Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One more week ... so what's your guess? 6 million signups .... I'd say closer to 6.5 million. But, it matters not, everybody knows the ACA is marching on.
Do you have any info on who makes up that 6 million? Do you know what percentage of enrollees haven't paid their premiums?
Do you have any info on who makes up that 6 million? Do you know what percentage of enrollees haven't paid their premiums?
Plus, last Sunday was the 4th anniversary of the signing of the ACA... as far as the specifics of signups, they, as always, will be released when the reports are generated.
Plus, last Sunday was the 4th anniversary of the signing of the ACA... as far as the specifics of signups, they, as always, will be released when the reports are generated.
One more week ... so what's your guess? 6 million signups .... I'd say closer to 6.5 million. But, it matters not, everybody knows the ACA is marching on.
The administration predicted 7 million sign ups. But here is the real kicker. They predicted 6 million of 7 million would be "new" sign ups. And the rest would get insurance outside of the exchanges since the exchanges is where you must get it in order to have subsides.
So far estimates are showing only 25% of the 5-6 million who signed up DID NOT previously have insurance. Which means most people already had insurance and just used the exchanges and very few "new" signups from the ranks of the uninsured.
It's still a 80% ratio of free Medicaid as a percentage of new sign ups who didn't have insurance. The administration expected a 50/50 ratio.
That's all on the ACA if they force the rural hospitals to close down. The Dems wrote the poison pill to try to "coerce" states into the medicaid expansion.
The states that have opted out at within their constitutional rights to do so. So don't go around blaming states and their governor by "upholding the law of the land."
Blame the Democratic party especially Obama. He can make another one of his "executive orders" since he's so above the ACA law anyways by "exempting" these rural hospital so they can continue to receive funding.
Am I right or not that Obama can make an executive order? And am I right to say the Dems wrote this poison into the law to force states to accept medicaid expansion?
How are rural hospitals losing money based on funding. How did their funding change based on the ACA?
As long as the uninsured keep coming into the ER and the hospital cant recoup the full cost of giving medical services to the uninsured, rural hospitals will keep closing down due to loses they take on the uninsured. Tell me, what has a better reimbursement rate, medicaid (doesnt cover all the costs but at least some) or no reimbursement period (no costs reimbursed).
Its the republican governors political grand standing against a law that would benefit their poor constituents, that will cause your rural hospitals. Either way, if they continue to block medicaid expansion or the ACA never came law of the land, rural hospitals were in trouble to begin with. At least with the ACA, they had a chance. Not any more, and real people will suffer because of political grand standing.
How are rural hospitals losing money based on funding. How did their funding change based on the ACA?
As long as the uninsured keep coming into the ER and the hospital cant recoup the full cost of giving medical services to the uninsured, rural hospitals will keep closing down due to loses they take on the uninsured. Tell me, what has a better reimbursement rate, medicaid (doesnt cover all the costs but at least some) or no reimbursement period (no costs reimbursed).
Its the republican governors political grand standing against a law that would benefit their poor constituents, that will cause your rural hospitals. Either way, if they continue to block medicaid expansion or the ACA never came law of the land, rural hospitals were in trouble to begin with. At least with the ACA, they had a chance. Not any more, and real people will suffer because of political grand standing.
I think I already said that our local rural hospital plans to gain since AZ surprisingly passed recent Medicaid expansion. In fact the hospitals had a lot to do with making sure it passed.
I think I already said that our local rural hospital plans to gain since AZ surprisingly passed recent Medicaid expansion. In fact the hospitals had a lot to do with making sure it passed.
I will first say off that part of the problem with our healthcare crisis is the exorbitant pricing that many hospitals can come up with out justification for their prices.
However, many small rural hospitals, or even large inner city public hospitals will benefit in that they will at least be able to recoup some of the costs that they get hit with due to the uninsured. And for many, these facilities are a lifeline, so I am glad to see that at least half of the states in the US are expanding medicaid
How are rural hospitals losing money based on funding. How did their funding change based on the ACA?
As long as the uninsured keep coming into the ER and the hospital cant recoup the full cost of giving medical services to the uninsured, rural hospitals will keep closing down due to loses they take on the uninsured. Tell me, what has a better reimbursement rate, medicaid (doesnt cover all the costs but at least some) or no reimbursement period (no costs reimbursed).
Its the republican governors political grand standing against a law that would benefit their poor constituents, that will cause your rural hospitals. Either way, if they continue to block medicaid expansion or the ACA never came law of the land, rural hospitals were in trouble to begin with. At least with the ACA, they had a chance. Not any more, and real people will suffer because of political grand standing.
Like I said before it's a poison pill that Democratic lawmakers put into the ACA to coerce States to accept medicaid expansion. What part of the Supreme Court Decision do you not understand. We have States Rights vs. Federal Rights.
While the Supreme Court said coercing States to expand Medicaid was unconstitutional since it involves both Federal/State money. The main parts of the ACA still stood. Which means States that opt out of medicaid expansion would lose federal funding for indigent especially rural healthcare for the uninsured. Pre-ACA many rural hospitals would get reimbursed for uninsured care.
Because of the poison pill, Obama and the Democrats are punishing States that opt out by not continuing this federal funding for mainly rural hospital. Many of their patients are poor.
Kinda of ironic, isn't it? I thought Republicans (according to the Democratic party) were the party of hate and not caring for the poor.
In this case, the Democratic Party and your Dear Leader (Obama) are doing the poor a disservice by withholding federal funding from rural hospitals. Obama can easily make an executive decision with regards to this and continue federal funding. He's sticking to his goal of protecting his own legacy and the poor are suffering by of this.
I will first say off that part of the problem with our healthcare crisis is the exorbitant pricing that many hospitals can come up with out justification for their prices.
However, many small rural hospitals, or even large inner city public hospitals will benefit in that they will at least be able to recoup some of the costs that they get hit with due to the uninsured. And for many, these facilities are a lifeline, so I am glad to see that at least half of the states in the US are expanding medicaid
First off with hospitals, prices, costs and what people and payer pay are all different stories.
But regardless the hospital is where the big money is at!
For instance they can bill and collect a much higher fee for many outpatient tests and procedures than private docs, while also piling on a facility fee. A few years back our medical group sold all our ancillaries to our local hospital. They now charge so much for the same things we did that my patients can no longer afford them! They no go elsewhere.
That being said, there is always negotiation room. Pay up front in cash and you can get 1/3 off.
Like I said before it's a poison pill that Democratic lawmakers put into the ACA to coerce States to accept medicaid expansion. What part of the Supreme Court Decision do you not understand. We have States Rights vs. Federal Rights.
While the Supreme Court said coercing States to expand Medicaid was unconstitutional since it involves both Federal/State money. The main parts of the ACA still stood. Which means States that opt out of medicaid expansion would lose federal funding for indigent especially rural healthcare for the uninsured. Pre-ACA many rural hospitals would get reimbursed for uninsured care.
Because of the poison pill, Obama and the Democrats are punishing States that opt out by not continuing this federal funding for mainly rural hospital. Many of their patients are poor.
Kinda of ironic, isn't it? I thought Republicans (according to the Democratic party) were the party of hate and not caring for the poor.
In this case, the Democratic Party and your Dear Leader (Obama) are doing the poor a disservice by withholding federal funding from rural hospitals. Obama can easily make an executive decision with regards to this and continue federal funding. He's sticking to his goal of protecting his own legacy and the poor are suffering by of this.
You can twist it anyway you want of course.
But this is all a state's right decision. The states determine their own Medicaid. They either manage their own, or not. State's rights. It's not good for the poor IMO, and it remains up to the state to accept or not accept Federal Medicaid Funds.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
