41 replies to this topic

[salsabob]

Nurse on Obamacare: Law is a 'Killer'...

The Affordable Care Act means more and sicker patients are entering hospitals, and less comprehensive and timely health care.
As the first enrollees in the Affordable Care Act begin seeking care at my hospital, I wonder how my practice as a Registered Nurse will change. We’re told the goal of the new law is to remodel healthcare in the United States into a system that promotes wellness and prevention, rather than just providing care to sick people. This seems like a great objective, but I worry that the switch may compromise the quality of the care our patients receive.

...During that shift, one of my other patients said, “You must be busy. I haven’t seen you all night.” My heart sank.
While I hope the ACA will get care to millions of other Americans, I worry that it may make it harder for people to get comprehensive, timely care from trained and compassionate health care practitioners, including nurses like me.

I heard a similar statement just a week or so ago from a local nurse.
More lies and hyperbole no doubt.

Yes, much better if those previously uninsured would just get sick and die rather than make some nurse busy.

[salsabob]

You're title is particularly relevant when one understands that Obamacare has nothing to do with the insurance held by 75-80% of the population, the ones that already had employer-base insurance or govt insurance (Medicare), or are illegal immigrants.

75-80% will not be the case for long. It is now projected that 90% will lose employer health insurance by 2020 (http://www.fatwallet...care_4_29_3.pdf). This would be another step toward Obama's ultimate goal of a single payer government system. Unless Obamacare's negative polls change this will not happen. The good thing about Obamacare is that its few good aspects will be retained within a framework of a meaningful reform of the healthcare system.

I think it is important to note that what gets you to that projection (I do think 90% is an exaggeration) is an extrapolation of a trend that's been going on since the 1990s -, before Obamacare was even a gleen in the eye of a certain community organizer. The ACA is not the cause of the trend, it's a rational reaction to it.

[salsabob]

For those having trouble counting -



- note the numbers for the 'cancelled' ACA sub-standard policies.

With these kind of numbers (25 million total), most people should know someone - a relative or a friend - who got insurance, many for the first time ever, as a result of Obamacare. No need to rely on debunked Krotch Brother or Faux News 'horror stories' any more.

Obamacare is not going anywhere regardless of who is in the White House or the Congress.

[colion]

I think it is important to note that what gets you to that projection (I do think 90% is an exaggeration) is an extrapolation of a trend that's been going on since the 1990s -, before Obamacare was even a gleen in the eye of a certain community organizer. The ACA is not the cause of the trend, it's a rational reaction to it.

Premium caps, subsidies (could be eliminated by current lawsuits), restricted access to providers and hospitals, etc. is not by any stretch of the imagination a 'rational' reaction. Obamacare's 'raison d'etre' is reduction in health costs. These were coming down before Obamacare and are now accelerating upward. With an average premium increase of 39% this year and at least that projected for next Obama's claim that Obamacare would reduce healthcare costs by $2,500/family/year is just typical Obama fabrications for political purposes.

[colion]

I think it is important to note that what gets you to that projection (I do think 90% is an exaggeration) is an extrapolation of a trend that's been going on since the 1990s -, before Obamacare was even a gleen in the eye of a certain community organizer. The ACA is not the cause of the trend, it's a rational reaction to it.

Premium caps, subsidies (could be eliminated by current lawsuits), restricted access to providers and hospitals, etc. is not by any stretch of the imagination a 'rational' reaction. Obamacare's 'raison d'etre' is reduction in health costs. These were coming down before Obamacare and are now accelerating upward. With an average premium increase of 39% this year and at least that projected for next Obama's claim that Obamacare would reduce healthcare costs by $2,500/family/year is just typical Obama fabrications for political purposes.

edit - ... reduce healthcare insurance premium costs ...

edit - ... restricted access to providers and hospitals, astronomical deductibles, etc. ...

edit - ... subsidies (could be eliminated by current lawsuits and if not it is doubtful that they will be funded for long) ...

Edited by colion, 06 May 2014 - 02:19 PM.

[AChartist]

Unlike the business competing with gov fraud and waste ( currency fraud ) by closing, offshoring robots and automation, downsizes, recycling of experienced workers for newer lower pay workers, advancemnets in the "human resources" technologies, the healthcare and higher education have not kept up with business capabilities to compete with gov fraud. for example companies have to downsize costs about 5% year to keep of in devaluation, healthcare and education just continued to pass currency failure on. And I am in this first hand. Immediately before 2008 the obsession was with getting product prices up in response to raw materials, and lately discussion is literally about, focusing the future on only top end products, because only the wealthy will be able to afford to buy anything. this isnt going to be pretty because if someone was going to destroy healthcare like companies have been forced to compete with gov destruction, wait till you see gov do it.

[Rogerdodger]

Keep your doctor, keep your plan, save $2,500 a year.
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

"Arbeit macht frei"
"Work makes you free" was the slogan over the gate of Hitler's death camps.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 06 May 2014 - 10:48 PM.

[salsabob]

I think it is important to note that what gets you to that projection (I do think 90% is an exaggeration) is an extrapolation of a trend that's been going on since the 1990s -, before Obamacare was even a gleen in the eye of a certain community organizer. The ACA is not the cause of the trend, it's a rational reaction to it.

Premium caps, subsidies (could be eliminated by current lawsuits), restricted access to providers and hospitals, etc. is not by any stretch of the imagination a 'rational' reaction. Obamacare's 'raison d'etre' is reduction in health costs. These were coming down before Obamacare and are now accelerating upward. With an average premium increase of 39% this year and at least that projected for next Obama's claim that Obamacare would reduce healthcare costs by $2,500/family/year is just typical Obama fabrications for political purposes.

No, the raison d'etre is reducing the uninsured and that has been accomplished and will continue to do so -

U.S. Uninsured Rate Drops to 13.4%

Uninsured rate down nearly four percentage points since late 2013
by Jenna Levy
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The uninsured rate for U.S. adults in April was 13.4%, down from 15.0% in March. This is the lowest monthly uninsured rate recorded since Gallup and Healthways began tracking it in January 2008, besting the previous low of 13.9% in September of that year.

The uninsured rate peaked at 18.0% in the third quarter of 2013, but has consistently declined since then. This downward trend in the uninsured rate coincided with the health insurance marketplace exchanges opening in October 2013, and accelerated as the March 31 deadline to purchase health insurance coverage approached -- and passed -- for most uninsured Americans. The Obama administration decided in late March to extend the deadline to April 15 for those who had already begun the enrollment process.

The uninsured rates for the first quarter of 2014 and the month of March are averages for the entire quarter and month, and do not necessarily reflect the uninsured rate for the day of the March 31 deadline. The April estimate better captures the impact of late sign-ups since all interviewing occurred after that critical date.

These data are based on more than 14,700 interviews with Americans from April 1-30, 2014, as part of the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index.

And we now know that being insured can save your life -

Massachusetts study suggests health insurance saves lives

Giving more people health insurance could save tens of thousands of lives nationwide, according to a new analysis of data from Massachusetts, whose reforms became the model for President Obama's health law.

Throughout the national debate over the Affordable Care Act, critics have questioned whether expanding coverage results in better health. The new analysis adds to the growing evidence that it does.

Mortality rates in Massachusetts measurably improved compared with similar places around the country after the state began guaranteeing its residents health coverage in 2006, according to researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Urban Institute.

What we don't know is if the cost curve will continue to bend downward. Anyone who says they know is as bogus as your 39% average policy rate increase.

What's sort of funny is that the odds are pretty good that those that rail against people getting insurance under Obamacare tend to be themselves either on Medicare or heavily govt subsidized insurance from their employer. Yea, hypocrites can be funny.

[salsabob]

Keep your doctor, keep your plan, save $2,500 a year.
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

"Arbeit macht frei"
"Work makes you free" was the slogan over the gate of Hitler's death camps.

Godwin's Law prevails again!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

and it's corollary -

"..whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress."

[salsabob]

Unlike the business competing with gov fraud and waste ( currency fraud ) by closing, offshoring robots and automation, downsizes,
recycling of experienced workers for newer lower pay workers, advancemnets in the "human resources" technologies,

the healthcare and higher education have not kept up with business capabilities to compete with gov fraud.

for example companies have to downsize costs about 5% year to keep of in devaluation, healthcare and education just continued
to pass currency failure on.

And I am in this first hand. Immediately before 2008 the obsession was with getting product prices up in response to raw materials,
and lately discussion is literally about,

focusing the future on only top end products, because only the wealthy will be able to afford to buy anything.

this isnt going to be pretty because if someone was going to destroy healthcare like companies have been forced to compete
with gov destruction, wait till you see gov do it.

Take your income today and adjust it for inflation for 30, 50, 100 years ago. Double it and then go live in that period of 30, 50 and 100 years ago. I don't think you will like it (e.g., my BMer will kick your BMer's butt and do it with less gas and more safely)

The things you would lose are things that would not be possible without some level of currency depreciation.

Here's the clue - inflation begins to occur when demand begins to outstrip supply. Do you understand at what point does a smart businessman increase his production by hiring someone, investing in capital or funding research to increase the quantity/quality of his product or service, i.e., grow the economy?
Think about it.

Edited by salsabob, 08 May 2014 - 01:22 PM.