Obama.Care’s penalties on hospital re-admissions will kill off the sick and elderly

originally posted by: Tusks
One huge problem is that, for most people, the vast majority of healthcare expenditures on their behalf is/will be for keeping them alive another month or two after they've already reached a point of being an invalid.

We must do something about spending huge amounts on hospitalization and the most expensive IV meds for folks who are already in a nursing home or are senile or chronically at death's door. If their family has millions and wants to spend their own money--fine, let 'em put it up front--but no more sucking it out of the pool of money available for Medicare.

The treatment of heart attacks, strokes, diabetic emergencies, pneumonia, broken bones, etc--now that's the kind of stuff that needs to be paid for----and is why we've been paying the Medicare Tax most of our lives.

That all should not be government's job to decide anyway. That is the problem when we have socialists nationalizing the health industry, they make it the goverment's job to decide who gets what care, and that is where the real breakdown in healthcare comes, because the government simply cannot do any of this without inserting the most insidious bureaucratic regulations, which is what the not so Affordable Care Act is, a horrid piece of trash legislation which is making everything worse than it ever was, including the cost.

a reply to: Mountainmeg

Here I'll simplify it for you..... government control and regulation of any industry = destruction

Yes, this is a horrid bill, full of awful things that many people who support this thing never read about or heard about, because the Establishment doesn't want people to know. When the evil stuff finally makes it's way into the media in some way, people just cannot believe it. But it's what they voted for....not me....this stuff is on their heads.

this paper looked at how to dole out healthcare when assets are scarce

Yes, it's called "rationing" and this is how they intend to control costs. The government is now in the business of rationing healthcare to the units(useless eaters).

a reply to: carewemust

sure he was clotting and healing properly, to avoid a re-admission.

Again, government bureaucrats have zero business deciding these things. All the hospital is doing is keeping him an extra day and will bill the insurance accordingly, so there is no cost control in the end.

a reply to: xuenchen

Government Health Insurance is for the healthy not for the sick.

Just your friendly public service announcement!

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of what this re-admission initiative is.

When a patient gets readmitted to a hospital within 30 days, it means that the patient was discharged before receiving adequate care. It costs more money when they are readmitted, it prolongs their ailment, and it wastes resources. 30 day readmission is just one measure they can look at to determine if the patients in a hospital are getting the treatment they need.

If there is a hospital that has a massive 30 day readmission rate, then the government is not going to reimburse them as well for medicare patients because it is a sign that the hospital is not doing their job. This will be a huge incentive for the hospital to correct what ever process they have to fix the readmission rate.(believe me, hospitals really care about medicare reimbursement)

If anything, this is the opposite of a death panel...this is the government telling hospitals that they better fully treat their patients before they discharge them or there will be penalties.


Why would anyone be against this?

a reply to: xuenchen

It involves limits on Medicare patients being re-admitted to hospitals for certain "conditions".

No, I'm sorry but you are 100% wrong.

There are no pro-active limits on re-admission.

This is a Quality Measure to make sure hospitals are fully treating their patients.


And this part of the article:

That’s thanks to a strong disincentive for hospitals to readmit chronically ill Medicare patients under a provision of Obamacare.

Is wrong as well or at least very misleading.

There is a disincentive for hospitals to readmit patients, but this isn't accomplished by turning patients away, it is accomplished by doing their best to treat them on their first visit to ensure to the best of their ability that they won't need to be readmitted within 30 days.

Long story short, if you are in a hospital and have to go back to the hospital within 30 days for the same thing...the hospital probably didn't do it's job.

Why would you NOT want to penalize a hospital for that?

Take yourself to the ER in that case, after all there is that little thing called the Hippocratic Oath and maybe you will have better luck there. One can only hope because I doubt that now that government's hands are in every aspect of our health care system a hospital can still refuse treatment depending on your insurance. I never did like insurance; always thought it was a scam but then that's my opinion. ACA doesn't seem much better.

Here's more info pointing the fingers at patients for one.

Over time, one consequence of the Medicare HRRP may be a growing recognition that reducing readmissions is a shared responsibility that belongs not only to hospitals but also to patients and their caregivers and to other community professionals and providers across the continuum of health and social services.

Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program

2nd opinion;
They use "checklists" against you

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

Any selected panel of "experts" that limits medical care is a death panel. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You mean like insurance companies?

And yet there is no single 'private' insurance company that 'insures' more than than the US federal governemnt.

100+ million Americans are on those two programs ALONE.

Then add in the millions more with their VA 'health insurance'.

But hey tow the party, and the administrations line that health insurance companies are 'evil'.

After all their only job is to pay the GD hospital bill.

But then again in a 'FREE MARKET' neither Obama care would exist, and neither would medicare, or medicaid.

After all both of those programs were 'created' SPECIFICALLY' for the people who fall between the cracks.

Also since the 80s this little known law existed:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone needing it regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay.

en.wikipedia.org...

So what the hell was the ACA created for again ?

Oh to destroy the healthcare system to they can offer that 'single payer' that already exists in the forms of Medicare, and Medicaid, and Veterans health 'insurance'.

But we all know those congressman don't get denied 'healthcare', and they don't get put on 'waiting lists'.

originally posted by: jacobe001
a reply to: xuenchen

We are spending too much on the people and that is cutting into the bonuses and shareholders dividends. Profits at all cost come first over people.

Yes, and now Obamacare has "insured" that those moneys are being properly spent on government bureaucrats, not evil company execs because the government is the font of all that is good and virtuous.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Mountainmeg

That's cool but Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel didn't write the PPACA. From what I understand, it originated with a whitepaper from Max Baucus that was actually drafted by Liz Fowler.

I didn't say Emanuel wrote the ACA all by his little lonesome. He was, however, one of the principle advisers. From his own blog, in his own words (July 3, 2013 entry):

The employer mandate was included in the Affordable Care Act — which I helped design as an adviser to the Obama administration

Ezekiel J. Emanuel Opinion Blog