• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

60 doctor-owned hospitals canceled due to new health law

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – The new health care overhaul law – that promised increased access and efficiency in health care – will prevent doctor-owned hospitals from adding more rooms and more beds.

These hospitals are advertised as less bureaucratic and more focused on doctor-patient decision making. However, larger corporate hospitals say doctor-owned facilities discriminate in favor of high-income patients and refer business to themselves.

The new rules single out physician-owned hospitals, making new physician-owned projects ineligible to receive payments for Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Existing doctor-owned hospitals will be grandfathered in to get government funds for patients but must seek permission from the Department of Health and Human Services to expand.

The get the department’s permission, a doctor-owned hospital must be in a county where population growth is 150 percent of the population growth of the state in the last five years; impatient admissions must be equal to all hospitals located in the county; the bed occupancy rate must not be greater than the state average, and it must be located in a state where hospital bed capacity is less than the national average.

These rules are under Title VI, Section 6001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The provision is titled “Physician Ownership and Other Transparency – Limitations on Medicare Exceptions to the Prohibition on Certain Physician Referral for Hospitals.”

More than 60 doctor-owned hospitals across the country that were in the development stage will be canceled, said Molly Sandvig, executive director of Physician Hospitals of America (PHA).

“That’s a lot of access to communities that will be denied,” Sandvig told CNSNews.com. “The existing hospitals are greatly affected. They can’t grow. They can’t add beds. They can’t add rooms. Basically, it stifles their ability to change and meet market needs. This is really an unfortunate thing as well, because we are talking about some of the best hospitals in the country.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64034

What's this? Corporate Hospitals got the hook up from the people supposedly out to stop such?


HAHAHAHAHA
 
Last edited:
The only goal was to provide affordable health care to all citizens.
 
If that were the truth, then this would never have passed.

The debate is whether the bill does enough to control costs. I have yet to hear an intelligent, evidence based argument presented from either side that indicates how this bill will affect cost. All I hear is speculation and ideology.
 
If you read the bill, you will you would think otherwise.

Score 10 points for politicians duping the commoners again.

Since you seem to be claiming to have read the bill in its entirety, why don't you provide some specific examples of how it will fail to control costs?
 
Since you seem to be claiming to have read the bill in its entirety, why don't you provide some specific examples of how it will fail to control costs?

It's a mimic of MassCare which has raised premiums by a lot.

The CBO has already said that it would raise rates 10% with the additional mandates.
I don't think that includes regular medical inflation.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iVn9wrhB-3SF-Svo9kZyXd4bHRLAD9EG84VO0

JCT: Healthcare law to sock middle class with a $3.9 billion tax increase in 2019 - The Hill's On The Money

Senate Health-Care Bill Will Raise Insurance Costs - WSJ.com

In Depth: 10 Surprising Ways Health Reform Will Cost You - The Cadillac tax. - Forbes.com

Six Ways the Senate Health Care Bill Raises Health Care Costs, Kills Jobs, and Weakens the Economy | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.



Take your pick, there are many sources to help exclude bias.
 
Last edited:
The debate is whether the bill does enough to control costs. I have yet to hear an intelligent, evidence based argument presented from either side that indicates how this bill will affect cost. All I hear is speculation and ideology.

And yet you support the bill?
 
Since you seem to be claiming to have read the bill in its entirety, why don't you provide some specific examples of how it will fail to control costs?

It will increase demand for medical services, yes?
 


Do you have any sources that actually talk about the legislation that was passed? None of these sources seem to discuss the legislation that was actually passed, by which I mean the Senate Bill and the fixes that they approved later. They also refer to the CBO report of just the Senate Bill, not the CBO report that was released of the combined legislation.

If we are going to talk about whether or not Obama's health care will control costs, shouldn't we be talking about the legislation that we actually have?
 
I supported doing something that may have been a disaster over doing nothing that would have assuredly been a disaster.

There are more options than "doing nothing" and "possible disaster".
 
Do you have any sources that actually talk about the legislation that was passed? None of these sources seem to discuss the legislation that was actually passed, by which I mean the Senate Bill and the fixes that they approved later. They also refer to the CBO report of just the Senate Bill, not the CBO report that was released of the combined legislation.

If we are going to talk about whether or not Obama's health care will control costs, shouldn't we be talking about the legislation that we actually have?

The AP/fact check article specifically talks about it.

The report that was released was in reference to the Senate Reconciliation bill.
The one that was passed.

Some of the other articles break down to specific provisions that would increase costs.
 
It will increase demand for medical services, yes?

Not really. In fact, that is a nonsense argument. I can't believe that there were simple enough minded conservatives out there who actually believed that people without insurance coverage don't seek medical services. They always have; they just waited until they were sick enough that the government would foot the bill. As such, there really won't be much change in the actual demand.

People get sick regardless of whether they have insurance or not. So the demand for medical services will largely remain the same as it was before the legislation. The difference is where the demand will be placed on the system. Instead of it primarily being placed on emergency care, where it has been as a result of people without insurance waiting until they were sick enough that they had to get treatment, it will be placed on more standard care.
 
Last edited:
The AP/fact check article specifically talks about it.

The report that was released was in reference to the Senate Reconciliation bill.
The one that was passed.

Some of the other articles break down to specific provisions that would increase costs.

The AP fact check article could not. It was released on March 17th. The CBO report on the reconciliation package was released on March 18th.

The fact of the matter is that you are reading articles that don't detail that actual legislation that we have. They only refer to the Senate bill before the changes.
 
Not really. In fact, that is a nonsense argument. I can't believe that there were simple enough minded conservatives out there who actually believed that people without insurance coverage don't seek medical services. They always have; they just waited until they were sick enough that the government would foot the bill. As such, there really won't be much change in the actual demand.

People get sick regardless of whether they have insurance or not. So the demand for medical services will largely remain the same as it was before the legislation. The difference is where the demand will be placed on the system. Instead of it primarily being placed on emergency care, where it has been as a result of people without insurance waiting until they were sick enough that they had to get treatment, it will be placed on more standard care.

So, it won't increase access to medical care?
 
So, it won't increase access to medical care?

It will change when people get medical care, not whether or not they need it. No health care reform could have influenced the overall demand for medical services. The demand for standard care will increase while the demand for emergency care will decrease, but the overall demand for medical services will stay relatively the same.
 
The AP fact check article could not. It was released on March 17th. The CBO report on the reconciliation package was released on March 18th.

The fact of the matter is that you are reading articles that don't detail that actual legislation that we have. They only refer to the Senate bill before the changes.

The date of release makes no difference as long as the provisions are still the same.
The increased mandates for coverage were not removed from the bill which is why the cost increases are likely to incur, that doesn't count the increased in costs to young people.

This one shows that.
The Associated Press: Health premiums could rise 17 pct for young adults
 
It will change when people get medical care, not whether or not they need it. No health care reform could have influenced the overall demand for medical services. The demand for standard care will increase while the demand for emergency care will decrease, but the overall demand for medical services will stay relatively the same.

It actually can when talking about medicaid.

That programs has almost 0 out of pocket expenses and it has already been shown that the majority of people who visit the ER are medicare and medicaid patients.

They may seek care for trivial things that they didn't before.
 
It will change when people get medical care, not whether or not they need it. No health care reform could have influenced the overall demand for medical services. The demand for standard care will increase while the demand for emergency care will decrease, but the overall demand for medical services will stay relatively the same.

This is a very simplistic analysis. Not everyone who visits a physician really needs medical care. One of the problems with the current system is that people visit the doctor for trivial things too often. Now that people will have free access to medical care, this problem will become further exacerbated and demand for medical services will invariably rise, resulting in an increase in costs.

That's what happened under Romneycare, not sure why it would be different for Obamacare...
 
The date of release makes no difference as long as the provisions are still the same.
The increased mandates for coverage were not removed from the bill which is why the cost increases are likely to incur, that doesn't count the increased in costs to young people.

This one shows that.
The Associated Press: Health premiums could rise 17 pct for young adults

That article is arguing something completely different. It's saying that young people will have to pick up more of the burden from elderly under the new law. It's a redistribution of costs, not an overall increase in cost for everyone.
 
This is a very simplistic analysis. Not everyone who visits a physician really needs medical care. One of the problems with the current system is that people visit the doctor for trivial things too often. Now that people will have free access to medical care, this problem will become further exacerbated and demand for medical services will invariably rise, resulting in an increase in costs.

Your assumption is contingent upon the belief that people will use medical services they don't need just because they are there. Could you provide a source establishing with actual statistics that this has occurred before?

That's what happened under Romneycare, not sure why it would be different for Obamacare...

Source?
 
That article is arguing something completely different. It's saying that young people will have to pick up more of the burden from elderly under the new law. It's a redistribution of costs, not an overall increase in cost for everyone.

It is an increase in costs for someone, what happened to the rhetoric of "your premiums will decrease?"

What about the fact that young people have less income and resources than older people, how does it make sense to raise costs on them?

It seems to me you're grasping at a justification for the existence of the bill that passed.
 
It actually can when talking about medicaid.

That programs has almost 0 out of pocket expenses and it has already been shown that the majority of people who visit the ER are medicare and medicaid patients.

They may seek care for trivial things that they didn't before.

I hear this argument often, but people don't provide any real evidence to support it. Do you base your belief on this viewpoint through actual evidence or simply what you have been told?
 
The only goal was to provide affordable health care to all citizens.

Oh come now this has nothing what ever to do with making anything better it's about destroying the economy.

Had it been about health care it would have addressed the issues that needed to be fixed.

Doctors said they didn't want this, The only Doctors that were in favor of it were the White House Janitors in white lab coats at phony photo op.
 
Back
Top Bottom