Posted by Tina
Once the cat escaped the bag this week when the first Gruber tape was exposed, layer after layer of premeditated deceit, trickery, and total contempt for the people has emerged as the dominating feature of radical Democrats in power in Washington. Fox News reports:
One video, from a January 2012 forum, shows Gruber discussing the Massachusetts overhaul under then-Gov. Mitt Romney. He explained how the state was able to bilk the feds over hundreds of millions of Medicaid dollars.
“The dirty secret in Massachusetts is the feds paid for our bill, okay?” he said. “In Massachusetts we had a very powerful senator you may know named Ted Kennedy. … Ted Kennedy and smart people in Massachusetts had basically figured out a way to sort of rip off the feds for about 400 million dollars a year.”
He explained how when ObamaCare was written, they had to take a different approach because they had to raise money elsewhere. (As he explained in other recently uncovered videos, part of this involved taxing insurance companies for high-end health plans.)
Kennedy’s scheme was actually a plan to rip off the American taxpayer. A smart economist would know that. Notice too that the man who finds the American people “stupid” also thinks the people in progressive Massachusetts are smart because they agreed with him.
This little worm of a man hasn’t been making “off the cuff” remarks in an altered state from drinking “too much Chardonnay” at a single event as has been suggested on Post scripts…this man has been making speeches in many venues and states.
The American Thinker exposes Gruber as a DC insider who participated in round table discussions with “such notables as Ezekial Emanuel, Robert Rubin and Jason Furman, who later served as Obama’s chief economic adviser in his presidential campaign.” He was involved in Obamacare from the gitgo…it began formally in 2008:
According to the New York Times, Gruber got the official call to help the administration work on the basic principles of Obamacare in 2008. The White House then ” lent him to Capitol Hill to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation.” Gruber frequently spoke with reporters and wrote opinion pieces supporting the Affordable Care Act but did not mention his role in helping to devise it, he “regretted not being more upfront,” he said. “But the thing is, I know more about this law than any other economist.”
Yep he knows more all right, including the grand deception to tax insurance companies to help pay for Obamacare because they knew the people were too economically stupid to understand the cost would be passed to them in higher insurance premiums so they would blame the insurance companies. Gruber the money grubbing professor scheming to deceive people into thinking insurance companies were ripping them off.
More Gruber here:
As a consequence of the Affordable Care Act,” the president said in September 2010, “premiums are going to be lower than they would be otherwise; health care costs overall are going to be lower than they would be otherwise.”
Gruber’s new reports are in direct contrast Obama’s words — and with claims Gruber himself made in 2009. Then, the economics professor said that based on figures provided by the independent Congressional Budget Office, “[health care] reform will significantly reduce, not increase, non-group premiums.”
During his presentation to Wisconsin officials in August 2011, Gruber revealed that while about 57 percent of those who get their insurance through the individual market will benefit in one way or another from the law’s subsides, an even larger majority of the individual market will end up paying drastically more overall.
“After the application of tax subsidies, 59 percent of the individual market will experience an average premium increase of 31 percent,” Gruber reported. (Emphasis mine)
Gruber received millions through no bid contracts with various states in addition to the $400K reported earlier. Funny how when radical lefties foists these socialist programs down our throats the so-called architects always end up with a nice tidy sum for themselves. (Think Jamie Gorelick and Howell Raines at Fannie Mae up to their ears in the bad bundled loan mess while earning big fat millions in bonus pay as the housing bubble grew)
Con artists, rip off artists, scam artists, they all lie and deceive to get what they want. these guys are so corrupt the damage they do in real peoples lives doesn’t phase them in the slightest…the end justifies higher premiums and co-pays and doctors that are no longer available…and the millions they secure for themselves.
Well we are finally finding out who does benefit from Obama care, and it wasn’t the WORKING American tax payer was it?
“Once the cat escaped the bag this week when the first Gruber tape was exposed, layer after layer of premeditated deceit, trickery, and total contempt for the people ….”
Only some of the people.
And “the end,” universal coverage via the single payer, is not yet achieved. But we’ll get there someday.
Many of us thought Oliarcare was flawed from the beginning.
Looks like we were right – even down to the liars and crooks that voted to pass it in Clowngress – AND the white house!
Here’s hoping SCOTUS is paying attention to what Grubber(misspelling intentional)is revealing.
J. Soden, you are a very astute observer! My compliments. -jack
The most recent I could find was from 2012, but:
WBUR Poll: Most Mass. Residents Support State Health Care Law – By Martha Bebinger February 15, 2012
BOSTON — Across the national airwaves and on the Republican campaign trail, the Massachusetts coverage law that many now call “Romneycare” is routinely trashed. Here’s Texas Gov. Rick Perry in a debate last October:
Romneycare has driven the cost of small business insurance premiums up by 14 percent over the national average in Massachusetts.
And from former Sen. Rick Santorum last month we heard, “it (Romneycare) was the basis of Obamacare and it was an abject failure.”
So you might think this drubbing would rub off on Massachusetts residents, about two-thirds of whom have consistently endorsed the state’s coverage plan since it passed in 2006. Not so. In the latest WBUR poll, 62 percent support the law and 33 percent oppose it.
***
P.S.: Romney’s Health Care Stance: 68% said they think Mitt Romney disagrees with the national overhaul because he’s “trying to win votes”.
Well, who’da thought a thing like that!
***
My regrets, entirely, but it would seem that you’re in that 33 percent of the selfish and greedy, whom we hold in contempt.
Bummer, but there it is.
Libby, what in this statement do you not understand?
“The dirty secret in Massachusetts is the feds paid for our bill, okay?” he said. “In Massachusetts we had a very powerful senator you may know named Ted Kennedy. … Ted Kennedy and smart people in Massachusetts had basically figured out a way to sort of rip off the feds for about 400 million dollars a year.”
It’s no wonder the people of Massachusetts like their health care coverage since taxpayers from 49 other states help pay for it.
We can only guess what the cost per person would be to the taxpayers of Massachusetts and if they would like it as much when they ended up paying for the whole tab.
Every state who wants to provide health care to their residents should be able to do so. Just don’t trick, lie and force residents of other states to pay for it.
It’s no wonder the people of Massachusetts like their health care coverage since taxpayers from 49 other states help pay for it.”
And you say this like it’s a bad thing.
First, $400M, federally speaking, is a pittance.
Second, if the whole country were on board … think of it! … universal coverage for, federally speaking, a pittance.
“Every state who wants to provide health care to their residents should be able to do so.”
And this is criminally disingenuous of you. Mississippi is not California. I, in California, am willing to pitch in toward Mississippi. It’s only you who are a selfish, greedy, pig.
“I, in California, am willing to pitch in”
Reads like a Obama teleprompter comment, sounds good, but lacks any real merit of fact.
Actually Lib you can send in extra tax money anytime….
Libby, before you call me a selfish, greedy, pig again I suggest you read The Federalist Paper #17 to see what our Founders had to say about state rights vs. federal powers.
It will help you stop showing what a bigoted idiot you are.
I really wish you would drop the Alinsky-style of verbal attacks and treat those who see issues differently with respect.
Have a good day, I’m on my way to contribute to a local charity. What are YOU doing?
Libby love single payer healthcare because she thinks the single payer solution would be cheap. She thinks that doctors can be paid a pittance for their work and we will continue to have good doctors. She’s a stars in her eyes kind of dreamer who never considers the negatives in her grand schemes. Single payer would be very expensive for taxpayers and throw a big fat wet blanket on healthcare.
Obamacare is already proving to be much more expensive than we were told (Another Obama lie). A GAO (Government Accountability Office) report found that it “…will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion,”:
The people of Massachusetts like their healthcare because they think like Libby does…let someone else pay!
America wasn’t built to become the most prosperous nation on earth by shirking personal responsibilities. It was built by people who believed in working for what you have and taking care of yourself and your family. They also made sure their healthcare was covered before they bought a new TV or car and they gave to charity and paid taxes to build county hospitals.
The government doesn’t do much of anything well.
Pigs that love to spend “other people’s money” are quite often the ones who end up not paying at all or siphoning millions for themselves off the top in these leftist schemes; Mr Gruber is one example. His incessant bragging is at least partly due to the million or more he made inventing ways to lie to get the thing passed.
Harold: “Actually Lib you can send in extra tax money anytime….”
She could also personally subsidize neighbors or friends that can’t afford healthcare if she’s feeling so dang generous!
Someone suggested something similar to Warren Buffet and his snide reply was, “That’s not how the game is played.”
Leftists like Libby want to spend other peoples money on these generous projects. They will give their pittance in taxes but they really look to stick it to people that have earned more than they have. They never consider how the law will cost all of us as long as they can feel good about the positives who cares about the negatives.
The ugly little question has been answered this week. The law that was created contained a lot of harmful stuff. It was not necessary to give us the extra headaches and expense to accomplish greater coverage or coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.
How much has it cost to implement this law compared to promises made? Katie Pavlich at TownHall, quoting The Weekly Standard, has the answer:
It’s not necessary to lie when the thing promoted is a good thing.
Peggy, how can I respect people who lie. You know that Massachusetts enacted their state healthcare program largely on their own nickel; the federal contribution was negligible.
To assert otherwise was a lie. I don’t respect liars.
And if you don’t want to pitch in, with your taxes, toward the health of those less economically fortunate … then you are a greedy selfish pig.
And, Tina … that paragraph is drivel … and proves nothing about anything.
What paragraph?
Do you honestly…(ooops, forgot, you lot don’t do honesty.)
Saying something is drivel doesn’t make it so.
And, “proves nothing about anything”? Sure you don’t want to rethink that one?
You sure are an ornery old B when your side loses.
Boy Tina, Libs sure is a bitchy loser. She’s written more since the election than she did all of the year.
It’s really sad to see how liars like Gruber have Lib’s respect and she thinks that $400 MILLION each and every year for the last 8 years is not only “negligible,” but it’s also just a “federal contribution.”
Let’s see $400 MILLION times 8 years is around $2.4 BILLION, right? Boy that is a lot of “nickels,” but they come from the Feds and everyone but Libs knows the Feds get their money from taxpayers. Guess she thought all of them nickels was coming out of Obama’s pocket like that crazy lady who said she was going to go get herself an “Obama phone.”
Yup Tina, just can’t argue with such lack of intelligent reasoning liberals like Libs who think a couple of billions dollars is just chump change and all of those nickels from the feds were just pooped out of some magical slot machine and not out of hard working tax payer’s pockets.
Oh, and that $400 million will be another $2.4 Billion in another 8 years and on and on and on headed for a trillion. Just a bag of chump change nickels.
Peggy they sure are mean when they lose and not much better when they win; must be that sense of being superior they carry around…and it must really gall Libby that the economy didn’t turn to gold under Obama after telling us how superior lefty policy would be.
Correction. That $2.4 billion is wrong. It’s $3.2 billion, which is even worse!
Tina, the lefty’s policies are going to be on the shelf for decades to come when all of those conservatives who won their elections in city councils and state legislators start working their way up into congressional seats. That should really piss off Libs and the liberals for a long time. Nice!!
Tina: “Obamacare is already proving to be much more expensive than we were told (Another Obama lie). A GAO (Government Accountability Office) report found that it “…will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion,””
Why do you think it is OK to respond to lies with more lies?
Your account of the GAO report is completely dishonest. The GAO made two estimates in that report: one assumed a best case scenario in which Obamacare actually reduced deficits, and one assumed a worst case scenario in which Obamacare added to the deficit. They did not say which one of those scenarios was more likely, and the 6.2 billion number is nowhere to be found in the report–that was Republicans’ own estimate.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2013/jun/17/morgan-griffith/morgan-griffith-says-gao-estimates-obamacare-will-/
Saying that the GAO found that the law would increase the deficit, without providing the above context, is a lie.
And that’s why Gruber’s comments don’t phase me. Yes, Democrats lied to pass this law. “You can keep your plan” was ridiculous, as I’ve conceded numerous times. But Republicans, including you, responded by telling dozens of lies of your own, such as the above, death panels, congress being “exempt” from the law, pretending that the ACA allowing people to voluntarily leave jobs they no longer needed meant the law was causing unemployment, etc. etc. etc.
Remember when Peggy forwarded the lie that Obamacare banned doctors from recommending mammograms to women under 40? She never admitted that was a false claim even after faced with overwhelming proof that it was false. You yourself argued in circles for nearly 80 comments before admitting it wasn’t true. That discussion remains one of Post Scripts’ most “Popular Posts” solely because of the fact that you and Peggy spent so many comments refusing to cop to the evidence that was right in front of you.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2012/08/17/woman-doc-speaks-out-on-b/
So “Democrats lied to get Obamacare passed” just doesn’t have the sting it otherwise would (and should, in an ideal world); it’s not enough to make any reasonable person oppose the law itself, since both parties engaged in massive campaigns of lies and deceit over it. Ultimately, we have to judge the law based on its results. The facts are these: Millions more have been insured, more are satisfied with their healthcare according to Gallup*, insurers can no longer discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, the problem of job lock is reduced, and the disemployment effects predicted by conservatives have simply not occurred.**
*From Gallup:
–Americans with new exchange-obtained insurance are positive
–The newly insured are more satisfied with costs than others
–Most will renew their policies; few will drop insurance
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179396/newly-insured-exchanges-give-coverage-good-marks.aspx
**From USA Today:
“As more data come in, the law’s impact can’t be seen in hiring statistics, says Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics.
“I was expecting to see it. I was looking for it, and it’s not there,” says Zandi, whose firm manages ADP’s surveys of overall private-sector job creation. If the Affordable Care Act “were causing a drop, you would see meaningful slowing.””
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/20/small-business-hiring/2662407/
Thanks for sharing, Chris. Since progressives have shown themselves to be practiced liars it’s difficult to take your rebuttal articles too seriously.
This article on the CBO’s latest report is dated Feb 2014:
Hallelujah!
CBO report here.
You must be looking at the old CBO report, Chris, that was working off of figures from the deceptively contrived and back loaded first ten years. Get bent! I have painstakingly advised you of this deception in previous posts or comments. You chose NOT to learn.
Powerline, quoting from around the web reminds of Pelosi’s ridiculous assertion that Obamacare was a “jobs bill” and puts the entire lying mess in perspective:
Let’s hope the Supremes do the right thing this time around. The Roberts ruling was shifty and not worthy of the highest court in the land.
Tina: “Thanks for sharing, Chris. Since progressives have shown themselves to be practiced liars it’s difficult to take your rebuttal articles too seriously.”
Like most of what you’ve said over the past few weeks, this makes zero sense. None of the articles I posted are from progressive sources.
You clearly did not read the CBO report you linked to, you only read the dishonest hack job done by Congressman Joe Pitts, who simply repeats the same lies that were debunked on this very website last February. Perhaps you suppressed the memory, but the claim that the CBO said that the ACA would “cost the nation 2.5 million jobs” was completely false. What it actually said was that about 2.5 million people who were currently only working to receive health insurance would no longer be able to do so. It was about job lock, not unemployment. Republicans literally tried to pretend that a benefit of Obamacare–reducing the problem of job lock–was somehow a drawback.
“The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/?nid=top_pb_wplogo
I already addressed the GOP’s distortion of this point from the CBO in comment #17 and here you are making it again? That is just stupid.
Thank you for proving that you simply repeat the same disproven lies over and over, regardless of the evidence. You didn’t even try to rebut the evidence I presented that contradicted your earlier lies about the GAO; you simply lied about the sources being progressive, then moved on to telling more lies!
You are perfectly willing to lie for your cause, so you have no grounds to lecture anyone on honesty. I challenge you to find one lie I have told on this website. I call out lies from both sides. You are a partisan hypocrite.
Sorry, this part: “What it actually said was that about 2.5 million people who were currently only working to receive health insurance would no longer be able to do so”
Should say:
“What it actually said was that about 2.5 million people who were currently only working to receive health insurance would no longer be FORCED to do so.”
Heaven forbid people should have to actually earn money used for their healthcare expenses.
Nancy Pelosi made a similar statement about artists. Now they can quit their jobs and play/paint all day since now they have health insurance provided by stupid, hard working, taxpaying schmucks.
I suppose given progressive ideology and methods there are a lot of people who believe that healthcare they get through their employer isn’t something they’ve earned and should be proud to have earned. Health insurance, it’s believed, is provided or supplied; the employer simply waves a magic wand rather than thinking of it as part of the cost of hiring people.
This myth represents the slight of hand always employed in progressive deceptions. It was in the sixties when the idea that taking from others through government programs was nothing to be ashamed of. Within a decade attitudes began to shift from gratitude and urgency about getting a job to a sense of bold entitlement. Due to these shifting attitudes people don’t really have a sense of their own worth much less a sense of responsibility to prepare themselves for adulthood. How long can we survive a growing percentage of such people?
I understand many recipients of healthcare subsidies can get up to 75% of their premium supplied by working taxpayers.
What if we all quit working; wouldn’t the ultimate progressive goal then be more quickly achieved? Think of it…everyone covered by a universal government healthcare program!!!
Nirvana!
So here is how this conversation has gone so far:
Tina: (lies about the GAO)
Chris: Actually, that’s a lie. (provides non-partisan sources proving this)
Tina: (ignores this, lies about the sources being partisan, moves on to more lies about what the CBO said)
Chris: You’re lying again. That’s not what the CBO said.
Tina: (ignores this, but shows understanding that her original complaint about the CBO’s claim was wrong, seamlessly transitions into bitching about what the CBO said, lies about what Nancy Pelosi said, basically lies by pretending that Republicans never had a problem with job lock)
I think I’m gonna have to bow out at this point. Arguing with you is like fighting a Hydra; cut down one lie, and two more grow in its place.
Obamacare architect in 6th video: ‘Mislabeling’ helped us get rid of tax breaks:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/politics/gruber-update-friday-white-house-obamacare/index.html
The Gruber videos were originally discovered by a Philadelphia area financial adviser.
“Many of the videos were discovered by a Philadelphia-area financial adviser named Rich Weinstein who has spent the last year researching Obamacare after his family insurance premiums doubled. Weinstein told CNN that he had assumed, incorrectly, that since he liked his health insurance plan and he had insurance, he wouldn’t be much impacted by the new law.”
Chris: “Ultimately, we have to judge the law based on its results.”
Or putting into practice Alinsky’s the end justifies the means.
Also, my posting the video of the doctor who was concerned with the impact OC would have on mammogram coverage was justified in light of the lies that were being told at the time and just uncovered.
The whole bill was based on lies which resulted in knowledgeable professionals questioning the plan actual meaning. An informed professional challenging confusing and misleading proposed medical coverage isn’t a liar, they’re completely with in their rights to do so. It’s called the First Amendment.
As it turns out that doctor may have been right based on all of the lies coming out, that were told to deceive voters.
I like this article better than the one I posted.
Sixth Gruber Video Reveals Lies Told to Sell Obamacare’s ‘Mislabeled’ Tax Breaks:
“The long-term purpose of this tax was to make as many employer-based healthcare plans as possible too expensive to maintain, thereby getting them canceled and leaving only the government offering healthcare to the public. It was a long-term plan to usher in a single payer, government-sponsored healthcare system — something Democrats all denied as Obamacare was being sold to the public.”
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2014/11/16/sixth-gruber-video-reveals-lies-told-to-sell-obamacares-mislabeled-tax-breaks/
Peggy: “Or putting into practice Alinsky’s the end justifies the means.”
No. You don’t know me very well. The ends do not justify the means at all in my book. The fact that I like the results of Obamacare does not justify the lies that Democrats told to get it passed. Lying is wrong, and they shouldn’t have done it, no matter what the cause was. Period.
I can have a problem with the people who passed the law while still supporting the law. Unlike the conservatives here, I don’t believe that favoring the same policies as a certain other people means that I am obligated to defend and excuse each and every single one of their behaviors.
“Also, my posting the video of the doctor who was concerned with the impact OC would have on mammogram coverage was justified in light of the lies that were being told at the time and just uncovered.”
No. The fact that the other side told lies does NOT justify you telling lies. To suggest otherwise is moral relativism, which conservatives claim to be against.
“An informed professional challenging confusing and misleading proposed medical coverage isn’t a liar,”
She was not informed, and the portion of the law she was addressing was in no way confusing or misleading. The law clearly said, in plain language, that doctors were not prohibited from recommending treatment beyond the guidelines regarding mammograms. There was nothing confusing about it. The law expanded mammogram coverage, it did not restrict it. At the time, you could not point to a single piece of evidence that backed up Dr. Vecchio’s claim; if you can do so now, then please do. Put up or shut up.
“they’re completely with in their rights to do so. It’s called the First Amendment.”
No one has argued that she did not have the right to say what she said. Lying is of course protected by the First Amendment. Bringing up the First Amendment in an attempt to hide your dishonesty and lack of evidence is one of the most tired tactics ever, and you make yourself a parody of a conservative activist by dragging out this irrelevant defense.
“As it turns out that doctor may have been right based on all of the lies coming out, that were told to deceive voters.”
That makes no sense. She may be right about her specific point because there were lies told by Obamacare proponents? What?
What other lies are “justified” by Gruber’s announcement? Do you think you would also be justified in saying that Obamacare requires all pregnant white women to abort their babies? How about claiming that Obamacare automatically renders Mexico a territory of the United States, or makes wearing scarves illegal?
None of these claims are any less ridiculous or more based on evidence then your claim that it bans mammograms for women under 40. So tell me, what is the difference? Where do you draw the line between what lies are justified for your cause and which are not? Because I’ve been pretty clear about where I draw the line.
Chris, I’m putting up so you’ll shut up. You better read every damn word of this so we aren’t back here in a couple of months rearguing this again.
Dr. V. knew what she was talking about and you need to stop calling everyone a liar. You only prove you’re an idiot who believes he’s always right and everyone else has to believe as you do and follow your every command.
From the Mayo Clinic!!!!
Mammograms Decline After Task Force Recommendation
ROCHESTER, Minn. — June 26, 2012. Preventive mammography rates in women in their 40s have dropped nearly 6 percent nationwide since the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against routine mammograms for women in this age group, a Mayo Clinic analysis shows. That represents a small but significant decrease since the controversial guidelines were released, the researchers say. Their findings are being presented at the Academy Health Annual Research Meeting, June 24-26, in Orlando, Fla.
VIDEO ALERT: Video resources, including an interview with Sandhya Pruthi, M.D., are available for journalists at the Mayo Clinic News Network.Woman having mammogram
“The 2009 USPSTF guidelines resulted in significant backlash among patients, physicians and other organizations, prompting many medical societies to release opposing guidelines,” says co-author Nilay Shah, Ph.D., a researcher at the Mayo Clinic Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery. “We were interested in determining the impact that the recommendations and subsequent public debate had upon utilization of mammography in younger women.”
Using a large, national representative database of 100 health plans, researchers identified the number of screening mammograms performed between January 2006 and December 2010, and compared rates before and after the task force report. Nearly 8 million women ages 40 to 64 were included in the analysis.
Comparing mammography rates before and after publication of the new guidelines, researchers found that the recommendations were associated with a 5.72 percent decrease in the mammography rate for women ages 40-49. Over a year, nearly 54,000 fewer mammograms were performed in this age group.
“For the first year after the guidelines changed, there was a small but significant decrease in the rate of mammography for women ages 40–49,” Dr. Shah says. “This is consistent with the context of the guidelines change. A modest effect is also in line with the public resistance to the guidelines change and the subsequent release of conflicting guidelines.”
http://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mammograms-decline-after-task-force-recommendation/
And this from Health Care Scepticism.
“ObamaCare and Mammography – October 2013 Update – Bad News and Good News
Note : This is a popular, but long post. If you just want to know whether ObamaCare allows mammograms for women over 40, the answer is “Yes,” for now, provided your Doctor agrees. I urge you to talk to your Doctor soon about this – it may save your life. This post tells the story of how women’s access to mammography has been saved by staring down a disastrous ObamaCare decision… a decision that, despite being discredited by experts, has still resulted in 54,000 fewer mammograms per year among women between 40 and 49 years of age! My source? No less than the Mayo Clinic – you can read about their study here http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2012- orst/6958.html or here (a survivor’s report on the Mayo study) http://noboobsaboutit.org/treatment/6556/
In November, 2009, an obscure Government-appointed panel, the USPSTF (United States Preventive Services Task Force), did what it had been doing for many years – it evaluated a diagnostic procedure and classified it. The unusual aspect of this decision, was that this time a new bill, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also referred to as “ObamaCare,” would, upon enactment, specifically give this USPSTF decision the force of law in determining insurance coverage for all Americans.
The procedure evaluated by USPSTF was mammography for the detection of breast cancer. In its decision, the USPSTF now classified a mammogram as a “Class C” procedure for any woman between 40 and 49 years of age. Under section 2713 of the ACA, only Class A and Class B procedures were required to be covered by public or private insurance. A “Class C” rating meant that insurers could legally “co-pay” mammograms out of reach for hundreds of thousands of women. With this one bureaucratic ruling, the USPSTF had provided a frightening glimpse of just how ObamaCare could empower and transform an obscure panel of experts effectively into a “death panel.”
How much death? Senator Barbara Mikulski estimated the toll at 40% of women in this age group who have breast cancer, reflecting the overall reduction in mortality since regular mammograms became common practice. A more modest estimate by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is that mammography, by itself, is responsible for about a 10% reduction in mortality from breast cancer. Since the number of women 40-49 currently getting mammograms is estimated at around 800,000, this would still amount to potentially hundreds of dead women per year, every year!
Update – October 2013: These previous estimates of mortality due to lack of screening may be underestimates. In a new study “…71 percent of the (breast cancer) deaths were among women who had never had a mammogram or it had been more than two years since their last screening. The study found half the deaths were women younger than 50 …” This study has caused a new furor amongst the mammogram “deniers” because it indicates a higher death rate among younger women who were not screened than was previously suspected. You can read about this study in a recent Chicago Tribune story (click here).
Inside the beltway, panicky lawmakers were blindsided by this double system failure because most hadn’t even read section 2713, or heard of the USPSTF! This was a double system failure because firstly, too much authority was concentrated in one small, isolated group that has no specific expertise in the area being classified, and because, secondly, there were no downstream safeguards built into the system to monitor impacts and overturn a bad decision.”
http://healthcarescepticism.com/2012/07/23/obamacare-and-mammography-an-update/
I’m not wasting my time in answering your other stupid questions.
You owe Tina and me a big apology for calling us LIARS!! Drop the Alinsky attitude!! It’s not going to get you anything here.
Decided to check out another link from my above post and found more evidence supporting how bad ObamaCare is for women’s health.
ObamaCare v. Women:
“President Obama is campaigning hard on his promise to give women access to free oral contraceptives and surgical sterilization, benefits that are guaranteed under ObamaCare. But women should also know about all of the health services they stand to lose.
ObamaCare empowers a host of new boards and committees to arbitrate over what insurance will pay for, and what remains uncovered. They’ll rule over not just health plans sold inside the ObamaCare exchanges, but even private insurance.
One such board, the US Preventive Services Task Force, will evaluate preventive health services like contraception and decide which benefits must be part of the coverage that insurance plans offer — indeed, which services must be covered in full, with no co-pays.
But requiring first-dollar coverage for those services is expensive, so health plans will have to offset those costly mandates by dropping coverage for things that don’t make the board’s grade.
Problem is, what the board deems essential is often out of sync with patient preferences, conventional medical practice and even experts like the Centers for Disease Control — which has clashed with the Preventive Services Task Force over recommendations like screening for HIV and hepatitis C.
What health benefits are likely to be nixed from insurance coverage? Well, look at all of the things that the Task Force doesn’t recommend, and therefore won’t be mandated under ObamaCare.
Dozens of screening tests and treatments that directly benefit women are likely to be dropped from any coverage.
Here’s a sampling of what the Preventive Services Task Force dings: chlamydia screening in most women over 25; cervical-cancer screening in those over 65; breast-cancer screening using digital mammography or MRI instead of the traditional plain film.
Screening for ovarian cancer and the genes that raise a women’s risk of breast cancer also don’t make the cut. Same for clinical breast exams in women older than 40.
Even having a doctor teach women how to do a breast self-exam is unlikely to be covered, since the task force says women are rarely the ones to find their breast cancers.
Americans first became familiar with the Preventive Services Task Force in November 2009, when it made the controversial decision to advocate that women ages 40-49 shouldn’t get routine mammograms. More recently, it rebuffed routine use of tests for detecting the viruses that can cause cervical cancer. And now it’s calling the shots for what benefits must be included and what can be nixed from our plans.
This is what happens when benefits are defined in Washington, rather than by a marketplace of competing plans that cater to patient preferences. This is what happens when you put an insular committee of academics in charge, let them meet in secret and devise their own rules — and insulate them from appeals or lawsuits.
Like other ObamaCare committees, the Preventive Services Task Force convenes in Washington, so it will be cognizant of the political winds. Decisions will inevitably hew as much to politics as to medical need.
That’s how benefits like full coverage for contraception make their way into the mandates, while other important services are left out. The academicians will find a way to make their economic and clinical analyses line up for the politically popular things, because they know their arrangement depends on it.
At its core, ObamaCare is really an exercise of federal power over the regulation of health insurance. The decrees made in Washington will rapidly shape the health plans bought by all Americans, regardless of where we buy our coverage.
As health plans come under tighter regulation of what they must offer, what they can charge for premiums and what they can spend on overhead, insurers will scramble to cut costs by cutting benefits, wherever the feds suggest. Focus groups rather than doctors will start to shape medical benefits.
Women, like all of us under the thumb of ObamaCare, risk losing far more than they’ll gain.”
http://nypost.com/2012/10/23/obamacare-v-women/
Great finds Peggy. It would seem that Chris relies on the very people we have learned not to trust, and for good reason, their agenda trumps truth.
Peggy nails the stooge. Chris and Gruber, two peas in a pod.
Peggy, quoting “Health Care Skepticism:”
“If you just want to know whether ObamaCare allows mammograms for women over 40, the answer is “Yes,” for now, provided your Doctor agrees.”
Thank you for proving that Dr. Vecchio’s claim that Obamacare banned mammograms for women under 50 was false.
You realize that’s what you just did, don’t you?
If Dr. Vecchio’s claim was true, we would not have seen a “5.72% decrease in mammography for women ages 40-49.” We would have seen a 100% decrease. That’s what a ban means.
Dr. Vecchio said that she could “face jailtime” if she recommended mammograms to women under 50. Nothing in either of your links supports this absurd lie; in fact, the evidence you presented actively disproves it. And still you say “Dr. V. knew what she was talking about?” How can anyone’s reading comprehension be THAT selective?
You just debunked your own lie!
More from HCS: “The procedure evaluated by USPSTF was mammography for the detection of breast cancer. In its decision, the USPSTF now classified a mammogram as a “Class C” procedure for any woman between 40 and 49 years of age. Under section 2713 of the ACA, only Class A and Class B procedures were required to be covered by public or private insurance. A “Class C” rating meant that insurers could legally “co-pay” mammograms out of reach for hundreds of thousands of women.”
The complaint here would seem to be that Obamacare doesn’t require insurance plans to cover mammograms for women under 50.
That’s an…interesting complaint from people who don’t believe the law should require insurance companies to comply with any minimum standard of coverage at all.
And by “interesting,” I mean “so damned hypocritical as to be completely insane.”
So true Tina. Here’s another example of the truth being kept from us.
Melissa Francis has a degree in economics from Harvard.
Ex-CNBC anchor ‘silenced’ for questioning Obama, Affordable Care Act:
“Former CNBC anchor Melissa Francis dropped a bit of a bombshell on the air when she accused her former boss of silencing her for questioning the math behind the Affordable Car Act. As reported on Fox News on Nov. 16, 2015, Francis appeared on the Fox News program “Media Buzz” with host Howard Kurtz in which she revealed that roughly four years ago when she hosted an economy oriented program at the economy oriented CNBC news network, she found herself called on the mat for questioning Barack Obama during a live broadcast.”
Continued..
http://www.examiner.com/article/ex-cnbc-anchor-silenced-for-questioning-obama-affordable-care-act
She’s now on Fox Business.
The attempt to hide the truth from us continues. They must really believe we are stupid by trying to keep us from the information.
ABC’s World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News Remain Silent on Gruber:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/curtis-houck/2014/11/17/abcs-world-news-tonight-nbc-nightly-news-remain-silent-gruber
Another “underhanded scheme,” lie is uncovered.
The Washington Times Noticed Something Quite Curious About the Obamacare Facebook Page:
“Approximately 60 percent of the comments on the Affordable Care Act’s Facebook page are from fewer than 100 unique profiles, according to a Washington Times analysis.
According to the Washington Times, which conducted the analysis with an outside data analytics firm, about 60 percent of the 226,838 comments were generated by less than 100 users between September 2012 to early last month.
One individual in particular, Cindi Huynh, posted an average of 59 times per day — but only during work hours, the Washington Times reported.
Huynh, who has at least four different Facebook profiles, told the Washington Times that she isn’t paid for her posts, but volunteers with the California Democratic Party and sees them as a way of contributing to the advancement of the Affordable Care Act.
Other prolific posters, however, did not make themselves available to the Washington Times for comment. The newspaper reported that at least three of the commenters disappeared or deactivated their profiles when the Washington Times announced their investigation.
Multiple individuals had commented thousands of times, the Washington Times found in their investigation.
The Obamacare page has more than 771,000 likes and is operated by Obama’s campaign arm, Organizing for Action. The group declined to comment to the newspaper about their findings.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/17/the-washington-times-noticed-something-quite-curious-about-the-obamacare-facebook-page/
Peggy,
Please address your own false claims before making any further accusations.
You claimed that Obamacare banned doctors from recommending mammograms to women under 50.
Your own evidence proves that this claim is false.
Hiding from the truth will not make it go away.
Peggy, have you any examples of doctors being arrested and sent to jail for recommending mammograms? Since your link says that there has only been a six percent decrease in mammograms for women 40-49, that must mean that all those 40-49 year olds still receiving mammograms must now have jailbird doctors. I knew Obama was lying when he said “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” but I didn’t realize that was because so many of them would be sent to prison.
Furthermore, since the study you cited from the Mayo Clinic only “identified the number of screening mammograms performed between January 2006 and December 2010,” can you explain how Obama went back in time and made Obamacare the law of the land in January 2006, thus causing the decline in mammograms?
Thanks!
Peggy its interesting that Chris, whose powerful union would shield him from being fired or experiencing severe disciplined, arrogantly suggests that doctors, who have to live by this constantly changing law will not need, nor should they pay attention to, the lawyers who advise them about what could result from language in the very complex and poorly written ACA…because Chris is the expert here…move along!
Blissfully ignorant progressives put their faith in government and bureaucracy…and the radical fundamental transformers who lied and deceived originally about the content of this law and continue to do so.
Chris, I wasn’t hiding from the truth. Your post didn’t appear here when I made my other post.
It’s just now 3:30pm and I just read your comment posted at 7:12am.
You know as well as any other reader there was a big “But” after the “Yes.” Denying the article went on to prove women were being denied mammograms just show how moronic you can be.
So, what you’re saying is that 54,000 women every year going without mammograms is acceptable to you and thousands who will die is just the cost of doing business under ObamaCare. Sick, really sick.
You really do enjoy showing what an idiot you are. Dr. V. said mammograms for women under 50 would be limited and would force her to break her oath to do no harm. She also believed she would be fined and not paid for her work. That’s what she believed and my providing the “C” class rating confirms what she believed is true. I don’t know about the fines, but know insurance companies do not pay for services, medications and procedures that are not on their approval list. And rating them a class “C” means insurance companies don’t have to pay anything at all or the copay will be so high some women won’t be able to afford it.
So, what your problem with understanding plane English Chris? Everything I said is 100% true and the information from the Mayo Clinic and the other sources should have you as a progressive liberal up in arms against the harm ObamaCare has done to women. I’m not talking just come free birth control pills or condoms, I’m talking a killer disease called BREAST CANCER.
Here’s what Dr. V said.
DR. JILL VEECHIO: OBAMACARE BREAKS HIPPOCRATIC OATH:
“Dr. Vecchio, a radiologist in Colorado who is highly involved in breast cancer screenings, spoke at a June 29, 2012, rally in Denver against ObamaCare. She explains in this 2.58-minute video that ObamaCare if allowed to be implemented would force her and 800,000 other physicians to break their Hippocratic Oath. [“…I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.”]
Dr. Veechio said that ObamaCare regulations are in direct opposition to the American Cancer Society guidelines for yearly breast screening mammograms that have decreased 30% to 40% the number of women who die from breast cancer.
Dr. Veechio stated that physicians who violate the ObamaCare regulations will be fined, not paid, and could be put in jail. She said that she and many other physicians will not be practicing medicine if ObamaCare is put into affect.”
http://www.educationviews.org/dr-jill-veechio-obamacare-breaks-hippocratic-oath/
Get your head out of your butt and start fighting FOR women’s health instead of supporting a health care plans the kills women.
Also the reason I didn’t answer sooner is because I was having lunch with some friends, one has been fighting to stay alive for over five years after having a double mastectomy. She’s now going through brain radiation treatment (had her last treatment yesterday) after going through bone cancer chemo therapy treatment last year. She can’t drive so we all pitch in to help her where and when we can.
I hope and pray not one of those 54,000 women ever has to go through what she is and your attitude of I’m right and you all can go to hell really shows what a small man-child you are.
And in the future Chris if I want to respond to you I will and if I don’t I won’t. I don’t need you telling me to address my “false claims” just because you don’t agree with me.
Once again my “own evidence” proves I am right and you as usual are wrong because you can’t accept what anyone else believes as truth.
Thanks Pie, yup Chris and Gruber are definitely from the same pod… stink pod.
Chris, the information I provided was dated June 2012.
Here’s what I found from the Mayo Clinic. Please read it very carefully.
From the Mayo Clinic.
Tests and Procedures
Mammogram:
“With differing mammogram guidelines, I’m not sure when to begin mammogram screening. What does Mayo Clinic recommend?
Answers from Sandhya Pruthi, M.D.
At Mayo Clinic, doctors offer mammograms to women beginning at age 40 and continuing annually. When to begin mammogram screening and how often to repeat it is a personal decision.
Mayo Clinic recommends women and their doctors discuss the benefits, risks and limitations of mammograms and decide together what is best. Also consider your personal situation and preferences in making your decision.
Not all organizations agree on mammogram guidelines. For instance, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force mammogram guidelines recommend women begin screening at age 50 and repeat the test every two years. The American Cancer Society and other organizations recommend screening begin at 40 and continue annually.
Reacting to changing evidence Mayo Clinic doctors continue to review studies about mammogram guidelines to understand what the studies mean for women’s health. Changes to mammogram guidelines might or might not be necessary in the future, as researchers continue studying this topic.
Mayo Clinic supports screening beginning at age 40 because screening mammograms can detect breast abnormalities early in women in their 40s. Findings from a large study in Sweden of women in their 40s who underwent screening mammograms showed a decrease in breast cancer deaths by 29 percent.
But mammogram screening isn’t perfect. Another study concluded that despite more women being diagnosed with early breast cancer due to mammogram screening, the number of women diagnosed with advanced breast cancer hasn’t decreased. The study suggested that some women with early breast cancer were diagnosed with cancer that may never have affected their health.
Unfortunately doctors can’t distinguish dangerous breast cancers from those that are non-life-threatening, so annual mammograms remain the best option for detecting cancer early and reducing the risk of death from breast cancer.”
http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/mammogram/expert-answers/mammogram-guidelines/FAQ-20057759
Did you get that Chris? They recommend starting at age 40, while ObamaCare says 50. That’s ten years of uncovered and no payment or partial payments from insurance companies since the panel now sets the standard of payment.
And no smart a$$ I don’t know of any doctors who have been jailed or fined. Why aren’t you more concerned for the women who may have breast cancer and won’t know about it until it’s too late?
Just making sure Chris you did read this part from the above Mayo Clinic link.
“Mayo Clinic supports screening beginning at age 40 because screening mammograms can detect breast abnormalities early in women in their 40s. Findings from a large study in Sweden of women in their 40s who underwent screening mammograms showed a decrease in breast cancer deaths by 29 percent.”
One more time Chris… A DECREASE IN BREAST CANCER DEATHS BY 29 PERCENT. Why that’s almost a 1/3 decline. The study in Sweden was supposed to be very large, but even if it was just 100 women that would be over 30 lives saved. Wow!! And if the study was a thousand or ten thousand women the number of lives saved could populate a small city.
Isn’t is wonderful what medical technology can do if people have access to it and their insurance companies are allowed to pay for it, without a panel of non-medical people deciding who will live and who will die based on the bottom line profit of loss?
Tina:
“Peggy its interesting that Chris, whose powerful union would shield him from being fired or experiencing severe disciplined, arrogantly suggests that doctors, who have to live by this constantly changing law will not need, nor should they pay attention to, the lawyers who advise them about what could result from language in the very complex and poorly written ACA…because Chris is the expert here…move along!
Blissfully ignorant progressives put their faith in government and bureaucracy…and the radical fundamental transformers who lied and deceived originally about the content of this law and continue to do so.”
I have never said anything even remotely like this.
Dr. Vecchio was not talking about “what could result from language” in the ACA. She said that the law DID ban mammograms for women under 50, not that it could.
Do you not understand the important difference between “could” and “did?”
She also never said anything about being advised by a lawyer. You literally made that up.
Peggy: “You know as well as any other reader there was a big “But” after the “Yes.” Denying the article went on to prove women were being denied mammograms just show how moronic you can be.”
I’ll deny it again: your article did not prove that women were being “denied” mammograms.
It only proved that there had been a reduction in mammograms from January 2006 to December 2010. It did not state what the cause of that reduction was.
Note that the length of the study shows that it is ridiculous to blame Obamacare for the reduction. The decline began in 2006, years before the ACA was even in the planning stages. Only the last ten months of the Mayo Clinic study could have been impacted by Obamacare.
Finally, if anyone was denied mammograms, they were not denied by Obamacare, but by their insurance company. This is what your own quote says:
“The procedure evaluated by USPSTF was mammography for the detection of breast cancer. In its decision, the USPSTF now classified a mammogram as a “Class C” procedure for any woman between 40 and 49 years of age. Under section 2713 of the ACA, only Class A and Class B procedures were required to be covered by public or private insurance. A “Class C” rating meant that insurers could legally “co-pay” mammograms out of reach for hundreds of thousands of women.”
In other words, insurance companies of course had the option to cover mammograms for women under 50. THE LAW DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO STOP THEM. You are still confusing the MINIMUM requirements for coverage for the MAXIMUM amount of coverage allowed. I don’t know how it’s even possible that you’re still doing this, even when your own evidence proves that you are wrong.
I have no doubt that if Obamacare required that insurance plans cover mammograms for women under 50 you would complain about that too.
Obamacare does not deny mammogram coverage to anyone. It cannot deny mammogram coverage for anyone. Insurance companies still have the option of covering mammograms for women under 50 if they want to, and doctors still have the option of recommending this treatment.
Accept it.
“So, what you’re saying is that 54,000 women every year going without mammograms is acceptable to you”
It depends on the reason they are going without mammograms, and whether or not they need it. Remember that the entire reason these guidelines exist is because many medical professionals did their own studies and came to the conclusion that getting mammograms before 50 years of age is not a wise choice for most women. Now, many other doctors disagree. I don’t know who is right. But it’s still a free country, and nothing in those guidelines stops anyone from getting a mammogram at any age if they feel they need to.
Again, the Mayo Clinic study did not indicate that Obamacare is at fault for the decline–the study began in 2006–so your question is irrelevant anyway.
“You really do enjoy showing what an idiot you are. Dr. V. said mammograms for women under 50 would be limited”
No, she did not. She said that mammograms for women under 50 would be banned.
Do you understand the important distinction between “limited” and “banned?”
” and would force her to break her oath to do no harm.”
Again, it does not force her to do so. She is free to recommend mammograms to any patient she feels needs one.
If you disagree, please give me a list of all the doctors who have been put in jail or fined for recommending mammograms to women under age 50.
You cannot do so, because no doctors have been punished for recommending mammograms to women under age 50, because the law does not prevent them from doing so.
“She also believed she would be fined and not paid for her work. That’s what she believed and my providing the “C” class rating confirms what she believed is true. ”
What in God’s name are you talking about?
A Class C rating has nothing to do with people getting fined or not paid! Read your own quote!
“A “Class C” rating meant that insurers could legally “co-pay” mammograms out of reach for hundreds of thousands of women.”
“I don’t know about the fines, but know insurance companies do not pay for services, medications and procedures that are not on their approval list. And rating them a class “C” means insurance companies don’t have to pay anything at all or the copay will be so high some women won’t be able to afford it.”
Again, this objection makes no sense. The entire Republican objection to Obamacare is that they don’t believe insurance companies should be forced by the government to cover anything at all. Now you’re saying you have a problem with the government NOT forcing insurance companies to cover mammograms for women under 50?
That makes no sense!
“So, what your problem with understanding plane English Chris?”
The above sentence is certainly not written in “plane” English, Peggy.
“Everything I said is 100% true”
You are completely insane.
A simple logic question for those who still believe, in direct opposition to all available evidence, that Obamacare bans mammograms for women under 50:
If the government requires that all public schools serve fruits and vegetables every Friday, does that mean that public schools are forbidden from serving fruits and vegetables on Tuesdays? Would it be fair to say that the government is denying fruits and vegetables to students four days out of the week?
If you answered “no” to this question, I do not see how you can continue believing that the ACA is “denying” mammograms to women under 50.
Peggy, I apologize for the “insane” crack. I can see from your last two comments that you are genuinely concerned with women who may be at risk for breast cancer.
I hope it will make you happy to know that in July 2010, the health secretary issued a ruling saying that all newly issued health plans must cover mammograms at no cost for women 40 years of age and older. This was likely in response to the controversy over the guidelines in the ACA.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/10/aca-doesnt-restrict-mammograms/
So there you have it: the portion of Obamacare you were concerned about has been fixed, Women over 40 who want to receive a mammogram can now do so at no cost; their insurance companies are required to cover the entire cost for them.
I hope that settles the issue and brings you some comfort. Unless, of course, you’d now like to argue that mammograms should be covered at no cost for women under 40 as well. :p
Great news, so we can finally put this to rest. I’m glad there was enough pressure brought on the panel to get them to change their mind and do what the overwhelming medical experts advised.
And yes Chris, if a woman’s doctor decides she needs a mammogram then the insurance should pay for it no matter what her age is.
Did you know Chris men get breast cancer too. How would you like to discover a lump in your breast tissue, but because you’re in your 20s or 30s and a man your insurance won’t pay for it. You’d have to be a woman and at least 40 years old.
Better hope you have a couple of hundred dollars to pay out of pocket and start praying it’s not the Big C.
Hum, I wonder if ObamaCare does cover mammograms for men? Does it have an age restriction for prostrate and testicular cancer screening like PSA level test. A girlfriend’s son had testicular cancer when he was in his 30s. Luckily, he’d already had two children.
If you look into it, let me know what you find out.
What I want Chris is for the doctor and patient to decided what medical care is provided based on medical necessity, reasonable compensation, within certain guides established by medical professionals and not insurance companies or a panel of individuals appointed by politician or their staff.
Peggy: “And yes Chris, if a woman’s doctor decides she needs a mammogram then the insurance should pay for it no matter what her age is.”
Great. But you have to understand that this was not the reality before Obamacare. Not all insurance companies had to cover mammograms. Now they do. I’m not asking you to revise your entire opinion on the law, but I hope you can recognize at least this one benefit.
“What I want Chris is for the doctor and patient to decided what medical care is provided based on medical necessity, reasonable compensation, within certain guides established by medical professionals and not insurance companies or a panel of individuals appointed by politician or their staff.”
That’s what I want to, and that’s exactly what Obamacare does. By expanding coverage of many treatments, including mammograms, Obamacare gives people more options to decide things with their doctors than they would have if those options were not covered.
Government isn’t responsive or better. The politics of deception is everywhere. The intention is to grow the size and control of government.
Future of Capitalism:
The original purpose, bastardized by progressives, was to provide a hedge against catastrophic events. It was not intended as a sugar daddy payer for all healthcare needs. Over the years progressive policy reduced insurance to sugar daddy status and instead of paying just for our healthcare services we now must pay for the huge government bureaucracy as well.
There is no reason that MRI’s should still cost in the thousands of dollars. Like big screen TV’s, these machines would come down in price were it not for the stack of third party hands between the patient and the doctor and the politics that muck up the works.
Obamacare will add to the cost of our healthcare by mandating mammograms and many other services that people don’t really need and disallowing others services to save money. This is not Nirvana; the people have been had.
Chris what you and I want could have been accomplished without destroying the whole health care system as we knew it.
There were major issues that both republicans and democrats agree upon, but republicans were locked out of the process, which is in part created the mess we’re in.
Republicans desperately tried to get across state lines purchasing option, agreed to the children under 26 staying on parent’s plan, preexisting conditions and several others.
Why didn’t the democrats allow them to participate in the process to develop a plan that would be acceptable to everyone? The answer is, they already had their plan and they didn’t want republican’s input.
It’s the republicans who are trying to get health care back to being between a patient and their doctor and get gov’t out of the process. So, if you really mean what you say, then you should be supporting the republicans and speaking out against the democrats for wanting gov’t control over everyone’s health and eliminate the panels from the equation.
Peggy, Obamacare is chock full of Republican ideas. The individual mandate is the cornerstone of the law, and that was a Republican idea. PunditFact (a branch of Politifact) has more Republican ideas that ended up in Obamacare:
“Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island was the point man. The bill he introduced, Health Equity and Access Reform Today, (yes, that spells HEART) had a list of 20 co-sponsors that was a who’s who of Republican leadership. There was Minority Leader Bob Dole, R- Kan., Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and many others. There also were two Democratic co-sponsors.
Among other features, the Chafee bill included:
An individual mandate;
Creation of purchasing pools;
Standardized benefits;
Vouchers for the poor to buy insurance;
A ban on denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition.”
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/15/ellen-qualls/aca-gop-health-care-plan-1993/
If the law really had as little respect for Republican input as you claim, then it would have established single payer.
There were some Democrats-only meetings towards the end but by that point it was clear that Republicans had turned against the bill to such a degree that they weren’t going to support anything in it anyway, even if they previously supported it, so what was the point of including them by then? Up until that point Obama took great pains at bipartisanship. It didn’t work–many people who had once supported the individual mandate, including Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, now referred to it as socialism and denied any previous support. In the last presidential election poor Romney had to completely denounce his signature achievement just to appease the conservative base, just because it had caught Obama cooties.
That said, I am glad we are past arguing about basic facts and that we can agree that Obamacare does provide expanded mammogram access, even if we both still think there were better ways of achieving that.
Tina, the high cost of MRIs and a lot of other treatments and procedures has more to do with health centers intentionally overcharging patients through the chargemaster. This is why prices for the same treatments vary so wildly. was exposed in a Time magazine article titled “Bitter Pill” a few years ago. I know you won’t agree, but in my opinion we actually need more regulation and oversight of hospitals to correct this practice.
There is no greater regulator than the public…the consumers! From insurance companies, to doctors and hospitals, to patients demand for inexpensive quality care has been blunted and marginalized.
The law exists to act as a hammer when people fail to morally deliver products and services. Even the effectiveness of this has been blunted by the politics of more regulation.
Tina: “There is no greater regulator than the public…the consumers!”
I’ll concede that this might be true in a market with perfect information, where people are able to shop around before making an informed choice, and healthy competition exists.
But that has never been the case for the healthcare market, and likely never will be; the very nature of the business is fundamentally different from other businesses.
Here is some information on Chargemasters:
“Chargemasters gained national attention in early 2013, when in short succession, there were two important publications made. First, there was a Time magazine cover story published February 20, 2013, titled “Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us”,[3] in which reporter Steven Brill examined the overlooked role that chargemasters played in the American health care system’s cost crisis, asserting that they routinely listed extremely high prices “devoid of any calculation related to cost”, and were generally regarded as “fiction” in the healthcare industry, despite their significant role in setting prices for both insured and uninsured patients alike.[3] Then, a couple months later, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services published inpatient prices for hospitals across the country in a publicly available format.[18]
However, local and national press have addressed hospital pricing periodically over the past 20 years.[citation needed]
“The ‘full charges’ reflected on hospital Charge Masters are unconscionable”, wrote George A. Nation III in a 2005 piece for the Kentucky Law Journal.[19] Health care economist scholar Uwe Reinhardt noted in a 2006 article for Health Affairs that the approach to chargemasters by hospitals would have to be modified to become more transparent, in order to encourage a form of consumer-driven health care to help improve the system.[20] University of California, Berkeley professor of health economics James C. Robinson pointed out prior criticism of the chargemaster, “Much ink has been spilt bemoaning that incomprehensible foundation of hospital cost accounting and prices, the redoubtable chargemaster.”[21] Robinson called for greater transparency as well as increased price standardization as steps to help remedy the situation.[21]
In a 2007 article for Health Affairs, Gerard F. Anderson observed, “Without knowing what services they will use in advance, it is impossible for patients to comparison shop.”[22] Anderson also noted the esoteric nature of the language on the chargemaster made it difficult for patients and anyone other than hospital administrators to understand.[22] Anderson emphasized the difficulty of patients’ ability to interpret the chargemaster in a subsequent 2012 article: “Furthermore, most of the items on the charge master file are written in code so that only the hospital administrators and a few experts in the field can interpret their meanings.”[23]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chargemaster
The chargemasters are clearly abusing our capitalist (not free market; there’s a difference) economy, and the government isn’t doing anything to stop them. In a true democracy, the government IS the public; this practice can only end when we as a society demand more oversight and regulation.
“There is no greater regulator than the public….”
Only recently. Tina, darling, it’s only because of the ACA that we can now find out what various institutions charge for an MRI.
The ACA would have to be the “law” your talking about. Because before the ACA only a carrier could find out (or dictate) what a provider would charge … before the fact.
You’ve really never paid any attention to any of this, have you?
Libby (Sweetheart): “only recently”
Bologna! The government has just taken a greater position between the public and the insurer and the public and the provider…nothing in the ACA gives the power to influence pricing back to the public.
” it’s only because of the ACA that we can now find out what various institutions charge for an MRI.”
Once again, bologna! A simple request for an accounting of services from the provider, and/or request for detailed statement from the insurer, has always been available. The public’s perception of “free stuff” prevents them from asking…or caring.
Besides I was talking about the cost of the machine…the manufactures cost to the doctors and hospitals…you don’t know about or pay much attention to that either.
Also, Medicare, as you once pointed out, is the government standard everyone has been forced to use since its passage in the sixties. That’s government interference in the market. It ensures that costs will go up and remain high.
My comparison to the big screen TV was purposeful. If the government had not gotten involved in healthcare the cost for an MRI machine would have gone down, the price to the consumer made reasonable and doctors and hospitals would be free to provide services as needed and without going broke. Imagine clinics with their own equipment! Time saved and quick answers for the doc so he can offer immediate treatment options (or relieve concerns). This is the future by the way. Hopefully it will be a future free of gross government intrusion.
Th medical field is computers dependent now only because the cost of the computer came down…use your bean.
Tina: “Once again, bologna! A simple request for an accounting of services from the provider, and/or request for detailed statement from the insurer, has always been available.”
But they’re written in such a way as to be utterly incomprehensible to the average consumer, and they’re written that way on purpose.
“Besides I was talking about the cost of the machine…the manufactures cost to the doctors and hospitals…”
Which, as previously noted, usually has very little to do with what hospitals then charge customers.
Chris: “But they’re written in such a way as to be utterly incomprehensible to the average consumer, and they’re written that way on purpose.”
Now that’s rich. who the he77 do you think wrote that language? When the consumer doesn’t know they are being set up to become victims of deception! hello Mr. Gruber, Emperor Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the leadership of the democrat Party that shoved Obamacare through Congress by the same exact method!
And still you think the ACA, a plan that has compounded the confusing regulations and given increased, nearly unlimited power to an unelected body is just wonderful!
It is still possible to obtain an accounting of services that you can understand. Also, medicare issues a statement following any procedure telling the consumer/patient the retail cost, the lowered cost Medicare pays, and the remaining amount you or your supplemental insurer are responsible to pay.
“Which, as previously noted, usually has very little to do with what hospitals then charge customers.”
Once again if that’s true, they do it as a function of increased costs associated with government interference and diktat.
All of our services cost more than they have to as a result of layers of bureaucracy!
Another absurdity is that the laws have made services inequitable depending on status.
Congratulations…your support has ensured future costs will rise dramatically…ans some services will be in short supply or eliminated to keep costs down.
Tina: “Now that’s rich. who the he77 do you think wrote that language?”
The chargemaster, who is a private sector employee, not a government official.
“When the consumer doesn’t know they are being set up to become victims of deception”
Precisely my point.
“And still you think the ACA, a plan that has compounded the confusing regulations and given increased, nearly unlimited power to an unelected body is just wonderful!”
No, I don’t think it does any of that. I think your determination to look for confusion where none exists is precisely why you believed that Obamacare reduced access to mammograms when actually, the law very clearly stated that it expanded it.
“It is still possible to obtain an accounting of services that you can understand. Also, medicare issues a statement following any procedure telling the consumer/patient the retail cost, the lowered cost Medicare pays, and the remaining amount you or your supplemental insurer are responsible to pay.”
How wonderful that this government program does that. However, those of us without Medicare don’t have such transparency.
“Once again if that’s true, they do it as a function of increased costs associated with government interference and diktat.”
You’ve provided no evidence that the capriciousness of chargemasters is caused by government forces. I know that you like to blame government for everything; to a woman with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. But corporate greed is a thing that exists in the real world, and some problems are the result of that.
“Congratulations…your support has ensured future costs will rise dramatically”
So far health costs are down since Obamacare passed. When will these vague “future” results that conservatives always swear are right around the corner materialize?