Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Obamacare / Healthcare Reform - News & Discussion

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Obamacare / Healthcare Reform – News & Discussion

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 1,426 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #379182

    Tenzo
    Participant

    Facts are so annoying and here is another fail. Residency is limited to 80hrs / wk in accredited programs. There are other misleading aspects and errors in there too.

    The limit of 80 hours applies to scheduled work hours.
    In excess of that is, prep time, writing reports that must be done before leaving, lectures, training, research; all part of the job.

    Is there someone on here who works a 40 hour a week job and really does 40 hours a week?

    90-100 hours is a conservative estimate. There are some residency programs, like Penn, that are notorious for exceeding that (in some cases they are proud of it). And they acknowledge it.

    Forty-three percent reported working more than 80 hours weekly

    #379183

    jimbach
    Participant

    If you feel the need to blame a Democrat for this, blame Clinton.

    #379184

    myliftkk
    Participant

    Tenzo wrote >>

    Facts are so annoying and here is another fail. Residency is limited to 80hrs / wk in accredited programs. There are other misleading aspects and errors in there too.

    The limit of 80 hours applies to scheduled work hours.
    In excess of that is, prep time, writing reports that must be done before leaving, lectures, training, research; all part of the job.
    Is there someone on here who works a 40 hour a week job and really does 40 hours a week?
    90-100 hours is a conservative estimate. There are some residency programs, like Penn, that are notorious for exceeding that (in some cases they are proud of it). And they acknowledge it.

    Forty-three percent reported working more than 80 hours weekly

    All of which has absolutely no relation to HCR as it is written.

    If you’re suggesting that they should have passed a lower upper bound on residency hours, my suggestion is you take your complaint to the slave drivers that use residents as indentured servants or lobby congress to pass a bill to tighten residency regulations.

    #379185

    Tenzo
    Participant

    Sweeping changes that occur during the legislation are often attributed to the president, even if he tried to veto it. But your argument still doesn’t hold water as I have not said it was the president.

    My point was that the healthcare reform (which is nicknamed Obamacare) is seriously flawed. It has nothing to do with a single Republican or Democrat or anyone else you have a knee jerk reaction to.

    All of which has absolutely no relation to HCR as it is written.

    It is still part of the current HCR. whether it was in the original bill or an action or inaction taken along with it. You can’t have 8 separate actions that result in health care reform and say; “it isn’t so, it’s not here in action #2.”

    #379186

    Andrew Hall
    Member

    Tenzo wrote It is still part of the current HCR. whether it was in the original bill or an action or inaction taken along with it.

    None of these items are part of the “original bill.” NONE. There is no original bill here either as these items are unconnected. The Medicare payment issue is from legislation in 1997. The residency deferral is from education finance reform of during W’s presidency.

    Do the honorable thing, swallow your pride and admit you are wrong.

    A.

    #379187

    Tenzo
    Participant

    Medicare payment issue is from legislation in 1997.

    That was acted or inacted upon just recently. You’re not going to read my citations, are you?

    #379188

    myliftkk
    Participant

    Tenzo wrote >>
    Sweeping changes that occur during the legislation are often attributed to the president, even if he tried to veto it. But your argumesnt still doesn’t hold water as I have not said it was the president.
    My point was that the healthcare reform (which is nicknamed Obamacare) is seriously flawed. It has nothing to do with a single Republican or Democrat or anyone else you have a knee jerk reaction to.

    Your point was/is pointless…

    I however, will point out that you attributed these changes to the president when you titled your post (unless you were using ihateobamarandomposttitlegenerator.com). Andrew’s given you plenty of chances to walk back your factually challenged narrative, but you’ve dug in like the dark ages church over the heliocentric theory. Fortunately for the rest of us, the only thing seriously flawed in this thread is your argument.

    #379189

    SusanB
    Participant

    As that is policy was set up in 1997 shouldn’t the title of this thread be “Welcome to the End (hopefully) of the OLD (Bush, Clinton, whomever) Healthcare Policies”? Just saying.

    #379190

    Andrew Hall
    Member

    Tenzo wrote >>

    Medicare payment issue is from legislation in 1997.

    That was acted or inacted upon just recently. You’re not going to read my citations, are you?

    I deal with this on a material basis (not Internet wankery) on a daily basis and have done so entirely too many times in the past. The pissfest in Congress is and was exactly that and has little to do with the substance of the issue.

    In this case, it is Medicare payments that are being affected by a process perfectly enacted in an early Simpson’s episode (electrical shocks at the therapist’s).

    A.

    #379191
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    SusanB wrote >>
    As that is policy was set up in 1997 shouldn’t the title of this thread be “Welcome to the End (hopefully) of the OLD (Bush, Clinton, whomever) Healthcare Policies”? Just saying.

    Looks like one big tar ball to me.

    #379192

    howatzer
    Participant

    So – next year’s premiums at my workplace will undergo their single largest increase in history, with major increases in out-of-pocket as well.

    In the letter from the provider and employer, this increase is directly attributable to “recent changes in the federal regulations”, but I’m sure they’re just lying and it’s all profit-driven. I mean, those regulations were supposed to lower costs, right? I mean, I never read the bill so I don’t know…

    Just what we need to get the economy going.

    #379193

    myliftkk
    Participant

    howatzer said:
    So – next year’s premiums at my workplace will undergo their single largest increase in history, with major increases in out-of-pocket as well.

    In the letter from the provider and employer, this increase is directly attributable to “recent changes in the federal regulations”, but I’m sure they’re just lying and it’s all profit-driven. I mean, those regulations were supposed to lower costs, right? I mean, I never read the bill so I don’t know…

    Just what we need to get the economy going.

    You’re right about it being profit driven. Large providers (healthcare, not insurance providers) are squeezing insurance companies for more reimbursement, who in turn squeeze you via HR.

    Ours haven’t gone up much each year, primarily cause we own our own insurance company, hence we control both sides of the coin (healthcare and insurance), so there’s no reason to extract huge amounts from one side of the organization to reimburse the other side. Nifty gig if you can get it.

    As for federal regs, there’s always “federal regs” that are being recently changed when it comes to healthcare (often having more to do with bills passed decades ago, or nothing to do with new bills period).

    #379194

    howatzer
    Participant

    myliftkk said:
    You’re right about it being profit driven. Large providers (healthcare, not insurance providers) are squeezing insurance companies for more reimbursement, who in turn squeeze you via HR.

    Ours haven’t gone up much each year, primarily cause we own our own insurance company, hence we control both sides of the coin (healthcare and insurance), so there’s no reason to extract huge amounts from one side of the organization to reimburse the other side. Nifty gig if you can get it.

    As for federal regs, there’s always “federal regs” that are being recently changed when it comes to healthcare (often having more to do with bills passed decades ago, or nothing to do with new bills period).

    So this doesn’t have anything to do with my insurance company having to extend coverage to folks with preexisting conditions and to employee’s 26 year old kids? Seems like that might incur some extra costs for them that they’d pass on to me.

    #379195

    kit444
    Participant

    My insurance rates didn’t go up at all this year, for the first time that I can remember. Does that balance out that anecdotal evidence or is this simply an exercise of confirmation bias?

    #379196

    bman
    Participant

    kit444 said:
    My insurance rates didn’t go up at all this year, for the first time that I can remember. Does that balance out that anecdotal evidence or is this simply an exercise of confirmation bias?

    Ours did not go up either … I work for a fortune 10 company and they said they were in a wait and see mode this year and would hold our costs for the year.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 1,426 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.