Thread: Thanks, Obamacare: Doctor Shortages, Jobs Destroyed, Coverage Dropped

posted on July 31, 2012
Thanks, Obamacare: Doctor Shortages, Jobs Destroyed, Coverage Dropped
Filed under Government, National Healthcare, ObamaCare
3

obamaThe Supreme Court’s decision last month to uphold the Obamacare mandate tax did not vindicate the propriety or efficacy of the law itself, a point Chief Justice Roberts explicitly statedin his ruling. “It is not [The Court's] job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” he wrote. As we learn more about Obamacare’s practical consequences, the urgent need for repeal becomes increasingly apparent. Consider the following news items from the past week alone:

(1) “Doctor Shortage Likely to Worsen with Health Law”:

The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that in 2015 the country will have 62,900 fewer doctors than needed. And that number will more than double by 2025, as the expansion of insurance coverage and the aging of baby boomers drive up demand for care. Even without the health care law, the shortfall of doctors in 2025 would still exceed 100,000. Health experts, including many who support the law, say there is little that the government or the medical profession will be able to do to close the gap by 2014, when the law begins extending coverage to about 30 million Americans. It typically takes a decade to train a doctor.

“We have a shortage of every kind of doctor, except for plastic surgeons and dermatologists,” said Dr. G. Richard Olds, the dean of the new medical school at the University of California, Riverside, founded in part to address the region’s doctor shortage. “We’ll have a 5,000-physician shortage in 10 years, no matter what anybody does.” Experts describe a doctor shortage as an “invisible problem.” Patients still get care, but the process is often slow and difficult. In Riverside, it has left residents driving long distances to doctors, languishing on waiting lists, overusing emergency rooms and even forgoing care. “It results in delayed care and higher levels of acuity,” said Dustin Corcoran, the chief executive of the California Medical Association, which represents 35,000 physicians. People “access the health care system through the emergency department, rather than establishing a relationship with a primary care physician who might keep them from getting sicker.”

The article goes on to mention the draining pool of doctors who are accepting new Medicaid patients, which will throw up another obstacle to care for indigent Americans — especially after the entitlement program undergoes a massive, Obamacare-mandated expansion. As opponents of the law repeatedly warned, access to health coverage does not equal access to health care. In Canada and other countries with socialized medicine, everyone is “covered,” but doctors are scarce, innovation is curtailed and treatment is limited. This can lead to long waiting periods, government rationing, perverse doctor lotteries and denied care. Furthermore, Democrats chose to exclude meaningful tort reform from their 2,700 page bill, further hanging physicians out to dry. This is why older doctors are quickly shuffling towards retirement, and many promising young students eschew medical school in favor of other careers. Obamacare takes our demographic struggles on this front and makes them even more acute, much sooner.

(2) “One in 10 Employers Plans to Drop Health Benefits, Study Finds:”

About one in 10 employers plans to end workers’ health insurance as the new healthcare law takes effect, according to a new study. The finding could bolster opponents of the law, who argue that its changes to the healthcare system will force workers out of insurance plans they like. Supporters of the law say most people will keep their current coverage. Surveying 560 U.S. companies, consulting firm Deloitte found that 9 percent of employers are planning to drop employee health benefits within three years. Eighty-one percent said they would continue covering employees, and 10 percent said they were not sure.

Is your employer among the 19 percent that are either planning to drop coverage, or are still considering it? Let’s also recall the president’s verbatim promise during the healthcare debate: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

Post Continues on townhall.com
Thanks, Obamacare: Doctor Shortages, Jobs Destroyed, Coverage Dropped - Guy Benson

Here it is I brought it over..

Thanks, Obamacare: Doctor Shortages, Jobs Destroyed, Coverage Dropped

Guy Benson
Guy Benson
Political Editor, Townhall.com

Jul 30, 2012 05:26 PM EST

The Supreme Court's decision last month to uphold the Obamacare mandate tax did not vindicate the propriety or efficacy of the law itself, a point Chief Justice Roberts explicitly stated in his ruling. "It is not [The Court's] job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” he wrote. As we learn more about Obamacare's practical consequences, the urgent need for repeal becomes increasingly apparent. Consider the following news items from the past week alone:


(1) "Doctor Shortage Likely to Worsen with Health Law":


The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that in 2015 the country will have 62,900 fewer doctors than needed. And that number will more than double by 2025, as the expansion of insurance coverage and the aging of baby boomers drive up demand for care. Even without the health care law, the shortfall of doctors in 2025 would still exceed 100,000. Health experts, including many who support the law, say there is little that the government or the medical profession will be able to do to close the gap by 2014, when the law begins extending coverage to about 30 million Americans. It typically takes a decade to train a doctor.

“We have a shortage of every kind of doctor, except for plastic surgeons and dermatologists,” said Dr. G. Richard Olds, the dean of the new medical school at the University of California, Riverside, founded in part to address the region’s doctor shortage. “We’ll have a 5,000-physician shortage in 10 years, no matter what anybody does.” Experts describe a doctor shortage as an “invisible problem.” Patients still get care, but the process is often slow and difficult. In Riverside, it has left residents driving long distances to doctors, languishing on waiting lists, overusing emergency rooms and even forgoing care. “It results in delayed care and higher levels of acuity,” said Dustin Corcoran, the chief executive of the California Medical Association, which represents 35,000 physicians. People “access the health care system through the emergency department, rather than establishing a relationship with a primary care physician who might keep them from getting sicker.”


The article goes on to mention the draining pool of doctors who are accepting new Medicaid patients, which will throw up another obstacle to care for indigent Americans -- especially after the entitlement program undergoes a massive, Obamacare-mandated expansion. As opponents of the law repeatedly warned, access to health coverage does not equal access to health care. In Canada and other countries with socialized medicine, everyone is "covered," but doctors are scarce, innovation is curtailed and treatment is limited. This can lead to long waiting periods, government rationing, perverse doctor lotteries and denied care. Furthermore, Democrats chose to exclude meaningful tort reform from their 2,700 page bill, further hanging physicians out to dry. This is why older doctors are quickly shuffling towards retirement, and many promising young students eschew medical school in favor of other careers. Obamacare takes our demographic struggles on this front and makes them even more acute, much sooner.


(2) "One in 10 Employers Plans to Drop Health Benefits, Study Finds:"


About one in 10 employers plans to end workers' health insurance as the new healthcare law takes effect, according to a new study. The finding could bolster opponents of the law, who argue that its changes to the healthcare system will force workers out of insurance plans they like. Supporters of the law say most people will keep their current coverage. Surveying 560 U.S. companies, consulting firm Deloitte found that 9 percent of employers are planning to drop employee health benefits within three years. Eighty-one percent said they would continue covering employees, and 10 percent said they were not sure.


Is your employer among the 19 percent that are either planning to drop coverage, or are still considering it? Let's also recall the president's verbatim promise during the healthcare debate: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”


(3) "CBO - Obamacare to Cost $1.93 Trillion, Leave 30 Million Uninsured:"


The latest CBO scoring of Obamacare, in the wake of the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding the overhaul's individual mandate as an allowable (although seemingly unprecedented) tax on inactivity, shows that President Obama's centerpiece legislation would cost about $2 trillion over its real first decade (2014 through 2023). The CBO also says that — despite its colossal cost and its unprecedented expansion of power and control over Americans' lives — Obamacare would, as of a decade from now, leave 30 million people uninsured. At the time of Obamacare's passage, Democrats touted the fact that the CBO had then said that the gross cost of Obamacare's insurance coverage provisions would be "only" $938 billion.

Moreover, the CBO and/or the Medicare chief actuary have previously said that Obamacare would raise health insurance premiums, would raise overall U.S. health costs, would raise taxes on Americans and on American businesses, and would siphon something approaching $1 trillion (from 2014 through 2023) out of Medicare. In the process (according to the Medicare chief actuary), Obamacare would reduce reimbursement rates for Medicare providers to the point where they'd be lower even than the notoriously low reimbursement rates paid to Medicaid providers — therefore jeopardizing seniors' access to care. Oh, and Obamacare would also establish the unelected and largely unaccountable 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to institute further Medicare cuts.


(4) "Surprise: Obamacare Medical Device Tax Killing Jobs in the Industry:"


“None of this was allocated three years ago when we created a strategic plan to become profitable,” CEO Mike Minogue told the House Committee on Small Business last week. Minogue testified the amount Abiomed will pay for the excise tax is the equivalent of 15 percent of the company’s research and development budget, 10 percent of its employee head count, or almost double what it spends on health care for hundreds of employees. “This tax will affect jobs. It will mix health care reform with tax policy and it will be extra detrimental to companies that are not yet profitable and need every dollar to survive,” he said. Minogue also cited logistical concerns. The exact regulation, still not finalized, goes into effect Jan. 1 2013, and Abiomed’s books have to be closed and audited by March. According to the medical-device industry’s national association, the field employs more than 400,000 Americans, and 70 percent of medical device companies are small businesses.


This is merely one small component of a larger picture, which led the CBO to conclude that Obamacare will cost the US economy 800,000 jobs. The latest NYT/CBS poll shows public approval of Obamacare underwater by a 36/50 margin. Rasmussen's new numbers reflect an enduring majority in favor of legislative repeal. The vast majority of national Democrats continue to support the even-less-popular Obamacare mandate tax, in lockstep with the president. The only way to rid the country of this costly governmental intrusion and its related repercussions is to defeat those who back the law and replace them with public servants who do not.




Thanks, Obamacare: Doctor Shortages, Jobs Destroyed, Coverage Dropped

Almost one in ten employers to drop health insurance coverage under Obamacare

Tuesday, July 31, 2012 by: J. D. Heyes

141
[Share this Article]
(NaturalNews) One of the elements of Obamacare critics have been most vocal about is the so-called government-sponsored "insurance pools" the law creates. Now that it's largely been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, these pools will soon become a reality.

So what? That's the basis of the law, to provide insurance for everyone, correct?

Yes, but not necessarily the type of insurance you want. Or that you have now, say, through your employer.

One of the law's selling points uttered by everyone in the administration paid to defend it, especially the president himself, promised Americans they could keep their current health insurance.

In his Weekly Address on August 15, 2009, Obama said of his health care proposal, "First, no matter what you've heard, if you like your doctor or healthcare plan, you can keep it."

That was then. By July 2012, the administration was singing a different tune, admitting that, "as a practical matter, a majority of group health plans will lose their grandfather status by 2013."

That includes, of course, that employer plan you love so much.

Wait - Weren't you supposed to be able to keep employer insurance?

The Federal Register, dated Thursday, June 17, 2010, notes that the "mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013."

Essentially, the administration put employer health plans in a box. As the Heritage Foundation explains, if employers "make changes to their plans to control increasing costs, they will lose their grandfathered status. Alternatively, if they keep grandfathered status by not making changes, their plans will eventually become unaffordable, forcing them to give them up. Either way, their employees will eventually lose their current coverage."

That is, in fact, already happening.

According to consulting company Deloitte, one in ten employers have said they will drop health coverage when key elements of the high court-upheld law take effect in fewer than two years.

In a report by The Wall Street Journal, nine percent of companies expect to drop coverage within one to three years. 10 percent weren't sure. And while 81 percent said they would continue to offer health insurance benefits, remember that many companies a) may still be planning on a repeal of the law if enough Obamacare critics are elected to Congress; and b) have yet to see the exact costs of offering that coverage (remember Nancy Pelosi's now infamous line: "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it.").

According to Deloitte, one in three employers said they could stop offering coverage if the law requires them to provide more generous benefits than they already do, if taxes on high-cost plans kick in around 2018, as they are currently scheduled to do, or if they decide it would be cheaper for them to pay the penalty (or is it a tax?) for not providing health insurance.

Small businesses won't be fined, but those with 50 or more employees will have to pay $2,000 for each one if they don't provide them with coverage.

The bottom line is this: Obamacare, by its very design, aims to diminish private-sector health coverage so as to channel you into a government-run system.

Gaggle of 'penalties,' taxes

Overall, health care costs, even the most optimistic analysts note, are not likely to decrease much because of the so-called Affordable Care Act. Many, in fact, expect costs to continue to rise. And while the government's portion may fall, yours won't.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office's calculations found:

-- The "penalty payments by uninsured individuals" (which Chief Justice John Roberts called a "tax") will cost citizens $55 billion a year

-- The "additional hospital insurance tax" is the largest increase - $318 billion annually

-- Another $216 billion from something called the "associated effects of coverage provisions on tax revenues"

-- A "reinsurance and risk adjustment collections" provision brings in another $184 billion

-- Fees on certain manufacturers and insurers generates another $165 billion

-- A tax on high-excise insurance plans reaps an additional $111 billion

All told, this one law confiscates a trillion dollars from the private sector, to feed the Leviathan and implement one more step in the "cradle-to-grave" approach of controlling your - and your kids' - lives.

Sources:

Washington Times - Politics, Breaking News, US and World News

Text: Obama's AMA Speech On Health Care - CBS News

Obama You can keep your doctor - YouTube

The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

Learn more: Almost one in ten employers to drop health insurance coverage under Obamacare

Obamacare’s Total Decade Cost Now Stands At An Eye-Watering $1.856 TRILLION


By Clash Daily / 31 July 2012 / 0 Comments

New report by CBO on Obamacare is analyzed by Avic Roy a Forbes contributor. He does an amazing job comparing the prior CBO’s revised reports and also looks at the SCOTUS’ ruling and its impact on new estimates.

In 2010, the CBO estimated that Obamacare’s spending on new programs would amount to $929 billion from 2013-2019, and a ten-year cost of $944 billion. Those figures increased to $956 billion and $1,442 billion respectively in 2011, and $1,053 billion and $1,856 billion in 2012.

By “spending on new programs” I mean all the spending in Obamacare on new programs, principally the cost of expanding coverage via Medicaid and the new exchanges. These figures don’t include the cuts to Medicare, which I will discuss later.

What’s remarkable is that this increased spending comes despite the fact that the CBO estimated that state cutbacks in the Medicaid program, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, would reduce government spending by $84 billion from 2012-2022.

Read more at forbes.com
CBO: Obamacare Will Spend More, Tax More, and Reduce the Deficit Less Than We Previously Thought - Forbes

here is the forbes report

CBO: Obamacare Will Spend More, Tax More, and Reduce the Deficit Less Than We



WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 13: Congressional ...

WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 13: Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf testifies during a hearing before the Joint Deficit Reduction Committee, also known as the supercommittee, September 13, 2011 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office released its revised estimates of what Obamacare will cost, now that the Supreme Court has weighed in. As I read the report, it occurred to me to ask: how have the CBO’s estimates changed over time? It turns out that, even when you compare the years that are common to each CBO report, a clear trend emerges. Today, the CBO believes that Obamacare will spend more money, raise more tax revenue, and reduce the deficit less than the agency thought in 2010. And things could get worse.

Be warned: this article contains a lot of numbers. If your eyes glaze over reading numbers (as mine do), focus on the charts. The charts tell the story of how the CBO’s estimates have changed over time.

Introduction

For the purposes of this analysis, I looked at three sets of CBO projections: (1) the March 20, 2010 report that was published hours before the final Obamacare vote in Congress; (2) the February 18, 2011 report estimating the deficit impact of repealing Obamacare; and (3) the July 24, 2012 report estimating the deficit impact of repealing Obamacare after the Supreme Court ruling.

The first report looked at the fiscal impact of the law from 2010-2019; the second from 2012-2021; and the third from 2013-2022.

Hence, there are two ways to compare the three reports: first, an apples-to-apples comparison of the seven years (2013-2019) common to the three reports; second, by comparing the total ten-year cost of the law reported in each case, to show how the law’s costs increase over time.

There are small technical differences between the first report and the next two, because repealing Obamacare is different from passing it. But these three reports are the ones that go into Obamacare’s fiscal impact at the level of detail I needed to conduct this analysis.

Spending projections for 2013-2019 have increased by $124 billion

In 2010, the CBO estimated that Obamacare’s spending on new programs would amount to $929 billion from 2013-2019, and a ten-year cost of $944 billion. Those figures increased to $956 billion and $1,442 billion respectively in 2011, and $1,053 billion and $1,856 billion in 2012.

By “spending on new programs” I mean all the spending in Obamacare on new programs, principally the cost of expanding coverage via Medicaid and the new exchanges. These figures don’t include the cuts to Medicare, which I will discuss later.

What’s remarkable is that this increased spending comes despite the fact that the CBO estimated that state cutbacks in the Medicaid program, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, would reduce government spending by $84 billion from 2012-2022.

In 2010, the CBO estimated that Obamacare’s tax increases would amount to $626 billion from 2013-2019, and $631 billion over ten years. In 2011, the CBO estimated totals of $624 and $968 billion, respectively.

In the most recent report, the CBO projected a 2013-2019 total of $672 billion, and a ten-year total of $1,221 billion.



Revenue projections for 2013-2019 have increased by $46 billion

Note that these totals exclude the impact of the exchange subsidies, which are tax credits and therefore get scored by the CBO as “reducing taxes” even though they functionally are spending measures. The revenue increases in the law include revenues from the individual mandate; the employer mandate; taxes on insurers, drugmakers, and medical device manufacturers; and, most importantly of all, the “Cadillac tax” on high-value insurance plans. As you will see in a later chart, the “Cadillac tax” is the most important component of the law’s taxation features, without which Obamacare would not achieve anything close to deficit neutrality.



Medicare cuts for 2013-2019 have decreased by $59 billion, but ten-year cuts now total $743 billion

One of the interesting aspects of this analysis is what happens to the law’s changes to Medicare. As you may know, the law as passed used $454 billion in cuts to Medicare and Disproportionate Share Hospital payments to fund the law’s expansion of insurance coverage. But those cuts were measured from 2010-2019; the most recent report, measuring cuts from 2013-2022, totals $743 billion in reduced Medicare and DSH spending relative to prior law.

However, in the 2013-2019 period, the CBO now projects that the law will cut Medicare by $384 billion, compared to $443 over the same period in the CBO’s original 2010 estimates. This is because the Obama administration has postponed the law’s mandated cuts to Medicare Advantage, and also because Congress has instituted “doc fixes” that have kept Medicare spending higher than what is specified in current law. These procrastinations mean that future Medicare cuts are more draconian than the ones previously projected.



Deficit reduction for 2013-2019 has decreased from $140 to $4 billion

These three features of the law—the increased spending, the increased taxation, and the smaller near-term Medicare cuts—combine to eliminate nearly all of the projected “deficit reduction” in Obamacare from 2013-2019. In 2010, the CBO projected that Obamacare would reduce the deficit by $140 billion from 2013 to 2019. That has dropped to a measly $4 billion in its most recent report.

The ten-year totals have gone from $143 billion in 2010 to $210 billion in 2011 and $109 billion in 2012.



The “Cadillac tax” is the linchpin of Obamacare’s deficit-reducing credentials

The key to understanding the long-term deficit impact of Obamacare, from the CBO’s point of view, is to understand the “Cadillac tax.” As a reminder, the Obamacare “Cadillac tax” imposes a 40% excise tax on the relevant premiums charged by any insurer that, beginning in 2018, offers a health insurance policy whose value is in excess of $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage.

Because the CBO assumes that the cost of health premiums will continue to rise at a much faster rate than inflation, the Cadillac tax affects more and more individuals over time. The long-term deficit neutrality of Obamacare hinges on this trend continuing for a long time. As you can see in the below chart, removing the Cadillac tax from Obamacare wipes out the CBO’s estimates of the law’s impact on the deficit.



This is important, because a key feature of Republican plans to replace Obamacare is to adopt a fiscally similar provision to the Cadillac tax: a standard deduction or universal tax credit for purchasing private health insurance. Hence, insofar as supporters of Obamacare claim that repealing the law would increase the deficit, pairing repeal with a standalone reform of the employer tax exclusion for health insurance is a simple solution.

What will the CBO say next year?

Here’s what we don’t know: how will the CBO’s estimates change next year? Will we see a continuation of the trend toward higher spending, higher taxes, and more deficit spending? We might. And that is exactly what the law’s skeptics have feared all along.

Follow Avik on Twitter at @aviksaroy.




Obamacare’s Total Decade Cost Now Stands At An Eye-Watering $1.856 TRILLION

Before these idiots in government kill the rest of us with their half-baked plans and ill conceived notions for providing and managing health care, we should get a team of bona fide actuaries to point out the cost drivers in insurance. We should be focusing on catastrophic insurance. Right now we are trying to cover every stub toe, sniffle, visit to the doctor for a slight fever, hang nail etc. This is not affordable, because we are nickel and diming ourselves into bankruptcy. Why are we even discussing birth control and abortion coverage? If you cannot afford birth control, you cannot afford to have sex. If you cannot afford your own abortion, you not only cannot afford to have sex you cannot afford to raise the child if you do not have the abortion. But why should anyone else be required to subsidize your sex life? Instead of rationing boards (death panels) established after the fact, we need a single rationing board up front that limits the care the government insurance will cover to catastrophic illnesses and injuries. Individuals need to find a way cover the other stuff on their own.

In addition to all the above stated issues, it seems that since most doctors have by now converted to "electronic" medical records, they can only have a certain number of patients. Tried to get my doctor to see my 19 year old yesterday and she's not taking any new patients until the first of next year, if then.
There are tons of new doctors and dentists coming into my county - all foreigners who don't speak good english. Call me old fashioned, but I want my doctor to understand what I'm telling him/her and I want to be able to understand what he/she is saying back to me. I'll be danged if I'm gonna strain what little brain I have left trying to figure out what somebody is saying in their thick foreign accent.
Anyway, I wound up taking him to an Urgent Care place where they were rude, unprofessional, didn't seem to know their butts from a hole in the ground, but were somehow qualified to write the antibiotic prescription for the obvious sinus and throat infection my son has. That's what we got for $98 bucks.