Perception v. reality (political)

[flockofseagulls104]

Again, use the Jonathan Gruber story as an example. Almost no mention of it on the mainstream news media. Why?

Perhaps because, in comparison to the real news, the off the cuff comments of an advisor about what went into passing Obamacare five years ago isn't exactly real news.

We saw what happened when the conservative outlets kept beating the Benghazi story to death day after day, and what happened? The final Congressional report (from the Republican controlled House of Representatives) showed just how much substance there was to all the rants.

Really.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes ... er-scandal

NBC (and all the other mainstream news organizations) knows what's news and what's not. And that's what you know.

As BJ says, this guy was the architect of Romneycare. He got paid millions of our dollars as an advisor. Went to the White House 9 times. Was mentioned as a key advisor by Obama and Pelosi, who then conveniently forgot his name. And he was off the cuff, what 13 times, that were recorded.

You are one of the people they count on.

[silverscreenselect]

NBC (and all the other mainstream news organizations) knows what's news and what's not. And that's what you know.

Other than showing that Jonathan Gruber has a low opinion of the American voter (an opinion shared by a lot of politicians), I don't see how that qualifies as news or a scandal.

And to the extent that he's saying that the architects of Obamacare were successful in hiding some of its flaws from the public, the blame for that goes on the Republicans. It's not the duty of an advocate of any legislation to point out what's bad about it or why people shouldn't support it. It's the duty of the opposition. Instead of locating the flaws and honing in on them, the Republicans launched a broadside attack against everything in the world from Sarah Palin's death panels on. When they attack the legislation on so many specious grounds, many of which were completely discredited, it's hard to blame voters for not taking them seriously.

It's kind of like an attorney who puts on a lousy case blaming the jury by saying if only they had known the facts, things would have been different.

[flockofseagulls104]

NBC (and all the other mainstream news organizations) knows what's news and what's not. And that's what you know.

Other than showing that Jonathan Gruber has a low opinion of the American voter (an opinion shared by a lot of politicians), I don't see how that qualifies as news or a scandal.

And to the extent that he's saying that the architects of Obamacare were successful in hiding some of its flaws from the public, the blame for that goes on the Republicans. It's not the duty of an advocate of any legislation to point out what's bad about it or why people shouldn't support it. It's the duty of the opposition. Instead of locating the flaws and honing in on them, the Republicans launched a broadside attack against everything in the world from Sarah Palin's death panels on. When they attack the legislation on so many specious grounds, many of which were completely discredited, it's hard to blame voters for not taking them seriously.

It's kind of like an attorney who puts on a lousy case blaming the jury by saying if only they had known the facts, things would have been different.

It is pointless to argue with a zealot.

The fact is that Obamacare could only be passed by lying about its true structure. And that a key architect of it bragged about that fact IS news to everyone who isn't a zealot. And it's not for the mainstream media to decide that it's NOT news. They should report it and let us decide. The fact that they haven't is proof that they are biased.

The fact is that those who opposed Obamacare (Which included EVERY non Democrat in Congress) pointed out that it was based on a lie from day one and did not vote for it. They are and have been characterized in the mainstream media as extremist loonies, racist bigots or whatever other mud that can be thrown.

I know you don't see it that way, but that is your myopia. I am one of those racist, greedy, uncompassionate mouthbreathers in your mind. If you can ever get over your bigotry, perhaps we can talk.

[silverscreenselect]

The fact is that those who opposed Obamacare (Which included EVERY non Democrat in Congress) pointed out that it was based on a lie from day one and did not vote for it. They are and have been characterized in the mainstream media as extremist loonies, racist bigots or whatever other mud that can be thrown.

Again, you miss the point. Yes, they did oppose Obamacare, but they accused it of every bad thing under the sun without presenting any reasoned arguments. It's like a politician saying, "My opponent's a liar" and when asked to explain, offers: "Everything he says is a lie." Had the Republicans presented some targeted cogent arguments instead of railing on about death panels, they would have gotten a better reception.

It is pointless to argue with a zealot.

My sentiments exactly.

[flockofseagulls104]

Again, you miss the point. Yes, they did oppose Obamacare, but they accused it of every bad thing under the sun without presenting any reasoned arguments. It's like a politician saying, "My opponent's a liar" and when asked to explain, offers: "Everything he says is a lie." Had the Republicans presented some targeted cogent arguments instead of railing on about death panels, they would have gotten a better reception.

Yeah right. That's what you heard. If you actually listened, most of the points were and are valid. Mr. Gruber concurs, but knows you are too stupid and indoctrinated to care.

And by the way, the death panels are true. There will be a group of bureaucrats who decide whether or not to approve procedures. It's a rationing board called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). It's just one of the things we had to pass the bill before we knew about. You can argue semantics, and I know you will. But it's function is what Sarah Palin says it was. Even a dolt like Howard Dean knows that. But you would rather trash Sarah Palin than discuss it. That's a lot easier, isn't it.

It is pointless to argue with a zealot.

My sentiments exactly.[/quote]

I knew you'd do that. It's your signature.

[Bob Juch]

Give it up SSS, you can't argue with someone crazier than Palin and Bachmann who thinks the Independent Payment Advisory Board is a death panel.

[Bob78164]

And by the way, the death panels are true. There will be a group of bureaucrats who decide whether or not to approve procedures.

Please point to the statutory language giving the IPAB that authority. And if you can't or won't do that, please stop making this claim. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

And by the way, the death panels are true. There will be a group of bureaucrats who decide whether or not to approve procedures.

Please point to the statutory language giving the IPAB that authority. And if you can't or won't do that, please stop making this claim. --Bob

Semantics, Bob. We (scratch the zealots) all see/know how the Federal Government works.
Give a small group of anonymous bureaucrats a lot of power and they will use it to it's fullest. And then use words to hide their actions. Like 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." (except when you can't). The IPAC is tasked with reducing costs, but not through rationing care. (Except when they will be forced ration care, because it is mathematically impossible to do anything else).

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the Independent Payment Advisory Board — the relatively tiny, incredibly powerful item in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that is designed, on purpose, to have dictatorial powers.

Some people call it the death panel, and it is, but there’s more to it than that. If it’s allowed to work, it certainly will kill a lot of Americans — any sick person who is deemed to be too great a drain on the federal government, an entity already deep in debt.

Worse than that, though, it’s a potential Constitution killer. There’s no way a nation like ours can abide a monstrosity like the IPAB. If we end up being forced to abide it, we will cease to be a nation like ours.

The IPAB is designed to centralize the powers that this nation’s founders worked so hard to separate.

The IPAB will legislate, setting all policy related to Medicare. It will be in a position to declare what will be acceptable regarding health care costs, patient access and quality.

Like any other federal agency, it will be required to post its plans and decisions, and allow the public some brief time in which to comment.

Like no other federal agency, it will have no real reason to listen to the comments of the public or react to them. Congress can review the IPAB’s cost-cutting “recommendations” once a year. If Congress doesn’t like what it sees, it must cut an identical amount in some other way. That’s the same Congress that has a nervous breakdown over cutting projected growth in spending. The same Congress that passes mammoth bills without reading them or understanding what it’s voted on.

And on the Senate side of any congressional vote to overturn what the IPAB had decided, a three-fifths supermajority — that’s 60 votes — will be necessary.

That’s the same Senate that just went five years without passing a routine, constitutionally required, annual federal budget because it can hardly ever get 60 members to agree even to consider legislation, much less pass any. The prospects of finding 60 with the guts to slap down an “expert” recommendation from IPAB seem dim, at best.

So maybe Congress ought to just scrap the IPAB before it can get rolling. Except that Congress can’t. The bill Congress passed (to find out what was in it) says the one and only time Congress can get rid of the IPAB is a three-month period in 2017, two years after the IPAB is to go into operation. And that would also require a three-fifths Senate vote.

Fine. Forget Congress. Once the nature of the IPAB’s dictatorial mischief becomes apparent — with care being rationed to suit federal needs rather than patient needs, doctors refusing to work for the reimbursements the IPAB sets for them and the media explaining that former President Obama had no idea it would work out this way and that no one is more upset about it than he is — a thousand lawsuits will shut it down, right?

Wrong.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says IPAB decisions are not subject to judicial review.

So, let’s recap. Here we have a 15-member board appointed by the president that will make life-and-death decisions about which treatments will be allowed to which kinds of patients and what the people involved will pay and be paid, and the board is a law unto itself. Congress has no practical way of stopping it and the courts can’t intervene in what it does.

Oh, and by the way, Bob, why should they even be concerned about cutting costs? What does it matter if we add to the National debt? Let's get rid of the IPAB and just spend whatever it takes.

[SportsFan68]

Again, you miss the point. Yes, they did oppose Obamacare, but they accused it of every bad thing under the sun without presenting any reasoned arguments. It's like a politician saying, "My opponent's a liar" and when asked to explain, offers: "Everything he says is a lie." Had the Republicans presented some targeted cogent arguments instead of railing on about death panels, they would have gotten a better reception.

Yeah right. That's what you heard. If you actually listened, most of the points were and are valid. Mr. Gruber concurs, but knows you are too stupid and indoctrinated to care.

And by the way, the death panels are true. There will be a group of bureaucrats who decide whether or not to approve procedures. It's a rationing board called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). It's just one of the things we had to pass the bill before we knew about. You can argue semantics, and I know you will. But it's function is what Sarah Palin says it was. Even a dolt like Howard Dean knows that. But you would rather trash Sarah Palin than discuss it. That's a lot easier, isn't it.

It is pointless to argue with a zealot.

My sentiments exactly.

I knew you'd do that. It's your signature.[/quote]

Flock, I listened. I didn't like the Affordable Care Act from the moment I read it well in advance of the primaries, and I read Sen. Clinton's version, and I didn't like it either. The ACA passed because the naysayers never countered the positive points -- extending the age that children could stay on their parents' plans, no preexisting conditions exclusions, health care exchanges, expansion of Medicaid, expansion of CHIP.

As for Gov. Palin's death panels, this is either not true, or if we accept your semantics twist saying they are the IPAB, most plans instituted something long ago similar to the IPAB. My employer's insurance plan called it Case Management.

For the record, I like DRGs also -- Diagnostic Related Groups, long a staple of Medicare, and another reason I think Medicare should be expanded to all U.S. citizens. People on this Bored have presented targeted cogent arguments why that shouldn't happen, and I respect that.

Anyway, SSS is dead on with this assertion: "Had the Republicans presented some targeted cogent arguments instead of railing on about death panels, they would have gotten a better reception." Even for legislators who didn't like the ACA, the Republicans never gave them a door to walk through and vote No.

[Bob78164]

And by the way, the death panels are true. There will be a group of bureaucrats who decide whether or not to approve procedures.

Please point to the statutory language giving the IPAB that authority. And if you can't or won't do that, please stop making this claim. --Bob

Semantics, Bob. We (scratch the zealots) all see/know how the Federal Government works.
Give a small group of anonymous bureaucrats a lot of power and they will use it to it's fullest. And then use words to hide their actions. Like 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." (except when you can't). The IPAC is tasked with reducing costs, but not through rationing care. (Except when they will be forced ration care, because it is mathematically impossible to do anything else).

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the Independent Payment Advisory Board — the relatively tiny, incredibly powerful item in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that is designed, on purpose, to have dictatorial powers.

Some people call it the death panel, and it is, but there’s more to it than that. If it’s allowed to work, it certainly will kill a lot of Americans — any sick person who is deemed to be too great a drain on the federal government, an entity already deep in debt.

Worse than that, though, it’s a potential Constitution killer. There’s no way a nation like ours can abide a monstrosity like the IPAB. If we end up being forced to abide it, we will cease to be a nation like ours.

The IPAB is designed to centralize the powers that this nation’s founders worked so hard to separate.

The IPAB will legislate, setting all policy related to Medicare. It will be in a position to declare what will be acceptable regarding health care costs, patient access and quality.

Like any other federal agency, it will be required to post its plans and decisions, and allow the public some brief time in which to comment.

Like no other federal agency, it will have no real reason to listen to the comments of the public or react to them. Congress can review the IPAB’s cost-cutting “recommendations” once a year. If Congress doesn’t like what it sees, it must cut an identical amount in some other way. That’s the same Congress that has a nervous breakdown over cutting projected growth in spending. The same Congress that passes mammoth bills without reading them or understanding what it’s voted on.

And on the Senate side of any congressional vote to overturn what the IPAB had decided, a three-fifths supermajority — that’s 60 votes — will be necessary.

That’s the same Senate that just went five years without passing a routine, constitutionally required, annual federal budget because it can hardly ever get 60 members to agree even to consider legislation, much less pass any. The prospects of finding 60 with the guts to slap down an “expert” recommendation from IPAB seem dim, at best.

So maybe Congress ought to just scrap the IPAB before it can get rolling. Except that Congress can’t. The bill Congress passed (to find out what was in it) says the one and only time Congress can get rid of the IPAB is a three-month period in 2017, two years after the IPAB is to go into operation. And that would also require a three-fifths Senate vote.

Fine. Forget Congress. Once the nature of the IPAB’s dictatorial mischief becomes apparent — with care being rationed to suit federal needs rather than patient needs, doctors refusing to work for the reimbursements the IPAB sets for them and the media explaining that former President Obama had no idea it would work out this way and that no one is more upset about it than he is — a thousand lawsuits will shut it down, right?

Wrong.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says IPAB decisions are not subject to judicial review.

So, let’s recap. Here we have a 15-member board appointed by the president that will make life-and-death decisions about which treatments will be allowed to which kinds of patients and what the people involved will pay and be paid, and the board is a law unto itself. Congress has no practical way of stopping it and the courts can’t intervene in what it does.

Oh, and by the way, Bob, why should they even be concerned about cutting costs? What does it matter if we add to the National debt? Let's get rid of the IPAB and just spend whatever it takes.

I asked for statutory language. Not some anonymous commentator's talking points. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I asked for statutory language. Not some anonymous commentator's talking points. --Bob

I gave you Reality vs. Perception Bob.

And BTW, I asked you what is the point of the Death Panel anyway, if the National Debt doesn't matter? Please stop posting fan mail to Obamacare if you can't answer that.

[flockofseagulls104]

Again, you miss the point. Yes, they did oppose Obamacare, but they accused it of every bad thing under the sun without presenting any reasoned arguments. It's like a politician saying, "My opponent's a liar" and when asked to explain, offers: "Everything he says is a lie." Had the Republicans presented some targeted cogent arguments instead of railing on about death panels, they would have gotten a better reception.

Yeah right. That's what you heard. If you actually listened, most of the points were and are valid. Mr. Gruber concurs, but knows you are too stupid and indoctrinated to care.

And by the way, the death panels are true. There will be a group of bureaucrats who decide whether or not to approve procedures. It's a rationing board called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). It's just one of the things we had to pass the bill before we knew about. You can argue semantics, and I know you will. But it's function is what Sarah Palin says it was. Even a dolt like Howard Dean knows that. But you would rather trash Sarah Palin than discuss it. That's a lot easier, isn't it.

It is pointless to argue with a zealot.

My sentiments exactly.

I knew you'd do that. It's your signature.

Flock, I listened. I didn't like the Affordable Care Act from the moment I read it well in advance of the primaries, and I read Sen. Clinton's version, and I didn't like it either. The ACA passed because the naysayers never countered the positive points -- extending the age that children could stay on their parents' plans, no preexisting conditions exclusions, health care exchanges, expansion of Medicaid, expansion of CHIP.

As for Gov. Palin's death panels, this is either not true, or if we accept your semantics twist saying they are the IPAB, most plans instituted something long ago similar to the IPAB. My employer's insurance plan called it Case Management.

For the record, I like DRGs also -- Diagnostic Related Groups, long a staple of Medicare, and another reason I think Medicare should be expanded to all U.S. citizens. People on this Bored have presented targeted cogent arguments why that shouldn't happen, and I respect that.

Anyway, SSS is dead on with this assertion: "Had the Republicans presented some targeted cogent arguments instead of railing on about death panels, they would have gotten a better reception." Even for legislators who didn't like the ACA, the Republicans never gave them a door to walk through and vote No.[/quote]

There were plenty of alternatives passed by the House, but Reid wouldn't even bring them up. Instead they focused on the repeal bills and played up several diversionary contrived outrages like the 'Do Nothing Congress' and the 'War on Women' and managed to blame Republicans because they had the mainstream media on their side.

[Bob78164]

I asked for statutory language. Not some anonymous commentator's talking points. --Bob

I gave you Reality vs. Perception Bob.

And BTW, I asked you what is the point of the Death Panel anyway, if the National Debt doesn't matter? Please stop posting fan mail to Obamacare if you can't answer that.

Statutory language is reality, flock. All else is spin.

Either point to the statutory language supporting your claim or admit that you were mistaken. I'll even help you out with a link to the text. It's searchable. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I asked for statutory language. Not some anonymous commentator's talking points. --Bob

I gave you Reality vs. Perception Bob.

And BTW, I asked you what is the point of the Death Panel anyway, if the National Debt doesn't matter? Please stop posting fan mail to Obamacare if you can't answer that.

Statutory language is reality, flock. All else is spin.

Either point to the statutory language supporting your claim or admit that you were mistaken. I'll even help you out with a link to the text. It's searchable. --Bob

Statutory language is apparently trumped by what the President wants. Quote me the statutory language that states the date that the individual and employer mandate takes effect can be changed by the President for political advantage.

[Bob78164]

Statutory language is apparently trumped by what the President wants. Quote me the statutory language that states the date that the individual and employer mandate takes effect can be changed by the President for political advantage.

You're trying to change the subject. You made a claim. It's becoming increasingly evident that you can't back it up, presumably because it's false. Either point to the statutory language supporting your "death panel" claim or admit that you were mistaken. --Bob

[Bob78164]

Because I'm a nice guy, flock, I'll help you out some more. Take a look at Section 3403 of the Affordable Care Act. Pay particular attention to the language that reads: "The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care . . . ." --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Because I'm a nice guy i'll put it in nice plain english. The law said the individual mandate would start on a specific date. It didn't, did it? Why?
It also said the employer mandate was supposed to start before the last election. It didn't. WHY?
It was not supposed to be a tax. But it's only "constitutional" because John Roberts decided it was.
I could go on and on. But excuse me for having no confidence in that phrase. They will ration care. They have to. They will just call it something else.

[elwoodblues]

But it's only "constitutional" because John Roberts decided it was.

John Roberts is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. They are the ones who get to decide what is constitutional.

[flockofseagulls104]

But it's only "constitutional" because John Roberts decided it was.

John Roberts is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. They are the ones who get to decide what is constitutional.

Hi Captain Obvious!

[flockofseagulls104]

Because I'm a nice guy, flock, I'll help you out some more. Take a look at Section 3403 of the Affordable Care Act. Pay particular attention to the language that reads: "The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care . . . ." --Bob

Excess demand + limited supply + limited capital = limited Care( rationing).
Tell me why they are bothering to pretend they are cutting costs when the national debt is irrelevant.

[silverscreenselect]

Excess demand + limited supply + limited capital = limited Care( rationing).

So exactly how did Obamacare cause this? Did it create more sick people? Did it somehow cause a number of doctors and hospitals to disappear? Did it reduce the amount of total money available for health care?

[BackInTex]

So exactly how did Obamacare cause this?

Did it create more sick people?

Not more sick people, but more demand. The ACA shifted the demand curve upward by subsidizing.

Did it somehow cause a number of doctors and hospitals to disappear?

Yes. Many doctors have left the practice, many hospitals have or are closing. Many hospitals that were 'in the works' are not being built.

Did it reduce the amount of total money available for health care?

Yes, by adding another level of complexity and administration, that money does not go to health care but to web site designers and web site fixers, consultants, paper pushers, etc.

[silverscreenselect]

So exactly how did Obamacare cause this?

Did it create more sick people?

Not more sick people, but more demand. The ACA shifted the demand curve upward by subsidizing.

So the fact that more sick people can now afford medical treatment and don't just like elephants go off into the jungle to die is a bad thing.

Did it somehow cause a number of doctors and hospitals to disappear?

Yes. Many doctors have left the practice, many hospitals have or are closing. Many hospitals that were 'in the works' are not being built.

So medical care providers react the exact opposite every other industry does when demand for their product increases... by deciding to provide less of it. And I'm sure you've got some statistics, not anecdotal quotes from an anti-Obamacare doctor or two, to back that up.

Did it reduce the amount of total money available for health care?

Yes, by adding another level of complexity and administration, that money does not go to health care but to web site designers and web site fixers, consultants, paper pushers, etc.

So, Obamacare either increases demand for healthcare by providing subsidies (i.e., more capital) to spend on healthcare, or it decreases that capital by spending it on websites and paper pushers. You've got me confused here. And what about the loss ratio requirement, namely the requirement that companies spend either 80 or 85% of premium money paying healthcare claims. Doesn't that limit the amount of money companies can spend on "web site designers" and "paper pushers"?

[BackInTex]

Rural hospitals in critical condition

Money quote for SSS who lives in Georgia

Georgia alone has lost five rural hospitals since 2012, and at least six more are teetering on the brink of collapse. Each of the state's closed hospitals served about 10,000 people — a lot for remaining area hospitals to absorb.

The Affordable Care Act was designed to improve access to health care for all Americans and will give them another chance at getting health insurance during open enrollment starting this Saturday. But critics say the ACA is also accelerating the demise of rural outposts that cater to many of society's most vulnerable. These hospitals treat some of the sickest and poorest patients — those least aware of how to stay healthy. Hospital officials contend that the law's penalties for having to re-admit patients soon after they're released are impossible to avoid and create a crushing burden.

I question the "was designed to improve access to health care". It may have had that intent, but the design does no such thing. Quite the opposite in the long term.

[silverscreenselect]

Rural hospitals in critical condition

Money quote for SSS who lives in Georgia

Georgia alone has lost five rural hospitals since 2012, and at least six more are teetering on the brink of collapse. Each of the state's closed hospitals served about 10,000 people — a lot for remaining area hospitals to absorb.

The Affordable Care Act was designed to improve access to health care for all Americans and will give them another chance at getting health insurance during open enrollment starting this Saturday. But critics say the ACA is also accelerating the demise of rural outposts that cater to many of society's most vulnerable. These hospitals treat some of the sickest and poorest patients — those least aware of how to stay healthy. Hospital officials contend that the law's penalties for having to re-admit patients soon after they're released are impossible to avoid and create a crushing burden.

I question the "was designed to improve access to health care". It may have had that intent, but the design does no such thing. Quite the opposite in the long term.

You left out some things in this article:

Low Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements hurt these hospitals more than others because it's how most of their patients are insured, if they are at all. Here in Stewart County, it's a problem that expanding Medicaid to all of the poorest patients -– which the ACA intended but 23 states including Georgia have not done, according to the federal government — would help, but wouldn't solve.

So I guess your solution is that we should increase Medicare and Medicaid payouts so these hospitals can better afford to modernize and provide medical treatment according to 21st century standards. Or that states like Georgia and your own state of Texas should have expanded Medicaid under Obamacare the same way that blue states did (and received an extra $167 billion as a result). Georgia hospitals stand to lose almost $13 billion in Medicaid funding over a ten-year period, while Texas hospitals stand to lose over $34 billion. I'm glad you're so compassionate about things like this.

http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/re ... rwjf414946