone and everyone with a stent. He might of even faced criminal charges. 

 

Dr. Mark Midei from 2007 to 2009. During that time, he allegedly placed more than five hundred stents in patients who did not need them

Edited February 27, 2017 by Why am I Mr. Pink?

[twa]

I bet those folk had insurance.

[LadySkinsFan]

A version of Medicare fraud? 

[twa]

28 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

So my understanding is that the large issue with Obamacare is that the people being ensured on the markets were sicker than expected.  Anybody know how much that's tied to the failure of states to expand medicaid?

 

fwicr it had more to do with younger people not signing up in the numbers projected....but it is a good question.

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

3 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

A version of Medicare fraud? 

Yup, much like those commercials for free back braces and wheel chairs and walkers etc .... they will handle all the paper work for you. 

[skinsmarydu]

Jeez moly.  Invasive surgery for no reason.

[LadySkinsFan]

I bought my cane from the big A, delivered in two days. Nice color too.

[skinsmarydu]

2 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 Nice color too.

A nice burgundy, I presume?

[twa]

7 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

Yup, much like those commercials for free back braces and wheel chairs and walkers etc .... they will handle all the paper work for you. 

 

The OPM factor

 

 

5 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I bought my cane from the big A, delivered in two days. Nice color too.

 

I recycled my great grand parents

[ExoDus84]

4 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

Yes.

 

Next question.

 

It would truly be a Trump move if he and the other idiots on the hill create what's in essence a clone of Obamacare, and use that to "replace" the Democrat version. Trump could then just stamp his name and claim credit for this incredible health care bill, and win bigly.

 

Really though, Republicans have had years to come up with either legitimate improvements to the ACA, or formulate a new system that would be even better (ah hem, single payer), and they best they could do is copy what already exists, and something they politically vilified for years?

[LadySkinsFan]

No, actually it's turquoise.

[PeterMP]

23 minutes ago, twa said:

 

The OPM factor

 

 

Why as a percent and not actual dollar:

 

Or how about health insurance profits:

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by PeterMP

[redskins59]

The Kaiser Family Foundation website is pretty good for comparing various Republican proposals:

http://kff.org/

 

[twa]

40 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Why as a percent and not actual dollar:

 

 

 

Percent is same as the share line on yours

Share paid influences choices in most cases and directly relates to rising costs.

 

why bother charting profits when you both guarantee profit and mandate increasing the number of insured?

[Larry]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

I'm going to put this here because it is interesting and is at least related:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/when-evidence-says-no-but-doctors-say-yes/517368/

 

" In 2012, Brown had coauthored a paper that examined every randomized clinical trial that compared stent implantation with more conservative forms of treatment, and he found that stents for stable patients prevent zero heart attacks and extend the lives of patients a grand total of not at all. In general, Brown says, “nobody that’s not having a heart attack needs a stent.” (Brown added that stents may improve chest pain in some patients, albeit fleetingly.) Nonetheless, hundreds of thousands of stable patients receive stents annually, and one in 50 will suffer a serious complication or die as a result of the implantation procedure. "

 

 

 

I'd read an article about a study in that vein.  

 

Study took people who were recommended to have <one of four common, but expensive, medical procedures.  Cardiac bypass surgery was the only one I remember>, and divided them into two groups:  The ones who had the procedure, and the ones who didn't.  And then compared the life expectancy of each group.  (Defined as "what percentage of the group was still alive, five years after the recommendation?")  

 

And I think that in three of the four procedures, the life expectancy was the same, whether they had the procedure or not.  (And in the fourth, the survival rate only increased by a small amount.)  

 

Now, the summary mentioned that in many cases, the procedure did "cure" (or at least delay) the condition that it was treating.  But that the people who needed the procedure then came down with some other condition, which killed them, anyway.  The "people who had cardiac bypass surgery" group didn't die of heart attacks as often.  But they still died at the same rate as the "people who declined bypass surgery" group did.  (The article mentions that, of the "people who had bypass surgery, but died anyway" group, half of them died from an infection that they got, while they were in the hospital.)  

 

I do wonder if we need to have a societal dialog, maybe some form of shift in how we view health care, that looks at whether some of these things are actually worth the costs.  

 

(Yeah, I know.  Really dangerous road to go down.  "Death panels", and stuff.)  

 

 

---

 

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

The OPM factor

 

 

 

 

 

Congratulations.  

 

You've just demonstrated that the numbers X, and 1-X, are inversely related.  

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Larry

[twa]

Larry, quality of life has to be factored in rather than just survival rates.

 

The wife has had 7 bypasses, none of which are a cure....it did improve her quality of life though.

My cancer surgery I'm less certain of , a roll of the dice while counting cards

 

[alexey]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

The OPM factor

 

I wonder how much of this is due to an aging population getting on Medicare.

 

also, when I pay into my insurance, and then my insurance pays for my services - is that classified as "other people's money"?

Edited February 28, 2017 by alexey

[FanboyOf91]