Religious Freedomz in the USA

[horseofcourse]

IN essence clip clop what is usually being promoted by old men or being spewed in the media is usually 100 percent false. When Catholic Bishops in America start whining about "religious freedom" being taken away, you can be assured the complete opposite is true. What the law actually does is allow for more "religious freedom". AS a result of this law, what percent of catholics in AMerica would be prohibited from devoutly following their religious doctrine as defined by the Vatican or US Conference of Catholic Bishops? the answer to that question is easy, zero percent. Every single catholic in America can follow their religion 100 percent devoutly as a result of this law. And that in turn is what infuriates the bishops so much. They know this. It also simply allows for the "religious freedom" of the thousands upon thousands of non-catholics hired by the catholic institutions operating in the public shpere to be taken into account. It allows for a poor non-catholic woman to get some financial relief for trying to avoid the pure evil of abortion which she has heard from these bishops all her life. This controversy is simply a scam of epic proportions. Catholic institutions providing "religious" services only are certainly exempt from this law.

Also with the media now incessantly pounding the "IRan threat" 24-7, you know exactly the opposite is true. Iran is zero threat to this country.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

I tend to disagree. The mail service has been 100 percent accurate in my lifetime getting my payments of bills to large corporations. I mean 100 percent, zero have failed to make it there. They've all been cashed. In turn also 100 percent accuracy getting the bills from large corporations to me. Mom gets her Christmas package every single year...100 percent accuracy. Unbelievably good getting stuff from point A to pont B and they go places privatized places don't go. they may not make any money and lose a ton, but they handle the mail 100 percent correctly in my opinion. I view mail as the stuff that needs to get from point A to point B. Others may take a different view of it. So that is fine. By my perspective, they do what they do quite well.

Absolutely government run health care. It would end up way cheaper in the long run. Medicare for all.

....I'll vouch for that...

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

I tend to disagree. The mail service has been 100 percent accurate in my lifetime getting my payments of bills to large corporations. I mean 100 percent, zero have failed to make it there. They've all been cashed. In turn also 100 percent accuracy getting the bills from large corporations to me. Mom gets her Christmas package every single year...100 percent accuracy. Unbelievably good getting stuff from point A to pont B and they go places privatized places don't go. they may not make any money and lose a ton, but they handle the mail 100 percent correctly in my opinion. I view mail as the stuff that needs to get from point A to point B. Others may take a different view of it. So that is fine. By my perspective, they do what they do quite well.

Absolutely government run health care. It would end up way cheaper in the long run. Medicare for all.

How long do you think the medical world would survive while "not making any money and losing a ton"? Think anyone will want to be a Dr.? Think pharmaceutical companies will continue to make wonder drugs that keep you alive? Wake up.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

I tend to disagree. The mail service has been 100 percent accurate in my lifetime getting my payments of bills to large corporations. I mean 100 percent, zero have failed to make it there. They've all been cashed. In turn also 100 percent accuracy getting the bills from large corporations to me. Mom gets her Christmas package every single year...100 percent accuracy. Unbelievably good getting stuff from point A to pont B and they go places privatized places don't go. they may not make any money and lose a ton, but they handle the mail 100 percent correctly in my opinion. I view mail as the stuff that needs to get from point A to point B. Others may take a different view of it. So that is fine. By my perspective, they do what they do quite well.

Absolutely government run health care. It would end up way cheaper in the long run. Medicare for all.

knowing how rampant fraud is with the current medicare/caid set up, i cringe to think what would happen if everyone were in such a system.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

How long do you think the medical world would survive while "not making any money and losing a ton"? Think anyone will want to be a Dr.? Think pharmaceutical companies will continue to make wonder drugs that keep you alive? Wake up.

it's already getting difficult to find doctors who will accept medicare/caid. the amount of money they will make vs the amount of work involved to accept those patients is becoming untenable for most doctors. so many are opting not to accept more patients who use those two coverages.

the cost of medical care in this country has exploded, while our health hasn't gotten any better. ACA isn't the problem solver, with premiums shooting thru the roof and medicaid set to drain more than the proposed medicare savings.

medicare and medicaid need revamping, as does SS. when SS began, almost no one got it. now, almost everyone does with most taking out 3X or more what they put in. that's what you call an impossible scenario to continue. the new york times recently ran that story-look it up.

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

IN essence clip clop what is usually being promoted by old men or being spewed in the media is usually 100 percent false. When Catholic Bishops in America start whining about "religious freedom" being taken away, you can be assured the complete opposite is true. What the law actually does is allow for more "religious freedom". AS a result of this law, what percent of catholics in AMerica would be prohibited from devoutly following their religious doctrine as defined by the Vatican or US Conference of Catholic Bishops? the answer to that question is easy, zero percent. Every single catholic in America can follow their religion 100 percent devoutly as a result of this law. And that in turn is what infuriates the bishops so much. They know this. It also simply allows for the "religious freedom" of the thousands upon thousands of non-catholics hired by the catholic institutions operating in the public shpere to be taken into account. It allows for a poor non-catholic woman to get some financial relief for trying to avoid the pure evil of abortion which she has heard from these bishops all her life. This controversy is simply a scam of epic proportions. Catholic institutions providing "religious" services only are certainly exempt from this law.

Also with the media now incessantly pounding the "IRan threat" 24-7, you know exactly the opposite is true. Iran is zero threat to this country.

Ocala Mike

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

How long do you think the medical world would survive while "not making any money and losing a ton"? Think anyone will want to be a Dr.? Think pharmaceutical companies will continue to make wonder drugs that keep you alive? Wake up.

What are you talking about? If everyone had Medicare, health care would still be provided by private hospitals, doctors, etc. They wouldn't be broke. Pharmaceutical companies would still develop drugs. What would be removed is simply the price gouging.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

knowing how rampant fraud is with the current medicare/caid set up, i cringe to think what would happen if everyone were in such a system.

What do you think is "rampant"? What percentage of Medicare claims do you think are fraudulant? There's fraud, certainly, but I'd hardly describe it as "rampant". Medicare is an outstandingly cost-efficient and reliable insurance system. It's done very, very well. Adding multiple-millions of healthy, young individuals to it will only continue to bring costs down for everyone, while services - and payments to providers - can be expanded. And the jobs created will be massive. A win-win-win for everyone. And we can be just like other first world countries, instead of 27th and worse in health care quality and provisions.

Health care in the United States is our national embarrassment. Except for our Medicare system, which is outstanding and remarkably successful. Few receive health care in the US, and its the most expensive in the world, while not even in the top twenty in quality by any measurement. We can do better for ourselves.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

IN essence clip clop what is usually being promoted by old men or being spewed in the media is usually 100 percent false. When Catholic Bishops in America start whining about "religious freedom" being taken away, you can be assured the complete opposite is true. What the law actually does is allow for more "religious freedom". AS a result of this law, what percent of catholics in AMerica would be prohibited from devoutly following their religious doctrine as defined by the Vatican or US Conference of Catholic Bishops? the answer to that question is easy, zero percent. Every single catholic in America can follow their religion 100 percent devoutly as a result of this law. And that in turn is what infuriates the bishops so much. They know this. It also simply allows for the "religious freedom" of the thousands upon thousands of non-catholics hired by the catholic institutions operating in the public shpere to be taken into account. It allows for a poor non-catholic woman to get some financial relief for trying to avoid the pure evil of abortion which she has heard from these bishops all her life. This controversy is simply a scam of epic proportions. Catholic institutions providing "religious" services only are certainly exempt from this law.

Also with the media now incessantly pounding the "IRan threat" 24-7, you know exactly the opposite is true. Iran is zero threat to this country.

[Riot]

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

What are you talking about? If everyone had Medicare, health care would still be provided by private hospitals, doctors, etc. They wouldn't be broke. Pharmaceutical companies would still develop drugs. What would be removed is simply the price gouging.

C'mon, you are a Dr. If you had to go through all kinds of govt red tape to get paid what they thought was fair for what you were doing would you? Do you let clients decide what procedures should cost? Of course not.

[Danzig]

from a GAO article from a year ago"

GAO has designated Medicare and Medicaid as high-risk programs because they are particularly vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and improper payments (payments that should not have been made or were made in an incorrect amount). Medicare is considered high-risk in part because of its complexity and susceptibility to improper payments, and Medicaid because of concerns about the adequacy of its fiscal oversight to prevent inappropriate spending. In fiscal year 2010, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)--the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid--estimated that these programs made a total of over $70 billion in improper payments



70 billion improperly paid in one year alone. that is absolutely dreadful.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

from a GAO article from a year ago"

GAO has designated Medicare and Medicaid as high-risk programs because they are particularly vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and improper payments (payments that should not have been made or were made in an incorrect amount). Medicare is considered high-risk in part because of its complexity and susceptibility to improper payments, and Medicaid because of concerns about the adequacy of its fiscal oversight to prevent inappropriate spending. In fiscal year 2010, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)--the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid--estimated that these programs made a total of over $70 billion in improper payments



70 billion improperly paid in one year alone. that is absolutely dreadful.

It is, but they changed the definition of "improper", too:

According to the report, the Bush administration from 2005 to 2008 reported improper payments of about 4 percent in the fee-for-service program, or about $17 billion total in 2008. Government officials at the time, however, typically did not consider a Medicare payment improper if the medical documentation was incomplete or a doctor's signature was illegible.

But now they do.

4% is too high, but that's not "rampant". That's 96% proper payments made. And other safeguards were put into the program in 2010. The ACA cuts $500 billion in 10 years in duplication.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

C'mon, you are a Dr. If you had to go through all kinds of govt red tape to get paid what they thought was fair for what you were doing would you? Do you let clients decide what procedures should cost? Of course not.

Right now, human doctors have tons of staff dedicated only to cutting through the red tape of the various insurance companies. They hate it. Insurance companies dictate the actual practice of medicine - what a doctor can do for a patient - by what they will reimburse for or not. Private insurance companies dictate what tests will be reimbursed for what coded conditions, and how much that will be, and what tests will NOT be covered for certain conditions.

Medicare is a piece of cake compared to that. If doctors offices only had to deal with one insurance reimbursement agency, rather than multiple different ones, they would be thrilled!

Insurance companies only pay "what they think is fair" (or what they negotiate with the network the doctor is in) exactly as the Medicare network does. And that nice huge profit margin goes, not to us, but to the insurance company.

Medicare costs only about 9% for administration, and that is comparable to what other first world countries cost to insure their citizens. Private insurance companies are 17% of our GDP. That's outrageous. That's why we have the most expensive health care in the world - without even having all our citizens covered, and without providing the best outcomes in the world!

Except Obamacare just changed one thing: now insurance companies must spend 80% of patient premiums on patient health care - not insurance company profit.

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

. For profit health insurance companies need to be vaporized completely. It's a sad situation.

Yeah free health care for all with no deductibles...and if there are deductibles then absolutely no indemnity plans to cover that deductible.

F.uck 'em. No exchange of dollars. What do you think this is? A democracy?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Right now, human doctors have tons of staff dedicated only to cutting through the red tape of the various insurance companies. They hate it. Insurance companies dictate the actual practice of medicine - what a doctor can do for a patient - by what they will reimburse for or not. Private insurance companies dictate what tests will be reimbursed for what coded conditions, and how much that will be, and what tests will NOT be covered for certain conditions.

Medicare is a piece of cake compared to that. If doctors offices only had to deal with one insurance reimbursement agency, rather than multiple different ones, they would be thrilled!

Insurance companies only pay "what they think is fair" (or what they negotiate with the network the doctor is in) exactly as the Medicare network does. And that nice huge profit margin goes, not to us, but to the insurance company.

Medicare costs only about 9% for administration, and that is comparable to what other first world countries cost to insure their citizens. Private insurance companies are 17% of our GDP. That's outrageous. That's why we have the most expensive health care in the world - without even having all our citizens covered, and without providing the best outcomes in the world!

Except Obamacare just changed one thing: now insurance companies must spend 80% of patient premiums on patient health care - not insurance company profit.

Why does Medicare lose money? Why even though millions pay into something they will never use they still manage to not have enough to cover those using it?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Why does Medicare lose money? Why even though millions pay into something they will never use they still manage to not have enough to cover those using it?

Because it's designed to be that way. You can never pay enough. The government decides who gets what - unlike your own money (a.k.a. what the government does not confiscate) which you can spend however you like.

You know - like the 47 million food stamp recipients who buy beer and cigarettes with their "own" money after the sucker of a taxpayer pays for the rest of what they have in the checkout line.

The government approach is always to take from one group and give that which it took to another group, less the non-trivial fee for processing and handling.

All hail the recipient!

[Danzig]

just wait and see what happens if the PPUCA stays on the books. i know it s supposed to be aca, but it will end up unaffordable.
the CBO estimated that six million people covered in small groups will have their employers drop their coverage. that the employer would fint it cheaper to pay the penalty and let their workers go thru a exchange.
however, it is possible that up to 30 million would end up in the exchange. that causes the est. of less than a trillion in new cost over ten yearzs to go well over that, one trillion being the 'magic number' congress had said would make or break the vote.
also, in arkansas for an example, anyone want to guess what percentage of this states total population will qualify for a subsidy? averqage subsidy is five thousand a year. 70~75 percent. because the feds have made an average income chart for income.
now, we all know that cost of living varies widely.
oh...and medicaid? rolls will almost double. right now those up to 75 percent above the fed. poverty level are eligible. it goes to 133 percent above trhat. who will pay for that? most states are already in deep financial straits.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

just wait and see what happens if the PPUCA stays on the books. i know it s supposed to be aca, but it will end up unaffordable.
the CBO estimated that six million people covered in small groups will have their employers drop their coverage. that the employer would fint it cheaper to pay the penalty and let their workers go thru a exchange.
however, it is possible that up to 30 million would end up in the exchange. that causes the est. of less than a trillion in new cost over ten yearzs to go well over that, one trillion being the 'magic number' congress had said would make or break the vote.
also, in arkansas for an example, anyone want to guess what percentage of this states total population will qualify for a subsidy? averqage subsidy is five thousand a year. 70~75 percent. because the feds have made an average income chart for income.
now, we all know that cost of living varies widely.
oh...and medicaid? rolls will almost double. right now those up to 75 percent above the fed. poverty level are eligible. it goes to 133 percent above trhat. who will pay for that? most states are already in deep financial straits.

I like your acronym better: PPUCA, pronounced P-PUKE-AH

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Why does Medicare lose money? Why even though millions pay into something they will never use they still manage to not have enough to cover those using it?

Note the date, but still applicable. Yes, the programs need some fixing. They always do. Expecting a medical insurance program set up decades ago to be applicable to todays health insurance industry, especially the most expensive in the world, twice as expensive as other countries, is silly. These programs are outstandingly successful, having saved millions of lives over the years by enabling seniors to get health care. No, the programs do not need to be completely thrown out. That would be absurd. The ACA removes millions (that means millions in savings) in Medicare duplication over the next 10 years. That's an excellent start.

It also provides health care to seniors at half the cost of private health insurance, thus saving us all money. We have the most expensive healthcare system in the world - it's a disaster. We are the only country in the world whose health care system is owned by private insurance companies. Medicare for all would fix that.

Medicare's Financial Problems

Medicare’s financial affairs are handled through two trust funds, the Hospital Insurance (HI, or Medicare Part A) Trust Fund and the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund.

According to current projections, the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will receive income of $221 billion in 2008 and pay out $230 billion in benefits and administrative expenses, leaving a deficit of $8 billion for the year. At the end of the year, the trust fund will hold $318 billion in assets. Current income and trust fund reserves will be sufficient to pay hospital insurance benefits through 2019, when the reserves are projected to be depleted. At that point, if no changes are made, scheduled HI income will cover 78 percent of estimated expenditures.

The Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust fund is always adequately financed because beneficiary premiums and general revenue contribution are set annually to cover the expected costs of Parts B and D of Medicare for the coming year. However, the rapid rate of growth in program costs will place increasing demands on both beneficiaries (to pay the premiums) and taxpayers (to provide the general revenues).

Medicare’s spending is growing rapidly for the same reasons that private health spending is growing rapidly—increases in the cost and use of medical services. Much of these increases stem from advances in medical practice and technology that have enabled people to live longer and healthier lives. These technological advances have generally raised costs. The aging of the population makes only a small contribution to the growth in Medicare’s costs.

For more information, see:

Medicare Finances: Findings of the 2008 Trustees Report, Medicare Brief No. 18
Financing Medicare's Future, Final Report of the Study Panel on Medicare's Long-Term Financing
The Financing Needs of a Restructured Medicare Program, Medicare Brief No. 5
Matching Problems with Solutions: Improving Medicare's Governance and Management, Final Report of the Study Panel on Medicare's Governance and Management
Should Higher Income Medicare Beneficiaries Pay More for Medicare? Medicare Brief No. 2

The official Medicare website is www.medicare.gov.

http://www.nasi.org/learn/medicare/financial-problems