- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) – The new health care overhaul law – that promised increased access and efficiency in health care – will prevent doctor-owned hospitals from adding more rooms and more beds.
These hospitals are advertised as less bureaucratic and more focused on doctor-patient decision making. However, larger corporate hospitals say doctor-owned facilities discriminate in favor of high-income patients and refer business to themselves.
The new rules single out physician-owned hospitals, making new physician-owned projects ineligible to receive payments for Medicare and Medicaid patients.
Existing doctor-owned hospitals will be grandfathered in to get government funds for patients but must seek permission from the Department of Health and Human Services to expand.
The get the department’s permission, a doctor-owned hospital must be in a county where population growth is 150 percent of the population growth of the state in the last five years; impatient admissions must be equal to all hospitals located in the county; the bed occupancy rate must not be greater than the state average, and it must be located in a state where hospital bed capacity is less than the national average.
These rules are under Title VI, Section 6001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The provision is titled “Physician Ownership and Other Transparency – Limitations on Medicare Exceptions to the Prohibition on Certain Physician Referral for Hospitals.”
More than 60 doctor-owned hospitals across the country that were in the development stage will be canceled, said Molly Sandvig, executive director of Physician Hospitals of America (PHA).
“That’s a lot of access to communities that will be denied,” Sandvig told CNSNews.com. “The existing hospitals are greatly affected. They can’t grow. They can’t add beds. They can’t add rooms. Basically, it stifles their ability to change and meet market needs. This is really an unfortunate thing as well, because we are talking about some of the best hospitals in the country.”
The only goal was to provide affordable health care to all citizens.
The only goal was to provide affordable health care to all citizens.
If that were the truth, then this would never have passed.
If you read the bill, you will you would think otherwise.
Score 10 points for politicians duping the commoners again.
Since you seem to be claiming to have read the bill in its entirety, why don't you provide some specific examples of how it will fail to control costs?
The debate is whether the bill does enough to control costs. I have yet to hear an intelligent, evidence based argument presented from either side that indicates how this bill will affect cost. All I hear is speculation and ideology.
Since you seem to be claiming to have read the bill in its entirety, why don't you provide some specific examples of how it will fail to control costs?
It's a mimic of MassCare which has raised premiums by a lot.
The CBO has already said that it would raise rates 10% with the additional mandates.
I don't think that includes regular medical inflation.
The Associated Press: FACT CHECK: Premiums would rise under Obama plan
JCT: Healthcare law to sock middle class with a $3.9 billion tax increase in 2019 - The Hill's On The Money
Senate Health-Care Bill Will Raise Insurance Costs - WSJ.com
In Depth: 10 Surprising Ways Health Reform Will Cost You - The Cadillac tax. - Forbes.com
Six Ways the Senate Health Care Bill Raises Health Care Costs, Kills Jobs, and Weakens the Economy | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Take your pick, there are many sources to help exclude bias.
And yet you support the bill?
I supported doing something that may have been a disaster over doing nothing that would have assuredly been a disaster.
Do you have any sources that actually talk about the legislation that was passed? None of these sources seem to discuss the legislation that was actually passed, by which I mean the Senate Bill and the fixes that they approved later. They also refer to the CBO report of just the Senate Bill, not the CBO report that was released of the combined legislation.
If we are going to talk about whether or not Obama's health care will control costs, shouldn't we be talking about the legislation that we actually have?
It will increase demand for medical services, yes?
The AP/fact check article specifically talks about it.
The report that was released was in reference to the Senate Reconciliation bill.
The one that was passed.
Some of the other articles break down to specific provisions that would increase costs.
Not really. In fact, that is a nonsense argument. I can't believe that there were simple enough minded conservatives out there who actually believed that people without insurance coverage don't seek medical services. They always have; they just waited until they were sick enough that the government would foot the bill. As such, there really won't be much change in the actual demand.
People get sick regardless of whether they have insurance or not. So the demand for medical services will largely remain the same as it was before the legislation. The difference is where the demand will be placed on the system. Instead of it primarily being placed on emergency care, where it has been as a result of people without insurance waiting until they were sick enough that they had to get treatment, it will be placed on more standard care.
So, it won't increase access to medical care?
The AP fact check article could not. It was released on March 17th. The CBO report on the reconciliation package was released on March 18th.
The fact of the matter is that you are reading articles that don't detail that actual legislation that we have. They only refer to the Senate bill before the changes.
It will change when people get medical care, not whether or not they need it. No health care reform could have influenced the overall demand for medical services. The demand for standard care will increase while the demand for emergency care will decrease, but the overall demand for medical services will stay relatively the same.
It will change when people get medical care, not whether or not they need it. No health care reform could have influenced the overall demand for medical services. The demand for standard care will increase while the demand for emergency care will decrease, but the overall demand for medical services will stay relatively the same.
The date of release makes no difference as long as the provisions are still the same.
The increased mandates for coverage were not removed from the bill which is why the cost increases are likely to incur, that doesn't count the increased in costs to young people.
This one shows that.
The Associated Press: Health premiums could rise 17 pct for young adults
This is a very simplistic analysis. Not everyone who visits a physician really needs medical care. One of the problems with the current system is that people visit the doctor for trivial things too often. Now that people will have free access to medical care, this problem will become further exacerbated and demand for medical services will invariably rise, resulting in an increase in costs.
That's what happened under Romneycare, not sure why it would be different for Obamacare...
That article is arguing something completely different. It's saying that young people will have to pick up more of the burden from elderly under the new law. It's a redistribution of costs, not an overall increase in cost for everyone.
It actually can when talking about medicaid.
That programs has almost 0 out of pocket expenses and it has already been shown that the majority of people who visit the ER are medicare and medicaid patients.
They may seek care for trivial things that they didn't before.
The only goal was to provide affordable health care to all citizens.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?