REMEMBER THE LEFT'S MANTRA: WE NEED HEALTHCARE REFORM SO THE UNINSURED DON'T OVERWHELM THE ER

You want to ignore/deny the hospital administrators that expressed alarm over the dramatic increased ER visits....go ahead.....be an idiot.
A hospital administrator. As in one. Which is the number of extra patients per 8 hours. There's an idiot here all right

The administrators know what is going on. More people in the ER means higher costs for the hospitals and their taxpayers. Something else is going right by you. The increased patient load has insurance. Remember? That was your main point. A higher percentage of hospital er patients pay their bill because they have insurance. It also means less resources allocated to those who need ER (and other) hospital services. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The numbers in your link were 100 extra a month or 1 every 8 hour shift. 1 extra person per 8 hours. Dramatic increase? Not even.

and who pays for these extra patients going to the ER... many of which I assume are newly minted Medicaid patients?.... oh yeah, the taxpayer..... and add to the fact, that since they have medicaid, they can schedule with a normal doctor, except for the fact, as usual, leeches on the system tend to not give a fuck if they cost other people money..... Originally Posted by Pharmaguy729

You assume all right. And forget everyone over 65 gets taxpayer money. This article was supposed to back the claim all these new people on Obamacare (1 extra a shift) are increasing the number of patients. Insured patients are paying patients. The added costs to tax payers you are bitching about are paid whether the health insurance is used or not.

Most of those new private health insurance policies are subsidized with taxpayer money too.

Around me the number of minor emergency centers is staggering. Literally 5 in a one mile stretch of highway. A doc told me it was to take up patient overflow from the local public hospital. Originally Posted by gnadfly

5 minor emergency centers to take up the patient flow? Right.

If a situation involving a hospital that needed 5 mecs exists, why did the article go with one that only added 1 patient per shift?
What highway? Which section? Which local public hospital?
I think the doc you talked to, your shrink, said whatever he had to keep you from blowing up. He only gets Medicaid pay for you.

You ignore the facts.............Not just 1 hospital, but all across the country !

Doctors and hospitals are reporting an increase in the number of emergency room visits since Obamacare took effect in January.

Nearly half of American ER doctors responding to a recent poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians said they’ve seen more patients in their emergency rooms since Jan. 1, and nearly 90 percent expect those visits to rise in the next three years.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/09/re...#ixzz34Edpkk5J

But don't believe me; here is same reporting from the NY Times in black and white:

Supporters of President Obama’s health care law had predicted that expanding insurance coverage for the poor would reduce costly emergency room visits because people would go to primary care doctors instead. But a rigorous new experiment in Oregon has raised questions about that assumption, finding that newly insured people actually went to the emergency room a good deal more often.

The study, published in the journal Science, compared thousands of low-income people in the Portland area who were randomly selected in a 2008 lottery to get Medicaid coverage with people who entered the lottery but remained uninsured. Those who gained coverage made 40 percent more visits to the emergency room than their uninsured counterparts during their first 18 months with insurance.

The pattern was so strong that it held true across most demographic groups, times of day and types of visits, including those for conditions that were treatable in primary care settings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/he...ests.html?_r=0

Munchmaster....medicaid patients do not pay in anything. They take. Before, hospitals would be forced to see indigent care and write it off. I dont begrudge over 65 people because they actually contributed before they turned 65.and i assume by observable conditions having worked around the healthcare industry for a decade.

Lol gnadfly....thanks for the assist in calling out the hypocritical lying sack of excrement that is ysssup.... Originally Posted by Pharmaguy729

Pharma. That is rude and uncalled for. I think you need to apologize . . . To lying sacks of excrement . . . for comparing them to AssupRidee, DEM, DOTY 2013-2014.

And sorry...i looked back..you werent subsidized. ..you took a tax credit instead of the subsidy Originally Posted by Pharmaguy729

Pharma, in lib circles a tax credit is considered a subsidy.

Munchmaster....medicaid patients do not pay in anything. They take. Before, hospitals would be forced to see indigent care and write it off. I dont begrudge over 65 people because they actually contributed before they turned 65.and i assume by observable conditions having worked around the healthcare industry for a decade. Originally Posted by Pharmaguy729

The point I was trying to make is adding all the people to the now-health-insured people is that now these are paying patients. Before, indigents could only go to the county hospital. They wouldn't be able to pay and the county wrote it off. Now though, these are paying patients. The county er is less crowded and they'll write fewer people's treatment off. That means less cost for taxpayers. They have stopped going to just the county hospital. They are going to other hospitals which is going to increase the patient load. The people used to go to the er all the time. It's understandable they would continue to do that at first. The article said "dramatic" increase. The hospital they used as an example said they had to convert a room to a treatment room. The increase they quote is 1 patient extra per shift. They didn't remodel for 1 extra patient per shift. The need to remodel was there before ACA kicked in.
If the 100 extra patients per month was uncommonly low, the article wouldn't have used it. They either are lazy or they used a very small sampling. Regardless, the descriptive words used are the author's choice. As is the lack of hard numbers for a real comparison.
As far as the cost for taxpayers for the whole program, of course it's going to cost more money. That was known going in. The real numbers won't be clear for a while.

5 minor emergency centers to take up the patient flow? Right.

If a situation involving a hospital that needed 5 mecs exists, why did the article go with one that only added 1 patient per shift?
What highway? Which section? Which local public hospital?
I think the doc you talked to, your shrink, said whatever he had to keep you from blowing up. He only gets Medicaid pay for you. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Yep. The Doc is an orthopedist, takes medicare, does surgery at the local hospital that the 5 mecs are taking business away from. I am not his patient. Two are of the 5 biggers meds are literally 100 yards apart on the highway. Another two are literally across the street.