More Gruber video...admits obamacare will be unaffordable and will need to ration care....

[ABikerSailor]

Someone else was paying for their ER visits. Preventative care is cheaper than ER care. Perhaps if you were capable of doing the math you could have figured that out for yourself.

Bullshit argument. Someone else paying for the ER visits was part of the reason for pushing for this BS healthcare socialism in the first place. Now everyone else has to pay for ER visits (of which there will be more now) and everything else.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Facts prove you wrong!

Massachusetts emergency room visits fell after health care reform

But most (though not all) subsequent studies of the Massachusetts overhaul that served as the model for the Affordable Care Act found ER visits declined over time. In her 2012 assessment ("The Effect of Insurance on Emergency Room Visits: An Analysis of the 2006 Massachusetts Health Reform"), Sarah Miller reported an 8 percent decline in emergency department use over a period of several years. Her study followed a 2010 analysis by Jonathan T. Kolstad and Amanda E. Kowalski which found that Mitt Romney's reforms ultimately "affected utilization patterns by decreasing length of stay and the number of inpatient admissions originating from the emergency room." Examining data for hospital admissions originating from the emergency room, Kolstad and Kowalski found "a decline in inpatient admissions originating in the emergency room of 5.2 percent." While ER use by patients in wealthier ZIP codes was essentially unchanged:
We find that the reduction in emergency admissions was particularly pronounced among people from zip codes in the lowest income quartile [with an estimated] 12.2 percent reduction.That conclusion echoed the findings of a January 2012 study ("Massachusetts Health Reforms: Uninsurance Remains Low, Self-Reported Health Status Improves As State Prepares To Tackle Costs") by Sharon K. Long, Karen Stockley, and Heather Dahlen. They found that a four percent decline in reported ER use between 2006 and 2010.​

The Feds are subsidizing the health care visits that usurp ER visits. What do you suppose the great big entity that subsidizes this even larger monstrosity will be?
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

How many preventative care visits can you pay for from just the cost of a single ER visit?

I appreciate that your home schooling skipped basic math but the fact is that preventative care is cost effective.

The only preventive care that is cost effective is a healthy lifestyle. Not a lot of that out there.
Gov involvement in any aspect of a market is overhead. That is extra cost and nothing more. Any improvements in health care are best handled without gov involvement.
This is about a power grab.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Actually, preventive care is things like immunizations, flu shots, monitoring a potentially deadly disease like diabetes, etc.

All of those things are cheaper than a single visit to the ER.

Try again.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Someone else was paying for their ER visits. Preventative care is cheaper than ER care. Perhaps if you were capable of doing the math you could have figured that out for yourself.

Bullshit argument. Someone else paying for the ER visits was part of the reason for pushing for this BS healthcare socialism in the first place. Now everyone else has to pay for ER visits (of which there will be more now) and everything else.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Facts prove you wrong!

Massachusetts emergency room visits fell after health care reform

But most (though not all) subsequent studies of the Massachusetts overhaul that served as the model for the Affordable Care Act found ER visits declined over time. In her 2012 assessment ("The Effect of Insurance on Emergency Room Visits: An Analysis of the 2006 Massachusetts Health Reform"), Sarah Miller reported an 8 percent decline in emergency department use over a period of several years. Her study followed a 2010 analysis by Jonathan T. Kolstad and Amanda E. Kowalski which found that Mitt Romney's reforms ultimately "affected utilization patterns by decreasing length of stay and the number of inpatient admissions originating from the emergency room." Examining data for hospital admissions originating from the emergency room, Kolstad and Kowalski found "a decline in inpatient admissions originating in the emergency room of 5.2 percent." While ER use by patients in wealthier ZIP codes was essentially unchanged:
We find that the reduction in emergency admissions was particularly pronounced among people from zip codes in the lowest income quartile [with an estimated] 12.2 percent reduction.That conclusion echoed the findings of a January 2012 study ("Massachusetts Health Reforms: Uninsurance Remains Low, Self-Reported Health Status Improves As State Prepares To Tackle Costs") by Sharon K. Long, Karen Stockley, and Heather Dahlen. They found that a four percent decline in reported ER use between 2006 and 2010.​

The Feds are subsidizing the health care visits that usurp ER visits. What do you suppose the great big entity that subsidizes this even larger monstrosity will be?
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

How many preventative care visits can you pay for from just the cost of a single ER visit?

I appreciate that your home schooling skipped basic math but the fact is that preventative care is cost effective.

The only preventive care that is cost effective is a healthy lifestyle. Not a lot of that out there.
Gov involvement in any aspect of a market is overhead. That is extra cost and nothing more. Any improvements in health care are best handled without gov involvement.
This is about a power grab.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Who knew that a "healthy lifestyle" would prevent you from getting cancer? On the other hand preventative care can detect cancer at the early stages and thus eliminate the more expensive late stage treatments. That is just one example. Your paranoia is unwarranted especially since the Heritage design for the ACA ensures that healthcare remains entirely in the private sector.

 

[2aguy]

Bullshit argument. Someone else paying for the ER visits was part of the reason for pushing for this BS healthcare socialism in the first place. Now everyone else has to pay for ER visits (of which there will be more now) and everything else.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Facts prove you wrong!

Massachusetts emergency room visits fell after health care reform

But most (though not all) subsequent studies of the Massachusetts overhaul that served as the model for the Affordable Care Act found ER visits declined over time. In her 2012 assessment ("The Effect of Insurance on Emergency Room Visits: An Analysis of the 2006 Massachusetts Health Reform"), Sarah Miller reported an 8 percent decline in emergency department use over a period of several years. Her study followed a 2010 analysis by Jonathan T. Kolstad and Amanda E. Kowalski which found that Mitt Romney's reforms ultimately "affected utilization patterns by decreasing length of stay and the number of inpatient admissions originating from the emergency room." Examining data for hospital admissions originating from the emergency room, Kolstad and Kowalski found "a decline in inpatient admissions originating in the emergency room of 5.2 percent." While ER use by patients in wealthier ZIP codes was essentially unchanged:
We find that the reduction in emergency admissions was particularly pronounced among people from zip codes in the lowest income quartile [with an estimated] 12.2 percent reduction.That conclusion echoed the findings of a January 2012 study ("Massachusetts Health Reforms: Uninsurance Remains Low, Self-Reported Health Status Improves As State Prepares To Tackle Costs") by Sharon K. Long, Karen Stockley, and Heather Dahlen. They found that a four percent decline in reported ER use between 2006 and 2010.​

The Feds are subsidizing the health care visits that usurp ER visits. What do you suppose the great big entity that subsidizes this even larger monstrosity will be?
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

How many preventative care visits can you pay for from just the cost of a single ER visit?

I appreciate that your home schooling skipped basic math but the fact is that preventative care is cost effective.

The only preventive care that is cost effective is a healthy lifestyle. Not a lot of that out there.
Gov involvement in any aspect of a market is overhead. That is extra cost and nothing more. Any improvements in health care are best handled without gov involvement.
This is about a power grab.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Who knew that a "healthy lifestyle" would prevent you from getting cancer? On the other hand preventative care can detect cancer at the early stages and thus eliminate the more expensive late stage treatments. That is just one example. Your paranoia is unwarranted especially since the Heritage design for the ACA ensures that healthcare remains entirely in the private sector.

Funny how as this comes on line the guide lines for screenings for cancer are being quietly changed....they increase the age to start screening and the frequency.......but they do it quietly.......sure....they won't be rationing care......

 

[2aguy]

Hmmmmm....why all of a sudden...with the advent of obamacare are they quietly changing the screening of breast cancer and other cancers.....

New Mammogram Screening Guidelines FAQ

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is recommending sweeping changes in its breast cancer screening guidelines.

The USPSTF, which is a group of independent health experts convened by the Department of Health and Human Services, reviewed and commissioned research to develop computer-simulated models comparing the expected outcomes under different screening scenarios.

Here are the USPSTF's recommendations, based on all that work:

• Routine screening of average-risk women should begin at age 50, instead of age 40.
• Routine screening should end at age 74.
• Women should get screening mammograms every two years instead of every year.
• Breast self-exams have little value, based on findings from several large studies.

But the new recommendations may leave some women confused, since the American Cancer Society continues to recommend annualmammography screening for all healthy women beginning at age 40. What's the bottom line on mammogram screening? WebMD asked breast cancer experts about the new USPSTF screening guidelines.

---------------------------------

Sure....they aren't going to ration care........they are just going to.....change the guidelines.......

 

[2aguy]

Hmmmm....and they are changing these guidelines as well....funny how it coincides with obamacare..........

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/new-guidelines-advise-less-frequent-pap-smears/?_r=0

The annual Pap smear, a cornerstone of women’s health for at least 60 years, is now officially a thing of the past, as new national guidelines recommend cervical cancer screening no more often than every three years.

----------------

Yeah...any other changes that they are quietly enacting.....?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Facts prove you wrong!

Massachusetts emergency room visits fell after health care reform

But most (though not all) subsequent studies of the Massachusetts overhaul that served as the model for the Affordable Care Act found ER visits declined over time. In her 2012 assessment ("The Effect of Insurance on Emergency Room Visits: An Analysis of the 2006 Massachusetts Health Reform"), Sarah Miller reported an 8 percent decline in emergency department use over a period of several years. Her study followed a 2010 analysis by Jonathan T. Kolstad and Amanda E. Kowalski which found that Mitt Romney's reforms ultimately "affected utilization patterns by decreasing length of stay and the number of inpatient admissions originating from the emergency room." Examining data for hospital admissions originating from the emergency room, Kolstad and Kowalski found "a decline in inpatient admissions originating in the emergency room of 5.2 percent." While ER use by patients in wealthier ZIP codes was essentially unchanged:
We find that the reduction in emergency admissions was particularly pronounced among people from zip codes in the lowest income quartile [with an estimated] 12.2 percent reduction.That conclusion echoed the findings of a January 2012 study ("Massachusetts Health Reforms: Uninsurance Remains Low, Self-Reported Health Status Improves As State Prepares To Tackle Costs") by Sharon K. Long, Karen Stockley, and Heather Dahlen. They found that a four percent decline in reported ER use between 2006 and 2010.​

The Feds are subsidizing the health care visits that usurp ER visits. What do you suppose the great big entity that subsidizes this even larger monstrosity will be?
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

How many preventative care visits can you pay for from just the cost of a single ER visit?

I appreciate that your home schooling skipped basic math but the fact is that preventative care is cost effective.

The only preventive care that is cost effective is a healthy lifestyle. Not a lot of that out there.
Gov involvement in any aspect of a market is overhead. That is extra cost and nothing more. Any improvements in health care are best handled without gov involvement.
This is about a power grab.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Who knew that a "healthy lifestyle" would prevent you from getting cancer? On the other hand preventative care can detect cancer at the early stages and thus eliminate the more expensive late stage treatments. That is just one example. Your paranoia is unwarranted especially since the Heritage design for the ACA ensures that healthcare remains entirely in the private sector.

Funny how as this comes on line the guide lines for screenings for cancer are being quietly changed....they increase the age to start screening and the frequency.......but they do it quietly.......sure....they won't be rationing care......

Did you miss the part where they had gone to all the trouble of evaluating the effectiveness of screenings?

The USPSTF, which is a group of independent health experts convened by the Department of Health and Human Services, reviewed and commissioned research to develop computer-simulated models comparing the expected outcomes under different screening scenarios​

Are you whining because women who no longer need them won't have them?

 

[2aguy]

The Feds are subsidizing the health care visits that usurp ER visits. What do you suppose the great big entity that subsidizes this even larger monstrosity will be?
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

How many preventative care visits can you pay for from just the cost of a single ER visit?

I appreciate that your home schooling skipped basic math but the fact is that preventative care is cost effective.

The only preventive care that is cost effective is a healthy lifestyle. Not a lot of that out there.
Gov involvement in any aspect of a market is overhead. That is extra cost and nothing more. Any improvements in health care are best handled without gov involvement.
This is about a power grab.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Who knew that a "healthy lifestyle" would prevent you from getting cancer? On the other hand preventative care can detect cancer at the early stages and thus eliminate the more expensive late stage treatments. That is just one example. Your paranoia is unwarranted especially since the Heritage design for the ACA ensures that healthcare remains entirely in the private sector.

Funny how as this comes on line the guide lines for screenings for cancer are being quietly changed....they increase the age to start screening and the frequency.......but they do it quietly.......sure....they won't be rationing care......

Did you miss the part where they had gone to all the trouble of evaluating the effectiveness of screenings?

The USPSTF, which is a group of independent health experts convened by the Department of Health and Human Services, reviewed and commissioned research to develop computer-simulated models comparing the expected outcomes under different screening scenarios​

Are you whining because women who no longer need them won't have them?

Yeah.....keep telling yourself that.....keep your eyes open....as they start changing more "guidelines" for things that used to be done to help people survive......

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hmmmm....and they are changing these guidelines as well....funny how it coincides with obamacare..........

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/new-guidelines-advise-less-frequent-pap-smears/?_r=0

The annual Pap smear, a cornerstone of women’s health for at least 60 years, is now officially a thing of the past, as new national guidelines recommend cervical cancer screening no more often than every three years.

----------------

Yeah...any other changes that they are quietly enacting.....?

Who is doing the "enacting"?

In recent years, some doctors and medical groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2009, began urging less frequent screening for cervical cancer. ​

Are they just supposed to ignore the data?

“We achieve essentially the same effectiveness in the reduction of cancer deaths, but we reduce potential harm of false positive tests,” said Dr. Wanda Nicholson, a task force member and an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “It’s a win-win for women.”

Cost is not a factor in the task force recommendations.​

Are you in favor of unnecessary testing that provides no additional benefits except to increase your healthcare premiums?

 

[Derideo_Te]

How many preventative care visits can you pay for from just the cost of a single ER visit?

I appreciate that your home schooling skipped basic math but the fact is that preventative care is cost effective.

The only preventive care that is cost effective is a healthy lifestyle. Not a lot of that out there.
Gov involvement in any aspect of a market is overhead. That is extra cost and nothing more. Any improvements in health care are best handled without gov involvement.
This is about a power grab.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Who knew that a "healthy lifestyle" would prevent you from getting cancer? On the other hand preventative care can detect cancer at the early stages and thus eliminate the more expensive late stage treatments. That is just one example. Your paranoia is unwarranted especially since the Heritage design for the ACA ensures that healthcare remains entirely in the private sector.

Funny how as this comes on line the guide lines for screenings for cancer are being quietly changed....they increase the age to start screening and the frequency.......but they do it quietly.......sure....they won't be rationing care......

Did you miss the part where they had gone to all the trouble of evaluating the effectiveness of screenings?

The USPSTF, which is a group of independent health experts convened by the Department of Health and Human Services, reviewed and commissioned research to develop computer-simulated models comparing the expected outcomes under different screening scenarios​

Are you whining because women who no longer need them won't have them?

Yeah.....keep telling yourself that.....keep your eyes open....as they start changing more "guidelines" for things that used to be done to help people survive......

Your paranoia is not supported by your links.

 

[2aguy]

Hmmmm....and they are changing these guidelines as well....funny how it coincides with obamacare..........

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/new-guidelines-advise-less-frequent-pap-smears/?_r=0

The annual Pap smear, a cornerstone of women’s health for at least 60 years, is now officially a thing of the past, as new national guidelines recommend cervical cancer screening no more often than every three years.

----------------

Yeah...any other changes that they are quietly enacting.....?

Who is doing the "enacting"?

In recent years, some doctors and medical groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2009, began urging less frequent screening for cervical cancer. ​

Are they just supposed to ignore the data?

“We achieve essentially the same effectiveness in the reduction of cancer deaths, but we reduce potential harm of false positive tests,” said Dr. Wanda Nicholson, a task force member and an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “It’s a win-win for women.”

Cost is not a factor in the task force recommendations.​

Are you in favor of unnecessary testing that provides no additional benefits except to increase your healthcare premiums?

Unnecessary to who.....? You don't believe they would change the guidelines to cut costs.....read up on the NHS...see how they do it......

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hmmmm....and they are changing these guidelines as well....funny how it coincides with obamacare..........

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/new-guidelines-advise-less-frequent-pap-smears/?_r=0

The annual Pap smear, a cornerstone of women’s health for at least 60 years, is now officially a thing of the past, as new national guidelines recommend cervical cancer screening no more often than every three years.

----------------

Yeah...any other changes that they are quietly enacting.....?

Who is doing the "enacting"?

In recent years, some doctors and medical groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2009, began urging less frequent screening for cervical cancer. ​

Are they just supposed to ignore the data?

“We achieve essentially the same effectiveness in the reduction of cancer deaths, but we reduce potential harm of false positive tests,” said Dr. Wanda Nicholson, a task force member and an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “It’s a win-win for women.”

Cost is not a factor in the task force recommendations.​

Are you in favor of unnecessary testing that provides no additional benefits except to increase your healthcare premiums?

Unnecessary to who.....? You don't believe they would change the guidelines to cut costs.....read up on the NHS...see how they do it......

Who made the recommendations?

Accountants or medical doctors?

 

[2aguy]

Hmmmm...let's see how national healthcare with a track record looks....

Cancer screening risks being a casualty of NHS reform rsquo - Telegraph

Public health programmes could be “devastated” by the Government’s controversial reform of the NHS, as councils take money set aside for much-needed projects, doctors have warned.

Services under threat include immunisation programmes, cancer screening, mental health, tobacco control and smoking cessation, a report said.

Public health experts said the service would become fragmented and confused and called for the Health and Social Care Bill to be withdrawn.

Under the reforms, responsibility for much of public health will pass to local authorities. But they are already planning on spending the funds on other things because they are facing budget cuts, it was warned. The Public Health for the NHS network, which is made up of former presidents of the Faculty of Public Health and more than 50 directors of public health, say commissioning should remain within the NHS.

 

[2aguy]

Hmmmm....and they are changing these guidelines as well....funny how it coincides with obamacare..........

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/new-guidelines-advise-less-frequent-pap-smears/?_r=0

The annual Pap smear, a cornerstone of women’s health for at least 60 years, is now officially a thing of the past, as new national guidelines recommend cervical cancer screening no more often than every three years.

----------------

Yeah...any other changes that they are quietly enacting.....?

Who is doing the "enacting"?

In recent years, some doctors and medical groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2009, began urging less frequent screening for cervical cancer. ​

Are they just supposed to ignore the data?

“We achieve essentially the same effectiveness in the reduction of cancer deaths, but we reduce potential harm of false positive tests,” said Dr. Wanda Nicholson, a task force member and an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “It’s a win-win for women.”

Cost is not a factor in the task force recommendations.​

Are you in favor of unnecessary testing that provides no additional benefits except to increase your healthcare premiums?

Unnecessary to who.....? You don't believe they would change the guidelines to cut costs.....read up on the NHS...see how they do it......

Who made the recommendations?

Accountants or medical doctors?

Was one of the doctors rahm emmanuels brother.....the one who thinks that doctors are trained wrong...that instead of putting all of their effort into the patient, they need to be trained to see the healtcare system as a whole that needs to be managed....was he one of the doctors?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hmmmm...let's see how national healthcare with a track record looks....

Cancer screening risks being a casualty of NHS reform rsquo - Telegraph

Public health programmes could be “devastated” by the Government’s controversial reform of the NHS, as councils take money set aside for much-needed projects, doctors have warned.

Services under threat include immunisation programmes, cancer screening, mental health, tobacco control and smoking cessation, a report said.

Public health experts said the service would become fragmented and confused and called for the Health and Social Care Bill to be withdrawn.

Under the reforms, responsibility for much of public health will pass to local authorities. But they are already planning on spending the funds on other things because they are facing budget cuts, it was warned. The Public Health for the NHS network, which is made up of former presidents of the Faculty of Public Health and more than 50 directors of public health, say commissioning should remain within the NHS.

Irrelevant!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Hmmmm....and they are changing these guidelines as well....funny how it coincides with obamacare..........

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/new-guidelines-advise-less-frequent-pap-smears/?_r=0

The annual Pap smear, a cornerstone of women’s health for at least 60 years, is now officially a thing of the past, as new national guidelines recommend cervical cancer screening no more often than every three years.

----------------

Yeah...any other changes that they are quietly enacting.....?

Who is doing the "enacting"?

In recent years, some doctors and medical groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in 2009, began urging less frequent screening for cervical cancer. ​

Are they just supposed to ignore the data?

“We achieve essentially the same effectiveness in the reduction of cancer deaths, but we reduce potential harm of false positive tests,” said Dr. Wanda Nicholson, a task force member and an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “It’s a win-win for women.”

Cost is not a factor in the task force recommendations.​

Are you in favor of unnecessary testing that provides no additional benefits except to increase your healthcare premiums?

Unnecessary to who.....? You don't believe they would change the guidelines to cut costs.....read up on the NHS...see how they do it......

Who made the recommendations?

Accountants or medical doctors?

Was one of the doctors rahm emmanuels brother.....the one who thinks that doctors are trained wrong...that instead of putting all of their effort into the patient, they need to be trained to see the healtcare system as a whole that needs to be managed....was he one of the doctors?

Onus is on you to prove that he was involved and made the decision based upon your paranoia.

 

[2aguy]

Hmmmm...let's see how national healthcare with a track record looks....

Cancer screening risks being a casualty of NHS reform rsquo - Telegraph

Public health programmes could be “devastated” by the Government’s controversial reform of the NHS, as councils take money set aside for much-needed projects, doctors have warned.

Services under threat include immunisation programmes, cancer screening, mental health, tobacco control and smoking cessation, a report said.

Public health experts said the service would become fragmented and confused and called for the Health and Social Care Bill to be withdrawn.

Under the reforms, responsibility for much of public health will pass to local authorities. But they are already planning on spending the funds on other things because they are facing budget cuts, it was warned. The Public Health for the NHS network, which is made up of former presidents of the Faculty of Public Health and more than 50 directors of public health, say commissioning should remain within the NHS.

Irrelevant!

You are seeing the future of American medicine....the NHS is about to collapse....they have tried it since WW2 and it is falling apart.....the only reason it has managed so long is that the United States provided national security for Britain....that allowed them to devote more resources than they had to national control of their healthcare system...

Don't believe me.....fine.....just wait.....the mandates start Jan. 1, 2015.......let's see what happens.......

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Bullshit argument. Someone else paying for the ER visits was part of the reason for pushing for this BS healthcare socialism in the first place. Now everyone else has to pay for ER visits (of which there will be more now) and everything else.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Facts prove you wrong!

Massachusetts emergency room visits fell after health care reform

But most (though not all) subsequent studies of the Massachusetts overhaul that served as the model for the Affordable Care Act found ER visits declined over time. In her 2012 assessment ("The Effect of Insurance on Emergency Room Visits: An Analysis of the 2006 Massachusetts Health Reform"), Sarah Miller reported an 8 percent decline in emergency department use over a period of several years. Her study followed a 2010 analysis by Jonathan T. Kolstad and Amanda E. Kowalski which found that Mitt Romney's reforms ultimately "affected utilization patterns by decreasing length of stay and the number of inpatient admissions originating from the emergency room." Examining data for hospital admissions originating from the emergency room, Kolstad and Kowalski found "a decline in inpatient admissions originating in the emergency room of 5.2 percent." While ER use by patients in wealthier ZIP codes was essentially unchanged:
We find that the reduction in emergency admissions was particularly pronounced among people from zip codes in the lowest income quartile [with an estimated] 12.2 percent reduction.That conclusion echoed the findings of a January 2012 study ("Massachusetts Health Reforms: Uninsurance Remains Low, Self-Reported Health Status Improves As State Prepares To Tackle Costs") by Sharon K. Long, Karen Stockley, and Heather Dahlen. They found that a four percent decline in reported ER use between 2006 and 2010.​

The Feds are subsidizing the health care visits that usurp ER visits. What do you suppose the great big entity that subsidizes this even larger monstrosity will be?
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

How many preventative care visits can you pay for from just the cost of a single ER visit?

I appreciate that your home schooling skipped basic math but the fact is that preventative care is cost effective.

The only preventive care that is cost effective is a healthy lifestyle. Not a lot of that out there.
Gov involvement in any aspect of a market is overhead. That is extra cost and nothing more. Any improvements in health care are best handled without gov involvement.
This is about a power grab.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Actually, preventive care is things like immunizations, flu shots, monitoring a potentially deadly disease like diabetes, etc.

All of those things are cheaper than a single visit to the ER.

Try again.

A healthy lifestyle is way less expensive than presuming upon overpriced, nanny-state, less efficient, gov-subsidized medical care. But why should democrats care? They can't do math and their heroes, the government, have a zero-risk financial model. It will just grow and grow and grow and become exponentially expensive like every other government agency.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Bullshit argument. Someone else paying for the ER visits was part of the reason for pushing for this BS healthcare socialism in the first place. Now everyone else has to pay for ER visits (of which there will be more now) and everything else.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Facts prove you wrong!

Massachusetts emergency room visits fell after health care reform

But most (though not all) subsequent studies of the Massachusetts overhaul that served as the model for the Affordable Care Act found ER visits declined over time. In her 2012 assessment ("The Effect of Insurance on Emergency Room Visits: An Analysis of the 2006 Massachusetts Health Reform"), Sarah Miller reported an 8 percent decline in emergency department use over a period of several years. Her study followed a 2010 analysis by Jonathan T. Kolstad and Amanda E. Kowalski which found that Mitt Romney's reforms ultimately "affected utilization patterns by decreasing length of stay and the number of inpatient admissions originating from the emergency room." Examining data for hospital admissions originating from the emergency room, Kolstad and Kowalski found "a decline in inpatient admissions originating in the emergency room of 5.2 percent." While ER use by patients in wealthier ZIP codes was essentially unchanged:
We find that the reduction in emergency admissions was particularly pronounced among people from zip codes in the lowest income quartile [with an estimated] 12.2 percent reduction.That conclusion echoed the findings of a January 2012 study ("Massachusetts Health Reforms: Uninsurance Remains Low, Self-Reported Health Status Improves As State Prepares To Tackle Costs") by Sharon K. Long, Karen Stockley, and Heather Dahlen. They found that a four percent decline in reported ER use between 2006 and 2010.​

The Feds are subsidizing the health care visits that usurp ER visits. What do you suppose the great big entity that subsidizes this even larger monstrosity will be?
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

How many preventative care visits can you pay for from just the cost of a single ER visit?

I appreciate that your home schooling skipped basic math but the fact is that preventative care is cost effective.

The only preventive care that is cost effective is a healthy lifestyle. Not a lot of that out there.
Gov involvement in any aspect of a market is overhead. That is extra cost and nothing more. Any improvements in health care are best handled without gov involvement.
This is about a power grab.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Who knew that a "healthy lifestyle" would prevent you from getting cancer? On the other hand preventative care can detect cancer at the early stages and thus eliminate the more expensive late stage treatments. That is just one example. Your paranoia is unwarranted especially since the Heritage design for the ACA ensures that healthcare remains entirely in the private sector.

Another democrat use of the anecdotal to justify government waste and the sacrificing of liberty.
If the healthcare is gov controlled and gov involved then it can't be a private sector thing. It can be a crony thing. Either way it's more expensive.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Notice....none of the media controlled by the democrats reported any of this when it mattered....

Gruber In 2009 Obamacare Will NOT Be Affordable The Daily Caller

President Obama’s health care adviser Jonathan Gruber said that the Affordable Care Act would definitely not be affordable while he was writing the bill with the White House.

As Gruber continues to withhold documents while he awaits a call-back for more testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in the new year, more shocking information is coming to light detailing the deceptions that went into the writing of the health-care law. (RELATED: Daily Caller Publishes First Video Of Gruber Calling The American People ‘Stupid’).

Gruber said that Obamacare had no cost controls in it and would not be affordable in an October 2009 policy brief, presented here exclusively by TheDC. At the time, Gruber had already personally counseled Obama in the Oval Office and served on Obama’s presidential transition team. Obama, meanwhile, told the American people that their premiums would go down dramatically.

And yet 10 million people can afford policies under the ACA and millions more now have better coverage than they had before.

If anything that just exposes Gruber as someone whose credibility is suspect. No wonder you are relying on him.

Someone else is paying for the coverage. Geez, lefties are so stupid.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Someone else was paying for their ER visits. Preventative care is cheaper than ER care. Perhaps if you were capable of doing the math you could have figured that out for yourself.

I have worked in ER's for years. Obamacare has vastly increased the Medicaid population and Medicaid folks vastly overuse and abuse ER's compared to any other populations.

And don't ask me for a fucking link. Look it up yourself. The ACA is a joke that was sold on nothing but lies. That's why Americans hate it per the polls.


Remember these ACA liar greatest hits...?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Notice....none of the media controlled by the democrats reported any of this when it mattered....

Gruber In 2009 Obamacare Will NOT Be Affordable The Daily Caller

President Obama’s health care adviser Jonathan Gruber said that the Affordable Care Act would definitely not be affordable while he was writing the bill with the White House.

As Gruber continues to withhold documents while he awaits a call-back for more testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in the new year, more shocking information is coming to light detailing the deceptions that went into the writing of the health-care law. (RELATED: Daily Caller Publishes First Video Of Gruber Calling The American People ‘Stupid’).

Gruber said that Obamacare had no cost controls in it and would not be affordable in an October 2009 policy brief, presented here exclusively by TheDC. At the time, Gruber had already personally counseled Obama in the Oval Office and served on Obama’s presidential transition team. Obama, meanwhile, told the American people that their premiums would go down dramatically.

Everyone that wasn't a pitiful Leftist sycophant said that same thing, over and over over and over over and over over and over again.

LOL! Remember how the Shims HOWLED when Sarah Palin said it? I think she recognized the 'rationing' as Death Panels...

LOL! Oh they wept and gnashed their respective tooth.