I don't see anything "marginal" about it. Also, I do not see how a yearly stool test os "over-testing". It costs peanuts yet the health system in Germany when I lived there did not do it. Same for sigmoidoscopy which, in conjunction with regular stool test, is a cheap and very good defense against colon cancer.
[...]
They just were, by the president saying that they keep their current health plan if they want to. I sure hope people remember that this time when the elections come around. Most likely they'll be fuming anyhow because of the huge deductible they weren't explicitly told about. Most did not have that much deductible in the old plans they were just kicked out of.
The life of several people very close to me is not rubbish to me.
Why do you ignore by obfuscation my basic point? Obama thought that adopting the Republican plan would give it a better chance of being passed. Maybe in his naivety he even thought the Republicans would support it. As we know, they changed course 180 degrees and fought it tooth and nail. Why? Simply because Obama proposed it. It is the most industry-friendly plan possible, an indication of the lobbying power of the insurance companies.
or the UK that it can fail them during serious illnesses. For setting broke n bones and stuff the single payer systems work well but when it comes to c ancer mortality the picture is dark.
ce farce.
stool test os "over-testing". It costs peanuts yet the health system in Ge rmany when I lived there did not do it. Same for sigmoidoscopy which, in co njunction with regular stool test, is a cheap. and very good defense agains t colon cancer.
Colon cancer is relatively easy to detect early - see "occult blood"
formatting link
The wikipedia page suggests that this has only recently been appreciated, a nd that there are questions about it's cost-effectiveness in mass-screening .
If you claim that this and the other tests give anything better than a marg inal advantage can you produce statistical evidence for this claim? There w as enough fuss made about it in teh anti-Obamacre campaign that the statist ics evidence should be readily accessible.
They just were, by the president saying that they keep their current health plan if they want to. I sure hope people remember that this time when the elections come around. Most likely they'll be fuming anyhow because of the huge deductible they weren't explicitly told about. Most did not have that much deductible in the old plans they were just kicked out of.
That isn't the lie you started off talking about. One of the side effects o f Obamacare was to ban a bunch of dishonest and inadequate health insurance schemes - some apparently used to dump patients if they got sick, which di d allow them to offer low rates to the healthy ...
st are at risk, and many convince themselves that a better health care syst em could have saved their relative. It's mostly rubbish, but sincerely beli eved rubbish.
Obviously not, but your capacity to make objective and detached judgements about their situation isn't going to be impressive.
Time sensitive information about your health insurance plan.
doedo, duedo...
Your Health Plan Will Not Be Affected By Health Care Reform. Ya, yahoo,
To keep your current plan, do nothing. Your plan will be subject to annual rate adjustments. They got me by the nuts there. Your Plan will be in effect as long as you continue to pay your premiums on time. I'm good for now, but they know, they can double the price and still be cheaper than Obamacare. That sucks. Mikek
We went through this at least once before. Ok then, here is an example:
formatting link
Canada and the UK do not look that good at all compared to the US, do they? Neither does Germany. To me it is very clear why.
It is. Always was. Unfortunately some of the statistics from clinical studies are paid access only. In the area of cardiology I sometimes have such access.
I haven't talked about lies in this thread. But this ain't the only one.
Nonsense. Ask people Charlie Edmonson about it. He just lost his health plan.
Pre-Obama we had free will when it came to health care. People were free to select plans they saw fit. Now they are no longer free to do that. It's that simple.
I prefer to make those decisions myself and not have some bureaucrat do that for me. And now some bureaucrats do exactly that. It's wrong.
"Senate Democrats voted unanimously three years ago to support the Obamacar e rule that is largely responsible for some of the health insurance cancell ation letters that are going out.
In September 2010, Senate Republicans brought a resolution to the floor to block implementation of the grandfather rule, warning that it would result in canceled policies and violate President Barack Obama?s promise that pe ople could keep their insurance if they liked it.
?The administration's own regulations prove this is not the case. Under t he grandfathering regulation, according to the White House's own economic i mpact analysis, as many as 69 percent of businesses will lose their grandfa thered status by 2013 and be forced to buy government-approved plans,? th e Iowa Republican said.
On a party line vote, Democrats killed the resolution, which could come bac k to haunt vulnerable Democrats up for re-election this year."
ther than actual health care, and if they exceed that percentage they will owe their clients a rebate. That is the new law.
nd always has specified through NIH, treatment guidelines. Deviation from N IH treatment guidelines= malpractice liability, it has been this way for decades now, it's nothing new.
Right, the government's gonna make it better. Barack "You Can Keep You Plan" Obama said so.
Calling HHS to get your forms approved will make it all faster, easier, and cheaper.
ctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay fo r doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it." --Sowell
t of the health insurance business. If you pay attention, you will see that all the PPACA is doing is regulating the industry, the private insurance c ompanies will be doing all the actual administration work. Representatives of the insurance industry who know the business inside out wrote the law!
n
y
with uniformity. This may come as a shock to you, but the insurance industr y has wanted this for several decades now, they just couldn't justify it to their stockholders. But it does explain how the law was written so fast by insurance industry executive level insiders, they KNEW what had to be done , the government could NEVER have produced this legislation if they had a m illion years.
I was responding to your earlier statement that Obamacare's whole purpose was to get government out of the insurance business. I was demonstrating that it doesn't get them out, it puts them squarely in charge, and micromanaging it.
For example, (reading from 1311(c)(1)) the Secretary (of HHS) has to approve your marketing, rates plans, approves selection of providers, rate increases, sets enrollments periods, determines what plans may be sold, oversees and sets requirements for your (required) website, limits the hospitals that providers may use, sets executive compensations, requires "culturally appropriate" communications...
The feds are now the IT dept., and, since they're so good at that, they're also going all-in into the medical / hospital / doctor business.
It's irrelevant because United's money and mine are two *completely* different things. I really don't care what they do with their profits...
If united wants to piss their profits away on a nonfunctional web site, I really don't care. I don't care if it was a year's profits they pissed away. Pissing away $635M of the taxpayer's money, I care about.
Easy, they'll blame the insurance companies, they'll blame doctors, or Republicans, or George Bush.
It's not unlike how they told you you could keep your plan, at the same time they were meticulously ensuring that you could not. They needed to tell you that, or the plan would not have passed, and Barack would not have been elected.
The politicians behind this are serious anarchists, radical retreads with no concern for people or the truth.
I thought it easier to skip a step and simply directly point out Obama's biggest mistake.
That seemed easier than explaining that "Obamacare is Romneycare" is an absurd lie someone spun of whole cloth, tossed about by gulls who've no concept of either plan.
Romneycare was 70 pages. Obamacare is over 2,700, plus
20k pages of regulations so far. Romneycare was for one state, it's only been operating for a few years, and it's breaking their financial back.
The two aren't even close. It would take 2,630 pages to explain it all, so it seemed simpler to skip that.
Also, I would've opposed national Romneycare as well.
It's not a Republican plan - that's propaganda. And if it were true, I'm not allowed to oppose Republicans?
But all those premises are inventions; imaginary. And false. You're imagining instead of relying on information, and making up things that never happened.
I opposed Obamacare. It wasn't because Obama offered it--he had almost nothing to do with it other than taking credit once it passed. I opposed it because I don't believe the government taking over this task can do a better job, or should have this power over people's finances, bodies, or privacy.
It has nothing to do with Romney, Republicans, or who proposed it, so you can go right ahead and peel off that tinfoil hat and stop imagining new conspiracies.
It also happens to be an extraordinarily stupid architecture, which doesn't help.
My estimation is that it destroys private insurers, who made a Faustian bargain they will dearly regret.
He was comparing Obamacare's website expense to United Health's profits, as a way of "proving" HHS didn't overspend on their fiasco.
I simply pointed out that the cost of a website is a better comparison than the percentage of some third entity's profits.
It has nothing to do with United or their profits. I was backing up your point that HHS wasted an obscene amount of our money on this non-functional turkey.
"If you read the Affordable Care Act when it was passed, you knew that it was dishonest for President Obama to claim that ?if you like your plan, you can keep your plan,? as he did?and continues to do?on countless occasions. And we now know that the administration knew this all along. It turns out that in an obscure report buried in a June 2010 edition of the Federal Register, administration officials predicted massive disruption of the private insurance market."
formatting link
Lots of hit regarding impeaching Obama, if they can prove he knew million would not be able to keep their insurance. Should be an interesting three years. Probably very lame duck. Mike
are rule that is largely responsible for some of the health insurance cance llation letters that are going out.
o block implementation of the grandfather rule, warning that it would resul t in canceled policies and violate President Barack Obama?s promise that people could keep their insurance if they liked it.
the grandfathering regulation, according to the White House's own economic impact analysis, as many as 69 percent of businesses will lose their grand fathered status by 2013 and be forced to buy government-approved plans,? the Iowa Republican said.
ack to haunt vulnerable Democrats up for re-election this year."
It's actually worse than what's being reported. Almost no one can keep their plan over time. Individuals lose first, then small employer plans, then large, over about five years starting in 2010.
Obama delayed some of the biggest chunks of plan cancellations until after the 2014 elections with his illegal large employer mandate waivers.
Obama also illegally relaxed some of the more expensive mandatory new insurance guarantees, illegally, to artificially reduce rate shock this first year. It's a temporary waiver, so you'll see more hikes next year.
Obama will blame insurers (again) and point to this as proof of the need for his plan, again. Rinse and repeat.
Unions have their own, easier grandfathering rules, but even they are likely victims of the 40% tax on cadillac plans. They're not pleased.
acare rule that is largely responsible for some of the health insurance can cellation letters that are going out.
to block implementation of the grandfather rule, warning that it would res ult in canceled policies and violate President Barack Obama?s promise tha t people could keep their insurance if they liked it.
er the grandfathering regulation, according to the White House's own econom ic impact analysis, as many as 69 percent of businesses will lose their gra ndfathered status by 2013 and be forced to buy government-approved plans, ? the Iowa Republican said.
back to haunt vulnerable Democrats up for re-election this year."
obamacare/
=firefox-a
He knew. The Wall Street Journal has an article about his staffers openly discussing the promise while he was making it.
But, I've had, known about, and read the document everyone's excited about. I found it on my own months ago. It plainly lays out the problem Obamacare faces if people keep their plans, and how the regulations they're proposing (it's a proposed rule-making from 2010) will ensure that doesn't happen.
And then, later, they made the rule final, adopting it. They knew.
And Obama continued to lie. It was one of the biggest, most devastating lies ever told by an American president. The consequences are horrific.
Obamacare never would have passed if he told the truth, and Obama never would have been re-elected. His presidency is based on a fraud.
Yes, of course it's impeachable. If the system were working he would be, easily. But they won't.
a or the UK that it can fail them during serious illnesses. For setting bro ken bones and stuff the single payer systems work well but when it comes to cancer mortality the picture is dark.
rly stool test os "over-testing". It costs peanuts yet the health system in Germany when I lived there did not do it. Same for sigmoidoscopy which, in conjunction with regular stool test, is a cheap. and very good defense aga inst colon cancer.
marginal advantage can you produce statistical evidence for this claim?
It's clear to you because you know what you want to see.
One interesting aspect of the data is that the colon cancer rates in Canada , and Germany are substantially higher than they are in the US and the UK. This does suggest that we are looking at different populations.
One obvious point is that life expectancy is higher in Canada (at 82) and G ermany (at 81) than it is the the US (at 79).
Cancer rates go up rapidly with age, so it's reasonable to suppose that the US cancer victims are younger (and consequently healthier, with a longer e xpectation of life) than their Canadian and German counterparts, so the com parison is of apples and pears.
You may recall the fuss about the poorer survival rate of UK diabetes suffe rers, which turned out to reflect the fact that the UK has less fat people and less type 2 diabetes (which is less lethal and easier to treat). The an ti-Obamacare statistics managed to bury that significant difference too.
hat the statistics evidence should be readily accessible.
studies are paid access only. In the area of cardiology I sometimes have su ch access.
And you need to have a sharper eye for confounds than you have demonstrated so far.
alth plan if they want to. I sure hope people remember that this time when the elections come around. Most likely they'll be fuming anyhow because of the huge deductible they weren't explicitly told about. Most did not have t hat much deductible in the old plans they were just kicked out of.
st and inadequate health insurance schemes - some apparently used to dump p atients if they got sick, which did allow them to offer low rates to the he althy.
lan.
to select plans they saw fit. Now they are no longer free to do that. It's that simple.
And we had lots of stories about insurers refusing to okay treatments until after the patients were too sick to survive them.
rest are at risk, and many convince themselves that a better health care sy stem could have saved their relative. It's mostly rubbish, but sincerely be lieved rubbish.
nts about their situation isn't going to be impressive.
hat for me. And now some bureaucrats do exactly that. It's wrong.
If desperate relatives want to spend their own money on over-priced treatme nts that have little change of success, that's fine.
Health care schemes only have a finite amount of money and they are obliged to spend it cost-effectively. Quality-adjusted years of life saved provide a mechanism for comparing different treatments for different diseases.
Which happens to deliver better over-all health outcomes than the US system at about two-thirds of the price per head - less if you want to go Spartan with the UK National Health.
"Socialism" may be a dirty word in the US, but it isn't communism (and neve r was, any more than Germany's National Socialism was socialist) and it doe s work.
arger pile of the same?
Probably because the "broken promises" are only broken when looked at throu gh James Arthur's special set of distorting glasses.
publicans, or George Bush.
Sounds reasonable.
me they were meticulously ensuring that you could not. They needed to tell you that, or the plan would not have passed, and Barack would not have bee n elected.
Someone seems to have forgotten how dazzlingly impressive McCain and Palin were. The gambler and the cretin.
no concern for people or the truth.
The US political caste is unimpressive, devoted to driving the US Gini inde x ever higher. The 1% continues to do well, and the 99% are ever more enthu siastically reminded that it's going to take radical constitutional reform or a revolution to stop the greedy 1% from hogging all the goodies.
James Arthur deludes himself that he's one of the 1%.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.