Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

[plague311]

Actually, you said that the hospital was biased against Obamacare. It's not. It's just doing what is in the financial best interest of the State. This is New York State, remember; not a hot-bed of conservative partisanship against all things Obama.

How do you figure? This doesn't even make sense. I'll give you a chance to go through and read my comments again, and find out what you're missing. Why taking the insurance offered through the exchange would be financially better than at least one option on the table, yet they still flat out refused to change it.

Go ahead, take your time.

 

[eeyore1954]

My entire comment had nothing to do with what Obamacare is and isn't doing in regards to the revenue. It pointed out that this specific hospital called out Obamacare as something they weren't going to take. Whether you like it or not, they are playing favorites. They are picking and choosing what they are doing, and they could have just as easily picked to drop either other form, medicaid or medicare, but they didn't. They chose this, it wasn't forced on them. I don't care how you two, or anyone else, justifies it. Those are facts, something I can't understand how it is being missed.

They do not choose to accept medicaid, as a non profit institution they are required to accept medicaid.
You could argue they are not forced to be a non profit although as part of the SUNY program I am not sure if that is true.

http://www.aha.org/content/00-10/10medunderpayment.pdf

However, as a condition for receiving federal tax exemption for providing health care to the community, not for profit hospitals are required to care for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.

 

[Newtons Bit]

How do you figure? This doesn't even make sense. I'll give you a chance to go through and read my comments again, and find out what you're missing. Why taking the insurance offered through the exchange would be financially better than at least one option on the table, yet they still flat out refused to change it.

Go ahead, take your time.

Given you've bounced from political bias to greed back to bias, what am I supposed to find? That you've changed your argument a bunch of times? That you're completely wrong about the motivation of the hospital? That's obvious. And that's what I'm saying.

 

[plague311]

Given you've bounced from political bias to greed back to bias, what am I supposed to find? That you've changed your argument a bunch of times? That you're completely wrong about the motivation of the hospital? That's obvious. And that's what I'm saying.

My original point was, and remains, that they have a political bias. They use the same phrases anti-obamacare people do. Implying that insurance comes from "Obamacare", and that because of "Obamacare" they cannot take the insurance. They can, it's just not a profit margin they would like, and they don't want to take it.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

No, the courts will not, because there is no valid legal justification. You can see a more in-depth argument here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/.../another-day-another-illegal-obamacare-delay/
Obama is likely to get away with this illegal move for a much less comforting reason: it's hard to find anyone with legal standing who would sue. Members of congress who voted for the law would probably have standing to sue (their will has been thwarted), but no Democrat is going to sue Obama over this. And without someone with standing in the eyes of the court, the government is free to break the law with impunity. But make no mistake: that's exactly what they're doing here. They're breaking the law.

It isn't, full stop. You can believe so if you wish, but I'm afraid that doesn't make it so.

 

[Ziggurat]

It isn't, full stop. You can believe so if you wish, but I'm afraid that doesn't make it so.

It is, full stop. You can believe otherwise if you wish, but I'm afraid that doesn't make it so.

 

[xjx388]

So what parts of laws can be changed without congress? For example, if a law is passed to require all people to buy auto insurance by X date, can the agency charged with enforcement of the law decide that it won't apply it to all people but only to 95% of the people? Can it decide that the date will change to Y?

Isn't that defeating the purpose of the legislative branch?

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

 

[Trakar]

So what parts of laws can be changed without congress? For example, if a law is passed to require all people to buy auto insurance by X date, can the agency charged with enforcement of the law decide that it won't apply it to all people but only to 95% of the people? Can it decide that the date will change to Y?

Isn't that defeating the purpose of the legislative branch?

So if we are talking about say environmental regulations and congress decides to defund the regulatory agency to keep them from inspecting/monitoring environmental conditions and enforcing existing regulations, you think that congress should be penalized for such actions?

 

[Trakar]

No, the courts will not, because there is no valid legal justification. You can see a more in-depth argument here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/.../another-day-another-illegal-obamacare-delay/
Obama is likely to get away with this illegal move for a much less comforting reason: it's hard to find anyone with legal standing who would sue. Members of congress who voted for the law would probably have standing to sue (their will has been thwarted), but no Democrat is going to sue Obama over this. And without someone with standing in the eyes of the court, the government is free to break the law with impunity. But make no mistake: that's exactly what they're doing here. They're breaking the law.

Not saying I agree with your assertions (re:"illegal move"), but we definitely have had several Imperial Presidencies (of both parties) that have well established the precedental bone fides of your argument that presidents occasionally do assume and exercise powers that are beyond their traditional constraints. It is awfully difficult to regain rights once people willingly or passively cede them, even when we believe that it is the right thing to do at the time. Those powers don't go to the man, they go to the office, and its always prudent to remember that you may really strongly disagree with the policies of the person holding that office (and power) in future years. Imagine Hillary playing the role of the AntiBush,"...from the eternal sea she arises,...gathering armies on either shore..." (Oh, sorry about that, carry on!)

 

[theprestige]

Coburn says ObamaCare cost him coverage for cancer doctor (Fox News)

What the article doesn't mention is that the amendment to the Affordable Care Act which took away the old federal employee health care plans for members of congress and made them get insurance through the new insurance exchanges was an idea from fellow Republican Senator Chuck Grassley.

Is that why Obama missed it when he signed the bill into law? Because the Right Wing Media didn't tip him off about what he was doing? Or was he just on Nancy Pelosi's "pass the bill to see what's in the bill" list?

I mean, if it's a **** bill, it's a **** bill. Let's call a spade a spade, and let the chips fall where they may. If it's my fault as a conservative that Obamacare the ACA sucks, and sucks hard, then I'll take the blame, sure.

But before any blame comes my way, let's be clear: The Democrats lobbied like somebitches to get this passed, and Obama was only too happy to sign the damn thing exactly as it is today. Even if he's been so unhappy with it ever since that he keeps issuing executive orders to defer its provisions and bully the public--whatever it takes to mask its faults.

So don't come crying to me about Senator Chuck Grassley, unless you're willing to shoulder your share of the blame for this mess.

 

[theprestige]

If we care about the unemployed who want to work, this is really a good thing. If some people elect to work less or retire early, that's a job opportunity for someone else who doesn't have a job but wants one.

I'm electing to work less and retire early. Will you please pass a law that transfers wealth from you to me for this purpose? It's a good thing for the unemployed who want work, I promise!

I mean, I'm one of the employed who doesn't want work. Surely you see the benefit in voting for big government to solve my problem, right?

 

[theprestige]

Sorry, pc, I don't mean to be picking on you. Your ideas stood out to me as especially egregious. I didn't notice until after the fact that they originated from the same person. Though, now that I think about it, I shouldn't have been surprised. Anyway, I look forward to your well-reasoned responses.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

So what parts of laws can be changed without congress? For example, if a law is passed to require all people to buy auto insurance by X date, can the agency charged with enforcement of the law decide that it won't apply it to all people but only to 95% of the people? Can it decide that the date will change to Y?

Isn't that defeating the purpose of the legislative branch?

I linked upstream a law, but generally speaking the legislative branch has ceded power. They need to pass a second law to alter the regulations. As for specifics, go ask the courts. (A quick look pretty much indicates that outside the republican shills and rwec no one doubts this is legal. It's a bad sign, but that isn't the statement being made.)

 

[eeyore1954]

My original point was, and remains, that they have a political bias. They use the same phrases anti-obamacare people do. Implying that insurance comes from "Obamacare", and that because of "Obamacare" they cannot take the insurance. They can, it's just not a profit margin they would like, and they don't want to take it.

To the best of my knowledge the hospital did not use that kind of language. They appear to not have a political bias. Can you point out where anyone in a position of authority from the hospital used that kind of language. A low level employee (out of 5,000) who put a sign that was taken down is not indicative of the position of the hospital

Here are quotes from the CEO.

We are still in negotiation with some of the plans and have not reached agreement with them," said Dr. Reuven Pasternak, Stony Brook's CEO.

We certainly support universal coverage and are hoping the exchange would be vehicle for that,"

 

[xjx388]

Yeah, it's not that hospitals like Stony Brook want to send a message about Obamacare, it's that the reimbursement rates from these new plans are not at a level where taking them would be profitable.

On my side of the business (doctor's office) I negotiate new contracts with insurance companies regularly. I won't sign one that doesn't pay at least 25% more than Medicare. In fact, it's illegal for me to take a contract that pays less than Medicare.

So Obamacare contracts will be no different for me and I'm sure it will be no different for the Hospital. This is one of the problems with Obamacare. You can force insurance companies to cover everyone and not charge people with pre-existing conditions more, but that will necessarily result in a lowering of reimbursement rates/raising of premiums. Thus, hospitals and doctors will not sign contracts that lower their rates below the level of profitability. It's just common sense.

 

[balrog666]

http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/News/Tax-return-preparer-20137218.htm

The court applied the test from Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the first step of which requires the court to determine if Congress has spoken to the precise question at issue; if Congress’s intent is clear, that is the end of the inquiry.

As for the ACA, it is unambiguous in terms of spelling out who is subject to the insurance mandate and when it applies to them. Thus, by the court's ruling, Congress's intent is clear, and so the IRS cannot legally promulgate regulations that contravene the express Congressional intent in the statute. -EZ

 

[plague311]

Yeah, it's not that hospitals like Stony Brook want to send a message about Obamacare, it's that the reimbursement rates from these new plans are not at a level where taking them would be profitable.

On my side of the business (doctor's office) I negotiate new contracts with insurance companies regularly. I won't sign one that doesn't pay at least 25% more than Medicare. In fact, it's illegal for me to take a contract that pays less than Medicare.

So Obamacare contracts will be no different for me and I'm sure it will be no different for the Hospital. This is one of the problems with Obamacare. You can force insurance companies to cover everyone and not charge people with pre-existing conditions more, but that will necessarily result in a lowering of reimbursement rates/raising of premiums. Thus, hospitals and doctors will not sign contracts that lower their rates below the level of profitability. It's just common sense.

Are you a for-profit or not-for-profit? Are you run by the state?

 

[xjx388]

Are you a for-profit or not-for-profit? Are you run by the state?

Even non-profits run by the state have to make money in order to keep their doors open. If they feel that accepting a certain contract would cost them more than they would get reimbursed, I don't see anything wrong with refusing that contract. Non-profit does not imply that they have to operate at a loss.

As it is, Medicaid patients are a loss. Medicare is barely break even. Private insurance has traditionally been where even non-profits make up the difference.

 

[plague311]

Even non-profits run by the state have to make money in order to keep their doors open. If they feel that accepting a certain contract would cost them more than they would get reimbursed, I don't see anything wrong with refusing that contract. Non-profit does not imply that they have to operate at a loss.

As it is, Medicaid patients are a loss. Medicare is barely break even. Private insurance has traditionally been where even non-profits make up the difference.

Not at all what I asked, a strawman, and contradictory to the article that was posted, and that I am replying to. The hospital makes money, at least they claimed it made $2.2 million in the fiscal 2011-2012 year. It also doesn't state that they would take a loss in that article for dealing with any of the 3 we're talking about. It states that the compensation from the insurance company isn't what they want it to be. The state provides them with tax breaks and leniency in other forms for being state run. The hospital states that reimbursement from the plans on the exchange is between medicaid and medicare. They accept both and in the article do not claim either one requires them to take a loss.