Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

ObamaCare's cuts to hospitals will cost seniors their lives

+3
Slicef18
Yella
gulfbeachbandit
7 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Guest


Guest

President Obama is wooing seniors with promises to protect Medicare as they've known it. On the defensive because of the $716 billion his health care law takes from Medicare, Obama assures seniors he's cutting payments to hospitals and other providers, not their benefits.

Don't be bamboozled. It's illogical to think that reducing what a hospital is paid to treat seniors won't harm their care. A mountain of scientific evidence proves the cuts will worsen the chance that an elderly patient survives a hospital stay and goes home. It’s reasonable to conclude that tens of thousands of seniors will die needlessly each year.

Under ObamaaCare, hospitals, hospice care, dialysis centers, and nursing homes will be paid less to care for the same number of seniors than if the health law had not been enacted. Payments to doctors will also be cut.

Scientific evidence published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading scientific journal, suggests that forcing hospitals to spend less on elderly patients will produce deadly results.

Exhaustive data on over two million elderly patients treated at 208 California hospitals from 1999 to 2008 show that elderly patients treated in low spending hospitals (bottom quintile) get less care and have a worse chance of surviving and leaving the hospital than elderly patients with the same diagnosis treated at higher spending hospitals. The research, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and RAND and published in 2011 found that heart attack patients were 19% more likely to die at low spending hospitals.

Over a four year period, 13,613 seniors with pneumonia, stroke, heart attacks and other common conditions who died at low spending hospitals would have recovered and gone home had they been treated at a higher spending institution.(Annals of Internal Medicine, February 1, 2011) That’s the death toll in one state with about 10% of the Medicare population.

Ignoring this evidence, the Obama administration is pressuring hospitals in all fifty states to imitate low spending hospitals. In addition to the across the board cuts in future payments to hospitals,very soon, beginning in October, 2012, the Obama administration will reward hospitals that spend the least per senior,and penalize those that spend more. For several years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have measured hospital quality, including infection rates. But Section 3001 of the Obama health care law adds "Medicare spending per beneficiary" as a measure for the first time. Hospital administrators express alarm that the measure includes not only what is spent on an elderly patient in the hospital but also for thirty days after discharge, when the patient visits a doctor or gets physical therapy for example.

Slashing what hospitals are paid does not eliminate “fraud, waste, and abuse,”contrary to what the law’s defenders claim. The cuts compel hospitals to operate in an environment of medical scarcity, with fewer nurses and less diagnostic equipment.

When Medicare cut payment rates to hospitals in 1997, the cuts eventually led to more deaths from heart attacks. Seniorstreated at the hospitals incurring the largest cuts had a 6-8% worse mortality rate from heart attacksthan seniors treated at other hospitals. The reason, researchers concluded, is that hospitals coped with the cuts by reducing nursing care. (National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2011.)

Though this research did not measure harm to younger patients, it is obvious that patients of every age suffer when nurses are spread thinner. Press the call button, and you will wait longer for help.

Medicare is the single largest source of revenue for hospitals. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary of Medicare and Medicaid Services, testified to Congress that the ObamaCare cuts will eventually force 40% of hospitals to operate at a loss, affecting the standard of care. Foster also cautioned that 15% of hospitals may stop accepting Medicare.

There are safer ways to control Medicare costs, including inching up the eligibility age, asking seniors to pay an affordable share of their bills, preventing hospital infections, and empowering patients to be cost-conscious consumers. Of course, politicians will try to claim that the easy answer -- slashing payments to hospitals -- won’t hurt patients, but the evidence shows that’s untrue.



Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D. is a former Lt. Governor of New York State and author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/12/obamacare-cuts-to-hospitals-will-cost-seniors-their-lives/#ixzz26P7Iiptp

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit

Ever see a movie called Logans run?

Guest


Guest

ghandi wrote:Ever see a movie called Logans run?

ObamaCare's cuts to hospitals will cost seniors their lives Th?id=I.4836168250228857&pid=1

Yep...

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WUUnc1M0TA

Smile

Guest


Guest

ghandi wrote:Ever see a movie called Logans run?

Logan's Run is a novel by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson. Published in 1967, it depicts a dystopic ageist future society in which both population and the consumption of resources are maintained in equilibrium by requiring the death of everyone reaching a particular age. The story follows the actions of Logan, a Sandman charged with enforcing the rule, as he tracks down and kills citizens who "run" from society's lethal demand—only to end up "running" himself


Yes, life really is stranger than fiction, or is it fiction at all? scratch

Guest


Guest

Rogue wrote:President Obama is wooing seniors with promises to protect Medicare as they've known it. On the defensive because of the $716 billion his health care law takes from Medicare, Obama assures seniors he's cutting payments to hospitals and other providers, not their benefits.

Don't be bamboozled. It's illogical to think that reducing what a hospital is paid to treat seniors won't harm their care. A mountain of scientific evidence proves the cuts will worsen the chance that an elderly patient survives a hospital stay and goes home. It’s reasonable to conclude that tens of thousands of seniors will die needlessly each year.

Under ObamaaCare, hospitals, hospice care, dialysis centers, and nursing homes will be paid less to care for the same number of seniors than if the health law had not been enacted. Payments to doctors will also be cut.

Scientific evidence published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading scientific journal, suggests that forcing hospitals to spend less on elderly patients will produce deadly results.

Exhaustive data on over two million elderly patients treated at 208 California hospitals from 1999 to 2008 show that elderly patients treated in low spending hospitals (bottom quintile) get less care and have a worse chance of surviving and leaving the hospital than elderly patients with the same diagnosis treated at higher spending hospitals. The research, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and RAND and published in 2011 found that heart attack patients were 19% more likely to die at low spending hospitals.

Over a four year period, 13,613 seniors with pneumonia, stroke, heart attacks and other common conditions who died at low spending hospitals would have recovered and gone home had they been treated at a higher spending institution.(Annals of Internal Medicine, February 1, 2011) That’s the death toll in one state with about 10% of the Medicare population.

Ignoring this evidence, the Obama administration is pressuring hospitals in all fifty states to imitate low spending hospitals. In addition to the across the board cuts in future payments to hospitals,very soon, beginning in October, 2012, the Obama administration will reward hospitals that spend the least per senior,and penalize those that spend more. For several years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have measured hospital quality, including infection rates. But Section 3001 of the Obama health care law adds "Medicare spending per beneficiary" as a measure for the first time. Hospital administrators express alarm that the measure includes not only what is spent on an elderly patient in the hospital but also for thirty days after discharge, when the patient visits a doctor or gets physical therapy for example.

Slashing what hospitals are paid does not eliminate “fraud, waste, and abuse,”contrary to what the law’s defenders claim. The cuts compel hospitals to operate in an environment of medical scarcity, with fewer nurses and less diagnostic equipment.

When Medicare cut payment rates to hospitals in 1997, the cuts eventually led to more deaths from heart attacks. Seniorstreated at the hospitals incurring the largest cuts had a 6-8% worse mortality rate from heart attacksthan seniors treated at other hospitals. The reason, researchers concluded, is that hospitals coped with the cuts by reducing nursing care. (National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2011.)

Though this research did not measure harm to younger patients, it is obvious that patients of every age suffer when nurses are spread thinner. Press the call button, and you will wait longer for help.

Medicare is the single largest source of revenue for hospitals. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary of Medicare and Medicaid Services, testified to Congress that the ObamaCare cuts will eventually force 40% of hospitals to operate at a loss, affecting the standard of care. Foster also cautioned that 15% of hospitals may stop accepting Medicare.

There are safer ways to control Medicare costs, including inching up the eligibility age, asking seniors to pay an affordable share of their bills, preventing hospital infections, and empowering patients to be cost-conscious consumers. Of course, politicians will try to claim that the easy answer -- slashing payments to hospitals -- won’t hurt patients, but the evidence shows that’s untrue.



Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D. is a former Lt. Governor of New York State and author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/12/obamacare-cuts-to-hospitals-will-cost-seniors-their-lives/#ixzz26P7Iiptp

And she's a republican too! LOL! What a bunch of crap!

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit

Dreamsglore wrote:
Rogue wrote:President Obama is wooing seniors with promises to protect Medicare as they've known it. On the defensive because of the $716 billion his health care law takes from Medicare, Obama assures seniors he's cutting payments to hospitals and other providers, not their benefits.

Don't be bamboozled. It's illogical to think that reducing what a hospital is paid to treat seniors won't harm their care. A mountain of scientific evidence proves the cuts will worsen the chance that an elderly patient survives a hospital stay and goes home. It’s reasonable to conclude that tens of thousands of seniors will die needlessly each year.

Under ObamaaCare, hospitals, hospice care, dialysis centers, and nursing homes will be paid less to care for the same number of seniors than if the health law had not been enacted. Payments to doctors will also be cut.

Scientific evidence published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading scientific journal, suggests that forcing hospitals to spend less on elderly patients will produce deadly results.

Exhaustive data on over two million elderly patients treated at 208 California hospitals from 1999 to 2008 show that elderly patients treated in low spending hospitals (bottom quintile) get less care and have a worse chance of surviving and leaving the hospital than elderly patients with the same diagnosis treated at higher spending hospitals. The research, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and RAND and published in 2011 found that heart attack patients were 19% more likely to die at low spending hospitals.

Over a four year period, 13,613 seniors with pneumonia, stroke, heart attacks and other common conditions who died at low spending hospitals would have recovered and gone home had they been treated at a higher spending institution.(Annals of Internal Medicine, February 1, 2011) That’s the death toll in one state with about 10% of the Medicare population.

Ignoring this evidence, the Obama administration is pressuring hospitals in all fifty states to imitate low spending hospitals. In addition to the across the board cuts in future payments to hospitals,very soon, beginning in October, 2012, the Obama administration will reward hospitals that spend the least per senior,and penalize those that spend more. For several years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have measured hospital quality, including infection rates. But Section 3001 of the Obama health care law adds "Medicare spending per beneficiary" as a measure for the first time. Hospital administrators express alarm that the measure includes not only what is spent on an elderly patient in the hospital but also for thirty days after discharge, when the patient visits a doctor or gets physical therapy for example.

Slashing what hospitals are paid does not eliminate “fraud, waste, and abuse,”contrary to what the law’s defenders claim. The cuts compel hospitals to operate in an environment of medical scarcity, with fewer nurses and less diagnostic equipment.

When Medicare cut payment rates to hospitals in 1997, the cuts eventually led to more deaths from heart attacks. Seniorstreated at the hospitals incurring the largest cuts had a 6-8% worse mortality rate from heart attacksthan seniors treated at other hospitals. The reason, researchers concluded, is that hospitals coped with the cuts by reducing nursing care. (National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2011.)

Though this research did not measure harm to younger patients, it is obvious that patients of every age suffer when nurses are spread thinner. Press the call button, and you will wait longer for help.

Medicare is the single largest source of revenue for hospitals. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary of Medicare and Medicaid Services, testified to Congress that the ObamaCare cuts will eventually force 40% of hospitals to operate at a loss, affecting the standard of care. Foster also cautioned that 15% of hospitals may stop accepting Medicare.

There are safer ways to control Medicare costs, including inching up the eligibility age, asking seniors to pay an affordable share of their bills, preventing hospital infections, and empowering patients to be cost-conscious consumers. Of course, politicians will try to claim that the easy answer -- slashing payments to hospitals -- won’t hurt patients, but the evidence shows that’s untrue.



Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D. is a former Lt. Governor of New York State and author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/12/obamacare-cuts-to-hospitals-will-cost-seniors-their-lives/#ixzz26P7Iiptp

And she's a republican too! LOL! What a bunch of crap!

Bunch of crap? Like science fiction? Which is what this book is.
So now science fiction is a bunch of crap. Stop the presses. We have a breaking story. Star trek, all stephen king books, and many others may be false. Bunches of crap.

Guest


Guest

ghandi wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Rogue wrote:President Obama is wooing seniors with promises to protect Medicare as they've known it. On the defensive because of the $716 billion his health care law takes from Medicare, Obama assures seniors he's cutting payments to hospitals and other providers, not their benefits.

Don't be bamboozled. It's illogical to think that reducing what a hospital is paid to treat seniors won't harm their care. A mountain of scientific evidence proves the cuts will worsen the chance that an elderly patient survives a hospital stay and goes home. It’s reasonable to conclude that tens of thousands of seniors will die needlessly each year.

Under ObamaaCare, hospitals, hospice care, dialysis centers, and nursing homes will be paid less to care for the same number of seniors than if the health law had not been enacted. Payments to doctors will also be cut.

Scientific evidence published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading scientific journal, suggests that forcing hospitals to spend less on elderly patients will produce deadly results.

Exhaustive data on over two million elderly patients treated at 208 California hospitals from 1999 to 2008 show that elderly patients treated in low spending hospitals (bottom quintile) get less care and have a worse chance of surviving and leaving the hospital than elderly patients with the same diagnosis treated at higher spending hospitals. The research, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and RAND and published in 2011 found that heart attack patients were 19% more likely to die at low spending hospitals.

Over a four year period, 13,613 seniors with pneumonia, stroke, heart attacks and other common conditions who died at low spending hospitals would have recovered and gone home had they been treated at a higher spending institution.(Annals of Internal Medicine, February 1, 2011) That’s the death toll in one state with about 10% of the Medicare population.

Ignoring this evidence, the Obama administration is pressuring hospitals in all fifty states to imitate low spending hospitals. In addition to the across the board cuts in future payments to hospitals,very soon, beginning in October, 2012, the Obama administration will reward hospitals that spend the least per senior,and penalize those that spend more. For several years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have measured hospital quality, including infection rates. But Section 3001 of the Obama health care law adds "Medicare spending per beneficiary" as a measure for the first time. Hospital administrators express alarm that the measure includes not only what is spent on an elderly patient in the hospital but also for thirty days after discharge, when the patient visits a doctor or gets physical therapy for example.

Slashing what hospitals are paid does not eliminate “fraud, waste, and abuse,”contrary to what the law’s defenders claim. The cuts compel hospitals to operate in an environment of medical scarcity, with fewer nurses and less diagnostic equipment.

When Medicare cut payment rates to hospitals in 1997, the cuts eventually led to more deaths from heart attacks. Seniorstreated at the hospitals incurring the largest cuts had a 6-8% worse mortality rate from heart attacksthan seniors treated at other hospitals. The reason, researchers concluded, is that hospitals coped with the cuts by reducing nursing care. (National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2011.)

Though this research did not measure harm to younger patients, it is obvious that patients of every age suffer when nurses are spread thinner. Press the call button, and you will wait longer for help.

Medicare is the single largest source of revenue for hospitals. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary of Medicare and Medicaid Services, testified to Congress that the ObamaCare cuts will eventually force 40% of hospitals to operate at a loss, affecting the standard of care. Foster also cautioned that 15% of hospitals may stop accepting Medicare.

There are safer ways to control Medicare costs, including inching up the eligibility age, asking seniors to pay an affordable share of their bills, preventing hospital infections, and empowering patients to be cost-conscious consumers. Of course, politicians will try to claim that the easy answer -- slashing payments to hospitals -- won’t hurt patients, but the evidence shows that’s untrue.



Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D. is a former Lt. Governor of New York State and author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/12/obamacare-cuts-to-hospitals-will-cost-seniors-their-lives/#ixzz26P7Iiptp

And she's a republican too! LOL! What a bunch of crap!

Bunch of crap? Like science fiction? Which is what this book is.
So now science fiction is a bunch of crap. Stop the presses. We have a breaking story. Star trek, all stephen king books, and many others may be false. Bunches of crap.

Try to get it together,Ghandi. Focus. Read the post and the response a few more times and it may become clear to you.

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit

Dreamsglore wrote:
ghandi wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Rogue wrote:President Obama is wooing seniors with promises to protect Medicare as they've known it. On the defensive because of the $716 billion his health care law takes from Medicare, Obama assures seniors he's cutting payments to hospitals and other providers, not their benefits.

Don't be bamboozled. It's illogical to think that reducing what a hospital is paid to treat seniors won't harm their care. A mountain of scientific evidence proves the cuts will worsen the chance that an elderly patient survives a hospital stay and goes home. It’s reasonable to conclude that tens of thousands of seniors will die needlessly each year.

Under ObamaaCare, hospitals, hospice care, dialysis centers, and nursing homes will be paid less to care for the same number of seniors than if the health law had not been enacted. Payments to doctors will also be cut.

Scientific evidence published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading scientific journal, suggests that forcing hospitals to spend less on elderly patients will produce deadly results.

Exhaustive data on over two million elderly patients treated at 208 California hospitals from 1999 to 2008 show that elderly patients treated in low spending hospitals (bottom quintile) get less care and have a worse chance of surviving and leaving the hospital than elderly patients with the same diagnosis treated at higher spending hospitals. The research, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and RAND and published in 2011 found that heart attack patients were 19% more likely to die at low spending hospitals.

Over a four year period, 13,613 seniors with pneumonia, stroke, heart attacks and other common conditions who died at low spending hospitals would have recovered and gone home had they been treated at a higher spending institution.(Annals of Internal Medicine, February 1, 2011) That’s the death toll in one state with about 10% of the Medicare population.

Ignoring this evidence, the Obama administration is pressuring hospitals in all fifty states to imitate low spending hospitals. In addition to the across the board cuts in future payments to hospitals,very soon, beginning in October, 2012, the Obama administration will reward hospitals that spend the least per senior,and penalize those that spend more. For several years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have measured hospital quality, including infection rates. But Section 3001 of the Obama health care law adds "Medicare spending per beneficiary" as a measure for the first time. Hospital administrators express alarm that the measure includes not only what is spent on an elderly patient in the hospital but also for thirty days after discharge, when the patient visits a doctor or gets physical therapy for example.

Slashing what hospitals are paid does not eliminate “fraud, waste, and abuse,”contrary to what the law’s defenders claim. The cuts compel hospitals to operate in an environment of medical scarcity, with fewer nurses and less diagnostic equipment.

When Medicare cut payment rates to hospitals in 1997, the cuts eventually led to more deaths from heart attacks. Seniorstreated at the hospitals incurring the largest cuts had a 6-8% worse mortality rate from heart attacksthan seniors treated at other hospitals. The reason, researchers concluded, is that hospitals coped with the cuts by reducing nursing care. (National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2011.)

Though this research did not measure harm to younger patients, it is obvious that patients of every age suffer when nurses are spread thinner. Press the call button, and you will wait longer for help.

Medicare is the single largest source of revenue for hospitals. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary of Medicare and Medicaid Services, testified to Congress that the ObamaCare cuts will eventually force 40% of hospitals to operate at a loss, affecting the standard of care. Foster also cautioned that 15% of hospitals may stop accepting Medicare.

There are safer ways to control Medicare costs, including inching up the eligibility age, asking seniors to pay an affordable share of their bills, preventing hospital infections, and empowering patients to be cost-conscious consumers. Of course, politicians will try to claim that the easy answer -- slashing payments to hospitals -- won’t hurt patients, but the evidence shows that’s untrue.



Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D. is a former Lt. Governor of New York State and author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/12/obamacare-cuts-to-hospitals-will-cost-seniors-their-lives/#ixzz26P7Iiptp

And she's a republican too! LOL! What a bunch of crap!

Bunch of crap? Like science fiction? Which is what this book is.
So now science fiction is a bunch of crap. Stop the presses. We have a breaking story. Star trek, all stephen king books, and many others may be false. Bunches of crap.

Try to get it together,Ghandi. Focus. Read the post and the response a few more times and it may become clear to you.

I know what science fiction is without having a dimwit try and explain it to me. Logans run is a science fiction book. Look it up. Dummy.

Guest


Guest

ghandi wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
ghandi wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Rogue wrote:President Obama is wooing seniors with promises to protect Medicare as they've known it. On the defensive because of the $716 billion his health care law takes from Medicare, Obama assures seniors he's cutting payments to hospitals and other providers, not their benefits.

Don't be bamboozled. It's illogical to think that reducing what a hospital is paid to treat seniors won't harm their care. A mountain of scientific evidence proves the cuts will worsen the chance that an elderly patient survives a hospital stay and goes home. It’s reasonable to conclude that tens of thousands of seniors will die needlessly each year.

Under ObamaaCare, hospitals, hospice care, dialysis centers, and nursing homes will be paid less to care for the same number of seniors than if the health law had not been enacted. Payments to doctors will also be cut.

Scientific evidence published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a leading scientific journal, suggests that forcing hospitals to spend less on elderly patients will produce deadly results.

Exhaustive data on over two million elderly patients treated at 208 California hospitals from 1999 to 2008 show that elderly patients treated in low spending hospitals (bottom quintile) get less care and have a worse chance of surviving and leaving the hospital than elderly patients with the same diagnosis treated at higher spending hospitals. The research, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and RAND and published in 2011 found that heart attack patients were 19% more likely to die at low spending hospitals.

Over a four year period, 13,613 seniors with pneumonia, stroke, heart attacks and other common conditions who died at low spending hospitals would have recovered and gone home had they been treated at a higher spending institution.(Annals of Internal Medicine, February 1, 2011) That’s the death toll in one state with about 10% of the Medicare population.

Ignoring this evidence, the Obama administration is pressuring hospitals in all fifty states to imitate low spending hospitals. In addition to the across the board cuts in future payments to hospitals,very soon, beginning in October, 2012, the Obama administration will reward hospitals that spend the least per senior,and penalize those that spend more. For several years, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid have measured hospital quality, including infection rates. But Section 3001 of the Obama health care law adds "Medicare spending per beneficiary" as a measure for the first time. Hospital administrators express alarm that the measure includes not only what is spent on an elderly patient in the hospital but also for thirty days after discharge, when the patient visits a doctor or gets physical therapy for example.

Slashing what hospitals are paid does not eliminate “fraud, waste, and abuse,”contrary to what the law’s defenders claim. The cuts compel hospitals to operate in an environment of medical scarcity, with fewer nurses and less diagnostic equipment.

When Medicare cut payment rates to hospitals in 1997, the cuts eventually led to more deaths from heart attacks. Seniorstreated at the hospitals incurring the largest cuts had a 6-8% worse mortality rate from heart attacksthan seniors treated at other hospitals. The reason, researchers concluded, is that hospitals coped with the cuts by reducing nursing care. (National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2011.)

Though this research did not measure harm to younger patients, it is obvious that patients of every age suffer when nurses are spread thinner. Press the call button, and you will wait longer for help.

Medicare is the single largest source of revenue for hospitals. Richard Foster, Chief Actuary of Medicare and Medicaid Services, testified to Congress that the ObamaCare cuts will eventually force 40% of hospitals to operate at a loss, affecting the standard of care. Foster also cautioned that 15% of hospitals may stop accepting Medicare.

There are safer ways to control Medicare costs, including inching up the eligibility age, asking seniors to pay an affordable share of their bills, preventing hospital infections, and empowering patients to be cost-conscious consumers. Of course, politicians will try to claim that the easy answer -- slashing payments to hospitals -- won’t hurt patients, but the evidence shows that’s untrue.



Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D. is a former Lt. Governor of New York State and author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/12/obamacare-cuts-to-hospitals-will-cost-seniors-their-lives/#ixzz26P7Iiptp

And she's a republican too! LOL! What a bunch of crap!

Bunch of crap? Like science fiction? Which is what this book is.
So now science fiction is a bunch of crap. Stop the presses. We have a breaking story. Star trek, all stephen king books, and many others may be false. Bunches of crap.

Try to get it together,Ghandi. Focus. Read the post and the response a few more times and it may become clear to you.

I know what science fiction is without having a dimwit try and explain it to me. Logans run is a science fiction book. Look it up. Dummy.


Hey Ghandi-once again.Read the thread and then see the response.I'll give you a clue. Nowhere did I respond to anything about a science fiction book. Can you get that at least?

Yella

Yella

My son met two married couples from Canada a week ago and asked them about health care in Canada, how much it cost them and about waiting time. They said they were happy with it and one man said he had to wait two weeks for a surgery. They said that healthcare came out of their income tax which was around 35 to forty per cent for most people. They did not have any co-pay.

http://warpedinblue,blogspot.com/

Slicef18

Slicef18

Yella wrote:My son met two married couples from Canada a week ago and asked them about health care in Canada, how much it cost them and about waiting time. They said they were happy with it and one man said he had to wait two weeks for a surgery. They said that healthcare came out of their income tax which was around 35 to forty per cent for most people. They did not have any co-pay.

"ObamaCare's cuts to hospitals will cost seniors their lives"

Sounds a lot like the,"Medicare is going to take money from Social Security causing cuts that will result in seniors starving."

These kind of "BE SCARED" tactics always come from the party of "FEAR." They claim to be Christians, but they don't trust God.Their philosophy is, "In front of every silver lining is a dark cloud."

Guest


Guest

Yella wrote:My son met two married couples from Canada a week ago and asked them about health care in Canada, how much it cost them and about waiting time. They said they were happy with it and one man said he had to wait two weeks for a surgery. They said that healthcare came out of their income tax which was around 35 to forty per cent for most people. They did not have any co-pay.

my son in law is canadian. most of them come to the US to get thier health care.

like many canadians. ive only had one professional dealing with canada, and they simply did not give a rats ass how much I needed the pts material AFTER i told them several times the patient was very sick, it still took two weeks to get the specimen.

you want to get what you get for free and hve gov run it, i can assure you when something goes wrong, no one cares, theres no one to sue.

when our healthcare system crumbles and takes a huge portion of our middle class with it, because it will.. then maybe youll see. but i doubt it, because all of ya'll are retired and you got yours.

Slicef18

Slicef18

How many times have you heard that Canadians, frustrated by long wait times and rationing where they live, come to the United States for medical care?

I don’t deny that some well-off people might come to the United States for medical care. If I needed a heart or lung transplant, there’s no place I’d rather have it done. But for the vast, vast majority of people, that’s not happening.

The most comprehensive study I’ve seen on this topic — it employed three different methodologies, all with solid rationales behind them — was published in the peer-reviewed journal Health Affairs.
The authors of the study started by surveying 136 ambulatory care facilities near the U.S.-Canada border in Michigan, New York and Washington. It makes sense that Canadians crossing the border for care would favor places close by, right? It turns out, however, that about 80 percent of such facilities saw, on average, fewer than one Canadian per month; about 40 percent had seen none in the preceding year.

Then, the researchers looked at how many Canadians were discharged over a five-year period from acute-care hospitals in the same three states. They found that more than 80 percent of these hospital visits were for emergency or urgent care (that is, tourists who had to go to the emergency room). Only about 20 percent of the visits were for elective procedures or care.

Next, the authors of the study surveyed America’s 20 “best” hospitals — as identified by U.S. News & World Report — on the assumption that if Canadians were going to travel for health care, they would be more likely to go to the best-known and highest-quality facilities. Only one of the 11 hospitals that responded saw more than 60 Canadians in a year. And, again, that included both emergencies and elective care.

Finally, the study’s authors examined data from the 18,000 Canadians who participated in the National Population Health Survey. In the previous year, 90 of those 18,000 Canadians had received care in the United States; only 20 of them, however, reported going to the United States expressively for the purpose of obtaining care.


Finally, "my son in law is canadian. most of them come to the US to get thier health care."

Think about that for a moment. Does anybody really believe MOST Canadians could afford to leave their jobs and come to the United States and pay list price (out of their own pocket) for healthcare?

Slicef18

Slicef18

Rogue wrote:
Yella wrote:My son met two married couples from Canada a week ago and asked them about health care in Canada, how much it cost them and about waiting time. They said they were happy with it and one man said he had to wait two weeks for a surgery. They said that healthcare came out of their income tax which was around 35 to forty per cent for most people. They did not have any co-pay.

my son in law is canadian. most of them come to the US to get thier health care.

like many canadians. ive only had one professional dealing with canada, and they simply did not give a rats ass how much I needed the pts material AFTER i told them several times the patient was very sick, it still took two weeks to get the specimen.

you want to get what you get for free and hve gov run it, i can assure you when something goes wrong, no one cares, theres no one to sue.

when our healthcare system crumbles and takes a huge portion of our middle class with it, because it will.. then maybe youll see. but i doubt it, because all of ya'll are retired and you got yours.

Government providing healthcare for it's citizens is simply a matter of the people speaking their POLITICAL WILL. Do the American people want their money spent on healthcare for it's people here, or bombs to drop on people of other nations. When politicians hear they will loose their political office if they don't support Americans healthcare. Bombs no longer get funded.

Guest


Guest

Slicef18 wrote:
Rogue wrote:
Yella wrote:My son met two married couples from Canada a week ago and asked them about health care in Canada, how much it cost them and about waiting time. They said they were happy with it and one man said he had to wait two weeks for a surgery. They said that healthcare came out of their income tax which was around 35 to forty per cent for most people. They did not have any co-pay.

my son in law is canadian. most of them come to the US to get thier health care.

like many canadians. ive only had one professional dealing with canada, and they simply did not give a rats ass how much I needed the pts material AFTER i told them several times the patient was very sick, it still took two weeks to get the specimen.

you want to get what you get for free and hve gov run it, i can assure you when something goes wrong, no one cares, theres no one to sue.

when our healthcare system crumbles and takes a huge portion of our middle class with it, because it will.. then maybe youll see. but i doubt it, because all of ya'll are retired and you got yours.

Government providing healthcare for it's citizens is simply a matter of the people speaking their POLITICAL WILL. Do the American people want their money spent on healthcare for it's people here, or bombs to drop on people of other nations. When politicians hear they will loose their political office if they don't support Americans healthcare. Bombs no longer get funded.

when gov completly funds something they are involved in it in every way. they will fuck up whats left of our healthcare system. sorry for the expletive, but it is what it is.

Im out here living with these cuts now, you have yours. your retired like most here. so sure, its a god damn free for all now, who cares if it lowers the quality, demishes services (AND IT WILL) as long as EVERY BODY gets a little piece of the crumb equally and makes you feel good on the inside. I understand this train of thought. Trust me, I do.

and you say you want no bombs. how sweet. lets just do away with the military and see how that goes. I wonder who will invade us quicker than they already are, mexico or muslims?

our country is headed for extinction because idealogy such as your above. written and directed by the far far left.

Thisis America, where you have the free will to work and get for yourself. Freedom DOES NOT MEAN FREE STUFF.

2seaoat



This is not a political question. It is the simple recognition of the most efficient system to deliver health care. There is a right answer. Eventually, we will have the right answer, however until the special interests are extracted from the process, the American public will suffer. Medicare for all has always been the most efficient system, and funding the same is simply a matter of priorities. I find this thread amusing. Both parties have agreed in their budgets that the cuts made in the Affordable care bill is correct.......there is absolutely no policy maker or party who disagrees as disclosed in black and white in their budgets. It is silly to argue that the affordable care hurts hospitals when there is consensus in both parties budgets to make cost savings a priority.

Guest


Guest

I believe that's the same lady who made up the death panel rumors.

VectorMan

VectorMan

Propaganda Update: TV Networks Will Be Asked to Boost ObamaCare In Plots of Their Top Shows

Abby Goodnough of The New York Times is reporting as the California state government is setting up its ObamaCare exchange, the exchange has hired a PR firm (with federal government money).

"Realizing that much of the battle will be in the public relations realm, the exchange has poured significant resources into a detailed marketing plan — developed not by state health bureaucrats but by the global marketing powerhouse Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, which has an initial $900,000 contract with the exchange," she wrote. Ogilvy's plan is to tap major network TV shows like "Grey's Anatomy" and "Modern Family" to sell Americans on the health care law:

Hollywood, an industry whose major players have been supportive of President Obama and his agenda, will be tapped. Plans are being discussed to pitch a reality television show about “the trials and tribulations of families living without medical coverage,” according to the Ogilvy plan. The exchange will also seek to have prime-time television shows, like “Modern Family,” “Grey’s Anatomy” and Univision telenovelas, weave the health care law into their plots.


“I’d like to see 10 of the major TV shows, or telenovelas, have people talking about ‘that health insurance thing,’ ” said Peter V. Lee, the exchange’s executive director. “There are good story lines here.”

Although the exchange will not start advertising until next year, the California Endowment, a foundation that has spent $15 million promoting the law, is running newspaper and television ads, including one in which the television personality Dr. Mehmet Oz exhorts viewers to “get educated, get engaged, get enrolled.” That campaign has targeted Hispanics, who make up more than half of the state’s uninsured population.

Goodnough added "The exchange itself has so far been financed by three grants, worth $237 million, from the federal government. Most of the money is committed to consultants, including Accenture, which has a $327 million contract to build and support the initial operation of the enrollment portal."

Remember that the liberal media was furious that the federal government would promote the war in Iraq inside Iraq, and furious that the Department of Education would hire PR flacks like Armstrong Williams to talk up Bush education programs on cable news. So where is their outrage at the idea that federal grants would promote ObamaCare advertising inside network TV entertainment programs?



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/09/15/propaganda-update-tv-networks-will-be-asked-boost-obamacare-plots-their-#ixzz26YUkcqNx

VectorMan

VectorMan

Dreamsglore wrote:I believe that's the same lady who made up the death panel rumors.

Death panels or treatment approval boards? Call them whatever you like. The same thing is going to happen. Your health care will be rationed and the decision to say no treatment will be rationalized.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help! LOL

2seaoat



Stay healthy my friend......my bubble lasted for almost 55 years of great health, but when your bubble bursts you will find out that people are drawing lines everyday......they are called the insurance company.....you know the for profit folks who draw the line after a hurricane. I have dealt with FEMA and the SBA after a disaster, and I have dealt with insurance companies after a disaster.....they both draw lines.......they both can help and they both can restrict, but to think that the government is inherently the source of line drawing is naive.....stay healthy my friend.....wisdom needs to be earned.....and right now I wish I had your ignorance of how the health system really works.

VectorMan

VectorMan

2seaoat wrote:Stay healthy my friend......my bubble lasted for almost 55 years of great health, but when your bubble bursts you will find out that people are drawing lines everyday......they are called the insurance company.....you know the for profit folks who draw the line after a hurricane. I have dealt with FEMA and the SBA after a disaster, and I have dealt with insurance companies after a disaster.....they both draw lines.......they both can help and they both can restrict, but to think that the government is inherently the source of line drawing is naive.....stay healthy my friend.....wisdom needs to be earned.....and right now I wish I had your ignorance of how the health system really works.

I know how it works. I've had to live through the terrible ordeal of losing a couple of people that were very close to me. I know how health insurance works. I know how Hospice works. Letting government run the whole deal is a major mistake that will cost future generations freedom and choice. Trying to GIVE everything to everybody just won't work.

Guest


Guest

VectorMan wrote:
2seaoat wrote:Stay healthy my friend......my bubble lasted for almost 55 years of great health, but when your bubble bursts you will find out that people are drawing lines everyday......they are called the insurance company.....you know the for profit folks who draw the line after a hurricane. I have dealt with FEMA and the SBA after a disaster, and I have dealt with insurance companies after a disaster.....they both draw lines.......they both can help and they both can restrict, but to think that the government is inherently the source of line drawing is naive.....stay healthy my friend.....wisdom needs to be earned.....and right now I wish I had your ignorance of how the health system really works.

I know how it works. I've had to live through the terrible ordeal of losing a couple of people that were very close to me. I know how health insurance works. I know how Hospice works. Letting government run the whole deal is a major mistake that will cost future generations freedom and choice. Trying to GIVE everything to everybody just won't work.

It works in other countries.

Slicef18

Slicef18

There's a huge difference between funding no military and spending 41 percent as much money on the military as the rest of combined world.

percent of the total worlds military budget:

USA 41%
Next 10 countries combined 21.3%
China 8.2%
Russia 4.1%
France 3.6 %
UK 3.6%

SOURCE:
SIPRI Military Expendature Database 2012, http//milexdate.sipri.org

Slicef18

Slicef18

VectorMan wrote:
2seaoat wrote:Stay healthy my friend......my bubble lasted for almost 55 years of great health, but when your bubble bursts you will find out that people are drawing lines everyday......they are called the insurance company.....you know the for profit folks who draw the line after a hurricane. I have dealt with FEMA and the SBA after a disaster, and I have dealt with insurance companies after a disaster.....they both draw lines.......they both can help and they both can restrict, but to think that the government is inherently the source of line drawing is naive.....stay healthy my friend.....wisdom needs to be earned.....and right now I wish I had your ignorance of how the health system really works.

I know how it works. I've had to live through the terrible ordeal of losing a couple of people that were very close to me. I know how health insurance works. I know how Hospice works. Letting government run the whole deal is a major mistake that will cost future generations freedom and choice. Trying to GIVE everything to everybody just won't work.


"Letting government run the whole deal is a major mistake that will cost future generations freedom and choice."

In case you haven't noticed, Americans have no choice or freedom already. It's the insurance companies decide if it's a pre-existing condition, or just isn't covered, and if covered, which physician to go to at which office.

Markle

Markle

Slicef18 wrote:

Government providing healthcare for it's citizens is simply a matter of the people speaking their POLITICAL WILL. Do the American people want their money spent on healthcare for it's people here, or bombs to drop on people of other nations. When politicians hear they will loose their political office if they don't support Americans healthcare. Bombs no longer get funded.

No more bombs, sadly, no more U.S.A..

To believe anything else is ludicrous.

But you already knew that.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum