Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
McCain speaks against another plan of obstructionism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GarfieldJL" data-source="post: 63699066" data-attributes="member: 320660"><p>Considering the number of new regulations that insurance companies among others will have to deal with in the healthcare industy is somehow going to have less financial costs to deal with is rather laughable, but then I've noticed a lot of media outlets have put partisanship over credibility these last 6 years.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p><em>November 1, 2011 &#8212; Physicians have gotten a few laughs from the new and voluminous set of diagnostic codes known as ICD-10, which distinguishes between being struck by a duck (W6162XA) and being bitten by a duck (W6161XA).</em></p><p> </p><p><em>A new study by the healthcare research firm KLAS, however, suggests that physicians and other providers need to take ICD-10, more seriously. Only 9% of providers are more than halfway through the needed preparations to switch from the ICD-9 code set to the new one by the federal deadline of October 1, 2013. The rest, said study author Graham Triggs, are still in the early stage of doing their homework.</em></p><p><a href="http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/752755" target="_blank">http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/752755</a></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>If you did your research, you'd find politifact is not as truthful as you'd like to believe.</p><p> </p><p>From the New York Times:</p><p><em>WE need death panels. </em></p><p> </p><p><em>Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently &#8212; rationing, by its proper name &#8212; the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget. </em></p><p> </p><p><em>But in the pantheon of toxic issues &#8212; the famous &#8220;third rails&#8221; of American politics &#8212; none stands taller than overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical. </em></p><p> </p><p><em>Most notably, President Obama&#8217;s estimable Affordable Care Act regrettably includes severe restrictions on any reduction in Medicare services or increase in fees to beneficiaries. In 2009, Sarah Palin&#8217;s rant about death panels even forced elimination from the bill of a provision to offer end-of-life consultations. </em></p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=3&" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=3&</a></p><p> </p><p>To give you an idea of whom the author is:</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Rattner" target="_blank">Steven Rattner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a></p><p> </p><p>If Americans knew the truth, the opposition to Obamacare would be even larger than it already is, but then maybe that's why Paul Krugman was worried about getting in trouble:</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9u2Lf0DdzA#at=49" target="_blank">Krugman: "Death panels and sales taxes is how we do this" - YouTube</a></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Nope, if Scott Brown was able to have a say in this Obamacare would never have passed due to the fillabuster rules in the United States Senate, especially since he partially won the seat campaigning AGAINST Obamacare.</p><p> </p><p>No doubt they are fault for implementation a plan that is essentially has been long the idea of conservatives. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>You mean the piece of Democrat legislation that attempted to Nationalize Healthcare in the United States.</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Health_Care_Act" target="_blank">United States National Health Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a></p><p> </p><p>So in other words you admitted that Obamacare was never intended to work and is in reality designed to destroy private health insurance in order to bring about government controlled healthcare... Congratulations you just handed me victory on a silver platter. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/kawaii.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="^_^" title="Kawaii ^_^" data-shortname="^_^" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GarfieldJL, post: 63699066, member: 320660"] Considering the number of new regulations that insurance companies among others will have to deal with in the healthcare industy is somehow going to have less financial costs to deal with is rather laughable, but then I've noticed a lot of media outlets have put partisanship over credibility these last 6 years. [I]November 1, 2011 — Physicians have gotten a few laughs from the new and voluminous set of diagnostic codes known as ICD-10, which distinguishes between being struck by a duck (W6162XA) and being bitten by a duck (W6161XA).[/I] [I]A new study by the healthcare research firm KLAS, however, suggests that physicians and other providers need to take ICD-10, more seriously. Only 9% of providers are more than halfway through the needed preparations to switch from the ICD-9 code set to the new one by the federal deadline of October 1, 2013. The rest, said study author Graham Triggs, are still in the early stage of doing their homework.[/I] [URL]http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/752755[/URL] If you did your research, you'd find politifact is not as truthful as you'd like to believe. From the New York Times: [I]WE need death panels. [/I] [I]Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget. [/I] [I]But in the pantheon of toxic issues — the famous “third rails” of American politics — none stands taller than overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical. [/I] [I]Most notably, President Obama’s estimable Affordable Care Act regrettably includes severe restrictions on any reduction in Medicare services or increase in fees to beneficiaries. In 2009, Sarah Palin’s rant about death panels even forced elimination from the bill of a provision to offer end-of-life consultations. [/I] [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=3&[/URL] To give you an idea of whom the author is: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Rattner"]Steven Rattner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL] If Americans knew the truth, the opposition to Obamacare would be even larger than it already is, but then maybe that's why Paul Krugman was worried about getting in trouble: [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9u2Lf0DdzA#at=49"]Krugman: "Death panels and sales taxes is how we do this" - YouTube[/URL] Nope, if Scott Brown was able to have a say in this Obamacare would never have passed due to the fillabuster rules in the United States Senate, especially since he partially won the seat campaigning AGAINST Obamacare. No doubt they are fault for implementation a plan that is essentially has been long the idea of conservatives. You mean the piece of Democrat legislation that attempted to Nationalize Healthcare in the United States. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Health_Care_Act"]United States National Health Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL] So in other words you admitted that Obamacare was never intended to work and is in reality designed to destroy private health insurance in order to bring about government controlled healthcare... Congratulations you just handed me victory on a silver platter. ^_^ [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
McCain speaks against another plan of obstructionism
Top
Bottom