3rdnlng Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Sure it does, you just choose to not read the Law. Boehner and his caucus made their point and created the contrast they wanted.... it is worse for the GOP now to see default... raise the ceiling and lets move on. Just what is it that the U.S. government is going to default on?
Chef Jim Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Don't people who are covered get better care than people who aren't? Not if there are not enough qualified doctors to provide care for the influx of patients. Doctor's offices are going to be inundated with people that have sniffles now because they now have coverage.
IDBillzFan Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 obama is no dummy regardless All evidence...and I mean ALL evidence...is to the contrary. Its amazing to me that libs spent so much time talking about what a dumbass Bush was, only to give us what could possibly be not just the biggest dumbass president ever, but the laziest.
Tiberius Posted October 10, 2013 Author Posted October 10, 2013 Not if there are not enough qualified doctors to provide care for the influx of patients. Doctor's offices are going to be inundated with people that have sniffles now because they now have coverage. Sure they will...
Chef Jim Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Sure they will... And what makes you think they won't. You don't know human nature very well. I do.
Tiberius Posted October 10, 2013 Author Posted October 10, 2013 And what makes you think they won't. You don't know human nature very well. I do. You are arguing that doctors are going to be overrun with cases of sniffles? Ummm, ok
birdog1960 Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Not if there are not enough qualified doctors to provide care for the influx of patients. Doctor's offices are going to be inundated with people that have sniffles now because they now have coverage. that may be true. but so far, it's not been the case in mass. which is the test case study. the plan is to have everyone "work to the top of their license"...meaning sniffles may be seen by a nurse with orders signed by a doc or even mid-level.
B-Large Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 that may be true. but so far, it's not been the case in mass. which is the test case study. the plan is to have everyone "work to the top of their license"...meaning sniffles may be seen by a nurse with orders signed by a doc or even mid-level. we already have protocols in place for colds, flu and UTI's for the nurses to follow. Right now, King Soopers. Walgreens and Walmart are all opening "little clinics" that are being staffed by PA's and NP's... $30, seen for colds, ear aches, sports exams, allergies, simple stuff. and I am not so sure about the running to the MD for the sniffles notion... its a pain in the ass to go the Doctor, make an appointment int he middle of the day, they copay is $30-$50.... the pain in the ass factor coupled with simple changes in triage alleviate more non-acute, simple condition to be treated over the phone or by PA/NP. obama is no dummy regardless of what the cons shout. if boehner folds it's cuz of the nearly 1000 pt drop in the dow in the last 2 weeks. he correctly identified this as the weakest link in their childish move. now, if the caucus rejects today's plan all hell breaks loose. i don't think they will. i try not to look at it as a waste of time. i try to look at it as therapy , ya know like primal screaming... will Obamacare be covering this benefit?
Gary M Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 You're not correct, and you're not going to be to go read the Law or even research any tutorials on the law, so why get into this. If you want to believe it does nothing to improve access and quality, its your right to believe whatever you want. So the Republican plan was to sell Insurance across State lines, have HSA's be a mainstay, and have risk pools for people with pre-exsiting conditions... does that improve care, or was that a coverage plan?? Truth is, the GOP or the ACA had writers that were policy wonks and care experts, both Bills had the goal of improving quality, better utilizing capacity and building for better access. Again, you want to be a partisan, that's fine, it a message board we waste time on. But I do encourage everyone regrdless of politics read the Law, there are things in there that no question will help you and your family. Nancy Pelosi didn't read it why should I???? Whether it"attempts" to increase access and quality is one thing, I know it will decrease both. and I am not so sure about the running to the MD for the sniffles notion... its a pain in the ass to go the Doctor, make an appointment int he middle of the day, they copay is $30-$50.... Not for people who don't work, which are the ones that are going to get "COVERAGE"
Chef Jim Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 You are arguing that doctors are going to be overrun with cases of sniffles? Ummm, ok Yup, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. that may be true. but so far, it's not been the case in mass. which is the test case study. the plan is to have everyone "work to the top of their license"...meaning sniffles may be seen by a nurse with orders signed by a doc or even mid-level. So how many more nurses will we need then?
boyst Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Where I work most people make very little. Most are eligible for the ACA. Every health insurance meeting we have we are shown what people go to doctors for. Most people have colds, sinus whatever, flu, sickness and go to urgent care instead of a Dr. The next group is things like sprains, strains and such and they go to the ER Most low income people do not have a PCP. And most are too damn lazy to have one. I don't have a PCP because I never need one or get sick. When I need one, once in the last year, I went to a Minute Clinic. I waited 90 minutes to be seen and given a weak antibiotic. Next time I am sick I am going to an urgent care because I can be in and out in 30 minutes and pay only $20 more.
B-Large Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Nancy Pelosi didn't read it why should I???? Whether it"attempts" to increase access and quality is one thing, I know it will decrease both. Not for people who don't work, which are the ones that are going to get "COVERAGE" If Nancy jumps off the Golden Gate Bridge, are you going to as well?
DC Tom Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 If Nancy jumps off the Golden Gate Bridge, are you going to as well? Yes, apparently. It's called the AC-!@#$ing-A.
Nanker Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Could we make a contribution to the Jump-off-the-Golden-Gate-Bridge- Nancy-Pelosi fund?
B-Man Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Back to the "shutdown" thread. SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE EDITORIAL: President Obama’s shameful death-benefit theater. The Obama administration insisted Tuesday it had no choice but to withhold death benefits to relatives of 1st Lt. Jennifer Moreno, a 25-year-old soldier born and raised in San Diego, and four other soldiers killed since the partial government shutdown began Oct. 1. This is ridiculous and perverse. President Barack Obama has used an expansive — and some legal scholars believe extreme — interpretation of his powers to unilaterally rewrite key provisions of the No Child Left Behind law, the sweeping 2002 measure that drastically reshaped federal education policies. In similar fashion, the president has unilaterally rewritten key provisions of the Affordable Care Act, his sweeping 2010 measure that is drastically reshaping federal public health policies. His administration has also essentially rewritten federal laws governing illegal immigration and penalties for drug possession. Just this month, the federal government has authorized the spending of billions of dollars since the partial shutdown began without explicit congressional approval. . . . It is an appalling commentary on the president and his administration that they chose to bully the families of dead American soldiers for perceived political gain. Shame on Barack Obama. Yeah this is a dickish move. But, you know . . . Related: Democrats Going Off-Message On Shutdown Theater. Cracks in the monolithic wall Democrats have put up against reopening any individual part of government unless all of government is funded in one bill are starting to show. Today, Washington, D.C., mayor Vince Gray and D.C. House delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton crashed a news conference being held by Senate majority leader Harry Reid on the Capitol steps. Reid didn’t appreciate the company. As Gray leaned into Reid and demanded federal money start flowing so the District can pay its bills, Reid responded, “I’m on your side. Don’t screw this up.” Reid was probably nervous because at the mayor’s earlier news conference, Gray had stood next to Republican congressman Darrell Issa as he criticized the Democratic-led Senate for holding up the District spending bill, which has already passed the House. The House is working. The Senate isn’t. It’s becoming obvious.
3rdnlng Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Back to the "shutdown" thread. Yeah this is a dickish move. But, you know . . . The House is working. The Senate isn’t. It’s becoming obvious. Neither is the administration working. It's all about leadership.
B-Man Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 The Bigger Battle Behind the Shutdown by David Malpass At its core, the shutdown is part of a much bigger battle to restrain the federal government. It is spending $3.6 trillion per year without a budget, and its expenditures are expected to increase rapidly in the years ahead. Meanwhile, the government has piled up $17 trillion in debt and $60 trillion more in unfunded spending promises. The Federal Reserve will borrow $1.1 trillion in 2013 alone to buy bonds—and it reserves the right to borrow unlimited amounts for future bond purchases without congressional or presidential permission. These are crisis-level problems. Whether the government is open or closed, they are surely grounds for immediate talks between the president and Congress on ways to pare ineffective federal programs, restrain spending and reduce borrowing. Ducking governance decisions year after year will leave the U.S. too weak to face global challenges. Big government has meant slow growth, painfully high youth and minority unemployment and falling median incomes—except in the Washington, D.C., area, which recent census data show is growing ever richer. Under current law, the federal government and Federal Reserve are in a sharp upward trajectory in their power and the riskiness of their policies. Federal domination of the economy and financial markets is only increasing. The government shutdown reflects a Republican demand for permanent new checks and balances—to restrain a government that spends wildly without a budget, buys $1 trillion per year in overpriced bonds from an already-rich Wall Street, and micromanages federal medical care but exempts unions and Congress from the sting of regulations that affect others. Washington's panic prior to the budget sequester that took effect earlier this year gave a glimpse of the truth: Much federal spending can't be justified. The government shutdown is giving more insight into the problem — a staggering $250 billion per month, 80% of spending, runs on autopilot without any congressional involvement or control. So much for the Constitution's bedrock principle that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." To break the impasse, and to address the government's disastrous finances, the president must lead the way. Mr. Obama has made clear that he will not change ObamaCare, but given the challenges the country faces, a blanket insistence on keeping the whole government unchanged isn't defensible. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304626104579123403196916722.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
DC Tom Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) neither DC nor Tom have enough characters to search. interestingly, searching DCTom under members results in 1 match: 3rdning... Why didn't you try searching for "reelect" or "Romney" in the "Find Words" text box, and "DC Tom" in the "Find author" text box? Then you would have pulled down nearly everything I said on the subject, and noted: I was always of the opinion that Obama would be reelected (because people are idiots), I disparaged all polls equally as being irrelevant save for the last one (the election), and Obama would win because people were morons (in fact, here's the exact post: http://forums.twobil...40#entry2602976). But hey, thanks for proving you're too stupid to search the internet. EDIT: here's another one for you on my opinion of polls, you halfwit: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/148101-romney-opens-5-point-lead-over-obama/page__st__860?do=findComment&comment=2596112 Edited October 10, 2013 by DC Tom
Nanker Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 He won't bother to click the links. It doesn't suit his world vision.
Doc Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Gary, let be real for a minute- the ACA did not initiate the Primary Care MD shortage, it has been happening for decades. There was a RN shortage for a long-time, incentives were put in place to get more RN in training, the same will happen with primary care. Like what? And when? Even if you were to start incentivizing it now with free college and/or med school and/or being paid during schooling, it will take over a decade to pump out these incentivized docs. Not talking about shortage of doctors, I am talking about what is in the bill. More IRS agents for enforcement, not doctors for care. The Affordable Care Act is about getting people "covered" not cared for. Yep. Because many docs won't be taking these "Medicaid Plus" plans, like they're starting to stop taking new Medicare and Medicaid patients. All evidence...and I mean ALL evidence...is to the contrary. Its amazing to me that libs spent so much time talking about what a dumbass Bush was, only to give us what could possibly be not just the biggest dumbass president ever, but the laziest. I wouldn't say he's stupid. He's at least average intelligence. But what makes him dangerous is he's one of the most arrogant mofos I've ever seen and thinks he knows a lot more than he really does. that may be true. but so far, it's not been the case in mass. which is the test case study. the plan is to have everyone "work to the top of their license"...meaning sniffles may be seen by a nurse with orders signed by a doc or even mid-level. Mass is no more a test case than single-payer countries with populations a fraction the size of the US are a test case. And the idea about sending simple stuff sounds great in theory. But won't be practical.
Recommended Posts