ObamaCare: Rotten to the core

[Hammock Parties]

Great plan, Mr. President.

What you didn't know about Obama care

Originally Posted by Bornagain?

Each patient now has a time limit to get better. If a patient comes in my clinic with a heart attack; I have 5 days (hypothetical) to get him better. After that the insurance wants me to fix him but not pay a dime. I actually have to give a refund back to the Insurance company. Same shit applies to everything, even patients with psychological problems....who will most likely NEVER get better.

Then they wonder why mother****ers are going out and shooting people up? It's because Obama wants Insurance companies to quadruple their profits at the expense of quality of health being provided to honest hard working Americans. At the same time companies are required to give Insurance to their employees, meaning more profit for insurance companies.

Hospitals are closing all over the place. The one I was born in reported a loss of 14 million last year and is now closing down. Another great hospital is firing 40% of it's doctors soon. Our new system is horrible and discourages good doctors from working inside United States.

Obama has been nothing but a tyrant who has introduced socialism to this country and is slowly taking away our rights. People complained about Bush water boarding three high valued targets now we directly assassinate Americans with no accountability.

[Otter]

Originally Posted by Fish

I've worked 5 different IT jobs in two different states, ranging from K-12 education, university, private company, etc. And I've never once had to take a physical or a drug test.

Well that explains why his hands were on my shoulders during the prostate examination.

It's true. The first one was for tier 1 help desk support. I never gave this a second thought till all u guys said never happened. I still know a handful of peeps there, ill have check if still the norm. This wa circa 2003.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Otter

Well that explains why his hands were on my shoulders during the prostate examination.

It's true. The first one was for tier 1 help desk support. I never gave this a second thought till all u guys said never happened. I still know a handful of peeps there, ill have check if still the norm. This wa circa 2003.

Ten years ago....and butt-raped under the pretense of a employment qualification exam. Heh.

Doesn't surprise me that Otter fell for that; in this case the "victim" must have enjoyed it; just sayin'....

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

You guys realize Clayton made up every word of the OP, right?

Lameass ideologue sheeples make for some fun trolling....

Well done, Clay....

Negative, retard.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

It could be from a mass email, is another option, or a Facebook post.

Neither of those show up in Google searches.

It's from a private forum.

[patteeu]

Doctors are selling their groups to hospitals as the changing healthcare world is making it hard for them to survive financially. Hospitals who take the doctors groups on to make sure they continue to have patients are seeing these struggling groups drag their balance sheets down. The democrats have failed us on healthcare reform. Of course, I'm pretty sure it was intentional.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Doctors are selling their groups to hospitals as the changing healthcare world is making it hard for them to survive financially. Hospitals who take the doctors groups on to make sure they continue to have patients are seeing these struggling groups drag their balance sheets down. The democrats have failed us on healthcare reform. Of course, I'm pretty sure it was intentional.

Hospitals buying doctor groups has been going on since the 90's.

Getting the facts straight:

Most democrats wanted a single payor system. Medicare for all type. They couldn't get that passed. Settled for obamacare.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Hospitals buying doctor groups has been going on since the 90's.

I suspect it's been going on longer than that, but the pace is accelerating because of the problems created by the spiraling costs of healthcare. Obamacare was focused on expanding coverage rather than the real problem. In fact, it seems to have exacerbated the real problem.

[Otter]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

Ten years ago....and butt-raped under the pretense of a employment qualification exam. Heh.

Doesn't surprise me that Otter fell for that; in this case the "victim" must have enjoyed it; just sayin'....

What do rocks taste like?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I suspect it's been going on longer than that, but the pace is accelerating because of the problems created by the spiraling costs of healthcare. Obamacare was focused on expanding coverage rather than the real problem. In fact, it seems to have exacerbated the real problem.

Exactly.
Cloward–Piven strategy at work and single payer will be next as this next phase of Fabian Socialism fails.

[nstygma]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Exactly.
Cloward–Piven strategy at work and single payer will be next as this next phase of Fabian Socialism fails.

"But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House."
-BO

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by GoWalrus

It's because Obama wants Insurance companies to quadruple their profits at the expense of quality of health being provided to honest hard working Americans.

I don't agree with this statement at all, and I know far more about Obamacare than this doctor.

Obama is much more clever.

Obama is in fact, trying to create a health care system that will cause the electorate to demand nationalized health care. Its the only thing that makes sense, unless we are to presume the crafters of this legislation are complete morons.

Obama thinks we should have nationalized health care, probably due to the left wing arguments about how France spends about 8% of their GDP on health care while we spend 18% and the french have better longevity expectations and lower infant mortality rates.

The american public has resounding rejected nationalized health at every opportunity. Consequently, Obama crafted a system which is admirably we'll crafted to achieve its purpose, but that purpose is NOT to provide health care. The purpose is to shift public opinion in favor of nationlized health.

Quadrupling insurance company profits in the short term is the carrot he dangled in front of insurance executives (who only think short term) to quell their opposition. Go directly after national health, and insurance companies will spend a mountain of money to fight you, because that will disenfranchise them overnight (and, more importantly, unemploy their decision-making executives).

Yet, Obamacare creates incentives for companies to DROP employee health coverage, by setting the penalty an order of magnitude lower than providing health care. Think about this, Obama has created a situation where companies stop providing health care while CHOOSING to pay more taxes (in forms of penalties) to the government. In one fell swoop he's created a situation where individuals will now be seeking iindividual plans, and will now cry out for government to "defend" them against the big bad insurance copmanies. All of this while INCREASING government revenue so that he has more govt sugar with which to pay off voters and corporations.

He's also required individuals to get health care. This is a hidden tax increase, under the guise of giving you health care. The supreme court, btw, calls it what it is: a tax. Forget about Obama and Pelosi's lies. Now, those individuals will be out seeking individual policies without group bargaining power. Insurance companies will make hay bargaining against the untried and inexperienced organizations known as government established co-ops, which, as government entities, they will be able to influence through lobbying.

As the op establishes, Obamacare pretty much makes it impossible for an insurance company to lose money, while shifting all the risk to health care providers.

We can see the real intent of Obamacare in the taxation of medical devices, including things like BRACES in orthodontics which are hardly high tech. How, exactly, does increasing the cost of using medical devices improve access to health care? Not at all. In fact, it creates a government-mandated disincentive to provide health care, while increasing government revenue. Obama has, again, increased his capability to buy off voters and corporations on the back of sick Americans.

As for why hospitals are going bankrupt, its going to get worse. This fall, we are still scheduled to change the coding method for health care claims, going from what is known as ICD-9 to ICD-10. Numerous analysts have reported that changing the coding method will cause a bigger financial hit to the health care system than the losses that destroyed the real estate industry in 2007-08. While most do not expect the same kind of economic meltdown since home-mortgages were built into financial instruments well-beyond the immediate losses to the home real estate industry, this is a crisis for hospital CFO's. Estimates suggest that hospitals will lose more than 4%-5% of revenue on the inefficiency of the new claims system during the adjustment period (of around a year). Now, when you consider that the majority of hospitals run at a 1-1.5% profit margin (2% is HIGH for a hospital) that means that the CFO will have to finance a year of losses. If they maintain their typical profit margins, they are looking at 4 (or more years if you look at finance costs) years operating in the red if you include the financing costs.

Btw, the conversion to ICD-10 is not exactly part of Obamacare, but is instead a separate piece of legislation.

Gee, is it any wonder that they aren't hiring or wanting to buy new equipment? I can't imagine how this harms the economic recovery, with health care being the single largest sector of the US economy. Btw, hospitals and doctors are also required to digitize their medical records (as part of the 2009 stimulus package and is tehcnically not part of OBamacare). Beginning in 2014, providers will face medicare and medicaid reimbursement penalties (of around 4%) for failure to comply to a requirement that only causes them losses and yields no benefit with most EMR systems.

Now, for most EMR systems, digitization does NOT help the provider's bottom line, but does help the government. In fact, many new EMR systems will force the physician to spend MORE time dealing with new data requirements, increasing the time admin duties will take during patient visits. (Btw, as a matter of full disclosure---I work for a small health care IT company which is trying to get in on this market. I hold a sliver of founder stock and the CEO is my first cousin---he was also one of the key designers of Java.) Btw, the new regs for EMR systems are (surprise, surprise) behind schedule. And, industry data indicates that 30% of providers are so unhappy with their new EMR systems, that they are already looking for replacements. This is another whole area of revenue hits due to compliance inefficiency in the wake of a new regulatory system.

While I do not expect anyone to "cry" for poor health care providers, I do hope to make you understand why providers are so unhappy.

Physicians are now selling their private practices to join hospital owned groups, seeking more institutional expertise in dealing with these regulatory concerns. In fact, now more than %50 of providers operate in a hospital-owned practice rather than physician owned (1st time in history). My dad (a retired physician who used to be staff president of a KC area hospital) tells me this is a cyclical thing, that usually swings back when profits tend to gravitate toward hospital executives and the admin personnel develop proficiency under the new regs. Notice, however, that doctors under regulatory siege become more likely to embrace a european-style one-payer system.

Yet, when paired with the incentives for employers and hordes of new patients put in a weak bargaining position vis a vis insurers, and hospital losses, you can see that Obamacare has undermined every source of opposition to national health. Obama is creating a political moment where national health can win at the polls by delivering something that is much worse. I think its intentional.

P.S. (note that under the hospital-owned physician practice problems, I did not even mention the inherent conflict of interest created by hospital-owned practices and hits to quality of care).

[BucEyedPea]

I call BS on the French system. It's failing. It's one of the most expensive in Europe and unsustainable. They also do not use as much hi-tech HC in Europe as we do in the US. Another reason why ours costs more. Now add in the 2000 plus mandates imposed on HC/Insurance which have driven up cost and the illegals using the Emergency Rooms. Govt intervention in HC markets are a big reason why the costs have risen. Also, BI Pharma gets protected markets.

[BucEyedPea]

France's Health-Care System Is Going Broke

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...is-going-broke

Low-Tech and inexpensive but they get re-imbursed for this:

Anita Manfredi got nine massages and 18 mud baths at a luxury spa in November. The French government paid two-thirds of the $1,022 bill. “The treatment has done me a lot of good,” says Manfredi, a French retiree who suffers from arthritis and enjoys a three-week retreat at the southern spa town of Dax every year. “I no longer have flare-ups.”

Also homeopathic remedies they receive. Also, inexpensive.
And you can't count infant deaths because we count ours differently.


And now, because it's failing:

France’s health system now requires doctors to reduce the number of drugs they prescribe ...

You're dreamer Johnny...like most progs.

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

France's Health-Care System Is Going Broke

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...is-going-broke

Low-Tech and inexpensive but they get re-imbursed for this:


Also homeopathic remedies they receive. Also, inexpensive.
And you can't count infant deaths because we count ours differently.


And now, because it's failing:




You're dreamer Johnny...like most progs.

Didn't say I agreed with Obamacare and the French argument. I said that is the argument most often used by supporters of national health. Often these kinds of arguments don't control for dietary habits, drug habits ect, and will look at infant mortality, critical care outcomes, and longevity.

Basically, the whole post was about how Obama is trying to shift public opinion against the public will. Obviously, your opinion of that is going to vary depending on whether you think national health is desirable or not.

In fact, I think Obamacare is a clusterfrak. We think our EMR system will win market share with or without Obamacare, because we turn EMR into something that substantially improves revenue for providers, whether the primary insurer is private insurance or a government agency---as opposed to most of our competitors. So, in many ways, I don't have a dog in this hunt other than my interests as a citizen.

Where I disagree with the doctor is the ultimate purpose of Obamacare, which is NOT to quadruple ins. company profits. It's ultimate purpose is to get the public to agree with national health care---which is a long-term democrat dream. I'm saying how he's doing it is to deliver a complete train wreck to make everyone think national health care is the solution.

Funny how you must not have read my post. Because I would have thought the portrayal of how Obama is getting companies to drop health insurance coverage, pass a tax increase that they lied and said wasn't a tax (obamacare), and then get companies to willingly pay more taxes (penalties) would make it pretty clear what I think of Obamacare---in order to get more government sugar that they can use to buy off voters and corporate supporters.

[007]

I'm not believing shit in this forum without reliable links. I'm sick of all the lying and trolling that goes on in here now.