Sebelious scandal

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Sebelious scandal

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     


    ACA hasn't even been fully implemented and you already know it's "bending the healthcare cost curve"? So something as massive as our health care costs can be affected that quickly by something that isn't even fully implented? That's one hell of a magical bill...

     

     




     

    Pretty cool, huh?

     

     



    Sure....if you believe bullsh!t

     

     




    Or the reality of the numbers.

     

    Too bad you choose to remain ignorant of reality.

     



    How sad for you that you think something that hasn't been implelented can actually have an affect. Yikes!

     

     




     

    Another swing and a miss.

    That's okay, you can keep hiding under your bed, the adults will take care of reality.

     



    If it's already bending the cost curve then why not share the numbers that back that up?

    ---------------------------

    Guess not...that was easy.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Sebelious scandal

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     


    ACA hasn't even been fully implemented and you already know it's "bending the healthcare cost curve"? So something as massive as our health care costs can be affected that quickly by something that isn't even fully implented? That's one hell of a magical bill...

     

     




     

    Pretty cool, huh?

     

     



    Sure....if you believe bullsh!t

     

     




    Or the reality of the numbers.

     

    Too bad you choose to remain ignorant of reality.

     



    How sad for you that you think something that hasn't been implelented can actually have an affect. Yikes!

     

     




     

    Another swing and a miss.

    That's okay, you can keep hiding under your bed, the adults will take care of reality.

     



    If it's already bending the cost curve then why not share the numbers that back that up?

    ---------------------------

    Guess not...that was easy.

     




    ACA is being implemented is stages.

     

    As each stage takes effect, healthcare costs bend down.

    Easy peasy.

    Prove that I'm wrong.



    You still haven't proved you're right. Where is the data backing up this bend? Should be easy to present right?

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Sebelious scandal

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     


    ACA hasn't even been fully implemented and you already know it's "bending the healthcare cost curve"? So something as massive as our health care costs can be affected that quickly by something that isn't even fully implented? That's one hell of a magical bill...

     

     




     

    Pretty cool, huh?

     

     



    Sure....if you believe bullsh!t

     

     




    Or the reality of the numbers.

     

    Too bad you choose to remain ignorant of reality.

     



    How sad for you that you think something that hasn't been implelented can actually have an affect. Yikes!

     

     




     

    Another swing and a miss.

    That's okay, you can keep hiding under your bed, the adults will take care of reality.

     



    If it's already bending the cost curve then why not share the numbers that back that up?

    ---------------------------

    Guess not...that was easy.

     




    ACA is being implemented is stages.

     

    As each stage takes effect, healthcare costs bend down.

    Easy peasy.

    Prove that I'm wrong.

     



    You still haven't proved you're right. Where is the data backing up this bend? Should be easy to present right?

     

     




    New law has impact

    In the four years leading to expanded health insurance, the government has used authority in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to try to reshape the economics of health care through regulation and financial incentives. That appears to be keeping a lid on medical costs.

    "It all goes back to (the Affordable Care Act) and how it changes so many components of the way we do business," says Peter Person, chief executive of Essentia Health, a 12,800-employee hospital system based in Duluth, Minn. "The language I use now in the health care business is completely different than the language I used even five years ago."

    One big change is the government's revived push toward managed care. The government wants to pay a lump sum for a patient or diagnosis, demand higher standards and expect the medical provider to get the job done for that cost. Rather than cutting reimbursement rates, the government is raising the bar for what it expects for every dollar it spends.

    Example: Medicare won't pay a penny more if a patient suffering congestive heart failure is readmitted to a hospital within 30 days of a discharge. The original lump sum is supposed to be enough and the refusal to pay more is designed to encourage hospitals to give top-notch care the first time.

    How it saves money: Essentia now provides 300 of the sickest congrestive heart failure patients with electronic home scales that relay information, such as weight and symptoms, to a nurse several times a week. The steady monitoring of small things has cut 30-day admissions to less than one-tenth of the national average and saved millions of dollars.

    "Until now, the government has paid on volume. Now, it's trying to pay more on quality," says Person, a doctor of internal medicine, as well as CEO of Essentia, which has 18 hospitals and 68 clinics.

    Incentives to lower costs

    The government's new approach attaches financial rewards and penalties to a long list of practices — from giving antibiotics before surgery to using electronic medical records — in an effort to simultaneously improve quality and lower costs. In addition to changing how Medicare and Medicaid pay for medical care, the administration is providing grants and legal waivers to states and medical providers to experiment with approaches that try to align financial rewards with what studies show are best medical practices.

    Among the most visible successes are efforts to save money on the most expensive patients by permitting the use of a hospice rather than a hospital for end-of-life care and emphasizing home health care over nursing homes.

    Wisconsin's Family Care program now pays $3,200 monthly per person to provide mostly home health care to 40,000 poor seniors and disabled people. That's $600 a month less than it pays under an old program, which tends to use nursing homes to care for the most expensive population of patients, who are on both Medicare and Medicaid, the health program for poor people.

    What's not clear is whether thousands of pages of new regulations and ideas can keep a lid on health care costs for long. In the past, regulations to solve one problem have created new financial incentives elsewhere in the reimbursement system.

    The new efficiency push resembles earlier efforts, one under then-president Ronald Reagan and another under then-president Bill Clinton. In the 1980s, Medicare started paying fixed amounts for a diagnosis. In the 1990s, health maintenance organizations were widely seen as a powerful cost-containment tool.

    Both initiatives tamed costs briefly and left managed care unpopular with many patients and medical providers. Managed care and other cost savings will stick this time because they aren't voluntary, says Person, the hospital chief.

    "It is now the law, and it has teeth. We're getting paid less," he says. "We have to be more productive and efficient."

     



    HAHAHAHAHAHA....THIS is your evidence? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...you should be embarrassed. 

    $600 per month at one facility in Wisconsin is your evidence of bending overall health care costs?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Sebelious scandal

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     


    ACA hasn't even been fully implemented and you already know it's "bending the healthcare cost curve"? So something as massive as our health care costs can be affected that quickly by something that isn't even fully implented? That's one hell of a magical bill...

     

     




     

    Pretty cool, huh?

     

     



    Sure....if you believe bullsh!t

     

     




    Or the reality of the numbers.

     

    Too bad you choose to remain ignorant of reality.

     



    How sad for you that you think something that hasn't been implelented can actually have an affect. Yikes!

     

     




     

    Another swing and a miss.

    That's okay, you can keep hiding under your bed, the adults will take care of reality.

     



    If it's already bending the cost curve then why not share the numbers that back that up?

    ---------------------------

    Guess not...that was easy.

     




    ACA is being implemented is stages.

     

    As each stage takes effect, healthcare costs bend down.

    Easy peasy.

    Prove that I'm wrong.

     



    You still haven't proved you're right. Where is the data backing up this bend? Should be easy to present right?

     

     




    New law has impact

    In the four years leading to expanded health insurance, the government has used authority in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to try to reshape the economics of health care through regulation and financial incentives. That appears to be keeping a lid on medical costs.

    "It all goes back to (the Affordable Care Act) and how it changes so many components of the way we do business," says Peter Person, chief executive of Essentia Health, a 12,800-employee hospital system based in Duluth, Minn. "The language I use now in the health care business is completely different than the language I used even five years ago."

    One big change is the government's revived push toward managed care. The government wants to pay a lump sum for a patient or diagnosis, demand higher standards and expect the medical provider to get the job done for that cost. Rather than cutting reimbursement rates, the government is raising the bar for what it expects for every dollar it spends.

    Example: Medicare won't pay a penny more if a patient suffering congestive heart failure is readmitted to a hospital within 30 days of a discharge. The original lump sum is supposed to be enough and the refusal to pay more is designed to encourage hospitals to give top-notch care the first time.

    How it saves money: Essentia now provides 300 of the sickest congrestive heart failure patients with electronic home scales that relay information, such as weight and symptoms, to a nurse several times a week. The steady monitoring of small things has cut 30-day admissions to less than one-tenth of the national average and saved millions of dollars.

    "Until now, the government has paid on volume. Now, it's trying to pay more on quality," says Person, a doctor of internal medicine, as well as CEO of Essentia, which has 18 hospitals and 68 clinics.

    Incentives to lower costs

    The government's new approach attaches financial rewards and penalties to a long list of practices — from giving antibiotics before surgery to using electronic medical records — in an effort to simultaneously improve quality and lower costs. In addition to changing how Medicare and Medicaid pay for medical care, the administration is providing grants and legal waivers to states and medical providers to experiment with approaches that try to align financial rewards with what studies show are best medical practices.

    Among the most visible successes are efforts to save money on the most expensive patients by permitting the use of a hospice rather than a hospital for end-of-life care and emphasizing home health care over nursing homes.

    Wisconsin's Family Care program now pays $3,200 monthly per person to provide mostly home health care to 40,000 poor seniors and disabled people. That's $600 a month less than it pays under an old program, which tends to use nursing homes to care for the most expensive population of patients, who are on both Medicare and Medicaid, the health program for poor people.

    What's not clear is whether thousands of pages of new regulations and ideas can keep a lid on health care costs for long. In the past, regulations to solve one problem have created new financial incentives elsewhere in the reimbursement system.

    The new efficiency push resembles earlier efforts, one under then-president Ronald Reagan and another under then-president Bill Clinton. In the 1980s, Medicare started paying fixed amounts for a diagnosis. In the 1990s, health maintenance organizations were widely seen as a powerful cost-containment tool.

    Both initiatives tamed costs briefly and left managed care unpopular with many patients and medical providers. Managed care and other cost savings will stick this time because they aren't voluntary, says Person, the hospital chief.

    "It is now the law, and it has teeth. We're getting paid less," he says. "We have to be more productive and efficient."

     

     



    HAHAHAHAHAHA....THIS is your evidence? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...you should be embarrassed. 

     

    $600 per month at one facility in Wisconsin is your evidence of bending overall health care costs?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

     




    I should have known that ignorant people wish to remain ignorant.

     

    "...one-tenth of the national average and saved millions of dollars."
    In one clinic multiplied by the thousands around the country.

    That's a savings of 10% times the 75 million people on Medicare.

    "...$3,200 monthly per person to provide mostly home health care to 40,000 poor seniors" which equals $24 million at one clinic. Times the 75 million on medicare.

     

    You really are stupid aren't you..



    You're assuming every clinic gets reimbursed the same. They don't. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Sebelious scandal

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     


    ACA hasn't even been fully implemented and you already know it's "bending the healthcare cost curve"? So something as massive as our health care costs can be affected that quickly by something that isn't even fully implented? That's one hell of a magical bill...

     

     




     

    Pretty cool, huh?

     

     



    Sure....if you believe bullsh!t

     

     




    Or the reality of the numbers.

     

    Too bad you choose to remain ignorant of reality.

     



    How sad for you that you think something that hasn't been implelented can actually have an affect. Yikes!

     

     




     

    Another swing and a miss.

    That's okay, you can keep hiding under your bed, the adults will take care of reality.

     



    If it's already bending the cost curve then why not share the numbers that back that up?

    ---------------------------

    Guess not...that was easy.

     




    ACA is being implemented is stages.

     

    As each stage takes effect, healthcare costs bend down.

    Easy peasy.

    Prove that I'm wrong.

     

    Easy.  Here are the projections.  that line on the top?  Yah, that's Obamacare.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Sebelious scandal

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     


    ACA hasn't even been fully implemented and you already know it's "bending the healthcare cost curve"? So something as massive as our health care costs can be affected that quickly by something that isn't even fully implented? That's one hell of a magical bill...

     

     




     

    Pretty cool, huh?

     

     



    Sure....if you believe bullsh!t

     

     




    Or the reality of the numbers.

     

    Too bad you choose to remain ignorant of reality.

     



    How sad for you that you think something that hasn't been implelented can actually have an affect. Yikes!

     

     




     

    Another swing and a miss.

    That's okay, you can keep hiding under your bed, the adults will take care of reality.

     



    If it's already bending the cost curve then why not share the numbers that back that up?

    ---------------------------

    Guess not...that was easy.

     




    ACA is being implemented is stages.

     

    As each stage takes effect, healthcare costs bend down.

    Easy peasy.

    Prove that I'm wrong.

     



    You still haven't proved you're right. Where is the data backing up this bend? Should be easy to present right?

     

     




    New law has impact

    In the four years leading to expanded health insurance, the government has used authority in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to try to reshape the economics of health care through regulation and financial incentives. That appears to be keeping a lid on medical costs.

    "It all goes back to (the Affordable Care Act) and how it changes so many components of the way we do business," says Peter Person, chief executive of Essentia Health, a 12,800-employee hospital system based in Duluth, Minn. "The language I use now in the health care business is completely different than the language I used even five years ago."

    One big change is the government's revived push toward managed care. The government wants to pay a lump sum for a patient or diagnosis, demand higher standards and expect the medical provider to get the job done for that cost. Rather than cutting reimbursement rates, the government is raising the bar for what it expects for every dollar it spends.

    Example: Medicare won't pay a penny more if a patient suffering congestive heart failure is readmitted to a hospital within 30 days of a discharge. The original lump sum is supposed to be enough and the refusal to pay more is designed to encourage hospitals to give top-notch care the first time.

    How it saves money: Essentia now provides 300 of the sickest congrestive heart failure patients with electronic home scales that relay information, such as weight and symptoms, to a nurse several times a week. The steady monitoring of small things has cut 30-day admissions to less than one-tenth of the national average and saved millions of dollars.

    "Until now, the government has paid on volume. Now, it's trying to pay more on quality," says Person, a doctor of internal medicine, as well as CEO of Essentia, which has 18 hospitals and 68 clinics.

    Incentives to lower costs

    The government's new approach attaches financial rewards and penalties to a long list of practices — from giving antibiotics before surgery to using electronic medical records — in an effort to simultaneously improve quality and lower costs. In addition to changing how Medicare and Medicaid pay for medical care, the administration is providing grants and legal waivers to states and medical providers to experiment with approaches that try to align financial rewards with what studies show are best medical practices.

    Among the most visible successes are efforts to save money on the most expensive patients by permitting the use of a hospice rather than a hospital for end-of-life care and emphasizing home health care over nursing homes.

    Wisconsin's Family Care program now pays $3,200 monthly per person to provide mostly home health care to 40,000 poor seniors and disabled people. That's $600 a month less than it pays under an old program, which tends to use nursing homes to care for the most expensive population of patients, who are on both Medicare and Medicaid, the health program for poor people.

    What's not clear is whether thousands of pages of new regulations and ideas can keep a lid on health care costs for long. In the past, regulations to solve one problem have created new financial incentives elsewhere in the reimbursement system.

    The new efficiency push resembles earlier efforts, one under then-president Ronald Reagan and another under then-president Bill Clinton. In the 1980s, Medicare started paying fixed amounts for a diagnosis. In the 1990s, health maintenance organizations were widely seen as a powerful cost-containment tool.

    Both initiatives tamed costs briefly and left managed care unpopular with many patients and medical providers. Managed care and other cost savings will stick this time because they aren't voluntary, says Person, the hospital chief.

    "It is now the law, and it has teeth. We're getting paid less," he says. "We have to be more productive and efficient."

     

     



    HAHAHAHAHAHA....THIS is your evidence? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...you should be embarrassed. 

     

    $600 per month at one facility in Wisconsin is your evidence of bending overall health care costs?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

     




    I should have known that ignorant people wish to remain ignorant.

     

    "...one-tenth of the national average and saved millions of dollars."
    In one clinic multiplied by the thousands around the country.

    That's a savings of 10% times the 75 million people on Medicare.

    "...$3,200 monthly per person to provide mostly home health care to 40,000 poor seniors" which equals $24 million at one clinic. Times the 75 million on medicare.

     

    You really are stupid aren't you..

     



    You're assuming every clinic gets reimbursed the same. They don't. 

     



    Here's the thing:  In order to bend the cost curve down, you need to:

     

       Deny services

       Stifle new, expensive life savings measures

       Somehow create efifciencies the free market somehow could not

    You see, it is a foolish game to claim to ben the cost curve down.  the government simply cannot do it with the magic wand treatment. 

    The way you bend the cost curve down, if you ACTUALLY want to do that, is tort reform, open up insurance sales across state lines, and allow people to choose the type of health care they want.

    But, if you want a realistic solution:  don't allow "dollar 1" coverage and force everyone into catastrophic illness only plans.  That, and only that, will cause the overall cost of healthcare to drop.

     

    Also keep in mind that when government squawks about how the cost of healthcare is increasing the deficit and must be addressed, they are talking about THEIR healthcare, not yours.  Their solution is to TAX your healthcare in order to pay for theirs.

    Government work.  Nice if you can get it.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Sebelious scandal

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    [/QUOTE]

    The HHS called companies that she will regulate under obamacare and asked/directed them to contribute money to non-profits that will use the money to "help eplain the implementation"!

    No one can solicit funds from anyone for govt programs. The funding must come through congress!!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Sebelious scandal

    I'm kind of surprised she's lasted as long as she did.  Few tasks are more daunting than hers.  

    First significant health care reform in over 40 years?  Bring it on, she says.

     

    Only the GOPers are rooting for the ACA to fail.

     

     

     

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Sebelious scandal

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    I'm kind of surprised she's lasted as long as she did.  Few tasks are more daunting than hers.  

    First significant health care reform in over 40 years?  Bring it on, she says.

     

    Only the GOPers are rooting for the ACA to fail.

     



    So 60+% of the country is GOP + me that's enough I'd say!

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Sebelious scandal

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    So 60+% of the country is GOP + me that's enough I'd say!

     



    Which crevice did you pull that one out of...?

    Put it back before your house of canards falls on your head.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Sebelious scandal

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    No one can solicit funds from anyone for govt programs. The funding must come through congress!!



    Actually, yes, she can.

    i.e., the point.

     

     

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Sebelious scandal

    Unable to secure funding from Congress to carry out the Affordable Care Act, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has responded with a bizarre error in judgment.

    Sebelius has been soliciting donations from the health-care industry, which she oversees, to support a nonprofit organization's efforts to publicize the law's benefits and encourage enrollment of the uninsured. Her department confirmed that insurance and pharmaceutical executives were among those approached for donations.

    The Affordable Care Act's online insurance exchanges are scheduled to be up and running Oct. 1. For these insurance markets to work, they must attract young and healthy customers; otherwise, they risk being overwhelmed by older, sicker patients who would cause premiums to soar. To enlist healthy subscribers, the Department of Health and Human Services is already diverting $150 million intended for new community health centers to public outreach.

    With a recent poll showing four in 10 Americans unaware that the law was even enacted, and with congressional Republicans determined to undermine it, Sebelius is right to be concerned. But her troubles don't justify soliciting donations from the health-care industry. Such ties between a government agency and the industry it oversees may pose a bigger long-term threat to the law's credibility and stability than any shortage of funds.

    The Affordable Care Act has already influenced the allocation of many billions in health-care spending as it gradually wrenches close to one-fifth of the U.S. economy into a new configuration. Yet the federal government's enormous power over the industry didn't end with passage of the law. The government will also determine which health plans can participate in a federally managed insurance exchange, for example. What happens if an insurance company that made a donation at Sebelius' request subsequently receives approval for an outsize rate increase?

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Sebelious scandal

    Hey, I dont expect you guysto have a serious problem with any of your idols in the progressive party so, I'll just say.

    We will see where this ends and then we can talk about that.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Sebelious scandal

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    "is tort reform"

    Red herring. The overall costs are negligible.

     

     

    "insurance sales across state lines"

    Exchanges.

     

     

    "allow people to choose the type of health care they want."

    ........sigh....

     

    Boring sloganeer.




    So, you think people shouldn't be able to choose the type of healthcare they want?

    You think exchanges are somehow magical?

    You think lawyers outh to run rough shod over claims?

    I got your number.  Zero.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Sebelious scandal

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    Easy.  Here are the projections.  that line on the top?  Yah, that's Obamacare.

     

     




     

    So how did Obamacare destroy America, again? Even if this graph you like proves true, it will have only 'increased health care spending' by 1/6th of a percent of GDP over what would hav been the case without it.

    That hardly strikes me as the supposed catastrophe some people regularly wet themselves over.

     



    correct me if I am wrong, but the line without Obamacare is lower, as in less expensive.

    Game, set, match.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Sebelious scandal

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    Easy.  Here are the projections.  that line on the top?  Yah, that's Obamacare.

     

     




     

    So how did Obamacare destroy America, again? Even if this graph you like proves true, it will have only 'increased health care spending' by 1/6th of a percent of GDP over what would hav been the case without it.

    That hardly strikes me as the supposed catastrophe some people regularly wet themselves over.

     



    correct me if I am wrong, but the line without Obamacare is lower, as in less expensive.

    Game, set, match.



    And we get less quality doctors which will eventually cause longer waiting time for visits and surgeries!

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share