Hospitals Realizing Subsidized ObamaCare Patients Can't Pay Deductibles

Hos pitals Realizing Subsidized ObamaCare Patients Can't Pay Deductibles

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) pointed out several upcoming problems including:

Kentucky medicaid roles being increased by 50 percent and the coming realization by health care providers that low-income patients who's insurance is heavily subsidized by the federal government will not be able to pay large deductibles being offered by the plans on the state exchanges.

-
2nd-Hand Information ... ( from a West-Texas Ambulance Worker ):

Lubbock, Texas ... ( largest hospitals ):

1. UMC has 70 Emergency Room Beds ... Consistently/Constantly-FULL.

2. Covenant Hospital has 50 Emergency Room Beds ... Consistently/Constantly-FULL.

His opinion was:

These Patients have Limited-to-NO-Insurance and the Hospital E.R.s can't refuse treatment(s).

-
OBSERVATION: Kettle Building Steam ... ( and/so what's the Pressure-Limit ) ???
.

This was part of the master plan of course.

The whole idea is to get people into as much debt as possible and to keep poorer people from getting out of the debt swindle complex.

The entire medical system is already in turmoil and will naturally get much worse.

With even bigger boondoggles looming, not even a "socialized" medical system will ever work to the advantage of citizens.

The "come-on" swindle of subsidies was a lure into the endless debt circle.

The Medicaid systems will fail in many states as well.

Taxes will rise beyond belief and services will be compromised and reduced beyond comprehension.

Next Step: A Value-Added sales tax. Wait for it. They'll do it when the Middle-Class tax base dissolves.

I think the VA medical system will be merged with MediCaid and MediCare as well.

Wait till after the November elections.

Rome is falling.

The lower plans seemed pretty useless when I was looking at the exchanges. If that is the best plan you can afford then you probably won't be able to use it because of the high co-insurance payments they require.

a reply to: xuenchen

Rome? Rome was a seat of power in the world for twice as long as the US has existed, and officially occupied a greater number of nations than the US has in its entire history. If the US goes belly up as you clearly imagine it will, it will not do so with anything like the rapidity with which Rome turned in upon itself.

However, I should point out, that this is the sort of thing that happens when a government REFUSES to install a system of taxation which enables everyone to have healthcare, without having to pay for hospital treatment up front or with "deductibles".

If people only had to pay for their medication long term, then that would be bad enough, but attaching a money value to a persons life is not morally, ethically, or systemically sensible. That is, a person should NEVER have to consider the crippling cost of hospital treatment, when asking themselves "do I need to go to the hospital". To force people to think about the cost of surgery or other medical procedures, to put them in a position where they would entertain staying at home and probably dying, rather than making debtors of their children and relatives is the behaviour of a heartless, morally defunct system of thought, governance, and brings shame on all who perpetuate that situation.

No system is perfect, but at least a taxation based method of getting money into hospitals would mean that everyone who has a cancer, and everyone who has heart trouble, and everyone who might die from a preventable cause, will get treatment and be able to recover from that treatment WITHOUT having their long term health suffer through stress, which would invalidate all the work of the medical professionals involved in the initial treatment.

I honestly pity the idiot who supports up front fees and deductibles for medical assistance still being a proposition in a developed nation.

a reply to: FarleyWayne

"we have to pass it to know what's in it." The ineptitude and lack of foresight of this administration simply has to be fictional, no one is this stupid.. I have to imagine this is exactly what they wanted.

Well, no kidding. Where do they think these people are going to get the money for the deductibles, they are not that rich. I thought the idea of high deductibles was because we shouldn't be running to the doctor every time we get a sniffle, but evidently a lot of people do. It seems that if your kid misses a couple of days of school because they are sick, you have to get a doctors note which means a visit to the doctor. Get rid of this policy and everyone's rates will go down. Also some businesses require a doctors note to collect your sick days if you miss more than two....why, this is stupid. You go to a doctor if you can't kick it yourself, you don't go the day you get sick, we can't afford this. Now the doctors probably love this practice, because they are making more money....unless the people don't pay their bill because they have no money....I see it coming. Society needs to change.

Every time I see posts like this it reminds me how much I value being in a career where benefits were considered part of the job offer no matter what the business.

I feel bad for people that are not in that situation.

I firmly believe in socialized medicine, and I too think a tax-based system is the best way to go about funding it. But when you stop to consider all the money the government wastes, and I am not just talking about the current administration, the money is there. Getting the government to do something is another matter. There is too much politicking where human lives are concerned, and it is sickening to watch in a so-called "developed" nation.

a reply to: FarleyWayne
With the advent of Obamacare, our non-paying patients jumped from 1 in 5 to 2 in 5.

That's 40% of patients that we get, can't turn away, and never pay.

a reply to: beezzer

Would you deny that those patients who cannot pay, do need medical assistance?

Is the life of a poor man worth less than the life of a rich one? Does an inability to pay for treatment, mean that a person does not deserve it?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: beezzer

Would you deny that those patients who cannot pay, do need medical assistance?

Is the life of a poor man worth less than the life of a rich one? Does an inability to pay for treatment, mean that a person does not deserve it?

No. Not at all.

Just stating a fact.

They do not get turned away. Their level of care is the same.

The simple fact remains. Prior to Obamacare, we had @20% that could not pay. After Obamacare, we now have @40% that cannot pay.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes , Rome. The similar enough American empire is subsidizing MILLIONS

of citizens - wasn't it roughly 90 Million not working? 50% receiving some sort

of government subsidy? Yes, and Yes Rome fell when its farmers were pushed

to over their production limit in order to subsidize free bushels of grain for

200,000 roman citizens. Rome experimented with subsidies for only 100,000 but

the risk of riots made them revert back to 200k. Im a physician, and the cracks

have already appeared, and they're not small. The sky is about to fall on our largest

of handouts- medicare and medicaid. Obamacare - and the VA it seeks to emulate- are

deeply flawed. Our medical system is already horribly broken. Just wait till the money stops...

a reply to: beezzer

Beez...

Do you think that charging an up front fee, or deductibles from sick people, is a good idea? If not, then what do you care if its forty percent, rather than twenty? And if you do think it is a good idea, why?

The way I look at this is, that the more people who cannot pay, the better. The reason for this, is that eventually the hospitals will just start billing the government, which will force the government to either legislate to make it illegal for medical care to cost as much as it does, stamp on the necks of pharma until they will sell their most expensive drugs and kit to the hospitals for the price of a packet of cigarette papers, OR, force the government to deal with the entire cost of the health of the people of the US, via taxation (which for all its faults, is the only sensible way to deal with it at all).

a reply to: TrueBrit

Do I think that paying for a service is a good idea?

Yes. Healthcare, in my humble opinion, is a commodity, not a right.

Now that being said, my organization is faith-based. We never close our doors to anyone.

The issue is backwards though.

Right now everyone from the government on down is trying to figure out how to pay for the high costs of healthcare.

When they should be looking at ways to lower the costs of healthcare so subsidies and government won't be necessary.

a reply to: beezzer

So to put this into plain English, you believe that a person has a right to live, but only as long as they can afford to do so? Because, let us not beat around the bush, the really expensive operations and so on, are those which correct life threatening faults, so I fail to see how a person can have a right to live, without having a right to medical assistance.

One is very often impossible without the other.

Now, unless we are to suggest, that people have no right to live at all, how are you justifying the idea that health is not a right, but a commodity, since the two are so closely entwined with one another?

Incidentally, I agree, health infrastructure and drugs, and equipment all cost way more than they need to, purely because of profiteering, and government is wasteful with peoples money as well, neither of which help one little bit.

But I am deeply troubled that someone who is involved with any faith based enterprise would consider access to medical assistance any differently than they would consider access to their next breath.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Health care is a service. Nothing more. People need to eat to live, why isn't food free?
People need shelter to survive, why aren't houses free?

People need transportation to get to work. Ad nauseum.

Am I being cruel?

Just pragmatic.

a reply to: drphilxr

Very good response

thank you.

a reply to: beezzer

Ok... Let's suppose for a moment, that enough food to keep a person from falling over dead of starvation cost far and away more, than 60% of people could ever hope to afford, including yourself and the people you love most in all the world.

How pragmatic would, COULD you be in that situation?

Just because a person cannot afford to eat, does not mean that they should starve. It means someone ought to feed them, because otherwise they will die, and to allow that, en masse, whether it is because of starvation, or a lack of access to healthcare, matters not one whit.

Also, do you oppose a taxation based method of getting these services paid for?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: beezzer

Ok... Let's suppose for a moment, that enough food to keep a person from falling over dead of starvation cost far and away more, than 60% of people could ever hope to afford, including yourself and the people you love most in all the world.

How pragmatic would, COULD you be in that situation?

Just because a person cannot afford to eat, does not mean that they should starve. It means someone ought to feed them, because otherwise they will die, and to allow that, en masse, whether it is because of starvation, or a lack of access to healthcare, matters not one whit.

Someone(s) should feed the hungry. Clothe the poor. House the needy.

It's called charity.

Something our institution fully encourages.

But there is a difference between charity and government mandated "charity".

Society has fallen, simply because people will say, "Oh government will take care of them". And government does!

If we could just return to a time where neighbors took care of each other, where communities looked out for one another, then things would be better.

But in order for that to happen, government will have to relinquish control.

Also, do you oppose a taxation based method of getting these services paid for?

If taxes were actually spent towards what they were initially designed for? Sure.

But in reality, right now?

No. Because higher taxes pay for lip service, graft, corruption.

Not for what they are meant to pay for.

a reply to: FarleyWayne

...low-income patients who's insurance is heavily subsidized by the federal government will not be able to pay large deductibles...

Whoa! Back up the bus! This was TOTALLY unforeseen. No way we could have known poor people could not afford a big bill. Right out of left field on this one...

//sarc off//