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.
I guess the rural areas are getting what they voted for. Good and hard.
I love how people believe those living in rural areas are somehow going to suffer or even be affected differently that those in urban areas by any impending changes in healthcare regulations or any type of federal assistance even.
I guess the rural areas are getting what they voted for. Good and hard.
It's already happening in states that didn't sign up for ACA.
From what I've read, it starts by closing down the labor and delivery unit. It's a money losing department as even if patients do have insurance, it's generally Medicaid with the low reimbursement rates.
I love how people believe those living in rural areas are somehow going to suffer or even be affected differently that those in urban areas by any impending changes in healthcare regulations or any type of federal assistance even.
Hospitals in red states that did not expand Medicaid are closing at high rates--much higher than in states that did. And rural areas are being especially impacted.
Quote:
The stakes are particularly high for rural hospitals. The University of Colorado study found that the financial performance of rural facilities improved more than the performance of suburban or urban ones in states that expanded Medicaid. They were much less likely to close and experienced improvements in their operating margins.
“It underscores how important the expansion has been for rural communities,†said Andrea Callow, associate director of Medicaid initiatives at Families USA, which advocates for expanded coverage. “Rural hospitals rely on Medicaid and Medicare as primary payers.â€
I love how people believe those living in rural areas are somehow going to suffer or even be affected differently that those in urban areas by any impending changes in healthcare regulations or any type of federal assistance even.
For one thing, it's way easier to provide medical coverage in dense urban areas than in East Buttfark, pop 257. For another, people in urban areas tend to have the common sense to not vote against their own interests when it comes to healthcare funding.
From what I've read, it starts by closing down the labor and delivery unit. It's a money losing department as even if patients do have insurance, it's generally Medicaid with the low reimbursement rates.
That'll do wonders for the infant mortality rate. Which isn't anything to brag about as it is...
Nearly all, if not all, conservatives arguing for doing away with preexisting coverage call themselves pro-life. But pro-life only for those fetuses in the womb (unless the baby is killed or brain damaged by industrial pollutants, well that is just bad luck). Take the baby out of the womb then that baby is subject to all the trials and tribulations of human life. If that baby dies for lack of medical care, c'est la vie. That baby is disposable. Life isn't precious to these hypocrites it is a burden.
Given that only ~8% of the American workforce belong to a union, it seems like the remaining 92% (what some would refer to as a "vast majority") are bargaining for themselves just fine.
You can always oppose anyone. Whether or not you get your way is an altogether different matter.
I wouldn't pay $3k, to be honest. I am not a believer in bankrupting my family for any reason. If my insurance and HSA funding cannot cover it without wrecking my wife's future, then my number's up and that's that. Put me on the morphine train and let me ride off into the sunset, tyvm. I am also not a believer that anyone outside of the volunteers in my insurers risk mitigation pool should be on the hook should misfortune befall me. I don't think you should be tapped to pay for my healthcare. If my preparations, insurance and savings cannot cover it, that's not your fault and you shouldn't have to pay.
And yes, I really do think this way.
Would you also put your wife or child on the morphine train?
Hospitals in red states that did not expand Medicaid are closing at high rates--much higher than in states that did. And rural areas are being especially impacted.
But it's hard to feel sorry for these people who are losing their facilities because they're getting exactly what they voted for.
I can only speak for my, red state rural area. People do not understand that hospital closing that have occurred here are due to the combining of smaller rural hospitals and/or closing of those with already limited facilities when there is another larger hospital within a relatively short distance. They are not suffering from the lack of expanded Medicaid. Hospitals serving mainly Medicaid patients are by default losing money and having financial issues.
In very rural areas it is not financially sound to have a hospital. In the larger counties there is a hospital but for instance some conditions necessitate travel to the larger cities, Nashville, Knoxville for certain treatments. This has always been so.
It's over baby! The Obama free-lunch food trucks broke down.
Have a pre-existing illness?----rates will reflect it. It's just math.
This is what we had in this state prior to Obamacare.
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.