LINK

 

Remember it was the Dem Speaker that told us they had to pass the bill so they would know what's in it.

"Sebelius complained that "no one fully anticipated" the difficulties involved in implementing ObamaCare, or how confusing it would be with the public."

 

"No one"?????

 

We were all warned over and over again of this situation. Any one who has the even the only basic grasp of the implications of this monster saw this coming.

 

This is just a flat out lie.

 

 

The way all these threads go I assumed it was the Highlands High School secretary when it said HHS.

LINK

 

Remember it was the Dem Speaker that told us they had to pass the bill so they would know what's in it.

Folks, this is just the tip of the iceberg. For those of you heavily involved in youth sports, imagine the complications involved in getting needed X-rays and MRI's that will arise.

Folks, this is just the tip of the iceberg. For those of you heavily involved in youth sports, imagine the complications involved in getting needed X-rays and MRI's that will arise.

 

This is semi-related but under the old plans it was relatively cheap to go get physical therapy and what not (at least while I was in high school). Well my brother broke his ankle and had to go get some of physical therapy sessions and the price had dramatically went up (this is post-implementation of ObamaCare). I'm only assuming that it was caused by ObamaCare as I have never had to read the fine print when it comes to this specific topic. Was this the reason why physical therapy costs have dramatically increased?

As I keep hearing about rising costs under Obamacare, I can't help but wonder why doctors and hospitals would have any complaints. It sounds to me like they are about to get a financial windfall.

The way all these threads go I assumed it was the Highlands High School secretary when it said HHS.

 

That's what I thought also. I curious to see who he or she happened to be.

 

But to get to the topic, it is always the other guys fault. No one in politics ever wants to take responsibility for anything, unless it happens to be positive (but that is a rarity).

As I keep hearing about rising costs under Obamacare, I can't help but wonder why doctors and hospitals would have any complaints. It sounds to me like they are about to get a financial windfall.

 

I assume because they know they'll never see the money.

As I keep hearing about rising costs under Obamacare, I can't help but wonder why doctors and hospitals would have any complaints. It sounds to me like they are about to get a financial windfall.

 

The way I understand it they will also have a huge increase in costs to meet new regulations.

As I keep hearing about rising costs under Obamacare, I can't help but wonder why doctors and hospitals would have any complaints. It sounds to me like they are about to get a financial windfall.

 

Negative. ObamaCare is being "funded" in a large part by a sizable reduction in what providers will be reimbursed by Medicare. Since private companies base their reimbursement schedule on a percentage of what Medicare pays that means reimbursements from all sources will decline. The increased costs you are hearing about is the increased out of pocket expense to people with private insurance that companies are having to pass on in order to pay for all the things that ObamaCare mandates they pay for as well as the increased risk that comes from eliminating the pre-existing condition elimination and the inclusion of older "children" among others.

Negative. ObamaCare is being "funded" in a large part by a sizable reduction in what providers will be reimbursed by Medicare. Since private companies base their reimbursement schedule on a percentage of what Medicare pays that means reimbursements from all sources will decline. The increased costs you are hearing about is the increased out of pocket expense to people with private insurance that companies are having to pass on in order to pay for all the things that ObamaCare mandates they pay for as well as the increased risk that comes from eliminating the pre-existing condition elimination and the inclusion of older "children" among others.

Bingo.

Here is the full quote from Sebelius. She was asked "what had been unexpectedly difficult" about the implementation of the law.

 

I think that probably no one fully anticipated when you have a law that phases in over time how much confusion that creates for a lot of people. So, that has been difficult. When the law was signed and people immediately did not get affordable health insurance, they were surprised and a lot were disappointed but now understand that this is a gradual phase-in and the full implementation won’t be until 2014. The second thing that probably has been more difficult is just the politics. It has just been relentless and continuous. And I would say I think there was some hope that once the Supreme Court ruled in July and then once an election occurred there would be a sense that this is the law of the land “let’s get on board, let’s make this work” and yet we find ourselves still having state by state political battles. And again creating what I think is just a lot of confusion. It’s very difficult when people live in a state where there’s a daily declaration that “we will not participate in the law” for them to figure out whether or not there are any benefits that they will actually have a right to access.

 

I find nothing controversial about that. The article shamelessly manipulates this quote (by largely omitting it) to claim she made conclusions that were clearly not made here.

 

A Conversation with Kathleen Sebelius | The Forum at Harvard School of Public Health

Here is the full quote from Sebelius. She was asked "what had been unexpectedly difficult" about the implementation of the law.

 

I think that probably no one fully anticipated when you have a law that phases in over time how much confusion that creates for a lot of people. So, that has been difficult. When the law was signed and people immediately did not get affordable health insurance, they were surprised and a lot were disappointed but now understand that this is a gradual phase-in and the full implementation won’t be until 2014. The second thing that probably has been more difficult is just the politics. It has just been relentless and continuous. And I would say I think there was some hope that once the Supreme Court ruled in July and then once an election occurred there would be a sense that this is the law of the land “let’s get on board, let’s make this work” and yet we find ourselves still having state by state political battles. And again creating what I think is just a lot of confusion. It’s very difficult when people live in a state where there’s a daily declaration that “we will not participate in the law” for them to figure out whether or not there are any benefits that they will actually have a right to access.

 

I find nothing controversial about that. The article shamelessly manipulates this quote (by largely omitting it) to claim she made conclusions that were clearly not made here.

 

A Conversation with Kathleen Sebelius | The Forum at Harvard School of Public Health

 

I think that probably no one fully anticipated when you have a law that phases in over time how much confusion that creates for a lot of people.

 

I will stand by previous post in this thread on the bolded. They were warned and they attacked those who warned. There were plenty of Cassandras that easily anticipated this.

 

 

 

The second thing that probably has been more difficult is just the politics. It has just been relentless and continuous.

 

She needs some cheese to go with that whine. The entire action was political in nature when it was passed using non-standard processes. Why would the politics go away?

 

It’s very difficult when people live in a state where there’s a daily declaration that “we will not participate in the law” for them to figure out whether or not there are any benefits that they will actually have a right to access.

 

Your law created this confusion. Fix it.

 

 

Controversial? Not really. Just 1 blatant lie and lots of whining.

I think that probably no one fully anticipated when you have a law that phases in over time how much confusion that creates for a lot of people.

 

I will stand by previous post in this thread on the bolded. They were warned and they attacked those who warned. There were plenty of Cassandras that easily anticipated this.

 

 

 

The second thing that probably has been more difficult is just the politics. It has just been relentless and continuous.

 

She needs some cheese to go with that whine. The entire action was political in nature when it was passed using non-standard processes. Why would the politics go away?

 

It’s very difficult when people live in a state where there’s a daily declaration that “we will not participate in the law” for them to figure out whether or not there are any benefits that they will actually have a right to access.

 

Your law created this confusion. Fix it.

 

 

Controversial? Not really. Just 1 blatant lie and lots of whining.

 

I remember plenty of the criticisms of the law, but I don't remember any being worries that citizens would expect benefits the day it was signed rather than after the staggered implementation dates, which is what she said. It was a fairly bland answer. You can link to those criticisms here if you want, though. I'd be curious to read them.

 

As to her other point, she's entirely accurate.

I remember plenty of the criticisms of the law, but I don't remember any being worries that citizens would expect benefits the day it was signed rather than after the staggered implementation dates, which is what she said. It was a fairly bland answer. You can link to those criticisms here if you want, though. I'd be curious to read them.

 

As to her other point, she's entirely accurate.

The word "Politburo" comes to mind.........