Politics Obamacare

That's pretty much it in a nut shell. The party of "no" is also the party of "no answers and solutions."

 

Well, they do have a solution for Medicare.

The two faces of Republicans - falsely claim or at least grossly distort cuts by Obama, then gut the program yourself.

While Romney and Congressional Republicans falsely claiming the law cuts Medicare by $500 billion (it cuts the maximum rate of subsidies to Medicare Advantage providers and slows the growth of future Medicare payments to hospitals, it does not cut benefits to seniors and in fact expands some benefits, like closing the donut hole on the cost of prescriptions, resulting in typical savings of $600/yr last year that will increase in future years ), the House Republicans adopt the Ryan budget (that Romney endorses) that replaces Medicare’s current guarantee of coverage with a premium-support voucher that would shift costs to beneficiaries, raise the age of eligibility from 65 to 67, and reopens the donut on the coverage of prescription drugs.
--- merged: Jul 6, 2012 at 11:47 PM ---
Then you have Senate Republican Minority Leader and his "who gives a fuck" about the 30+ million uninsured who would be covered by the law.

 

I saw that Chris Wallace interview, almost couldn't believe Fox aired it. In it McConnell mentions "we have a plan it's been out there since 2010(?) anyone who wants can go look it up. The only thing I could find was a some bill the GOP put forth with like 4-5 vague concepts such as-

Ok how? With your great common sense? Sorry I don't trust the GOP's common sense. Sounds a lot like an oxymoron to me.

Ok that's makes sense to me but how many people will suddenly become insured by that? If you couldn't buy insurance before because it was so expensive in your state will it really be so cheap in the neighboring state? Or will this simply create a few states who woo the insurance companies by giving them lax regulations creating a race to the bottom?

So basically if you have a high deducible you can save, tax free, your own money to pay for that high deducible. Wow that right there should get 10's of millions of uninsured insured.

Ok this sounds good too. This is the one thing I see on their plan that might actually increase the number of insured people. But when the GOP says stuff like "we will incentivize states to develop innovative programs that lower premiums and reduce the number of uninsured Americans." I'd like some details on how they plan to implement those incentives.

It just wouldn't be the GOP if they didn't work in some anti-choice provision some how. But this too... exactly how will it increase the number of insured citizens? In my opinion this is a Hail Mary of basically "our plan contains Jack shit but if we throw in some abortion language we'll get our base to sign on to it.

So yes they have a plan and that plan sucks ass.

 

A Republican candidate for Congress in NY has another reason for the high cost of health care:

Oh well, I guess we dont need that pesky provision in the law to encourage preventive care, like free mammograms or colonoscopies (colon cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death among men and women)

And lets defund Planned Parenthood as well and do away with the free screenings they offer women w/o insurance.

 

So basically poor people do not deserve modern medicine?

 

I too have many beliefs that would be considered conservative. Though anymore if you stray from the current decided talking points or issues you're libtard. Ok, fine.. whatever. I still believe the government should stay out of peoples private lives, should not be spending money unwisely, there shouldn't be regulations just for the sake of regulations, I own guns I believe people have the right to own guns etc... But look at the GOP over the last 30 year plus. Have they been wise with spending? No, hell no. The debt and deficit goes up far more under GOP controlled government then with Dems. Least that how it's worked since I started voting. Are they really not interested in peoples private lives? I'd say out of the two parties the GOP is more interested in your bedroom life, how you decide to entertain yourself, who you marry then the Dems. The GOP is all about religious freedom if your religious choice is Christian other wise, in the words of Dick Cheney, go fuck yourself.

 

I could come up with a GOP plan for healthcare reform, but I won't give them the answer.

It would insure or treat everyone though, and I'm not sure they would go for that.

 

Despite the best efforts of the Republicans in Congress and conservative "family values" organizations, starting tomorrow (or the next plan renewal date), group health plans must provide eight additional preventive services to women (in addition to those preventive services already covered - mammograms, pap smears, pre-natal...), at no cost (no co-pay).

Additional women’s preventive services that will be covered without cost sharing requirements include:

• Well-woman visits: This would include an annual well-woman preventive care visit for adult women to obtain the recommended preventive services, and additional visits if women and their providers determine they are necessary. These visits will help women and their doctors determine what preventive services are appropriate, and set up a plan to help women get the care they need to be healthy.
• Gestational diabetes screening: This screening is for women 24 to 28 weeks pregnant, and those at high risk of developing gestational diabetes. It will help improve the health of mothers and babies because women who have gestational diabetes have an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the future. In addition, the children of women with gestational diabetes are at significantly increased risk of being overweight and insulin-resistant throughout childhood.
• HPV DNA testing: Women who are 30 or older will have access to high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing every three years, regardless of pap smear results. Early screening, detection, and treatment have been shown to help reduce the prevalence of cervical cancer.
• STI counseling, and HIV screening and counseling: Sexually-active women will have access to annual counseling on HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). These sessions have been shown to reduce risky behavior in patients, yet only 28% of women aged 18 to 44 years reported that they had discussed STIs with a doctor or nurse. In addition, women are at increased risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. From 1999 to 2003, the CDC reported a 15% increase in AIDS cases among women, and a 1% increase among men.
• Contraception and contraceptive counseling: Women will have access to all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling. These recommendations do not include abortifacient drugs. Most workers in employer-sponsored plans are currently covered for contraceptives. Family planning services are an essential preventive service for women and critical to appropriately spacing and ensuring intended pregnancies, which results in improved maternal health and better birth outcomes.
• Breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling: Pregnant and postpartum women will have access to comprehensive lactation support and counseling from trained providers, as well as breastfeeding equipment. Breastfeeding is one of the most effective preventive measures mothers can take to protect their children’s and their own health. One of the barriers for breastfeeding is the cost of purchasing or renting breast pumps and nursing related supplies.
• Domestic violence screening: Screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence should be provided for all women. An estimated 25% of women in the U.S. report being targets of intimate partner violence during their lifetimes. Screening is effective in the early detection and effectiveness of interventions to increase the safety of abused women.

Affordable Care Act Rules on Expanding Access to Preventive Services for Women | HealthCare.gov​

At least, until the courts are required to intervene again at the behest of conservative groups and the catholic church

 

Ah, so that sound I heard was Rick Santorium throwing up.

 

Common sense? Obamacare does not address the need for primary care doctors, and other healthcare system shortages. This problem is going to get materially worse in terms of average people getting access to services. A chain is only as strong as the weakest link.

 

The failure is in a failure to address the issue in a "fix" of the healthcare system. The "tail" in this instance is about 10 years, meaning what we do today won't have a measurable impact until about 10 years. And so it will go. Common sense would tell anyone this is an area of importance. It is ironic that some of the provisions in Obamacare will make it less compelling for general practice doctors to go this route.

My view is clear, Obamacare is a mess.

 

The aspect I brought up is that anyone with common sense would have fixed it!

 

I wouldnt characterize it as a mess, but as a base for addressing the issue of health care access and costs. Certainly a firmer and broader base than existed previously and supporters knew would require tweaking.. You have to have something in place before you can improve upon it and there has been nothing in place in terms of comprehensive health reform in nearly 100 years.

On the issue of the shortags of doctors, I would like to see a greater focus on Nurse Practitioners (NP). NPs can do much (not all) of the job of primary care physicians -- physical exams, ordering and interpreting diagnostic tests, providing appropriate treatment including prescribing medications, etc -- rather than just screaming "see, Obamacare sucks."

Tell that to the millions of seniors who have already seen significant cuts in the cost of their prescriptions or those families with children with pre-existing conditions or facing bankruptcy as a result of annual or lifetime limits in their coverage...or the numerous other benefits in the reform.

 

I agree with the RN issue. This is a de-regulation question, isn't it? There are many common sense regulatory issues that can be addresses to imporve healthcare delivery, with or without Obamacare. I am not anti-regulation, I support effective regulation.

I do much more than simply say Obamacare is a mess, as my many posts on the subject illustrate. I give support of my views.