josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 6, 2017 13:00:15 GMT -5
That's not the way it is here, Joe. My mom is an RN and my sister is a lab tech. That's not the way they and those people they work with think. What part do you work in, for the insurance companies? I work for a nonprofit. The insurance companies love Obama "care" because there is very little "care" they actually have to pay for.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jan 6, 2017 13:25:54 GMT -5
And in my opinion, those supportive of this governmental oversight of medical care do not understand the American people. I don’t believe it to be that cut and dried. Most of the people I know or have met when this subject comes up, are not supportive of it, some you could even say that they are fearful and that includes those in the medical field. One thing that is an element in this that is disregarded by some and is a element of concern, is that it reduces the individual’s rights. To decide (as an individual) to select one’s own doctor, to decide on one’s own method of payment for service, to select one’s own medical facility, all have the umbrella of government oversight. To some this is not acceptable to any degree. As this has taken hold, costs have risen in one’s monthly payments and in use. The availability of medical personnel to be selected by the patient has decreased. To some that lessening of individual freedoms is a primary concern. Others seemingly laugh at such concerns and have created the idea of healthcare as a right available to all through government. This is another of those "wait and see" situations. Maybe the GOP will be able to cobble together some kind of acceptable replacement without causing hundreds of thousands of people to lose their coverage, maybre they won't. My guess is they'll try to sell a package that sounds good but won't work as well in practice. I tend to listen to the doctors and the health care workers. Randy, I don't know where the HC workers are that you've been talking with but they surely don't sound like mine. Joe, the huge majority of professionals in the medical community care very much for the wellfare of their patients, over and above greasing their palms. Their incomes are enough so that they can pay attention to the things that really matter. Well, certainly I talk to local people in the medical care field. They are involved in 3 local hospitals, as well as clinics, and individual and independent practices. Through my Veteran’s group we are involved in a well thought of Nurse’s training college (we provide grants). We are also 2 hours (by car) from Mayo Clinic, and about 1 hour and 15 minutes from the Major hospital in Iowa. Locally, I have only come across 2 (maybe 3) doctors who are supportive of the Affordable Care Act and others are disgusted with it at best. I don’t know any who are not very caring about their patients. At the large Iowa hospital a friend funded the building of an entire wing with another wing under current construction, and through him and his wife I have had the opportunity to talk with many of the doctors. Their first focus is on their patients but if it wasn’t for the possible replacement of this Affordable Care Act, some of these doctors would have retired. Here in Iowa we have a superior State Veteran’s home but this Affordable Care Act has many who work there simply shaking their heads as to the problems they face due to the government. I believe that it is quite obvious that there is a segment of the medical care field who support the Affordable Care Act, but here they seem to be in the minority and are more likely than not to be younger medical people who seem to be at ease working under a federal umbrella. However, assuming that those who do not care for the Affordable Care Act and that they generally place the right of the citizen to make their own decisions, are against care for those who require financial assistance is a serious mistake. To listen to some people talk you would think that those against the affordable care act are driving the streets looking for those needing assistance just so they can run over them. I obviously put that strongly but the idea that there are people (of means) who do not want to help others get health care is one of the biggest myths ever perpetrated. They simply do not want the federal government involved. In some places, it may make sense for State government to be involved, in other places it may not. As I have stated before, in my locality there has never been anyone who couldn’t get medical care, without regard to their economic position. The idea that some have that it is the Affordable Care Act or, every morning we’ll be picking up the bodies of people who were denied health care is a myth of epic proportions.
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Jan 6, 2017 13:40:06 GMT -5
That's not the way it is here, Joe. My mom is an RN and my sister is a lab tech. That's not the way they and those people they work with think. What part do you work in, for the insurance companies? I work for a nonprofit. The insurance companies love Obama "care" because there is very little "care" they actually have to pay for. That's very untrue here, Joe. I AM part of health care. Drs, nurses, techs, therapists .. all appreciate Obama Care or any other kind of payer play that will allow as much coverage as possible for the people who need it. If they come up with a good replacement, that's fine but to drop ACA with nothing to take its place is the same as mass murder. I hope you're not with Planned Parenthood. I hear they're on the way out.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 6, 2017 15:06:11 GMT -5
all appreciate Obama Care or any other kind of payer play that will allow as much coverage as possible for the people who need it. They were doing that before Obama "care" and will after the ACA is finally repealed. If they come up with a good replacement, that's fine but to drop ACA with nothing to take its place is the same as mass murder. Oh please. Health care is not a federal responsibility and never was. There is nothing unconstitutional or even undesirable about cutting the subsidies.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 6, 2017 15:12:28 GMT -5
there has never been anyone who couldn’t get medical care, without regard to their economic position. The idea that some have that it is the Affordable Care Act or, every morning we’ll be picking up the bodies of people who were denied health care is a myth of epic proportions. The ACA should have been called The Transfer of Wealth to Insurers Act. Take away what the public pays in high premiums, high deductibles and obscene out-of-pocket expenses and there isn't much "care" left.
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Jan 6, 2017 18:24:28 GMT -5
all appreciate Obama Care or any other kind of payer play that will allow as much coverage as possible for the people who need it. They were doing that before Obama "care" and will after the ACA is finally repealed. If they come up with a good replacement, that's fine but to drop ACA with nothing to take its place is the same as mass murder. Oh please. Health care is not a federal responsibility and never was. There is nothing unconstitutional or even undesirable about cutting the subsidies. Joseph, I believe if you were personally affected (or your family) you would sing a different tune.
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Jan 6, 2017 18:30:09 GMT -5
As I have stated before, in my locality there has never been anyone who couldn’t get medical care, without regard to their economic position. The idea that some have that it is the Affordable Care Act or, every morning we’ll be picking up the bodies of people who were denied health care is a myth of epic proportions. I wonder, Men an tol, because almost everywhere it is the LEVEL of care that is affected. Everyone gets some kind of care but not necessarily to the level that could heal/cure them. I do not believe Anna meant that literally. The thing ACA does is covers more people. Without it thousands would have no coverage at all, or so I understand. The bulk of low income poeple depend on Medicare and medicaid. Paul Ryan and other callous people would also like to do away with those options.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jan 6, 2017 19:16:09 GMT -5
As I have stated before, in my locality there has never been anyone who couldn’t get medical care, without regard to their economic position. The idea that some have that it is the Affordable Care Act or, every morning we’ll be picking up the bodies of people who were denied health care is a myth of epic proportions. I wonder, Men an tol, because almost everywhere it is the LEVEL of care that is affected. Everyone gets some kind of care but not necessarily to the level that could heal/cure them. I do not believe Anna meant that literally. The thing ACA does is covers more people. Without it thousands would have no coverage at all, or so I understand. The bulk of low income poeple depend on Medicare and medicaid. Paul Ryan and other callous people would also like to do away with those options. I understand your point Jessiealan. Here (before the Affordable Care Act), I Know people without insurance who have had major heart surgeries, have had all of their tooth problems fixed (including dentures), had emergency helicopter transport to receive special operations and care. I do not believe that people such as Paul Ryan and other'callous' people want to do away with healthcare. Rather they want a system which will not go broke, that will be (over time) run by the States, that will actually provide healthcare. That is not the Affordable Care Act which is on the way to going broke. Rather a system which will be more of a combination of private companies, private insurance companies, and State government and local governments. I understand that many people sincerely believe that without the federal government directing everything the poor will die in the streets (over stated for effect) but the federal government really has no role in this as currently defined. What its role could be, would be to ensure that medicines and medical equipment, are provided at reasonable prices. But for the federal government to have a role defining the system (whatever it may be) is simply not acceptable 'unless' the country writes and ratifies a Constitutional amendment so stating.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 6, 2017 20:02:45 GMT -5
I believe if you were personally affected (or your family) you would sing a different tune. I was personally affected. Obama "care" did me no good when I had my heart attack. I couldn't afford it and didn't qualify for MediCal. As a result, the county hospital wasn't reimbursed a penny for providing me a million dollars worth of treatment. That's Democrats for you. It still isn't doing me any good. The ACA excludes my wife, still, and I can't afford to buy any worthwhile coverage for her at all. The law is a sham, a cruel joke on the people who need REAL heath care, not worthless "coverage."
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jan 6, 2017 21:06:10 GMT -5
Ah Joseph, your reminiscing brings back my own experiences of my heart attack. In my case my heart quit but I was in the hospital ICU and they brought me back. This was before the Affordable Care Act and I had closed down two businesses and had no insurance. It took sometime to finally pay off the medical debt, that is, after I started a new business.
It was a challenging time.
Today I have the private insurance I want and have become even more against federal involvement. Your point is quite correct, “ . . . The law is a sham, a cruel joke on the people who need REAL heath care, not worthless "coverage. . . “ It is a method of increasing federal control over the people simply to gain power. But then this is not the first time this path has been followed.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 6, 2017 22:24:24 GMT -5
It is a method of increasing federal control over the people simply to gain power. But then this is not the first time this path has been followed. I am mostly against Obamacare on fiscal and practical grounds. Only an idiot would find any value in it at all. The sooner this disastrous legislation is repealed, the better for everyone. You romanticize personal choice of doctors. Very few people have that choice where I live. That was true long before Obamacare, and it's never going to change. Medicare for all makes a lot more sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 7, 2017 5:09:11 GMT -5
They were doing that before Obama "care" and will after the ACA is finally repealed. Oh please. Health care is not a federal responsibility and never was. There is nothing unconstitutional or even undesirable about cutting the subsidies. Joseph, I believe if you were personally affected (or your family) you would sing a different tune. I remember him singing a very different tune when HE needed health care ...and in the end other people paid for his health care ....that a rich country does not have health care freely available is very questionable afterall to whom does the wealth of a country belong...the [people who collectively past and present create the wealth or the government who likes to play big on the international stage throwing monies at corrupt systems and rulers and favouring the big coorporates with largesses and a piggy they can dip into when ever even holding their fellow nationals hostage to proffitering
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Jan 7, 2017 10:50:44 GMT -5
It is a method of increasing federal control over the people simply to gain power. But then this is not the first time this path has been followed. I am mostly against Obamacare on fiscal and practical grounds. Only an idiot would find any value in it at all. The sooner this disastrous legislation is repealed, the better for everyone. You romanticize personal choice of doctors. Very few people have that choice where I live. That was true long before Obamacare, and it's never going to change. Medicare for all makes a lot more sense to me. Thank you, Joseph. At the end of the day (post), you got it right.
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on Jan 8, 2017 19:31:37 GMT -5
More Republicans Express Concern About Repealing ACA Without Replacement Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell seems to be speeding up his timeline to have legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act, saying it would happen "very quickly" after repeal. The slight change of tune comes after an increasing number of Republicans lawmakers have voiced their concern about the consequences of repealing Obamacare without a plan to replace it. According to one nonpartisan study, repealing the ACA would cause nearly 30 million people to lose their health care, a number that would jump to 59 million by 2019. Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pennsylvania, is the latest lawmaker to speak up, telling NBC News that it is "unwise" for Republicans to move forward on repeal without a replacement plan ready to go. "I believe it is a fair statement to say that there is a diverse cross-section of the House Republican Conference who feel, as I did, that replacement should occur simultaneously of a repeal," Dent said in a telephone interview. Dent said it is "careless" to simply "hope for the best" after a repeal. Dent, a moderate Republican, is not alone in his concern. Members of the conservative Freedom Caucus are also urging a quick replacement. They met with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, this week to discuss the repeal strategy. Paul was one of the first senators to express dissatisfaction with the initial plans to repeal the health care law without a replacement. He wrote an opinion piece urging that "repeal and replace" should be simultaneous, and he tweeted that he spoke to President-elect Donald Trump, who agreed. more www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/more-republicans-express-concern-about-repealing-aca-without-replacement-n704101
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jan 8, 2017 22:14:29 GMT -5
More Republicans Express Concern About Repealing ACA Without Replacement Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell seems to be speeding up his timeline to have legislation to replace the Affordable Care Act, saying it would happen "very quickly" after repeal. The slight change of tune comes after an increasing number of Republicans lawmakers have voiced their concern about the consequences of repealing Obamacare without a plan to replace it. According to one nonpartisan study, repealing the ACA would cause nearly 30 million people to lose their health care, a number that would jump to 59 million by 2019. Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pennsylvania, is the latest lawmaker to speak up, telling NBC News that it is "unwise" for Republicans to move forward on repeal without a replacement plan ready to go. "I believe it is a fair statement to say that there is a diverse cross-section of the House Republican Conference who feel, as I did, that replacement should occur simultaneously of a repeal," Dent said in a telephone interview. Dent said it is "careless" to simply "hope for the best" after a repeal. Dent, a moderate Republican, is not alone in his concern. Members of the conservative Freedom Caucus are also urging a quick replacement. They met with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, this week to discuss the repeal strategy. Paul was one of the first senators to express dissatisfaction with the initial plans to repeal the health care law without a replacement. He wrote an opinion piece urging that "repeal and replace" should be simultaneous, and he tweeted that he spoke to President-elect Donald Trump, who agreed. more www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/more-republicans-express-concern-about-repealing-aca-without-replacement-n704101 Well, apparently they are not hard core Constitutionalists. Glad they're giving it more thought even though I'm pretty sure their motives have more to do with keeping on the good side of their constituents than doing what's right.
|
|