Doctor visit limits...what else...

[billc]

Here is Dr. Berwick on how modern medicine should work...treat at home...by your family...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...s_for_clearing_hospital_beds_of_patients.html

Dr. Donald Berwick, senior fellow at the Soros-funded Center for American Progress. The former head of Centers for [COLOR=#11B000 !important]Medicare[/COLOR] and Medicaid(CMS) was best known for being "in love" with the British healthcare system and for his 2009 statement: "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly."

Berwick also told the audience of medical doctors, administrators and students that the situation is critical. He recommended expanding the health field to include more nurse practitioners, nurses, and physician's assistants while teaching patients and their families to care for themselves to lower costs.

The socialist doctor's proposals reduce health-care costs by reducing the number of doctors and increasing home health care. Only the sickest and most critical patients will end up in a hospital, thereby spreading lesser cases into the community by way of neighborhood clinics, urgent care clinics, and in-home care. What he never addresses is the reduction in expertise and the lower quality of care which inevitably accompanies the leveling down of services.

Dr. Libby Baxley, senior associate dean for academic affairs at ECU's Brody School of Medicine, agreed with Berwick, suggesting that medical schools need to "go beyond the traditional education...of the care of the individual and have our students think about populations... That's a different set of skills than we've been teaching medical students in the past."

Of course switching traditional thinking from the tried and proven method of treating patients like they're individuals to the socialist approach where human beings are simply cogs in the wheel of society fits well with the plan to make our health-care system into single-payer program.

Hmmmm...I thought if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan and if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor. That is what the President promised under obamacare...

 

[billc]

Here is some more "what else."

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/03/more-obamacare-high-jinks-conflicts-of-interests-rising-costs/

QSSI, a Maryland-based contractor, in January won a large contract to build a federal data services hub to help run the complex federal health insurance exchange. …
The quiet nature of the transaction, which was not disclosed to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has fueled suspicion among industry insiders that UnitedHealth Group may be gaining an advantage for its subsidiary, UnitedHealthcare.
UnitedHealth Group’s acquisition has caught the attention of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee. He has expressed alarm over what he calls a lack of transparency in setting up a national insurance marketplace covering more than 30 states.
​

The Hill’s story has much more on the detail on the potential conflicts-of-interest that are going on here, if you care to try and stomach the rampant cronyism, underhandedness, and “business as usual” in the federal government that’s only going to metastasize with the continuing onset of ObamaCare — but that’s the Obama Way, I suppose: When in doubt, just add more bureaucracy, because it’s not like that ever creates a whole host of problems of its own or anything.

In that same vein, California is one of the few states that’s actually charged forward in creating one of ObamaCare’s prescribed state insurance “exchanges,” and they’re already trying to combat what’s looking like substantially rising costs, via the LATimes:

California insurance officials have expressed concern about substantial rate hikes for some existing policyholders going into the exchange.
Under a new rating map approved by state lawmakers, the Department of lnsurance estimated that premiums for similar coverage could increase as much as 25% in West Los Angeles, 22% in the Sacramento area and nearly 13% in Orange County.
Janice Rocco, the state’s deputy insurance commissioner for health policy, said her agency is pushing a new rating map that would cap increases at 8%. That proposal could be considered during a special legislative session in the coming months.
​

Yes, by all means, let’s try to legislate caps on price increases — I’m sure that insurers not being able to cover their costs won’t have any adverse effects at all, right?

 

[Cryozombie]

Hospitals who re-admit patients within 30 days after they were discharged will now have to, under an Obamacare provision, pay fines as of October 1, 2012, which could force hospitals to slash programs that help the elderly, the poor, and the chronically ill.

Just as a clarification on this:

It does not relate to all readmission. It relates to certain classifications of illness, If you come in for, say, head trauma, are sent home in 2 days, then come back 3 days later because of it, the hospital is fine.

HOWEVER: the part that is messed up is that Lets say you come in for Pneumonia. (one of the no readmit ones) are treated and released a week later, go home, fall down the stairs and break your hip... that counts as a Pneumonia readmission, EVEN THO THE READMISSION WAS FOR SOMETHING ELSE, and the Hospital pays the fine.

 

[Cryozombie]

The 17,000 peole a year who die in th US because they cannot afford medical care would argue that something needs to be done...if they could. If not what has been done, then what?

I get where you are coming from, but what has this done for them? If they can't afford it, how does mandating they buy it or get taxed actually help them?

 

[arnisador]

Not everyone who says he can't afford it can't afford it.

Also, there are tax credits.

 

[Cryozombie]

Not everyone who says he can't afford it can't afford it.

Also, there are tax credits.

I'm confused by this, can you elaborate? Are you saying some people lie to avoid getting it, or that it can be accessible? Also the Tax Credits... I know those are written in to cover the cost, but... is it necessary to mandate everyone buy insurance? If those tax credits are all it takes to make insurance affordable to everyone, can't we just offer a tax rebate on the cost of insurance to anyone earning under a certain amount or who is not covered by their employer?

I still don't understand how the Mandate will help anyone but the insurance companies.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

System works like this:
You buy the insurance.
You pay the monthly premiums out of your pocket.
Next year, you file your income tax and tell the IRS who you buy from and how much you pay.
They will then tell you how much you'll get "back" as a "credit".
Then 4-12 weeks later they'll give you a check containing other peoples money.

The above is according to US Congressman Brian Higgins office. If Mr. Higgin's is wrong, I would like to know.

 

[Cryozombie]

System works like this:
You buy the insurance.
You pay the monthly premiums out of your pocket.
Next year, you file your income tax and tell the IRS who you buy from and how much you pay.
They will then tell you how much you'll get "back" as a "credit".
Then 4-12 weeks later they'll give you a check containing other peoples money.

The above is according to US Congressman Brian Higgins office. If Mr. Higgin's is wrong, I would like to know.

So again, I ask my original Question:

Originally Posted by WC_lun

The 17,000 peole a year who die in th US because they cannot afford medical care would argue that something needs to be done...if they could. If not what has been done, then what?

what has this done for them? ... how does it actually help them?

 

[bluewaveschool]

increase the medicaid and medicare deductions from paychecks by 5% (starting number).

zomg tax increase evil liberal blah blah blah

 

[arnisador]

System works like this:
You buy the insurance.
You pay the monthly premiums out of your pocket.
Next year, you file your income tax and tell the IRS who you buy from and how much you pay.
They will then tell you how much you'll get "back" as a "credit".
Then 4-12 weeks later they'll give you a check containing other peoples money.

The above is according to US Congressman Brian Higgins office. If Mr. Higgin's is wrong, I would like to know.

http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2012/06/mandatory_health_insurance_how.html

If you qualify, credit payments will go directly to your insurer to lower the cost of your monthly premiums.

 

[arnisador]

I still don't understand how the Mandate will help anyone but the insurance companies.

Being without health insurance is a well-known health risk--it decreases life expectancy. (Google it.) This will be addressed by the mandate.

People using ERs for non-emergency care, or the uninsured using it for major emergency care (no car accident victims are turned away), is a significant financial drain. This will be addressed by the mandate.

 

[WC_lun]

I gotta say, if Er care could be used as a substitute for regular physician care, even for chronic or acute conditions, I'd just go in and get the transplant i need. Doesn't work that way and never will. The healthcare reform, while I do not think is perfect, is a damn site beyond what we have now. Remember, thousands of our citizens are dying needlessly because of the status quo.

 

[Cryozombie]

Being without health insurance is a well-known health risk--it decreases life expectancy. (Google it.) This will be addressed by the mandate.

People using ERs for non-emergency care, or the uninsured using it for major emergency care (no car accident victims are turned away), is a significant financial drain. This will be addressed by the mandate.

"7,000 peole a year who die in th US because they cannot afford medical care"

If you CAN'T AFFORD THE INSURANCE HOW DOES MANDATING YOU BUY IT DO ANYTHING? Why is this question so hard for Supporters to understand? It's not a hard concept. If you need something that costs 50.00, and don't have 50.00, the government telling you you have to buy it, STILL DOESN'T GIVE YOU THE 50.00 TO BUY IT... And offering to give you the money back later ALSO does not give you the 50 bucks to buy it either.

It's pretty simple maths... even *I* can figure out that if you need 50 and have 0 being told you need 50 doesn't give you 50.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

zomg tax increase evil liberal blah blah blah

I actually support eliminating all government social programs and their associated thefts, I mean taxes. That includes social security, medicare, unemployment, and so forth.
I also support eliminating all forms of subsidy and bail out.
That puts me in heavy opposition to both liberals and conservatives.
Just sayin.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If you CAN'T AFFORD THE INSURANCE HOW DOES MANDATING YOU BUY IT DO ANYTHING? Why is this question so hard for Supporters to understand? It's not a hard concept. If you need something that costs 50.00, and don't have 50.00, the government telling you you have to buy it, STILL DOESN'T GIVE YOU THE 50.00 TO BUY IT... And offering to give you the money back later ALSO does not give you the 50 bucks to buy it either.

It's pretty simple maths... even *I* can figure out that if you need 50 and have 0 being told you need 50 doesn't give you 50.

They'll just 'find it' like people always do. Duh.

 

[Cryozombie]

By breaking and entering or armed robbery?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

By breaking and entering or armed robbery?

No silly. By doing what you always do when you need something. Cutting back on other things and budgeting better.

The B&E and armed robbery will come later when the IRS shows up to enforce the law and takes your car on you.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Now sarcasm aside, in theory, the idea of more people contributing to the pool should lower individual costs. In theory. The problem is, it doesn't work that way.
If a provider (hospital, doctor, pharmacy, drug company, etc) knows that the government will pick up the bill, they will increase the price they charge. Government subsidies and mandates increase prices then offset them with taxpayer money. In effect, we're going to pay twice, maybe even three times for our care.
This is why you have $100 anti-venom that gets billed out at $50,000, with insurance paying the majority of that.

Doctors are dropping insurance as payment. I know several who no longer accept any insurance. Cash only. Funny thing is, their fees have gone down, and their practices are not hurting for patients.

So the next step for the government will be to mandate that if you are a doctor, you must accept insurance. That'd be like me being forced to accept money orders as payment. I don't like that at all.

Of course, we can argue theory all we want. The truth is a simple one: Obamacare didn't bring costs down, they've gone up, and projections continue to show them increasing, while the government insists they'll go down. This is however a government that hasn't got a clue about basic math and can't balance a budget to save their life. So, not much credibility there.

 

[Cryozombie]

No silly. By doing what you always do when you need something. Cutting back on other things and budgeting better.

Oh, sorry. I didn't know the Insurance companies were taking Food Stamps now. Gotcha.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2012/06/mandatory_health_insurance_how.html

If you qualify, credit payments will go directly to your insurer to lower the cost of your monthly premiums. To qualify, you have to buy insurance on your own, not through an employer, and choose from plans offered through one of the state health insurance exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act.

What's the ETA on the state exchanges being set up? Last I heard, so far no state's got one up and running and 28 states haven't even started the process, with a few refusing to do so.