New Obamacare provision in effect today

[sham]

Anyone who supports this new provision has not thought it through. I just lived and continue to live this new Medicare requirement. My wife 65yo and a Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) patient had her aortic valve replaced a couple weeks ago. This Medicare mandate was the subject that several doctors and nurses were talking about. When the government makes mandates (usually with good intentions) there are always unintended consequences. The new mandate could cost more money than it saves because hospitals would rather see you die in the hospital than go home and then be readmitted later. Thus, hospital stays will last longer for serious illnesses, AND the real problem with extended stays is that the longer one is in a hospital, the greater the chance of contracting a serious staff infection or some other illness. The other end of the problem is that hospitals will be reluctant to readmit a previously treated patient even if the patient becomes dangerously ill. This is a serious consequence for CHF patients because numerous hospital stays is the norm for them.

The way doctors will get around this new provision is to readmit under the identity of a new medical condition. If my wife has to be readmitted, they will try to use something like kidney impairment (for example) rather than a heart based problem. The law looks good on paper but likely will not work in reality. The law reflects a business decision, not a decision in favor of an individual's health. "We must pass it to find out what is in it." Well, we are finding out what is in it and it is not good.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by sham

Anyone who supports this new provision has not thought it through. I just lived and continue to live this new Medicare requirement. My wife 65yo and a Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) patient had her aortic valve replaced a couple weeks ago. This Medicare mandate was the subject that several doctors and nurses were talking about. When the government makes mandates (usually with good intentions) there are always unintended consequences. The new mandate could cost more money than it saves because hospitals would rather see you die in the hospital than go home and then be readmitted later. Thus, hospital stays will last longer for serious illnesses, AND the real problem with extended stays is that the longer one is in a hospital, the greater the chance of contracting a serious staff infection or some other illness. The other end of the problem is that hospitals will be reluctant to readmit a previously treated patient even if the patient becomes dangerously ill. This is a serious consequence for CHF patients because numerous hospital stays is the norm for them.

The way doctors will get around this new provision is to readmit under the identity of a new medical condition. If my wife has to be readmitted, they will try to use something like kidney impairment (for example) rather than a heart based problem. The law looks good on paper but likely will not work in reality. The law reflects a business decision, not a decision in favor of an individual's health. "We must pass it to find out what is in it." Well, we are finding out what is in it and it is not good.

the doctor-patient relationship is secondary to the government's word.

What's next?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

the doctor-patient relationship is secondary to the government's word.

What's next?

All Healthcare is secondary to the ALMIGHTLY DOLLAR. For profit Healthcare is the issue here. But you will never let a reason to bash Obama go to waste.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by jms62

All Healthcare is secondary to the ALMIGHTLY DOLLAR. For profit Healthcare is the issue here. But you will never let a reason to bash Obama go to waste.

Yea all doctors are in it for the money. Their oath means nothing.

You're right let's let the government run healthcare. Look at the success they've had with Fannie and Freddie.

[dellinger63]

How timely

A new survey shows Mitt Romney with a commanding lead over President Barack Obama among doctors, with Obamacare helping to sway their votes.

If the election were held today, 55 percent of physicians reported they would vote for Romney while just 36 percent support Obama,

Fifteen percent of respondents said they were switching their vote from Obama in 2008 to Romney in 2012. The top reasons cited for this change was the Affordable Care Act and the failure to address tort reform.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/01/su...ey-over-obama/

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Yea all doctors are in it for the money. Their oath means nothing.

You're right let's let the government run healthcare. Look at the success they've had with Fannie and Freddie.

No but ALL INSURANCE COMPANIES are which was my point but that flew over your head but that is no suprise.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

the doctor-patient relationship is secondary to the government's word.

What's next?

I guess you are unawares that right now, the doctor-patient relationship is secondary to the private insurance companies word on how many days they will pay for hospitalization, and what treatments they will cover?

You are unawares that 100% of your allowable (meaning paid for) medical treatment for a conditions is dictated by private insurance company actuaries, not by what your doctor might choose to do?

Yes, the treatments for common conditions are dictated by insurance companies, not your doctor.

That patients are often sent home a day early by private insurance companies trying to save money, causing "bounce back" of some of those patients because she wasn't ready to go home yet, and the insurance company was mandating an early discharge for profit?

Yes, the government preventing that "bounce back" for the patients it pays for - Medicare patients - is a good thing.

Medicare provides better care for patients, at a vastly decreased cost, than private insurance companies do.

Those with private insurance will have to take their chances.

Why this country doesn't have single-payer, like other first world countries, is due simply to the fact that too much of our congress is owned by private insurance companies.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by sham

Anyone who supports this new provision has not thought it through. I just lived and continue to live this new Medicare requirement. My wife 65yo and a Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) patient had her aortic valve replaced a couple weeks ago. This Medicare mandate was the subject that several doctors and nurses were talking about. When the government makes mandates (usually with good intentions) there are always unintended consequences. The new mandate could cost more money than it saves because hospitals would rather see you die in the hospital than go home and then be readmitted later.

No, this does not apply to a deteriorating, terminal patient. This does not apply to normal hospitalization times for an aortic valve replacement - it's when hospitals kick patients out early, against common medical practices. This only affects what is currently bounce-backs for a few conditions, that is common for only hospitals that don't "do it right" on treatment in the first place.

Achieving normal hospitalization times (and yes, those are documented and we all know it) for regular procedures is the aim of this - times are not being increased. Hospitals that constantly press for early discharge, before the "usual" hospitalization time, will be affected.

Thus, hospital stays will last longer for serious illnesses, AND the real problem with extended stays is that the longer one is in a hospital, the greater the chance of contracting a serious staff infection or some other illness. The other end of the problem is that hospitals will be reluctant to readmit a previously treated patient even if the patient becomes dangerously ill. This is a serious consequence for CHF patients because numerous hospital stays is the norm for them.

This provision does not affect patients with ongoing serious conditions.

Please - read the few conditions the mandate affects.

Other than that, how are you and your wife enjoying your increased Medicare benefits and drug savings due the law?