House passed the Health Bill

bionicarm

Active Member
WASHINGTON (AP) — Better beat the crowd and find a doctor.
Primary care physicians already are in short supply in parts of the country, and the landmark health overhaul that will bring them millions more newly insured patients in the next few years promises extra strain.
The new law goes beyond offering coverage to the uninsured, with steps to improve the quality of care for the average person and help keep us well instead of today's seek-care-after-you're-sick culture. To benefit, you'll need a regular health provider.
Yet recently published reports predict a shortfall of roughly 40,000 primary care doctors over the next decade, a field losing out to the better pay, better hours and higher profile of many other specialties. Provisions in the new law aim to start reversing that tide, from bonus payments for certain physicians to expanded community health centers that will pick up some of the slack.
A growing movement to change how primary care is practiced may do more to help with the influx. Instead of the traditional 10-minutes-with-the-doc-style office, a "medical home" would enhance access with a doctor-led team of nurses, physician assistants and disease educators working together; these teams could see more people while giving extra attention to those who need it most.
"A lot of things can be done in the team fashion where you don't need the patient to see the physician every three months," says Dr. Sam Jones of Fairfax Family Practice Centers, a large Virginia group of 10 primary care offices outside the nation's capital that is morphing into this medical home model.
"We think it's the right thing to do. We were going to do this regardless of what happens with health care reform," adds Jones. His office, in affiliation with Virginia Commonwealth University, also provides hands-on residency training to beginning doctors in this kind of care.
Only 30 percent of U.S. doctors practice primary care. The government says 65 million people live in areas designated as having a shortage of primary care physicians, places already in need of more than 16,600 additional providers to fill the gaps. Among other steps, the new law provides a 10 percent bonus from Medicare for primary care doctors serving in those areas.
Massachusetts offers a snapshot of how giving more people insurance naturally drives demand. The Massachusetts Medical Society last fall reported just over half of internists and 40 percent of family and general practitioners weren't accepting new patients, an increase in recent years as the state implemented nearly universal coverage.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Nationally, the big surge for primary care won't start until 2014, when the bulk of the 32 million uninsured starts coming online.
Sooner will come some catch-up demand, as group health plans and Medicare end co-payments for important preventive care measures such as colon cancer screenings or cholesterol checks. Even the insured increasingly put off such steps as the economy worsened, meaning doctors may see a blip in diagnoses as those people return, says Dr. Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.
That's one of the first steps in the new law's emphasis on wellness care over sickness care, with policies that encourage trying programs like the "patient-centered medical home" that Jones' practice is putting in place in suburban Virginia.
It's not easy to switch from the reactive — "George, it's your first visit to check your diabetes in two years!" — to the proactive approach of getting George in on time.
First Jones' practice adopted an electronic medical record, to keep patients' information up to date and help them coordinate necessary specialist visits while decreasing redundancies.
Then came a patient registry so the team can start tracking who needs what testing or follow-up and make sure patients get it on time.
Rolling out next is a custom Web-based service named My Preventive Care that lets the practice's patients link to their electronic medical record, answer some lifestyle and risk questions, and receive an individually tailored list of wellness steps to consider.
Say Don's cholesterol test, scheduled after his yearly checkup, came back borderline high. That new lab result will show up, with discussion of diet, exercise and medication options to lower it in light of his other risk factors. He might try some on his own, or call up the doctor — who also gets an electronic copy — for a more in-depth discussion.
"It prevents things from falling through the cracks," says Dr. Alex Krist, a Fairfax Family Practice physician and VCU associate professor who designed and tested the computer program with a $1.2 million federal grant. In a small study of test-users, preventive services such as cancer screenings and cholesterol checks increased between 3 percent and 12 percent.
Pilot tests of medical homes, through the American Academy of Family Physicians and Medicare, are under way around the country. Initial results suggest they can improve quality, but it's not clear if they save money.
Primary care can't do it alone. Broader changes are needed to decrease the financial incentives that spur too much specialist-driven care, says Dr. David Goodman of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.
"What we need is not just a medical home, but a medical neighborhood."
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3252143
The question I have about this is the definition of 'coverage'. What percentage of the cost does the business have to pick up for each employee? They are supposed to provide these insurance pools and exchanges that are affordable to both individuals and small businesses. So as a small business, if I only had to pay 1% of the cost per employee (so that would be $30/year per employee if I could get a $3,000/year policy), would that be sufficient for me to avoid the fine? I am technically 'covering' the employee by paying for 1% of the cost.
The government will create a standard you have to follow. Last I saw the employer had to pick up 65% of the premium.
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3252002
I like the idea of making everyone pay for their health insurance. ... I think it is purposely design to make things worse so they can push through a major socialized plan in a few years.
Ah, gotcha. (Sorry, wasn't editing your post for content, just for space...) I agree. Perhaps again, for different reasons, but agree nonetheless. I'd add to that: Why no Single Payer option?
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3252356
I'm neither a Democrat nor a Christian. May I lecture you?

Depends, are you going to make a good point or not? If you're simply gonna regurgitate the vomit that Obama says. Then I might get mad at you...
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3252416
Depends, are you going to make a good point or not? If you're simply gonna regurgitate the vomit that Obama says. Then I might get mad at you...
I think that may keep him awake nights, worrying about you being mad at him
 

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3251817
Fact is before the health care fiasco AT&T was able to provide prescription drug coverage to their retirees at a net cost of X. That cost just increaed by a billion. Where do they make it up, increase prices, not in this economy. Cut retiree benefits? Probably going to have to. Wasn't this bill supposed to make health care better?
They are projected to PROFIT $126 billion this year, in a horrible economy. You can't tell me it's cut benefits or go bankrupt...
 
V

vinnyraptor

Guest
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3252130
How dare you as a democrat lecture me on christianity. Until you live it out, shut up...
It is funny democrat kooks SCREAM separation of church and state. Then suddenly they in their uninformed unintelligible logic decide something they're doing is "christian." And suddenly there is no problem with the state doing the "churches" bidding.
your right how dare i. this is why i dont consider myself a Christian, because 99% of you are hypocrites. how can a Christian say i dont want to cover uninsured children because it will cost me more? most of you dont even know what it means to be a Christian, you think its going to church donating your 10% and obeying the law. it's not, it's about charity, humility, kindness, love, and giving.
i never said this was a "Christian" bill. i just find it funny how so many so-called Christians are against it and how so many so-called non-believers are for it. your party was using the abortion thing as an excuse not to vote for it. but when the President said he would write an executive order eliminating paid abortions your guys still wouldn't vote for it. your Christian party as they always do, used fear and lies to convince some of the people that this bill was bad. just like you did for the civil rights act and medicare. and just like you did for Bill Clinton's economic policy. your guys said it would bankrupt the country and not one republican voted for it. how did that turn out? the largest surplus in U.S. history thats how! people like you and your party are ALWAYS on the wrong side of whats right. before this bill we had the most privatized and expensive healthcare system in the world and we didnt even cover everybody. the insurance companies could deny coverage for just about any reason or raise your rates so high that you couldn't afford it anymore. thank God those days are over!!!
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Well it appears that at least one of the Socialist bank bailouts was beneficial --
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Treasury said on Monday it would sell the 7.7 billion Citigroup common shares it owns over the course of 2010 under a prearranged written trading plan.
The Treasury, which acquired a 27 percent stake in Citigroup during bailouts of the banking giant in 2008 and 2009, said it would sell the shares into the market "through various means in an orderly and measured fashion."
At today's prices, the Treasury would earn more than an $8 billion profit
on the sale, according to a Washington Post analysis.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3252454
I think that may keep him awake nights, worrying about you being mad at him

I love how based off of political views, someone is telling me what is and is not "christian." Not based on scripture. I find it ironic, because it seems to me, that government is trying to tell me what my interpretation of scripture is. Which is precidcely what the "no establishment of religion " was trying to prevent. Not this garbage separation of church and state as it is being interpreted today...
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/3252465
They are projected to PROFIT $126 billion this year, in a horrible economy. You can't tell me it's cut benefits or go bankrupt...
Cut benefits is exactly what they will do and what they should do if they agreed to provide a certain level under the old system. They have just as much a duty to look out for their shareholders as their former employees.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3252482
your right how dare i. this is why i dont consider myself a Christian, because 99% of you are hypocrites. how can a Christian say i dont want to cover uninsured children because it will cost me more? most of you dont even know what it means to be a Christian, you think its going to church donating your 10% and obeying the law. it's not, it's about charity, humility, kindness, love, and giving.
i never said this was a "Christian" bill. i just find it funny how so many so-called Christians are against it and how so many so-called non-believers are for it. your party was using the abortion thing as an excuse not to vote for it. but when the President said he would write an executive order eliminating paid abortions your guys still wouldn't vote for it. your Christian party as they always do, used fear and lies to convince some of the people that this bill was bad. just like you did for the civil rights act and medicare. and just like you did for Bill Clinton's economic policy. your guys said it would bankrupt the country and not one republican voted for it. how did that turn out? the largest surplus in U.S. history thats how! people like you and your party are ALWAYS on the wrong side of whats right. before this bill we had the most privatized and expensive healthcare system in the world and we didnt even cover everybody. the insurance companies could deny coverage for just about any reason or raise your rates so high that you couldn't afford it anymore. thank God those days are over!!!
Since when is Socialism considered a Christian value? Screwing up our health care system might be right to those who want a government ran system in this country but the rest of us would say you and your party are in the wrong side, again
 

reefraff

Active Member

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3252505
Well it appears that at least one of the Socialist bank bailouts was beneficial --
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Treasury said on Monday it would sell the 7.7 billion Citigroup common shares it owns over the course of 2010 under a prearranged written trading plan.
The Treasury, which acquired a 27 percent stake in Citigroup during bailouts of the banking giant in 2008 and 2009, said it would sell the shares into the market "through various means in an orderly and measured fashion."
At today's prices, the Treasury would earn more than an $8 billion profit
on the sale, according to a Washington Post analysis.
Yet they will still claim the right to mandate wage and salary controls over the bank once they sell the shares.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3252507
I love how based off of political views, someone is telling me what is and is not "christian." Not based on scripture. I find it ironic, because it seems to me, that government is trying to tell me what my interpretation of scripture is. Which is precidcely what the "no establishment of religion " was trying to prevent. Not this garbage separation of church and state as it is being interpreted today...
I like the f you are not for income redistribution and ineffective government programs you aren't a Christian idea. I render unto Caesar. The rest is mine to decide who is least among you.
 
Top