ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[john9blue]

i wonder if 1-year-ago-andy would ban current andy

i'm thinking probably yes

[AndyDufresne]

i wonder if 1-year-ago-andy would ban current andy

i'm thinking probably yes

I have it on good authority I probably wouldn't. I think the Discussions Mods know I probably wouldn't either. But of course, they have new leaders now so its all a crapshoot!


--Andy

[john9blue]

crapshoot!

you mean like this?

[Phatscotty]

the scope of the targeting keeps broadening... Pretty clear who they think the enemy is. I suppose you guys won't care until 4 years from now you learn that President Jeb Bush, cultural secretary Pat Buchanon and Communication secretary Rush Limbaugh, with the full power of the IRS in their hands, are officially targeting and harassing groups who teach certain philosophies on "equality", and the government will have a lot more power then too. Oh, but there is no way they would do stuff like this when it comes to enforcing Obamacare.

At various points over the past two years, Internal Revenue Service officials targeted nonprofit groups that sought to educate Americans about the U.S. Constitution

The documents, obtained by The Washington Post from a congressional aide with knowledge of the findings, show that on June 29, 2011, IRS staffers held a briefing with senior agency official Lois G. Lerner in which they described giving special attention to instances where “statements in the case file criticize how the country is being run.” Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the agency, raised objections and the agency revised its criteria a week later.

On Jan. 15, 2012 the agency decided to target “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform movement.,” according to the appendix in the IG report, which was requested by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and has yet to be released.

The new revelations are likely to intensify criticism of the IRS, which has been under fire since agency officials acknowledged they had deliberately targeted groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their name for heightened scrutiny.

justifiable profiling?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... port-says/

[AndyDufresne]

On a related note, the Federation does not have an IRS in the future, so there is nothing to worry about in a few years.




--Andy

[thegreekdog]

Wibbly wobbly

I've always wondered what it is like to live from manufactured issue to issue. I feel it is probably a lot like this:





--Andy

The top right is the best.

I like bottom left (since he exhibits his athleticism by jumping over the rock twice).

[Woodruff]

Wibbly wobbly

I've always wondered what it is like to live from manufactured issue to issue. I feel it is probably a lot like this:





--Andy

The top right is the best.

I like bottom left (since he exhibits his athleticism by jumping over the rock twice).

That's a hole, not a rock. Geez...you Star Warsians are so slow!

[PLAYER57832]

It gets worse. I wonder what else they have been doing?

Senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting tea party groups as early as 2011, according to a draft of an inspector general's report obtained by The Associated Press that seemingly contradicts public statements by the IRS commissioner.

The IRS apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status. The agency blamed low-level employees, saying no high-level officials were aware.

But on June 29, 2011, Lois G. Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt organizations, learned at a meeting that groups were being targeted, according to the watchdog's report. At the meeting, she was told that groups with "Tea Party," "Patriot" or "9/12 Project" in their names were being flagged for additional and often burdensome scrutiny, the report says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 ... than-2012/

First, what on earth does this have to do with the healthcare reform act... the supposed TOPIC of this thread??????

Seems like, as usual, you prefer an "anything to attack Obama" rhetoric over any kind of real thought.

Among the issues you fialed to mention...

Obama specifically declaring that if groups were targeted, it is "simply unacceptable".
NO group was denied approval.


Beyond that, once you get past the hoopla, its not quite the witch hunt you and many conservatives like to pretend. It was stupid and certainly gave the appearance of partisanship, even if, as those involved seem to assert it was not. The story (and note, this is what they are saying, not my opinion on this at all!) is that they had many, many applications and sought to find some shortcuts to identify those groups who were legitimately tax exempt and those that were not. The key difference is how much political activity. For the "best" status, you have to be completely a social service organization with no political activity. For the other status, the one these groups applied to get, you can have some political activity, but it cannot be most of the purpose of the group. The exact lines are being fought, changed, so that is yet another difficulty.

Anyway, if you want a quick way to find out which groups are political, back in 2011 particularly, keying in on new groups with the names of "Tea Party", "Patriot" and other rhetoric terms bandied about by political groups is not a terrible idea. Of course, they should have certainly identified groups across the spectrum, not just give the appearance of targeting one political view. That was wrong. Still, I would also wager that at that particular point in time, there were far, far more conservative leaning groups emerging. Liberals largely have "had their day", already have established groups.

BUT... yet another issue, IF the stories are to be believed (and that is a BIG "if"), then this is yet another case of folks trying to do more with less... or, in other words, the IRS agents committing these errors did so in an effort to try and do exactly what you constnatly demand of government... more efficiency!

Now, note specifically that I am not saying this last bit to in any way justify what happened. I think they screwed up, and big time. Still... to pretend that these folks are not facing huge pressure to do more with less and that that pressure contributed to this, is well, disengenius.

[john9blue]

I like bottom left (since he exhibits his athleticism by jumping over the rock twice).

That's a hole, not a rock. Geez...you Star Warsians are so slow!

thank god, i thought i was going crazy when he said it was a rock

[Night Strike]

First, what on earth does this have to do with the healthcare reform act... the supposed TOPIC of this thread??????

The IRS is the primary enforcer of Obamacare. You would think some one who oodles over the law would know that.

Obama specifically declaring that if groups were targeted, it is "simply unacceptable".

It's amazing how you believe everything he says. It's only "simply unacceptable" to him because they got caught.


It's also amazing how you will apologize for any governmental program, no matter whether it breaks the law or violates Constitutional rights, if your favored political people are in power. At least it's finally clear to everybody that you're nothing more than a progressive hack. You would never have made these same comments if Bush or Romney were president.

[Woodruff]

First, what on earth does this have to do with the healthcare reform act... the supposed TOPIC of this thread??????

The IRS is the primary enforcer of Obamacare. You would think some one who oodles over the law would know that.

Obama specifically declaring that if groups were targeted, it is "simply unacceptable".

It's amazing how you believe everything he says. It's only "simply unacceptable" to him because they got caught.

Is it more rational to go by something actually he says or by something that someone else is making up that he said?

It's also amazing how you will apologize for any governmental program, no matter whether it breaks the law or violates Constitutional rights, if your favored political people are in power. At least it's finally clear to everybody that you're nothing more than a progressive hack. You would never have made these same comments if Bush or Romney were president.

I'm hearing something here. I can't quite place it. I'm sure it will come to me. A ringing of a sort. A bell, maybe...oh, I know. It was a piece of IRONY BEING POUNDED ON AN ANVIL.

[thegreekdog]

I like bottom left (since he exhibits his athleticism by jumping over the rock twice).

That's a hole, not a rock. Geez...you Star Warsians are so slow!

thank god, i thought i was going crazy when he said it was a rock

Hmm... I wonder if it's a piece of styrofoam made to look like a hole or if it's a real hole. I would say that someone should research this, but I imagine on an internet game site there are enough Star Trek nerds to answer that question without making me exert myself.

Woodruff, I have two words for you - Sarlaac Pit

[PLAYER57832]

First, what on earth does this have to do with the healthcare reform act... the supposed TOPIC of this thread??????

The IRS is the primary enforcer of Obamacare. You would think some one who oodles over the law would know that.

Not the same folks, no.

and its still definitely off topic.

Obama specifically declaring that if groups were targeted, it is "simply unacceptable".

It's amazing how you believe everything he says. It's only "simply unacceptable" to him because they got caught.

The jury is still out, but so far, even the most avid opponents have not actually said Obama was specifically involved. I am sure they will make that claim before long, whether there is evidence or not, but this does seem to be held within one area of the IRS.. those in Cleveland and their supervisors.

It's also amazing how you will apologize for any governmental program, no matter whether it breaks the law or violates Constitutional rights, if your favored political people are in power. At least it's finally clear to everybody that you're nothing more than a progressive hack. You would never have made these same comments if Bush or Romney were president.

Yeah... because, after all, we don't have a Democratic Republic or anything and nothing in the government is brought on by public support or demands...


I always say there are plenty of things that need to change in various government programs, but the way you try to pretend every action is somehow a violation of the constitution is borderline treason. Seriously, there is a BIG difference between attacking legitimate concerns and doing what you do, pretending that anything to do with the government is an attack on the American people. Your words are more akin to treason than patriotism.

[Night Strike]

First, what on earth does this have to do with the healthcare reform act... the supposed TOPIC of this thread??????

The IRS is the primary enforcer of Obamacare. You would think some one who oodles over the law would know that.

Not the same folks, no.

Really?

The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.

Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-official-in-charge-during-tea-party-targeting-now-runs-health-care-office/

[ooge]

you all do realize that the growth of health care costs over the past four years is the slowest it has been in over fifty years.

[Phatscotty]

you all do realize that the growth of health care costs over the past four years is the slowest it has been in over fifty years.

mm hmm...

[ooge]

you all do realize that the growth of health care costs over the past four years is the slowest it has been in over fifty years.

mm hmm...

http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief ... pending-2/ for those interested in facts.

[Night Strike]

The price tag of Obamacare has doubled: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/16/cbo-obamacare-in-its-first-decade-will-cost-double-what-the-president-promised/

[AndyDufresne]

The price tag of Obamacare has doubled

I'm peeing my monkey pants all over the place.


--Andy

[Woodruff]

This isn't an issue of ObamaCare (as it was essentially already the case before ObamaCare), but I didn't have a more appropriate thread to put this into and I didn't feel like starting a new one knowing it would just devolve into an ObamaCare thread anyway:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/health/colonoscopies-explain-why-us-leads-the-world-in-health-expenditures.html?hp&_r=4&

[waauw]

I got a question. Does Obama go to the big farmaceutical companies and to the hospitals to force them to lower their prices? Because this is something very important if you wanna install a system similar to the european health care system. If you don't do this when having an extensive health care system, it'll be like throwing a free party of taxpayer income to those big businesses.

[PLAYER57832]

I got a question. Does Obama go to the big farmaceutical companies and to the hospitals to force them to lower their prices? Because this is something very important if you wanna install a system similar to the european health care system. If you don't do this when having an extensive health care system, it'll be like throwing a free party of taxpayer income to those big businesses.

Sort of. There are provisions that allow some negotiation, but our system has an entirely different basis.

A big issue is research.
A lot of US medical research is government funded, FAR more than a lot of people realize. This generally falls under the "health and welfare" clause, and also the old "get it done" mentality, particularly in the 50's and 60's, but carried forward in a distorted fashion.
Most people are fully in support of research that might cure diabetes, cancer, birth defects, etc., or have been up until very recently. So the idea of the government funding all that was never terribly objectionable. However, all government data and research is public. Not necessarily in its "raw", uncensored form, particularly when it came to medical research and personal data. (but also in any kind of raw research, not so much to protect privacy, but because raw data needs to be put into context to be understood -- you have to know not just the data, but how it was taken, why and exactly what parameters were set, etc.). Anyway, medical research was deemed "too important" to "just keep". It needed to be "used", was the idea, so the government was mandated to give the research away to the company that was doing the closest kind of work. It is that company and not the US government, then that gets the patent and that then can sell the product or information as its own. NO credit need ever be given to the taxpayers who funded the research through the government.

All of this has resulted in a lot of wonderful advances and achievements, but it has also created very, very heavily skewed system. Taxpayers pay for the research. The research is available because of all the money they put forward, but then the taxpayers get billed for the actual use of the research at a very high rate. The government very much favors specific companies who then are able to have a huge edge. Moreover, they get to keep their patents, no matter who funded the research initially.

We wind up paying over and over for the same stuff. Worse, we buy healthcare insurance that also must make a profit. To make that profit, the companies use all sorts of complex formula that really just mean they will insure the healthy and do whatever they can to drop the rest. That last part is the only part that has changed under Obamacare. Even in that, it does look as though it might actually stem the cost increases to a point, but the irony is that the attack is not "we did not go far enough, we need to restart and do a good job", its"Obamacare is failing". Its failing because it was designed to profit big business and not the American people.

[Phatscotty]

I got a question. Does Obama go to the big farmaceutical companies and to the hospitals to force them to lower their prices? Because this is something very important if you wanna install a system similar to the european health care system. If you don't do this when having an extensive health care system, it'll be like throwing a free party of taxpayer income to those big businesses.

Who's going to pay for that?

One more thing, is there anyway the government or a dictator can force drugs companies and hospitals to cut prices, without also slashing the price of tuition for doctors and pharmaceutical students? How can they slash those prices without slashed all the other students tuition prices, and then what about the teachers salaries?

There is one way this can happen, and that is for the government to STEP OUT of healthcare. The cost of regulations, frivolous law suits and the resulting skyrocketing in doctors insurance rates is what has driven healthcare right out of accessibility.

Already, doctors and hospitals around my country are dropping out of the government subsidized healthcare system, and publishing their "new"/real prices online. Result: drastically lower prices. I've long held that having health insurance (with some exceptions) is mostly just a green light for the healthcare providers to run up the bill. Insurance perceptions are all the same. We all feel like we are being ripped off by them, so we feel justified in ringing up the bill, getting the biggest estimate on our damaged car, getting the cash, then bringing the car to a cheaper repair shop. Hospitals and other areas of healthcare operate the same way.

South Portland doctor stops accepting insurance, posts prices online

SOUTH PORTLAND, Maine — Dr. Michael Ciampi took a step this spring that many of his fellow physicians would describe as radical.

The family physician stopped accepting all forms of health insurance. In early 2013, Ciampi sent a letter to his patients informing them that he would no longer accept any kind of health coverage, both private and government-sponsored. Given that he was now asking patients to pay for his services out of pocket, he posted his prices on the practice’s website.

The change took effect April 1.

Read: Medicare reveals hospitals’ prices for first time

“It’s been almost unanimous that patients have expressed understanding at why I’m doing what I’m doing, although I’ve had many people leave the practice because they want to be covered by insurance, which is understandable,” Ciampi said.

Before the switch, Ciampi had about 2,000 patients. He lost several hundred, he said. Some patients with health coverage, faced with having to seek reimbursement themselves rather than through his office, bristled at the paperwork burden.

But the decision to do away with insurance allows Ciampi to practice medicine the way he sees fit, he said. Insurance companies no longer dictate how much he charges. He can offer discounts to patients struggling with their medical bills. He can make house calls.

“I’m freed up to do what I think is right for the patients,” Ciampi said. “If I’m providing them a service that they value, they can pay me, and we cut the insurance out as the middleman and cut out a lot of the expense.”

Read: How much for joints, heart attack or pneumonia? Compare how Maine hospitals charge for common services

Ciampi expects more doctors will follow suit. Some may choose to run “concierge practices” in which patients pay to keep a doctor on retainer, he said.

Gordon Smith, a spokesman for the Maine Medical Association, wasn’t so sure, saying most patients either want to use the insurance they pay for or need to rely on Medicare and Medicaid.

Even with the loss of some patients, Ciampi expects his practice to perform just as well financially, if not better, than before he ditched insurance. The new approach will likely attract new patients who are self-employed, lack insurance or have high-deductible plans, he said, because Ciampi has slashed his prices.

“I’ve been able to cut my prices in half because my overhead will be so much less,” he said.

Read: Maine hospital charges insurance company colluded with competitor

Before, Ciampi charged $160 for an office visit with an existing patient facing one or more complicated health problems. Now, he charges $75.

Patients with an earache or strep throat can spend $300 at their local hospital emergency room, or promptly get an appointment at his office and pay $50, he said.

Ciampi collects payment at the end of the visit, freeing him of the time and costs associated with sending bills, he said.

That time is crucial to Ciampi. When his patients come to his office, they see him, not a physician’s assistant or a nurse practitioner, he said.

“If more doctors were able to do this, that would be real health care reform,” he said. “That’s when we’d see the cost of medicine truly go down.”

Read: With high deductible health plans, it pays to shop around for care

[Woodruff]

I got a question. Does Obama go to the big farmaceutical companies and to the hospitals to force them to lower their prices? Because this is something very important if you wanna install a system similar to the european health care system. If you don't do this when having an extensive health care system, it'll be like throwing a free party of taxpayer income to those big businesses.

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, the failure of ObamaCare is that it doesn't particularly do this, no. In fact, it really is a matter of throwing a big party for big business. Originally, it wasn't going to be that way, but the big business lobbyists for Congress managed to get it there.

[Woodruff]

The cost of regulations

Those damn regulations...if only they weren't in the way, we could have wonderful health care! That actually makes sense to you?

frivolous law suits

If a lawsuit is frivolous, does it actually cost much of anything? I would suggest that it does not. Lawyers aren't stupid.

and the resulting skyrocketing in doctors insurance rates is what has driven healthcare right out of accessibility.

That really doesn't explain why medical care in the United States costs so much more than what it is around the world, no.