It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House And Hospitals Are Reported To Be Near Deal

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

White House And Hospitals Are Reported To Be Near Deal


www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration and major hospital associations on Monday evening were nearing a deal for about $150 billion in cost savings to help pay for an overhaul of the nation’s health care system, with an announcement expected at the White House as early as Wednesday, officials said.

If an agreement is finalized, it would be the latest step in an on-going effort by the White House to win concessions from major health industry groups to help pay for legislation aimed at providing health insurance to all Americans. Democrats are hoping to keep the cost of the overhaul at abo
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
It will be good news if this really happens. A year ago I wouldn't have imagined that hospitals and Big Pharma would be cooperating in health care reform to this extent.

The cost of health care has to be brought down, otherwise people will no longer be able to pay for health insurance and companies will no longer be able to foot the bill for their employees.

It looks like the sanest and wisest in the medical field are agreeing that something needs to be done to continue to provide world-class health care for all Americans.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I am in the medical profession and I instinctively do not trust this.

Big Pharma is in this for the money so their concessions will be minimal in the big picture. In my opinion it is just a ploy to get on the good side of this administration.

Hospitals are about lowering the costs, not lowering their profit. Not having people in the hospital who are dying and increase their cost is a benefit.

I am older an currently without health insurance and I totally disagree with the proposed health care proposed policy

As always, I could be wrong and welcome different thoughts.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Registered nurse here that is bowing out of socialized medicine. No thank you.

I've had all the arguments with people who want free health care and, in the end, it will not give me any pleasure to say, "I told you so".

I'm just glad I got out before the bioterrorism attacks started rolling through the doors.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Yeah! Bring the cost down. It sounds good. My mom who is 79 years old will be having surgery tomorrow. Um.........she has good health care provisions and the money to pay the co-pays. Great for her! She believes a universal health care plan by the government will let her have these continuing surgeries for "free". I don't believe it. I actually believe she has outlived her usefulness for society. She has offered nothing for the last 40 years. I can't even say she provided guidance for her relatives. She has done nothing. And I think, for Pete's sake, she hasn't done anything for society or her family all this time. Yet, I have a 7 year old grandson who just might be something society could prosper from, yet he has no healthcare insurance, etc. The money spent on my mom is not warranted. Yeah, she is in this situation and so it is. Yeah, she earned it. but............come on socialists and Obamanians, should my old mom receive all these expensive operations to prolong her basically worthless life while a 7 year old can be denied basic care? I think the current state of affairs of healthcare in the U.S. will reward this old woman, while ignoring the 7 year old. So, what I am asking is, can both this old woman and young boy be given quality life extending healthcare? For "free"? I don't think so. I believe my mom will end up dying without life extending measures, even though this is want she wants. just because it is "free", and my grandson will receive care to help him survive, until such a time he is just too old to worry about. Maybe it's fair this way? I just don't know.



[edit on 7-7-2009 by kyred]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   






You are so right if the instituted national healthcare the government would decide whom gets treatment and whom doesn't. I kind of almost want these idiots to get what they desire so I can hear them scream in agony. There is nothing free and these pukes asking for it don't realize it because its the middle class whom work their asses off that will end up paying for it. What these fools don't realize is when You throw government money at something the price goes up and doesn't go down. I mean seriously look at medicade its bankrupted social security. Another point when You throw government money at a problem or to supply a service the quality of the service goes down. Now the doctors and nurses have to work hard for your dollar but when that dollar is already guaranteed it doesn't inspire hard work. I mean look at the VA is that what You want?



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Reply to Whitewave,kyred and jkm1864:

Health care under Obama's plan won't be "free." It will be paid for by insurance. Those who can't afford insurance will get government subsidies, but the majority of people will have access to reasonably-priced insurance plans -- lower than the current rates.

Because everyone will have insurance, the insurance companies will have to compete for business and that will help keep your costs down.

The rising cost of medical care is the reason why fewer and fewer people can get insurance or decent health care. Something has to change.

And if you're a nurse or other medical worker your job won't change. Unless you get fired for some reason you'll work for the same doctor or hospital you already do.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
And the idea of penalizing those who choose not to have insurance by imposing a massive fine? How is this an example of the government being as unintrusive in your life as possible?

If I don't want to pay for auto insurance, then legally I don't drive. But at least I have a right to make that choice and the law is okay with that. My alternatives are to ride with friends and take busses and such.

Not so for health care - if I'm not covered by my employer and I don't want to participate in the government health care program then the government will fine you more than $1,000.


In a revamped health care system envisioned by senators, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face fines of more than $1,000.


Source: news.yahoo.com...

And guess what? That's not a one time fine, that PER YEAR. Like the AP article says - either way, you pay.

Obama's health care program has so many things wrong with it, but this idea of a fine for those who don't want the hand of government in their lives is just too much.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
Reply to Whitewave,kyred and jkm1864:

Health care under Obama's plan won't be "free." It will be paid for by insurance. Those who can't afford insurance will getgovernment subsidies, but the majority of people will have access to reasonably-priced insurance plans -- lower than the current rates.

Because everyone will have insurance, the insurance companies will have to compete for business and that will help keep your costs down.

The rising cost of medical care is the reason why fewer and fewer people can get insurance or decent health care. Something has to change.

And if you're a nurse or other medical worker your job won't change. Unless you get fired for some reason you'll work for the same doctor or hospital you already do.


We ARE "the government! WE THE OVERTAXED PEOPLE WILL BE PAYING THESE SUBSIDIES. A sizable portion of people are rapidly becoming unemployed and homeless. What employer will they have to offer them this utopian free bubble up and rainbow stew?

Mark my words, brother. I've been predicting this coming for over 25 years when DRG's were first introduced into healthcare (which btw, there WASN'T a "healthcare crisis back then). The solution to the "problem" of healthcare will be to LET THE PEOPLE DIE.

We're already seeing signs of it now. I'll have to go dig up the links (and there are a lot of them). Many hospitals are instituting an admittance criteria for those coming into the emergency departments. It's called the Glasgow coma scale. It's been around for a long time as an assessment tool but never as a admittance criteria tool. Other admittance criteria are being considered as well.

The nursing board stated several years ago that it was "OK for nurses to take care of ebola patients". I don't know about you but it most certainly is not ok. Just how many healthcare professionals do you think are stupid enough to deliberately expose themselves to ebola?

If I dig through my paperwork I can probably find a memo from one of the hospitals I worked stating that, contrary to our nursing oath, "nurses are not primarily patient advocates. The nurses role is to ensure corporate compliance in the delivery of care". Translated: if taking care of sick people is no longer profitable then we are relieved of our duty to continue taking care of them.

I can see myself getting worked up over this so I'm going to go reduce my blood pressure and bow out but I do ask that you do just a modicum of research on the subject of nationalized healthcare or socialized medicine.

Ask Russia how it worked for them. Ask Canada how it's working for them. See if California is having a problem with funding all those "subsidies". I'm not talking about all the anecdotal reports of people who are thrilled to get subsidized healthcare; I'm talking about the people who are having to balance the account books on it.

Btw, insurance companies are failing on a large scale. You'll wind up with a handful of companies that will assess your risk and charge you accordingly. On dialysis? Too expensive. Sorry we can't cover you. There are quite a few people right now that have trouble getting coverage. The elderly, those with pre-existing health issues, etc. How do you think they'll fare when having insurance becomes mandatory?



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave



We're already seeing signs of it now. I'll have to go dig up the links (and there are a lot of them). Many hospitals are instituting an admittance criteria for those coming into the emergency departments. It's called the Glasgow coma scale. It's been around for a long time as an assessment tool but never as a admittance criteria tool. Other admittance criteria are being considered as well.


Yes. hospitals are revising their admittance criteria because many patients are not considered profitable. These are usually the uninsured or homeless. With universal health insurance hospitals and doctors will be compensated for every patient. They may not receive the astronomical rates they receive now, but they will be adequately compensated. There would be no reason to turn anyone who needed treatment away.

The unemployed and homeless will have government-subsidized health insurance so they will still be insured even though they are broke.



If I dig through my paperwork I can probably find a memo from one of the hospitals I worked stating that, contrary to our nursing oath, "nurses are not primarily patient advocates. The nurses role is to ensure corporate compliance in the delivery of care". Translated: if taking care of sick people is no longer profitable then we are relieved of our duty to continue taking care of them.


That's what they do now because hospitals care more about the bottom line than they do about treating people who are sick. If patients don't pay they don't play. Universal health care, as I explain above, means it applies to everyone. No one can be turned away because they are too expensive.



Btw, insurance companies are failing on a large scale. You'll wind up with a handful of companies that will assess your risk and charge you accordingly. On dialysis? Too expensive. Sorry we can't cover you. There are quite a few people right now that have trouble getting coverage. The elderly, those with pre-existing health issues, etc. How do you think they'll fare when having insurance becomes mandatory?


With universal health insurance coverage, the private insurance companies will have to compete with the government for quality and price. The government insurance is, again, universal. The elderly, those with pre-existing conditions, etc. will be covered if they choose it.

Yes, the big insurance companies may take some hits as far as their enormous profits are concerned. They will have to lower their prices and cover more people and more medical conditions in order to compete with the government insurance. That will keep them honest and less greedy.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


First thing to know is that I am not for the universal health insurance because to make a long story short, it is about more government control.



Yes. hospitals are revising their admittance criteria because many patients are not considered profitable. These are usually the uninsured or homeless. With universal health insurance hospitals and doctors will be compensated for every patient. They may not receive the astronomical rates they receive now, but they will be adequately compensated. There would be no reason to turn anyone who needed treatment away.


Hospitals are already required to take in these patients. You have no idea how many controls, peer reviews are in place to look at failures to follow best practice. And these failures are often published. No hospital wants to be on that list of failures.




That's what they do now because hospitals care more about the bottom line than they do about treating people who are sick. If patients don't pay they don't play. Universal health care, as I explain above, means it applies to everyone. No one can be turned away because they are too expensive.


I agree hospitals do care about the bottom line and in the last hospital I worked in I got this information daily, ad nauseum.

But the patients don't pay they don't play is wrong. The doctors in the ER where most of these patients go know or care nothing about their ability to pay. Now with an elective surgery I think it is probably totally different.





[edit on 7-7-2009 by liveandlearn]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I'm an RN as well and let me tell you we are the BACKBONE of healthcare. I work at a nice hopsital in Orange County. I'm getting OUT of healthcare. It's disgusting how much regulation and bureaucracy already exists. The charting, the litigation, the #ty pay, the patient's who think hospitals are supposed to be a 5 star hotel. LOL haha. Hospitals are dangerous, dangerous places nowadays. The amount of infections that are running rampant are downright scary! I would never want to be in a hospital nowadays. Doctors are dangerous as well! The number of serious mistakes I see are also scary. Doctors have no time to spend with patients and aren't even treating disease......or for that matter making people better. All doctors do nowadays is protocol based medicine. They manage disease that's ALL! Especially in older populations no one gets better. Our hospital is like a revolving door.

And don't even get me started on the amount of waste that goes on in hospitals. It's pathetic. Hospitals are extremely inefficient nowadays. Just the simple lack of communication between doctors, nurses, discharge planners, social workers the entire collaborative healthcare team would make anyone on here cringe in fear! If the government takes over healthcare it will TEN TIMES WORSE!

So far you have TWO nurses who have posted in this thread warning this country not to initiate universal healthcare. But who are we? We just empty bed pans and answer call lights rigtht?

For those of us how are doctors and nurses two things WILL HAPPEN:
1) RN's will start to replaced by lower skilled and lower paid medication administration techs, paramedics and other caregivers to save costs.
2) Doctors will increasingly be replaced by Nurse practitioners and PA's. Certified nurse anesthetists already administer 90% of all anesthesia in hospitals.

LOL And you guys think this will get better with universal healthcare? You're nuts!



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Zosynspiracy
 


I hear you, Zosynspiracy. Unfortunately you have empty minds like the OP who shill for anything Obama wants to do or who shill for anything other than what we have now because "anything must be better than what we have now", which we know is not true at all.

Universal Health Care will ruin this country economically. Period. It will be the footnote on this country's epitaph.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy

For those of us how are doctors and nurses two things WILL HAPPEN:
1) RN's will start to replaced by lower skilled and lower paid medication administration techs, paramedics and other caregivers to save costs.
2) Doctors will increasingly be replaced by Nurse practitioners and PA's. Certified nurse anesthetists already administer 90% of all anesthesia in hospitals.

LOL And you guys think this will get better with universal healthcare? You're nuts!


That's bad. I agree. Good nurses are absolutely essential to good health care, but they should not replace people in more highly skilled positions. My husband is a psychiatric nurse, but unlike you, he gets paid very well.

You bring up things that must be addressed before changes are made.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by Sestias]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


I make $75K a year before taxes. In SoCal that's not much. That's a very good salary in most peoples eyes. But of course they have no clue how hard nurses work in an acute care setting. Plus after taxes my salary is not that much. But no amount of money would make me want to stay in nursing. Although I feel we should be paid as much as any Wall Street guru punching numbers in a computer with their hand in the next guy's pocket.......it's not about the money.....it's the job hamstrung by bureaucracy that makes it so miserable. But there are plenty of naive youngsters fresh out of nursing school ready to replace those of us that see the writing on the wall. If not we can just import more African and Phillipino nurses


Psyc nursing is hard as well. But if you work for the government in a state run facility it's nothing like bedside nursing in an acute care setting. And I did 90 hours in a state mental hospital. Correctional nurses are some of the highest paid nurses with the best benefits.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Well I wonder what sort of agreement the hospitals association are going to come up with to save $150 billion to help overhaul the health care industry.

This isn't really going to work. How are you supposed to pay for insurance with a subsidy cause I'm betting it isnt' alot. So if you have to carry health insurance and you don't for whatever reason, you'll get heavily fined. I am still not getting how the welfare and medicaid patients are going to pay for it, or do they just keep getting what they are getting? And does it mean also the illegals will have to pay for coverage or will the hospitals still continue to give "free healthcare" to them as well. And by "free health care" I mean writing it off because they know they'll never see the money. Not that they won't use someone else's identity anyway like already. This group abusing medical care in the US alone would save billions of dollars a year.

I dunno, I don't trust this Universal Health Care and don't like the things I hear about it and I darned sure don't trust anyone that says you MUST have insurance.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
California has a good union for state correctional officers. Most of the rest of the country has no such thing. Of course, now that they'll be getting paid in IOU's, their numbers may drop. Over 30% of my check goes for taxes.

I was at the top of my field and I made a little over half of what you make. We don't get hazardous duty pay and if anyone thinks that taking care of ebola patients is not hazardous, they're welcome to try it. We don't get combat pay even though patients are getting much more violent. We get reprimanded for making the "customer" angry. How dare we insist they bathe once a week or take their prescribed medications?! We'll also be threatened with "downsizing" if they don't take their meds or bathe. Catch 22.

I've worked in a prison with the criminally insane. And that was just the guards. (Only partially kidding).


The amount of regulations required is staggering. Anyone who's had to go through a JAHCO inspection knows what I'm talking about. If you don't cover up the doctors mistakes you're not considered a "team player". That'll go against you come annual review time. Family members expect (and get) free meals, their laundry done if they stay overnight. Most of them have watched a few episodes of SCRUBS and think they know how to do my job. It's the most abusive profession on the planet.

I'm learning herbal medicine to be able to take care of my family and myself. Since I'm in the age range of those considered "not worth saving", I know that I'm on my own. One poster in this thread said his own mother had outlived her usefulness to society!

And therein lies the problem. We've become so socialized in our thinking that life only has value if it contributes to the hive. There is no longer any innate value in being human.

Since that type of thinking is prevalent and widely accepted, how do you think all the people on dialysis or bedridden patients or active elderly, those with dementia, those with chronic health problems will be treated once they have to succumb to socialized medicine? The cost of their upkeep and health treatments will be considered "too much" for what they contribute to society. They'll just have to die, won't they?

[edit on 8-7-2009 by whitewave]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by whitewave
 


What exactly does this have to do with socialized medicine?
This statement doesn't make any sense. What does having to reduce costs to hospitals do with the socialized medicine we dont have?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyred
I don't believe it. I actually believe she has outlived her usefulness for society. She has offered nothing for the last 40 years. I can't even say she provided guidance for her relatives. She has done nothing. And I think, for Pete's sake, she hasn't done anything for society or her family all this time. Yet, I have a 7 year old grandson who just might be something society could prosper from, yet he has no healthcare insurance, etc.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by kyred]


I really hope you are trolling if not, this is a horrible thing to say and if this is how you feel about people, who let you reproduce?

lets throw out all the vets while we are at it since they are no longer doing anything.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


For the most part when you reduce costs you have to do a whole host of things that affect the quality of care. If you take the quality of healthcare every insured person gets and try to spread that out to 350 million people in America there never going to be enough money to afford it all. So hospitals and other healthcare institutions will have to cut costs. Hiring less educated personnel to replace nurses and doctors (WHICH IS ALREADY HAPPENING), ration products and services, etc.




[edit on 8-7-2009 by Zosynspiracy]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join