TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Breaking Mews › Another new glitch in the Health Care bill
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Another new glitch in the Health Care bill

post #1 of 21
10/28/10 at 3:16pm
Thread Starter 
Physician-Owned Hospitals Rush to Open

Hospitals that are owned by physicians must open by Dec 31 or be ineligible for Medicare payments. This is putting several hospitals under construction in a real bind.
Reply
post #2 of 21
10/29/10 at 7:17pm
HMMM and I remember Pelosi saying "we must pass the Health Care bill now and then find out what is in it"........just what else is in those 2,00+ pages that we don't know about?????

Time to repeal that health care bill once and for all! And start over the right way.
Reply
post #3 of 21
10/30/10 at 12:00am
Yep, you have to love that fly-by-night legislation.
Reply
post #4 of 21
10/30/10 at 6:22am
Quote:
The politically powerful American Hospital Association, which represents about 5,000 hospitals, has for years complained that physician-owned hospitals, which are for-profit, tend to focus on narrow, profitable specialties, such as orthopedics and cardiac care, while leaving important but money-losing services, such as emergency departments and burn units, to community hospitals.

.........

But to Michael Russell, president of the physician-hospital trade group, critics' grousing represents "pure anti-competitive behavior." Russell, an investor in and orthopedic surgeon at the Tyler hospital, says, "Ultimately, what we're all after in health care reform is increased access, decreased costs and better quality. Those three things are exactly what we at physician-owned hospitals do. Period."
How do they achieve increased access when they don't offer full services of community hospitals? By their definition, they limit access. I think there is more here that meets the eye.

Why repeal the entire bill when there are such good things in it? If this is indeed an issue, then they should address this specific issue.
Reply
post #5 of 21
10/30/10 at 8:18am
I don't see why they want to repeal it when they have absolutely no better ideas to replace it with.

And the claims of spending the next couple of decades "gradually implementing" doesn't count. They simply want to unfix what was broken, to essentially, re-break it.

FTR: We just submitted benefits enrollment for next year, taking the new legislation into account. My personal expense went DOWN $8.44 a month.
Reply
post #6 of 21
10/30/10 at 9:08am
I say repeal it and start over, but with one small bite at a time instead of cramming down the whole meal in one bite. Let's start with eliminating territorial boundaries for selling insurance and make all policies available in any state. Next we can put in a clause about pre-existing conditions, and so on.

No bill should be 2000 pages long, written in a vacuum by dozens of people who don't talk to each other and passed by a bunch of loons who don't take the time to read what they are being asked to vote for.
Reply
post #7 of 21
11/1/10 at 11:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I don't see why they want to repeal it when they have absolutely no better ideas to replace it with.

And the claims of spending the next couple of decades "gradually implementing" doesn't count. They simply want to unfix what was broken, to essentially, re-break it.
That's exactly right. I don't want to wait 50 more years.
Reply
post #8 of 21
11/3/10 at 5:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
I say repeal it and start over, but with one small bite at a time instead of cramming down the whole meal in one bite. Let's start with eliminating territorial boundaries for selling insurance and make all policies available in any state. Next we can put in a clause about pre-existing conditions, and so on.

No bill should be 2000 pages long, written in a vacuum by dozens of people who don't talk to each other and passed by a bunch of loons who don't take the time to read what they are being asked to vote for.
I totally agree.
Reply
post #9 of 21
11/3/10 at 9:00am
The whole problem is that it's unconstitutional. The government cannot FORCE people into buying healthcare. We don't need more government run programs. We need less government involvement in our lives. If you've never been the recipient of government healthcare (VA, Medicaid/Medicare, or even local county hospital), you have no idea how poorly run those institutions are and how much care is lacking. It's not because the doctors and nurses aren't qualified, it's because of wasteful spending. It's a shame what some folks have to endure at government facilities. I don't want that type of care for anyone I know or love.

I say repeal the bill and leave well enough alone.
Reply
post #10 of 21
11/4/10 at 10:11am
"Repeal and leave well enough alone" is exactly what the Republicans want to do. They have no intention of ever implementing anything to replace it. Their handlers in the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries want things to stay exactly as they were, so that they can continue to soak in profits with only having to make the occasional "donation" to the Republicans.

The Republican plan is to just put it back the way it was, and trot health care out every 2-4 years as a campaign carrot, claiming they're working on it "gradually", then put it back on the shelf when they no longer need it to get elected.
Reply
post #11 of 21
11/4/10 at 11:47am
Personally, I think that there needs to be an overhaul of the insurance and drug industries, their marketing, and contributions to candidates. Actually, I think that ALL lobbying needs to be illegal and that only individuals can contribute to campaigns, no corporations, businesses, or unions. There's too much "I'll scratch your back if you'll contribute to my campaign" going on in the political process.

Overall, we need less government and less spending. They already offer health care plans for those who are low-income, elderly, and/or handicapped in some way. It's amazing that folks can spend HUNDREDS of dollars every MONTH for internet, cell phone bills, eating out, expensive cars, and oodles of other things, yet "can't afford" health care.

Do I think health care needs to be more affordable? YES! Do I think that those with pre-existing conditions should be eligible for healthcare, even if they have to pay a higher rate? YES! However, it's not the government's responsibility to provide that using taxpayer money. That's something that should be provided in the private sector by private business.
Reply
post #12 of 21
11/4/10 at 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanietx View Post
That's something that should be provided in the private sector by private business.
Except, that it isn't...except to those that can afford it, and at substantial profit and with near abusive claim denial tools rigorously exercised.

Just the way the Republican politicians want it.
Reply
post #13 of 21
11/4/10 at 7:08pm
Thread Starter 
Thinking of running for office in Florida? I hear they really need another Grayson down there.

It was ridiculous when he said it, and it's ridiculous when you say it.
Reply
post #14 of 21
11/4/10 at 7:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Thinking of running for office in Florida? I hear they really need another Grayson down there.

It was ridiculous when he said it, and it's ridiculous when you say it.
According to Schopenhauer's 'Eristic Dialectics' <1831>, "ridiculous" translates to "I don't have any kind of factual rebuttal for that".

If they want to be convincing, all they have to do is explain the "replace" part of "repeal and replace". At the moment, it appears they have nothing but "no".
Reply
post #15 of 21
11/5/10 at 4:24am
Thread Starter 
"If you get sick in America, this is what the Republicans want you to do: If you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly. That's right, the Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick."

-Alan Grayson, the not-re-elected Congressman from the Orlando, FL, area.

It was ridiculous, and it was ridiculed (which is the definition of ridiculous).

And if you go back to what I've said in the past, you'll see that I said our democracy is healthiest when those who are in office are voted out of office on a regular basis. I'm glad the Democrats passed a Health Care Reform bill. I'm not sure the Republicans ever would have done it on their own. And, now that we have it, I'm glad the Republicans have a chance to do some tweaking on it. After all, even the President admitted it needed some changes. Or did you hear him say that?

Do you think the Republicans will lock all the Democrats out of the negotiations on the bill, as the Democrats did to the Republicans? Do we need to elect some Libertarians to stand between these two groups?
Reply
post #16 of 21
11/5/10 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
"If you get sick in America, this is what the Republicans want you to do: If you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly. That's right, the Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick."

-Alan Grayson, the not-re-elected Congressman from the Orlando, FL, area.

It was ridiculous, and it was ridiculed (which is the definition of ridiculous).

And if you go back to what I've said in the past, you'll see that I said our democracy is healthiest when those who are in office are voted out of office on a regular basis. I'm glad the Democrats passed a Health Care Reform bill. I'm not sure the Republicans ever would have done it on their own. And, now that we have it, I'm glad the Republicans have a chance to do some tweaking on it. After all, even the President admitted it needed some changes. Or did you hear him say that?

Do you think the Republicans will lock all the Democrats out of the negotiations on the bill, as the Democrats did to the Republicans? Do we need to elect some Libertarians to stand between these two groups?
That's even more interesting. You compared my statement to his, and we didn't say nearly the same thing. It appears that you actually didn't have a rebuttal. Just dragged up a statement that you think warranted the word "ridiculous".

Did you not pay any attention to the platform the Republicans ran on? They have no (zip) intention of "tweaking" anything. They did not make any statements alluding to an intention to "tweak". Their intention is to repeal. IOW, put things back the way they were.
Reply
post #17 of 21
11/5/10 at 8:36pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
That's even more interesting. You compared my statement to his, and we didn't say nearly the same thing. It appears that you actually didn't have a rebuttal. Just dragged up a statement that you think warranted the word "ridiculous".

Did you not pay any attention to the platform the Republicans ran on? They have no (zip) intention of "tweaking" anything. They did not make any statements alluding to an intention to "tweak". Their intention is to repeal. IOW, put things back the way they were.
Actually, you and he said the same thing, but in different words. You both appear to believe that it is the goal of the Republicans to deny health insurance to those who need it.

And it doesn't matter what their intention is. They can't and won't repeal it. They may pass a non-binding resolution on the subject, but so what? However, there are many tweaks and adjustments needed in the bill (as the legislators who passed it knew).
Reply
post #18 of 21
11/5/10 at 9:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Actually, you and he said the same thing, but in different words. You both appear to believe that it is the goal of the Republicans to deny health insurance to those who need it.
Well no, he said their goal is to deny health insurance to those who need it. I said their goal is to ensure their "donors" make lots and lots of money doing it, and in doing so, secure their own fortunes.

Quote:
And it doesn't matter what their intention is. They can't and won't repeal it. They may pass a non-binding resolution on the subject, but so what? However, there are many tweaks and adjustments needed in the bill (as the legislators who passed it knew).
They ran on the platform of repeal. Are you saying that the Republican congress is already an abysmal failure and haven't even taken over yet?
Reply
post #19 of 21
11/6/10 at 11:51pm
The Republicans had many good ideas for this health care plan - if you bother to really research. The problem is that Obama and the Democrats didn't want to bother to listen to common sense items.

The whole health care summit was a joke - Obama never intended to compromise on what the Republicans had to offer - he had his mind made up and nothing was gonna change it. He was determined to sign a bill he never even read the 2,000+ pages just to push it down our throats.

The American people rejected this and the Demos still rammed it down our throats. There MAY be good things in there, but there are fare too many bad things about this bill.

When someone (Pelosi) says "we have to pass it in order to find out what is in it" then something is seriously wrong - and we are finding that seriously wrong stuff out now.
Reply
post #20 of 21
11/7/10 at 6:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenKitty45 View Post
The Republicans had many good ideas for this health care plan - if you bother to really research. The problem is that Obama and the Democrats didn't want to bother to listen to common sense items.

The whole health care summit was a joke - Obama never intended to compromise on what the Republicans had to offer - he had his mind made up and nothing was gonna change it. He was determined to sign a bill he never even read the 2,000+ pages just to push it down our throats.

The American people rejected this and the Demos still rammed it down our throats. There MAY be good things in there, but there are fare too many bad things about this bill.

When someone (Pelosi) says "we have to pass it in order to find out what is in it" then something is seriously wrong - and we are finding that seriously wrong stuff out now.
So what is the "replace" of repeal and replace? If it's going to be "repeal, then look at it again someday" or "repeal and then we'll work on something", or anything other than repeal and replace, then it is straight up, out the gate, stumbled off the starting blocks fail!!!
Reply
post #21 of 21
11/7/10 at 6:18am
Thread Starter 
Well, I think it's good the Democrats good health care reform moving, even if I think the bill they passed (after locking the Republicans out of any negotiations on it) is deeply flawed. Social Security and Medicare both had teething problems and still need regular tweaks, so I have no doubt that any bill with a scope this wide will need plenty of it.

Had the Democrats put in tort reform and a few other little Republican ideas, I doubt the elections would have gone the way they did. And (here comes the radical part), if they had gone with a single payer system and put it into effect on January 2011, I have no doubt Obama and the Democrats would have been swept into office in the 2012 elections, even though they would have taken a terrible beating this time.

There IS a precedent for repealing the healt care reform bill. Congress passed a big health insurance reform bill in 1987 that essentially gave everyone catastrophic health insurance, and it was repealed the next year, before it could take effect, at the insistence of AARP (who makes a lot of money selling that kind of insurance).
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Breaking Mews
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Breaking Mews › Another new glitch in the Health Care bill