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

[Larry]

Well, they certainly are contributing. 

 

"Biggest", I think, she's wrong on. 

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I simply asked.  I see no reason why the topic was brought up.  JMS and Tulane brought it up with different angles.  Semantic Larry can tell me how he interpreted the postings and I will tell you how I interpret it.

 

I do like your continued use of emotional words to try and protect your part.  Now that is treasonous.

Meanwhile, back to Obamacare.

 

No, I did not provide a different angle.  That's exactly the angle I began with.  That this is not the worst thing since unsliced bread, that this was a republican idea that they could have gotten behind, and that millions of Americans will have more access to healthcare because of it.  However, for purely political reasons, they decided to run from their own idea and brand it communism.

 

I had no other "angle" at all.  That's basically exactly what my post said: republicans have some ideas, but they ran from from for purely political reasons.

[chipwhich]

No, I did not provide a different angle.  That's exactly the angle I began with.  That this is not the worst thing since unsliced bread, that this was a republican idea that they could have gotten behind, and that millions of Americans will have more access to healthcare because of it.  However, for purely political reasons, they decided to run from their own idea and brand it communism.

 

I had no other "angle" at all.  That's basically exactly what my post said: republicans have some ideas, but they ran from from for purely political reasons.

 

Read comprehension is your friend.

 

You and JMS brought up the same topic coming from different angles.

 

I am not discussing Obamacare with a political party hat on and a party horn in my mouth.  That's left for some on this board and for the party elite.

 

I am just discussing the facts of Obamacare.  I honestly don't know the difference between Obamacare and Ryancare, I am sure they aren't exact.  You are a lawyer, surely they aren't legally the same plan.  If they were, then I wonder why our government didn't just use the Ryancare plan to start with (I do know, it's politics).  I also didn't brand anything communism, nor do I choose to bark at each other with emotional and political hogwash that gets our country nowhere.

 

Now if you like the fact that the poor uninsured are getting "low" premiums and high deductibles and a lot of out of pocket costs to see a physician, with catastrophe insurance if they have a heart attack which will HOPEFULLY protect them from bankruptcy if they can afford the deductible, IF the choose to even participate in the plan.  If this system of health care pleases you, then great, we disagree on the outcome.

I for one, hope for a little more.

I'm not 100% certain that it's impossible.

I've been saying for years that I think what's needed, in a perfect world, would be a single payer, national, taxpayer-paid, basic health care coverage.

Something that would cover things like doctor visits when you have a cold. X rays. Blood tests. Diagnostics. The kinds of things that I assume are done at urgent care centers.

Basics.

 

Ah, got it. 

 

I'm Semantic Larry, and you "simply asked". 

 

Larry, I actually agree with you here, the problem with our society is being overly prescribed.  Prescription drugs are a major problem and the costs are out of control.

Edited November 25, 2013 by chipwhich

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Read comprehension is your friend.

 

You and JMS brought up the same topic coming from different angles.

 

 

I think you should take a sip of your own medicine on this one.

[chipwhich]

I think you should take a sip of your own medicine on this one.

 

Do you have an opinion on Obamacare that isn't based on what repubs or dems think?  Your own thought???

[skinsmarydu]

Read comprehension is your friend.

 

Ryancare,  

 

Larry, I actually agree with you here, the problem with our society is being overly prescribed.  Prescription drugs are a major problem and the costs are out of control.

It is your most dear friend, and Tulane hasn't changed, dude. He's still saying what he said in the beginning, which is what I've said. It was their plan all along.

It's not Ryancare...Ryan couldn't give a **** about what anyone else has.

Yes, scripts are out of control, and so is their cost. Your solution?

(I'm guessing crickets. On all three.)

Edited November 25, 2013 by skinsmarydu

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Do you have an opinion on Obamacare that isn't based on what repubs or dems think?  Your own thought???

 

I don't even know what that means.  If I agree with republicans or democrats, it isn't my own thought?  I have to have a different thought, a disagreeable one, for it to be my own?

 

I have stated repeatedly what I think of Obamacare.  It is not the best solution.  It is better than the old system.  It is flat out stupid to declare it hasn't work or it has worked after 25 days of implementation.  It is a conservative plan that was created by the big business because it was a handout to insurance companies.  One Obama supported it, the republicans hated it for the sole reason that Obama supported it.

 

Ultimately, do I think it will it work?  I think it will work to HELP control costs and to expand access to healthcare.  Will it make healthcare affordable for all?  I don't think so.  We need to have either a single payer system, or a public system that provides basic coverage to people: things like emergency room and annual physicals, as well as basic medical treatment and pharmaceutical needs.  That can then be supplemented with private insurance on top of this basic care.  

 

I have made all these statements repeatedly.  You have ignored them and lumped me in with whatever agenda you want me to pursue.  You would do well to read what I say, and have your own opinion before you accuse me of not having mine.

[chipwhich]

It is your most dear friend, and Tulane hasn't changed, dude. He's still saying what he said in the beginning, which is what I've said. It was their plan all along.

It's not Ryancare...Ryan couldn't give a **** about what anyone else has.

Yes, scripts are out of control, and so is their cost. Your solution?

(I'm guessing crickets. On all three.)

 

 

Mary,

You never respond to my posts where I respond to you, so please don't cricket me.

Prescription drugs are out of control, I believe we are an over prescribed country and isn't anything to be fixed.  Whether its an allergy, erection, constipation, blood pressure, or you just feeling out of sorts, doctors only solution is to get the patient pill popping.  I don't think Americans realize the harm, and the just pop em like their hot.

 

As far as the other stuff, I really don't care about political jousting over whose plan is what, who is a terrorist, or who is the anti christ.  The reality is we have a plan called the ACA, my only concern is with that plan.

[chipwhich]

I don't even know what that means.  If I agree with republicans or democrats, it isn't my own thought?  I have to have a different thought, a disagreeable one, for it to be my own?

 

I have stated repeatedly what I think of Obamacare.  It is not the best solution.  It is better than the old system.  It is flat out stupid to declare it hasn't work or it has worked after 25 days of implementation.  It is a conservative plan that was created by the big business because it was a handout to insurance companies.  One Obama supported it, the republicans hated it for the sole reason that Obama supported it.

 

Ultimately, do I think it will it work?  I think it will work to HELP control costs and to expand access to healthcare.  Will it make healthcare affordable for all?  I don't think so.  We need to have either a single payer system, or a public system that provides basic coverage to people: things like emergency room and annual physicals, as well as basic medical treatment and pharmaceutical needs.  That can then be supplemented with private insurance on top of this basic care.  

 

I have made all these statements repeatedly.  You have ignored them and lumped me in with whatever agenda you want me to pursue.  You would do well to read what I say, and have your own opinion before you accuse me of not having mine.

 

Tulane,

 

I remember the first time I heard we were getting universal health care, or some encompassing health plan.  It was at a Christmas Party in DC at my wifes prestigious law firm.  It was a liberal firm, and Bill Clinton had just gotten elected.  One lawyer toasted to the crowded ballroom, something to the effect of hurray we are on our way to universal health.

The back and forth over the years whether its the Ryan plan, or the Mccain plain, or Obama took it from a conservative plan I don't pay attention too, nor do I care to "win" and say it's my parties plan or another parties plan.  Nor am I against it because of any political grandstanding.  I honestly don't pay attention to that stuff.

If we were going to bite the bullet, we should have implemented a single payer system.

 

I don't think Obamacare will control costs, I do think it will improve access to healthcare.  What I have contended all along is that cheap insurance, like being proposed in Obamacare, has been readily available.  Had we just dropped pre-existing conditions and given the uninsured a tax break, it might have gone a long way and quicker to what we get 4 years later.

[Larry]

Prescription drugs are out of control, I believe we are an over prescribed country and isn't anything to be fixed.  Whether its an allergy, erection, constipation, blood pressure, or you just feeling out of sorts, doctors only solution is to get the patient pill popping.  I don't think Americans realize the harm, and the just pop em like their hot.

So, you don't object to how much they cost. You object to the fact that they're prescribed in the first place?

I assume that Doctors disagree. (If they do object to them, then they should not prescribe so many of them.)

----------

That said, though.

I came up with an idea, probably a decade ago.

I don't think it should be legal to advertise prescription medication.

I came to this conclusion when I came to the impression that a lot of pharmaceutical advertising consists of trying to get patients to pressure their doctors to prescribe things.

My reasoning is that supposedly, requiring a prescription to need a prescription is a determination that only a trained professional has sufficient knowledge to decide whether this drug is right for you.

That advertising prescription medication to consumers is like advertising Cap'n Crunch to children. (And I suspect that the drug companies are a lot more manipulative than the cerial companies. Because there's a lot more money involved.

I assume that they aren't just advertising, but bet that they do things like "visit our web page, and we'll steer you towards the doctor that prescribes more Damitol than any other doctor in your county."

Part of my reasoning for this was that, 10 years ago, Mom watched a steady diet of Matlock, on TV. And, on that show, I'd say a third of the commercials were for drugs. And every commercial Mom saw, she wanted. Even the erectile dysfunction ones.

(Another third of the commercials were for electric scooters or stair lifts "completely free to you. Medicare pays for it.". And the other third were "If you or anyone you know has ever had anything bad happen to them, anywhere within 100 yards of a nursing home, call 1-800-. . . ")

[skinsmarydu]

Mary,

You never respond to my posts where I respond to you, so please don't cricket me.

Prescription drugs are out of control, I believe we are an over prescribed country and isn't anything to be fixed.  Whether its an allergy, erection, constipation, blood pressure, or you just feeling out of sorts, doctors only solution is to get the patient pill popping.  I don't think Americans realize the harm, and the just pop em like their hot.

 

As far as the other stuff, I really don't care about political jousting over whose plan is what, who is a terrorist, or who is the anti christ.  The reality is we have a plan called the ACA, my only concern is with that plan.

Sorry, I may have missed a post or nine...was just going on what I read. If you answer the questions I ask, I don't feel the need to respond, as it tires the mods...I think we've lost Jumbo, or maybe the season did. Anyhoo...I know you don't want to politically joust when it's not being said your way. But it really was a Heritage Foundation idea. Governor Mitt Romney successfully executed said idea.  What I think is wrong is that it's not YOUR DUDE doing it.  If it were President Romney, there wouldn't be any cryin'.  Wouldn't be any from me, promise you that.  If Massachusetts was country-wide, I'd be all for it.  *kinda like I already am*...

Let's see how it works.  Still only have BS write-ups.  Nothing works yet.  Bumbled, yes. 

[chipwhich]

So, you don't object to how much they cost. You object to the fact that they're prescribed in the first place?

I assume that Doctors disagree. (If they do object to them, then they should not prescribe so many of them.)

----------

 

Well I object to both.  When a 3 month supply of whatever costs my employee sometimes close to $1,000.  It's insane.

 

I also think it's quicker for a doctor to just prescribe a high blood pressure pill or a diabetes med then to get patients to try and change their diet or their lifestyles.  I have seen my wife "pressured" to get on certain medications which have pretty scary side effects.

 

That said, though.

I came up with an idea, probably a decade ago.

I don't think it should be legal to advertise prescription medication.

I came to this conclusion when I came to the impression that a lot of pharmaceutical advertising consists of trying to get patients to pressure their doctors to prescribe things.

My reasoning is that supposedly, requiring a prescription to need a prescription is a determination that only a trained professional has sufficient knowledge to decide whether this drug is right for you.

That advertising prescription medication to consumers is like advertising Cap'n Crunch to children. (And I suspect that the drug companies are a lot more manipulative than the cerial companies. Because there's a lot more money involved.

I assume that they aren't just advertising, but bet that they do things like "visit our web page, and we'll steer you towards the doctor that prescribes more Damitol than any other doctor in your county."

Part of my reasoning for this was that, 10 years ago, Mom watched a steady diet of Matlock, on TV. And, on that show, I'd say a third of the commercials were for drugs. And every commercial Mom saw, she wanted. Even the erectile dysfunction ones.

(Another third of the commercials were for electric scooters or stair lifts "completely free to you. Medicare pays for it.". And the other third were "If you or anyone you know has ever had anything bad happen to them, anywhere within 100 yards of a nursing home, call 1-800-. . . ")

 

 

I don't disagree with any of that.

Sorry, I may have missed a post or nine...was just going on what I read. If you answer the questions I ask, I don't feel the need to respond, as it tires the mods...I think we've lost Jumbo, or maybe the season did. Anyhoo...I know you don't want to politically joust when it's not being said your way. But it really was a Heritage Foundation idea. Governor Mitt Romney successfully executed said idea.  What I think is wrong is that it's not YOUR DUDE doing it.  If it were President Romney, there wouldn't be any cryin'.  Wouldn't be any from me, promise you that.  If Massachusetts was country-wide, I'd be all for it.  *kinda like I already am*...

Let's see how it works.  Still only have BS write-ups.  Nothing works yet.  Bumbled, yes. 

 

I wouldn't be happy with it if it was "my dude"

 

I just want coverage so I can retire and not worry about health care. 

[Larry]

Well I object to both.  When a 3 month supply of whatever costs my employee sometimes close to $1,000.  It's insane.

 

I also think it's quicker for a doctor to just prescribe a high blood pressure pill or a diabetes med then to get patients to try and change their diet or their lifestyles.  I have seen my wife "pressured" to get on certain medications which have pretty scary side effects.

OT, anecdotal.

Heard some woman doing a health call-in radio show, about natural cures and all.

One of the things that struck me, was that it seemed like every single caller, no matter what their problem, Garlic was at least part of her answer.

At one point she was lamenting the way the medical profession downplays the effects of diet and supplements. She said she was attending a medical conference, and overheard two doctors discussing the merits of two different brands of prescription anti-cholesterol pills.

She walked up to them, stuck her nose in, and asked "What about garlic?"

They looked puzzled at her. Eventually one of them said "But garlic only lowers cholesterol by 10%."

Her response was "And . . . . ?"

----------

That said, though. I wonder, IF there is some kind of prejudice in the medical profession, towards pills, how much of it is because "When I tell the patient to exercise, or to cut down on fats, or whatever, they don't do it. But, when I tell them to take this pill, they do."

[chipwhich]

OT, anecdotal.

Heard some woman doing a health call-in radio show, about natural cures and all.

One of the things that struck me, was that it seemed like every single caller, no matter what their problem, Garlic was at least part of her answer.

At one point she was lamenting the way the medical profession downplays the effects of diet and supplements. She said she was attending a medical conference, and overheard two doctors discussing the merits of two different brands of prescription anti-cholesterol pills.

She walked up to them, stuck her nose in, and asked "What about garlic?"

They looked puzzled at her. Eventually one of them said "But garlic only lowers cholesterol by 10%."

Her response was "And . . . . ?"

----------

That said, though. I wonder, IF there is some kind of prejudice in the medical profession, towards pills, how much of it is because "When I tell the patient to exercise, or to cut down on fats, or whatever, they don't do it. But, when I tell them to take this pill, they do."

 

I agree on the "natural" scams as well.

I would also like to throw in the "free sample" prescriptions that doctors give aways because their pharmaceutical rep gave them to them.  Here is a free three month supply to BlabbityBlah, if you like it we will get you on a regimen.

 

I think the problem is doctors are so squeezed for time spent with patients, to book as many in an hour to make a living, that there isn't time to work on a solution, just a patch.  Here take this.

[Larry]

I think the problem is doctors are so squeezed for time spent with patients, to book as many in an hour to make a living, that there isn't time to work on a solution, just a patch.  Here take this.

I do see that a lot.

My suspicion is that the margins have been cut so thin, that the only way for providers to make money is for them to be busy 100% of the time.

Everything at the doctor's office is geared around one thing: Making sure that the Doctor has no idle time whatsoever.

And I'm sure it's not just doctors, either. Recall hearing somebody (on here?) commenting that, where they are, the law says that there has to be one RN for every X patients. And every hospital and nursing home in the state has exactly that number.

And that, if you do the math, it works out that that RN, in an 8 hour shift, has 18 minutes per patient.

And that's only if said patients are considerate enough to need the nurse one at a time, in turn, spaced evenly throughout the shift.

The impression I get is that there really isn't a whole lot of fat, to trim, medically.

Now, when I was repairing computers, I saw a lot of billing offices. And I feel like there's got to be some way we could cut health care costs, by reducing the legion of people whose job is to deal with 137 different insurance companies and so forth. I think that the amount of administrative overhead in health care is probably staggering.

I keep thinking that the insurance companies will come up with a way of simplifying all this. Since, after all, they're the ones paying for it. But it doesn't seem to be happening.

[chipwhich]

I do see that a lot.

My suspicion is that the margins have been cut so thin, that the only way for providers to make money is for them to be busy 100% of the time.

Everything at the doctor's office is geared around one thing: Making sure that the Doctor has no idle time whatsoever.

 

And I'm sure it's not just doctors, either. Recall hearing somebody (on here?) commenting that, where they are, the law says that there has to be one RN for every X patients. And every hospital and nursing home in the state has exactly that number.

And that, if you do the math, it works out that that RN, in an 8 hour shift, has 18 minutes per patient.

And that's only if said patients are considerate enough to need the nurse one at a time, in turn, spaced evenly throughout the shift.

The impression I get is that there really isn't a whole lot of fat, to trim, medically.

Now, when I was repairing computers, I saw a lot of billing offices. And I feel like there's got to be some way we could cut health care costs, by reducing the legion of people whose job is to deal with 137 different insurance companies and so forth. I think that the amount of administrative overhead in health care is probably staggering.

I keep thinking that the insurance companies will come up with a way of simplifying all this. Since, after all, they're the ones paying for it. But it doesn't seem to be happening.

 

 

I would also add, and this is not an insult to Tulane Skins Fan, but the insurance requirements practitioners must keep because of lawsuits and just overall laws in general cause medical malpractice suits to require very expensive policies to protect the practitioner.

I wonder if there is any other country in the world where doctors have to fear huge medical malpractice lawsuits.

[Wrong Direction]

OT, anecdotal.

Heard some woman doing a health call-in radio show, about natural cures and all.

One of the things that struck me, was that it seemed like every single caller, no matter what their problem, Garlic was at least part of her answer.

At one point she was lamenting the way the medical profession downplays the effects of diet and supplements. She said she was attending a medical conference, and overheard two doctors discussing the merits of two different brands of prescription anti-cholesterol pills.

She walked up to them, stuck her nose in, and asked "What about garlic?"

They looked puzzled at her. Eventually one of them said "But garlic only lowers cholesterol by 10%."

Her response was "And . . . . ?"

----------

That said, though. I wonder, IF there is some kind of prejudice in the medical profession, towards pills, how much of it is because "When I tell the patient to exercise, or to cut down on fats, or whatever, they don't do it. But, when I tell them to take this pill, they do."

 

So, I googled it and found this, plus more.

 

http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/cardiovascular/cholesterol/foods-that-lower-cholesterol4.htm

 

In the early 1990s, evidence suggested that garlic reduced cholesterol 9 to 12 percent, but in 2000, a review of the evidence found that garlic reduced cholesterol by only 4 to 6 percent. A study that used dried garlic powder over 8 to 12 weeks showed significant reductions in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides, but the effect didn't last beyond six months of treatment, suggesting that garlic has only a short-term effect on cholesterol.

 

 

As an aside, I've been told to that Red Yeast Rice supplements should also help. 

 

http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/red-yeast-rice

 

One showed that taking 2.4 grams per day of red yeast rice reduced LDL levels by 22% and total cholesterol by 16% in 12 weeks. Another study showed that taking 1.2 grams per day lowered LDL levels by 26% in just eight weeks.

However, the studies of red yeast rice have so far been fairly small and didn't last long enough to reveal the long-term effects.

 

[Elessar78]

Sorry, when accountants get involved in trying to maximize profitability things begin to suck for all parties when dealing with nebulous things like patient care or creative work (advertising). It's probably great when you're producing widgets.

 

I can't blame doctors. They have school loans to pay off. They have a standard of lifestyle they've been told they should live up to by going into this profession.  

[twa]

more fun

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/25/fact-check-health-care-site-estimates/3688221/

 

Fact check: HealthCare.gov estimates may be misleading

Duh 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/25/obamacare-policies-slam-smokers-could-backfire/#

 

ObamaCare slams smokers with sky-high premium costs, could backfire

[chipwhich]

So, I googled it and found this, plus more.

 

http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/cardiovascular/cholesterol/foods-that-lower-cholesterol4.htm

 

 

As an aside, I've been told to that Red Yeast Rice supplements should also help. 

 

http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/red-yeast-rice

 

I had an obese uncle who died of a heart attack.  He used to trick his doctor about his high blood pressure by eating raw garlic before he had his appointment.  He used to swear by it, said his blood pressure was normal as long as he gobbled down the garlic.

 

more fun

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/25/fact-check-health-care-site-estimates/3688221/

 

Fact check: HealthCare.gov estimates may be misleading

Duh 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/25/obamacare-policies-slam-smokers-could-backfire/#

 

ObamaCare slams smokers with sky-high premium costs, could backfire

 

 

Another great thing I learned thanks to Larry, they don't treat the group as a group but they have age bands and smoking to boot.  Not sure why you would ever admit to smoking.

[twa]

 

 

Another great thing I learned thanks to Larry, they don't treat the group as a group but they have age bands and smoking to boot.  Not sure why you would ever admit to smoking.

 

Risk being charged with ins fraud?......Obamacare,where smoking crack is better than tobacco 

 

I do like the idea of a class action suit though

[chipwhich]

Risk being charged with ins fraud?......Obamacare,where smoking crack is better than tobacco 

 

LOL is that insurance fraud?  I don't know.

[twa]

LOL is that insurance fraud?  I don't know.

 

it is as currently structured..rates vary greatly and it is the only health question asked.

 

defrauding the ins company of thousands of dollars in premiums a year, not to mention the federal govt since subsidies cannot be used for smokers rate hikes

Edited November 26, 2013 by twa

[chipwhich]

it is as currently structured..rates vary greatly and it is the only health question asked.

 

defrauding the ins company of thousands of dollars in premiums a year, not to mention the federal govt since subsidies cannot be used for smokers rate hikes

 

I would imagine some of the statistics relating to the uninsured in the poor are higher percentage of smokers.

If that's true, it makes it all look worse.

[twa]

I would imagine some of the statistics relating to the uninsured in the poor are higher percentage of smokers.

If that's true, it makes it all look worse.

 

about 33%  and even higher among minorities.....pretty sure this policy is more racist and punitive than the voter id