I guess you could call it the "trickle down theory" of ObamaCare -- the gradual slide of slime and muck this piece of under-the-table, underhanded, backroom, cut-throat a la Chicago style piece of sh ... er, ... "legislation" that will drench the U.S. taxpayer like a tidal wave. Here's what the AP reported today ... (emphasis added):
CHICAGO – Emergency rooms, the only choice for patients who can't find care elsewhere, may grow even more crowded with longer wait times under the nation's new health law.
That might come as a surprise to those who thought getting 32 million more people covered by health insurance would ease ER crowding. It would seem these patients would be able to get routine health care by visiting a doctor's office, as most of the insured do.
But it's not that simple. Consider:
• There's already a shortage of front-line family physicians in some places and experts think that will get worse.
• People without insurance aren't the ones filling up the nation's emergency rooms. Far from it. The uninsured are no more likely to use ERs than people with private insurance, perhaps because they're wary of huge bills.
• The biggest users of emergency rooms by far are Medicaid recipients. And the new health insurance law will increase their ranks by about 16 million. Medicaid is the state and federal program for low-income families and the disabled. And many family doctors limit the number of Medicaid patients they take because of low government reimbursements.
• ERs are already crowded and hospitals are just now finding solutions.
Rand Corp. researcher Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann predicts this from the new law: "More people will have coverage and will be less afraid to go to the emergency department if they're sick or hurt and have nowhere else to go.... We just don't have other places in the system for these folks to go."
Kellermann and other experts point to Massachusetts, the model for federal health overhaul where a 2006 law requires insurance for almost everyone. Reports from the state find ER visits continuing to rise since the law passed — contrary to hopes of its backers who reasoned that expanding coverage would give many people access to doctors offices.
Massachusetts reported a 7 percent increase in ER visits between 2005 and 2007. A more recent estimate drawn from Boston area hospitals showed an ER visit increase of 4 percent from 2006 to 2008 — not dramatic, but still a bit ahead of national trends.
"Just because we've insured people doesn't mean they now have access," said Dr. Elijah Berg, a Boston area ER doctor. "They're coming to the emergency department because they don't have access to alternatives."
...
"We're starting out with crowded conditions and anticipating things will only get worse," said American College of Emergency Physicians president Dr. Angela Gardner.
...
What's causing crowding? Imagine an emergency department with a front door and a back door.
There's crowding at both ends.
At the front door, ERs are strained by an aging population and more people with chronic illnesses like diabetes. Many ERs closed during the 1990s, leaving fewer to handle the load. The American Hospital Association's annual survey shows a 10 percent decline in emergency departments from 1991 to 2008. Meanwhile, emergency visits rose dramatically.
At the back door, ER patients ready to be admitted — in hospital lingo, ready to "go upstairs" — must compete for beds with patients scheduled for elective surgeries, which bring in more money. "If you've got 10 ER patients and 10 elective surgeries," Kellermann asked rhetorically, "which are you going to give the beds to?"
...
4 comments:
This is pretty laughable.
The parts you highlighted all say the same thing: "With national healthcare, more people will seek medical treatment. And we just don't have enough spacae for all of them."
Aside from being completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, it's implications are ludricous. The issue at hand is whether or not a government, supposedly put in place to serve the interests of its electors, has an obligation to make sure those electors stay healthy enough to vote the next time around. This has nothing to do with space requirements. That's like saying "As long as earth is overpopulated, it's alright to commit murder (I mean this is the reasoning we use for killing deer, isn't it?)."
We need bigger hospitals and more doctors for healthcare to work? What a coincidence!! There are thousands of Americans who need jobs! Why not create them with national healthcare.
How does denying the voting populace healthcare (healthcare which, incidentally, is given to members of congress paid for by the very people whom are being denied the same thing) 1) address the question (one of government obligations) or 2) solve anything?
It sounds like your position is something like: "Those who already have healthcare deserve it and those without don't. And since those with healthcare are just better human beings, it's much better that they continue there service uninterrupted rather than take a small (temporary) hit to their own coverage so that millions of other people can have SOME coverage."
Do you really see yourself as doing a favor to uncovered Americans by saving them from having to wait in a crowded hospital for life-saving treatment? Are these merciful killings, just like those poor deer, so that some of us can have a little more elbow room in the waiting room?
They just let anybody be a teacher these days don't they...
I am always rather disappointed when someone like Holbrook (above), rather than simply disagreeing with me or the article I post and stating his case, has to add a middle-schooler type snarky comment in the end. "They just let anybody be a teacher these days don't they ..."
I wonder if other bloggers of differing professions have similar snotty comments left: "They just let anybody be an accountant these days ..." "lawyer" ... "parent" ...
I'm hardly cut to the quick. It's too akin to "Oh, yeah. Well, your momma wears army boots!"
Snark doesn't require much grey matter.
I agree with you. Ad hominem has no place in an argument (and snarky comments often are ad hominem.) But, the snarky comment had nothing to do with my argument (which you have not even attempted to refute).
Actually, it wasn't really a jab aimed at you. It was an expression of my sadness at the fact that those responible for shaping the intellectual future of our country can maintain such obviously ludicrous positions.
As a teacher, you have access to one the most precious resources we as humans possess...young minds. As a teacher, you are in a position to influence and guide those young minds for better or worse. Whehter you know it or not (and I think you do), your own attitudes are impressed upon and reflected by your students.
I am of the opinoin that teachers should cherish this responsibility and be careful with it (or else you end up with Hitler's Youth). So, when I see a teacher advocating claims such as you have (which you have not bothered to defend), I get worried, because you have imparted to thousands of impressionable young minds a position of, at best, questionable moral standing (from a utilitarian viewpoint, anyway).
So now we have a bunch of kids, some of whom may one day be influential, with the idea that the problem America faces isn't one of sub-standard (or, rather, absent) healthcare for its citizens...the problem is that too many go to the hospital when they get sick. I just think that someone who has chosen to groom the our future leaders should not advocate such ludicrous positions.
That being said, perhaps there are good reasons for being the only industrialized nation in the world that leaves it's citizens to fend for themselves in the area of healthcare...but this: "Hospitals are too full as it is," is certainly not one of them. As a teacher, you should be able to recognize that.
So, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but instead of throwing out red herrings and fallacies (Holbrook made a snarky comment about me, so he is stupid and his ideas are obviously worthless), you try actually addressing the argument (which are independent of my lamenting).
You did not hurt my feelings. I'm a big girl. But, you made a big, bad assumption about me in the classroom. You assume I express my political views to my students, which I NEVER do. I think that would at the very least be unprofessional, if now downright unethical and criminal. This blog is anonymous, purely for my venting needs, its contents and my political views are never discussed with my students, and my political beliefs are totally off limits when I am in the classroom.
I have a right to my opinions, but I do not have a right to indoctrinate my students, something which sadly many in my profession are guilty of ... and which you will find me complaining about from time to time here. I liken infliction of ideology on students as akin to "intellectual molestation."
I AM a professional, thank you very much!
Post a Comment