PDA

View Full Version : Obama Care



Pages : 1 2 [3]

eagle2
10-27-2013, 02:14 AM
Trying to stay 100% on the financial side, given lower ACA reimbursement rates, the hospitals and clinics will only be able to afford to pay MD's ( and other health professionals ) X dollars while still remaining 'solvent'. Based on previous experience in the UK and other countries, this is likely to create a competition where US educated doctors will wind up receiving employment offers up to that X dollar level, after which the hospitals and clinics will reach out to H1B visa holding MD's from Pakistan, Armenia etc. who are willing to accept the X dollar pay offer rather than the hospital or clinic being 'forced' to offer US educated doctors more than pay rate X. This by definition removes any 'leverage' that US educated doctors might have had in the past, despite the fact that US educated doctors face huge student loan debts that Pakistani, Armenian etc. doctors do not !!!


Hospitals will be receiving higher reimbursement as a result of the ACA, not lower. Hospitals must treat countless uninsured patients that go to their emergency room, and often hospitals receive no compensation at all for their services. Thanks to ACA, many of these patients will now have insurance, and hospitals will be compensated for their services. There's no basis for your claim that hospitals will be paying doctors less, and American doctors will be replaced with doctors for third world countries. American doctors are compensated very well for their services:

http://www.profilesdatabase.com/resources/2011-2012-physician-salary-survey

and their salaries are projected to modestly increase:

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/physician-salaries-projected-increase

Melonie
10-27-2013, 03:22 AM
^^^ I suppose that Dr. Cain's attempted point will actually boil down to the number of previous 'charity' patients who will now provide some payment to the Dr. via Medicaid, versus the number of previously privately insured patients who will now provide a reduced payment via Expanded Medicaid, as well as the number of previously privately insured patients that the Dr. will lose because he can't / won't join one of the lowest cost ( via pre-negotiated reduced reimbursement rate ) 'provider networks' under ObamaCare's Public Health Exchange insurance offerings. Also, as of right now, nobody has a good 'handle' on the actual costs to the Dr. for the 'increased paperwork' aspects of Expanded Medicaid / ObamaCare, i.e. reporting to the EHR database, getting treatment approvals out of the IPAB ??? prior to being able to provide certain treatments, etc.

Thus I won't deny Dr. Cain's speculation entirely, but must point out that there are two sides to his 'story'.



Hospitals will be receiving higher reimbursement as a result of the ACA, not lower

Not the case according to hospital administrators ... from


(snip)The third major cost-pressure factor that will affect hospitals is that the government, which in 1990 paid for 20% of patients through Medicare and 10% through Medicaid, is now paying for about 60% of their patients. As this percentage grows, the government's take-it-or-leave-it prices (at $0.23 on the billed dollar for Medicare and $0.18 for Medicaid, depending on the state) mean that they will all have to find a way to reduce their costs to $0.23 on the dollar billed, a 30% reduction from the average of $0.33 they now collect, just to break even – that is, without any money to reinvest in plant, equipment, or new procedures. This means that hospital systems like the Cleveland Clinic have to find a way to reduce their costs by approximately $1.6 billion over the next four years as these expected changes occur.(snip)

(snip)"The present three-tiered U.S. medical insurance system is composed of concierge care (typically a flat fee for super-quick access to a medical professional and/or someone to help you navigate the healthcare system) for 1.5% of the population, a Medicaid system that 5 to 15% of the population uses, a Medicare system that 40% of the population depends on now, and a commercial system that 35 to 42% of the population uses. (About 15% are now uninsured.)

In order to plan and develop a budget, you could logically forecast that by 2015 the number of Americans utilizing concierge care will decrease from 1.5% to 1% (as Cadillac plans are taxed), the public using Medicaid or insurance priced to pay at Medicaid rates will increase from 5-15% to 23%, Medicare use will remain about 40%, and lower-cost commercial plans will cover 35% of people, down from 42%, and reimburse the Clinic at just $0.32 on the dollar (vs. the $0.38 they now receive)(snip)

(snip)The prediction is these hospitals will be paid approximately 5% fewer total dollars next year and 25–35% fewer dollars in 2018, while treating a growing number of patients. Since more than 60% of their costs (in many institutes the figure is more than 80%) are for personnel, we either have to find ways to do things more efficiently, that is with fewer personnel to do the same amount of work **; or to do things in new ways (to re-engineer care), **; or to do things with less-expensive personnel, for example, by substituting a medical assistant for a physician or nurse in some processes where a physician assistant is equally capable of doing those things.(snip)


Yes, this is the same Cleveland Clinic that recently announced the ( forced ) early retirements of some 3,000 health care workers, with more layoffs to potentially follow, as hospital administrators attempt to slice $330 million from the institution's annual payroll and other expenditures such that the institution can remain 'in the black' versus expected declining reimbursement rates from ObamaCare insurance / declining reimbursement rates from 'private' insurance that must remain economically competitive with ObamaCare insurance / increased percentage of patients having to be treated at very low Medicaid reimbursement rates.

As with Dr. Cain, your link attempts to paint a picture that hospitals will benefit from a reduction in 100% unreimbursed medical treatments due to more patients having some type of health insurance. This is not an estimate but conjecture, since there is no way to know how 100% unreimbursed medical treatment of uninsured illegal immigrants, for example, would be reduced under ObamaCare. Perhaps some states planned on allowing illegal immigrants ( the arguable #1 cause of 100% unreimbursed medical treatments ) to sign up for Expanded Medicaid, which will now be thwarted due to the recent budget impasse 'deal' establishing a firm verification requirement for Public Health Exchange subsidy eligibility.

At any rate, I'll personally give the 'benefit of the doubt' to the Cleveland Clinic's 'experts' ... based on their extremely successful past track record. And in response to your statement about there being no motivation to 'cut' doctor's pay rates or to hire foreign doctors at low pay rates, I'll refer you to the above statements that clearly show that some 60-80% of a health care institution's actual costs are labor related. Thus if health care institutions are going to be forced to reduce their actual costs by 25-35% over the course of the next 5 years to compensate for reduced reimbursement rates, the only way that can happen is by taking a large chunk out of the health care institution's labor costs i.e. paying doctors and nurses less money, or requiring doctors and nurses to perform significantly more work for the same amount of money, or some combination of both !!! The physicians' salary survey you posted is based on pre-ObamaCare 'past history', which is arguably already no longer the case and which certainly will be reduced to 'apples and oranges' once ObamaCare insurance and Expanded Medicaid kick in for 2014.

miabella
10-27-2013, 09:06 AM
The reason physicians might get more money with the Medicaid expansion is because they are going to move to group visits, where nobody gets individual care. If one doctor is looking at 12 patients at a time, that would certainly take the edge off the ridiculously low Medicaid reimbursements.

Kellydancer
10-27-2013, 10:04 AM
Obamacare: bad idea from a bad incompetent president. I live in Illinois and here it's impossible to get medicaid if you are childless but if you have kids, even here illegally you get covered. Illinois is a state that loves illegals and welfare queens but hates the childless (who pay more in taxes). Obamacare will cost me more than I pay now.

eagle2
10-27-2013, 11:42 AM
^^^ I suppose that Dr. Cain's attempted point will actually boil down to the number of previous 'charity' patients who will now provide some payment to the Dr. via Medicaid, versus the number of previously privately insured patients who will now provide a reduced payment via Expanded Medicaid, as well as the number of previously privately insured patients that the Dr. will lose because he can't / won't join one of the lowest cost ( via pre-negotiated reduced reimbursement rate ) 'provider networks' under ObamaCare's Public Health Exchange insurance offerings. Also, as of right now, nobody has a good 'handle' on the actual costs to the Dr. for the 'increased paperwork' aspects of Expanded Medicaid / ObamaCare, i.e. reporting to the EHR database, getting treatment approvals out of the IPAB ??? prior to being able to provide certain treatments, etc.

Thus I won't deny Dr. Cain's speculation entirely, but must point out that there are two sides to his 'story'.




Not the case according to hospital administrators ... from http://www.businessinsider.com/what-will-change-with-obamacare-2013-10#ixzz2iuvUGV4Gmpact


(snip)The third major cost-pressure factor that will affect hospitals is that the government, which in 1990 paid for 20% of patients through Medicare and 10% through Medicaid, is now paying for about 60% of their patients. As this percentage grows, the government's take-it-or-leave-it prices (at $0.23 on the billed dollar for Medicare and $0.18 for Medicaid, depending on the state) mean that they will all have to find a way to reduce their costs to $0.23 on the dollar billed, a 30% reduction from the average of $0.33 they now collect, just to break even – that is, without any money to reinvest in plant, equipment, or new procedures. This means that hospital systems like the Cleveland Clinic have to find a way to reduce their costs by approximately $1.6 billion over the next four years as these expected changes occur.(snip)

(snip)"The present three-tiered U.S. medical insurance system is composed of concierge care (typically a flat fee for super-quick access to a medical professional and/or someone to help you navigate the healthcare system) for 1.5% of the population, a Medicaid system that 5 to 15% of the population uses, a Medicare system that 40% of the population depends on now, and a commercial system that 35 to 42% of the population uses. (About 15% are now uninsured.)

In order to plan and develop a budget, you could logically forecast that by 2015 the number of Americans utilizing concierge care will decrease from 1.5% to 1% (as Cadillac plans are taxed), the public using Medicaid or insurance priced to pay at Medicaid rates will increase from 5-15% to 23%, Medicare use will remain about 40%, and lower-cost commercial plans will cover 35% of people, down from 42%, and reimburse the Clinic at just $0.32 on the dollar (vs. the $0.38 they now receive)(snip)

(snip)The prediction is these hospitals will be paid approximately 5% fewer total dollars next year and 25–35% fewer dollars in 2018, while treating a growing number of patients. Since more than 60% of their costs (in many institutes the figure is more than 80%) are for personnel, we either have to find ways to do things more efficiently, that is with fewer personnel to do the same amount of work **; or to do things in new ways (to re-engineer care), **; or to do things with less-expensive personnel, for example, by substituting a medical assistant for a physician or nurse in some processes where a physician assistant is equally capable of doing those things.(snip)


Yes, this is the same Cleveland Clinic that recently announced the ( forced ) early retirements of some 3,000 health care workers, with more layoffs to potentially follow, as hospital administrators attempt to slice $330 million from the institution's annual payroll and other expenditures such that the institution can remain 'in the black' versus expected declining reimbursement rates from ObamaCare insurance / declining reimbursement rates from 'private' insurance that must remain economically competitive with ObamaCare insurance / increased percentage of patients having to be treated at very low Medicaid reimbursement rates.

As with Dr. Cain, your link attempts to paint a picture that hospitals will benefit from a reduction in 100% unreimbursed medical treatments due to more patients having some type of health insurance. This is not an estimate but conjecture, since there is no way to know how 100% unreimbursed medical treatment of uninsured illegal immigrants, for example, would be reduced under ObamaCare. Perhaps some states planned on allowing illegal immigrants ( the arguable #1 cause of 100% unreimbursed medical treatments ) to sign up for Expanded Medicaid, which will now be thwarted due to the recent budget impasse 'deal' establishing a firm verification requirement for Public Health Exchange subsidy eligibility.

At any rate, I'll personally give the 'benefit of the doubt' to the Cleveland Clinic's 'experts' ... based on their extremely successful past track record. And in response to your statement about there being no motivation to 'cut' doctor's pay rates or to hire foreign doctors at low pay rates, I'll refer you to the above statements that clearly show that some 60-80% of a health care institution's actual costs are labor related. Thus if health care institutions are going to be forced to reduce their actual costs by 25-35% over the course of the next 5 years to compensate for reduced reimbursement rates, the only way that can happen is by taking a large chunk out of the health care institution's labor costs i.e. paying doctors and nurses less money, or requiring doctors and nurses to perform significantly more work for the same amount of money, or some combination of both !!! The physicians' salary survey you posted is based on pre-ObamaCare 'past history', which is arguably already no longer the case and which certainly will be reduced to 'apples and oranges' once ObamaCare insurance and Expanded Medicaid kick in for 2014.

I not only posted physician salaries, but projections showing that their salaries are expected to modestly increase. I don't know much about Cleveland Clinic's specifics, but overall, hospitals have very high margins compared to most other industries. MD Anderson, a non-profit hospital, earned $531 million on revenues of $2.05 billion in 2010. That's a margin of 26 percent.

http://livingwithmcl.com/BitterPill.pdf

Again, there is no basis for your prediction that American doctors are going to be replaced by doctors from third world countries.

eagle2
10-27-2013, 11:45 AM
Obamacare: bad idea from a bad incompetent president. I live in Illinois and here it's impossible to get medicaid if you are childless but if you have kids, even here illegally you get covered. Illinois is a state that loves illegals and welfare queens but hates the childless (who pay more in taxes). Obamacare will cost me more than I pay now.

The Affordable Care Act makes it possible for childless adults to obtain Medicaid.

From:
http://www.apha.org/advocacy/Health+Reform/ACAbasics/medicaid.htm

Medicaid is the nation's health insurance program for low-income individuals and families. The ACA calls for a nationwide expansion of Medicaid eligibility, set to begin in 2014. As the law was written, nearly all U.S. citizens under 65 with family incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) ($30,675 for a family of four in 2012) will qualify for Medicaid under the expansion. (About FPL; Is it 133 or 138?) This expansion will particularly benefit childless adults, who in more than 40 states cannot currently qualify for Medicaid regardless of their income level. It will also benefit low income parents, who in more than 30 states don't currently qualify even if their children do.

Kellydancer
10-27-2013, 01:00 PM
The Affordable Care Act makes it possible for childless adults to obtain Medicaid.

From:


Medicaid is the nation's health insurance program for low-income individuals and families. The ACA calls for a nationwide expansion of Medicaid eligibility, set to begin in 2014. As the law was written, nearly all U.S. citizens under 65 with family incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) ($30,675 for a family of four in 2012) will qualify for Medicaid under the expansion. (About FPL; Is it 133 or 138?) This expansion will particularly benefit childless adults, who in more than 40 states cannot currently qualify for Medicaid regardless of their income level. It will also benefit low income parents, who in more than 30 states don't currently qualify even if their children do.

But apparently Illinois won't offer it to childless adults. Incidentally in Illinois low income parents qualify for medicaid called FamilyCare I believe and it's regardless of immigration status.

simone87
10-27-2013, 01:28 PM
i just don't like the idea of being FORCED to buy something, or be fined! how can they do that, i mean obviously i know they do what they want, but still! isn't that unconstitutional or something? the only good thing i could find is that under obamacare, women won't be charged more for insurance than men, which is the way it should be. i don't like being charged more just because i was born with a vagina, its ridiculous.

AureliaC
10-27-2013, 01:47 PM
i just don't like the idea of being FORCED to buy something, or be fined! how can they do that, i mean obviously i know they do what they want, but still! isn't that unconstitutional or something? the only good thing i could find is that under obamacare, women won't be charged more for insurance than men, which is the way it should be. i don't like being charged more just because i was born with a vagina, its ridiculous.

Prepare for the "well yeah, but car insurance!" claims. Get real, just because they're both insurance doesn't mean they're comparable. Car insurance isn't even mandatory everywhere, and carrying it is to protect both the bank's interest if they have a stake in the car, and other drivers. A car accident can hurt everyone nearby, coming down with an illness affects the actual person only. Sure Aflac type insurance and life insurance is good for your family, but that isn't Obamacare. Obamacare is unconstitutional for many reasons, although I believe a 5-4 vote by the supreme court said it was cool to force someone to buy something they don't want/need.

Kellydancer
10-27-2013, 01:55 PM
I too don't like the idea of being forced to buy something. I oppose when government tells us to do this. Yes many people without insurance get injured but it should be their choice to buy insurance or not.

Smurfette
10-27-2013, 02:19 PM
Prepare for the "well yeah, but car insurance!" claims. Get real, just because they're both insurance doesn't mean they're comparable. Car insurance isn't even mandatory everywhere, and carrying it is to protect both the bank's interest if they have a stake in the car, and other drivers. A car accident can hurt everyone nearby, coming down with an illness affects the actual person only. Sure Aflac type insurance and life insurance is good for your family, but that isn't Obamacare. Obamacare is unconstitutional for many reasons, although I believe a 5-4 vote by the supreme court said it was cool to force someone to buy something they don't want/need.

Well I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court would be the most qualified to distinguish what's constitutional and what's not.

The whole point of the insurance being mandatory is that prices lower the more people buy into it.

For those of you who say you don't 'need' insurance... what are you going to do if something DOES happen? What if you get into an accident that leaves you in the hospital for weeks? What if you get cancer and need to start chemotherapy immediately? Just wondering... I'm genuinely curious.

People without health insurance DO affect others. Someone's family is absolutely going to be affected if they suddenly end up with 100K+ in medical bills. Plus unpaid ER visits cost the health care industry AND tax payers a LOT of money.

Melonie
10-27-2013, 02:32 PM
^^^ again, unlike virtually all existing 'private' health insurance, ObamaCare mandates that insurance companies MUST cover people regardless of pre-existing conditions, and also MUST charge them the same monthly premium as 'healthy' people of the same age, income level, and insurance plan selection. Thus if an uninsured American is diagnosed with Cancer, they can ( effectively ) sign up for ObamaCare health insurance on the way to their first chemotherapy treatment, and receive the same insurance payments to defray their medical bills as another American who had elected to sign up for ObamaCare while they were still healthy. In fact, the uninsured person just diagnosed with Cancer also has the option of selecting the insurance plan that will provide them the lowest net out-of-pocket costs knowing that they are going to incur huge medical bills ( i.e. paying $100 extra for a 'platinum' plan that provides the lowest annual deductible and the highest percentage of coverage ).



MD Anderson, a non-profit hospital, earned $531 million on revenues of $2.05 billion in 2010. That's a margin of 26 percent.

Again, there is no basis for your prediction that American doctors are going to be replaced by doctors from third world countries.

I would also point out that in 2012 $406 million of MD Anderson's revenues came in the form of federal, state and private research grants. Those grants account for the 'lion's share' of MD Anderson's 'profit margin'. Obviously, the vast majority of US medical treatment providers aren't involved in research on this scale, and don't receive the related grant money. See

I would add that MD Anderson, as a University of Texas affiliated hospital that is highly focused on cancer research and treatment, probably cares for comparatively few Medicaid patients or illegal alien ER visits !!! As such, they are probably receiving a lot of .38 reimbursement rates from private health insurance companies versus .23 or less reimbursement rates from Medicaid or 0.0 reimbursement rates from uninsured illegal aliens. Granted that this may change significantly in 2014 ... at which point I'm very willing to take a second look at MD Anderson's 'profit margin'.

Nina_
10-27-2013, 02:34 PM
But the good news is that as someone who takes very good care of myself I will be paying the medical expenses of others, medical expenses I won't be able to afford to take advantage of.


You're right, because only people who don't take good care of themselves end up with medical conditions that need to be covered by health insurance.

On a more serious note, move to Europe and fork over half your earnings in taxes and we'll see what tune you're singing then.

simone87
10-27-2013, 02:40 PM
if they really wanted everybody to get good health care they'd do what canada does instead of spending money on wars and bail outs. its like trying to prevent homelessness but saying everybody must buy a house or they will fine you.

AureliaC
10-27-2013, 02:40 PM
Simply because buying insurance is a good idea doesn't mean that it's the government's job to force people to buy intensely overpriced insurance. Sorry, but we need healthcare reform not a completely new system that works awesome for people who couldn't get insurance and royally screw people that can afford it.. according to the government. Do you really want the "well we didn't know about the NSA, IRS harassment, Benghazi etc." administration deciding whether or not saving your life is "cost effective"?? Sorry, but to me being in debt from hospital bills is better than just being straight up denied because the government doesn't think my life is worth the money it will cost. I don't want my hospital to be a DMV.

And the supreme court once thought that denying black people rights was a pretty fab thing to do as well, and the vote wasn't nearly as close as this particular instance.

Kellydancer
10-27-2013, 02:43 PM
I'm not saying people don't need insurance, nor am I saying I don't support universal healthcare. What I do oppose is Obamacare. I too think it is wrong that someone healthy who takes care of themselves would pay the same as someone who doesn't. For instance a person who works out, eats healthy, doesn't smoke or drink should pay less than someone who is obese and a smoker. What will happen is both will pay the same but in reality the healthy person is paying more while the unhealthy less.

Melonie
10-27-2013, 02:52 PM
^^^ actually, smokers are required to pay a 50% surcharge under an ObamaCare regulation issued by Sec. Sibelius ... well as long as they earn more than 400% of FPL = $46k per year ( below that amount the max annual insurance cost is capped at x% of income ) !!! Of course the same isn't true of people who are morbidly obese, who are drug (ab)users etc.

Nina_
10-27-2013, 02:52 PM
I'm not saying people don't need insurance, nor am I saying I don't support universal healthcare. What I do oppose is Obamacare. I too think it is wrong that someone healthy who takes care of themselves would pay the same as someone who doesn't. For instance a person who works out, eats healthy, doesn't smoke or drink should pay less than someone who is obese and a smoker. What will happen is both will pay the same but in reality the healthy person is paying more while the unhealthy less.

A person who 'works out, eats healthy, doesn't smoke or drink' can still get into a dangerous car accident, can't they? You can take care of yourself to your highest standard, but that doesn't mean you aren't going to need health insurance at some point.

What about children? Should they be penalized for not 'taking care of themselves' correctly? Should a 5 year old with cancer be denied health coverage? Should a premature newborn's family be denied health coverage?

Kellydancer
10-27-2013, 02:53 PM
Talk about discrimination because a fat person affects my insurance far more than a smoker. But then again it's pc to go after smokers but not obese.

Kellydancer
10-27-2013, 02:57 PM
A person who 'works out, eats healthy, doesn't smoke or drink' can still get into a dangerous car accident, can't they? You can take care of yourself to your highest standard, but that doesn't mean you aren't going to need health insurance at some point.

What about children? Should they be penalized for not 'taking care of themselves' correctly? Should a 5 year old with cancer be denied health coverage? Should a premature newborn's family be denied health coverage?

But the chances of the car accident and injury is less likely than someone getting a disease because of poor health. As for the newborn's family, since childless are denied help why should I care about the family of a baby receiving medical? Assuming all get insurance then this question is a moot one but no I don't believe those with kids are more entitled to medical than those without, that is discrimination. The kids shouldn't be penalized but the parents should for not taking care of the kids properly.

Nina_
10-27-2013, 03:00 PM
It's interesting to me that in 2009, 3/4 of Americans saw health insurance as an 'urgent priority' but now that a democratic President has actually done something about it, it's such a horrible idea. Liking or disliking ObamaCare has become so polarized as a democrat-republican debate. If healthcare is/was such a problem, why is it such a problem that a president actually did something about it? Not to mention that people are already reaping the benefits of it (and no, not just the poor). Also, people seem to forget or simply not know that the healthcare act started out as a republican idea. Now that a democrat president (a BLACK one at that!) has actually put the law into action, the republicans have turned on it. Chief Justice Roberts is most definitely not a liberal, quite the contrary, yet he managed to write most of the Court's Opinion on upholding ObamaCare.

Kellydancer
10-27-2013, 03:05 PM
Because this particular idea was a bad one. Universal healthcare is not a bad idea, Obamacare is. As for it being political most here aren't Republicans and yes I voted for him. I'm a registered Democrat btw. Oh and Obama is biracial.

Nina_
10-27-2013, 03:10 PM
But the chances of the car accident and injury is less likely than someone getting a disease because of poor health. As for the newborn's family, since childless are denied help why should I care about the family of a baby receiving medical? Assuming all get insurance then this question is a moot one but no I don't believe those with kids are more entitled to medical than those without, that is discrimination. The kids shouldn't be penalized but the parents should for not taking care of the kids properly.

Ok, did you even read my post? It seems to have gone right over your head. I'm baffled as to how you gathered from my post that people with kids are more entitled to health insurance than those without, because I did not express or imply that at all, whatsoever. Quite the contrary, actually. I used children as an example because you said, "I too think it is wrong that someone healthy who takes care of themselves would pay the same as someone who doesn't." Well, children CAN'T take 'good care' of themselves, so by your logic, they should be denied coverage. Also, as I stated, even people who take prime care of themselves could still be exposed to a medical condition that requires insurance coverage. Car accident, a fall down the stairs, premature birth, cancer, etc etc etc. Accidents happen and no one is invincible. There are PLENTY of people coming out and stating that they have changed their minds about ObamaCare once they or a loved one was diagnosed with a condition and had no means of getting insurance from it without ObamaCare. Please don't twist my words again.

Melonie
10-27-2013, 03:10 PM
Sorry, but to me being in debt from hospital bills is better than just being straight up denied because the government doesn't think my life is worth the money it will cost.

Well, this has certainly been an issue for Canadians ...


Of course, ObamaCare's future changes to the US health care industry is likely to affect many Canadians as well ...



(snip)"In 2011, Canadians enrolled in the nation’s government-dominated health service waited long periods of time for an estimated 941,321 procedures. As many as 2.8 percent of Canadians were waiting for treatment at any given time, according to the Institute.

“In some cases, these patients needed to leave Canada due to a lack of available resources or a lack of appropriate procedure/technology,” according to the Institute. “In others, their departure will have been driven by a desire to return more quickly to their lives, to seek out superior quality care, or perhaps to save their own lives or avoid the risk of disability.”

Increases in the number of patients leaving Canada for treatment were seen in seven of the ten Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

“Some of these patients will have been sent out of country by the public health care system due to a lack of available resources or the fact that some procedures or equipment are not provided in their home jurisdiction,” the report concluded.

“Others will have chosen to leave Canada in response to concerns about quality … to avoid some of the adverse medical consequences of waiting for care such as worsening of their condition, poorer outcomes following treatment, disability, or death … or simply to avoid delay.”(snip)


On the bright side, after ObamaCare takes effect both Canadians and Americans can still travel to Thailand for prompt, low cost, high quality medical treatment !!!

Nina_
10-27-2013, 03:15 PM
Oh and Obama is biracial.

Are you biracial? Do you get to choose what race a biracial person identifies with? Obama himself grew up identifying as black and checking 'black' in censuses. Obama does not look white; looking at him, it is very apparent that he has a significant degree of black ancestry; growing up, he was deemed 'black' by society because of the way he looks. Why deny him his blackness? Oh, because he's president now, so now we must all call him biracial even though he self-identified as a black man. Try growing up as a biracial person (like I did) and then try to get politically correct with me about his race. Society DOES generally view Obama as 'black' and to deny that is absurd.

AureliaC
10-27-2013, 03:17 PM
DO NOT bring race into this. It's so unbelievably irrelevant it's insane. We are discussing this from a FINANCIAL stand point.

But since you want to make this a race issue as well as political, I'm libertarian, I don't found my feelings on a broken two party system. Who ever thought giving two private organizations power of our entire country was a good idea should be institutionalized.

I'm not against better healthcare for all, but I am very against this. Our government doesn't do anything well, and I have no delusions that they will handle this better than every other program they have implemented. It hasn't been going well so far, but hey we can all dream!

Kellydancer
10-27-2013, 03:19 PM
Are you biracial? Do you get to choose what race a biracial person identifies with? Obama himself grew up identifying as black and checking 'black' in censuses. Obama does not look white; looking at him, it is very apparent that he has a significant degree of black ancestry; growing up, he was deemed 'black' by society because of the way he looks. Why deny him his blackness? Oh, because he's president now, so now we must all call him biracial even though he self-identified as a black man. Try growing up as a biracial person (like I did) and then try to get politically correct with me about his race. Society DOES generally view Obama as 'black' and to deny that is absurd.

He IS biracial so him pretending he his or isn't doesn't change that fact. What I am doesn't matter either.

Nina_
10-27-2013, 03:20 PM
DO NOT bring race into this. It's so unbelievably irrelevant it's insane. We are discussing this from a FINANCIAL stand point.

But since you want to make this a race issue as well as political, I'm libertarian, I don't found my feelings on a broken two party system. Who ever thought giving two private organizations power of our entire country was a good idea should be institutionalized.

I'm not against better healthcare for all, but I am very against this. Our government doesn't do anything well, and I have no delusions that they will handle this better than every other program they have implemented. It hasn't been going well so far, but hey we can all dream!

The extend of my bringing race into the issue was when I parenthesized the statement, "(a BLACK one at that)" so don't pretend I am pulling the race card, seeing as how that was not the focal point, main point, or side point of my argument. People love to pretend someone is playing the race card when they aren't. I am not one of those people.

Kellydancer
10-27-2013, 03:21 PM
DO NOT bring race into this. It's so unbelievably irrelevant it's insane. We are discussing this from a FINANCIAL stand point.

But since you want to make this a race issue as well as political, I'm libertarian, I don't found my feelings on a broken two party system. Who ever thought giving two private organizations power of our entire country was a good idea should be institutionalized.

I'm not against better healthcare for all, but I am very against this. Our government doesn't do anything well, and I have no delusions that they will handle this better than every other program they have implemented. It hasn't been going well so far, but hey we can all dream!

Because when people dislike Obama they must hate him because of his race (sarcasm). Forget the fact that his policies have been horrible. I said the same about Bush too. I too think our government is broke and am opposed to the two party system. I am a registered Democrat but that's really in name only since I consider myself Libertarian on social and financial reasons.

AureliaC
10-27-2013, 03:22 PM
Clearly, seen as how you felt it necessary to bring up in multiple different posts. Let's keep it relevant.

Melonie
10-27-2013, 03:24 PM
If healthcare is/was such a problem, why is it such a problem that a president actually did something about it?

I hesitate to respond to this at all due to the SW Politics ban, but will try to do so on strictly factual economic terms. The so-called 'problem' isn't so much the creation of a US national health care system, but in the way it has been implemented / the economic changes it is causing ...

- employer mandates are gradually making 28 hour per week 'part-time' jobs the norm instead of the exception ... with associated reductions in US consumer spending on all 'non-essential' items ( like lap dances and webcam )

- cost shifting away from 'unproductive' Americans and toward 'productive' Americans instead ( via the income level based subsidies and abandonment of 'cost risk' factors in insurance premium pricing ) slows economic growth / recovery ( i.e. 'taking more money' out of the pockets of young and healthy dancers and camgirls )

- direct taxes and indirect costs imposed by ObamaCare on US businesses further slows economic growth / recovery

Nina_
10-27-2013, 03:24 PM
He IS biracial so him pretending he his or isn't doesn't change that fact. What I am doesn't matter either.

He's not pretending he is or isn't. A biracial person identifying as one of their races, or both, isn't 'pretending,' they are simply identifying with their own race that they feel like they identify with. You attempted to correct me when I called him black, which was unnecessary seeing as how society as well as HE HIMSELF views him as black. You were just reaching for something to correct me about.

Kellydancer
10-27-2013, 03:25 PM
Ok, did you even read my post? It seems to have gone right over your head. I'm baffled as to how you gathered from my post that people with kids are more entitled to health insurance than those without, because I did not express or imply that at all, whatsoever. Quite the contrary, actually. I used children as an example because you said, "I too think it is wrong that someone healthy who takes care of themselves would pay the same as someone who doesn't." Well, children CAN'T take 'good care' of themselves, so by your logic, they should be denied coverage. Also, as I stated, even people who take prime care of themselves could still be exposed to a medical condition that requires insurance coverage. Car accident, a fall down the stairs, premature birth, cancer, etc etc etc. Accidents happen and no one is invincible. There are PLENTY of people coming out and stating that they have changed their minds about ObamaCare once they or a loved one was diagnosed with a condition and had no means of getting insurance from it without ObamaCare. Please don't twist my words again.

Then don't twist mine or make this a "people hate Obamacare because Obama isn't lily white". That's not the reason. Kids aren't denied health coverage in most states since most have many medical programs. Illinois has Medicaid and Healthy Kids for those who don't qualify for Medicaid. Kids with poor health caused by their parents should mean the parents are charged more. Sure accidents happen, I had a serious one years ago and actually made me realize that the system is very messed up but Obamacare will make it worse.

Nina_
10-27-2013, 03:26 PM
Clearly, seen as how you felt it necessary to bring up in multiple different posts.

I 'brought it up' in ONE post. The other posts I mentioned were in response to Kellydancer - go back and re-read it if you don't believe me.


Let's keep it relevant.
And yet here you are, still discussing it.

Djoser
10-27-2013, 03:26 PM
Way too much politics. Thread temporarily closed. I will think about reopening it later but I have to get ready for work, and there is simply nowhere near enough time to weed out the political comments now.