Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
But who wants Quincy city
But who wants Quincy city Hospital? Any takers?
Do we have to rename that Orange Line station *again* ?
Maybe the T should have stuck with the original proposal, "South Cove".
How about
Tufts New England and Boston Medical Center at South Cove.
Ugh - and a lot to put on a transit map.
Link appears to be broken.
Link appears to be broken.
Who'd be taking over who?
Seems to be working now
But in any case, the story doesn't say who'd run the place.
Lucky if BMC survives another five years with Obamacare
---
With Obamacare sucking most of the funding away from Medicare and Medicaid, we'll see more hospital closures (Kindred, North Adams, Radius, Quincy). BMC won't be far behind with their clientele. Keep voting Democrat!
Seriously
Shut the fuck up. There's a place for you, I think its called The herald comments section.
Do you do anything else except knock Obama? Look, I'm not his biggest fan club either, but shut the fuck up about it. Tired of seeing unrelated articles turn into a big "let's bash Obama party", it's pointless, it's stupid, and makes you look as clueless as a june bug.
I come here so I DON'T have to read the drivel that is in the comment sections under the BDC and Herald comment section. Don't destroy this website too with the drivel that goes on there because you don't like Obama. Enough.
We get it. You don't like Obama. But stop with this useless drivel. And like the republicans have done no wrong either?!? Yeah they are not saintly either. Both parties are as equally as bad. Oh yeah, but stupid GOP talking point people never see it that way.
And btw.. typical let's bash Obama post. What you posted has absolutely no bearing on what the main article is about or Obama. You just wanted to bash Obama. Let me break it to you gently, Obamacare was founded by a republican, and voted on by republicans. So your argument has much weight as a hill of beans.
So seriously, stop with the "let's bash Obama and the democrats" arguments and shut the fuck up.
Adam it really is time for that ignore button...
The article is about hospitals in Boston
Therefore, the ramifications of the Affordable Care Act would kind of be a thing.
Look, bash 'Fish all you want, but are you going to say the same for the barely-on-topic rantings that come from the other side? The reality is that even though he does come across as someone who probably makes said comments on news websites all across the area, he does occasionally make a good point. If we were to start censoring based on the will of the people, we would either had a boring comments page or, and this my assumption, Blue Mass Group for regular news.
And as far as my real 2 cents go, I think that this as a lot to do with the growth of Partners Healthcare and the need to counter that power. The concentration of control in the few would appear to be one of the drivers of higher healthcare costs. It would have been nice if ACA did something about that, but that would have involved real debate on the issues and a consensus being reached. However, they went the Gruber route, so this is what we've got.
My other penny is that even though BMC does handle the poorer patients, it's Tufts that really gets overshadowed by MGH, the Longwood area, and even BMC when it comes to care IMHO.
But
You have made valid points related to the article, his was bashing just Obama as usual. Make a point and speak to it.. not just throw some anti Obama drivel, which is what he did.
And I'm not Adam Gaffin so I can't censor him, nor would I. My comment is strictly my own opinion, not Universal Hub's, I'm just telling him to shut up. I have just as much room to tell him to the shut fuck up as much as he does spewing his anti-Obama drivel.
Also the ACA was based on MA's healthcare system (aka RomneyCare), so his point about Obama is useless. You are aware that not much changed when the ACA was enacted.. at least not for MA residents since we've had RomneyCare for a lot longer. So his point goes out the window and is just an anti-Obama post and he posted it just because.
And I still stand by my point.. I've grown tired of these 'talking points' people everywhere. Its the same comments over and over again. I've just simply had enough. It's one of the main reasons why I left Facebook also, I just get sick of seeing it over and over again. If you have a point to make, make it, and speak to, not just spout of some drivel because Fox News or some right wing news source tells you talk this way. I don't want Universal Hub to turn into the herald comment section..
RomneyCare != ObamaCare
This assertion
is dead wrong. Everything changed when ObamaCare came into play. I have been desperately trying not to out myself but I was an analyst/consultant for for one of the agencies involved with implementing the ACA in Massachusetts. I don't have time to describe how it was impossible to salvage any of the RomneyCare systems or policies when ObamaCare became law.
Well it sounds like you are a
Well it sounds like you are a bad consultant, many states were able to transition to ACA just fine with a lot less money than you needed. Blame yourself and the other consultants who made the transition, looking at the success other states had it wasn't a problem with ACA.
Other states didn't transition
As somebody caught up in the snafu (although, no, we never lost insurance), far be it from me to defend the state, but Massachusetts was the only state in the country with a health connector before Obamacare and transitioning from our system, which relied heavily on actual paperwork (I forget how much I had to spend on postage to mail our initial application) to an online-based system proved more difficult (putting it mildly) than state officials and their consultants thought. No other state had to do that, because no other state had Romneycare.
so Romneycare was such a mess it was easier to start with nothin
The other states that didn't have a previous health connector seemed to be able to do a better job aligning to ACA, it seems like it would be easier to transition to ACA from a previous connector than nothing at all, and since the other states that don't use the federal did transition to their own state version easier than MA, it seems the problem was Romneycare. Was Romneycare such a clusterf*ck of analog paperwork that it was easier to start from nothing than starting from Romney's version?
Not paperwork, computerwork
The state and its consultants (headed by the same company that botched the federal connector site, let's not forget) thought transitioning from one computer system to another would be easy. It wasn't. Sometimes it's just easier to start from scratch than change horses in midstream, to muddle up metaphors.
That doesn't mean Romneycare was a mess, though. I'll vouch for that - applying was a bit annoying because of all the paperwork that had to be assembled, but it was hardly life threatening or anything.
Not that I have to defend myself to you but ...
my teeny, tiny part of the implementation did work.
I'm not Dr. Gruber nor did I work for CGI. I was just a consultant hired to help with a specific part of the project. Job done. Moved along.
Most states didn't build their own exchanges. They used the Federal one: healthcare.gov. How'd that work out for the Feds? Not great.
So if you want to blame me for a bad implementation. Go ahead. You won't be the first or the last person to do so.
You didnt invent the Cadillac
You didnt invent the Cadillac tax part did you ? Wait till that stuff hits the fan... Only kidding ,Nancy I am sure you did your best with what you had!
OKay
I'm corrected. But that's behind the scenes.. as far as the end user, such as myself, not much as changed at all. So either you made it seamless, or there was little or no change at all.
Edit: and also, the core of the ACA is based upon Romney Care. I didn't say every single policy.. I said 'based upon'. It's like a movie that is based upon a book. It's not exactly same, but the concepts are the same.
Romney care was designed for
Romney care was designed for a State. Comparing Romney care to Obama care is apples and oranges.
Sure, the feds got the idea from Romney care but implementation nationally is a huge difference.
I know it sounds nice to compare it to Romney care but the two are on opposite ends.
double post
double post
Points taken
I don't think we will ever get to even BDC's level of annoying comments, but still, read most of the comments when a bicycle is involved here, or development in the neighborhoods, and it is basically the same, minus larger national political significance. As far as facebook goes, a friend the other day (being, oddly, yesterday) was griping on said websites about the deluge of "sharing" of various political rants. It is getting very tiresome. Hate his views all you want, but at least he is typing them. I suppose my blood starts boiling every time that commuter rail anon troll posts something, so I get the annoyance.
And yes, ACA came years after "health care reform" in our fine Commonwealth, but for all the good things it has accomplished, we've still got Partners gobbling up every asset they can, hospitals like Quincy City going under, and costs going up even with these "rationalizations."
It is no secret the medical
It is no secret the medical profession has no love for the O man and this new medical boondoggle. I hear it all the time in my numerous and varied doctor visits, and also from medical fund (private sector ) managers.
It also doesn't help when things like this happen to undermine the structure :
MassHealth audit: $35M in violation
"MassHealth has provided millions of dollars’ worth of coverage to both legal and illegal immigrants that violates state and federal guidelines, according to an audit released yesterday. "
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2014/12/massheal...
Boston.com version ,
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/12/11/audit-question...
Using a filter
A commenter here created a filter which blocks/does not display the comments of certain other commenters (it can be edited to personal tastes.) I assume it can be added like an extension or plugin to your browser. Unfortunately, I'm not sure who that commenter was - i think it may have been "erik g?"
Maybe Adam knows.
oh please share!
oh please share who this is...
My Browser Has This Great "Scrolling" Feature
There's nothing to program, and it's very easy to use. To avoid comments I don't wish to read, all I have to do is scroll the page past any offending post and it disappears right off the screen!
Reading comprehension
Hospitals are TREMENDOUSLY benefitting from the ACA because FAR fewer of their bills are going unpaid due to everyone coming in the door actually having insurance of ANY kind instead of uninsured and broke customers.
So, why would BMC go anywhere?
The NYPost article you quote (and even the text you quote) is about independent physicians. Primary care docs who have offices and patients to see in them, not at hospitals most of the time. Those guys are squeezed by Medicare and seeing more people with Medicare looking for doctors.
Furthermore, your editorial conclusion that "Obamacare is sucking most of the funding away from Medicare" is just insane rambling. Obamacare has *inflated* the funding in Medicare to handle MORE of the states' burdens with the introduction of the ACA. It also put MORE into Medicare for the past 2 years in order to pay these doctors MORE than they were going to get otherwise from Medicare patients. However, that period is coming to an end and the states or the doctors are going to have to compensate for the return to normal Medicare funding rates that they were seeing before the ACA...OR Congress (controlled by Republicans) is going to have to get off its ass and deal with extending the payment bump-up. Funding for Medicare is determined by the House first and foremost and for years, they have reduced the percentage they are willing to pay. The ACA actually reversed that trend for the past 2 years. Adding a few hundred people in a hospital's service area to the Medicare rosters isn't going to make or break a hospital that probably won't even see them as patients. But reducing the amount EVERY Medicare patient pays back the hospital when they *do* come in will definitely hurt smaller hospitals in poorer areas. However, none of the latter is related to the ACA.
So, your attempt to tie this story to Obama in some way is desperate and futile.
Oh, I get it
Fishy loves himself some socialized medicine ... so long as he doesn't have to share with those people.
Either that, or he hasn't figured out how his own healthcare gets paid for.
I have to disagree with your
I have to disagree with your first sentence. "Hospitals are TREMENDOUSLY benefitting from the ACA because FAR fewer of their bills are going unpaid due to everyone coming in the door actually having insurance of ANY kind instead of uninsured and broke customers"
No, the feds don't reimburse hospitals much. Medicaid, Medicare and now ACA if it's federally funded, the hospital gets a percentage on the dollar. Ambulance rides - pffft, when I did medicare reimbursements, the feds would just tell the hospital to keep track of all the money owed and we'll pay pennies on the dollar at the end of the year.
Feds don't reimburse hospitals the way insurance companies are compelled to do. It's as simple as that.
Medicare and Medicaid? The hospitals get paid a fraction of what they've billed, whereas Blue Cross Blue Shield can't get away with that.
I did reimbursement for several years and it was an eye opener.
This isn't about that
If a patient comes throught the door without insurance, the hospital begs the Feds to give them anything possible to offset the total loss. The Feds are under no obligation to do so. EMTALA said treat everybody, we don't care how you pay for it.
Now, with people on subsidized private insurance and Medicare, the hospital says pay us and the Feds pay them the going rate..far more than they would get if the person is uninsured. Less than private insurance? Sure! So what? Hospitals are getting somewhere to turn for reimbursement instead of eating "charitable care" as they have been since the 80's.
http://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/Fulltext/2014/09000/For_Some_Hospitals...
Who is writing for Boston.com
Who is writing for Boston.com these days? Their article says the two are considering "mergining", a word so wrong my iPhone desperately tried to autocorrect it first. Ugh.