Let's be honest about the GOP position on health care....

[droski]

Depends on how the questions were asked. When the provisions of the bill were presented, my understanbding is that the polls were overwhelmingly positive. It is only when the question was posed in such a fashion as to relate to the bill under attack by the insurance lobb ... er, I mean Fox News, that it came back negative.

ridiculous. the polls that came back positive asked very generic questions about the benefits and didn't mention the costs at all.

 

[volinbham]

First, there are very few physicians and no hospitals out there that won't take Medicare.

Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients - Bloomberg.com

Yes the very bastion of "caring" as far as hospitals go finds Medicare is killing them.

More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the government’s largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family clinic in Glendale, northwest of Phoenix, said Michael Yardley, a Mayo spokesman. The decision, which Yardley called a two-year pilot project, won’t affect other Mayo facilities in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota.

Mayo’s hospital and four clinics in Arizona, including the Glendale facility, lost $120 million on Medicare patients last year, Yardley said. The program’s payments cover about 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients at the Glendale clinic, he said.

Mayo’s Medicare losses in Arizona may be worse than typical for doctors across the U.S., Heim said. Physician costs vary depending on business expenses such as office rent and payroll. “It is very common that we hear that Medicare is below costs or barely covering costs,” Heim said.

Mayo’s decision may herald similar moves by other Phoenix- area doctors who cite inadequate Medicare fees as a reason to curtail treatment of the elderly, said John Rivers, chief executive of the Phoenix-based Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association.

“We’ve got doctors who are saying we are not going to deal with Medicare patients in the hospital” because they consider the fees too low, Rivers said. “Or they are saying we are not going to take new ones in our practice.”

 

[droski]

Really? That is surprising to me. I live in Florida, though. Freaking McDonald's takes Medicare here.

supply and demand. if you have no other choice but to accept it to make a living than you will take it, but if you have a choice about which patients you take you give medicare and medicaid the middle finger.

 

[BigPapaVol]

First, there are very few physicians and no hospitals out there that won't take Medicare. The reimbursement rate comparison is a joke because the system of billing is designed to overcome most of the limits that theoretically would exist.

This entire paragraph is a lie. The number of physicians who will no longer take medicare at a loss is enormous and growing. You have no idea what you're talking about. The reimbursement rate comparison is simply the reality generated by our heavily government involved broken system. To say otherwise is simply ill informed, no pun intended.

Second, I agree with you that the system of figuring out what gets paid is a "nightmare," though I do not agree that the collections are. These large facilities and hospital chains do just fine. They may have an accounting nightmare -- I'd agree with you there -- but its not caused by failing to collect from the feds or from the larege contract health insurers.

I don't know where you get your information, but you have no earthly idea what hospitals do. I am currently selling one of the best in Dallas for a gentlemen who owns the majority of it. You could use about 27 seconds with him and infinitely increase what you know.

I frankly do not trust the numbers that anyone gives out on these things because the DRGs aren't honest or accurate reflections of what the delivery of a particular service costs. Its impossible to figure it out.

Does that create an opportunity for inefficiencies? Yup. For fraud? Yup.

But that's a question of enforcement and monitoring, not of the theoretical benefit to be derived from some sort of dependable and universally recognized acocunting whereby we can start to meaningfully compare what Medicare reimburses for a procedure versus what BCBS reimburses.

Your final collection of words is all but meaningless. The government is always the worst possible solution to a financial issue. Always. The government has generated this problem by wading into the healthcare arena and will exacerbating it by pushing all of those who would temper government stupidity out of the arena.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Why do you think the majority of people in virtually every poll were against this bill?

Too dumb to understand it?

It's a crap bill that required procedural gymnastics to pass and you are calling the R side the political animals?
:blink:

Wasn't it interesting last night that every Dem strategist blamed the polling weakness on Americans tired of the DC process? All kept falling back on process. Not one of them would admit that the polling absolutely and unequivocally showed Americans against a government solution. All want improved systems, but none want Government.

 

[volinbham]

Depends on how the questions were asked. When the provisions of the bill were presented, my understanbding is that the polls were overwhelmingly positive. It is only when the question was posed in such a fashion as to relate to the bill under attack by the insurance lobb ... er, I mean Fox News, that it came back negative.

Seriously?

The questions asked directly about the Obama/Dem plan for HC reform were legit.

Asking only if you'd like some particular provisions is no way to assess the public's view of this bill.

For example:

Are you for peace in the Middle East?

or

Are you for invasion of Iraq and installation of a democratic government there to create peace in the Middle East?

You can't separate methods from goals.

 

[Gramps]

how are they going to force me to buy insurance?

For you it will be easy...

You live in CA....It's simple....You buy health insurace or you spend a romantic weekend once a month with Pelosi.


Which do you choose... Obamacare or Pelosicare ?

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

For you it will be easy...

You live in CA....It's simple....You buy health insurace or you spend a romantic weekend once a month with Pelosi.


Which do you choose... Obamacare or Pelosicare ?

i think i would rather hook up with a wood chipper

 

[BigPapaVol]

For you it will be easy...

You live in CA....It's simple....You buy health insurace or you spend a romantic weekend once a month with Pelosi.


Which do you choose... Obamacare or Pelosicare ?

arsenic.

 

[KentheOrange]

I've wondered if this is really true. I don't see very many poor people, people barely scraping by don't have cable, cell phones etc. I think what we have seen is more people making at least decent money but living beyond their means, which in turns leaves them with roughly zero disposable income. That doesn't mean they're poor, it just means their priorities aren't in order. I have no sympathy for them, I reserve that for people whose struggles aren't self induced.

You just don't understand.

WANTS soon become NEEDS which then become RIGHTS.

 

[BigPapaVol]

The use of implied right in these healthcare threads is sickening.

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

"i WANT Megan Fox, I NEED a new Truck, Obama will provide them RIGHT? "

this formula is easily resuable, and is the mentality of Obamanauts

 

[CountVolcula]

Government is notorious for "slow pay" or "no pay". I know because I deal with vendors all day that dont get paid on time or not at all. Wont be any different with healthcare.

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

 

[CountVolcula]

The use of implied right in these healthcare threads is sickening.

Thats the mind-set of the entitled. We are breeding them by the millions in this country.

 

[CountVolcula]

After looking at that picture, I'm pretty sure I had a Pelosi floating in the toilet this morning.

 

[T-TownVol]

The use of implied right in these healthcare threads is sickening.

the sad thing is....some are not just implying it

 

[KB5252]

The title of this thread got me wondering, when is LG going to provide us with this honesty about the GOP position on health care?

 

[lawgator1]

Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients - Bloomberg.com

Yes the very bastion of "caring" as far as hospitals go finds Medicare is killing them.

I always take such announcements with a grain of salt because of a) the accounting gimmickry by which they claim a loss on Medicare. Uusually means they are calling significant reimbursement angle something else; and b) you will see such proclamations from time to time as these facilities are negotiating something, like a taxing district or what have you, in order to gin up support.

Hospitals in Florida threaten every year to discontinue without some absurd rate hike by BCBS, BCBS threatens to pull out of the state, they both just want to cause alarm in the senior population. They both always get what they want.

supply and demand. if you have no other choice but to accept it to make a living than you will take it, but if you have a choice about which patients you take you give medicare and medicaid the middle finger.

So if it weren't for their enormous buying power causes by economies of scale, you are saying that the health care industry would turn down all of the older and sicker patients? Sounds like a pretty good argument for a public option ....

Oh, wait ......

Your final collection of words is all but meaningless. The government is always the worst possible solution to a financial issue. Always. The government has generated this problem by wading into the healthcare arena and will exacerbating it by pushing all of those who would temper government stupidity out of the arena.

I used to cover health care industry for a publication out of Tallahassee. One of the chief lobbyists for the hospitals, whenever state budgeting for Medicaid came up, would say: "There are three kinds of hospitals. For profit. Not for profit. And not for obvious profit."

BPV, surely you, with your access to the information you have, realize that especially in the case of the hospitals the accounting is a giant shell game.

 

[T-TownVol]

There is not bigger "shell game" than the government.

 

[droski]

I always take such announcements with a grain of salt because of a) the accounting gimmickry by which they claim a loss on Medicare.


So if it weren't for their enormous buying power causes by economies of scale, you are saying that the health care industry would turn down all of the older and sicker patients? Sounds like a pretty good argument for a public option ....
.

you really need to stop this accounting argument bs. if medicare was profitable ALL doctors would take it.

i'm not talking about economies of scale i'm talking about the fact that florida has a bunch of old farts and therefore the doctors have no choice but to take medicare since that's 90% of their patients. even then i bet a good percentage dont' take it.

 

[droski]

no doctors don't take medicare huh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html

Of the 93 internists affiliated with New York-Presbyterian Hospital, for example, only 37 accept Medicare, according to the hospital’s Web site.

In a June 2008 report, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel that advises Congress on Medicare, said that 29 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one to treat them, up from 24 percent the year before. And a 2008 survey by the Texas Medical Association found that while 58 percent of the state’s doctors took new Medicare patients, only 38 percent of primary care doctors did.

 

[KentheOrange]

First, there are very few physicians and no hospitals out there that won't take Medicare. The reimbursement rate comparison is a joke because the system of billing is designed to overcome most of the limits that theoretically would exist.

Second, I agree with you that the system of figuring out what gets paid is a "nightmare," though I do not agree that the collections are. These large facilities and hospital chains do just fine. They may have an accounting nightmare -- I'd agree with you there -- but its not caused by failing to collect from the feds or from the larege contract health insurers.

I frankly do not trust the numbers that anyone gives out on these things because the DRGs aren't honest or accurate reflections of what the delivery of a particular service costs. Its impossible to figure it out.

Does that create an opportunity for inefficiencies? Yup. For fraud? Yup.

But that's a question of enforcement and monitoring, not of the theoretical benefit to be derived from some sort of dependable and universally recognized acocunting whereby we can start to meaningfully compare what Medicare reimburses for a procedure versus what BCBS reimburses.

One of my clients has a business that does fairly well refiling claims for doctors and hospitals with the feds and large insurers. He can do this because of the difficulties in collecting these funds.

Once again you are talking from an orifice that was not intended for speech.

 

[T-TownVol]

One of my clients has a business that does fairly well refiling claims for doctors and hospitals with the feds and large insurers. He can do this because of the difficulties in collecting these funds.

Once again you are talking from an orifice that was not intended for speech.

but....but....he is an ATTORNEY!

 

[lawgator1]

no doctors don't take medicare huh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html

Of the 93 internists affiliated with New York-Presbyterian Hospital, for example, only 37 accept Medicare, according to the hospital’s Web site.

In a June 2008 report, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel that advises Congress on Medicare, said that 29 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one to treat them, up from 24 percent the year before. And a 2008 survey by the Texas Medical Association found that while 58 percent of the state’s doctors took new Medicare patients, only 38 percent of primary care doctors did.

Did you happen to read the correction at the bottom of the story you linked to?


Correction: April 6, 2009
An article in the special Retirement section on Thursday about problems consumers have finding doctors who accept Medicare misstated the results of a survey published in 2008 by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel that advises Congress. The panel found that 29 percent of beneficiaries who were looking for a new primary care physician had problems finding one who accepted Medicare; the panel did not find that 29 percent of all beneficiaries had problems finding a primary care doctor or a specialist who accepted Medicare.


From what I am reading, about 75 % of all doctors accept Medicare. There are pockets of problems, certainly, such as at the one hospital cited in your article, and within certain specialties. There also seems to be an issue in Texas, for some reason. But if you are correct and the doctors are taking what the market will bear, i.e. if Medicare is a significant payor in the region, then it stands to reason that broadening their coverage will increase the doctors who accept it.