(11-17-2014 02:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 07:28 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 11:42 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The hospitals are closing in many places because the GOP won't expand Medicaid. Even though the Feds will pick up most of the money.

Fail. Another topic you don't know about.

Maybe you can tell us what you know about rural hospitals?

Specifically, how did these states' decision not to expand medicaid effect them?

And how many of them were in financial difficulty before the ACA?

And to the article...the first photo is for Stewart Webster Hospital.

Quote:Stewart-Webster’s president, Randy Stigleman, cited several factors, including high unemployment and low payments from Medicare and Medicaid, WRBL reported.

“They just ran out of cash,’’ Lewis said.

The closure of Stewart-Webster, Lewis said, shows “we’re on a downhill trend that can escalate because of [poor] Medicare and Medicaid payments.’’

The hospital said most of its revenue comes from Medicare.

“The future for rural health care is fragile in trying to accommodate mandated health benefits without payment,’’ Lewis said.

- See more at: http://www.georgiahealthnews.com/2013/03...y2Ftx.dpuf

You don't even know what you posted do you?

Pop quiz brilliant.

Which is hurting hospitals at a far greater clip

Decreased Medicare reimbursement

Or

Decreased medicaid reimbursement (I'm laughing as I post this)

(11-17-2014 09:03 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 02:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 07:28 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 11:42 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The hospitals are closing in many places because the GOP won't expand Medicaid. Even though the Feds will pick up most of the money.

Fail. Another topic you don't know about.

Maybe you can tell us what you know about rural hospitals?

Specifically, how did these states' decision not to expand medicaid effect them?

And how many of them were in financial difficulty before the ACA?

And to the article...the first photo is for Stewart Webster Hospital.

Quote:Stewart-Webster’s president, Randy Stigleman, cited several factors, including high unemployment and low payments from Medicare and Medicaid, WRBL reported.

“They just ran out of cash,’’ Lewis said.

The closure of Stewart-Webster, Lewis said, shows “we’re on a downhill trend that can escalate because of [poor] Medicare and Medicaid payments.’’

The hospital said most of its revenue comes from Medicare.

“The future for rural health care is fragile in trying to accommodate mandated health benefits without payment,’’ Lewis said.

- See more at: http://www.georgiahealthnews.com/2013/03...y2Ftx.dpuf

You don't even know what you posted do you?

Pop quiz brilliant.

Which is hurting hospitals at a far greater clip

Decreased Medicare reimbursement

Or

Decreased medicaid reimbursement (I'm laughing as I post this)

Laugh away, I really don't care. The point is that this hospital went under because they were in a rural area without enough paying patients to keep them solvent. The ACA had nothing to do with this. Of course you will say it is because you're in the "industry" and are totally unbiased...so save it...I don't trust you OR HB's opinion on the matter. Sorry.

(11-18-2014 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 09:03 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 02:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 07:28 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 11:42 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The hospitals are closing in many places because the GOP won't expand Medicaid. Even though the Feds will pick up most of the money.

Fail. Another topic you don't know about.

Maybe you can tell us what you know about rural hospitals?

Specifically, how did these states' decision not to expand medicaid effect them?

And how many of them were in financial difficulty before the ACA?

And to the article...the first photo is for Stewart Webster Hospital.

Quote:Stewart-Webster’s president, Randy Stigleman, cited several factors, including high unemployment and low payments from Medicare and Medicaid, WRBL reported.

“They just ran out of cash,’’ Lewis said.

The closure of Stewart-Webster, Lewis said, shows “we’re on a downhill trend that can escalate because of [poor] Medicare and Medicaid payments.’’

The hospital said most of its revenue comes from Medicare.

“The future for rural health care is fragile in trying to accommodate mandated health benefits without payment,’’ Lewis said.

- See more at: http://www.georgiahealthnews.com/2013/03...y2Ftx.dpuf

You don't even know what you posted do you?

Pop quiz brilliant.

Which is hurting hospitals at a far greater clip

Decreased Medicare reimbursement

Or

Decreased medicaid reimbursement (I'm laughing as I post this)

Laugh away, I really don't care. The point is that this hospital went under because they were in a rural area without enough paying patients to keep them solvent. The ACA had nothing to do with this. Of course you will say it is because you're in the "industry" and are totally unbiased...so save it...I don't trust you OR HB's opinion on the matter. Sorry.

You're right!! They're in the industry and have actual knowledge of how the stuff works - why listen to anything they say?

After all, your messiah doesn't know anything about Gruber and the "stupid Americans".

Quite frankly, your unwillingness to listen to anyone "in the industry" that has more knowledge than you do makes you fit Gruber's characterization of you.

Carry that water.

(11-18-2014 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 09:03 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 02:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 07:28 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 11:42 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The hospitals are closing in many places because the GOP won't expand Medicaid. Even though the Feds will pick up most of the money.

Fail. Another topic you don't know about.

Maybe you can tell us what you know about rural hospitals?

Specifically, how did these states' decision not to expand medicaid effect them?

And how many of them were in financial difficulty before the ACA?

And to the article...the first photo is for Stewart Webster Hospital.

Quote:Stewart-Webster’s president, Randy Stigleman, cited several factors, including high unemployment and low payments from Medicare and Medicaid, WRBL reported.

“They just ran out of cash,’’ Lewis said.

The closure of Stewart-Webster, Lewis said, shows “we’re on a downhill trend that can escalate because of [poor] Medicare and Medicaid payments.’’

The hospital said most of its revenue comes from Medicare.

“The future for rural health care is fragile in trying to accommodate mandated health benefits without payment,’’ Lewis said.

- See more at: http://www.georgiahealthnews.com/2013/03...y2Ftx.dpuf

You don't even know what you posted do you?

Pop quiz brilliant.

Which is hurting hospitals at a far greater clip

Decreased Medicare reimbursement

Or

Decreased medicaid reimbursement (I'm laughing as I post this)

It's both dude...laugh away, I really don't care. The point is that this hospital went under because they were in a rural area without enough paying patients to keep them solvent. The ACA had nothing to do with this. Of course you will say it is because you're in the "industry" and are totally unbiased...so save it...I don't trust you OR HB's opinion on the matter. Sorry.

No

its not the mere volume of "paying patients" that was/is the problem, it's the fact that those two groups of patients are an immediate loss the moment they walk through the door at a hospital....

If you had a business that provided a service or product and total cost to you was 1.00 and no matter what, you always got reimbursed .60....and on occasion you got reimbursed .40 because customer satisfaction was lacking.....how long do you stay in business?

What's their names Creb? Where do they work? What's their qualifications? What's their education? Hell, I don't know this Gruber fool whatsoever, yet I know more about him than these two faceless internet posters.

Sorry if I don't hang on every word they type.

And I don't have to carry any water...the ACA is doing it just fine all by itself. It's success has even surprised me.

And again, I have insurance through my employer. The ACA has next to no impact on me whatsoever.

(11-18-2014 12:01 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 09:03 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 02:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 07:28 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Fail. Another topic you don't know about.

Maybe you can tell us what you know about rural hospitals?

Specifically, how did these states' decision not to expand medicaid effect them?

And how many of them were in financial difficulty before the ACA?

And to the article...the first photo is for Stewart Webster Hospital.

Quote:Stewart-Webster’s president, Randy Stigleman, cited several factors, including high unemployment and low payments from Medicare and Medicaid, WRBL reported.

“They just ran out of cash,’’ Lewis said.

The closure of Stewart-Webster, Lewis said, shows “we’re on a downhill trend that can escalate because of [poor] Medicare and Medicaid payments.’’

The hospital said most of its revenue comes from Medicare.

“The future for rural health care is fragile in trying to accommodate mandated health benefits without payment,’’ Lewis said.

- See more at: http://www.georgiahealthnews.com/2013/03...y2Ftx.dpuf

You don't even know what you posted do you?

Pop quiz brilliant.

Which is hurting hospitals at a far greater clip

Decreased Medicare reimbursement

Or

Decreased medicaid reimbursement (I'm laughing as I post this)

It's both dude...laugh away, I really don't care. The point is that this hospital went under because they were in a rural area without enough paying patients to keep them solvent. The ACA had nothing to do with this. Of course you will say it is because you're in the "industry" and are totally unbiased...so save it...I don't trust you OR HB's opinion on the matter. Sorry.

No

its not the mere volume of "paying patients" that was/is the problem, it's the fact that those two groups of patients are an immediate loss the moment they walk through the door at a hospital....

If you had a business that provided a service or product and total cost to you was 1.00 and no matter what, you always got reimbursed .60....and on occasion you got reimbursed .40 because customer satisfaction was lacking.....how long do you stay in business?

Right...so if that hospital had enough other "paying" patients, they would have been able to absorb it and stay in business...that's exactly what I said.

You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that expanding Medicaid is causing the closures of rural hospitals and then say it's "other payors".

Its simple, really, there are two things going on here.

1) The immediate crisis is that many rural hospitals have had their reimbursements destroyed by the fact that certain governors have refused to expand Medicare, even though the Feds will pay for most of it. This is the big issue in Georgia and NC.

2) There is a viability model that exists for rural hospitals as populations fall.

Issue 2 would cause a slow decline. Combining issue 1 with issue 2 and you get a rapid decline in rural hospitals.

And no hospital....no hope of economic advancement for those rural areas. Few will move a business to an area with no healthcare.

Blame Obamacare all you want.....but its really the reluctance of certain politicians to expand Medicare which is the real issue here.

(11-18-2014 12:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its simple, really, there are two things going on here.

1) The immediate crisis is that many rural hospitals have had their reimbursements destroyed by the fact that certain governors have refused to expand Medicare, even though the Feds will pay for most of it. This is the big issue in Georgia and NC.

2) There is a viability model that exists for rural hospitals as populations fall.

Issue 2 would cause a slow decline. Combining issue 1 with issue 2 and you get a rapid decline in rural hospitals.

And no hospital....no hope of economic advancement for those rural areas. Few will move a business to an area with no healthcare.

Blame Obamacare all you want.....but its really the reluctance of certain politicians to expand Medicare which is the real issue here.

It's not medicare it's medicaid

And that is not the issue. Say it all you want. That is not the case.

There are very financially sound urban hospitals hurting as well.

It's not 100% Zerocare causing the issues but it is 100% federalis causing the problems.

(11-18-2014 12:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What's their names Creb? Where do they work? What's their qualifications? What's their education? Hell, I don't know this Gruber fool whatsoever, yet I know more about him than these two faceless internet posters.

Sorry if I don't hang on every word they type.

And I don't have to carry any water...the ACA is doing it just fine all by itself. It's success has even surprised me.

[b]And again, I have insurance through my employer. The ACA has next to no impact on me whatsoever.

See - you're all for redistribution so long as it doesn't effect you. How appropriate.

You are the "people" Gruber was talking about - how does it feel to know what Gruber and Obama think about you.

Tote that water. One of Obola's biggest water carriers!!!

(11-18-2014 12:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its simple, really, there are two things going on here.

1) The immediate crisis is that many rural hospitals have had their reimbursements destroyed by the fact that certain governors have refused to expand Medicare, even though the Feds will pay for most of it. This is the big issue in Georgia and NC.

2) There is a viability model that exists for rural hospitals as populations fall.

Issue 2 would cause a slow decline. Combining issue 1 with issue 2 and you get a rapid decline in rural hospitals.

And no hospital....no hope of economic advancement for those rural areas. Few will move a business to an area with no healthcare.

Blame Obamacare all you want.....but its really the reluctance of certain politicians to expand Medicare which is the real issue here.

You keep conveniently leaving out the fact that the feds will only pay for it for a few years then the states are going to have to pick up part of the bill in a few years adding millions of dollars of obligations to state budgets that simply aren't there. Wisely these states have done what the federal government should have done years ago and refused to kick the bill down the road for someone else to deal with and took a stand by refusing to mortgage their state's future for a few shekels now.

(11-18-2014 01:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 12:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its simple, really, there are two things going on here.

1) The immediate crisis is that many rural hospitals have had their reimbursements destroyed by the fact that certain governors have refused to expand Medicare, even though the Feds will pay for most of it. This is the big issue in Georgia and NC.

2) There is a viability model that exists for rural hospitals as populations fall.

Issue 2 would cause a slow decline. Combining issue 1 with issue 2 and you get a rapid decline in rural hospitals.

And no hospital....no hope of economic advancement for those rural areas. Few will move a business to an area with no healthcare.

Blame Obamacare all you want.....but its really the reluctance of certain politicians to expand Medicare which is the real issue here.

You keep conveniently leaving out the fact that the feds will only pay for it for a few years then the states are going to have to pick up part of the bill in a few years adding millions of dollars of obligations to state budgets that simply aren't there. Wisely these states have done what the federal government should have done years ago and refused to kick the bill down the road for someone else to deal with and took a stand by refusing to mortgage their state's future for a few shekels now.

Look up TennCare collapse in Tennessee and you will see this very thing.

The rug will be pulled out from under states, it's happened before and will happen again. It's a matter of time.

(11-18-2014 12:09 PM)maximus Wrote:  You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that expanding Medicaid is causing the closures of rural hospitals and then say it's "other payors".

I never said that expanding Medicaid is causing the closures of rural hospitals.

(11-18-2014 12:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  [b]And again, I have insurance through my employer. The ACA has next to no impact on me whatsoever.

Until your policy goes up in price as many of ours have thanks to new requirements set forth by the ACA.

(11-18-2014 01:25 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 12:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  [b]And again, I have insurance through my employer. The ACA has next to no impact on me whatsoever.

Until your policy goes up in price as many of ours have thanks to new requirements set forth by the ACA.

My plan was mostly ACA complaint to begin with. My plan only went up a couple bucks a pay period last year and will only go up a buck or so this year.

Although I should clarify, that is the end cost to me.

(11-18-2014 12:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its simple, really, there are two things going on here.

1) The immediate crisis is that many rural hospitals have had their reimbursements destroyed by the fact that certain governors have refused to expand Medicare, even though the Feds will pay for most of it. This is the big issue in Georgia and NC.

2) There is a viability model that exists for rural hospitals as populations fall.

Issue 2 would cause a slow decline. Combining issue 1 with issue 2 and you get a rapid decline in rural hospitals.

And no hospital....no hope of economic advancement for those rural areas. Few will move a business to an area with no healthcare.

Blame Obamacare all you want.....but its really the reluctance of certain politicians to expand Medicare which is the real issue here.

Like maximus said - it's not Medicare - you're talking Medicaid. The reason for state's reluctance is that they are afraid the Fed will all of a sudden realize they are broke and say "Uh, sorry state's - we can't fund this anymore, you're on the hook.

The state's are like Charlie Brown getting ready to kick the ball and the Federals are Lucy holding the ball getting ready to pull it away.

(11-18-2014 12:59 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 12:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its simple, really, there are two things going on here.

1) The immediate crisis is that many rural hospitals have had their reimbursements destroyed by the fact that certain governors have refused to expand Medicare, even though the Feds will pay for most of it. This is the big issue in Georgia and NC.

2) There is a viability model that exists for rural hospitals as populations fall.

Issue 2 would cause a slow decline. Combining issue 1 with issue 2 and you get a rapid decline in rural hospitals.

And no hospital....no hope of economic advancement for those rural areas. Few will move a business to an area with no healthcare.

Blame Obamacare all you want.....but its really the reluctance of certain politicians to expand Medicare which is the real issue here.

It's not medicare it's medicaid

And that is not the issue. Say it all you want. That is not the case.

There are very financially sound urban hospitals hurting as well.

It's not 100% Zerocare causing the issues but it is 100% federalis causing the problems.

I don't think either of us are really taking issue with this, so what should happen? What should happen is that the Repubs should be working with the WH and the dems to make things better...not just taking a negative polling issue to rile up their base to push their other agendas.

(11-18-2014 01:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 12:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its simple, really, there are two things going on here.

1) The immediate crisis is that many rural hospitals have had their reimbursements destroyed by the fact that certain governors have refused to expand Medicare, even though the Feds will pay for most of it. This is the big issue in Georgia and NC.

2) There is a viability model that exists for rural hospitals as populations fall.

Issue 2 would cause a slow decline. Combining issue 1 with issue 2 and you get a rapid decline in rural hospitals.

And no hospital....no hope of economic advancement for those rural areas. Few will move a business to an area with no healthcare.

Blame Obamacare all you want.....but its really the reluctance of certain politicians to expand Medicare which is the real issue here.

You keep conveniently leaving out the fact that the feds will only pay for it for a few years then the states are going to have to pick up part of the bill in a few years adding millions of dollars of obligations to state budgets that simply aren't there. Wisely these states have done what the federal government should have done years ago and refused to kick the bill down the road for someone else to deal with and took a stand by refusing to mortgage their state's future for a few shekels now.

Quote:Who is expanding—and who is paying?

From 2014 to 2017, the federal government will pay for 100% of the difference between a state's current Medicaid eligibility level and the ACA minimum. Federal contributions to the expansion will drop to 95% in 2017 and remain at 90% after 2020, according to the ACA.

http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefing/R...-expansion

(11-18-2014 01:28 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 01:25 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 12:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  [b]And again, I have insurance through my employer. The ACA has next to no impact on me whatsoever.

Until your policy goes up in price as many of ours have thanks to new requirements set forth by the ACA.

My plan was mostly ACA complaint to begin with. My plan only went up a couple bucks a pay period last year and will only go up a buck or so this year.

Although I should clarify, that is the end cost to me.

My company, a small business, has seen about 10% increases this year. Originally it was expected to be 50%, but thanks to provisions being pushed back a year we only saw 10% this year. Next year is expected to now be our huge increase. Why? Because our current plan isn't fully compliant. Although our current company is skews young and male (software engineering firms typically skew this way) we are going to get killed when we have to be fully compliant.

(11-18-2014 01:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I don't think either of us are really taking issue with this, so what should happen? What should happen is that the Repubs should be working with the WH and the dems to make things better...not just taking a negative polling issue to rile up their base to push their other agendas.

Because the Democrats are so good about working with a Republican president, right?

Neither party works together on divisive issues, they just attack each other. Has been that way as long as I can remember.