No to ObamaCare and socialized medicine. It will lower CLS pay further.

I work in the hospital and I have company provided insurance. I was broadsided by a drunk driver and flown in an expensive helicopter to the hospital I work at. My out of pocket is over 23k. I hate what the insurance companies and hospitals have done to the healthcare profession and I'll fight for any change that I can get. This current state of medicine is ridiculous and needs severe change.

Unfortunately, if you had the government option which would happen under this healthcare reform, you might have had to pay 50K for that helicopter, or you probably wouldn't have had a helicopter pick you up.

You really do believe the propaganda.

Yeah because the government runs everything so efficiently and is great at delivering excellent service at cost-effective prices. *rolls eyes*

I think most of us have run a test where the real cost was 10 bucks and the patient was charged 300. This has to stop.

Sure. Just as long as no government option is pushed on me, and medicare doesn't cut the money they give for laboratory services, which is what will happen in this reform. See I'm not against some kind of reform, but I am against this specific type of reform. There is a big difference, and supporting this bill says that you are against what is good for the clinical laboratory, our jobs, and our pay.

Update. It looks like there will be no government option in the final bill hopefully. Below is an article that discusses the impact the laboratory will have once the bill is finalized.

laboratorian.advanceweb.com/Article/Healthcare-Reform.aspx

"The Bright Side
In general, the basic health package emerging appears favorable to clinical laboratories. An increase in the number of insured is likely to translate into an increase in overall testing, particularly since laboratory services will be part of any minimum benefits package insurers will be required to offer. Also, the emphasis on preventive testing is likely to lead to more cholesterol and diabetes testing and other services recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force.

On the Other Hand
The downside for clinical laboratories is any final agreement is going to include cuts in laboratory payments. It appears laboratories may face two cuts in their consumer price index (CPI) update--one permanent and one for a set period of time.

The first is a reduction in the update by a "productivity factor," which is expected to average between 1.1-1.4 percent over the next few years. This, in conjunction with Senate proposal to cut the CPI by an additional 1.75 percent in each of the next 5 years, would bring the laboratory contribution for reform to $10 billion over 10 years.

Another item for the laboratory community to watch is a provision in the Senate Finance measure, which would require the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to convene a public meeting to discuss alternative payment systems for "new" clinical laboratory tests and make recommendations to Congress. If adopted, this measure could significantly impact laboratory finances....

"...One of the underlying purposes behind this proposal is the creation of a new payment mechanism for molecular pathology tests. The laboratory sector is divided over this option with some supporting a new fee schedule for genetic tests as a means for getting higher reimbursement, whereas others are concerned it could result in cuts to non-genetic tests as a means of paying for it.

Also, clinical laboratories need to follow a Senate Finance proposed change to the Medicare 14-day rule. Currently, laboratory tests performed within 14 days of a hospital discharge are paid out of the hospital's diagnosis-related group (DRG) payment. The Senate Finance bill would exempt certain esoteric genetic tests from this limitation and allow clinical laboratories to bill Medicare directly for them if the following conditions are met:

1. The hospital collecting the specimen does not perform the test;
2. The test is developed and performed by a laboratory independent of the hospital collecting the sample; and
3. The test is conducted after the patient has left the hospital.

There are a number of questions surrounding this recommendation. For example, is this provision limited to independent laboratories or can hospitals also perform the test? Also, if the laboratory with the specimen can perform the test, why should it be limited to the DRG amount, while another laboratory can bill separately for a much higher rate? Another concern surrounding this provision is it would cut laboratory payments across the board in 2015 by .2 percent (i.e., $100 million) to pay for it..."

The last time I checked, you have the option of keeping your present insurance, doctor etc. That sound good to me. However, I am unemployed and have no health coverage.

wsdrbj in Minneapolis, Minnesota said: The last time I checked, you have the option of keeping your present insurance, doctor etc. That sound good to me. However, I am unemployed and have no health coverage.

If there is a public option, you will not be able to keep your present insurance or doctor. Also, under the healthcare reform plan, since you have no health coverage, the government will mandate that you get insurance and pay for it. If you don't, you will face fines.

Angrywolf in Nashville, Tennessee said: It won't make any difference.This claim is just right wing propaganda.This isn't Fox news...
I don't see the field paying any better regardless of what happens.
That's why I advise young people to pick another field.

FACT: Fox News may slant right, but most media outlets slant left.

FACT: There is no telling exactly what this bill is going to do to the field right now as most of the delegations are behind closed doors. Even experts are baffled as to what will exactly happen when the government plan is implemented. It should be noted that the cost of healthcare increased when Canada passed their legislation for universal healthcare when it was supposed to do the opposite. Listen to Canadian doctors talk about it.

FACT: The field is hurting for qualified young professionals. The median age of the med tech is now 51.

FACT: The highest unemployment rating is amongst 20-24 year olds currently. And here's another fact---most of those 20-24 year olds unemployed do not have MT certification.

Here's a clue: It's called a trend. Apparently you as a baby boomer were never able to pick up on something so simple. You can give some poor young sod some advice that will land him in his parent's basement for 7 some odd years after graduation. Pat yourself on the back, man. You are a @$(#ing winner.

Scott Brown, the Republican, just won the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts. He vows to become the 41st Senator no vote on healthcare reform, to allow Republicans to filibuster the reform and stop it from happening.

This will also scare other moderate Democrats who might lose their own jobs in elections in November from voting for the bill. I think this might have effectively ended Obamacare. Let's hope it's true.

The Lewin Group is controled by the BIG Insurance, I don't trust any information this group puts out.

The Lewin Group CLS48 mentioned is controlled by the BIG Insurance companies and this is why I don't trust any information this group puts out.

There are two groups of people - those who have and those who have not. Those wno have not have "natural health care", meaning we will die naturally (no medical intervention). I am in the have not group. I sure hope I am in the don't have pain grpup.

CLS48 in California said: Scott Brown, the Republican, just won the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts. He vows to become the 41st Senator no vote on healthcare reform, to allow Republicans to filibuster the reform and stop it from happening.

This will also scare other moderate Democrats who might lose their own jobs in elections in November from voting for the bill. I think this might have effectively ended Obamacare. Let's hope it's true.

But how do you expect providers to stay in business? Revenue is already down because as people lose their insurance, they stay out of doctor's offices'. The job security you presently have puts you in the minority. And isn't your good fortune the result of unions?

Why do we even have insurance? When I was born, my parents paid cash for my birth. Can't do that now. A birth costs $10k vs $20K for a c section, which most doctors are pushing just to get it over with and collect big $. Don't go to the doctor, why are you forced to pay high premiums through your employer when you do not use that much? Drop the health care issue...DEAD...focus on getting America back to FULL EMPLOYMENT. Obama you are the worst president...America is going down the drain. Go and help Haiti, when we have are own problems here.

Obama will be one term and done. He will be long gone once the elections hit in 2012.

because health care is sooooooo expensive...and you have a point about the high premiums to boot and then there is still no guarantee. CL might have some better answers though...he/she knows a lot about the nightmare of reimbursements for labs and other goodies about how complicated the entire system has become

Health Care Dropout in Chicago, Illinois, I hope you have dropped out of Health Care because it is obvious you don't value human life. It is only moral to care about the less fortunate people in Haiti.

Linda, MT(ASCP) in Moody, Alabama said: Health Care Dropout in Chicago, Illinois, I hope you have dropped out of Health Care because it is obvious you don't value human life. It is only moral to care about the less fortunate people in Haiti.

Too bad we didn't give the same kind of help to those in New Orleans after Katrina. It's funny how we RUN to the aid of other countries faster than we can help eachother.

sicofobamacare in Wildomar, California said: Too bad we didn't give the same kind of help to those in New Orleans after Katrina. It's funny how we RUN to the aid of other countries faster than we can help eachother.

I sent financial support to victims of Hurricane Katrina as well as Haiti. I did not RUN to the aid of other countries faster than I helped my own. This is why I chose Healthcare to help others as well as my own.

Bump.

Update. The democrats are on the brink of passing this bill. They are trying to use reconciliation where they don't need republican votes. They also are trying to pass it without having to vote in a controversial procedural move. Despite public opinion against it, they are trying to ram it through.

I'm afraid if it passes, healthcare costs will soar with the addition of 50 million new insured people, and the government will pay less for laboratory services as they do with medicare. This will in turn affect laboratory revenue and inevitably our salaries and jobs.

Hopefully if the bill does pass it will be rendered unconstitutional. You can't force Americans to buy health care.

There are many road blocks with this bill, and fortunately some of the stops might just come into play.

How is the bill going to pass, there is NOT A SUPERMAJORITY ANYMORE, remember Scott Brown won the sentate seat in MASS. So it passes through the house its not big deal b/c it has to pass through the senate, that when it will get blocked.

Saber in Fort Worth, Texas said: How is the bill going to pass, there is NOT A SUPERMAJORITY ANYMORE, remember Scott Brown won the sentate seat in MASS. So it passes through the house its not big deal b/c it has to pass through the senate, that when it will get blocked.

No, they can pass it through reconciliation and another procedure called deem and pass. They do not need any republican votes, and just need 51 votes in the Senate which they have. The democrats are really ramming this through with Obama's approval. It's obscene and ridiculous. They don't even care if they're going to get slaughtered in the November elections now.

The vote is tomorrow and looks like it will pass as the dems say they have the votes for it. It will have a devastating impact on our healthcare system.

www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36104

"$156 billion in cuts to Medicare payments based on productivity gains. The government will look at productivity gains across the economy, assume that the health care industry should have increased productivity at the same rate, and cut payments to most providers accordingly. Cuts would hit hospitals, ambulance services, laboratory services, medical equipment, and more.

This provision more than any other shows the Democrats’ utter lack of understanding of health care. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is already wary: “it is doubtful that many (providers) could improve their own productivity to the degree achieved by the economy at large.” If a patient’s life is saved because a new test is more expensive than the old test, how will that patient and her family feel about that evil drop in measured productivity? The American Hospital Association is already lobbying to minimize these cuts and sunset the productivity adjustment."

I wonder how much do CLS make in vancouver, Canada?

Honestly how much lower can they pay CLS's already? They can make cuts elsewhere in the hospital, take 10k off a doctor's salary from their already 200k salary..but seriously bringing down a CLS from 25-27 an hour to what..19 I suppose? If this gets passed, I really hope CLS's are ready to speak up in terms of pay cuts throughout the hospital. We seriously have no voice anywhere and this is exactly why were going to get the bullet first before anybody else.

I think pay wont increase as fast. Also, smaller hospitals and reference labs will close down because medicare doesn't pay as much for lab services and medicare will expand under this plan. Private insurance will also get many restrictions and they will not be able to pay as much for lab services and tests in order to accomodate 30 million new insured people.

The larger hospitals and large reference labs like Quest and Labcorp will survive.

I hope it passes so the Supreme Court can deem it unconstitutional and we can lay this one to rest forever. :)

Thank you, CLS48. I was considering a major career change and getting into healthcare, but am now second guessing that. Thanks for presenting the facts.

CLS- i agree with what you are saying, but I don't think it will be THAT bad. It will just be an adjustment, just like Medicare was an adjustment.

With that said, how many states attorney generals are lined up with lawsuit in hand if this thing passes? I doubt it will go anywhere even if it passes.

This bill is not going to solve the healthcare crisis. Until people take responsibility for thier own health through eating right and exercising we are going to continue to go down this path. Giving a 5'4", 300 lb smoker(who is a frequent flier in the local emergency departemnt) medical insurance is not going to magically make him/her a 5'4" 130 lb runner with a brain. I know that 90% of people are not like this but that 10% who are are the real culprits in the high cost medicine here.

I would be all for a provision in the healthcare bill if we stopped insuring or cut medicare/medicaid services those who choose to be unhealthy by eating trash, smoking, not taking care of themselves.

I'm under medicaid and I'm merely a student still who can't afford pretty much my own private health insurance. However I can assure you, even with medicaid, we barely get anything other than a routinely useless check up and having to go with generic version of medication that are likely not to work because government health insurance will never pay for good medication. This is my case atleast, I've fought several times that the only thing I really am in need for is a prescription drug that I won't name for a few reasons to be covered because I can't shell out 250 dollars a month for it, even the generic version of that was not covered..so I've been remaining sick using useless meds for the past 2 or so years ever since I started with medicaid.

Some people will take care of themselves much more so than the average person, however some complications are just genetic and happen accordingly, there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it other than undergoing treatment. Not everyone who have health issues that require expensive medication and cant afford it ate a hamburger at McDonalds everyday after school.

Rohan- I think you missed my point.

Medicaid only has a certain number of dollars to spend. When you have a morbidly obese person who constantly goes to the Emergency Department because he can't breath or because his ankles hurt there has to be a point where someone says "enough is enough."

But we can't do that. And that is why Medicaid won't pay for your meds, the money was sucked up by the users of this world who can't see past thier own selfish wants and realize that what they do to themselves affects other people. I am willing to bet this is only 20% of those who recieve Medicaid though, and they probably get 80% of the money.

Talk to anyone who works in an emergency department and they will tell you how it is.

The House just voted to pass healthcare reform allowing the govt to take over 1/6 of our economy. This will have a grave effect on our jobs and our pay.

CLS48 in California said: The House just voted to pass healthcare reform allowing the govt to take over 1/6 of our economy. This will have a grave effect on our jobs and our pay.

hey cls, one thing i don't understand is, how is USA's version of 'universal' health care different than Canada's, Europe, etc.

Is it because of the lazy American people that exploit the system, or something else? thanks, i'm not too good with politics.

Well it's not as bad since they don't have a public option. It just expands medicaid to cover more americans then just the poor Americans. It will also tell people you have to buy insurance, hiring 15,000 more IRS agents to make sure you do have insurance, and if you don't you'll have to pay a penalty fee.

It will force insurance companies to take on more patients to cover the 32 million newly insured, while the number of doctors and healthcare providers stays the same. Insurance premiums will almost have to increase to help cover them all, while at the same time medicaid and medicare will have to lower what they pay to hospitals, doctors, and labs to prevent rising of costs.

All Americans will have their taxes raised in different ways in order to pay for it, including a 3.8% tax hike on the capital gains tax, which is the tax on investment income including stocks and bonds.

Basically, in the lab, we will have more work because of 32 million new patients, but the price per test will go down. That is higher volume but not as much profit per test. Who knows if doctors will even want to take these new medicaid and medicare patients. Medicaid and medicare doesn't pay enough already which is why many doctors only take private insurance. It might become even worse now.

Most laboratories are already run by a skeleton work crew. There will definitely be a lower profit margin, and it will affect everybody as CLS48 states. Granted there will be a lot more patients. Even the most well-studied experts can't tell you what this 4000-page monster bill is going to do.

The upside? Prior to passing, the Canadian Universal Health Care Bill was ambitious enough to claim that it would cut costs. To the contrary, it failed miserably. If the USA bill follows suit it could be decent news for Laboratorians.

I don't think we are doomed, and I'm not even sure if this legislation is ok, but I certainly know it's not good for us as a whole. Does that mean we are screwed? I don't think so. I just hope they hire people with the proper credentials. I want ASCP credentials to dominate the workforce. I just hope it happens.

CLS48, how did this bill get passed? It passed the house, doesnt it have to go through the senate?

Or did they do both vote already?

Confused in Lewisville, Texas said: CLS48, how did this bill get passed? It passed the house, doesnt it have to go through the senate?

Or did they do both vote already?

There were two versions of the bill. One version has already been passed by the house. The other version was already passed by the Senate. The senate bill went "back" to the house. And the house has now passed that version. I'm not sure where the process has to go from here, but I know since the Senate and House practically agree--it is a done deal. Somebody with slightly more expertise than me can elaborate more...

They just voted. It's kind of complicated how it worked. The Senate bill was passed back in december before Scott Brown won, and broke the filibuster proof majority the democrats had in the Senate. So Obama and the dems had to use a procedure called reconciliation where they didn't need a single republican vote to pass it.

So despite public opinion against it, where those opposed is up to 58% and those who support it at about 38%, they managed to pass it without a single Republican vote for it.

Tim S. in Chicago, Illinois said: There were two versions of the bill. One version has already been passed by the house. The other version was already passed by the Senate. The senate bill went "back" to the house. And the house has now passed that version. I'm not sure where the process has to go from here, but I know since the Senate and House practically agree--it is a done deal. Somebody with slightly more expertise than me can elaborate more...

Yes it's already a done deal. The house's vote on the senate bill that already passed was all it needed to become law. President Obama will sign it on Tuesday. The bill with the "fixes" the House put in will go back to the Senate, to debate on if the fixes were ok. Even if they were not it might go back to the house to put more fixes and so forth. However, the bottom line is we have a new healthcare system as of tonight going into affect, with maybe minor adjustments being made.

Let's just hope for the best on how this affects our profession. I have a question but besides doctors, are others likely to get paycuts as well? Such as nurses for example? I always thought they were overcompensated and might be the first to experience severe paycuts if hospitals can't make enough money.

I wouldn't be surprised if they do. What I think would happen is all of our pay just won't go up as fast anymore. This is in effect paycut.

An article about why one Democratic congressman from New York voted no:

www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/03/mike-mcmahon-new-yorks-loan-de.html

“Our district has no public or city hospitals. Staten Island, in fact, is the only borough in New York City without one. I fear that the changes proposed to the disproportionate share hospitals (DSH) reimbursement rates will cut millions from our local hospitals at a time when they can least afford it. This health care package will hurt Richmond University Medical Center and Staten Island University Hospital, with an estimated loss of $25 million and $45 million, respectively from DSH payments. Maimonides and Lutheran Medical Center in Brooklyn will also be affected, with estimated DSH cuts totaling approximately $112 million and $70 million, respectively. I am hopeful that these cuts can be reversed at a later time, but without the assurance that these funds will be restored, I could not vote for a bill that might lead to another hospital closure in our district. These bills also fail to address adjusting the rate of payment doctors get and may cause many to no longer accept Medicare and Medicaid. Further, the package reduces Medicare Advantage on which 40% of our seniors rely and cuts Medicare overall by over $400 billion.

“I believe we need to reform our health care system, but this legislative package is not the way to do it. We must contain the costs of health care and not hurt our local hospitals and doctors. The bill doesn’t go far enough in my mind to hold the hospitals of my district harmless from future cuts, nor does it guarantee to hold down costs for those with insurance."

30% of doctors would want to quit practicing when the billed passed. What we will be faced with is 30 million more patients and 1/3 less doctors, as well as less people wanting to go into medicine. Our healthcare system will be overloaded and quality will definitely suffer.

www.snohomishtimes.com/snohomishNEWS.cfm?inc=story&newsID=1088

"In the survey, 29.2 percent of practicing physicians said they would quit practicing medicine or retire early if faced with the healthcare reform. What many people may not realize is that health reform could impact physician supply in such a way that the quality of healthcare could suffer, said Jim Stone, a managing partner with The Medicus Firm, a national physician search company that conducted the survey.

Other findings of the survey include:

* 28.7 percent of physicians favor a public option.
* 46.3 percent of primary care physicians  family medicine and internal medicine  feel that health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.
* 36 percent of physicians would not recommend medicine as a career.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 661,400 physicians and surgeons in the U.S. in 2008.

The above link may not work so here's another website with the same survey.

www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/medicus-media-survey-reveals-impact-health-reform

"It’s probably not likely that nearly half of the nation’s physicians will suddenly quit practicing at once. However, even if a much smaller percentage such as ten, 15, or 20 percent are pushed out of practice over several years at a time when the field needs to expand by over 20 percent, this would be severely detrimental to the quality of the health care system. Based on the survey results, health reform could, over time, prove to be counterproductive, in that it could decrease patients’ access to medical care while the objective is to improve access.

Additionally, many physicians feel that health reform will cause income to decrease, while workload will increase. Forty-one percent of respondents feel that income and practice revenue will “decline or worsen dramatically” as a result of health reform with a public option, and 31 percent feel that a public option will cause income and practice revenue to “decline or worsen somewhat” as a result. This makes for a total of 72 percent of respondents who feel there would be a negative impact on income. When asked the same question regarding health reform implemented without a public option, a total of 50 percent of respondents feel that income and practice revenue will be negatively impacted, including 14 percent of total respondents who feel that income and practice revenue will “decline or worsen dramatically.” Additionally, 36 percent feel it would “decline or worsen somewhat.”

I still do not think it will get past the supreme court. Lawsuits brought on by 38 states attorneys cannot be ignored. I would say that we should not worry all that much about it either way. Life goes on no matter what happens.

boomer77 in Rockford, Illinois said: I still do not think it will get past the supreme court. Lawsuits brought on by 38 states attorneys cannot be ignored. I would say that we should not worry all that much about it either way. Life goes on no matter what happens.

Life does go on.
The Supreme Court won't be throwing out the new law.
The court generally gives broad latitude to the commerce clause.
Those lawsuits are largely based on partisanship and lack valid legal standing imo.
The states rights argument won't work.We had a civil war over states rights and that issue was settled back then.

I don't think the law is going go make much difference to the average citizen anyway.It won't help very much and it won't hurt very much.

I'm Spanish, and i have to say, "socialized medicine" as you say, it's the greatest thing we have here in Spain, and in the whole European Union. And if you want, you can have a private insurance, if you have the money to do that. So you have the freedom to CHOOSE. But poor people have not any problem to recieve their care.