Example of McNerney's Health Mandate on Us: "Man Sews Up Own Leg After ER Wait" State, National, International, posted by Can\'t Wait for ObamaCare, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2010 at 9:05 am
It coming to Pleasanton...and the rest of America, thanks to Obama and McNerney voters.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2010 at 9:41 am Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Why do you post this junk? It's an article about a man sewing up his own injury, not about ObamaCare or even socialized medicine (which ObamaCare is not). This could happen anywhere under any health system!
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2010 at 9:52 am Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Search Google for "ER wait times" and read all about the increases in emergency room wait times within the US.
Posted by Can't Wait, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2010 at 11:16 am
Stacey,
The only garbage around here are your leftist Obama-apologist posts.
Fyi...I have a PhD in health policy from a top college and was funded by the liberal organization Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The RJF was an integral force behind the design of HillaryCare. Even RJF has declared that Obamacare will result in a dramatic increase in ER crowding because people will have much more limited access to their primary care doctors. Obamacare will be a disaster
BTW: my initial post is ALL about socialized healthcare. It is an example of Sweden's national healthcare.
Stacey...your leftist ideals are so strong that you are divorced from reality and what the near future entails under Obama and his leftist radicalism.
Posted by RN, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Stacey will be the one in the ER crying and complaining the loudest.
God help "Stacey" as age related issues, health emergencies, and even palliative care for the terminally ill is rationed to Stacey and those she loves I can assure you, her SOCIALIZED OBAMA care wont be there to offer any comfort and care....but then she can always "search Google" to find out whats taking so long for her to get the care she most likely will be demanding.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Aug 8, 2010 at 4:45 pm
now now people, lets not 'marginalize Stacey, she tries to be reasonable most times, the point is that evidence of a poorly operating system in Sweden doesn't make the US system any different.
There are much worse things that are slated to go into effect with health care reform, besides the IRS enforcement of payments that our federal government now admits is a tax
besides the reduction in payments to medicare advantage providers, here is what the federal government wants you to believe Web Link
but there is a likelihood that some providers will refuse the lower payments, so Medicare recipients losing their doctors is a good possibility.
Besides that Obama made a recess appointment of Donald Berwick to head up his health care reform programs, this guy LOVES socialized medicine a la Great Britain and Canada and their long wait times for treatments, 60 percent of Brits and 57 percent of Canadians who reported that it takes at least four weeks to see a specialist, just 23 percent of Americans said it took that long. Better still -- only 8 percent of Americans surveyed waited four months or more for elective surgery, compared with 33 percent in Canada and 41 percent in the U.K
Posted by Cynthia, a resident of the Stoneridge Park neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Yes, let's demonize Stacy, shall we?
With a 30+ year career in health care, including working in hospice care as well as the ER setting, I can attest that health care is rationed under the current system. Many of my patients (who were NOT within the hospice system) have gotten sicker and died while waiting for benefits to be approved. Families have gone bankrupt paying for necessary medical services while the price of those services was inflated to accomodate the windfall accorded the health insurance industry giants who negotiate deals for their companies that force the uninsured to pay more. I've also seen people avoid treatment because they don't have insurance, only to be hospitalized later and receive far more costly services because they put off something that was treatable early on. They don't pay for their hospitalizations - we do!
Guess what - the new system will not be perfect. Guess what, the old system wasn't perfect. I for one am ready for a system where I don't have to deny care to someone because they don't have a job/insurance, or because they have a pre-existing condition. I'm not completely onboard with the new system either (and, I'm not a democrat), but I am sure ready for change.
Posted by Can't Wait, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Cynthia Brilliance,
Well, I also have 30+ years in healthcare administration. So we neutralize each other from that respect.
So...pray tell. What "successful" national healthcare model are you envisioning our system to be patterned after. Tell me where a nationalized system has been successful. For that matter, tell me where it has been successful on a Statewide basis.
Posted by RN, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Cynthia: I have 36 + yrs working ICU and ER and also 8 yrs as nursing educator @ the UC level. Almost all of those 36+ yrs was full time so I have quite a breath of professional RNs that have crossed my path.
Out of those 36 yrs I don't know of one RN who ever went from ER to hospice. Very different clinical paths w/ quite different clinical skills bank so I find it interesting that you cite that as part of your professional bio.....but there is always a first
Based on your post, I find it hard to believe that you are really a nurse because IF you were you would know that NO ONE is denied care.
Walk into any ER and you are treated. So please don't confuse insurance w/ care. A real RN would not do that.
You so much as say that by citing the example of one who avoids treatment due to cost, then gets treated for something more costly. You cant have it both ways
As an RN you have an obligation to be sure people are informed.
If in fact you are an RN, you have done an injustice to the very people you are suppose to be serving.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2010 at 8:43 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
There's no need to defend or apologize for anything on my part. The original poster proved nothing in posting the link, just made poor assumptions using anecdotal evidence (which is no evidence at all).
Calling me leftist is just a way of distracting oneself from the core issue, that the causes of problems in an ER are much more complex than due to some characteristic of the health care system. One doesn't need 30+ years in the health industry to recognize that the current US system has the same or similar issues as what they have in Sweden. Hence, the original post is just junk thought.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2010 at 8:47 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Wow, according to the report I linked to above, Californians average 274 minutes waiting in the ER.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2010 at 8:54 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
"Wait time in the ED is not always indicative of problems in the ED. More often, it is an organizational issue that keeps the patients in the ED when inpatient beds are not readily available. A 2009 study on ED utilization and capacity by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that ED overcrowding is caused by a complex set of conditions that occur across hospital units and across the entire health care system. Inability to move admitted patients from the ED to the appropriate inpatient unit stands out as a major driver of ED overcrowding.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), while the number of EDs across the country has decreased, the number of ED visits has increased. As a result, EDs are experiencing higher patient volume and overcrowding, and patients seeking care are experiencing longer wait times."
Posted by RN, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Stacey: 1) It may be 274 minutes for the person who goes to ER w/ a non ER health problem. But it certainly is NOT that for the real pt triaged w/ a real emergency. The 274 min is"junk thought" Based on your "research" look for that wait time to increase dramatically.
Why do you think major heart attacks have been averted and dramatically dropped Its because ERs are able to get the patient who walks in and complains of chest pain to the cath lab in under 90 minutes and the blockage treated before major muscle damage is done.! Now thats real data!
2)" Inability to move admitted patients from the ED to the appropriate inpatient unit stands out as a major driver of ED overcrowding" is due to lack of RNs not actual patient beds. Staffing ratios of RN to patient determines how many available beds they have. Walk into any hospital and count the number of empty beds??? I've always been amazed how the public has never been educated on how "over crowding" is determined. Look for this to get worse too under OBAMA's SOCIALIZED Plan (I cringe to use the word health or care w/ his plan)
So a bit of experience does help....but even if you don't have any consider this : Would you trash or junj a car because it had a flat tire???...you'd fix the tire to get it to serve you better....The same logic can be applied to our health care system.
They trashed our current system instead of fixing the parts that needed fixed. Shame on them
Posted by RN, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2010 at 9:39 pm
And Stacey if the problem w/ ER was simply "an organizational" problem, as you cite, then surely that could of been fixed without overhauling the whole system. (hmmm fix the flat or trash the car???) Get real.
People like you who defend this OBAMA Plan deserve the diminished level of care you will get.
Posted by Chet, a resident of another community, on Aug 8, 2010 at 9:43 pm
Our fine Congressman Jerry McNerney made the right vote on Health Care reform for us in District 11 and for America. This story on a man sewing up his leg happened now and would be much less likely to happen as the new Health Care reform take effect. More people will have Health Coverage so hospitals will be much better able to keep an ER going. Check out how the Health Care reform is starting to work in Calif. Thank you Jerry McNerney!!
California will open a new high-risk health insurance plan in September for people who have medical conditions that make it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain coverage.
The plan will be one of the first major results of the national health reform law. With $761 million in federal funding, it is expected to provide coverage for 20,000 to 25,000 Californians.
People can begin submitting applications this month, state officials have announced.
"For those who have no other option in the private marketplace, this is a huge benefit," said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a consumer advocacy group. "They will be able to get coverage that is crucial for them and their family."
The goal is to assist people who have been denied coverage or quoted exorbitant rates because of a host of medical issues ranging from serious diseases to such common conditions as asthma, sleep apnea, allergies, migraine headaches and even toenail fungus.
Thousands of Californians nervously live without insurance, hoping to avoid a severe illness or injury that could push them over the edge financially.
The Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan will operate until 2014. At that point, the federal health reform law will ban insurers from rejecting people or charging higher rates based on medical conditions.
California is one of 28 states that have decided to set up their own high-risk plans. Other states will
offer a program provided by the federal government.
California has operated another high-risk plan for many years, but it has minimal funding and rates that are too costly for many people. It limits benefits to $75,000 annually and $750,000 for a lifetime. No more than 7,100 people can participate.
The new plan will have no limits on annual or lifetime benefits. It also will have substantially lower premiums than the existing plan in many cases, although it may still be pricey for some people.
A sampling of the new plan's rates reveals that 15- to 29-year-olds in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties will have monthly premiums of $201.
People ages 45 to 49 will pay $377 per month. Those age 60 to 64 will pay $802, compared with $1,233 for the Anthem PPO under the existing plan.
But those in the existing plan who want to switch to the new plan will be out of luck. The federal health reform law requires that participants in the new high-risk pools have been uninsured for at least six months.
So California will continue to operate both plans until 2014.
Participants in the new California plan also must be a citizen or lawful resident of the United States, and must have been denied coverage by an insurance company within the past 12 months or offered coverage at rates above those in the existing high-risk pool.
How many people will be interested in the new plan remains to be seen. But to date, nearly 4,000 have requested applications.
Wright noted that there should be enough money to quadruple the number of participants compared with the existing plan.
"We think there will be additional demand that will go beyond even this increased funding," he said. "But this is a clear step up from the current program. We recognize that it's a bridge to a system that's better in 2014."
HIGH-RISK PLAN
To receive an application for the state's Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan, which will open in September, people can call 916-324-4695 or send an e-mail with their name, address, phone number and e-mail address to pcip@mrmib.ca.gov.
Details are available at www.mrmib.ca.gov.
# To be eligible, you must: Be a citizen, national or lawful resident of the United States.
# Have had no health insurance during the past six months.
# Have a pre-existing medical condition, including proof of denial by an insurance company within the past 12 months, or an offer of coverage with premiums higher than those in the state's existing high-risk plan.
Here are the premiums for the new plan in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties:
Posted by Mike, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Aug 8, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Last month I went to the ER at valley care with chest pain. I waited approximately 2 minutes to be seen. When Obigga Care begins I'm sure the wait time will dramitcally increase.
Hopefully it will be declared unconstitutional. I'm sure Big Mouth Know it all Stacy will research (google it) and give her response.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2010 at 8:14 am Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Pointing out the logic problems with the original poster's assertions is hardly defending ObamaCare. The original poster has yet to show that poor Jonas' experience is caused by socialized medicine. On the contrary, I have provided information showing that such an experience can happen under our current US system. Moreover, ObamaCare is not even socialized medicine. Instead, the original poster put up a straw man because straw men are easier to knock down than actual facts.
RN tries to divert from this by bringing up heart attack patients. Certainly our Swedish friend Jonas was no such patient either. There is such a thing called triage and someone like Jonas would get bumped in favor of the next heart attack patient to walk into the door. Average means just that, all the minutes waited by all the patients divided by the total number of patients. It is far better evidence to work with than the anecdotal evidence from a single Swede. We could therefore likely assume that Jonas would be waiting about 247 minutes to get sewn up in a California hospital because that is the average Californian ER experience.
RN then goes on to agree that the number of hospital beds available plays a role in "overcrowding" and claims it is due to nurse staffing levels. That may be the case, but there's this vague claim again that staffing levels would be lower (wait times would increase) under ObamaCare. Nothing is shown to prove it. If RN were to finish reading the whole study, the organizational change that the case study hospital used did improve their wait times. Perhaps they need to "Get real"?
As for Chet's post, I disagree that wait times would necessarily improve due to ObamaCare much for the same reason I disagree that wait times would increase. Better access to preventative care is great, but how does that link to the supply of hospital beds? Moreover, that just ain't right that patients on California's current high-risk plan have to basically drop it for 6 months in order to qualify for the new lower-cost high-risk plan.
Posted by Cynthia, a resident of the Stoneridge Park neighborhood, on Aug 9, 2010 at 2:48 pm
RN: (btw - I think you mean "breadth" rather than "breath" of students).
Nowhere in my post did I state I was an RN. I'm a medical social worker, so I have the pleasure of working with the families who do not receive treatment because they do not have medical insurance. I currently work in home care and hospice, and I volunteer to advocate for those denied benefits in various medical settings. I know of which I speak.
If you are really an RN, this statement that you made to Stacey:
"People like you who defend this OBAMA Plan deserve the diminished level of care you will get"
demonstrates a significant level of burn out on your part - even though I disagree with the implication that treatment will diminish. I have yet to see a nurse suggest someone is undeserving of medical treatment based on their political opinions. Does this sentiment go for patients you see in the ER who disagree with your opinions as well? May I suggest some counseling? I would be happy to follow with some treatment centers near you - I do hope you have appropriate insurance though, otherwise you will need to be a danger to yourself or others before I can get you meaningful treatment, and even then you may find it difficult to recover in the setting available to you.
Luckily, there are those of us who are truly grounded to the current system failures (as we are following this families over time) and we know that not only Stacey, but all will have access to health insurance and care under the proposed new system.
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
