Debate Now An Unhappy Birthday for Obamacare?

[candycorn]

I have seen five different physicians in the last calendar year. No problem getting any of the appointments.

Tragic...

Beforehand people showed up at the County hospital and the taxpayers were liable for 100% of the costs. Now, gee, the individual pays. I like sending less of my tax dollars down that particular drain.

Before the government demanded that emergency rooms provide free care to whomever showed up, everybody was expected to pay for their emergency room visit. Those who didn't have the money or insurance to pay received the necessary treatment and were set up on a payment plan to pay $10/month or whatever to cover their bill.

We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept.

Nothing has been dismantled and most people saw no change in their insurance. If the existing policy met the minimum standards for Obamacare (the ACA), nothing changed.

You're simply not telling the truth.

I believe I am telling the truth. Both my husband and I are paying higher deductibles and copays since the ACA went into affect and our premiums are higher. We have both lost our primary physicians because of the ACA and my husband lost his cancer doctor. My elderly aunt and uncle still have their primary care physician because she went into totally private practice, but she accepts no insurance of any kind so her patients pay for her services out of pocket.

Because we have so many personal contacts in various medical services we talk to a lot of professionals in those services and not one of them would say that the ACA didn't make changes that effectively changed the whole system and not one of them are liking it.

And if you read any source other than the pro-Obama propaganda network, there are one or two exceptions, but pretty much all agree that there is much more to dislike about Obamacare than there is to like.

Unless you are prepared to provide evidence of those claims, making them in this thread is against the rules.

Oh.....wait.......my bad. The thread rules state that no links or data are needed to support opinions. However...if you do use links and data...you need to provide a summary in your own words.

That's awesome!

That is correct. If you have credible sources or can make your own argument that shows my perceptions and the healthcare professionals I have talked with to be wrong go for it. Given how much the government has lied to us and misrepresented the ACA thus far, I will not accept their website materials or statements as reliable to give us the truth.

You said the entire health care system was "dismantled". Were you misrepresenting the truth since obviously, it has not been?

 

[Foxfyre]

I believe I am telling the truth. Both my husband and I are paying higher deductibles and copays since the ACA went into affect and our premiums are higher. We have both lost our primary physicians because of the ACA and my husband lost his cancer doctor. My elderly aunt and uncle still have their primary care physician because she went into totally private practice, but she accepts no insurance of any kind so her patients pay for her services out of pocket.

Because we have so many personal contacts in various medical services we talk to a lot of professionals in those services and not one of them would say that the ACA didn't make changes that effectively changed the whole system and not one of them are liking it.

And if you read any source other than the pro-Obama propaganda network, there are one or two exceptions, but pretty much all agree that there is much more to dislike about Obamacare than there is to like.

The only change I saw was the normal annual increase of 3 or 4 bucks that I saw before the ACA.

Here is what you said, however:

"We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept."

True or false: The hospitals that were there in your neighborhood 5 years ago are still there. In fact, the facilities were likely improved and new facilities were built. If you'll give me your zip code, we can research it more thoroughly.

True or false: The pharmacies that were available to you 5 years ago are still there. Walgreens and CVS are pretty much going like gangbusters and the Wal*Mart pharmacies are as crowded as ever when I have to go by there to pick up the $4 scripts.

From Walgreens.com
What are your current store growth plans?
We expect a net increase in Walgreens store count in fiscal 2015 of approximately 60-120 stores.

Since when did privately owned drugstores become part of the ACA?

When you address the "healthcare system" and make a silly claim that it was dismantled, you open the door.

Please address the true or false questions honestly, if you can. I know you'll be short-circuiting your own argument when you reveal that nothing much has been dismantled but the truth is the truth.

Now...true or false, the same hospitals in your area are pretty much the same hospitals that were there 5 years ago....right?

No. There has been a lot of consolidation that has been detrimental to several of those hospitals. The private urgent care center closest to our house was once a haven for little emergencies because we could get them taken care of in short order. As a result of the ACA, that same center has now had to sell out to one of the larger healthcare groups and is crowded and uncomfortable with long waits to see a doctor.

Greenbeard and I had some discussion (and disagreement) about the inadequate staffing that now exists so that hospitals are not as sparkly clean as they once were overall. And there are longer waits to attend to patient requests, and, while I have no stats, there seems to be a lot more errors and missed things than there used to be.

It takes a lot longer to get an appointment for various non emergency and/or elective procedures.

So the number of hospitals, you're saying, has dropped? Interesting. I think you're one of the few who has seen actually fewer hospitals. One thing I think I can agree with you on is that the ER rooms being a part of every hospital are a thing of the past. It wasn't brought on by Obamacare, just economics. It's not cost effective to have a trauma center on every campus.

You mentioned the minor emergency clinics. The reason our system opened these ACC (Ambulatory Care Clinics) was to allow the ERs to focus on actual medical emergencies. However, what you're saying isn't making much sense. If anything, the more insured folks; the busier the health care providers are. I seriously doubt the ACA forced the one you to which you referred to close.

Hospital cleanliness ebbs and flows with each campus....it has nothing to do with the ACA either.

Seeing a specialist does take longer but that has always been the case, again; nothing to do with the ACA.

They didn't close. They changed. And the folks who worked there, most of whom are still there, tell me it was absolutely because of the ACA.

And the reductions in staff at other hospital that have the obvious new problems also are attributed mostly to the ACA. Unless the government takes over the whole thing, you cannot force medical services to take on more work than it is worth it to them to take on, most especially when there is less monetary reward for doing so under government insurance. And they tell me the hospitals are rewarded for doing less for Medicare patients after the ACA cut more than $700 billion out of the Medicare budget. So granny is less likely to get the cataract surgery or the new hip or knee that would greatly improve her quality of life or at least will have to wait much longer than was the case before.

Yes there are some things that are better, but even those few 'good' things have consequences and/or could have just as easy been implemented without imposing the monstrosity of the ACA on everybody else.

 

[Greenbeard]

I am sure you are going to explain what this means.

I asked the question about how they saved 15 billion. What is that savings ? The article you provided did little to explain it.

Since it was created, Medicare Part D has had a gap in coverage for seniors' medication expenses. The insurance pays some portion up to a given dollar amount, then it kicks out and the Medicare beneficiary is on the hook for the entirety of their costs. If the beneficiary's costs keep going up high enough, coverage kicks back in to once again pay a portion.

The ACA has been gradually closing that gap, which saves millions of seniors a good chunk of money (~$15 billion so far). The how is outlined in that article.

The Affordable Care Act makes Medicare prescription drug coverage more affordable by gradually closing the gap in coverage where beneficiaries had to pay the full cost of their prescriptions out of pocket, before catastrophic coverage for prescriptions took effect. The gap is known as the donut hole. The donut hole will be closed by 2020, marking 2015 as the halfway point.

Because of the health care law, in 2010, anyone with a Medicare prescription drug plan who reached the prescription drug donut hole received a $250 rebate. In 2011, beneficiaries in the donut hole began receiving discounts on covered brand-name drugs and savings on generic drugs.

People with Medicare Part D who fall into the donut hole in 2015 will receive discounts and savings of 55 percent on the cost of brand name drugs and 35 percent on the cost of generic drugs.

 

[Greenbeard]

No. There has been a lot of consolidation that has been detrimental to several of those hospitals. The private urgent care center closest to our house was once a haven for little emergencies because we could get them taken care of in short order. As a result of the ACA, that same center has now had to sell out to one of the larger healthcare groups and is crowded and uncomfortable with long waits to see a doctor.

It appears no fewer than three new urgent care clinics have sprouted in your market since the ACA marketplace opened its doors in October 2013.

NextCare Urgent Care Continues New Mexico Expansion with the Opening of its Third Clinic in the Albuquerque-metro Market

ALBUQUERQUE, NM (June 24, 2014) – NextCare Holdings, Inc., one of the nation’s leading providers of urgent care medicine, announces the opening of a new clinic in New Mexico this week. Opening June 25, the new clinic is located on the Southwest corner of Menaul Boulevard and Alvarado Drive. in Albuquerque. NextCare’s new location marks the third clinic to open in the market since October 2013.

If it's correct that there are now 15 urgent care clinics in the city, that's a 25% increase in clinics in just the last year and a half.

Do you really mean to suggest local urgent care capacity has dropped in your area? C'mon.

And just to be clear, it's obvious this isn't limited to urgent care clinics. Retail clinics are also opening their doors in your area: CVS opens four in-store medical clinics in Albuquerque metro

Welcome to MinuteClinic, a walk-in medical clinic now offered at four Albuquerque area CVS/pharmacy stores. The local sites, which have opened in the last two months, join nearly 950 MinuteClinics around the U.S. CVS executives say the clinics fill a need for convenient and transparently priced care for patients with and without insurance.

Staffed by nurse practitioners or physician assistants, the clinics handle minor maladies like strep throat, sinus infections and rashes, and provide services like flu shots, sports physicals and diabetes monitoring. Services have an advertised price or price range — $79 to $99 to be seen for a minor illness or injury, for example — though the clinics also accept insurance.

Your area isn't unique, by the way. To go back to a recent article from The Economist I've already referenced, innovation has been soaring under the ACA. The includes a flood of new low-cost alternative care settings such as retail and urgent care clinics springing up.

Shock treatment: A wasteful and inefficient industry is in the throes of great disruption

For injuries and illnesses that are more serious but not immediately life-threatening, lots of “urgent-care centres” are being opened as an alternative to going to a hospital emergency unit. Private-equity firms are pouring money into independent chains of centres. Merchant Medicine, a consulting firm, reckons that between them, these chains now have just over 1,500 urgent-care centres, up from about 1,300 at the start of 2013. The market is still fragmented but a national brand could emerge from one of the largest chains, such as Concentra or MedExpress.

Some hospital operators, seeking to cut their costs of care, and choosing to be among the disrupters rather than the disrupted, are also opening urgent-care centres. Aurora Health Care, a Wisconsin-based chain of hospitals and clinics, now has more than 30 of them.

Hospital operators are now facing a classic “innovator’s dilemma”, as described by Clay Christensen, a Harvard business professor. If they persist with their high-cost business model even as their customers discover that cheaper alternatives are good enough, they will be in trouble. According to Strata Decision Technology, an analytics firm, many hospital groups saw what was coming and started to cut their costs well before the provisions of Obamacare started to bite. One of the fastest movers is Advocate Health Care, a hospital operator from Illinois, which says it now earns two-thirds of its revenues from value-based payments.

You can call this kind of creative disruption "dismantling" of the broken status quo that existed pre-ACA, but it creates new options for cost and convenience-conscious consumers.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The only change I saw was the normal annual increase of 3 or 4 bucks that I saw before the ACA.

Here is what you said, however:

"We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept."

True or false: The hospitals that were there in your neighborhood 5 years ago are still there. In fact, the facilities were likely improved and new facilities were built. If you'll give me your zip code, we can research it more thoroughly.

True or false: The pharmacies that were available to you 5 years ago are still there. Walgreens and CVS are pretty much going like gangbusters and the Wal*Mart pharmacies are as crowded as ever when I have to go by there to pick up the $4 scripts.

From Walgreens.com
What are your current store growth plans?
We expect a net increase in Walgreens store count in fiscal 2015 of approximately 60-120 stores.

Actually, if you check back...they are not.

Some blame it on Obamacare.

Some blame it on the GOP's states unwillingness to set up exchanges.

Either way...many are gone.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I am sure you are going to explain what this means.

I asked the question about how they saved 15 billion. What is that savings ? The article you provided did little to explain it.

Since it was created, Medicare Part D has had a gap in coverage for seniors' medication expenses. The insurance pays some portion up to a given dollar amount, then it kicks out and the Medicare beneficiary is on the hook for the entirety of their costs. If the beneficiary's costs keep going up high enough, coverage kicks back in to once again pay a portion.

The ACA has been gradually closing that gap, which saves millions of seniors a good chunk of money (~$15 billion so far). The how is outlined in that article.

The Affordable Care Act makes Medicare prescription drug coverage more affordable by gradually closing the gap in coverage where beneficiaries had to pay the full cost of their prescriptions out of pocket, before catastrophic coverage for prescriptions took effect. The gap is known as the donut hole. The donut hole will be closed by 2020, marking 2015 as the halfway point.

Because of the health care law, in 2010, anyone with a Medicare prescription drug plan who reached the prescription drug donut hole received a $250 rebate. In 2011, beneficiaries in the donut hole began receiving discounts on covered brand-name drugs and savings on generic drugs.

People with Medicare Part D who fall into the donut hole in 2015 will receive discounts and savings of 55 percent on the cost of brand name drugs and 35 percent on the cost of generic drugs.

You seem to missing the point.

If somebody "saved" 15 billion dollars, then:

1. They simply didn't need to spend it.
2. If they spent it at the same price as before....then somebody else paid for it.
3. Prices go down.

I halfway understand the doughnut hole. The point being that if the same goods are being purchased....and they have the same value...nobody "saves" anything...the cost is simply shifted.

Which is it ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Before the government demanded that emergency rooms provide free care to whomever showed up, everybody was expected to pay for their emergency room visit. Those who didn't have the money or insurance to pay received the necessary treatment and were set up on a payment plan to pay $10/month or whatever to cover their bill.

We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept.

Nothing has been dismantled and most people saw no change in their insurance. If the existing policy met the minimum standards for Obamacare (the ACA), nothing changed.

You're simply not telling the truth.

I believe I am telling the truth. Both my husband and I are paying higher deductibles and copays since the ACA went into affect and our premiums are higher. We have both lost our primary physicians because of the ACA and my husband lost his cancer doctor. My elderly aunt and uncle still have their primary care physician because she went into totally private practice, but she accepts no insurance of any kind so her patients pay for her services out of pocket.

Because we have so many personal contacts in various medical services we talk to a lot of professionals in those services and not one of them would say that the ACA didn't make changes that effectively changed the whole system and not one of them are liking it.

And if you read any source other than the pro-Obama propaganda network, there are one or two exceptions, but pretty much all agree that there is much more to dislike about Obamacare than there is to like.

Unless you are prepared to provide evidence of those claims, making them in this thread is against the rules.

Oh.....wait.......my bad. The thread rules state that no links or data are needed to support opinions. However...if you do use links and data...you need to provide a summary in your own words.

That's awesome!

That is correct. If you have credible sources or can make your own argument that shows my perceptions and the healthcare professionals I have talked with to be wrong go for it. Given how much the government has lied to us and misrepresented the ACA thus far, I will not accept their website materials or statements as reliable to give us the truth.

You said the entire health care system was "dismantled". Were you misrepresenting the truth since obviously, it has not been?

Depends on what you mean by dismantled.

This is why I grow tired of hearing these kinds of descriptors and try to catch myself when I am about to do the same.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And why is that ?

Please make the case and don't call it self-evident.

When there are more persons on insurance, they get preventative help and do not wait for an emergency situation. Acute care costs much more than preventative care since we're talking about pills vs. procedures.

Additionally, the insurance allows the public to escape the costs of trauma care and eleviates the stress on the public health system.

If you are suggesting ER visits will go down or have gone down, you'd be wrong.

Obamacare and emergency rooms a bit of perspective needed Center for Public Integrity

On paper the argument sounds plausible, but it does not seem to be happening in reality.

It might be, as the article suggests...that it will take time. There are no guarantees.

But here we are , 2 years in pronouncing it a failure. And I am certain that there are more ER visits. In the past, if you were sick and had no insurance, you go to the County hospital and the taxpayers pay 100% of the costs.

Now that Jane Doe is paying for a product each month (or paying the tax penalty), they are using it by showing up at the hospitals in and around their home.

I have no doubt it will take some time and modifications.

I don't know how you call it a success or a failure. While I might be ideologically leaning...there is nobody who can present anything to me that shows what either side planned to utilize as a scorecard. It's typical of almost all issues like this. If you don't lay out specifics, you are not accountable.

The right calling it a failure was a propaganda campaign from the start.

The left has not done much better.

What you claim is a thought experiment. It is not proven.

You'd hope that would be the case.

Time will tell....the great failure of politics. What if Obama had offered up a scorecard and a promise to kill the program if it did not measure up ? Not that loser Bush ever did anything like that.

Nor has any other politician with their pet programs.

So, I'll take that to mean you can't define success or failure either.

Correct ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Not when there are fewer doctors seeing more patients. Not when you can't get an appointment with your doctor when you need to see a doctor now. Most doctor's offices these days have answering machines that tell you that if you are experiencing a medical emergency, dial 911. Otherwise leave a message and your call will be returned within 24 hours or some such.

I have seen five different physicians in the last calendar year. No problem getting any of the appointments.

[
And the emergency rooms are packed and overflowing everywhere.

Tragic...

And with much higher deductibles, higher copays, and higher premiums for most folks, most people are experiencing significantly higher out of pocket costs.

Beforehand people showed up at the County hospital and the taxpayers were liable for 100% of the costs. Now, gee, the individual pays. I like sending less of my tax dollars down that particular drain.

Before the government demanded that emergency rooms provide free care to whomever showed up, everybody was expected to pay for their emergency room visit. Those who didn't have the money or insurance to pay received the necessary treatment and were set up on a payment plan to pay $10/month or whatever to cover their bill.

We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept.

Nothing has been dismantled and most people saw no change in their insurance. If the existing policy met the minimum standards for Obamacare (the ACA), nothing changed.

You're simply not telling the truth.

I believe I am telling the truth. Both my husband and I are paying higher deductibles and copays since the ACA went into affect and our premiums are higher. We have both lost our primary physicians because of the ACA and my husband lost his cancer doctor. My elderly aunt and uncle still have their primary care physician because she went into totally private practice, but she accepts no insurance of any kind so her patients pay for her services out of pocket.

Because we have so many personal contacts in various medical services we talk to a lot of professionals in those services and not one of them would say that the ACA didn't make changes that effectively changed the whole system and not one of them are liking it.

And if you read any source other than the pro-Obama propaganda network, there are one or two exceptions, but pretty much all agree that there is much more to dislike about Obamacare than there is to like.

Unless you are prepared to provide evidence of those claims, making them in this thread is against the rules.

Oh.....wait.......my bad. The thread rules state that no links or data are needed to support opinions. However...if you do use links and data...you need to provide a summary in your own words.

That's awesome!

Was there something here that justified our taking the time to read it. If so, I missed it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Ohhhhh! Look out CC......that dude thinks he has you cornered!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Before the government demanded that emergency rooms provide free care to whomever showed up, everybody was expected to pay for their emergency room visit. Those who didn't have the money or insurance to pay received the necessary treatment and were set up on a payment plan to pay $10/month or whatever to cover their bill.

We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept.

Nothing has been dismantled and most people saw no change in their insurance. If the existing policy met the minimum standards for Obamacare (the ACA), nothing changed.

You're simply not telling the truth.

I believe I am telling the truth. Both my husband and I are paying higher deductibles and copays since the ACA went into affect and our premiums are higher. We have both lost our primary physicians because of the ACA and my husband lost his cancer doctor. My elderly aunt and uncle still have their primary care physician because she went into totally private practice, but she accepts no insurance of any kind so her patients pay for her services out of pocket.

Because we have so many personal contacts in various medical services we talk to a lot of professionals in those services and not one of them would say that the ACA didn't make changes that effectively changed the whole system and not one of them are liking it.

And if you read any source other than the pro-Obama propaganda network, there are one or two exceptions, but pretty much all agree that there is much more to dislike about Obamacare than there is to like.

Unless you are prepared to provide evidence of those claims, making them in this thread is against the rules.

Oh.....wait.......my bad. The thread rules state that no links or data are needed to support opinions. However...if you do use links and data...you need to provide a summary in your own words.

That's awesome!

Was there something here that justified our taking the time to read it. If so, I missed it.

Given all the time you are wasting in this thread......probably. You missed it? I'm shocked.

I do appreciate Greenbeards posts and have learned a great deal from them. It has pointed me to some topics I was not aware of. When you do something similar instead of wasting our time with your commentary, I'll be just as appreciative.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Before the government demanded that emergency rooms provide free care to whomever showed up, everybody was expected to pay for their emergency room visit. Those who didn't have the money or insurance to pay received the necessary treatment and were set up on a payment plan to pay $10/month or whatever to cover their bill.

We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept.

Nothing has been dismantled and most people saw no change in their insurance. If the existing policy met the minimum standards for Obamacare (the ACA), nothing changed.

You're simply not telling the truth.

I believe I am telling the truth. Both my husband and I are paying higher deductibles and copays since the ACA went into affect and our premiums are higher. We have both lost our primary physicians because of the ACA and my husband lost his cancer doctor. My elderly aunt and uncle still have their primary care physician because she went into totally private practice, but she accepts no insurance of any kind so her patients pay for her services out of pocket.

Because we have so many personal contacts in various medical services we talk to a lot of professionals in those services and not one of them would say that the ACA didn't make changes that effectively changed the whole system and not one of them are liking it.

And if you read any source other than the pro-Obama propaganda network, there are one or two exceptions, but pretty much all agree that there is much more to dislike about Obamacare than there is to like.

Unless you are prepared to provide evidence of those claims, making them in this thread is against the rules.

Oh.....wait.......my bad. The thread rules state that no links or data are needed to support opinions. However...if you do use links and data...you need to provide a summary in your own words.

That's awesome!

Was there something here that justified our taking the time to read it. If so, I missed it.

Given all the time you are wasting in this thread......probably. You missed it? I'm shocked.

Now, I get the Avatar.

 

[Greenbeard]

Which is it ?

The point of the article you've taken issue with is that Medicare beneficiaries are seeing lower prescription drug costs (and yes, that's a savings to them). Their cost-sharing has dropped as their coverage has effectively become more generous under the ACA.

If you're worried about overall program spending and the portion of beneficiaries' expenses financed by the program itself, I've got good news for you: per capita Medicare spending started falling, a historical anomaly, after the ACA passed (even as the folks in it were allowed to save billions in their own personal spending and their premiums/deductibles remained virtually flat).

This situation is about as win-win as it gets.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nothing has been dismantled and most people saw no change in their insurance. If the existing policy met the minimum standards for Obamacare (the ACA), nothing changed.

You're simply not telling the truth.

I believe I am telling the truth. Both my husband and I are paying higher deductibles and copays since the ACA went into affect and our premiums are higher. We have both lost our primary physicians because of the ACA and my husband lost his cancer doctor. My elderly aunt and uncle still have their primary care physician because she went into totally private practice, but she accepts no insurance of any kind so her patients pay for her services out of pocket.

Because we have so many personal contacts in various medical services we talk to a lot of professionals in those services and not one of them would say that the ACA didn't make changes that effectively changed the whole system and not one of them are liking it.

And if you read any source other than the pro-Obama propaganda network, there are one or two exceptions, but pretty much all agree that there is much more to dislike about Obamacare than there is to like.

Unless you are prepared to provide evidence of those claims, making them in this thread is against the rules.

Oh.....wait.......my bad. The thread rules state that no links or data are needed to support opinions. However...if you do use links and data...you need to provide a summary in your own words.

That's awesome!

Was there something here that justified our taking the time to read it. If so, I missed it.

Given all the time you are wasting in this thread......probably. You missed it? I'm shocked.

I do appreciate Greenbeards posts and have learned a great deal from them. It has pointed me to some topics I was not aware of. When you do something similar instead of wasting our time with your commentary, I'll be just as appreciative.

Greenberg, unlike me, is patient and may actually care what you do and don't appreciate. That dude is a straight-up authority on this shit. He's got the facts at his fingertips. He doesn't work his ass off trying to drag you into the weeds in hopes that you'll get bored to death.

I put this thread to bed on page one. As far as I am concerned...the rest is just idle chatter. Feel me?

 

[Foxfyre]

No. There has been a lot of consolidation that has been detrimental to several of those hospitals. The private urgent care center closest to our house was once a haven for little emergencies because we could get them taken care of in short order. As a result of the ACA, that same center has now had to sell out to one of the larger healthcare groups and is crowded and uncomfortable with long waits to see a doctor.

It appears no fewer than three new urgent care clinics have sprouted in your market since the ACA marketplace opened its doors in October 2013.

NextCare Urgent Care Continues New Mexico Expansion with the Opening of its Third Clinic in the Albuquerque-metro Market

ALBUQUERQUE, NM (June 24, 2014) – NextCare Holdings, Inc., one of the nation’s leading providers of urgent care medicine, announces the opening of a new clinic in New Mexico this week. Opening June 25, the new clinic is located on the Southwest corner of Menaul Boulevard and Alvarado Drive. in Albuquerque. NextCare’s new location marks the third clinic to open in the market since October 2013.

If it's correct that there are now 15 urgent care clinics in the city, that's a 25% increase in clinics in just the last year and a half.

Do you really mean to suggest local urgent care capacity has dropped in your area? C'mon.

And just to be clear, it's obvious this isn't limited to urgent care clinics. Retail clinics are also opening their doors in your area: CVS opens four in-store medical clinics in Albuquerque metro

Welcome to MinuteClinic, a walk-in medical clinic now offered at four Albuquerque area CVS/pharmacy stores. The local sites, which have opened in the last two months, join nearly 950 MinuteClinics around the U.S. CVS executives say the clinics fill a need for convenient and transparently priced care for patients with and without insurance.

Staffed by nurse practitioners or physician assistants, the clinics handle minor maladies like strep throat, sinus infections and rashes, and provide services like flu shots, sports physicals and diabetes monitoring. Services have an advertised price or price range — $79 to $99 to be seen for a minor illness or injury, for example — though the clinics also accept insurance.

Your area isn't unique, by the way. To go back to a recent article from The Economist I've already referenced, innovation has been soaring under the ACA. The includes a flood of new low-cost alternative care settings such as retail and urgent care clinics springing up.

Shock treatment: A wasteful and inefficient industry is in the throes of great disruption

For injuries and illnesses that are more serious but not immediately life-threatening, lots of “urgent-care centres” are being opened as an alternative to going to a hospital emergency unit. Private-equity firms are pouring money into independent chains of centres. Merchant Medicine, a consulting firm, reckons that between them, these chains now have just over 1,500 urgent-care centres, up from about 1,300 at the start of 2013. The market is still fragmented but a national brand could emerge from one of the largest chains, such as Concentra or MedExpress.

Some hospital operators, seeking to cut their costs of care, and choosing to be among the disrupters rather than the disrupted, are also opening urgent-care centres. Aurora Health Care, a Wisconsin-based chain of hospitals and clinics, now has more than 30 of them.

Hospital operators are now facing a classic “innovator’s dilemma”, as described by Clay Christensen, a Harvard business professor. If they persist with their high-cost business model even as their customers discover that cheaper alternatives are good enough, they will be in trouble. According to Strata Decision Technology, an analytics firm, many hospital groups saw what was coming and started to cut their costs well before the provisions of Obamacare started to bite. One of the fastest movers is Advocate Health Care, a hospital operator from Illinois, which says it now earns two-thirds of its revenues from value-based payments.

You can call this kind of creative disruption "dismantling" of the broken status quo that existed pre-ACA, but it creates new options for cost and convenience-conscious consumers.

That has not been the case here. I did not say there are fewer facilities. I am saying that the facilities that exist are understaffed, overworked, and it is more difficult to get access than before.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Which is it ?

The point of the article you've taken issue with is that Medicare beneficiaries are seeing lower prescription drug costs (and yes, that's a savings to them). Their cost-sharing has dropped as their coverage has effectively become more generous under the ACA.

If you're worried about overall program spending and the portion of beneficiaries' expenses financed by the program itself, I've got good news for you: per capita Medicare spending started falling, a historical anomaly, after the ACA passed (even as the folks in it were allowed to save billions in their own personal spending and their premiums/deductibles remained virtually flat).

This situation is about as win-win as it gets.

I am asking where the savings came from. That was the question I asked...pure and simple.

I know I don't always ask clearly.

So I'll keep trying.

Their cost sharing has dropped....does that mean things cost less or someone else is picking up the tab.

Don't try to read anything into it. It is just a question.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I believe I am telling the truth. Both my husband and I are paying higher deductibles and copays since the ACA went into affect and our premiums are higher. We have both lost our primary physicians because of the ACA and my husband lost his cancer doctor. My elderly aunt and uncle still have their primary care physician because she went into totally private practice, but she accepts no insurance of any kind so her patients pay for her services out of pocket.

Because we have so many personal contacts in various medical services we talk to a lot of professionals in those services and not one of them would say that the ACA didn't make changes that effectively changed the whole system and not one of them are liking it.

And if you read any source other than the pro-Obama propaganda network, there are one or two exceptions, but pretty much all agree that there is much more to dislike about Obamacare than there is to like.

Unless you are prepared to provide evidence of those claims, making them in this thread is against the rules.

Oh.....wait.......my bad. The thread rules state that no links or data are needed to support opinions. However...if you do use links and data...you need to provide a summary in your own words.

That's awesome!

Was there something here that justified our taking the time to read it. If so, I missed it.

Given all the time you are wasting in this thread......probably. You missed it? I'm shocked.

I do appreciate Greenbeards posts and have learned a great deal from them. It has pointed me to some topics I was not aware of. When you do something similar instead of wasting our time with your commentary, I'll be just as appreciative.

Greenberg, unlike me, is patient and may actually care what you do and don't appreciate. That dude is a straight-up authority on this shit. He's got the facts at his fingertips. He doesn't work his ass off trying to drag you into the weeds in hopes that you'll get bored to death.

I put this thread to bed on page one. As far as I am concerned...the rest is just idle chatter. Feel me?

But you feel compelled to waste our time...why ?

 

[Greenbeard]

Greenberg, unlike me, is patient and may actually care what you do and don't appreciate. That dude is a straight-up authority on this shit. He's got the facts at his fingertips. He doesn't work his ass off trying to drag you into the weeds in hopes that you'll get bored to death.

I'm not a big believer that facts or arguments change minds, I enjoy this process more for me. Do you know the last time I've had occasion to look up how the HCAHPS scores of Albuquerque-area hospitals have done since the ACA passed? Never! But now I know they've gotten better. Not a thing I would otherwise know. Mostly of all it just helps to clarify the thought processes, clear out the cobwebs. Also provides ample illustration of bad thinking and bad argumentation--an important thing for considering your own deficiencies.

 

[Foxfyre]

Everybody, direct your comments to the member's post please and not to the members personally. Per Rule #1 for this thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

Greenberg, unlike me, is patient and may actually care what you do and don't appreciate. That dude is a straight-up authority on this shit. He's got the facts at his fingertips. He doesn't work his ass off trying to drag you into the weeds in hopes that you'll get bored to death.

I'm not a big believer that facts or arguments change minds, I enjoy this process more for me. Do you know the last time I've had occasion to look up how the HCAHPS scores of Albuquerque-area hospitals have done since the ACA passed? Never! But now I know they've gotten better. Not a thing I would otherwise know. Mostly it all just helps to clarify the thought processes, clear out the cobwebs. Also provides ample illustration of bad thinking and bad argumentation--an important thing for considering your own deficiencies.

Well I wish the healthcare professionals who are delivering the healthcare believed they were getting better. They don't believe that. And I doubt any government stats, given how those have been proved wrong again and again, will convinced them.