FoIB Bob D tips us to this interesting (if disheartening) news:
"(C)hildren’s hospitals are facing drug price hikes that will cost them hundreds of millions of dollars to supply needed medicine to children with rare diseases."
This is a direct, if unintended, consequence of the rush to get ObamaCare© passed before anyone actually, you know, read it. Because it was rammed through so quickly, but haphazardly, crucial wording that would have allowed the discounts to continue was omitted. Already, two major drug manufacturers have announced that these deals will be "suspended."
And lest you think this is heartless of "Big Pharma," remember whose perfidy caused this problem in the first place. Here's a hint.
But it's not just "the children" getting the short end of the stick; New York-based internist Dr Marc Siegel reports that, in a recent survey of 2400 practicing physicians, two thirds were against ObamaCare©. Worse yet, three fifths expected to "close or significantly restrict their practices to certain categories of patients." Almost as many acknowledged what we already knew: that they'd be required to spend less time with their patients. So much for "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
Thump, thump, under the bus you go.
Piling On: In case you thought Dr Siegel's piece was an outlier, here's this from Investor's Business Daily:
"Four in nine doctors responding to an IBD/TIPP poll sent out in August 2009 said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passed what has become known as ObamaCare ... Now a Merritt Hawkins survey of 2,379 doctors for the Physicians Foundation completed in August has vindicated our poll. It found that 40% of doctors said they would "retire, seek a nonclinical job in health care, or seek a job or business unrelated to health care"
Ooops.
Here's the bottom line: no matter how you slice it, ObamaCare© means less choice, less competition and higher health care costs.
And we all know what that means, right?
"(C)hildren’s hospitals are facing drug price hikes that will cost them hundreds of millions of dollars to supply needed medicine to children with rare diseases."
This is a direct, if unintended, consequence of the rush to get ObamaCare© passed before anyone actually, you know, read it. Because it was rammed through so quickly, but haphazardly, crucial wording that would have allowed the discounts to continue was omitted. Already, two major drug manufacturers have announced that these deals will be "suspended."
And lest you think this is heartless of "Big Pharma," remember whose perfidy caused this problem in the first place. Here's a hint.
But it's not just "the children" getting the short end of the stick; New York-based internist Dr Marc Siegel reports that, in a recent survey of 2400 practicing physicians, two thirds were against ObamaCare©. Worse yet, three fifths expected to "close or significantly restrict their practices to certain categories of patients." Almost as many acknowledged what we already knew: that they'd be required to spend less time with their patients. So much for "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
Thump, thump, under the bus you go.
Piling On: In case you thought Dr Siegel's piece was an outlier, here's this from Investor's Business Daily:
"Four in nine doctors responding to an IBD/TIPP poll sent out in August 2009 said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passed what has become known as ObamaCare ... Now a Merritt Hawkins survey of 2,379 doctors for the Physicians Foundation completed in August has vindicated our poll. It found that 40% of doctors said they would "retire, seek a nonclinical job in health care, or seek a job or business unrelated to health care"
Ooops.
Here's the bottom line: no matter how you slice it, ObamaCare© means less choice, less competition and higher health care costs.
And we all know what that means, right?
Posts
