Another ACA "failure"...

[Greenbeard]

HCA is a hospital chain, not an insurance company. They treat patients.

D'oh! Long day...I was thinking of Humana.

What? They both have an "H" in them.

It seems like most people in this thread are making that error. Helping patients and getting paid for it is good for providers, who've seen bad debt and charity care dropping.

 

[Arianrhod]

HCA is a hospital chain, not an insurance company. They treat patients.

D'oh! Long day...I was thinking of Humana.

What? They both have an "H" in them.

It seems like most people in this thread are making that error. Helping patients and getting paid for it is good for providers, who've seen bad debt and charity care dropping.

I wonder if after a certain amount of time trying to reason with people who still think "Obamacare is insurance," the confusion starts to rub off?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It's certainly not a failure for the big insurance companies that wrote it and pushed through. They're lovin' it!

Why do you hate capitalism?

I don't. I hate corporatism.

So do I. How do you feel about oil industry subsidies?

Please explain how those work.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

HCA is a hospital chain, not an insurance company. They treat patients.

D'oh! Long day...I was thinking of Humana.

What? They both have an "H" in them.

It seems like most people in this thread are making that error. Helping patients and getting paid for it is good for providers, who've seen bad debt and charity care dropping.

I wonder if after a certain amount of time trying to reason with people who still think "Obamacare is insurance," the confusion starts to rub off?

That's kinda what had some of us wondering.

How is a hospital chain "doing well" supposed to be a sign of ACA success ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

HCA is a hospital chain, not an insurance company. They treat patients.

D'oh! Long day...I was thinking of Humana.

What? They both have an "H" in them.

It seems like most people in this thread are making that error. Helping patients and getting paid for it is good for providers, who've seen bad debt and charity care dropping.

I wonder if after a certain amount of time trying to reason with people who still think "Obamacare is insurance," the confusion starts to rub off?

Still waiting to hear how UHC is lying.

 

[emilynghiem]

...for patients, hospitals, and the U.S. economy.

HCA says insurance exchange enrollment encouraging so far

Where will it end?

The chief executive of HCA Holdings Inc on Monday said he expects the Affordable Care Act to drive more growth for the U.S. hospital operator in 2016 as Americans sign up for insurance coverage through exchanges created under the law.

"We are very encouraged by the open enrollment results so far," R. Milton Johnson, CEO of the largest U.S. for-profit hospital chain, said in remarks at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference in San Francisco.

HCA's shares were up about 6 percent at $68.12 in midday trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

About 11.3 million Americans have signed up so far for individual health insurance in 2016 through HealthCare.gov and the state-based exchanges, the U.S. government said last week. Enrollment for these plans, which were created under the health reform law known as Obamacare, closes on Jan. 31.

HCA on Friday raised its outlook for adjusted earnings in 2015, saying it admitted more patients to its hospitals and treated more people in its emergency rooms.

In October, HCA had warned of weaker-than-expected third-quarter results and said it was seeing more patients without insurance, including some who had purchased coverage through the exchanges but then dropped it in the second half of the year.

U.S. health insurers have said they are losing money on the exchanges because many of their patients are older or have high medical costs. UnitedHealth Group Inc, the largest U.S. health insurer, in November said it is considering exiting the exchanges in 2017 because weak enrollment and high costs were taking too big a toll on its performance.

HCA's Johnson on Monday said some attrition in exchange enrollment was to be expected in the second half of the year, after an initial spike higher due to the sign-up period. But he predicted the number of people dropping coverage would likely be relatively small. "We are going to see some seasonality in reform," he said.

Johnson said he expects additional states will opt to expand Medicaid coverage for the poor in future years under health reform, but not in 2016.

He also said HCA is interested in growth through acquisitions, but noted a lack of "willing sellers" in the market.

The failures are those who demand someone else provide them a subsidy so they can afford to buy something they should be buying themselves on their own with another person being forced to help them do it.

Leeches

Dear Arianrhod and Conservative65
There is nothing wrong with charity if people CHOOSE to participate and fund it.
Because they trust that program and want it to work.

What a mistake to force people to fund and participate in something
against their will and against their beliefs, especially people who want it to go away
so they can set up something else!

All the best managed most cost effective medical charities I know
Ex: Doctors Without Borders and AmeriCares
operate on VOLUNTARY donations and participation.
They EARN their reputation and work WITH public and private, business
and nonprofit, religious and political groups to meet health care and medical needs.
Nobody has to be FORCED to fund those; so why can't we expand on these
successful cost-effective models, and replicate them until we cover all populations?

Because they can't afford to waste a dime (unlike groups that taxpayers are forced to fund whether they cover costs or fail), they have to solve problems that would otherwise waste resources. This guarantees they compete to be efficient in order to earn funding. if another group performs better, the resources are going to go there, and they should.

These groups work very well, among the best.
And so do the Christian charity groups that save lives, such as the ones
reaching out to help women in China recover from trauma of forced abortions.

But Imagine if the UN decided everyone HAD to fund just those groups THEY APPROVED
and REGULATED: either pay your money to THESE PRE APPROVED organizations
and systems that meet UN STANDARDS so we can save lives. Or else pay a FINE TO THE UN.

People would yell: Why can't I fund Planned Parenthood? Why do I have to fund a Christian group or get fined? Why am I being penalized because MY CHOICE of which charity or group does the best job
with health care DOESN'T MATCH THE LIST OF EXEMPTIONS.

And what if the proponents of this mandate said:
But it's saving lives. Because we're forcing everyone to fund
Doctors Without Borders, Red Cross and Christian Prolife groups in China,
we've saved a million lives over the first few years.

So isn't it worth the loss of liberty and freedom to save a million lives?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So isn't it worth the loss of liberty and freedom to save a million lives?

We lost many lives gaining our liberty.

And now you want to give it away ???????

Recall the words ascribed to Ben Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[dblack]

HCA is a hospital chain, not an insurance company. They treat patients.

D'oh! Long day...I was thinking of Humana.

What? They both have an "H" in them.

It seems like most people in this thread are making that error. Helping patients and getting paid for it is good for providers, who've seen bad debt and charity care dropping.

I wonder if after a certain amount of time trying to reason with people who still think "Obamacare is insurance," the confusion starts to rub off?

That's kinda what had some of us wondering.

How is a hospital chain "doing well" supposed to be a sign of ACA success ?

Because the goal of ACA was to benefit the vested interests in health-care industry.

 

[Greenbeard]

How is a hospital chain "doing well" supposed to be a sign of ACA success ?

February 2010, when it looked like reform might not happen: Bills Stalled, Hospitals Fear Rising Unpaid Care

President Obama says he aims to keep trying. But what happens if the health care legislation cannot be revived, and tens of millions of uninsured Americans continue without coverage?

For the nation’s hospitals, at least, the cost of doing nothing in Washington translates into tens of billions of dollars each year in medical bills that go unpaid by patients with little or no insurance.

Nationwide, the cost of unpaid care for hospitals, which includes charity care as well as money that could not be collected from patients, was around $36 billion in 2008. It is expected to spiral higher. The number of people without insurance in this country could increase to as high as 58 million by 2014, from about 49 million now, according to an estimate by the Urban Institute.

“If nothing happens, it’s more of the same, and it will continue to be harder and harder in terms of financial viability,” said Nickolas A. Vitale, the senior vice president for financial operations for Beaumont Hospitals, a hospital system based in Royal Oak, Mich., whose uncompensated care has increased by 20 percent a year since 2005.

Last March: Affordable Care Act credited with $7.4 billion drop in uncompensated care.

More hospitals are getting paid for more of the care they deliver. That's why they're doing better financially. And yes, that's because of the ACA.

 

[Arianrhod]

HCA is a hospital chain, not an insurance company. They treat patients.

D'oh! Long day...I was thinking of Humana.

What? They both have an "H" in them.

It seems like most people in this thread are making that error. Helping patients and getting paid for it is good for providers, who've seen bad debt and charity care dropping.

I wonder if after a certain amount of time trying to reason with people who still think "Obamacare is insurance," the confusion starts to rub off?

That's kinda what had some of us wondering.

How is a hospital chain "doing well" supposed to be a sign of ACA success ?

For one thing, their costs are going down and they're not facing bankruptcy. This means they're able to provide services to more patients, update equipment, and attract top-level physicians.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

HCA is a hospital chain, not an insurance company. They treat patients.

D'oh! Long day...I was thinking of Humana.

What? They both have an "H" in them.

It seems like most people in this thread are making that error. Helping patients and getting paid for it is good for providers, who've seen bad debt and charity care dropping.

I wonder if after a certain amount of time trying to reason with people who still think "Obamacare is insurance," the confusion starts to rub off?

That's kinda what had some of us wondering.

How is a hospital chain "doing well" supposed to be a sign of ACA success ?

For one thing, their costs are going down and they're not facing bankruptcy. This means they're able to provide services to more patients, update equipment, and attract top-level physicians.

Your source says nothing about costs going down.

It said they were getting more patients.

Did you forget that "primary source" or are you making stuff up ?

And you know UHC lied.....how.....??? Still waiting.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Last March: Affordable Care Act credited with $7.4 billion drop in uncompensated care.

More hospitals are getting paid for more of the care they deliver. That's why they're doing better financially. And yes, that's because of the ACA.

Still making that connection.

The government is simply paying the bills people used to not pay.

Not sure how that is a success.

We are still paying for them with higher premiums and less care.

 

[emilynghiem]

HCA is a hospital chain, not an insurance company. They treat patients.

D'oh! Long day...I was thinking of Humana.

What? They both have an "H" in them.

It seems like most people in this thread are making that error. Helping patients and getting paid for it is good for providers, who've seen bad debt and charity care dropping.

I wonder if after a certain amount of time trying to reason with people who still think "Obamacare is insurance," the confusion starts to rub off?

That's kinda what had some of us wondering.

How is a hospital chain "doing well" supposed to be a sign of ACA success ?

For one thing, their costs are going down and they're not facing bankruptcy. This means they're able to provide services to more patients, update equipment, and attract top-level physicians.

And this could have been paid for without forcing citizens to buy insurance.

 

[Arianrhod]

D'oh! Long day...I was thinking of Humana.

What? They both have an "H" in them.

It seems like most people in this thread are making that error. Helping patients and getting paid for it is good for providers, who've seen bad debt and charity care dropping.

I wonder if after a certain amount of time trying to reason with people who still think "Obamacare is insurance," the confusion starts to rub off?

That's kinda what had some of us wondering.

How is a hospital chain "doing well" supposed to be a sign of ACA success ?

For one thing, their costs are going down and they're not facing bankruptcy. This means they're able to provide services to more patients, update equipment, and attract top-level physicians.

And this could have been paid for without forcing citizens to buy insurance.

If so, how? And since it wasn't, why not?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It seems like most people in this thread are making that error. Helping patients and getting paid for it is good for providers, who've seen bad debt and charity care dropping.

I wonder if after a certain amount of time trying to reason with people who still think "Obamacare is insurance," the confusion starts to rub off?

That's kinda what had some of us wondering.

How is a hospital chain "doing well" supposed to be a sign of ACA success ?

For one thing, their costs are going down and they're not facing bankruptcy. This means they're able to provide services to more patients, update equipment, and attract top-level physicians.

And this could have been paid for without forcing citizens to buy insurance.

If so, how? And since it wasn't, why not?

And UHC was lying...how ????

Still looking for those "primary sources".

 

[emilynghiem]

It seems like most people in this thread are making that error. Helping patients and getting paid for it is good for providers, who've seen bad debt and charity care dropping.

I wonder if after a certain amount of time trying to reason with people who still think "Obamacare is insurance," the confusion starts to rub off?

That's kinda what had some of us wondering.

How is a hospital chain "doing well" supposed to be a sign of ACA success ?

For one thing, their costs are going down and they're not facing bankruptcy. This means they're able to provide services to more patients, update equipment, and attract top-level physicians.

And this could have been paid for without forcing citizens to buy insurance.

If so, how? And since it wasn't, why not?

Dear Arianrhod
What I propose is to respect both the right to health care and right to life
by separating by party and letting members choose what track to fund and support VOLUNTARILY.
Since spiritual healing is involved in health care choices and costs, I argue this should remain VOLUNTARY
as religious beliefs and practices are involved which govt is not in the business of regulating.

I haven't seen any major leaders stand up and publicly recognize political beliefs as equal,
and the solution of separating by party; so this hasn't been tried yet. Most people are taking one side or the other, and bashing each other's beliefs as inferior. I don't see many or any of these leaders demanding to treat beliefs as equal between the parties, as I believe we are heading toward.

For the parties divided by prochoice/right to health care and right to life/free market care:
1. for Democrats since the party is dedicated to replacing the death penalty
with more socially just and effective corrections and mental health care
(and also support for immigrant minority and worker interests)
then I suggest revamping the prison system and state budgets to
reform those facilities to provide sustainable mental and medical care through educational programs that serve the greater populations as a way to offset costs of training and teaching service providers. Use the exchanges to manage the prison and immigrant populations who want to register for work study programs to earn their way through school and receive access to social services through an organized campus system. This can be voluntary for people who have committed no crimes, but for those who owe restitution, some of the program can be mandatory.

2. for Republicans I would look into war contracts and VA reforms,
create jobs for Veterans to fix these institutions and repurpose the
facilities and resources to serve greater populations
not just with health care but in job training and govt management.

the restitution from corruption and tax money owed to the public for abuses,
the restitution from trafficking and other organized crime, etc.
can be tracked as credits or loans and invested in reforms to clean up
the border, the prison system, the VA etc.

This hasn't been proposed formally yet Arianrhod

I am thinking with the reforms proposed by candidates such as
Bernie Sanders and his plans for workers to be trained to manage business cooperatives
and Trump with his commitment to ending the nonsense going on with the border,
these leaders and/or their followers might get wise and collaborate to cut
out the middle man politics keeping people from organizing left and right on common solutions.

Earned Amnesty
I posted this summary before, and maybe out of pure necessity
because we can't afford any more nonsense, people from all sides
from all parties might come together and start organizing under
central business plans that empower each party and community to manage part of the puzzle.

It will likely come from independents who have ties with their respective parties,
to organize solutions that everyone can agree respects their beliefs that don't have to compete with each other.

We'll see how far we get this election cycle.
I thought this would happen 2-3 elections ago,
but maybe this time people are more prepared to collaborate across party lines to get the work done.

 

[Arianrhod]

^Emily, you've clearly given this a lot of thought, and I commend (and agree with) much of what you've said. Just to address one aspect, the increasing privatization of the prison system works against any kind of reform. The goal has become to keep the cells filled so that the revenue keeps streaming in, even if a large proportion of inmates are there for what in the past would have been minor crimes.

And since it seems all but impossible to get the two political sides to agree on anything - even to going their separate ways and concentrating on the separate agenda you've outlined - while this might be a longed-for ideal, I'm skeptical it can happen in the world we live in.

 

[emilynghiem]

^Emily, you've clearly given this a lot of thought, and I commend (and agree with) much of what you've said. Just to address one aspect, the increasing privatization of the prison system works against any kind of reform. The goal has become to keep the cells filled so that the revenue keeps streaming in, even if a large proportion of inmates are there for what in the past would have been minor crimes.

And since it seems all but impossible to get the two political sides to agree on anything - even to going their separate ways and concentrating on the separate agenda you've outlined - while this might be a longed-for ideal, I'm skeptical it can happen in the world we live in.

Thanks Arianrhod
That's exactly why the reforms are taking so long.
As my friends on both sides of the death penalty conflicts found out:
both sides DISAGREE with the problems of the criminal justice system,
but don't agree what to change it to. So they stay stuck. Same with ACA.

Out of pure necessity, because we can't afford to waste billions and billions
while this isn't getting resolved, we will come to the point of saying ENOUGH.
Taxpayers will say NO we will NOT pay more for problems to continue.

So we will have no choice but to organize joint petitions across party lines
until we are taken seriously the answer is NO NOT THIS.

As long as we drown each other out yelling our side louder, nobody can hear solutions through the noise.

there are people working behind the scenes to put solutions together.
this will come out, and the economics of it will make more sense to more people who are fed up paying
out the nose for problems.

It's just a matter of time and timing.
But yes, that's exactly why this is taking so long

BTW with the prisons, the KPFT pacifica radio crowd is pretty much organized
around RAY HILL who is a national and international go-to guy on prison and police reform.
Even the sheriffs and city/police go to him to consult, the Mayor, etc.
on how to deal with X Y Z and why isn't A B C working etc.

He and everyone knows it is all bought out, and it is up to the people to stand up to corrupt
judges and their lawyers and financiers buying out the system as buddies.
Especially in Texas we all know what's going on.

How can we use the buddy system to fix this mess?
Of course if people are loyal to party we should use that.

So if we organize by party, and people are given back power to create their own
programs instead of competing through govt at odds with each other, this should change the game.

I guess it's like the point in the Beautiful Mind movie where the Nobel winning economist
came out with his theory on cooperative elements in business decisions. If all the guys in the bar competed for the same girl, they'd come out empty. But if they all go for different girls, they'd all get somewhere. And economics is like that, where everyone finds their niche in the market. So why not collaborative politics where everyone serves their niche and quits trying to compete to control the whole spiel.

We'll figure it out. Once a few key people put solutions together,
this can be set up as a MODEL and demonstrate to more of the public.
Whatever works is going to be adopted per school district or county.

The prison reform activists getting together with business and school community leaders,
and working through media to organize can get the model solutions out to more communities to replicate.

We can't afford to keep going as is, so something is going to change one way or another.
If it isn't how I envisioned, it will be similar, where each district organizes around programs
that successfully keep people in jobs and school, and keep them out of jails and prison.

Then the cycle is broken, and resources go into building not destroying communities and wealth.

I listed some programs that have been working effectively to change the prison culture and public perception
Home
http://www.nomorevictimsincglobal.org/
KPFT - The Prison Show
Prison Fellowship: Redeeming Prisoners Through Christ
Restorative Justice Ministries Network of Texas - Prison/Jail Ministries

If you look up Restorative Justice there are tons of nonprofits and sociological studies
on how this is more sustainable and effective. The nature of the approach is more
one on one and grassroots, and is not mandated from the top down but freely chosen at the individual level
to change relationships and communities one at a time. So it takes longer for this to "trickle up to the top"

The good news is slow and steady wins the race. When things do switch to a more amenable system, that is more sustainable and everyone wins, they aren't going to switch back. Nobody would want to. The change when it happens, multiplies and expands forward, so it breaks the cycle at a greater rate as the solutions catch on and influence more people, relations, and communities to change in the direction of restoration through meaningful restitution and healing.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

U.S. health insurers have said they are losing money on the exchanges because many of their patients are older or have high medical costs. UnitedHealth Group Inc, the largest U.S. health insurer, in November said it is considering exiting the exchanges in 2017 because weak enrollment and high costs were taking too big a toll on its performance.

If the actual insurers (and not Breitbart) are saying that, they're lying.

The coverage from the insurer is the same regardless of whether you buy it through the exchanges, from Esurance, through your employer, or from a broker.

Will y'all please keep your myths straight?

Missed the primary source post you were going to provide (or were you ?).

I'd like to see how they are lying.

Or who is lying in this case.

 

[Arianrhod]

U.S. health insurers have said they are losing money on the exchanges because many of their patients are older or have high medical costs. UnitedHealth Group Inc, the largest U.S. health insurer, in November said it is considering exiting the exchanges in 2017 because weak enrollment and high costs were taking too big a toll on its performance.

If the actual insurers (and not Breitbart) are saying that, they're lying.

The coverage from the insurer is the same regardless of whether you buy it through the exchanges, from Esurance, through your employer, or from a broker.

Will y'all please keep your myths straight?

Missed the primary source post you were going to provide (or were you ?).

You expect me to do your homework for you?