Slashdot Mirror

...then when the bill comes, simply do not pay it.

Medicaid will foot the bill:

http://kaiserhealthnews.org/ne...

Sure, it's the worst way to get healthcare - but it is free - at least for some.

You're not going back far enough. Check out what Nixon was doing in 1974.

http://kaiserhealthnews.org/st...

Place the realm blame where it belongs and leave Oracle alone.

Who? Lotus Notes? Bill Gates? Nixon?

Nixon. I say we blame Nixon. After all, he was the first sitting president to propose national health care (and of all ironies, Ted Kennedy helped spike it.)

The reference claims medical identity theft is the most common type of identity theft. but I dont beleive because there are relatively few cases in news about it compared to fake credit card and account withdrawals. It might be source of the most general identity thefts, due the looseness of medical record keeping.

That Heritage Foundation stuff comes directly from the plan Nixon offered -- yeah, Tricky Dick. Obama's plan is essentially the same thing with the liberal parts stripped out.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.or...

It's not just the federal government (healthcare.gov) that's fucked this up; state exchanges (like Covered California, supposedly on the forefront of things, to say nothing of Oregon's health exchange, who, to put it kindly, isn't at the top of the heap) have also fucked this up.

But it's not just the governments that have fucked this up. The private insurers have fucked this up beyond all recognition. Anthem's web-based payment system was unable to accept payments during the last week of December. Customers who signed up weeks before the deadline weren't billed until the new year. Multi-hour wait times for humans have resulted in Anthem's CA PR-bot being inundated with complaints.

You don't have insurance until you actually pay. This is difficult when the insurance company itself refuses to accept payment.

UnitedHealthcare has been dropping doctors and providers all over the country, even in its Medicare Advantage plans, which are unaffected by Obamacare. This is a story from the Kaiser foundation, whose board of directors is filled with pro-business and right-wing free market types, unfortunately.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/December/01/Medicare-Advantage-UnitedHealthcare-narrow-networks-doctors.aspx

Dorathy Senay’s doctor had some bad news after her last checkup, but it wasn't about her serious blood disorder called amyloidosis. Her Medicare Advantage managed care plan from UnitedHealthcare/AARP is terminating the doctor's contract Feb. 1.

She is also losing her oncologist at the prestigious Yale Medical Group -- the entire 1,200 physician practice was axed.

Senay, 71, of Canterbury, Conn., is among thousands of UnitedHealthcare Medicare members in 10 states whose doctors will be cut from their plan network.

I'm sure Obamacare will work out fine...except for these people and many others like them.

If you like you plan, you can keep it...NOT.

And when the FDA came out I'm sure that there were people complaining that they couldn't buy the cheap sausage that was 30% sawdust anymore either. The policies that were cancelled - according to that article - were ones sold to people with pre-existing conditions; as someone who's been in that boat before, those policies are inexpensive because they have a clause in them that doesn't cover you for the sickness that you already know that you have.

Anyone with an insurance policy that meets the (really quite reasonable) minimum standards of care guidelines should be able to keep it - and, for the most part, has been able to as well.

Here are some misinformed people. Guess they were misinformed that they could keep their plan if they wanted.

I'm sure Obamacare will work out fine...except for these people and many others like them.

If you like you plan, you can keep it...NOT.

These programs deliver more for less than the rest of the US healthcare system. (facepalm.)

Pretty damn easy when they're allowed to demand whatever services they want and then just welch on the payment:

http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/001097

It's no surprise to me that more and more doctors are choosing not to take Medicare patients. Good luck "delivering more" when we eventually get to the point where no doctor wants to engage with your shady payment plan: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/July/29/medicare-doctor-issues.aspx

Don't forget it took the Democrats to pass Nixon's healthcare plan (minus the liberal parts):

citations:

GOP-centric:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/16/ellen-ratner-obama-health-care-nixon-republicans-liberal/

DNC-centric:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/opinion/31krugman.html?_r=1&

Medical-Industry-centric:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act makes illegal for health insurers to discriminate based on genetic testing but life insurance, disability insurance or long-term-care insurance companies can.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/January/18/genetic-testing.aspx
Those companies might find it profitable to deny insurance because you have the same name as someone in a genetic database. If they can eliminate the few people that might get some rare disease, it might be better for them in spite of the few false positives.

No, Obama's death panels will decide that.

Tea Partiers would ask you why you don't have a church to help you out. Hell, they might even help you if you're an avowed atheist.

Medical marijuana, anyone?

Sure, as long as it has the same testing as other drugs.

That's primarily a money-making process. But of course since no one can make money without a patent, who is supposed to pay the enormous FDA price tag for that testing? And why do I need government approval for it, unless you assume they OWN me?

And don't use the old hippy "it's natural so it can't do you any harm" routine. You could say the same about opium/morphine, but I really don't think you want that to be handed out like aspirin.

Straw man

PS stop the "FDA shill" nonsense, it just makes you sound like a paranoid crank.

But you (and the GP) SOUND like shills. If you prefer, I'll just call you obstinately ignorant, and selectively ignoring any facts that get in the way of your stated viewpoint. That better?

Most "alternative medicine" is sheer bollocks, and you know it.

Your ignorant opinion is what is bollocks. I'll say this again: If there is an proven, effective treatment for something, that should be the first try. There are MANY serious and terminal diseases with NO traditional treatment. Stop telling people to go home and die because the hospitals and drug companies can't make a profit on their illness. There are also very safe, cheap, and natural treatments for less serious conditions than the big-pharma government-approved stuff. Why should I risk liver damage and death so I can take an "approved" pill for my toe fungus where there are safer and cheaper alternatives?

Homeopathy? Crystal healing? Astrological karmic alignment chiropractcy?

More straw men and/or pure ignorance. THIS is why you get called a shill.

I think you miss the point. When Joe Sixpack doesn't have to pay for Product X, he doesn't care whether Product X costs $10 or $10,000,000.

Health insurers pass the cost on to employers, who have to keep paying the increased premiums to keep their employees happy. If Joe Sixpack had to pay for their own health insurance, then he would object when they doubled the premiums to cover those $10,000,000 products that could have been bought in a free market for $10.

Maybe you've been out of the job market for a while, but where are these happy employees?

Employers Push Higher Health Insurance Costs Onto Workers

Employees Get Pinched: Health Insurance Costs More

Workers paying more for health insurance as costs rise

New State-By-State Report: Employer Health Insurance Premiums Increased 50 Percent From 2003 to 2010; Employees' Share of Premiums Increased 63 Percent

Employers shift health insurance costs onto workers

Yes, this on the surface seems like an overreaching nanny state tax. Consider this though.

• 1 in 5 healthcare dollars go to diabetes
• 1 in 4 teens have diabetes or prediabetes
• 1 in 3 people will eventually contract diabetes

So what do you do about this? Let people eat up our healthcare system with obesity related illnesses (no pun intended), or try things out to fix the problem? The government has run educational programs before with little success. Taxing sugar almost seems like a reasonable alternative at this point.

"Centrist"? Don't make me laugh! The "left" in today's Amercian establishment politics is to the right of RIchard Milhouse Nixon.

Please elaborate. I would honestly like to hear your reasoning.

Nixon had a universal health care plan the likes of which any of the current GOP candidates would denounce.

http://news.change.org/stories/the-presidents-who-took-us-the-closest-to-universal-health-care-part-2

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

CAT scanners too:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2009/October/14/Hospital-Error.aspx

Obama and his crew are EXTREMELY leftist, with respect to what the majority of US citizens want to see in government.

Please provide at least one example, comparing Obama policy versus opinion polls.

Here are two counter-examples:

Health care: polls suggest that Americans are not opposed to single-payer health care. For example: the July 2009 Kaiser Health Tracking Poll.

• If asked their opinion of "Having a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for-all", respondents were 58% in favor and 38% opposed.
• Using alternative wording, "Having a national health plan – or single-payer plan – in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan", respondents were 50% in favor and 44% opposed

By contrast, Obama and the Democrats worked against those advocating single-payer:

Baucus and many others, including President Barack Obama, say single-payer is not practical or politically feasible.

"Everything is on the table with the single exception of single-payer," Baucus said recently. "This country is not going to adopt single-payer, at least not at this time."

The plan finally passed by the Democrats was based on the reforms implemented under Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, and has many similarities to the bill introduced by Sen. John Chafee (R-RI) in 1993 (with a number of Republican cosponsors).

On Afghanistan, based on polls, Obama seems to be pretty centrist: about half of respondents think the U.S. should not be involved in Afghanistan now, and those opposed to current policy appear to be roughly divided evenly between opposite views.

First...

So basically the only way a pre-existing condition will be denied is if you don't have insurance, get digosed with something, THEN go get insurance and have them eat the costs. That and the children that are born with conditions that the insurance companies will see as being a drain (as in, I'll forever be paying more in medical costs then I'll ever see them paying back in premiums).

Or, they go back through your original application, find a small error, and deny you coverage.

Moreover, you for some reason think that getting health insurance is a cheap and easy thing to do. If that is the case, why are so many not doing it? Also, if you pay the fine and don't buy insurance, then you don't have insurance. If you have a heart attack or get hit by a car, you will still be liable for the medical bills until you get your paperwork through. While still having paid the fine every year.

But, regardless of all that, what if the fine is more expensive than the health insurance premiums? Then, everyone will get health insurance. It won't happen during the phasing in period, but I am sure it will happen eventually. Mainly because the health care debate showed us how much influence the health insurance lobby has. I am sure they can buy the Republicans again to raise the fine without a problem.

I just read Richard Nixon's proposal for health care reform. It's not at all conservative and I don't see how you can use it as a marker for the division between conservative and liberal.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

If it was unconstitutional (and well-settled as you claim) there would be no challenge to the health care bill like Ken Cuccinelli is currently doing.

Unless Ken Cuccinelli were a political grandstander.

Many states used nullification successfully to ignore the provision of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and refused to capture or return escaped slaves, protecting them with their own state laws instead.

"Refusing to enforce" is not the same thing as "nullifying." Many states also attempted to use nullification to avoid desegregating their public schools. Federal court decisions supersede those by state courts.

Yea, just ignore the part about the how the Administration response to Cuccinelli's suit was "You don't have standing", and nothing about the segregation case, which was supported by the 14th Amendment.

You also ignored the state court cases about escaped slaves, which went far beyond just some "refusal to enforce", and went without response by the Federal courts. The state courts basically said that slavery was state issue, and that the Feds could not interfere with the states' rights to set those laws. Through silence, the Federal courts agreed. Nullification.

I get that your ideology recoils from the idea of state governments opposing Federal tyranny and upholding the original intent of the Constitutional constraints. Nevertheless, it happened, and it will happen again. If you don't like it, maybe you should call McCain and get him to declare me an "unprivileged enemy belligerent". I'd love to see them try to enforce that one.

If it was unconstitutional (and well-settled as you claim) there would be no challenge to the health care bill like Ken Cuccinelli is currently doing.

Unless Ken Cuccinelli were a political grandstander.

Many states used nullification successfully to ignore the provision of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and refused to capture or return escaped slaves, protecting them with their own state laws instead.

"Refusing to enforce" is not the same thing as "nullifying." Many states also attempted to use nullification to avoid desegregating their public schools. Federal court decisions supersede those by state courts.

Nullification is unconstitutional. This is pretty well-settled constitutional law.

I call bullshit.

If it was unconstitutional (and well-settled as you claim) there would be no challenge to the health care bill like Ken Cuccinelli is currently doing. Either that, or they would be arguing using this mythical "well-settled constitutional law" you claim, and not just trying to use the old "no standing" defense.

Many states used nullification successfully to ignore the provision of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and refused to capture or return escaped slaves, protecting them with their own state laws instead. These laws were supported and upheld by the state supreme courts.

Why shouldn't they oppose it? The Democrats aren't interested in meeting in the middle. They are interested in pushing their own agenda. The fact that they can't even convince the moderates in their own party to go along with some of the stuff they've tried to pass ought to tell you something. Mind you, this is exactly how the GOP operated when they had control, but the silence coming from the man who promised us a new kind of politics is deafening, isn't it?

Are you serious?

The Democrats have made concession after concession to the Republicans on every major bill they've tried to get through Congress, and the Republicans just move the goalposts. This is why we ended up with a watered-down, crap stimulus bill. This is why we're ending up with a watered-down, crap health reform bill. The Republicans are taking obstructionist tactics to new extremes, like "accidentally" losing their voting cards, and filibustering a defense slash war-funding bill in the hopes that the Senate won't even be able to debate the health insurance reform bill. Meanwhile, the Democrats refuse to use the options at their disposal, like reconciliation, to pass the health care bill without bipartisan support or a supermajority. Senator Baucus worked with Republicans for ages on his version of the health care bill, only for them to oppose it anyway. Republican Senators gleefully announce that they intend to break Obama and make health care his waterloo. Republicans previously for health care reform suddenly oppose it for nebulous reasons.

100% party unity is unrealistic for the Democrats on any issue, and the Democrats have 60 members in their caucus in the Senate, not 60 Democrats. Senator Lieberman lost his Democratic primary and garnered more Republican votes than his Democratic opponent, and also more than his Republican opponent. He opposes pretty much every big-ticket Democratic agenda item. That's hardly a party-line Democrat to begin with. Other Democrats are suggesting they will vote against the bill because of a lack of cost-control options like the public option (removed to appease Republicans, despite it's 60%+ support among the public), or because of compromises made to the Republicans, which have garnered no Republican votes and only weakened the bill.

The Republicans don't want to meet in the middle, and the Democrats are fools for trying to act bipartisan. All they get for it is Republicans shrilly insisting that the Democrats are bullying them around any time they want to pass any of the legislation they were elected to pass. The Republicans don't oppose the health care bill on ideological grounds. Plenty of Republicans have supported health care legislation more liberal than what's in the Senate today, such as, say, Richard Nixon. Mitt Romney imposed a very similar plan to the one in the Senate now while he was governor. And so on and so on and so on. It wasn't until the current cycle that Republicans became opposed to plans such as the one now before the Senate. The ideology behind conservatism didn't suddenly change. No, the Republicans made a political decision that it was in their best interest to do their best to attack and bring down any initiatives Obama came up with.

The Republicans aren't opposed to the health care reform bill for any other reason than they were determined to make the Democrats failures. And they're doing an excellent job of it.