ACT (Obamacare)

[wolf39us]

My mistake, I've never worked for an employer that didn't have health benefits... Except my first job at Shell

[Atheon]

I live in capitalistic, socialism-hating Taiwan, and I'm under their government-run universal single-payer healthcare system.

[Mermaid]

I wish more information was widely available about this. I know there is a lot of misinformation out there.

www.healthcare.gov is our best resource for info.

[The Whit]

we currently pay almost 5 times more in health costs than other first world countries for the same services, with no better health outcomes.  If you want to help fix that, you need to pay into this.  If it costs more initially, the prices have a high potential to drop rapidly.  It's not fixed, it becomes a competitive market, which is good for everyone on the BUYING end.

The thing is, the ACA does little to nothing to address the problem of the cost of health care.  It only addresses health insurance.

Health insurance is high because there's no regulation on Hospitals to control their prices.  You can't rely on market pressures because healthcare isn't a market.  A free market can only work when there is choice for the customer.  Someone who is in need of intensive care is not at liberty compare prices.  This is the one place I'd like to see a little bit of government control.  However, there is a wrong way to do it and I think this is one of them.  This isn't about affordable care, it's about lining the pockets of special interest groups.  Specifically, hospital execs and insurance companies.

[hillbillyatheist]

its a start. insurance companies now have to compete with each other, combined with subsidies. they negotiate with the hospital on prices.


we need to do more. alot more. but its a start. and you can tell its a good thing by how hard the teabaggers are fighting it.

[LikelyToBreak]

Okay this is kind of long, and may loose a lot of people as we got doctors talking to doctors, but it explains what is wrong with Obamacare and the health industry in general.
[youtube:3nkm553n]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd1I6DyVziY[/youtube:3nkm553n]
If you don't want to watch, I understand.  I'll try to summarize it for you.  Doctor Politician has bill to lower health care costs and make insurance affordable, no help from Democrats only Republicans.  Blah, blah, blah... Doctor I Don't Take Insurance only cash talks.  Explains how and why she can give more affordable care staying away from insurance companies.  Doctor Sees Ripoffs, then talks about how hospitals are in cahoots with the insurance companies to rip us off.  Doctor Sees Ripoffs talks about how he doesn't take insurance only cash and does most procedures for one tenth what the other hospitals charge.

A couple of the doctors talk about part of the reason for high costs is because of a requirement of Medicare where they cannot charge less then what they would get if Medicare was paying.  Therefore, the government is setting the minimum price for medical procedures.  Insurance companies also play in this game.

Bottom line, a big part of the reason medical costs are high, is because of government regulations and cost setting practices.  Evil libertarian thinkers would like to see health care costs go down by getting rid of useless and costly regulations.  But then if that was to happen, the Democrans could not come in and save the day for people looking at bankruptcy.   Watch the YouTube video and you will get a better idea of where I am coming from.

[Jmpty]

Okay this is kind of long, and may loose a lot of people as we got doctors talking to doctors, but it explains what is wrong with Obamacare and the health industry in general.
Writer posted a YouTube video
If you don't want to watch, I understand.  I'll try to summarize it for you.  Doctor Politician has bill to lower health care costs and make insurance affordable, no help from Democrats only Republicans.  Blah, blah, blah... Doctor I Don't Take Insurance only cash talks.  Explains how and why she can give more affordable care staying away from insurance companies.  Doctor Sees Ripoffs, then talks about how hospitals are in cahoots with the insurance companies to rip us off.  Doctor Sees Ripoffs talks about how he doesn't take insurance only cash and does most procedures for one tenth what the other hospitals charge.

A couple of the doctors talk about part of the reason for high costs is because of a requirement of Medicare where they cannot charge less then what they would get if Medicare was paying.  Therefore, the government is setting the minimum price for medical procedures.  Insurance companies also play in this game.

Bottom line, a big part of the reason medical costs are high, is because of government regulations and cost setting practices.  Evil libertarian thinkers would like to see health care costs go down by getting rid of useless and costly regulations.  But then if that was to happen, the Democrans could not come in and save the day for people looking at bankruptcy.   Watch the YouTube video and you will get a better idea of where I am coming from.

Yeah, these guys are real winners.

During the winter of 1943, the Lake County (Indiana) Medical Committee opposed the Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bill, proposed legislation that would provide government health care for most U.S. citizens. Also opposed to the bill was the conservative National Physicians Committee. The committee began a membership drive in February 1944. By May 1944, the AAPS claimed members from all 48 states.[2] In 1944, Time reported that the group's aim was the "defeat of any Government group medicine."[2] In 1966, the New York Times described AAPS as an "ultra-right-wing... political-economic rather than a medical group," and noted that some of its leaders were members of the John Birch Society.[7]

Positions[edit]

While it describes itself as "non-partisan",[8] AAPS is generally recognized as politically conservative.[7][9][10][11] According to Mother Jones, "despite the lab coats and the official-sounding name, the docs of the AAPS are hardly part of mainstream medical society. Think Glenn Beck with an MD."[11]

The organization opposes mandatory vaccination,[12] a single-payer healthcare system[13] and government intervention in healthcare.[11][14] The AAPS has characterized the effects of the Social Security Act of 1965, which established Medicare and Medicaid, as "evil" and "immoral",[15] and encouraged member physicians to boycott Medicare and Medicaid.[16] AAPS argues that individuals should purchase medical care directly from doctors, and that there is no right to medical care.[17] The organization requires its members to sign a "declaration of independence" pledging that they will not work with Medicare, Medicaid, or even private insurance companies.[11]
AAPS opposes mandated evidence-based medicine and practice guidelines, criticizing them as a usurpation of physician autonomy and a fascist merger of state and corporate power where the biggest stakeholder is the pharmaceutical industry.[18] Other procedures that AAPS opposes include abortion[19] and over-the-counter access to emergency contraception.[20] AAPS also opposes electronic medical records[11] as well as any "direct or de facto supervision or control over the practice of medicine by federal officers or employees."[21]
On Oct 25, 2008 the AAPS website published an editorial implying that Barack Obama was using Neuro-linguistic Programming, "a covert form of hypnosis", to coerce people to vote for him in his 2008 presidential campaign.[22]

Political activity[edit]

Gun control[edit]

In 1996, Dr Miguel A. Faria, Jr., a retired neurosurgeon and former Clinical Professor of Surgery (Neurosurgery, ret.) at Mercer University School of Medicine as well as founding editor of Medical Sentinel, the AAPS's journal, was involved in a gun control debate regarding the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC). Faria and other critics felt the NCIPC's program on gun violence was biased against gun owners, and was part of a 'public health' political strategy by gun control advocates. They testified before a US House Subcommittee on Appropriations to that effect.[23][24][25] Faria wanted to defund the NCIPC entirely.[26][27] The CDC was forbidden by Congress to use taxpayers' money for gun control research and from participating in lobbying activities.[28][29]
Faria left AAPS in 2002 to pursue other interests.[30] He was subsequently appointed by the administration of President George W. Bush to oversee the NCIPC as member of the grant review committee of the CDC, which he did until 2005.[31] He is the World Affairs editor of Surgical Neurology International.[32] Dr. Jane Orient remains the Executive Director of AAPS.[33]

Legal activity[edit]

Social Security

In 1975, AAPS went to court to block enforcement of a new Social Security amendment that would monitor the treatment given Medicare and Medicaid patients.[34]

AAPS v. Hillary Clinton

With several other groups, AAPS filed a lawsuit in 1993 against Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala over closed-door meetings related to the 1993 Clinton health care plan. The AAPS sued to gain access to the list of members of President Clinton's health care taskforce. Judge Royce C. Lamberth found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $285,864 to the AAPS for legal costs; Lamberth also harshly criticized the Clinton administration and Clinton aide Ira Magaziner in his ruling.[35] Subsequently, a federal appeals court overturned the award and the initial findings on the basis that Magaziner and the administration had not acted in bad faith.[36]

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act[edit]

The AAPS was involved in litigation against Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), arguing that it violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by allowing government access to certain medical data without a warrant.[37] (Title II of HIPAA, known as the Administrative Simplification (AS) provisions, requires the establishment of national standards for electronic health care transactions and national identifiers for providers, health insurance plans, and employers, and is intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the US's health care system by encouraging the widespread use of electronic data interchange in the health care system.)

Seizure of Rush Limbaugh's medical records[edit]

In 2004, AAPS filed a brief on behalf of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh in Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, opposing the seizure of his medical files in an investigation of drug charges for Limbaugh's alleged misuse of prescription drugs. The AAPS stated the seizure was a violation of state law and that 'It is not a crime for a patient to be in pain and repeatedly seek relief, and doctors should not be turned against patients they tried to help.'"[6][38]
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

On March 26, 2010 AAPS filed suit to invalidate the new health care bill.[39]

Other cases[edit]

In 2006 the group criticised what it called sham peer review, claiming it was a device used to punish whistleblowers.[40] The next year, AAPS helped appeal the conviction of Virginia internist William Hurwitz, who was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison for prescribing excessive quantities of narcotic drugs after 16 former patients testified against him.[41] Hurwitz was granted a retrial in 2006, and his 25-year prison sentence was reduced to 4 years and 9 months.[42]

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons[edit]

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS), until 2003 named the Medical Sentinel,[30][43] is the journal of the association. Its mission statement includes "... a commitment to publishing scholarly articles in defense of the practice of private medicine, the pursuit of integrity in medical research ... Political correctness, dogmatism and orthodoxy will be challenged with logical reasoning, valid data and the scientific method." The publication policy of the journal states that articles are subject to a double-blind peer-review process.[44]

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in major academic literature databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed[45] nor the Web of Science.[46] The U.S. National Library of Medicine declined repeated requests from AAPS to index the journal, citing unspecified concerns.[1] Articles and commentaries published in the journal have argued a number of non-mainstream or scientifically discredited claims,[1] including:
that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern;[47][48]
that HIV does not cause AIDS;[49][50]
that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.[51]

A series of articles by pro-life authors published in the journal argued for a link between abortion and breast cancer.[52][53] Such a link has been rejected by the scientific community, including the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[54] the American Cancer Society,[55] and the World Health Organization,[56] among other major medical bodies.[57]

A 2003 paper published in the journal, claiming that vaccination was harmful, was criticized for poor methodology, lack of scientific rigor, and outright errors by the World Health Organization[58] and the American Academy of Pediatrics.[59] A National Public Radio piece mentioned inaccurate information published in the Journal and said: "The journal itself is not considered a leading publication, as it's put out by an advocacy group that opposes most government involvement in medical care."[60]

The Journal has also published articles advocating politically and socially conservative policy positions[citation needed], including:
that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional;[61]
that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution;[62]
that "anchor babies" are valuable to undocumented immigrants, particularly if the babies are disabled.[1]

Quackwatch lists JPandS as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.[63] An editorial in Chemical & Engineering News described JPandS as a "purveyor of utter nonsense."[64] Investigative journalist Brian Deer wrote that the journal is the "house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]" and "is barely credible as an independent forum."[65]

Leprosy error[edit]

In a 2005 article published in the Journal, Madeleine Cosman argued that illegal immigrants were carriers of disease, and that immigrants and "anchor babies" were launching a "stealthy assault on [American] medicine."[66] In the article, Cosman claimed that "Suddenly, in the past 3 years America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy" because of illegal aliens.[66] The journal's leprosy claim was cited and repeated by Lou Dobbs as evidence of the dangers of illegal immigration.[60][67]

However, publicly available statistics show that the 7,000 cases of leprosy occurred during the past 30 years, not the past three as Cosman claimed.[68] James L. Krahenbuhl, director of the U.S. government's leprosy program, stated that there had been no significant increase in leprosy cases, and that "It [leprosy] is not a public health problem—that's the bottom line."[67] National Public Radio reported that the Journal article "had footnotes that did not readily support allegations linking a recent rise in leprosy rates to illegal immigrants."[60] The article's erroneous leprosy claim was pointed out by 60 Minutes,[69] National Public Radio,[60] and the New York Times[67] but has not been corrected by the Journal

[LikelyToBreak]

Looking at Jmpty's list, I figure the AAPS are batting about .500.  Not bad.  

The fact remains, there are physicians able to give health care for about 10% of what is usually charged.  The hospitals are working with insurance companies to get as much money as possible out of the health care consumers.  And the Democans are ignoring the ripoff.  

It doesn't matter if this group is rightwing or leftwing.  If they have workable ideas, why are those ideas rejected?  It might be that if those ideas were enacted into law, some rich 1%ers might not be able to get as much money as they wanted.  Better to just poison the well so they can be ignored.

There could be a much better health care bill than the Obamacare bill.  Which only addresses the concerns of the large insurance companies.  But, the Republicrats won't allow any real changes that cause the 1%ers to not be able to run their scams on the American people.  For that is the American way!

[Atheon]

Typically, I won't trust information or commentary from any right-wing source on this issue. Based purely on ideology, they oppose the idea of government involvement in anything, let alone healthcare, and will utter any lie or twist any facts to support their cause.

[LikelyToBreak]

Atheon, I used to feel the same way about left-wing sources.  Then I started studying the far left pundits, like Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader.  I then realized they wanted the same things as the far right-wing pundits.  A government which serves the poor and middle class people, and not the government we have which just serves the rich.  Much of the left-wing just give us rhetoric over substance.  While preaching against the rich, they lie in bed with them.

For instance, regulations.  We don't need more regulations, we need the regulations we have impartially enforced.  As it is now, companies which pay off the politicians get by with what they want and the companies who don't get inspections which are nit-picky.  Often driving them out of business while the other company, which pays off the politicians, are as bad if not worse in actually complying with regulations.  

A good idea is a good idea.  And it doesn't make it any less or more so if it comes from Corky or Einstein.  Break out of the mold which the left-wing or right-wing pundits want to shove us in, and consider all ideas on there own merit.  Don't get caught up in the idea that you have to be "for us or you are against us," type of mentality.

[Jason78]

NHS here.  But I am thinking of taking out a private dental plan.

[lumpymunk]

Hey, if your volunteering to buy me medical insurance I cant afford, I am all ears.

This is what puzzled me.

If the problem is that people can't afford health insurance...
...how can the solution be "force them to buy health insurance" and if not fine them money they still don't have.

It's similar to the logic behind overdraft fees at a bank, which Louis C.K. hilariously commented on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0rSXjVuJVg

[LikelyToBreak]

Obamacare is designed to make the rich, richer.  How you might wonder how when Obamacare only allows 20% vice the current 40% for administrative costs?  The answer is simple.  Hell if I can see it, it has to be simple.


The most current chart I could find on types of health insurance Americans have is a little old, 2007, but I think it is still essentially correct.

About 27% of Americans have Medicare/Medicaid/Other Public Insurance.  About 53% have Employer supplied insurance.There are about 15% of the American people Uninsured. Private Non-Group insurance is currently used by only 5% of the American people.  Still awake?  =D>

With Obamacare, the 15% who are currently Uninsured will be forced to buy Private Non-Group insurance.  So, the Private Non-Group insurance companies will get about 300% more business.

So, if Company Scam-you is now getting in say $10 million a month, paying out $6 million in benefits, they have $4 million for administrative costs.  Let's say they actually use $3 million to run the company and they have $1 million left over in profit.  Profit goes to the stock holders and the executives.

Under Obamacare, they are expecting to get about $40 million a month, paying out $32 million in benefits and now have $8 million for administrative costs.  But, since Obamacare now has the clinics and hospitals doing much of the work for the insurance companies and advertising costs will be down, they still only need about $3 million or let's say $4 million to run the company.  Leaving $4 million in profit for the stockholders and executives.

Obviously, I don't have all of the statistics which I would really need to prove this.  But, you can bet the insurance companies and those writing Obamacare law do.

The Republicans are only pretending to fight this.  The same way the bankers pretended to fight the Federal Reserve act.  Both parties want Obamacare, because the rich want it.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

For 30 years I had zero insurance then found out this year I qualified for 100% coverage at the VA.
I do need to check if I need to fiddle with the ACA or not..

[LikelyToBreak]

Good question AllPurposeAtheist.  From my scanning of the bill, it seems the individual states are required to educate the public.  So, you need to check with the state which you live in for consumer information about how it effects you.  Good luck with that.