Refuse 2 Enroll!

[O4L]

It appears to me that this is more for data collection and sharing, for now, than it is for affordable health care.

I am beginning to think they screwed this up on purpose so that people would be willing to accept a single payer system just to get out of this mess.

 

[Lurkerinthewoods]

Lmao.

+1... Some people are going to be in for a rude awakening.

 

[yukonjack]

+1... Some people are going to be in for a rude awakening.

That's why they want to legalize pot. Keep people in the fog and they'll never know you stole their dog.

 

[okwarren]

I have my indian card so I'm set

 

[JD8]

Ok, let me try and break this down. I got through a few thousand pages of the law but its a difficult for me to remember what is exactly where. How this works is that they can force specific treatments or medications for specific diseases or situations. The doctor does not have to agree with the treatment and can refuse but then that doctor is no longer an approved doctor for the insurance plans we are required to have by law and therefore can no longer see patients using insurance. If they are allowed to keep practicing medicine, then they can continue on a cash basis. So if you want to try a different approach to treating a terminal disease outside the normal treatment, your insurance probably won't cover it after 2015.

You don't have to explain to me how you THINK this will work. I'm asking for definitive proof of your statements. This reaching interpretation compromises a ton of Federal and State laws in place, so can provide anyone that's credible (not Infowars) that has come to this conclusion also and how it would fly under current laws. Especially since they are so specific and this opinion of the law is so vague?

The second part to this when they roll out the panels that will decide on based on a cost/benefit type analysis. Older people will not receive the same quality of care as younger people since they allegedly have less to benefit to society. Bill Gates famously commented on this with the question (somewhat paraphrased since I am going from memory but I'm not far off),"would you rather keep a 75 year old on life support so they can survive a few more years or use that money to hire 3 extra teachers?" All this is buried in that law. They don't phrase it in the same way but to understand how it will be interpreted and used you have to study the background and publications from those who wrote the law and those who will enforce it. If they really wanted to improve healthcare for Americans then there are plenty of examples of working systems we could have copied to achieved that goal such as Singapore or the Scandinavian countries.

Now I KNOW you're completely talking from the wrong end. You DO realize that Obamacare has nothing to do with the elderly right? Considering Medicare has changed very little with this law and again.... there's several laws in place that compromise this theory.... I'd love to hear some foundation.

Bottom line is that the entire thing was sold on lies and deception. Obama himself probably doesn't know half the stuff in this law. He said if you liked your plan and your doctor you could keep them, period. Lie. He said we would have public debates on the law on CSPAN. Lie. All debates were behind closed doors and we were not allowed to see the bill until it passed

Agreed. However, the tin foil stuff only does him a service. Stick to the real world aspects of the law, there are plenty.

 

[JD8]

+1... Some people are going to be in for a rude awakening.

The world according to OSA has been ending since I first registered.

 

[tRidiot]

It appears to me that this is more for data collection and sharing, for now, than it is for affordable health care.

I am beginning to think they screwed this up on purpose so that people would be willing to accept for a single payer system just to get out of this mess.

Not a doubt in the world...

Ok, let me try and break this down. I got through a few thousand pages of the law but its a difficult for me to remember what is exactly where. How this works is that they can force specific treatments or medications for specific diseases or situations. The doctor does not have to agree with the treatment and can refuse but then that doctor is no longer an approved doctor for the insurance plans we are required to have by law and therefore can no longer see patients using insurance. If they are allowed to keep practicing medicine, then they can continue on a cash basis. So if you want to try a different approach to treating a terminal disease outside the normal treatment, your insurance probably won't cover it after 2015.
...
Many of the biggest abuses of this law are not the ones we are debating, it a bunch of devious clauses hidden inside this monster of a law.

Charlie is exactly right about this. I am not saying everything he says is right, but this IS exactly what they will do to FORCE doctors to comply with SUBSTANDARD treatment modalities. It is happening already, folks.

The government ALREADY dictates as much about how we care for patients as the medical community does. If you don't think it is going to get worse, you have your head in the sand. Your doctor, who says, "I won't let them tell me how to treat my patients," is either going to toe the line, or go private cash-pay only. EVERY INSURANCE PLAN will soon be required to provide the exact same coverages, dictated by the ACA. And anything above and beyond is double-taxed. So these they are attempting to phase out... by penalty. They want everyone to have exactly the same coverage. Then, switching it over to a .gov-administered system will be a piece of cake.

Doctors cannot survive without insurance, unfortunately. A few have been able to manage some cash-only practices, in fact a very good friend of mine started his last year. I need to email him and see what he thinks about how it's going... but the fact is, it's a niche market, and won't work en-masse, because most people aren't going to pay cash out of their pockets. Hell, if we'd just institute the same $3.00 co-pay for adult Medicaid patients to be seen in my ER as they do in the clinic, I think fully 50% of them wouldn't come in... because they're not even going to pay $3.00 to be seen by a doctor. Because they have "the gold card" as we call it. Pays for everything, no cost, no consequences.

In fact, that's their "incentive" to overutilize the ER... at a doctor's office you have to make an appointment, sometimes days or weeks out, AND then you have to pay a $3.00 copay. At the ER, it's walk in and take a seat. You'll be seen (at our ER) usually in less time than if you had an appointment at your doctor's office.

Downhill slide, folks...

 

[yukonjack]

The world according to OSA has been ending since I first registered.

As they say "The sale ends tomorrow". Everyday they say the same thing.

 

[chuter]

I predict that enough current doctors will leave their practices, and lines for treatment will be so long, that the solution will be gov trained docs. Special fast track to being a doc, the gov pays for it, and they have to work under the gov system.

What could go wrong with that?............[sarcasm/]

 

[Lurkerinthewoods]

You don't have to explain to me how you THINK this will work. I'm asking for definitive proof of your statements. This reaching interpretation compromises a ton of Federal and State laws in place, so can provide anyone that's credible (not Infowars) that has come to this conclusion also and how it would fly under current laws.

Years ago I would agree with you. But can you name one law this current administration gives two chits about? Hell, they're even hand picking the laws they want to follow regarding the ACA. Waivers here, waivers there, everywhere a waiver except for the general public. They love the ACA so much they decided to exclude themselves