• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo

Was the court's decision correct?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 36.0%

  • No

    Votes: 13 52.0%

  • Don't know / Not sure

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • Total voters
    25
minnie616 said:
Except we never had the IPAB and since congress has already gutted the funding for it we most likely will never have the IPAB.

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20140124/NEWS/301249973

I find it pretty laughable :lol: you are still trying to derail this thread with a non existent board.
Click to expand...

And that is a good thing...However, with repub leadership, (an oxymoron to be sure) goes along with total and unquestioned funding of the ACA, against the wishes of the people that elected them, this will ultimately be a reality when the ultimate goal of the ACA is realized in Universal Health Care...And at this point, they might as well...Since the ACA, my wife can no longer be on MY health insurance through work, and as a result our premium payments doubled since she has to have her own, plus her deductible went to $3k per year, that includes paying out of pocket 100% of her doctors visit costs until that $3k is met....We are middle class people, with not a lot of money left over after bills, so what this has meant for her is that she no longer will go to the doctor until something is possibly dangerous to her life, or until what ever the problem is, is advanced....How is this better?
 
j-mac said:
And that is a good thing...However, with repub leadership, (an oxymoron to be sure) goes along with total and unquestioned funding of the ACA, against the wishes of the people that elected them, this will ultimately be a reality when the ultimate goal of the ACA is realized in Universal Health Care...And at this point, they might as well...Since the ACA, my wife can no longer be on MY health insurance through work, and as a result our premium payments doubled since she has to have her own, plus her deductible went to $3k per year, that includes paying out of pocket 100% of her doctors visit costs until that $3k is met....We are middle class people, with not a lot of money left over after bills, so what this has meant for her is that she no longer will go to the doctor until something is possibly dangerous to her life, or until what ever the problem is, is advanced....How is this better?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry your wife is no longer able to be on health insurance through work .
However, that was your employers choice.
My husband is self employed and a small business owner. His pays for employees ( under 50 ) and the spouses are children are allowed to be on the plan.

I know insurance is expensive and ours has increased by leaps and bounds in the last 40 years but the upwards cost is starting to slow down.

From the article I linked.

Total Medicare spending per enrollee grew just 0.7% in 2012, even slower than the 2.5% growth rate in 2011, economists in the CMS Office of the Actuary reported this month. ( 2014)
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
I'm sorry your wife is no longer able to be on health insurance through work .
However, that was your employers choice.
My husband is self employed and a small business owner. His pays for employees ( under 50 ) and the spouses are children are allowed to be on the plan.

I know insurance is expensive and ours has increased by leaps and bounds in the last 40 years but the upwards cost is starting to slow down.
Click to expand...

So, is this what we were promised? I'd say no, by a long shot.
 
j-mac said:
So, is this what we were promised? I'd say no, by a long shot.
Click to expand...

That's what I read.
That the rate of healthcare costs would slow down.

And it seems to be starting slow down.



Update from this article:
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) first estimated GDP growth for the first quarter of 2014 to be 0.1 percent on an annualized basis. Then a revised second estimate was made, which indicated a decline in GDP of 1.0 percent on an annualized basis. Finally, on June 25 a second and final revised estimate of a 2.9 percent decrease on an annualized basis was released.
While revisions to initial estimates of GDP growth are not uncommon, one aspect of this second revision was, indeed, uncommon. Nearly two-thirds of the second downward revision (1.2 of the 1.9 percent) was attributed to health care spending being substantially lower in the first quarter of 2014 than was originally forecasted by the BEA.
Click to expand...

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/...-term-and-policy-targets-should-reflect-this/

From this article:

National health spending will increase modestly over the next decade, propelled in part by the gradual rebound of the U.S. economy and the growing ranks of Americans who became insured under the health law, government actuaries projected Wednesday.

But those growth rates are not as high as what the country saw for the two decades before the Great Recession crippled the U.S. economy at the end of 2007, according to the report from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Office of the Actuary and published in the journal Health Affairs.

The actuaries estimate that health spending grew just 3.6 percent in 2013, the fifth year of historically low rates of spending growth. But it will accelerate to 5.6 percent in 2014. They also forecast that the average growth rate for 2015-2023 would be 6 percent. That is up just slightly from last year.
Click to expand...

http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/health-costs-inflation-cms-report/
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
That's what I read.
That the rate of healthcare costs would slow down.

And it seems to be starting slow down.



Update from this article:


Slow Health Care Spending Growth Moderates GDP Growth In The Short Term And Policy Targets Should Reflect This – Health Affairs Blog

From this article:



Health Care Spending Forecast To Increase Modestly In Next Decade | Kaiser Health News
Click to expand...

For who? I like many American's take my personal situation with me into the voting booth, and just like this last election, we all spoke loudly...STOP THIS INSANE TAKE OVER OF OUR HEALTH CARE. And I apologize if I don't take the word of those involved in backing this take over from the beginning....So, there you go. We can't trust reporting on this, we can't trust news outlets on this, and we can't trust our politicians on this, so what are we left with? Our own experiences, and so far I would say it is failing....

Now, was that the plan from the start? Many think so...And if it is, and our government is going to do it anyway, then get on with it I say....What is the need to make people like me go bankrupt before they act?
 
minnie616 said:
Except we never had the IPAB and since congress has already gutted the funding for it we most likely will never have the IPAB.
Click to expand...

Which is fantastic, unfortunately, all I see in your article is that it passed the House last year, not that it passed the Senate or was signed by the President?

you are still trying to derail this thread with a non existent board.
Click to expand...

Not at all - when it comes to the matter of whether or not we want government impacting these decisions, discussion of the IPAB is relevant.
 
danarhea said:
In essence, the government is confining a 17 year old girl in a hospital room, and forcing her to undergo chemotherapy. With the chemo, she has an 85 percent chance of a cure. Without the chemo, she will likely be dead within 2 years.

I have posted a poll with this thread, since I would like to know what everybody thinks of this. This is a very tough issue. Does the government have a right to mandate a life and death decision when the wrong choice is probably death? What about for adults? What about for children? Does the government have the right to take over a parenting function from the parent in some circumstances? Is the government acting in the child's interest, or is the government going overboard? Is this big government at work, or should government be a little big at times? There are a lot of angles to this issue, and I would like to hear as many as possible.

Thank you.

Article is here.
Click to expand...
I do not know.If I knew what stage of cancer she has then I can clearly vote yes or no.Because depending on the stage of cancer she could be going through that treatment only just to live another year or two and if that is the case then she should decide if she wants to spend her last few years of life going through a hazardous treatment. If her cancer is caught early enough then she can possibly live a full life and I would vote yes in that case.
 
j-mac said:
Instead of trying to loose the effects of O-care on today's middle class, why don't we focus on what has taken place since its start....

Now There Can Be No Doubt: Obamacare Has Increased Non-Group Premiums In Nearly All States - Forbes
Click to expand...

Of course costs have gone for non group health insurance.

Our health insurance is non group since my hubby does not have enough employees to get group insurance.
The insurance costs have been going up for 40 years.

Many people who have had health insurance through their employers did not notice until this past decade because employers use to pay the whole cost or the majority cost of the health insurance for their employes but in the last decade more and more employers are asking their employees to share the cost of the insurance.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Which is fantastic, unfortunately, all I see in your article is that it passed the House last year, not that it passed the Senate or was signed by the President?



Not at all - when it comes to the matter of whether or not we want government impacting these decisions, discussion of the IPAB is relevant.
Click to expand...

From a January 2015 article:

When the ACA passed, it looked like IPAB would have plenty to do. Medicare costs had exceeded IPAB’s spending thresholds in 21 of the previous 25 years. The Congressional Budget Office projected that the panel would save $15.5 billion over 10 years.

Then three things happened.

First, Senate Republicans made it clear they would filibuster any IPAB appointees, who need Senate confirmation.

Second, even after the Senate changed its rules to require only 51 votes to confirm presidential appointees, the President never nominated any IPAB members.

Third, it turned out IPAB wasn’t needed, which is likely why the President decided not to expend any political capital trying to create it.

Medicare spending growth has, quite unexpectedly, slowed dramatically over the past several years, staying under IPAB’s thresholds. As the exhibit below shows, per-beneficiary Medicare spending is not currently projected to exceed the IPAB thresholds until 2022.
Click to expand...

To see exhibit per beneficiary see link:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/blog/2015/jan/ipab-ditching-the-dog
 
cpwill said:
So yes, in fact, it is still in the law, and hasn't been repealed.
Click to expand...

And the President and Democrats will give up that dog that didn't bite in a compromise and the GOP can claim victory.
 
minnie616 said:
And the President and Democrats will give up that dog that didn't bite in a compromise and the GOP can claim victory.
Click to expand...

:shrug: let's hope so, but I doubt it.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: let's hope so, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Well , compromise would involve the GOP giving up something they wanted so perhaps you are right to doubt it but still
the IPAB can be a good bargaining chip for the President and the Democrats since the IPAB in all likelihood is already toast.
 
minnie616 said:
Well , compromise would involve the GOP giving up something they wanted so perhaps you are right to doubt it but still
the IPAB can be a good bargaining chip for the President and the Democrats since the IPAB in all likelihood is already toast.
Click to expand...
When will obama give up something? I dont see it. All I hear is veto threats.
 
j-mac said:
When will obama give up something? I dont see it. All I hear is veto threats.
Click to expand...

Watch and see. The IPAB will be offered/used as a bargaining chip in a political compromise/attempted compromise.
 
And it starts:

The panel that never was appointed ....the panel that is no longer and never was needed...the panel that is already "toast"....

From a January 8, 2015 entry to Senator Cornyn's blog

Senator Cornyn Bill Would Eliminate Obamacare’s IPAB
By John Cornyn

Obamacare is a terribly misguided and fundamentally flawed law that is negatively impacting Texans and Americans across the country. This bill tackles one of the law’s most egregious flaws and starts the process of putting health care decisions back in the hands of patients. Seniors and their families deserve to be in control of their health care decisions, not at the mercy of a board of unelected bureaucrats who think they know best.
Click to expand...

By John Cornyn at Jan 9, 2015 9:31 AM
Posted under: Stop Big Government United States Obamacare 114th Congress

- See more at: Senator Cornyn Bill Would Eliminate Obamacare

The Senator is trying to make it appear that the elimination of the IPAB will actually hurt/eliminate the ACA

Too funny :lol:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom