Skip to comments.Little gems from the Health Care Bill
Posted on 07/24/2009 3:12:23 PM PDT by CMS
click here to read article
Interesting, the way they outlined. The summary post made are very MISLEADING to the sheep in this room. So don’t read the above as is. Each really means something else that they did not tell you. Believe me, I’m a nurse for 33 yrs and some of the stuff I read, I already know what it references, but the writer doesnt TELL you that. The way it is written sounds SCAREY, Please do NOT believe EVERYthing you read on here. Search out the Whole truth. It is obvious the writer was trying to scare the heck out of everybody with his choice of words posted.
Are you actually for this pile of communist b/s?
Is there anything we should be aware of, in your opinion?
So there will be no rationing? You are the expert tonight.
Have you read the health care bill?
This is a breakdown of the ‘talking points’ misinformation being spread around.
They keep you busy, huh?
A true nightmare, almost all of which would be completely unconstitutional (if we were still governed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which we are NOT.)
BTTT for later use
Welcome to FreeRepublic!
First, the obvious:
Page 203: The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax. Yes, it really says that.
The author then complains about the period after tax and pastes in the full text which indeed says exactly what was claimed. True it had no period but the meaning is clear that any of the penalty taxes imposed can't be used in tax deductions and hence means exactly what it would with the period. I mean the author says he doesn't even understand the legalese while lambasting the original author for changing the meaning he didn't get in the first place. Great argument.
Next: Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
The rebuttal claims the author is lying and I can therefore outright say that the man does not even begin to have a grasp of how medicare and medicaid are run. It SETS WAGES! And in the referenced page it clearly states there are three types of doctors, all of which must accept the gov. fee as FULL PAYMENT. No collection of additional from the patient. Hence the government will set wages. Unless you buy into the complete fallacy that you can just not join. Read this heap of garbage through and you will see it makes plain the options are either be in the government plan or stop being a doctor. Many will choose the latter. As it stands right now, most doctors LOSE money on Medicare patients and make up for it in private payments which is ironic because private premiums have increased LESS than Medicare.
Which brings me to my next point: Page 253: Government sets value of doctors time, their professional judgment, etc. and Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, youll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
Read for yourself. Our liberal authorize begins hurling insults when the text of the bill is clear. Billing codes will be classified into two groups and prices fixed based on that category "without regard to the specialty of the physician furnishing the service". Yes it says that. AND I got the punctuation correct. No imagine the lack of specialists. Who would go through 23 YEARS of school and training minimum (12 years of primary, 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school and 3 years of residency minimum) and then decide to add on up 7-10 years more for heart surgery or neurosurgery for the same pay? Would you? Hell, at Medicare rate I know numerous other doctors that would stop practicing. And ask a random sample of doctors today if they would tell their child to become a doctor. The result should scare you. I already know what the answer will be. Who need the government to ration when lack of doctors will do it for you. I guess Juan from Primero Medical School of Jamaica would be fine for your healthcare?
Then: Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
The liberal nut claims that outcome-based medicine is not rationing but the opposite. However, he fails to note that that is the exact method used in other socialized medicine programs. Outcome based means you ONLY give treatments and medication that have an outcome deemed positive by research. Now that is all and good for guidelines, but I can be 99% confident that nearly everyone one here has been prescribed something off-label; that is not approved for that use. Outcome based your would never have gotten that med. Furthermore, one need not look far for bogus politically motivated decisions from the FDA or CDC on medications and treatments and those are the ones who will decide what is part of a positive outcome. Experimental cancer treatments? Dream on. NOT ONE experimental drug is considered to be part of outcome based medicine. Again, the author proves his naivete.
I'll stop at: Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
The author says its made up and then defends the logic. The text of the bill is "(C) applying a payment reduction for physicians who treat the patient during the initial admission that results in a readmission;" so the idiot is clearly wrong on the whole made up thing. Should give you pause on believing him when he says it throughout his rant. But onto his logic. He states its like taking your car into a garage. You wouldn't pay a mechanic twice if they didn't fix it the first time. Now lets get real. If you took your car in to replace your engine because you failed to put in oil and then left and did it again would you come back and get a discount or a freebie? Its a ridiculous statement that shows that this man believes doctors are the bad guy out to just make a buck. A doctor treats someone in the hospital to the best of their ability. If they don't, its called malpractice and we already have laws, licensing, and lawsuits that take care of that readily. Once the patient leaves the hospital, they are free to use and abuse their bodies or be prone to any number of unforeseeable complications from their illness that is nowhere like a car repair that now the doctor will be liable for even without intent or negligence? There's a reason why you need no degree for car repair and decades of school for medicine. Except now they may be getting paid the same. Now imagine how many doctors will just pass on treating patients with complicated problems. It self-fulfilling rationing and its already happening in other countries. The evidence is there. Maybe this guy should believe in an outcome based healthcare system. If he did, he wouldn't be for this. There is no evidence to support his thesis. Only the contrary.
OK, last one: Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
Again the clown displays his ignorance. Ncdonna, nurse of 33 years was likely was never involved in billing. Most nurses never have. If she agrees with this clown at ALL it must be the case. He quotes the text of the bill "(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;". He then says that clearly means only electronic transfer between doctor and government plan. First off, that alone is scary to anyone practicing medicine as a doctor and should be scary to a nurse who makes their livelihood assisting the same. Those penalties for readmissions, etc? Removed directly from your bank at the gov't choosing. Kiss those sky high nurse wages goodbye on this plan. Ncdonna, I would just like to point out that a doctor at a typical practice making just medicare fees would make at BEST the same as the top 10% RN today. Not quite a fair deal and if the doctor's wages drop, so will the nurses. But onto the technical here. When one receives remittance advice it has what amount was claimed, what amount was covered and then what is left for the patient to pay. The reconciliation of said advice consists of making that balance zero including BILLING THE PATIENT. So automated reconciliation would include deduction of premiums and copays electronically from YOUR bank account, not the doctors. Unless you believe this is free or something and you won't owe premiums or a copay at all. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
I could go on with every point this idiot tried to make. If, your entire argument consists of calling someone a liar, chances are thou doth protest too much. And making arguments that are clearly refutable such as the CBO claiming some savings with this plan when they have stated the OPPOSITE. Or one that resorts to hyperbole and emotion based politics while bashing the country in just 2 sentences:
"This offers everyone a chance at affordable health insurance, and stops the health care inflation that has crippled our economy for decades. But more than that, it will make us a proud nation, that cares about its people once again."
Or even in one: "Our country is becoming second-rate right before our eyes, and one reason is the money we're flushing away on health care for no one, while thousands of people die and thousands of others are pushed to financial ruin."
And anyone who references Sicko in glowing terms or peppers arguments with Bush bashing and class warfare is not one to be reasoned with. He is one to be defeated. Nothing more than another ultra liberal progressive out to destroy what's left of the country. The government cannot take control over even MORE of the economy. There is only a train at the end of this tunnel. That's not the sun.
P.S. - Frequent visitor who finally got so worked up as to sign up and post. My post #1.
Typical careless politicians.
Applause! A notable post at that!
I looked for the part about having access to bank account and couldn't find it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.