Author Topic: Bottom Line on Obamacare  (Read 9912 times)

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #150 on: July 28, 2012, 10:02:06 AM »
Do you really believe that?


In the long run absolutely

You dont?

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #151 on: July 28, 2012, 11:48:51 AM »

In the long run absolutely

You dont?

No I do not, anything the government touches ends up costing 10x what they claim ( mostly because of their creative accounting). Most likely scenario to this is a single payer government run system, then we are all fucked, so be careful what you wish for you just might get it.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39448
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #152 on: July 29, 2012, 05:01:37 AM »
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — In the Inland Empire, an economically depressed region in Southern California, President Obama’s health care law is expected to extend insurance coverage to more than 300,000 people by 2014. But coverage will not necessarily translate into care: Local health experts doubt there will be enough doctors to meet the area’s needs. There are not enough now.

Other places around the country, including the Mississippi Delta, Detroit and suburban Phoenix, face similar problems. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that in 2015 the country will have 62,900 fewer doctors than needed. And that number will more than double by 2025, as the expansion of insurance coverage and the aging of baby boomers drive up demand for care. Even without the health care law, the shortfall of doctors in 2025 would still exceed 100,000.

Health experts, including many who support the law, say there is little that the government or the medical profession will be able to do to close the gap by 2014, when the law begins extending coverage to about 30 million Americans. It typically takes a decade to train a doctor.

“We have a shortage of every kind of doctor, except for plastic surgeons and dermatologists,” said Dr. G. Richard Olds, the dean of the new medical school at the University of California, Riverside, founded in part to address the region’s doctor shortage. “We’ll have a 5,000-physician shortage in 10 years, no matter what anybody does.”

Experts describe a doctor shortage as an “invisible problem.” Patients still get care, but the process is often slow and difficult. In Riverside, it has left residents driving long distances to doctors, languishing on waiting lists, overusing emergency rooms and even forgoing care.

“It results in delayed care and higher levels of acuity,” said Dustin Corcoran, the chief executive of the California Medical Association, which represents 35,000 physicians. People “access the health care system through the emergency department, rather than establishing a relationship with a primary care physician who might keep them from getting sicker.”

In the Inland Empire, encompassing the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino, the shortage of doctors is already severe. The population of Riverside County swelled 42 percent in the 2000s, gaining more than 644,000 people. It has continued to grow despite the collapse of one of the country’s biggest property bubbles and a jobless rate of 11.8 percent in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metro area.

But the growth in the number of physicians has lagged, in no small part because the area has trouble attracting doctors, who might make more money and prefer living in nearby Orange County or Los Angeles.

A government council has recommended that a given region have 60 to 80 primary care doctors per 100,000 residents, and 85 to 105 specialists. The Inland Empire has about 40 primary care doctors and 70 specialists per 100,000 residents — the worst shortage in California, in both cases.

Moreover, across the country, fewer than half of primary care clinicians were accepting new Medicaid patients as of 2008, making it hard for the poor to find care even when they are eligible for Medicaid. The expansion of Medicaid accounts for more than one-third of the overall growth in coverage in President Obama’s health care law.

Providers say they are bracing for the surge of the newly insured into an already strained system.

Temetry Lindsey, the chief executive of Inland Behavioral & Health Services, which provides medical care to about 12,000 area residents, many of them low income, said she was speeding patient-processing systems, packing doctors’ schedules tighter and seeking to hire more physicians.

“We know we are going to be overrun at some point,” Ms. Lindsey said, estimating that the clinics would see new demand from 10,000 to 25,000 residents by 2014. She added that hiring new doctors had proved a struggle, in part because of the “stigma” of working in this part of California.

Across the country, a factor increasing demand, along with expansion of coverage in the law and simple population growth, is the aging of the baby boom generation. Medicare officials predict that enrollment will surge to 73.2 million in 2025, up 44 percent from 50.7 million this year.

“Older Americans require significantly more health care,” said Dr. Darrell G. Kirch, the president of the Association of American Medical Colleges. “Older individuals are more likely to have multiple chronic conditions, requiring more intensive, coordinated care.”

The pool of doctors has not kept pace, and will not, health experts said. Medical school enrollment is increasing, but not as fast as the population. The number of training positions for medical school graduates is lagging. Younger doctors are on average working fewer hours than their predecessors. And about a third of the country’s doctors are 55 or older, and nearing retirement.

Physician compensation is also an issue. The proportion of medical students choosing to enter primary care has declined in the past 15 years, as average earnings for primary care doctors and specialists, like orthopedic surgeons and radiologists, have diverged. A study by the Medical Group Management Association found that in 2010, primary care doctors made about $200,000 a year. Specialists often made twice as much.

The Obama administration has sought to ease the shortage. The health care law increases Medicaid’s primary care payment rates in 2013 and 2014. It also includes money to train new primary care doctors, reward them for working in underserved communities and strengthen community health centers.

But the provisions within the law are expected to increase the number of primary care doctors by perhaps 3,000 in the coming decade. Communities around the country need about 45,000.

Many health experts in California said that while they welcomed the expansion of coverage, they expected that the state simply would not be ready for the new demand. “It’s going to be necessary to use the resources that we have smarter” in light of the doctor shortages, said Dr. Mark D. Smith, who heads the California HealthCare Foundation, a nonprofit group.

Dr. Smith said building more walk-in clinics, allowing nurses to provide more care and encouraging doctors to work in teams would all be part of the answer. Mr. Corcoran of the California Medical Association also said the state would need to stop cutting Medicaid payment rates; instead, it needed to increase them to make seeing those patients economically feasible for doctors.

More doctors might be part of the answer as well. The U.C. Riverside medical school is hoping to enroll its first students in August 2013, and is planning a number of policies to encourage its graduates to stay in the area and practice primary care.

But Dr. Olds said changing how doctors provided care would be more important than minting new doctors. “I’m only adding 22 new students to this equation,” he said. “That’s not enough to put a dent in a 5,000-doctor shortage.”

Annie Lowrey reported from Riverside, and Robert Pear from Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/health/policy/too-few-doctors-in-many-us-communities.html?_r=3&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065&pagewanted=print


whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #153 on: July 29, 2012, 05:23:02 AM »
No I do not, anything the government touches ends up costing 10x what they claim ( mostly because of their creative accounting). Most likely scenario to this is a single payer government run system, then we are all fucked, so be careful what you wish for you just might get it.

So how about the health care system in Canada for instance?

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #154 on: July 29, 2012, 08:50:13 AM »
So how about the health care system in Canada for instance?

What about it? I live in America not Canada
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #155 on: July 30, 2012, 02:44:27 AM »
What about it? I live in America not Canada

According to your logic it should be fucked there, no?

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #156 on: July 30, 2012, 05:03:57 AM »
According to your logic it should be fucked there, no?

See this is exactly what is wrong with the country, instead of demanding excellence from our country, you would rather us emulate some other shitty system. More government is not the solution it is the problem, the sooner you accept that the better off you are going to be.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #157 on: July 30, 2012, 06:04:54 AM »
See this is exactly what is wrong with the country, instead of demanding excellence from our country, you would rather us emulate some other shitty system. More government is not the solution it is the problem, the sooner you accept that the better off you are going to be.

I dont think capitalism and health care is a good mix

Denying people health care so you can make money?

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #158 on: July 30, 2012, 06:15:12 AM »
I dont think capitalism and health care is a good mix

Denying people health care so you can make money?

And how did the insurance companies end up in the position they are in? I'll give you a hint - the federal government. I can remember having a family doctor, an aspirin didn't cost $300.00, and the doctor actually cared about you well being. Enter the government, they created this mess, and their idea of fixing it is making a bigger one. Any way you look at it medical care is provided by a trained professional that has spent years of their lives and  hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Health care is not a right, it is a service you must pay for, if you like the intervention of the government jacking up the price, then by all means support Obamacare.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #159 on: July 30, 2012, 09:19:54 AM »
And how did the insurance companies end up in the position they are in? I'll give you a hint - the federal government. I can remember having a family doctor, an aspirin didn't cost $300.00, and the doctor actually cared about you well being. Enter the government, they created this mess, and their idea of fixing it is making a bigger one. Any way you look at it medical care is provided by a trained professional that has spent years of their lives and  hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Health care is not a right, it is a service you must pay for, if you like the intervention of the government jacking up the price, then by all means support Obamacare.

Ah but how do you explain they have "free" health care in Europe for instance?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39448
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #160 on: July 30, 2012, 09:28:47 AM »
Ah but how do you explain they have "free" health care in Europe for instance?

You are the stupidest fucking person on the planet.

nothing is free.   

howardroark

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2524
  • Resident Objectivist & Autodidact
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #161 on: July 30, 2012, 09:29:06 AM »
Ah but how do you explain they have "free" health care in Europe for instance?

There is no "free" health care in Europe. There's 50% tax rates and low quality, rationed health care.

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #162 on: July 30, 2012, 02:11:52 PM »
See this is exactly what is wrong with the country, instead of demanding excellence from our country, you would rather us emulate some other shitty system. More government is not the solution it is the problem, the sooner you accept that the better off you are going to be.

people like you are ignorant of the fact that OTHER countries have good ideas too..nothing wrong with implementing something that works in a similar system as our own...

Our mayor here in NYC many years ago visited another country and saw that they had bike lanes....he implemented them here in NYC....I guess he''s a traitor huh?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39448
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #163 on: July 30, 2012, 02:14:09 PM »
people like you are ignorant of the fact that OTHER countries have good ideas too..nothing wrong with implementing something that works in a similar system as our own...

Our mayor here in NYC many years ago visited another country and saw that they had bike lanes....he implemented them here in NYC....I guess he''s a traitor huh?


Fencing bikes lately now? 

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #164 on: July 30, 2012, 04:35:49 PM »
people like you are ignorant of the fact that OTHER countries have good ideas too..nothing wrong with implementing something that works in a similar system as our own...

Our mayor here in NYC many years ago visited another country and saw that they had bike lanes....he implemented them here in NYC....I guess he''s a traitor huh?

Yes everyone is ignorant except you of course ::), For cripe sake it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize a bike lane is a good idea. The fact that your mayor had to go to another country to see this should speak volumes.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #165 on: July 30, 2012, 04:39:13 PM »
Ah but how do you explain they have "free" health care in Europe for instance?

Free? Really? How does their government pay for it? And one other thing "free" doesn't mean its good
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39448
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #166 on: July 30, 2012, 07:14:04 PM »
Thanks, Obamacare: Doctor Shortages, Jobs Destroyed, Coverage Dropped
Townhall.com ^ | July 30, 2012 | Guy Benson
Posted on July 30, 2012 8:44:11 PM EDT by Kaslin

The Supreme Court's decision last month to uphold the Obamacare mandate tax did not vindicate the propriety or efficacy of the law itself, a point Chief Justice Roberts explicitly stated in his ruling.  "It is not [The Court's] job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” he wrote.  As we learn more about Obamacare's practical consequences, the urgent need for repeal becomes increasingly apparent.  Consider the following news items from the past week alone:


(1) "Doctor Shortage Likely to Worsen with Health Law":
 

The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that in 2015 the country will have 62,900 fewer doctors than needed. And that number will more than double by 2025, as the expansion of insurance coverage and the aging of baby boomers drive up demand for care. Even without the health care law, the shortfall of doctors in 2025 would still exceed 100,000. Health experts, including many who support the law, say there is little that the government or the medical profession will be able to do to close the gap by 2014, when the law begins extending coverage to about 30 million Americans. It typically takes a decade to train a doctor.

“We have a shortage of every kind of doctor, except for plastic surgeons and dermatologists,” said Dr. G. Richard Olds, the dean of the new medical school at the University of California, Riverside, founded in part to address the region’s doctor shortage. “We’ll have a 5,000-physician shortage in 10 years, no matter what anybody does.” Experts describe a doctor shortage as an “invisible problem.” Patients still get care, but the process is often slow and difficult. In Riverside, it has left residents driving long distances to doctors, languishing on waiting lists, overusing emergency rooms and even forgoing care. “It results in delayed care and higher levels of acuity,” said Dustin Corcoran, the chief executive of the California Medical Association, which represents 35,000 physicians. People “access the health care system through the emergency department, rather than establishing a relationship with a primary care physician who might keep them from getting sicker.”


The article goes on to mention the draining pool of doctors who are accepting new Medicaid patients, which will throw up another obstacle to care for indigent Americans -- especially after the entitlement program undergoes a massive, Obamacare-mandated expansion.  As opponents of the law repeatedly warned, access to health coverage does not equal access to health care.  In Canada and other countries with socialized medicine, everyone is "covered," but doctors are scarce, innovation is curtailed and treatment is limited.  This can lead to long waiting periods, government rationing, perverse doctor lotteries and denied care.  Furthermore, Democrats chose to exclude meaningful tort reform from their 2,700 page bill, further hanging physicians out to dry.  This is why older doctors are quickly shuffling towards retirement, and many promising young students eschew medical school in favor of other careers. Obamacare takes our demographic struggles on this front and makes them even more acute, much sooner.
 

(2) "One in 10 Employers Plans to Drop Health Benefits, Study Finds:"
 

About one in 10 employers plans to end workers' health insurance as the new healthcare law takes effect, according to a new study. The finding could bolster opponents of the law, who argue that its changes to the healthcare system will force workers out of insurance plans they like. Supporters of the law say most people will keep their current coverage. Surveying 560 U.S. companies, consulting firm Deloitte found that 9 percent of employers are planning to drop employee health benefits within three years. Eighty-one percent said they would continue covering employees, and 10 percent said they were not sure.


Is your employer among the 19 percent that are either planning to drop coverage, or are still considering it?  Let's also recall the president's verbatim promise during the healthcare debate: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”


(3) "CBO - Obamacare to Cost $1.93 Trillion, Leave 30 Million Uninsured:"
 

The latest CBO scoring of Obamacare, in the wake of the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding the overhaul's individual mandate as an allowable (although seemingly unprecedented) tax on inactivity, shows that President Obama's centerpiece legislation would cost about $2 trillion over its real first decade (2014 through 2023). The CBO also says that — despite its colossal cost and its unprecedented expansion of power and control over Americans' lives — Obamacare would, as of a decade from now, leave 30 million people uninsured.  At the time of Obamacare's passage, Democrats touted the fact that the CBO had then said that the gross cost of Obamacare's insurance coverage provisions would be "only" $938 billion. 

Moreover, the CBO and/or the Medicare chief actuary have previously said that Obamacare would raise health insurance premiums, would raise overall U.S. health costs, would raise taxes on Americans and on American businesses, and would siphon something approaching $1 trillion (from 2014 through 2023) out of Medicare. In the process (according to the Medicare chief actuary), Obamacare would reduce reimbursement rates for Medicare providers to the point where they'd be lower even than the notoriously low reimbursement rates paid to Medicaid providers — therefore jeopardizing seniors' access to care. Oh, and Obamacare would also establish the unelected and largely unaccountable 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to institute further Medicare cuts.


(4) "Surprise: Obamacare Medical Device Tax Killing Jobs in the Industry:"
 

“None of this was allocated three years ago when we created a strategic plan to become profitable,” CEO Mike Minogue told the House Committee on Small Business last week. Minogue testified the amount Abiomed will pay for the excise tax is the equivalent of 15 percent of the company’s research and development budget, 10 percent of its employee head count, or almost double what it spends on health care for hundreds of employees. “This tax will affect jobs. It will mix health care reform with tax policy and it will be extra detrimental to companies that are not yet profitable and need every dollar to survive,” he said. Minogue also cited logistical concerns. The exact regulation, still not finalized, goes into effect Jan. 1 2013, and Abiomed’s books have to be closed and audited by March. According to the medical-device industry’s national association, the field employs more than 400,000 Americans, and 70 percent of medical device companies are small businesses.


This is merely one small component of a larger picture, which led the CBO to conclude that Obamacare will cost the US economy 800,000 jobs.  The latest NYT/CBS poll shows public approval of Obamacare underwater by a 36/50 margin.  Rasmussen's new numbers reflect an enduring majority in favor of legislative repeal.  The vast majority of national Democrats continue to support the even-less-popular Obamacare mandate tax, in lockstep with the president.  The only way to rid the country of this costly governmental intrusion and its related repercussions is to defeat those who back the law and replace them with public servants who do not.

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #167 on: July 30, 2012, 08:01:08 PM »
Yep but know people can seek help without fear of going bancrupt.

That way they catch more health dangers before they develops and therefore saves us health care bills in the long run.

YEP...spot on

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #168 on: July 30, 2012, 08:03:01 PM »
Yes everyone is ignorant except you of course ::), For cripe sake it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize a bike lane is a good idea. The fact that your mayor had to go to another country to see this should speak volumes.

you ever admit when you're wrong?..you need some humility

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39448
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #169 on: July 30, 2012, 08:12:08 PM »
you ever admit when you're wrong?..you need some humility


Lol.   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39448
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #170 on: July 31, 2012, 03:53:28 AM »
Surprise: Obamacare medical device tax killing jobs in the industry
Hotair ^ | 07/30/2012 | MARY KATHARINE HAM
Posted on July 30, 2012 5:46:11 PM EDT by SeekAndFind

An Indiana-based medical device company is canceling plans to build five new plants in the Midwest because of the hit it will take from the 2.3 percent excise tax imposed by Obamacare.

The new tax will cost Cook Medical Inc. between $20 million and $30 million a year, Pete Yonkman, executive director of Cook's strategic business told the Indianapolis Business Journal, limiting the amount Cook can spend on new plants. It took $30 million to revamp an abandoned factory in Canton, Ill. last year that will eventually employ 300 people in this small town.

"We had hoped, as we get bigger, that that would be our model for expansion,--- Yonkman told the Indianapolis Business Journal. To take these small manufacturing facilities and bring them to these communities, that had been hard hit by jobs leaving because they work ethic is amazing and the people are really supportive and excited."

A funny thing happened on the way to the passage of the health care bill. Congress had to pay for it. So, they cobbled together a couple billion here, wrung from taxing small-money business investments via crippling paperwork, and a couple billion there, taken from the wallets of tanning salon denizens. One of those taxes, forecasted to bring in $29 billion over 10 years, hits the medical device industry. Congress exempted such items as contacts and eyeglasses to prevent the tax hike from touching everyday purchases, but that doesn’t mean people won't feel the cost in other ways, as Yonkman's story illustrates.

The House voted to repeal the tax in June, 270-146, but the repeal has since stalled in the Senate, despite bipartisan support from the likes of Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who is part of a Midwestern group of Democrats concerned about the job loss the tax may cause. Even liberal darling Elizabeth Warren, Democratic candidate for Senate in Massachusetts, backs repeal of the tax fearing the impact on a high number of medical device jobs in her home state.

Supporters of the law and the medical device tax argue that companies are exaggerating the toll the tax will take, and that more spending on health care in general will make up for their losses. But medical device companies argue theirs is an industry with many small companies shouldering large research-and-development budgets and competing for elite medical and scientific minds.

As a result, it took Massachusetts-based Abiomed 30 years to show a profit building specialized heart pumps. During that time, the company has grown from 10 to 440 employees, but the company risks being back in the red if the excise tax goes into effect Jan 1, 2013, as planned.

Abiomed reported about $1.5 million in profit on the $126 million in sales the company realized during fiscal 2012. Had the medical device tax been in effect then, the company would have had to turn in every penny of its profits, plus another $1.4 million or so.

“None of this was allocated three years ago when we created a strategic plan to become profitable,” CEO Mike Minogue told the House Committee on Small Business last week.

Minogue testified the amount Abiomed will pay for the excise tax is the equivalent of 15 percent of the company’s research and development budget, 10 percent of its employee head count, or almost double what it spends on health care for hundreds of employees.

“This tax will affect jobs. It will mix health care reform with tax policy and it will be extra detrimental to companies that are not yet profitable and need every dollar to survive,” he said.

Minogue also cited logistical concerns. The exact regulation, still not finalized, goes into effect Jan. 1 2013, and Abiomed’s books have to be closed and audited by March.

According to the medical-device industry’s national association, the field employs more than 400,000 Americans, and 70 percent of medical device companies are small businesses.

In February, Minnesota-based Medtronic said it may have to pass on its costs to consumers and cut back on its investments to pay the $60 million the tax will likely require.

The Minneapolis-based company estimates it will pay a tax of $40 million to $60 million in the 2013 fiscal year, based on the draft regulations currently available, Ellis said today in a telephone interview. Medtronic is trying to determine how much of the tax it can pass on to hospitals and other customers who purchase the company’s devices, he said.

“We’ve looked at this as basically one of the costs we’re going to have to cover as we put together our plans for fiscal year 2013 and as we put together our initiatives on a long-term basis,” Ellis said in a conference call with investors. “We’re going to have to make the tradeoffs and there’s probably going to be things that we can’t do as a result of that,” he said. “It means we won’t have as much to invest going forward.”

In November 2011, Michigan-based prosthetics manufacturer Stryker announced it will cut five percent of its global workforce to cope:

The reductions and restructuring “are being initiated to provide efficiencies and realign resources in advance of the new Medical Device Excise Tax scheduled to begin in 2013, as well as to allow for continued investment in strategic areas and drive growth despite the ongoing challenging economic environment and market slowdown in elective procedures,” the company said in a press release.”

In Tennessee, COO Bill Pittman of DeRoyal Industries succinctly described the problem for medical device companies:

“The medical device tax constitutes the largest cost increase DeRoyal has experienced in its 40-year history. We are working to mitigate this impact in a number of ways from both a revenue and cost perspective. Even in the face of this challenge we are doing everything within our power to preserve US jobs in this incredibly difficult economic environment.”

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #171 on: July 31, 2012, 04:00:13 AM »
you ever admit when you're wrong?..you need some humility

How am I wrong? Everything the government gets involved in gets FUBAR, but this time its going to be different  ::). I am at a loss, you watch as the government runs up the debt, make stupid law after stupid law, creates bureaucracy, and attempts to subvert the constitution over and over again. But you are willing to stake your life on what will most likely be some unelected appointed assclown, making decisions on what medical procedures you should get. You need to get some brains
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39448
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #172 on: July 31, 2012, 04:07:19 AM »
How am I wrong? Everything the government gets involved in gets FUBAR, but this time its going to be different  ::). I am at a loss, you watch as the government runs up the debt, make stupid law after stupid law, creates bureaucracy, and attempts to subvert the constitution over and over again. But you are willing to stake your life on what will most likely be some unelected appointed assclown, making decisions on what medical procedures you should get. You need to get some brains

Idiots like andre and whork straw et al are like the children who still believe in Santa Claus. 

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #173 on: July 31, 2012, 04:21:00 AM »
Idiots like andre and whork straw et al are like the children who still believe in Santa Claus. 

No they are the reason this country is in decline, and I find it fucking offensive
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39448
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Bottom Line on Obamacare
« Reply #174 on: July 31, 2012, 07:50:09 AM »
Burning Question

 Is America running out of doctors?

http://theweek.com/article/index/231267/is-america-running-out-of-doctors





ObamaCare is set to expand the number of insured Americans, but an apparent shortage of doctors could make it difficult to treat them all

posted on July 31, 2012, at 7:54 AM





 By the year 2025, the U.S. could have a shortfall of 100,000 doctors. Photo: ThinkStock/Ingram PublishingSEE ALL 103 PHOTOS

The primary objective of President Obama's overhaul of the health-care system is to extend coverage to the tens of millions of Americans currently without insurance. "But coverage will not necessarily translate into care," because there may not be enough doctors to treat everyone, say Annie Lowrey and Robert Pear at The New York Times. The U.S. is already facing a severe shortage of doctors, particularly in rural areas of the country, and the problem is only expected to get worse as more Americans gain insurance. Here, a guide to America's dearth of doctors:
 
Why aren't there enough doctors?
The pool of new doctors hasn't kept pace with several factors boosting the number of people seeking care: Population growth, the ObamaCare expansion, and an aging Baby Boomer generation that requires additional medical attention. Enrollment in Medicare, the government-run insurance program for the elderly, is expected to swell to 73.2 million in 2025, up from 50.7 million in 2012. Furthermore, the U.S. is facing an acute shortage of primary-care physicians, leaving many patients without access to general practitioners, pediatricians, family doctors, and other providers of basic medical care.
 
How will the shortage affect patients?
"A shortage of primary-care and other physicians could mean more-limited access to health care and longer wait times for patients," say Suzanne Sataline and Shirley S. Wang at The Wall Street Journal. The shortage will likely most affect those on Medicaid, the insurance program for the poor and disabled, since Medicaid's rolls are expected to expand significantly under ObamaCare. The shortfall of doctors could reach 100,000 by 2025. (There are currently about 1 million doctors in America.)
 
Why do so few doctors choose to go into primary care?
The main reason is money. Medical school graduates can expect to make an average of $3.5 million more over the course of their careers if they choose to enter a specialized field, such as anesthesiology or radiology. The difference in pay is enough that primary-care physicians carry a stigma within the medical community of being less talented and intelligent. The trend has huge implications for ObamaCare: "It is no exaggeration to say that the success of the health-care law rests on young doctors choosing to do something that is not in their economic self-interest," says Sarah Kliff at The Washington Post.
 
What can we do about it?
ObamaCare contains modest provisions increasing Medicaid primary-care payments and incentives for medical students to become primary-care physicians. The number of primary-care residencies climbed 20 percent between 2009 and 2011, but it's still not enough. Communities have been encouraged to create more walk-in clinics, and to allow more nurses to provide primary care. In addition, the U.S. could alter its immigration policies to attract doctors from overseas, "which should be very easy to do since doctors in the U.S. earn on average about twice as much as their comparably trained counterparts in Western Europe and Canada," says Dean Baker at Business Insider.
 
Sources: Business Insider, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post