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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Facts prove you wrong!

Evil among us

Next we received a fact sheet from NARTH, an organization I respect: the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. The name of NARTH's report was: "The Problem of Pedophilia: Adult-Child Sex Is Not Necessarily Abuse, Say Some Psychologists."

The NARTH article pointed out that one of the authors of the Bulletin article had earlier co-authored an article in a special issue of the respected Journal of Homosexuality entitled "Male lntergenerational Intimacy." That issue was essentially an advertisement for the "benefits" of pedophilia-asserting that the loving pedophile can offer a child "companionship, security and protection" that neither peers nor parents can provide, and that parents should look on the pedophile "as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home... "!

Here are some excerpts from NARTH's report; I'd like to thank Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, director of NARTH, for giving us permission to quote from it.

"The American Psychological Association did not denounce the positions advanced within the Journal of Homosexuality. In fact, just recently, the APA published a new major study written by one of those same Journal of Homosexuality writers. The latest article appears in the APA, its own prestigious Psychological Bulletin. It provides an overview of all of the research studying the harm resulting from childhood sexual abuse.

"The authors' conclusion? That childhood sexual abuse is, on the average, only slightly associated with psychological harm, and that the harm may not even be due to the sexual experience, but to the negative family factors in the children's backgrounds. When the sexual contact is not coerced, especially when it is experienced by a boy and enjoyed, it may not be harmful at all....

"In fact, the authors of the Psychological Bulletin article propose another way of understanding pedophilia: That it may be abuse if the child feels bad about the relationship. They are in effect suggesting a repetition of the steps by which homosexuality was normalized.

Thank you... that was very informative.

 

[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.

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.​

What horseshit. The Daily Kos...??? What a panty waist propaganda rag. Wonder why you didn't ask Rush Limbaugh?

The real facts. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/08/emergency-room-visits-medicaid/15301685/


Key quote.

"Looking at the broad sample of 25 states, the study found that the average number of ER visits in states that expanded Medicaid increased by 5.6 percent, when the second three months of this year were compared with the same period in 2013. That increase was more than three times bigger than experienced by hospitals in states that did not expand under the ACA."


From the Wall Street Journal. Putting the Uninsured on Medicaid Doesn t Cut ER Visits - WSJ

Key Quote:

"Some supporters of President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul say that putting uninsured Americans on Medicaid will reduce costly emergency-room visits by giving them more access to care in other settings.


But a new study found the reverse: A group of 10,000 low-income Oregon residents who recently obtained Medicaid coverage visited ERs 40% more often than those without insurance."

 

[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!

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.......

Just as irrelevant.

 

[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.

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.

In other words you can't refute the facts.

 

[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.

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.

Millions of people get cancer so that isn't anecdotal. Obviously you have no clue what it means.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Obamacare has vastly increased the Medicaid population and Medicaid folks vastly overuse and abuse ER's compared to any other populations.

The elderly end up in the ER? Who would ever have guessed?

There was an uptick in ER visits following the implementation of Romneycare that then declined to 4% less than it had been prior. The same is happening now and it too will eventually decline as the backlog is cleared.

Once again you have nothing of substance to contribute.

 

[Theowl32]

They are counting on it to be a failure. The main stream media will then blame republicans, white people, insurance companies etc etc for the inevitable failure.

It will result in such dire straits that it will then lead to what the socialists really want.

SINGLE PAYER.

It is a trojan horse.

The socialists are scumbags, and they use their dumb pawns to push their agenda.

Yes, the Brave New World prophecy as told by Aldous Huxley is coming true.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Obamacare has vastly increased the Medicaid population and Medicaid folks vastly overuse and abuse ER's compared to any other populations.

The elderly end up in the ER? Who would ever have guessed?

There was an uptick in ER visits following the implementation of Romneycare that then declined to 4% less than it had been prior. The same is happening now and it too will eventually decline as the backlog is cleared.

Once again you have nothing of substance to contribute.

Nope....The data has been out there for years and I know it from personal experience. Medicaid folks utilize the ER at much higher rates than the rest of us do.

Also...they come for bullshit reasons much, much, more frequently. The data has been out there for decades. Look it up.

The myth (or lies) Obama and his people have said about a reduction in ER services is just that....a lie. Medicaid folks still have very limited access to doctors....and limited access to transportation. So they call 911 for bullshit because they'll be taken to the ER for a hangnail.

 

[Katzndogz]

Medicaid users have to use the ER. There are no doctors to see them.

 

[Stephanie]

SNIP:
A whopping 87 per cent of Obamacare customers to get taxpayer-funded subsidies in 2015 – but the Supreme Court could throw out the whole $65 BILLION system

• HHS said Tuesday that about seven out of every eight Obamacare enrollees will get government help paying for their medical insurance policies
• That number was 80 per cent a year ago
• People on Obamacare can get subsidies if their households earn less than four times the federal government's official 'poverty' level
• Sixty-four per cent of Americans have small enough incomes to qualify, meaning that Obamacare customers are disproportionately poor
• Entire $65 billion subsidy system could become illegal next year, depending on how the Supreme Court rules in a landmark case

ALL OF IT:
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2891804/A-whopping-87-cent-Obamacare-subscribers-taxpayer-funded-subsidies-2015-Supreme-Court-make-65-BILLION-subsidies-illegal.html#ixzz3NUbk5atf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Derideo_Te]

Obamacare has vastly increased the Medicaid population and Medicaid folks vastly overuse and abuse ER's compared to any other populations.

The elderly end up in the ER? Who would ever have guessed?

There was an uptick in ER visits following the implementation of Romneycare that then declined to 4% less than it had been prior. The same is happening now and it too will eventually decline as the backlog is cleared.

Once again you have nothing of substance to contribute.

Nope....The data has been out there for years and I know it from personal experience. Medicaid folks utilize the ER at much higher rates than the rest of us do.

Also...they come for bullshit reasons much, much, more frequently. The data has been out there for decades. Look it up.

The myth (or lies) Obama and his people have said about a reduction in ER services is just that....a lie. Medicaid folks still have very limited access to doctors....and limited access to transportation. So they call 911 for bullshit because they'll be taken to the ER for a hangnail.

Your personal anecdotes carry zero weight. The facts prove you wrong. No, I have absolutely no expectation that you will ever be honest enough to acknowledge the facts.

Healthcare Reform Update Only 10 of Medicaid ER use is unnecessary MACPAC says - Modern Healthcare

Reform Update: Only 10% of Medicaid ER use is unnecessary, MACPAC says
By Virgil Dickson | August 5, 2014
Last year, healthcare reform supporters reeled after the media gave widespread attention to a study of a 2008Medicaid expansion in Oregon showing it had increased emergency room use by low-income adults. “A stop sign in front of Obamacare's Medicaid expansion,” one paper headlined its report. The uproar continued last January when the full study appeared in the journal Science.

This week, the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission released its official pushback document (PDF). It seeks to separate fact from fiction by explaining how and why low-income Medicaid beneficiaries seek care in emergency departments.

“Because of the kind of conversations going on, we decided to look at what the experts have to say on this,” said Anne Schwartz, executive director of MACPAC.

The analysis covers topics such as whether Medicaid beneficiaries are going to the ER more than ever before, intentionally going to ERs for non-urgent care needs, and whether it's truly the case enrollees can't find primary-care doctors. The research is based on literature reviews of dozens of studies and research papers.

Its key findings:​

• • Most ED use among Medicaid enrollees is necessary.
  • Most Medicaid beneficiaries have a primary-care doctor or a usual place for care, so aren't using the ED as an alternative provider.
  • There's no evidence to suggest expanding Medicaid will result in increased ED use. Some states that have expanded the program saw no increase in ED utilization, while in others the uptick was short-lived.

Yes Medicaid Expansion Increases ER Visits but Only Temporarily - The Atlantic

http://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-Policy-Guidance/Downloads/CIB-01-16-14.pdf

Medicaid beneficiaries use the ED at an almost two-fold higher rate than the privately insured.1,2

This is not due to widespread inappropriate use of the ED amongst Medicaid beneficiaries, who tend
to be in poorer health than the privately insured population; at least two studies found that the
majority of ED visits by nonelderly Medicaid patients were for symptoms suggesting urgent or more
serious medical problems.3
These studies estimate that non-urgent visits comprise only about 10
percent of all ED visits by Medicaid beneficiaries, and suggest that higher utilization may be in part
due to unmet health needs and lack of access to appropriate settings. In this context, as most states
have recognized, efforts to reduce ED use should focus not on merely reducing the number of ED
visits, but also on promoting continuous coverage for eligible individuals and improving access to
appropriate care settings to better address the health needs of the population. ​

 

[WelfareQueen]

Medicaid users have to use the ER. There are no doctors to see them.

Exactly right. And Obamacare did nothing to fix this....in fact it made access to doctors worse for Medicaid subscribers.

The Medicaid population uses the ER so much mainly because they pay nothing. Under Obamacare some will technically have deductibles....but very few pay anything. You can't get blood from a turnip. So it's easier for many of them to call 911 for a cough or a cold. It beats trying to get into seeing a very limited number of doctors and trying to arrange transportation.

The abuse of the ER population is legion. Don't believe me....ask anyone who works in an ER.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Obamacare has vastly increased the Medicaid population and Medicaid folks vastly overuse and abuse ER's compared to any other populations.

The elderly end up in the ER? Who would ever have guessed?

There was an uptick in ER visits following the implementation of Romneycare that then declined to 4% less than it had been prior. The same is happening now and it too will eventually decline as the backlog is cleared.

Once again you have nothing of substance to contribute.

Nope....The data has been out there for years and I know it from personal experience. Medicaid folks utilize the ER at much higher rates than the rest of us do.

Also...they come for bullshit reasons much, much, more frequently. The data has been out there for decades. Look it up.

The myth (or lies) Obama and his people have said about a reduction in ER services is just that....a lie. Medicaid folks still have very limited access to doctors....and limited access to transportation. So they call 911 for bullshit because they'll be taken to the ER for a hangnail.

Your personal anecdotes carry zero weight. The facts prove you wrong. No, I have absolutely no expectation that you will ever be honest enough to acknowledge the facts.

Healthcare Reform Update Only 10 of Medicaid ER use is unnecessary MACPAC says - Modern Healthcare

Reform Update: Only 10% of Medicaid ER use is unnecessary, MACPAC says
By Virgil Dickson | August 5, 2014
Last year, healthcare reform supporters reeled after the media gave widespread attention to a study of a 2008Medicaid expansion in Oregon showing it had increased emergency room use by low-income adults. “A stop sign in front of Obamacare's Medicaid expansion,” one paper headlined its report. The uproar continued last January when the full study appeared in the journal Science.

This week, the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission released its official pushback document (PDF). It seeks to separate fact from fiction by explaining how and why low-income Medicaid beneficiaries seek care in emergency departments.

“Because of the kind of conversations going on, we decided to look at what the experts have to say on this,” said Anne Schwartz, executive director of MACPAC.

The analysis covers topics such as whether Medicaid beneficiaries are going to the ER more than ever before, intentionally going to ERs for non-urgent care needs, and whether it's truly the case enrollees can't find primary-care doctors. The research is based on literature reviews of dozens of studies and research papers.

Its key findings:​

• • Most ED use among Medicaid enrollees is necessary.
  • Most Medicaid beneficiaries have a primary-care doctor or a usual place for care, so aren't using the ED as an alternative provider.
  • There's no evidence to suggest expanding Medicaid will result in increased ED use. Some states that have expanded the program saw no increase in ED utilization, while in others the uptick was short-lived.

Yes Medicaid Expansion Increases ER Visits but Only Temporarily - The Atlantic

http://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-Policy-Guidance/Downloads/CIB-01-16-14.pdf

Medicaid beneficiaries use the ED at an almost two-fold higher rate than the privately insured.1,2

This is not due to widespread inappropriate use of the ED amongst Medicaid beneficiaries, who tend
to be in poorer health than the privately insured population; at least two studies found that the
majority of ED visits by nonelderly Medicaid patients were for symptoms suggesting urgent or more
serious medical problems.3
These studies estimate that non-urgent visits comprise only about 10
percent of all ED visits by Medicaid beneficiaries, and suggest that higher utilization may be in part
due to unmet health needs and lack of access to appropriate settings. In this context, as most states
have recognized, efforts to reduce ED use should focus not on merely reducing the number of ED
visits, but also on promoting continuous coverage for eligible individuals and improving access to
appropriate care settings to better address the health needs of the population. ​

10% is massive!!! You are talking 10% of a 1/6th of the U.S. economy. Trillions of dollars. Have you ever gone to a ER for a bullshit reason? Very few people do except the Medicaid population.

The link you provided looks solid ( a true rarity) but I would point out one key quote which is one of the things I have been saying.


These studies estimate that non-urgent visits comprise only about 10
percent of all ED visits by Medicaid beneficiaries, and suggest that higher utilization may be in part
due to unmet health needs and lack of access to appropriate settings. In this context, as most states
have recognized, efforts to reduce ED use should focus not on merely reducing the number of ED
visits, but also on promoting continuous coverage for eligible individuals and improving access to
appropriate care settings to better address the health needs of the population.



****EDIT**** I worked for years in the biggest ER in Virginia. We would see on average 400 or more patients a day. That is 146,000 people in a year. If 10% of those visits are for bullshit reasons that is 40 patients a day that are costing about $1,000 more for an ER visit and EMS transport than seeing their PCP.

That's $40,000 a day additional cost at one ER. Multiple that times every ER in the U.S. and you get the idea.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Obamacare has vastly increased the Medicaid population and Medicaid folks vastly overuse and abuse ER's compared to any other populations.

The elderly end up in the ER? Who would ever have guessed?

There was an uptick in ER visits following the implementation of Romneycare that then declined to 4% less than it had been prior. The same is happening now and it too will eventually decline as the backlog is cleared.

Once again you have nothing of substance to contribute.

Nope....The data has been out there for years and I know it from personal experience. Medicaid folks utilize the ER at much higher rates than the rest of us do.

Also...they come for bullshit reasons much, much, more frequently. The data has been out there for decades. Look it up.

The myth (or lies) Obama and his people have said about a reduction in ER services is just that....a lie. Medicaid folks still have very limited access to doctors....and limited access to transportation. So they call 911 for bullshit because they'll be taken to the ER for a hangnail.

Your personal anecdotes carry zero weight. The facts prove you wrong. No, I have absolutely no expectation that you will ever be honest enough to acknowledge the facts.

Healthcare Reform Update Only 10 of Medicaid ER use is unnecessary MACPAC says - Modern Healthcare

Reform Update: Only 10% of Medicaid ER use is unnecessary, MACPAC says
By Virgil Dickson | August 5, 2014
Last year, healthcare reform supporters reeled after the media gave widespread attention to a study of a 2008Medicaid expansion in Oregon showing it had increased emergency room use by low-income adults. “A stop sign in front of Obamacare's Medicaid expansion,” one paper headlined its report. The uproar continued last January when the full study appeared in the journal Science.

This week, the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission released its official pushback document (PDF). It seeks to separate fact from fiction by explaining how and why low-income Medicaid beneficiaries seek care in emergency departments.

“Because of the kind of conversations going on, we decided to look at what the experts have to say on this,” said Anne Schwartz, executive director of MACPAC.

The analysis covers topics such as whether Medicaid beneficiaries are going to the ER more than ever before, intentionally going to ERs for non-urgent care needs, and whether it's truly the case enrollees can't find primary-care doctors. The research is based on literature reviews of dozens of studies and research papers.

Its key findings:​

• • Most ED use among Medicaid enrollees is necessary.
  • Most Medicaid beneficiaries have a primary-care doctor or a usual place for care, so aren't using the ED as an alternative provider.
  • There's no evidence to suggest expanding Medicaid will result in increased ED use. Some states that have expanded the program saw no increase in ED utilization, while in others the uptick was short-lived.

Yes Medicaid Expansion Increases ER Visits but Only Temporarily - The Atlantic

http://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-Policy-Guidance/Downloads/CIB-01-16-14.pdf

Medicaid beneficiaries use the ED at an almost two-fold higher rate than the privately insured.1,2

This is not due to widespread inappropriate use of the ED amongst Medicaid beneficiaries, who tend
to be in poorer health than the privately insured population; at least two studies found that the
majority of ED visits by nonelderly Medicaid patients were for symptoms suggesting urgent or more
serious medical problems.3
These studies estimate that non-urgent visits comprise only about 10
percent of all ED visits by Medicaid beneficiaries, and suggest that higher utilization may be in part
due to unmet health needs and lack of access to appropriate settings. In this context, as most states
have recognized, efforts to reduce ED use should focus not on merely reducing the number of ED
visits, but also on promoting continuous coverage for eligible individuals and improving access to
appropriate care settings to better address the health needs of the population. ​

10% is massive!!! You are talking 10% of a 1/6th of the U.S. economy. Trillions of dollars. Have you ever gone to a ER for a bullshit reason? Very few people do except the Medicaid population.

The link you provided looks solid ( a true rarity) but I would point out one key quote which is one of the things I have been saying.


These studies estimate that non-urgent visits comprise only about 10
percent of all ED visits by Medicaid beneficiaries, and suggest that higher utilization may be in part
due to unmet health needs and lack of access to appropriate settings. In this context, as most states
have recognized, efforts to reduce ED use should focus not on merely reducing the number of ED
visits, but also on promoting continuous coverage for eligible individuals and improving access to
appropriate care settings to better address the health needs of the population.



****EDIT**** I worked for years in the biggest ER in Virginia. We would see on average 400 or more patients a day. That is 146,000 people in a year. If 10% of those visits are for bullshit reasons that is 40 patients a day that are costing about $1,000 more for an ER visit and EMS transport than seeing their PCP.

That's $40,000 a day additional cost at one ER. Multiple that times every ER in the U.S. and you get the idea.

Hyperbole is no substitute for math, WQ.

For starters Medicaid was only $305 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget. That makes it only 8% of the total budget. Furthermore Medicaid covers way more than just ER visits. Only 2% of all healthcare costs are for ER visits. 10% of 2% is 0.02%. Your $1,000 per visit is based upon one of the most expensive places in the nation. Furthermore the links provided showed that this was only a temporary increase and is therefore no longer a problem.

In essence you have nothing...as usual!

 

[WelfareQueen]

Obamacare has vastly increased the Medicaid population and Medicaid folks vastly overuse and abuse ER's compared to any other populations.

The elderly end up in the ER? Who would ever have guessed?

There was an uptick in ER visits following the implementation of Romneycare that then declined to 4% less than it had been prior. The same is happening now and it too will eventually decline as the backlog is cleared.

Once again you have nothing of substance to contribute.

Nope....The data has been out there for years and I know it from personal experience. Medicaid folks utilize the ER at much higher rates than the rest of us do.

Also...they come for bullshit reasons much, much, more frequently. The data has been out there for decades. Look it up.

The myth (or lies) Obama and his people have said about a reduction in ER services is just that....a lie. Medicaid folks still have very limited access to doctors....and limited access to transportation. So they call 911 for bullshit because they'll be taken to the ER for a hangnail.

Your personal anecdotes carry zero weight. The facts prove you wrong. No, I have absolutely no expectation that you will ever be honest enough to acknowledge the facts.

Healthcare Reform Update Only 10 of Medicaid ER use is unnecessary MACPAC says - Modern Healthcare

Reform Update: Only 10% of Medicaid ER use is unnecessary, MACPAC says
By Virgil Dickson | August 5, 2014
Last year, healthcare reform supporters reeled after the media gave widespread attention to a study of a 2008Medicaid expansion in Oregon showing it had increased emergency room use by low-income adults. “A stop sign in front of Obamacare's Medicaid expansion,” one paper headlined its report. The uproar continued last January when the full study appeared in the journal Science.

This week, the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission released its official pushback document (PDF). It seeks to separate fact from fiction by explaining how and why low-income Medicaid beneficiaries seek care in emergency departments.

“Because of the kind of conversations going on, we decided to look at what the experts have to say on this,” said Anne Schwartz, executive director of MACPAC.

The analysis covers topics such as whether Medicaid beneficiaries are going to the ER more than ever before, intentionally going to ERs for non-urgent care needs, and whether it's truly the case enrollees can't find primary-care doctors. The research is based on literature reviews of dozens of studies and research papers.

Its key findings:​

• • Most ED use among Medicaid enrollees is necessary.
  • Most Medicaid beneficiaries have a primary-care doctor or a usual place for care, so aren't using the ED as an alternative provider.
  • There's no evidence to suggest expanding Medicaid will result in increased ED use. Some states that have expanded the program saw no increase in ED utilization, while in others the uptick was short-lived.

Yes Medicaid Expansion Increases ER Visits but Only Temporarily - The Atlantic

http://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-Policy-Guidance/Downloads/CIB-01-16-14.pdf

Medicaid beneficiaries use the ED at an almost two-fold higher rate than the privately insured.1,2

This is not due to widespread inappropriate use of the ED amongst Medicaid beneficiaries, who tend
to be in poorer health than the privately insured population; at least two studies found that the
majority of ED visits by nonelderly Medicaid patients were for symptoms suggesting urgent or more
serious medical problems.3
These studies estimate that non-urgent visits comprise only about 10
percent of all ED visits by Medicaid beneficiaries, and suggest that higher utilization may be in part
due to unmet health needs and lack of access to appropriate settings. In this context, as most states
have recognized, efforts to reduce ED use should focus not on merely reducing the number of ED
visits, but also on promoting continuous coverage for eligible individuals and improving access to
appropriate care settings to better address the health needs of the population. ​

10% is massive!!! You are talking 10% of a 1/6th of the U.S. economy. Trillions of dollars. Have you ever gone to a ER for a bullshit reason? Very few people do except the Medicaid population.

The link you provided looks solid ( a true rarity) but I would point out one key quote which is one of the things I have been saying.


These studies estimate that non-urgent visits comprise only about 10
percent of all ED visits by Medicaid beneficiaries, and suggest that higher utilization may be in part
due to unmet health needs and lack of access to appropriate settings. In this context, as most states
have recognized, efforts to reduce ED use should focus not on merely reducing the number of ED
visits, but also on promoting continuous coverage for eligible individuals and improving access to
appropriate care settings to better address the health needs of the population.



****EDIT**** I worked for years in the biggest ER in Virginia. We would see on average 400 or more patients a day. That is 146,000 people in a year. If 10% of those visits are for bullshit reasons that is 40 patients a day that are costing about $1,000 more for an ER visit and EMS transport than seeing their PCP.

That's $40,000 a day additional cost at one ER. Multiple that times every ER in the U.S. and you get the idea.

Hyperbole is no substitute for math, WQ.

For starters Medicaid was only $305 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget. That makes it only 8% of the total budget. Furthermore Medicaid covers way more than just ER visits. Only 2% of all healthcare costs are for ER visits. 10% of 2% is 0.02%. Your $1,000 per visit is based upon one of the most expensive places in the nation. Furthermore the links provided showed that this was only a temporary increase and is therefore no longer a problem.

In essence you have nothing...as usual!

No girlfriend.....as usual wrong on all counts. The Medicaid number you cite is just the Federal cost. The states pay 1/2 of all Medicaid expenses. In those states that accepted the ACA Medicaid expansion the Feds pay 90% of the costs......for now.

Don't worry....the States will be left holding the bag soon enough.

As for your one link. The Daily Kos....???? Would you like me to cite Rush Limbaugh? What bullshit. Get a legitimate source as I did (in fact I provided two).

The Daily Kos is a rank bullshit propaganda cite. It means nothing

 

[Derideo_Te]

The elderly end up in the ER? Who would ever have guessed?

There was an uptick in ER visits following the implementation of Romneycare that then declined to 4% less than it had been prior. The same is happening now and it too will eventually decline as the backlog is cleared.

Once again you have nothing of substance to contribute.

Nope....The data has been out there for years and I know it from personal experience. Medicaid folks utilize the ER at much higher rates than the rest of us do.

Also...they come for bullshit reasons much, much, more frequently. The data has been out there for decades. Look it up.

The myth (or lies) Obama and his people have said about a reduction in ER services is just that....a lie. Medicaid folks still have very limited access to doctors....and limited access to transportation. So they call 911 for bullshit because they'll be taken to the ER for a hangnail.

Your personal anecdotes carry zero weight. The facts prove you wrong. No, I have absolutely no expectation that you will ever be honest enough to acknowledge the facts.

Healthcare Reform Update Only 10 of Medicaid ER use is unnecessary MACPAC says - Modern Healthcare

Reform Update: Only 10% of Medicaid ER use is unnecessary, MACPAC says
By Virgil Dickson | August 5, 2014
Last year, healthcare reform supporters reeled after the media gave widespread attention to a study of a 2008Medicaid expansion in Oregon showing it had increased emergency room use by low-income adults. “A stop sign in front of Obamacare's Medicaid expansion,” one paper headlined its report. The uproar continued last January when the full study appeared in the journal Science.

This week, the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission released its official pushback document (PDF). It seeks to separate fact from fiction by explaining how and why low-income Medicaid beneficiaries seek care in emergency departments.

“Because of the kind of conversations going on, we decided to look at what the experts have to say on this,” said Anne Schwartz, executive director of MACPAC.

The analysis covers topics such as whether Medicaid beneficiaries are going to the ER more than ever before, intentionally going to ERs for non-urgent care needs, and whether it's truly the case enrollees can't find primary-care doctors. The research is based on literature reviews of dozens of studies and research papers.

Its key findings:​

• • Most ED use among Medicaid enrollees is necessary.
  • Most Medicaid beneficiaries have a primary-care doctor or a usual place for care, so aren't using the ED as an alternative provider.
  • There's no evidence to suggest expanding Medicaid will result in increased ED use. Some states that have expanded the program saw no increase in ED utilization, while in others the uptick was short-lived.

Yes Medicaid Expansion Increases ER Visits but Only Temporarily - The Atlantic

http://www.medicaid.gov/Federal-Policy-Guidance/Downloads/CIB-01-16-14.pdf

Medicaid beneficiaries use the ED at an almost two-fold higher rate than the privately insured.1,2

This is not due to widespread inappropriate use of the ED amongst Medicaid beneficiaries, who tend
to be in poorer health than the privately insured population; at least two studies found that the
majority of ED visits by nonelderly Medicaid patients were for symptoms suggesting urgent or more
serious medical problems.3
These studies estimate that non-urgent visits comprise only about 10
percent of all ED visits by Medicaid beneficiaries, and suggest that higher utilization may be in part
due to unmet health needs and lack of access to appropriate settings. In this context, as most states
have recognized, efforts to reduce ED use should focus not on merely reducing the number of ED
visits, but also on promoting continuous coverage for eligible individuals and improving access to
appropriate care settings to better address the health needs of the population. ​

10% is massive!!! You are talking 10% of a 1/6th of the U.S. economy. Trillions of dollars. Have you ever gone to a ER for a bullshit reason? Very few people do except the Medicaid population.

The link you provided looks solid ( a true rarity) but I would point out one key quote which is one of the things I have been saying.


These studies estimate that non-urgent visits comprise only about 10
percent of all ED visits by Medicaid beneficiaries, and suggest that higher utilization may be in part
due to unmet health needs and lack of access to appropriate settings. In this context, as most states
have recognized, efforts to reduce ED use should focus not on merely reducing the number of ED
visits, but also on promoting continuous coverage for eligible individuals and improving access to
appropriate care settings to better address the health needs of the population.



****EDIT**** I worked for years in the biggest ER in Virginia. We would see on average 400 or more patients a day. That is 146,000 people in a year. If 10% of those visits are for bullshit reasons that is 40 patients a day that are costing about $1,000 more for an ER visit and EMS transport than seeing their PCP.

That's $40,000 a day additional cost at one ER. Multiple that times every ER in the U.S. and you get the idea.

Hyperbole is no substitute for math, WQ.

For starters Medicaid was only $305 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget. That makes it only 8% of the total budget. Furthermore Medicaid covers way more than just ER visits. Only 2% of all healthcare costs are for ER visits. 10% of 2% is 0.02%. Your $1,000 per visit is based upon one of the most expensive places in the nation. Furthermore the links provided showed that this was only a temporary increase and is therefore no longer a problem.

In essence you have nothing...as usual!

No girlfriend.....as usual wrong on all counts. The Medicaid number you cite is just the Federal cost. The states pay 1/2 of all Medicaid expenses. In those states that accepted the ACA Medicaid expansion the Feds pay 90% of the costs......for now.

Don't worry....the States will be left holding the bag soon enough.

As for your one link. The Daily Kos....???? Would you like me to cite Rush Limbaugh? What bullshit. Get a legitimate source as I did (in fact I provided two).

The Daily Kos is a rank bullshit propaganda cite. It means nothing

You failed to refute any of the math and the links I provided were from the Atlantic, medicaid.gov and Modern Healthcare.

Once again you come up snake eyes but at least you are consistent in that regard.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

In other words you can't refute the facts.

I just refuted your rationale.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

Millions of people get cancer so that isn't anecdotal. Obviously you have no clue what it means.

And a significant number of those cases could have been prevented with a healthier lifestyle that you shrug off as irrelevant.

 

[rdean]

Give it up. That ship has sailed:

ObamaCare costs lower than expected CBO says TheHill

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

If you could do the math you'd realize that throwing the baby out with the bath water is your unreasonable solution. You're suggesting that everyone subsidizing ER visits justifies everyone subsidizing everything with socialized medicine.