US Health Care Plan

by **nkstan** » April 2, 2010, 8:44 am

It seems to me that if the employers costs go up,jobs are eliminated or the products costs are passed on to the consumer.Either way the costs of medical attention has not gone down as someone has to pay although it is not always paid as a direct medical cost!

Then ,you get to add on the costs of the bureaucracy that will be put in place to manage the system in its tyoical gov't stagnating manner!

All this to the advantage of the lower less educated earners ,so they will have more funds for partying or buying some minor luxuries without worrying about going into debt for medical expenses.

You see,the real poor,street persons,illegal immigrants and those on welfare already are covered,as they are already treated in hospitals and have nothing to attach for costs!

by **WBU ALUM** » April 2, 2010, 10:34 pm

More good news in the health care law. Yeah, right.

There was an effort made by some in Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, to get tort reform into the bill to prevent frivolous lawsuits that have constantly driven up costs for malpractice insurance for doctors.

It now looks like the new law will allow lawyers to file big-ticket lawsuits against states over Medicaid access and wait times.

States fear that five words in Obama health law will open door to lawsuits

Tucked away on page 466 of President Obama’s 2,704-page health-care bill is a provision that changes the definition of “medical assistance,” the term describing what states are required to provide to Medicaid recipients.

States have in the past been required to provide payment for services to physicians. Now, under the new definition, states will be liable for ensuring provision of “the care and services themselves.”

In other words, states are legally on the hook not only to ensure that Medicaid recipients are paid for, but that they’re seen by a doctor.

Medicaid recipients have found it increasingly difficult to be seen by doctors, as states in extreme economic duress have cut payment rates. …

“With the expanded definition, it leaves every state vulnerable to a new wave of lawsuits any time someone cannot access a service, even if that service is limited by virtue of the rates we pay,” said Alan Levine, Louisiana’s secretary of health and hospitals, in a recent memo prepared for fellow state government officials.

Levine wrote: “DHH cannot estimate the cost of this, but it is not even worth estimating. It will be substantial.”

As more doctors opt out of Medicaid systems (Walgreens pharmacy has already said that they are not taking anymore Medicaid prescriptions), wait times will get longer. There could very well be class-action lawsuits filed against states over access. This would allow lawyers to get courts to bypass voters and have courts set rates instead.

This scenario also doesn't take into consideration that the federal government cannot force states into debt with increased demands on their roles in Medicaid. There is a constitutional challenge there -- another 10th Amendment issue. Most of the states are in debt individually and will not be able to provide any more services than they are now.

by **UdonExpat** » April 22, 2010, 8:05 am

The AARP website has a lot of info on the new health care plan.

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/pol ... plash.html

by **WBU ALUM** » April 22, 2010, 8:41 am

UdonExpat wrote:The AARP website has a lot of info on the new health care plan.

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/pol ... plash.html

Don't take everything as gospel by the AARP. They've been in bed with this deal from the beginning. Then they started backing out quickly when there was a flood of membership canceling. Who knows where they really stand now ...

Wonder Why the AARP Supports Obamacare?

CBS Highlights AARP Losing Members Over ObamaCare

CBS News has learned that up to 60,000 people have cancelled their AARP membership since July 1 angered over the group's position on health care.

by **WBU ALUM** » April 24, 2010, 10:31 pm

And now some more truth leaks out. Costs are going up for care and for insurance? I thought it was to be the opposite?

Report says health care will cover more, cost more

by **Texpat** » April 24, 2010, 11:20 pm

Surprise, surprise ... Bobo suckered America.

Sad.

by **WBU ALUM** » April 25, 2010, 12:25 am

Texpat wrote:Surprise, surprise ... Bobo suckered America.

Sad.

Lots of smoke, mirrors and slight of hand. And yes, it is sad.

But there is more to come -- amnesty for illegal aliens, a VAT, Cap & Trade taxes and economic slavery for all.

by **jackspratt** » April 25, 2010, 5:47 pm

Perhaps we have enough starters already for UM to form its' own Tea Party chapter. :roll:

Once the "red shirt" hue and cry has died down, maybe Bozo (aka GWB) or Sarah would be happy to junket over to Udon for the grand opening.

by **WBU ALUM** » April 25, 2010, 7:50 pm

jack, you're falling right in lockstep with the lib media. Demonize those who argue policy as Tea Partiers. Then attach others like Palin and GWB to it. Nice argument.

But your efforts in resorting to that strategy are probably because there is no contradictory argument to the fact that health care costs will not be reduced, as promised.

At least in the past, you've laced a pretty decent argument with your insults and innuendo. Slippage.

I also notice that your off-topic insults were not immediately followed by a mild mod warning regarding 'topic' like some others. But it is what it is.

by **BobHelm** » April 25, 2010, 8:02 pm

I think that Jacks comment coming after Tex's comment & your re quoting of it makes your puzzlement of no 'keep on topic' rather strange WBU.
I would further say that Jack's comment probably contains as much detail & fact as Tex's comment - yet you are happy to re quote that comment & call Jack's an insult & innuendo.
Quite strange if you are actually trying to be balanced I think!!

by **WBU ALUM** » April 25, 2010, 8:31 pm

BobHelm wrote:I think that Jacks comment coming after Tex's comment & your re quoting of it makes your puzzlement of no 'keep on topic' rather strange WBU.
I would further say that Jack's comment probably contains as much detail & fact as Tex's comment - yet you are happy to re quote that comment & call Jack's an insult & innuendo.
Quite strange if you are actually trying to be balanced I think!!

I was agreeing with Tex, not insulting members of this forum by classifying them in a negative light. I think there is a difference.

It's not my job to be balanced.

by **BobHelm** » April 25, 2010, 8:50 pm

Well, as you agree with Tex comments maybe you can explain to me who "Bobo" is then??

by **WBU ALUM** » April 25, 2010, 8:55 pm

BobHelm wrote:Well, as you agree with Tex comments maybe you can explain to me who "Bobo" is then??

I'm assuming that 'Bobo' is who some affectionately call Obama.

In the US, a 'bobo' is a scrape or a cut that usually results from accident. Hence, the name.

by **jackspratt** » April 25, 2010, 8:58 pm

WBU ALUM wrote:jack, you're falling right in lockstep with the lib media.

Hopefully, yes.

Demonize those who argue policy as Tea Partiers. Then attach others like Palin and GWB to it. Nice argument.

If you feel demonized because you identify with the Tea Partiers - so be it. I just mentioned their name, without comment.

But your efforts in resorting to that strategy are probably because there is no contradictory argument to the fact that health care costs will not be reduced, as promised.

I would not be surprised if health care costs increase - that seems to be the American way. Politicians of both hues with their snouts proudly and firmly in the trough. Perhaps it is just more transparent in the US.

I also notice that your off-topic insults were not immediately followed by a mild mod warning regarding 'topic' like some others. But it is what it is.

There were no insults - unless again you (and Tex) feel it is an insult to be associated with the Tea Partiers.

If you are suggesting I insulted Bush, I am not sure I have the capability to do that to the extent he deserves. But history will take care of that.

by **BobHelm** » April 25, 2010, 9:05 pm

I am sorry WBU, call me dumb, but I still do not see the correlation between the word as you explain it & The President. Maybe you can explain a little more fully.
People call the President Obama not out of affection but because it is his name. That is considered common courtesy in most civilized countries.

US Health Care Plan

Re: US Health Care Plan

Re: US Health Care Plan

Re: US Health Care Plan

Re: US Health Care Plan

Re: US Health Care Plan

Re: US Health Care Plan

Re: US Health Care Plan

Re: US Health Care Plan

Re: US Health Care Plan

Re: US Health Care Plan

Re: US Health Care Plan

Re: US Health Care Plan

Re: US Health Care Plan

Re: US Health Care Plan

Re: US Health Care Plan

Who is online