Posts Tagged ‘losses’

ObamaCare Is Killing Private Practice Physicians

January 8, 2011

First ObamaCare had death panels.  Then massive public outrage forced Democrats to abandon the death panels.  Then Obama brought back his death panels by sneaking them in via backdoor regulation in secrecy.  Then the public exploded in anger again.  And now the death panels are gone again.  At least until the next time these dishonest rodents go behind our backs to impose vile policies the people have already loudly rejected.

Then there’s the case of all the waivers.  As of now, 222 businesses have been given waivers from ObamaCare provisions because otherwise they would have to dump their employee health coverage altogether.  Including quite a few unions that pushed for ObamaCare, by the way.

Doctors are still getting shoved into nasty little death panels, however.  Because ObamaCare is murdering them:

12.21.10 | Sandy C. Pipes | MedCitizen
Private practice doctors: Another Obamacare casualty?

While making the case for his health reform package, President Obama argued that his proposal would make life easier for small-business owners.

Unfortunately, Obamacare threatens to undermine a group of small-business owners that is perhaps more important than any other to his reform effort — doctors in private practice.

The number of privately owned medical practices has declined sharply in the past five years. In 2005, at least two-thirds of practices were in private hands. That figure has dropped to less than half today — and is expected to sink below 40 percent by next year.

Many doctors, specifically those who have just completed a resident specialty, are now choosing not to enter private practice in the first place. Instead, they’re heading to salaried positions at large hospitals. Last year, 49 percent of first-year specialists chose hospital employment.

Obamacare will only exacerbate these trends. Some of the law’s dictates will make it more expensive to operate small practices — even though the rules are supposed to reduce medical costs.

Take the new law’s health IT initiative, which pushes doctors to set up extensive electronic health records in hopes of better coordinating care among providers. More information, the law’s boosters argue, means less waste and lower costs.

But many private practices can’t afford to drop five or six figures on expensive health IT systems that may not even save them money.

Boosters of health IT acknowledge that large organizations are more likely to enjoy its benefits. But shoving patients into ever-larger medical groups may not actually bring down costs.

The reason, as representatives of the American Medical Association recently warned, is that big hospital networks have greater market power. They can use that power to keep prices high, and there’s little that insurers — and even less that consumers — can do about it.

Paying more for treatment doesn’t necessarily guarantee better access or quality. Without an ownership stake in their practices, salaried doctors have an incentive to work the hours for which they’re paid — and no more. Fewer hours for doctors means fewer appointments for patients.

History demonstrates that these incentives matter. In the 1990s, several large hospitals bought up practices and put doctors on flat salaries. As Dr. Bill Jessee, CEO of the Medical Group Management Association, observed, doctors suddenly “weren’t working as hard as they were before their practice was acquired.”

Proponents of Obamacare have conveniently ignored these lessons. President Obama’s top health care aide Nancy-Ann DeParle, for instance, wrote in the August issue of the Journal of Internal Medicine that the new law is “likely to lead to the vertical organization of providers and accelerate physician employment by hospitals.” These organizations are called Accountable Care Organizations, or ACOs.

Such vertical integration may prove costly. Already, hospitals lose money on a substantial chunk of the people they see. In New York, for example, hospitals take a loss on more than 70 percent of patients.

That’s mostly because of the stingy reimbursement rates paid by government health programs like Medicare and Medicaid. In 2008, the average Medicare reimbursement in New York represented a 4.7 percent underpayment. Medicaid’s reimbursements were even worse — as little as 64 percent of a hospital’s actual treatment cost. Those with private insurance are forced to pay more for care to make up the difference.

Hospitals’ Medicaid losses are compounded by the fact that the program’s beneficiaries use far more medical services than other patients. On average, the privately insured visit the doctor three and a half times a year. Medicaid patients make an average of seven visits.

Yet Obamacare will add 18 million new individuals to the program’s rolls by the end of the decade — and thus stretch our healthcare infrastructure even thinner.

Primary care physicians are already in short supply. The Center for Workforce Studies predicts that by 2020 there will be a shortage of 45,000 family doctors and 46,000 surgeons. Unfortunately, Obamacare provides no funding to significantly increase their numbers.

Emergency rooms will have to pick up the slack. The new law could result in as many as 41 million additional trips to the emergency room each year.

The health reform law was sold as a way to fill in the cracks in America’s fractured healthcare system. Instead, it has only made them wider.

This is just another example of how Marxist Democrats imposed their utter contempt for the free market system.  Doctors who don’t have their own practices have far less incentive to work hard when they receive the same salary whether they work hard or not.  And at the same time, the Medicaid patients go to the hospital twice as often as people who have insurance because it doesn’t COST them anything to do so.  Contempt like that is only possible for freeloaders who don’t have a stake in anything and don’t have to worry about their premiums going up like the people who pay into the system to keep the whole thing running.

This is why I keep saying that Democrats are either genuinely evil or totally stupid.  And either way they are moral idiots.

This is hardly the only article, and hardly the only issues that explain why ObamaCare is so vile.  I’ve got plenty of articles which detail plenty of reasons why ObamaCare is murder for the doctors whom our entire medical system depends upon:

Medical Pros Needed To Staff ObamaCare Getting Canned Because Of ObamaCare

Medical Doctor Points Out That Doctors Will Be Fined Or Jailed If They Put Patients First Under ObamaCare

ObamaCare Driving Essential Primary Care Physicans Out Of Medicine

Doctor Cassell: ‘If You Voted For Obama, Seek Urologic Care Elsewhere’

ObamaCare Factoid: Access To Health Care Doesn’t Mean Squat When Hospitals, Doctors And Pharmacists Bail

38 States Now Working To Preempt ObamaCare Disaster

Mayo Clinic Realizes ObamaCare A Total Disaster, Stops Accepting Medicare

Harvard Medical School Dean Flunks Democrat Health Bill

Why Won’t Obama Invite The Doctors Who Will Resign If His Health Agenda Passes?

Wall St. Journal Bursts The Obama Bubble: ObamaCare Is All About Rationing

And yes, that IS just for starters.

ObamaCare pledges to push something like 30 million more people into the health care system even as it forces the doctors who ARE the health care system to leave medicine.

How does that NOT sound like a total disaster in the making?

Medical Pros Needed To Staff ObamaCare Getting Canned Because Of ObamaCare

November 16, 2010

As if ObamaCare wasn’t terrible enough…

Side Effects: Obamacare Accelerates Hospital Job Losses
Posted November 15th, 2010 at 4:00pm

Repeatedly, reports have shown that Obamacare will increase job loss.  But what happens when those who are laid off are the workers meant to enable the health care law’s expanded access of care: namely, hospital employees?

According to one hospital, layoffs of workers have already begun as a result of the new law. Leaders of Memorial Hospital in South Bend, Indiana, said that although “the economy sparked this problem…the Obama Health Care Reform Act gave the hospital a one-two punch. While more people may soon get more health coverage, Obama’s plan cuts reimbursement dollars for hospitals at a time administrators say they could use them most.”

Obamacare includes $575 billion in cuts to Medicare to pay for a Medicaid expansion and a new entitlement program, which will provide generous subsidies for middle-class Americans to buy insurance. The cuts include slashes to hospitals’ reimbursement rates.

Of course, cutting reimbursement rates is bound to have an effect on hospital operationsCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services Chief Actuary Richard Foster reports:

“[P]ayment update reductions will create a strong incentive for providers to maximize efficiency, [but] it is doubtful that many will be able to improve their own productivity to the degree achieved by the economy at large.”

“[P]roviders for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries). Simulations by the Office of the Actuary suggest that roughly 15 percent of Part A providers would become unprofitable within the 10-year projection period as a result of the productivity adjustments.”

Health providers dropping Medicare patients is the worst case scenario, especially in light of the flood of baby boomers set to retire and join Medicare.  For now, many hospitals are preparing for revenue cuts as best they can. For Memorial Hospital, this means reducing the work force. “We expect that reality to get worse moving forward,”the health facility said.

Obamacare is projected to insure 34 million more Americans by 2019. But by 2015, the nation will face a physician shortage of 63,000 doctors across all specialties, up from 39,600 before the law passed. The last thing the U.S. health care system needs is “reform” that encourages a reduction in its work force.

You Democrats ought to be ashamed of yourselves.  Just ashamed.

This godawful law is going to throw millions more people into the health system even as it forces tens of thousands of doctors to leave the system.  And what do you think is going to happen???

Your evil president and your evil party are going to be responsible for not just deaths, but outright murders by medical neglect.

Obama Bank Restructure Attacks Market, Terrifies Investors, Hamstrings Economy

January 22, 2010

Before I go any further, let me point out that what I’m going to say isn’t just my personal opinion: it has the backing of 77% of investors, who correctly view President Barack Obama as “anti-business.”

From Bloomberg:

Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) — U.S. investors overwhelmingly see President Barack Obama as anti-business and question his ability to manage a financial crisis, according to a Bloomberg survey.

The global quarterly poll of investors and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers finds that 77 percent of U.S. respondents believe Obama is too anti-business and four-out-of-five are only somewhat confident or not confident of his ability to handle a financial emergency.

The poll also finds a decline in Obama’s overall favorability rating one year after taking office. He is viewed favorably by 27 percent of U.S. investors. In an October poll, 32 percent in the U.S. held a positive impression.

“Investors no longer feel they can trust their instincts to take risks,” said poll respondent David Young, a managing director for a broker dealer in New York. Young cited Obama’s efforts to trim bonuses and earnings, make health care his top priority over jobs and plans to tax “the rich or advantaged.”

So I’m not just some isolated nutjob. Rather,  Barack Obama is now the isolated nutjob.

President Obama demands that banks lend more money even as he massively over-regulates them, demonizes them, and undermines their ability to make any profit whatsoever from any loans they actually do make.

People want to invest and make money, no matter who is president, and no matter which party controls the government.  Investors aren’t ideologues, but opportunists.  Markets intend to improve on their own if they are just left alone, because individuals start making personal decisions with their own investments, with the net effect usually balancing out the big picture.

FDR wouldn’t or couldn’t allow the market to recover on its own; so he imposed on bureaucratic solution after another — and the economy remained in the Great Depression seven years longer than it would have if he hadn’t done anything at all.

And Barack Obama cannot leave well enough alone, either.  At his core, he is an elitist bureaucrat who truly believes he knows better than everyone else combined.  He believes he can push the buttons and pull the levers of market forces and human lives and run everything from the top.  He rewards losers by punishing winners as he tries to impose his warped philosophy of redistributionist “fairness” on the economy.  He will fail, and the country will fail along with him until he is gone.

From the AP via the Star Tribune:

Stocks set to continue sell-off after Obama’s new bank overhaul plans spook the market

By STEPHEN BERNARD , Associated Press
Last update: January 22, 2010 – 7:19 AM

NEW YORK – Stocks are set to extend their slide Friday, following the worst two-day stretch the market has seen since June.

Stock futures fell as better than expected earnings from General Electric and Google failed to inspire traders.

President Barack Obama spooked the market Thursday, after asking Congress for limits on how large big banks can be and to end some of the risky trading large financial companies have used in recent quarters to boost profits.

The market could be re-entering a period of uncertainty that defined the financial crisis and sent it cratering nearly a year ago before its 10-month rally.

Overseas, Asian markets overnight followed the U.S. sharply lower. European markets are also falling.

Not even the latest batch of upbeat earnings reports from major companies was able to provide some support for investors looking to limit the recent damage.

General Electric Co. reported fourth-quarter profit that beat analyst expectations. The conglomerate also said it is seeing an increase in orders and a growing backlog for products and services, sure signs that the economy is starting to improve.

Internet giant Google Inc. also provided an upbeat sign for the economy, posting robust fourth-quarter earnings that easily topped analyst estimates. The results were driven by a pickup in Internet advertising, which could be a sign companies are feeling more confident the economy will recovery and opting to spend more to draw in customers.

Credit card lender American Express Co. also beat expectations after it set aside less money for defaulting loans. Default and delinquency rates both fell from the previous quarter, another encouraging sign for the economy.

High loan losses have plagued the financial sector and any declines in defaults would be a welcome sign that the consumer is starting to recover.

Ahead of the opening bell, Dow Jones industrial average futures fell 39, or 0.4 percent, to 10,299. Standard & Poor’s 500 index futures declined 3.20, or 0.3 percent, to 1,107.90, while Nasdaq 100 index futures dropped 1.75, or 0.1 percent, to 1,839.25.

The Dow is trying to bounce back after losing 213 points Thursday and 336 points, or 3.1 percent, during the past two trading sessions. The losses have erased all the early gains seen in 2010.

Large financial firms, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. all plummeted Thursday. The three big banks, which have prominent consumer and investment banking operations, would likely be the hardest hit by Obama’s new regulations. Shares of each all declined more than 5 percent.

Meanwhile, bond prices dipped Friday morning. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note, which moves opposite its price, rose to 3.60 percent from 3.59 percent late Thursday.

The dollar was mixed against other major currencies, while gold prices declined.

Overseas, Japan’s Nikkei stock average fell 2.6 percent. Britain’s FTSE 100 declined 1.2 percent, Germany’s DAX index fell 1.1 percent, and France’s CAC-40 dropped 1 percent.

No president and no Congress can make the economy improve.  All either can do is allow the markets to have an opportunity to improve on their own by creating an atmosphere that is friendly to the small businesses that create jobs and drive the economy.

But neither Obama nor the Democrats in Congress are willing to do that.

Which is why we’re going to just keep limping along until they are gone.

Some ‘Change’: Closest Ally Britain Says Obama Undermining War In Afghanistan

November 24, 2009

We’re constantly told that the world loves us again now that Barack Obama is president.

Mind you, that “love” is utterly meaningless.  We’re not benefiting in any way from all the “love” we’re supposedly receiving.

We’re certainly not getting more support for the war on terror – oops, forgot Obama says we can’t use that term anymore – I mean the “overseas contingency operation” – from our adoring allies.

Take a look at the following table available from iCasualties.org/Operation Enduring Freedom as of November 24:

In addition to the fact that our casualties under Barack Obama will easily double from 2008 when George Bush was president, there is one more important feature: the fact that, other than the U.K. our allied troop support (see “other”) has actually DECREASED under the leadership of Barack Obama.

While they’ve given token lip service praise of Barack Obama’s “wonderfulness,” they have quietly been doing even LESS to help us in Afghanistan than they were under George Bush.

And the ONLY exception to that pathetic trend is the United Kingdom.

But listen to what the United Kingdom has to say about how Barack Obama is sabotaging and undermining the mission in Afghanistan:

Bob Ainsworth criticises Barack Obama over Afghanistan

Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, has blamed Barack Obama and the United States for the decline in British public support for the war in Afghanistan.

James Kirkup, Thomas Harding and Toby Harnden
Published: 9:00PM GMT 24 Nov 2009

Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban.

A “period of hiatus” in Washington – and a lack of clear direction – had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said.

Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defence chiefs echoing the concerns.

But Mr Ainsworth is the first Government minister to express in public what amounts to personal criticism of the US president’s leadership over the conflict which has so far cost 235 British lives.

Polls show most voters now want an early withdrawal, following the death of 98 British service personnel this year alone.

Ministers say the mission is vital to stop international terrorists using Afghanistan as a base, but Gordon Brown has promised an “exit strategy” that could start next year.

The Defence Secretary’s blunt remarks about the US threaten to strain further a transatlantic relationship already under pressure over the British release of the Lockerbie bomber and Mr Obama’s decision to snub Mr Brown at the United Nations in September.

Mr Ainsworth spoke out as the inquiry into the 2003 war in Iraq started in London, hearing evidence from British diplomats that the UK government concluded in 2001 that toppling Saddam Hussein by military action would be illegal.

Mr Obama has been considering advice from General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, to send more than 40,000 extra troops to the country.

Next week, after more than three months of deliberation, the president is expected to announce that he will send around 34,000 more troops.

Mr Ainsworth, speaking to MPs at the defence committee in the House of Commons, welcomed that troop ‘surge’ decision, but lamented the time taken to reach it.

He said that the rising British death toll, the corruption of the Afghan government and the delay in Washington all hamper efforts to retain public backing for the deployment.

“We have suffered a lot of losses,” he said. “We have had a period of hiatus while McChrystal’s plan and his requested uplift has been looked at in the detail to which it has been looked at over a period of some months, and we have had the Afghan elections, which have been far from perfect let us say.

“All of those things have mitigated against our ability to show progress… put that on the other side of the scales when we are suffering the kind of losses that we are.”

Britain has 9,000 troops in Afghanistan and has announced it will send another 500, a decision some US officials saw as a move to put pressure on Mr Obama.

Mr Ainsworth said he is confident that once Mr Obama confirms his new strategy, allies will follow and British public opinion will shift back in favour of the mission.

“I hope and believe that we are about to get an announcement from the USA on troop numbers and I think that that will be followed by contributions from many other Nato allies and so we will be able to show that we are going forward in this campaign to an extent that we have not been able to in recent months with those issues still hanging,” he said. […]

So you’ve got the documented record of Barack Hussein undermining the ONLY ally that has been worth butkus – or a butt kiss, for that matter – to the United States in Afghanistan.

The repeated acts of public humiliation of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the UK at the hands of Obama and his administration are detailed HERE.

And during the three month period that Obama has dithered – and that is the Brits’ term, in addition to our own Pentagon command, rather than Dick Cheney’s term, as the media keeps falsely reporting – the public support to remain in Afghanistan has dropped dramatically.

And there’s no reason to believe that the forfeited public support will come back.

Maybe Barack Obama is a dandy leader of the whole world – at least until the Antichrist shows up to take over for him – but he is in fact a lousy President of the United States, and an even worse commander-in-chief of the American forces in Afghanistan.