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

[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.

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.

Only in your wet dreams.

 

[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.

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.

Onus is on you to prove that a "significant number of those cases could have been prevented with a healthier lifestyle".

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Onus is on you to prove that the ACA is "socialized medicine".

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

What major media source is controlled by Democrats?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

Only in your wet dreams.

Nope. Reality.
Your idea is that instead of fixing a problem just promote it as inevitable to justify employing a more comprehensive government control.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Only in your wet dreams.

Nope. Reality.
Your idea is that instead of fixing a problem just promote it as inevitable to justify employing a more comprehensive government control.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Onus is on you to prove that there is any "comprehensive government control".

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

Only in your wet dreams.

Nope. Reality.
Your idea is that instead of fixing a problem just promote it as inevitable to justify employing a more comprehensive government control.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Onus is on you to prove that there is any "comprehensive government control".

Are you nuts? Didn't you get the news about the essential helmet law called obamacare? That everyone must wear a helmet at all times once they're born or else pay a fine? It doesn't get any more comprehensive than that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

In other words you can't refute the facts.

I just refuted your rationale.

Only in your wet dreams.

Nope. Reality.
Your idea is that instead of fixing a problem just promote it as inevitable to justify employing a more comprehensive government control.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

Onus is on you to prove that there is any "comprehensive government control".

Are you nuts? Didn't you get the news about the essential helmet law called obamacare? That everyone must wear a helmet at all times once they're born or else pay a fine? It doesn't get any more comprehensive than that.

 

[WelfareQueen]

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.

I did refute it you ******* retard? Try reading it again. Mouth closed this time.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

I did refute it you ******* retard? Try reading it again. Mouth closed this time.

Only in your wet dreams!

 

[WelfareQueen]

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.

I did refute it you ******* retard? Try reading it again. Mouth closed this time.

Only in your wet dreams!

Homo-eroticism.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

I did refute it you ******* retard? Try reading it again. Mouth closed this time.

Only in your wet dreams!

Homo-eroticism.

TMI!

 

[WelfareQueen]

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.

I did refute it you ******* retard? Try reading it again. Mouth closed this time.

Only in your wet dreams!

Homo-eroticism.

TMI!