Friday, July 13, 2012

Obamacare Fallout Hits KC: St. Luke's to Cut Jobs


Everyone but Democrats knew Obamacare would result in worse health care and it's already starting in Kansas City.  St. Luke's will cut costs by $100 million to help meet Obamacare burden.  The cost cutting includes eliminating many jobs and reducing services.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Fine if they want to blame "OBAMA" but hospitals and doctors and big pharma have been worried for some time... because they know American can't afford to spend 18 percent of its GNP on runaway health care costs.

Fact is, Insurance companies are tightening up on what they pay hospitals and doctors...paying WELL BELOW the RETAIL fees they try to charge people without insurance.

And people can't afford their prices...unnecessary tests,and bloated fees to pay for their costs from the deadbeats.

THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF A TREND THAT HAS STARTED WELL BEFORE OBAMA CARE! Middle class people, hammered by Republican fat cats, can't afford this...because they're losing their jobs but still getting sick...and new jobs they get don't pay as well as their LAST jobs.

Yup...earlier we had a serious diet for housing construction...mortgages... and now HEALTH CARE IS NEXT!

You would be SHOCKED if you knew what your hospital bill is... and SHOCKED AGAIN by how little of it your insurance company will pay them, and they have to write the rest off for tax break purposes.

Don't believe their crap. HEALTH CARE HAS ONLY BEGUN to tighten its belt. Wait till Obamacare/Medicare, part II!

Anonymous said...

It is called the Affordable Care Act. Healthcare is a right not a privalge of the few who can afford it. Healthcare costs are out of control and if we don't get it under control on the 1% club will have access.

theKansasCitian said...

Health care is most definitely NOT a right.

Rights are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable.

One can not have the right to health care as health care requires a level of knowledge, skill, and tools that one is not simply born with. Health care professionals develop the proper base of knowledge and skill through hard work and by the sweat of their brow. The acquire the tools through investment, using their own or employers money to do so.

If health care were a right it would mean that the individual who does not have the desire to work, study, and labor in the health care field has a right to force another individual to do the same with little or no contribution. In other words, a form of indentured servitude.

Our society has chosen to provide a level of welfare or safety net to provide emergency health services to those who can not afford it. This charity is a privilege provided by the good will and consent of the governed. It is by no means a right as it can be taken away by a simple vote.

The only health care that could be considered a right is health care one provides to one's self using their own knowledge.

Anonymous said...

Health care is not a right because a right does not require anything from others except that they leave you be to exercise your right, and you do the same for them.

For example, free speech is a right. My right of free speech does not require anything of James, except that he does not prohibit me from exercising it on my property or in the public square. {James' personal property would be another matter.} James, however, is not required to buy me a newspaper ad, or a spot on the radio or TV to exercise my right of free speech.

My right to freedom of religion likewise would not require James to build me a Church. It would require that James does not try to interfere with me or burn down my Church, etc.

Health care as people speak of it today is not a right because it requires others, e.g. James, to pay to provide me with that service.

If any health related rights are infringed upon, it would be when the government prohibits adults from seeking the medical attention they desire. For example, certain diet pills seemed to work for many people. However, the government banned them over so-called safety concerns. This would be an example where the dieters should have had a right to procure those diet pills, but the Feds interfered with that right. However, I did not hear too many people protest that those dieters where being denied their right of health care on that issue.

Anonymous said...

Funny, they want to cut costs and jobs but they paid how much to post an ad during the super bowl?? My friend tells me they will also have an ad at the olympics! How much was that spot?!. Greed.....that's what it amounts to....I suppose it's ok to take away the livelihoods of workers in exchange for 30 seconds in front of a lot of people......

theKansasCitian said...

A local ad during the 2012 super bowl was $30,000 for 30 seconds. Hardly an amount that would have saved a job for more than a year.

More over, how much new revenue did that ad bring to the company. I am betting, if you ask or look at their financial filings you could find out. If what you say is correct, that they have now decided to run ads during the olympics (which costs even less), I am guessing their research showed the super bowl ad was wildly successful in bringing in new revenue. In case you were wondering, new revenue creates new jobs.

You have to spend money, to make money. Learn how business works. Advertising is not the same as paying a bonus or having wildly extravagant parties in vegas like the Obama admin does, no, advertising is reinvesting in the business in order to find new customers.