U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Ausr]

Security cameras tend to be critical components in the arrest process, especially if the criminal in question has been getting away with it thus far. Case in point. But god knows, the only thing obamacare should get "credit" for it is jacking up our prices/taxes, right?

Yeah because the prices were totally low and very affordable before Obamacare made everything thousands of dollars more. But hey, would love to see the evidence.

[belfpala]

Yeah because the prices were totally low and very affordable before Obamacare made everything thousands of dollars more. But hey, would love to see the evidence.

Yes, please.

[Spectral]

HHS is saying that Obamacare anti fraud provisions were a major part of it.

Sebelius also stated that over the counter Plan B was being held up because of medical concerns. She was very clearly lying for political reasons there, which makes me disinclined to believe her any time there's a political motive that seems obvious (like here).

[Wells]

Sebelius also stated that over the counter Plan B was being held up because of medical concerns. She was very clearly lying for political reasons there, which makes me disinclined to believe her any time there's a political motive that seems obvious (like here).

Obamacare does contain provisions to deal with medicare fraud.

[Spectral]

Obamacare does contain provisions to deal with medicare fraud.

That's fine, I'm not saying that the ACA wasn't relevant in this case, just that I'm disinclined to take Sebelius's word for it.

[KingHorse]

Obamacare does contain provisions to deal with medicare fraud.

Was one of those provisions used in this case? Is said provision made redundant by laws already on the books?

By the way, it's pretty hard to declare a bill top-to-bottom horrible. This one is no exception. Some of it is good. In fact a large part of it is. The individual mandate in particular is fucking terrible.

[Wells]

What I find interesting here is that it was all supplier side, which is where most of the fraud probably is, but has been under pursued.

[Felya]

What I find interesting here is that it was all supplier side, which is where most of the fraud probably is, but has been under pursued.

Which if you think about is the same problem as immigration. We tackle the many individuals, instead of the few that hire them.

[Wells]

A big part of the problem was the lack of resources for going after providers, which I know Obamacare expanded. I'll do some digging later.

[Spectral]

This still feels like treating a symptom rather than the problem. The fraud frequently comes as a result of the profit motive on the part of the providers. What's the solution to that? Well, one would think a single payer system that cuts out this motive. What do we do instead? Spend money attempting to suppress that fraud. Really, this is just building in a fair amount of inefficiency into the system and accepting that it's so. I don't like that much.

I realize an actual single payer system wasn't a a politically feasible option.

[Felya]

This still feels like treating a symptom rather than the problem. The fraud frequently comes as a result of the profit motive on the part of the providers. What's the solution to that? Well, one would think a single payer system that cuts out this motive. What do we do instead? Spend money attempting to suppress that fraud. Really, this is just building in a fair amount of inefficiency into the system and accepting that it's so. I don't like that much.

I realize an actual single payer system wasn't a a politically feasible option.

That's the crux of the problem with Nixoncare and the voucher program. Between those motive lines, is the fact that those people who are not profitable, fall through the cracks and become strain on the state. Be it Medicare or emergency rooms, the people insurance turn down now and will turn down in an optional voucher system, become the responsobility of the state. Making insurance accept everyone, would mean that price of insurance has to go up to remain profitable. Obamacare's solution is the mandatax, I have yet to hear Romney's, which leads me to believe those who have insurance now or the tax payer will cover the cost.

[obdigore]

That's the crux of the problem with Nixoncare and the voucher program. Between those motive lines, is the fact that those people who are not profitable, fall through the cracks and become strain on the state. Be it Medicare or emergency rooms, the people insurance turn down now and will turn down in an optional voucher system, become the responsobility of the state. Making insurance accept everyone, would mean that price of insurance has to go up to remain profitable. Obamacare's solution is the mandatax, I have yet to hear Romney's, which leads me to believe those who have insurance now or the tax payer will cover the cost.

Romneys solution is, as far as I can tell, to remove all the parts of the ACA that actually pay for anything, then he gets to say 'see! The ACA is costing us trillions!!!!!!' and beg congress to repeal it. Maybe I'm too cynical.

[Felya]

A big part of the problem was the lack of resources for going after providers, which I know Obamacare expanded. I'll do some digging later.

Don't mean to step on your toes, but I finally have time to talk shit here.

This is what I found:

http://www.boomerstakestock.com/2012...fraud-victims/
ObamaCare sets aside $350 million to combat Medicare fraud.* HHS was given authority to hire contractors (paid on a commission basis) to use automated analytics and data mining to detect fraud.* The PPACA also increases the HHS Department’s ability to suspend suspicious payments until an investigation is complete.

This authority for automated analytics and data mining seem to be referenced directly by HHS Secretary here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/1...e-fraud-scheme

---------- Post added 2012-10-08 at 03:52 AM ----------

Romneys solution is, as far as I can tell, to remove all the parts of the ACA that actually pay for anything, then he gets to say 'see! The ACA is costing us trillions!!!!!!' and beg congress to repeal it. Maybe I'm too cynical.

Currently, Medicare and Medicaid, provide people over 65 and/or desabled and/or poor with a barrier from Nixoncare. What the voucher system does is push Nixoncare onto those people. Without astronomically increasing prices, insurance companies cannot turn a profit off those people. The optional in optional vauchers is extremely deceptive, because you have no option if insurance turns you down. This means that only the most expensive patients will remain on the tax payer. It takes away those who contribute more to the system than they cost, leaving the federal programs only with those who cost more than they put in.

This is why Romney needs to explain how everyone will be covered under his plan. Because otherwise, it seems like those who already have insurance will need to pay more to cover the unprofitables, but also still have those who don't have insurance be a strain through at least emergency rooms. It's making things more expansive on the state level and those who are already insured, but I guess it doesn't increase federal.......

[Wells]

This still feels like treating a symptom rather than the problem. The fraud frequently comes as a result of the profit motive on the part of the providers. What's the solution to that? Well, one would think a single payer system that cuts out this motive. What do we do instead? Spend money attempting to suppress that fraud. Really, this is just building in a fair amount of inefficiency into the system and accepting that it's so. I don't like that much.

I realize an actual single payer system wasn't a a politically feasible option.

Well any system is going to need some measures to counter act fraud. The important thing to do is make sure we're not spending more money going after it than we save. I think if we can grab 500 million in fraud there is some room to work.

[Ausr]

Yes, please.

Hm, hope you weren't expecting anything from me. I should've made the sarcasm more obvious.

[Slammin Shaman]

Word on the street is the Mittens is giving his foreign policy speech right now and he said "The President has not signed a new free trade agreement in four years. I will reverse this mistake." Quick! Fact check!

[cubby]

Word on the street is the Mittens is giving his foreign policy speech right now and he said "The President has not signed a new free trade agreement in four years. I will reverse this mistake." Quick! Fact check!

Didn't we sign one with South Korea like last year?

[Dakia]

Didn't we sign one with South Korea like last year?

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.UHMLFU3A_CQ

South Korea, Panama, and Columbia

I just scanned the story and I don't think it said that those were signed, but that they were due to be signed.

I'm not sure if Romney meant free trade agreements in general or something having to do with NAFTA.

[Lenonis]

Do both republicans and democrats want free trade agreements? I thought there was a fair number of people who think they are a bad idea?

[Deleted]

Do both republicans and democrats want free trade agreements? I thought there was a fair number of people who think they are a bad idea?

I think it generally depends on what sort of "free trade agreements" they are and what industries are affected. Somethimes they're more like "controlled trade".