Uncle Sam's Plantation

[ImWithStupid]

Hugo and IWS already posted the proof and you pretend to not see their posts, so why waste my time trying to post something you will refuse to see?

BLAH BLAH BLAH & More hot air & typical TJ drone talk bullshit to just ignore & don't read...........

Docket#, Line, page?

Until shown, they showed NO PROOF, sorry, you lose.
.
.

http://Off Topic Forum.com/top...519#entry112519

Is the Obama HHS lying?

 

[phreakwars]

Docket#, Line, page?

Until shown, NO PROOF, sorry, try again.
.
.

 

[ImWithStupid]

Docket#, Line, page?

Until shown, NO PROOF, sorry, try again.
.
.

View attachment 2757

 

[phreakwars]

Your silly illustrations are still not proof. Your inability to show proof only proves it to be nothing but theory and speculation..
.
.

 

[timesjoke]

Your silly illustrations are still not proof. Your inability to show proof only proves it to be nothing but theory and speculation..
.
.

You won't even believe the HHS Bender, there is no level of proof you will ever accept. Just like when you always claimed the Republicans never offered alternative ideas, IWS would post new idea after idea and you always pretended to never see a single thing. IWS posted the picture above to illustrate how you live your life, you bury your head in the sand of progressives/liberals/socialists and you will never let yourself be exposed to anything that does not conform to your agenda or makes your agenda look bad.


The decision is not whether or not we will ration care, he told an interviewer according to the Associated Press. "The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly." ~ Donald Berwick



By the way, you still dodged the question about WHY Obama gavce a big tax break to only Union workers at the expence of underfunding his healthcare bill that was supposed to be for all Americans, especially the poor who could not afford health insurance.


Why did he do that Bender?

You can't bring yourself to admit that was a pure political thank-you for their support to get him elected can you Bender?

 

[timesjoke]

Of course not. It's all part of the new trend in "white oppression" that's hit America.

Were being indoctrinated, the Dr.'s are being told what to do, this horror, that horror, ohhh how the people are being oppressed and need to take their country back.... whoaaa is me a black man's in office, and all that.
.
.

To be honest I was not going to reply to this but I changed my mind, why is it the race card is always played any time the progressives can't give good reasons for what they do?


It is like my question to Bender that he refuses to answer, why did Obama give such a massive gift to Unions to exempt them from the new healthcare taxes?



The progressives do all this crazy stuff and after they do it, they pretend it never happened then begin a series of blocking moves and distractions to take attention away from what they did. The problem is their tactica have been so overused that the masses are starting to catch on so when all else failes, play the race card....right Bender?


I mean, you know that the same objections were made against the Government taking over healthcare back when the "white" Clintons tried to get it passed, so any thinking individual can know that opposition now is not based in race, but being honest would not supply you progressives with the cover you need now would it?


Now your back to the ostrich thing, you got your head in the sand and even with Obama ofdficials and the HHS all saying they will be using panels to determine medical treatments and reimbursement rates for doctors to control those doctors, you cover your eyes and plug your ears screaming "la, la, la, la I can't hear you....."


Funny stuff.

 

[phreakwars]

there is no level of proof you will ever accept

I will accept Docket#, page, and line number, no less.

Can I make up things that aren't there too?

I heard the new health care bill legalizes marijuana. Don't ask me to prove it by showing you the exact wording, you'll just have to take my word for it.
.
.

 

[timesjoke]

there is no level of proof you will ever accept

I will accept Docket#, page, and line number, no less.

And your not stupid, you know these powers to manipulate costs and ration medical treatments are not done in any single line, it is the total package spread out among hundreds of lines. I'm not wasting that much time to copy all that just for you to ignore it just like you ignored hundreds of other things people post like the two posts by IWS and Hugo in this thread your ignoring that proves the Government already has the power you speak of from the Obama Stimulus package.


But you pretend to be stupid so you can claim nobody showed you a line because it is too complex to post the entire extracted mess.


Why do you even doubt what Donald Berwick said? Do you think he is a Republican operative telling lies too? This guy is Obama's man, he admits there will be rationing. You know this is all true, but your too scared to admit to that truth because the only thing that matter to you is saving face, not being honest.


You flew the Obama flag and now that some very ugly realities of this man are being revealed, your need to pretend these things don't exist to save face.

Can I make up things that aren't there too?

I heard the new health care bill legalizes marijuana. Don't ask me to prove it by showing you the exact wording, you'll just have to take my word for it.
.
.

I am still waiting for you to tell me why Obama gave Unions that sweetheart deal to exclude them from the new healthcare taxes and why that was good for all of America Bender, if you ever stop running away from that question and honestly answer it I may decide to devote some time posting a few of the lines out of the law that gives the Government the right to ration care. My question to you was before your question, you are still dodging my question so don't expect me to go out of my way to answer yours when your just going to ignore the lines and lie about what they mean anyway when your not answering my question.

 

[timesjoke]

I decided to give you a chance to redeem yourself, here is one section where it covers the ability to reduce payments to Hospitals that have in their opinion a readmission issue:

H.R.3590-290 SEC. 3025. HOSPITAL READMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1886 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww), as amended by sections 3001 and 3008, is amended by adding at the end the following novel subsection :”’(q) HOSPITAL READMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM.—”’(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to payment for discharges from an applicable hospital (as defined in paragraph (5)©) occurring during a fiscal year beginning on or after October 1, 2012, in order to account for excess readmissions in the hospital, the Secretary shall reduce the payments that would otherwise be made to such hospital under subsection (d) (or section 1814(B)(3), as the case may be) for such a discharge by an amount equal to the product of—”’(A) the base operating DRG payment amount (as defined in paragraph (2)) for the discharge; and”’(B) the adjustment factor (described in paragraph (3)(A)) for the hospital for the fiscal year.


What this means is buracrats and non-doctors will have the power to reduce payments to hospitals based on readmissions and not if the admissions were necessary or not, there are similar rules for reducing payments to doctors for the same reason that they are ording readmissions "too often" so they need to be punished.




So what will this lead to?


Doctors and hospitals will be more concerned with fitting a set Government profile of how often they are allowed readmissions than what the patient really needs for their medical treatment. As long as doctors and hospitals "appear" the way they are mandated to appear, they get their full payments, if they don't conform to a buracratic model of perfection set by non-doctors, then they are not paid their full reimbursement.




So there you go Bender, one great example of how the Government will control medical treatments and not your doctor or hospitals because the Government will simply deny payment for services rendered. What do you have to say about that?


Or is it time to toss some more insults, call me a racist and bury your head in the sand again?

 

[emkay64]

When I read that over I saw that as a positive thing. Maybe I'm not getting it but it seems to me that making other care facilities more accessible would reduce fees and possibly eliminate so many costly re-admissions.

I also read this..makes sense.

http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?docid=30659

Who knows though..if you're an Obama hater he'll never do anything right..the same as if McCain was elected all his choices would be seen as shitty by those who voted otherwise.

 

[phreakwars]

But see, if you cut and splice one line with another line like TJ says, you get a whole new line. It's all a part of the conspiracy.
.
.

 

[timesjoke]

When I read that over I saw that as a positive thing. Maybe I'm not getting it but it seems to me that making other care facilities more accessible would reduce fees and possibly eliminate so many costly re-admissions.

The problem is you don't do this with bean counters and buracracy that sets quotas. There will be a set limit of readmissions and if the hospital or doctor exceeds that line drawn in the sand, their reimbursements will be reduced. A case by case review would be fair, a blind quota is not and it forces doctors and hospitals to be constantly concerned if their getting close to their punishment number instead of doing what they feel is right for the patient.


There is a right way and a wrong way to do everything, and inserting a huge Government buracracy is always the wrong way to do anything.

Who knows though..if you're an Obama hater he'll never do anything right..the same as if McCain was elected all his choices would be seen as shitty by those who voted otherwise.

I don't hate Obama, I hate a lot of the damaging things he has done and wants to do but that is his actions, not him as a person. I hated the idea of the Government running healthcare when the Clintons were trying to do it and I hate the same idea now even if it is repackaged to look different. My point is I don't want Government buracrats inserted in the medical profession and screwing around.





Hey Bender, I gave you a direct quote out of the law proving the Government will be directly punishing doctors and Hospitals based on arbitrary quotas instead of letting doctors have a free hand in treating their patients the way they see fit. This is the first step of rationing and the biggest harm is the power, the power of Government burcrats to meddle with medical decisions and set fear of the system in the minds of our care givers.

there is no level of proof you will ever accept

I will accept Docket#, page, and line number, no less.

So now what, I showed you one piece of proof that fits into your request and do you admit to it finally or do you run away from me once again?

 

[emkay64]

Well if I was a doctor...rather than worry about reimbursement..it may also force me to take extra time and care...instead of treat and street. It may actually make the quality of healthcare better too. It's possible..it may not..but there is a possibility of good things happening.

 

[timesjoke]

Well if I was a doctor...rather than worry about reimbursement..it may also force me to take extra time and care...instead of treat and street. It may actually make the quality of healthcare better too. It's possible..it may not..but there is a possibility of good things happening.

"treat and street" is exactly what this kind of law forces doctors to do.

You have to look at the big picture emkay, I understand your trying to paint the best possible picture of the new law but we have to see reality and understand how this government buracracy must work.


They are already reducing all reimbursements accross the board anyway, doctors must worry about reimbursements because that is how they pay the bills Emkay, just like you have to be concerned how you will pay your bills.



So the doctor is already getting lower reimbursements for everything from a office visit to a surgical operation, but the Government then says that based on their quotas they will be reducing already reduced reimbursements? Not because of a actual case they can quote but because you reached some magical number they don't like?



A possibility of good things happening is not good enough for me, because there is a greater possibility of very bad things happeneing as it always does when Government buracracies get in the way.

 

[phreakwars]

H.R.3590-290 SEC. 3025. HOSPITAL READMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1886 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww), as amended by sections 3001 and 3008, is amended by adding at the end the following novel subsection :”’(q) HOSPITAL READMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM.—”’(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to payment for discharges from an applicable hospital (as defined in paragraph (5)©) occurring during a fiscal year beginning on or after October 1, 2012, in order to account for excess readmissions in the hospital, the Secretary shall reduce the payments that would otherwise be made to such hospital under subsection (d) (or section 1814(B)(3), as the case may be) for such a discharge by an amount equal to the product of—”’(A) the base operating DRG payment amount (as defined in paragraph (2)) for the discharge; and”’(B) the adjustment factor (described in paragraph (3)(A)) for the hospital for the fiscal year.

Don't see the problem here, certainly not the one your making up...

 

[phreakwars]

BTW, here is the REAL text of the bill your trying to quote:

SEC. 3025. HOSPITAL READMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1886 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395ww), as amended by sections 3001 and 3008, is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘‘(q) HOSPITAL READMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to payment for discharges
from an applicable hospital (as defined in paragraph (5)©)
occurring during a fiscal year beginning on or after October
1, 2012, in order to account for excess readmissions in the
hospital, the Secretary shall reduce the payments that would
otherwise be made to such hospital under subsection (d) (or
section 1814(B)(3), as the case may be) for such a discharge
by an amount equal to the product of—
‘‘(A) the base operating DRG payment amount (as
defined in paragraph (2)) for the discharge; and
‘‘(B) the adjustment factor (described in paragraph
(3)(A)) for the hospital for the fiscal year.
‘‘(2) BASE OPERATING DRG PAYMENT AMOUNT DEFINED.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), in this subsection, the term ‘base operating DRG payment
amount’ means, with respect to a hospital for a fiscal
year—
‘‘(i) the payment amount that would otherwise be
made under subsection (d) (determined without regard
to subsection (o)) for a discharge if this subsection
did not apply; reduced by
‘‘(ii) any portion of such payment amount that
is attributable to payments under paragraphs (5)(A),
(5)(B), (5)(F), and (12) of subsection (d).
‘‘(B) SPECIAL RULES FOR CERTAIN HOSPITALS.—
‘‘(i) SOLE COMMUNITY HOSPITALS AND MEDICAREDEPENDENT,
SMALL RURAL HOSPITALS.—In the case of

http://frwebgate.acc...3590enr.txt.pdf

There are 7 versions of Bill Number H.R.3590 for the 111th Congress. Usually, the last item is the most recent.
http://thomas.loc.go...?c111:H.R.3590:

 

[phreakwars]

H. R. 3590—291
a medicare-dependent, small rural hospital (with
respect to discharges occurring during fiscal years 2012
and 2013) or a sole community hospital, in applying
subparagraph (A)(i), the payment amount that would
otherwise be made under subsection (d) shall be determined
without regard to subparagraphs (I) and (L)
of subsection (B)(3) and subparagraphs (D) and (G)
of subsection (d)(5).
‘‘(ii) HOSPITALS PAID UNDER SECTION 1814.—In the
case of a hospital that is paid under section 1814(B)(3),
the Secretary may exempt such hospitals provided that
States paid under such section submit an annual report
to the Secretary describing how a similar program
in the State for a participating hospital or hospitals
achieves or surpasses the measured results in terms
of patient health outcomes and cost savings established
herein with respect to this section.
‘‘(3) ADJUSTMENT FACTOR.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the
adjustment factor under this paragraph for an applicable
hospital for a fiscal year is equal to the greater of—
‘‘(i) the ratio described in subparagraph (B) for
the hospital for the applicable period (as defined in
paragraph (5)(D)) for such fiscal year; or
‘‘(ii) the floor adjustment factor specified in
subparagraph ©.
‘‘(B) RATIO.—The ratio described in this subparagraph
for a hospital for an applicable period is equal to 1 minus
the ratio of—
‘‘(i) the aggregate payments for excess readmissions
(as defined in paragraph (4)(A)) with respect
to an applicable hospital for the applicable period; and
‘‘(ii) the aggregate payments for all discharges (as
defined in paragraph (4)(B)) with respect to such
applicable hospital for such applicable period.
‘‘© FLOOR ADJUSTMENT FACTOR.—For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the floor adjustment factor specified in
this subparagraph for—
‘‘(i) fiscal year 2013 is 0.99;
‘‘(ii) fiscal year 2014 is 0.98; or
‘‘(iii) fiscal year 2015 and subsequent fiscal years
is 0.97.
‘‘(4) AGGREGATE PAYMENTS, EXCESS READMISSION RATIO
DEFINED.—For purposes of this subsection:
‘‘(A) AGGREGATE PAYMENTS FOR EXCESS READMISSIONS.—
The term ‘aggregate payments for excess readmissions’
means, for a hospital for an applicable period, the
sum, for applicable conditions (as defined in paragraph
(5)(A)), of the product, for each applicable condition, of—
‘‘(i) the base operating DRG payment amount for
such hospital for such applicable period for such condition;
‘‘(ii) the number of admissions for such condition
for such hospital for such applicable period; and
‘‘(iii) the excess readmissions ratio (as defined in
subparagraph ©) for such hospital for such applicable
period minus 1.

 

[ImWithStupid]

This has been up on my status update since last night...


111th Congress; H.R. 1 ENR; TITLE VIII; Sec 804

 

[emkay64]

BTW, here is the REAL text of the bill your trying to quote:

SEC. 3025. HOSPITAL READMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1886 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395ww), as amended by sections 3001 and 3008, is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘‘(q) HOSPITAL READMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to payment for discharges
from an applicable hospital (as defined in paragraph (5)©)
occurring during a fiscal year beginning on or after October
1, 2012, in order to account for excess readmissions in the
hospital, the Secretary shall reduce the payments that would
otherwise be made to such hospital under subsection (d) (or
section 1814(B)(3), as the case may be) for such a discharge
by an amount equal to the product of—
‘‘(A) the base operating DRG payment amount (as
defined in paragraph (2)) for the discharge; and
‘‘(B) the adjustment factor (described in paragraph
(3)(A)) for the hospital for the fiscal year.
‘‘(2) BASE OPERATING DRG PAYMENT AMOUNT DEFINED.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph
(B), in this subsection, the term ‘base operating DRG payment
amount’ means, with respect to a hospital for a fiscal
year—
‘‘(i) the payment amount that would otherwise be
made under subsection (d) (determined without regard
to subsection (o)) for a discharge if this subsection
did not apply; reduced by
‘‘(ii) any portion of such payment amount that
is attributable to payments under paragraphs (5)(A),
(5)(B), (5)(F), and (12) of subsection (d).
‘‘(B) SPECIAL RULES FOR CERTAIN HOSPITALS.—
‘‘(i) SOLE COMMUNITY HOSPITALS AND MEDICAREDEPENDENT,
SMALL RURAL HOSPITALS.—In the case of

http://frwebgate.acc...3590enr.txt.pdf

This was the point I was making. I read all this at various other sources. It doesn't sound like a terrible thing. It may make the caregiver have to take some extra time with a patient and make sure all measures are taken so they don't have to be readmitted shrugs I don't see much of a problem. However I think they need a new system..and perhaps a few tweaks here and there (like this) to see what happens is better than a complete overhaul forcing a huge adjustment. The system already sucks..it's going to be a trial and error system to see what works anyways.

 

[phreakwars]

This has been up on my status update since last night...


111th Congress; H.R. 1 ENR; TITLE VIII; Sec 804

I'm not finding that, I can only find up to Sec 802

http://thomas.loc.go...ADOHm8:e173300:

What's your source?

Edit: NEVERMIND, FOUND IT:

• SEC. 804. FEDERAL COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH. (a) ESTABLISHMENT- There is hereby established a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the `Council').

• (B) PURPOSE- The Council shall foster optimum coordination of comparative effectiveness and related health services research conducted or supported by relevant Federal departments and agencies, with the goal of reducing duplicative efforts and encouraging coordinated and complementary use of resources.

• © DUTIES- The Council shall--

• • (1) assist the offices and agencies of the Federal Government, including the Departments of Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and Defense, and other Federal departments or agencies, to coordinate the conduct or support of comparative effectiveness and related health services research; and

• • (2) advise the President and Congress on--

• • • (A) strategies with respect to the infrastructure needs of comparative effectiveness research within the Federal Government; and

• • • (B) organizational expenditures for comparative effectiveness research by relevant Federal departments and agencies.

• (d) MEMBERSHIP-

• • (1) NUMBER AND APPOINTMENT- The Council shall be composed of not more than 15 members, all of whom are senior Federal officers or employees with responsibility for health-related programs, appointed by the President, acting through the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this section referred to as the `Secretary'). Members shall first be appointed to the Council not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

• • (2) MEMBERS-

• • • (A) IN GENERAL- The members of the Council shall include one senior officer or employee from each of the following agencies:

• • • • (i) The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

• • • • (ii) The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

• • • • (iii) The National Institutes of Health.

• • • • (iv) The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

• • • • (v) The Food and Drug Administration.

• • • • (vi) The Veterans Health Administration within the Department of Veterans Affairs.

• • • • (vii) The office within the Department of Defense responsible for management of the Department of Defense Military Health Care System.

• • • (B) QUALIFICATIONS- At least half of the members of the Council shall be physicians or other experts with clinical expertise.

• • (3) CHAIRMAN; VICE CHAIRMAN- The Secretary shall serve as Chairman of the Council and shall designate a member to serve as Vice Chairman.

• (e) REPORTS-

• • (1) INITIAL REPORT- Not later than June 30, 2009, the Council shall submit to the President and the Congress a report containing information describing current Federal activities on comparative effectiveness research and recommendations for such research conducted or supported from funds made available for allotment by the Secretary for comparative effectiveness research in this Act.

• • (2) ANNUAL REPORT- The Council shall submit to the President and Congress an annual report regarding its activities and recommendations concerning the infrastructure needs, organizational expenditures and opportunities for better coordination of comparative effectiveness research by relevant Federal departments and agencies.

• (f) STAFFING; SUPPORT- From funds made available for allotment by the Secretary for comparative effectiveness research in this Act, the Secretary shall make available not more than 1 percent to the Council for staff and administrative support.

• (g) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION-

• • (1) COVERAGE- Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the Council to mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer.

• • (2) REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS- None of the reports submitted under this section or recommendations made by the Council shall be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment.

.
.