Jump to content


Welcome to Long Island Firearms, Long Island's premier source for news and education!

Welcome to Long Island Firearms, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of Long Island Firearms by signing in or creating an account. You also have the ability to login with your facebook or twitter account. See the icons in the upper right hand corner.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Get your own profile and make new friends
  • Customize your experience here
Get the latest facts on the new NY SAFE gun laws that effect you!

Photo

President Trump Takes First Step to Give Veterans More Choice in Health Care


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 jimmy958

jimmy958

    Gun Guru

  • Club LIF Member
  • 1,518 posts

Posted April 20 2017 - 04:05 PM

"On Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed the Veterans Choice Program Extension and Improvement
Act, a bill to preserve a flawed but important program that represents a first step in enabling
veterans to choose another health care option besides the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
This reform will help address the heinous problem of veterans dying while waiting in line for care."

Read more: https://pjmedia.com/...in-health-care/

# Advertisement

Advertisement

Posted A minute ago



#2 Phoenix69

Phoenix69

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 19,725 posts
  • LocationA little place I like to call "you"ll see".

Posted April 20 2017 - 04:32 PM

If President Trump signed this someone here is going to have a problem with it.



#3 pequa1

pequa1

    Gun Guru

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 3,995 posts
  • Locationisn't it obvious ?

Posted April 20 2017 - 05:44 PM

three guesses as to who but I only need one.



#4 zzrguy

zzrguy

    That Guy

  • LIF Site Moderator
  • Others: Club LIF Member

  • 10,156 posts
  • LocationIn a dark corner in the center of my happy place.

Posted April 20 2017 - 06:19 PM

Wait it been 2 hrs .

 

As a guy with a lot of vets in his family it is good to see that he's making good on Hillary's  I mean his campaign promise.

 

 

5 4 3 2 1



#5 Skywalker

Skywalker

    Respected Gunowner

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 118 posts

Posted April 20 2017 - 07:44 PM

As a health  care provider, I would like to way in.  I am the proud son of a WW II vet.   I work geriatrics and have many vets on my caseload.  My political views are varied.  I don't tend to trust politicians of any stripe as I believe our country has morphed into a version of a plutocracy.   But here it goes...

 

The VA system is overwhelmed.  The VA system provides excellent care to some.  The VA system has left many out in the cold.  VA centers are not accessible to many vets.

 

I have patients that swear by the VA.  I have patients that swear at the VA.

 

But a solution I have discussed with many is quite simple.  Every vet gets a benefit card.  Every licensed provider of any service is empowered to accept the card and provide the service.  Period.  Done.  If you are a vet, your care is covered.  

 

I can accept any person with a Medicare card.  Why should a vet have less access?  It's an outrage.  


  • Seancusmc and Steyr AUG man like this

#6 zzrguy

zzrguy

    That Guy

  • LIF Site Moderator
  • Others: Club LIF Member

  • 10,156 posts
  • LocationIn a dark corner in the center of my happy place.

Posted April 20 2017 - 08:09 PM

I can accept any person with a Medicare card.  Why should a vet have less access?  It's an outrage.  

i believe this is what trump has done with this EO



#7 Steyr AUG man

Steyr AUG man

    Newbie

  • Junior Member
  • Pip
  • 0 posts

Posted April 20 2017 - 08:17 PM

it extends an expiring Obama program from 2014 already in place. it also makes the government a first party payer instead of a third party payer. thats good. it seems to be a good idea, although it doesnt apply if you live within 40 miles of a VA hospital. that means nobody in NYC or most of long island. i dont know why they have that arbitrary distance in the law. But if it actually helps them get care, it is a good thing.



#8 Steyr AUG man

Steyr AUG man

    Newbie

  • Junior Member
  • Pip
  • 0 posts

Posted April 20 2017 - 08:20 PM

As a health  care provider, I would like to way in.  I am the proud son of a WW II vet.   I work geriatrics and have many vets on my caseload.  My political views are varied.  I don't tend to trust politicians of any stripe as I believe our country has morphed into a version of a plutocracy.   But here it goes...

 

The VA system is overwhelmed.  The VA system provides excellent care to some.  The VA system has left many out in the cold.  VA centers are not accessible to many vets.

 

I have patients that swear by the VA.  I have patients that swear at the VA.

 

But a solution I have discussed with many is quite simple.  Every vet gets a benefit card.  Every licensed provider of any service is empowered to accept the card and provide the service.  Period.  Done.  If you are a vet, your care is covered.  

 

I can accept any person with a Medicare card.  Why should a vet have less access?  It's an outrage.  

 

absolutely correct. it is not a popular conservative position, due to the increased costs, but it is the fairest way.



#9 2edgesword

2edgesword

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 6,064 posts

Posted April 24 2017 - 09:50 AM

absolutely correct. it is not a popular conservative position, due to the increased costs, but it is the fairest way.


The government systems are overwhelmed because the government, with the exception of the VA, should not be involved in healthcare in the first place.

Healthcare is a state, local and community responsibility. These entities are closest to the problem. Again, someone give me a rational reason why the federal government in Washington D.C. should be collecting money from citizens all over the country to filter it back through multiple layers of bureaucracy to get back to where the need is. The whole system makes absolutely no sense.
  • samwag likes this

#10 Semperfi

Semperfi

    Respected Gunowner

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 205 posts

Posted April 24 2017 - 02:24 PM

That's the least Trump can do

#11 Skywalker

Skywalker

    Respected Gunowner

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 118 posts

Posted April 24 2017 - 03:02 PM

Actually, Medicare uses only 3% of its collected revenue for administrative costs, pays providers a reasonable fee (with some exceptions), pays on time, and there are not multiple levels of bureaucracy.  Communication with Medicare is the least painful insurance company contact.

 

HMOs use 27% of revenue for administrative costs, pay less than Medicare, delay or deny payments regularly, and have multiple levels of bureaucracy.  

 

The reason the insurance industry has been begging for the privatization of Medicare is they are salivating at being able to peal off the difference in administrative costs - 24% of revenue, cut fees to providers, and limit care. 

 

And by the way, the industry supported the Affordable Care Act because it gave them instant customers.  I'm not arguing this is a good thing, just a fact of the business.  Insurance companies love that we have to buy car insurance, home owners, etc.  



#12 2edgesword

2edgesword

    Gun Guru

  • Donated Member
  • 6,064 posts

Posted April 24 2017 - 03:28 PM

Actually, Medicare uses only 3% of its collected revenue for administrative costs, pays providers a reasonable fee (with some exceptions), pays on time, and there are not multiple levels of bureaucracy.  Communication with Medicare is the least painful insurance company contact.

HMOs use 27% of revenue for administrative costs, pay less than Medicare, delay or deny payments regularly, and have multiple levels of bureaucracy.  
 
The reason the insurance industry has been begging for the privatization of Medicare is they are salivating at being able to peal off the difference in administrative costs - 24% of revenue, cut fees to providers, and limit care. 
 
And by the way, the industry supported the Affordable Care Act because it gave them instant customers.  I'm not arguing this is a good thing, just a fact of the business.  Insurance companies love that we have to buy car insurance, home owners, etc.


"Many people wrongly believe that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance; that view was often stated by champions of Obamacare during the debate preceding the law's enactment. These advocates argued that Medicare's administrative costs — the money it spends on expenses other than patient care — are just 3% of total costs, compared to 15% to 20% in the case of private, employer-sponsored insurance. But these figures are highly misleading, for several reasons."

https://www.forbes.c...s/#2fe8b8a2140d

Add to the above the tens of billions of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse...

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=32604330

The dollars collected from just about every paycheck ARE filtered through the federal bureaucracy and since states are in many cases involved in the reimbursement process do end up going through multiple levels of bureaucracy.

And tens of trillion of dollars in future unfunded liabilities...

https://www.washingt...m=.82bed31d1138

Beyond the fundamental issue of the federal government having no Constitutional mandate to be involved in heath care, with the possible exceptions being veterans and federal workers, the idea that a centralize bureaucracy in Washington, infamous for corruption and waste, could be the solution for a local issue, is ludicrous. I don't think anyone that objectively considers this issues can come back with a determination that this system is a well run, efficient system.
  • samwag likes this

#13 samwag

samwag

    Sharp Shooter!

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 309 posts
  • Locationeast northport

Posted April 24 2017 - 05:28 PM

Edge beat me to it and more eloquently might i add

 

this gem comes from the forbes article he linked to

 

 In 2005, for example, Robert Book has shown that private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare.



#14 Steyr AUG man

Steyr AUG man

    Newbie

  • Junior Member
  • Pip
  • 0 posts

Posted April 26 2017 - 12:28 AM

Edge beat me to it and more eloquently might i add

this gem comes from the forbes article he linked to

In 2005, for example, Robert Book has shown that private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare.

Straw man statistic. A red herring meant to distract those not paying attention. Who does Medicare cover? The oldest part of the population and the disabled. The two groups most likely to use the insurance and use a lot of it.

Isn't it clear that an insurance company that has a lot of young healthy working people who never use the coverage will have less expenses per subscriber than an insurance company paying claims constantly for its beneficiaries? Come on brothers. Don't believe the hype.

#15 Steyr AUG man

Steyr AUG man

    Newbie

  • Junior Member
  • Pip
  • 0 posts

Posted April 26 2017 - 02:15 AM

And that catchphrase "unfounded liabilities" is another term meant to confuse and distract. Why no talk about the unfounded liabilities of the military over an infinite horizon? Why no mention of the unfunded liabilities of congress' salary and benefits? Or maintenance of government property? Any so-called unfunded liabilities are just unfunded future benefits for the American public that the American public will find a way to pay for, as we do every year.

The Chicken Little attitude is not necessary, and indeed, just an attempt by a certain political minority to direct government money into the pockets of the corporate entities that continue to corrupt them.

#16 samwag

samwag

    Sharp Shooter!

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 309 posts
  • Locationeast northport

Posted April 26 2017 - 05:30 AM

But most important, because Medicare patients are older, they are substantially sicker than the average insured patient — driving up the denominator of such calculations significantly. For example: If two patients cost $30 each to manage, but the first requires $100 of health expenditures and the second, much sicker patient requires $1,000, the first patient's insurance will have an administrative-cost ratio of 30%, but the second's will have a ratio of only 3%. This hardly means the second patient's insurance is more efficient — administratively, the patients are identical. Instead, the more favorable figure is produced by the second patient's more severe illness.

 

 

 

doesn't look like straw to me just some numbers that refute the 3% administrative cost

 

again with the brother i want a dna test



#17 samwag

samwag

    Sharp Shooter!

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 309 posts
  • Locationeast northport

Posted April 26 2017 - 05:35 AM

And that catchphrase "unfounded liabilities" is another term meant to confuse and distract. Why no talk about the unfounded liabilities of the military over an infinite horizon? Why no mention of the unfunded liabilities of congress' salary and benefits? Or maintenance of government property? Any so-called unfunded liabilities are just unfunded future benefits for the American public that the American public will find a way to pay for, as we do every year.

The Chicken Little attitude is not necessary, and indeed, just an attempt by a certain political minority to direct government money into the pockets of the corporate entities that continue to corrupt them.

off the rails again you dont dispute unfunded liability instead you seek to normalize it and criticize people who bring up the problem

 

chicken little is not necessary nor is put my head in the sand either  



#18 Steyr AUG man

Steyr AUG man

    Newbie

  • Junior Member
  • Pip
  • 0 posts

Posted April 26 2017 - 08:12 AM

I am disputing the significance of the term "unfunded liability" used here. Every expenditure that the government will make years ahead, out to an infinite horizon, is an unfunded liability. They are also unfunded benefits that will be used for the good of the population. Like all future expenditures, they will be paid.

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. - A growing chorus of complaints about the U.S. government's "unfunded" debts may be unsettling, but no cause to become unnerved, a University of Illinois tax expert says.

Law professor Richard L. Kaplan contends the notion of "unfunded liabilities" is merely an ominous new catchphrase coined during debates over massive spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare that is rooted in financial fallacy.

"The only possible meaning of 'unfunded liability' is in contrast to a 'funded liability,' which presumably is more financially secure and apparently morally superior as well," said Kaplan, an authority on tax law and government entitlement programs.

But in the end, he says, a "funded" liability is really no different than an "unfunded" one. To illustrate, he gave an example of parents who promise to buy their daughter a car when she graduates from college in four years.

The couple needs to invest $26,654 today to buy the car later on, assuming a $30,000 price tag and after-tax earnings of 3 percent a year, which Kaplan says are both guesses at best.

Where to invest so the cash is there when it's needed is an even bigger rub, he says. Most Americans fund retirement and other long-term savings with a healthy percentage of stocks, which the recent economic crisis has shown could quickly turn their "funded" liability into an "unfunded" one.

"Even if Congress were to set aside tax revenues to fund Social Security, Medicare and every other 'liability,' that money would still need to be invested in some kind of assets," Kaplan said. "And those assets just might be worth much less when they're actually needed than when they were first invested."

Bonds are a safer alternative, and U.S. government bonds are the most trusted, he said, but are nothing more than IOUs that promise future payouts.

"Consequently, an 'unfunded liability' by the government to make good on some financial commitment in the future is functionally no different than a 'funded liability' that consists of the only dependable asset around - namely U.S. Treasury obligations," Kaplan said.

He suggests retiring the archaic phrase, saying it "implies an alternate state of fiscal adequacy that really does not exist at all."

"Recent events have shown that whether we are talking about stock in General Motors or Citicorp, money market mutual funds, or even bank deposits, it is the federal government that ultimately stands behind these 'assets,' " Kaplan said.

#19 samwag

samwag

    Sharp Shooter!

  • Established Member + Classifieds
  • 309 posts
  • Locationeast northport

Posted April 26 2017 - 08:38 AM

But in the end, he says, a "funded" liability is really no different than an "unfunded" one.

 

that is where i would disagree with the writer

 

there are also varying degrees of unfunded liabilities

 

and they way politicians and the government spends like a drunken sailor in a bar i would be very suspect of their fiduciary responsibility to the public

 

one doesn't have to look any further than what is going on right now in Suffolk county with fees to close budget shortfalls and borrowing that will effect future residents and generations.  

 

 

 

"Recent events have shown that whether we are talking about stock in General Motors or Citicorp, money market mutual funds, or even bank deposits, it is the federal government that ultimately stands behind these 'assets,' " Kaplan said.

 

that is an even bigger problem which the government should not have been involved in



#20 Steyr AUG man

Steyr AUG man

    Newbie

  • Junior Member
  • Pip
  • 0 posts

Posted April 26 2017 - 08:40 AM

But most important, because Medicare patients are older, they are substantially sicker than the average insured patient — driving up the denominator of such calculations significantly. For example: If two patients cost $30 each to manage, but the first requires $100 of health expenditures and the second, much sicker patient requires $1,000, the first patient's insurance will have an administrative-cost ratio of 30%, but the second's will have a ratio of only 3%. This hardly means the second patient's insurance is more efficient — administratively, the patients are identical. Instead, the more favorable figure is produced by the second patient's more severe illness.




doesn't look like straw to me just some numbers that refute the 3% administrative cost

again with the brother i want a dna test


Well, we are all sons of Adam.

That example is meant to mislead. Administrative costs are not just carrying costs. Every claim you have means more administrative costs. If I see five doctors in a month, all the administrative costs I added to your company's expenses through having claims relating to different procedures by different doctors at different facilities all processed are far greater than the administrative costs my 25 year old son, who didn't see any doctors this month, incurred.

They are making a lazy, weak attempt to mislead with that false narrative.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users