Prescriptions for Medicare

Isn't there a correlation to doctors not accepting medicaid? Seems to me I've heard thats been happening. If true, how has that worked out?

Originally Posted by Clyde

But I'm a new doctor or a doctor whose practice isn't doing as well as I hoped. Why wouldn't I take your customers that you're turning away?

You have enormous debt. You may have a lease on a bldg and staff you have to maintain. Many a practice has gone asunder because you can't collect enough to make ends meet. Get online and see the hot item practices for sale and you'll see "no managed care" in there somewhere. They don't teach you much business when you are in med school, however, it's common knowledge that managed care is not the way to build a productive practice.

Originally Posted by spindoc

You have enormous debt. You may have a lease on a bldg and staff you have to maintain. Many a practice has gone asunder because you can't collect enough to make ends meet. Get online and see the hot item practices for sale and you'll see "no managed care" in there somewhere. They don't teach you much business when you are in med school, however, it's common knowledge that managed care is not the way to build a productive practice.

This, plus if nobody want to be treated by you then you suck at doctoring. I don't want a cheap deal on parachutes, life vest, fire extinguishers, or medical care.

Here is something never said at the hospital:

"Who do you want to do your surgery?"

"Whoever charges the least"

Medicare patients will have to settle for what physicians they can get in to see just like Medicaid patients do now.

I read today (and I think someone alluded to this in another thread) that the reported "gutting of Medicare" by the President is not a CUT of $700B as claimed but rather a decrease in the rate of increase. In other words, Medicare spending would continue to rise but at a slower rate than previously planned.

So this begs the question.

When Gov Romney and his supporters say it's a $700B cut ie gutting Medicare do they a)not fully understand or b)they're playing a game of semantics?

Before ObamaCare Medicare paid 45.00 of an office visit. Now it pays 15.00 of a visit.. Seems like a cut to me.. At least to the consumer.

Originally Posted by cammando

Before ObamaCare Medicare paid 45.00 of an office visit. Now it pays 15.00 of a visit.. Seems like a cut to me.. At least to the consumer.

And to the doctor. Many are dropping medicare patients.

Originally Posted by Bluegrasscard

And to the doctor. Many are dropping medicare patients.

Exactly !

Originally Posted by cammando

Exactly !

It makes death panels easier...no doctor...you die...and save costs!

Originally Posted by cammando

Before ObamaCare Medicare paid 45.00 of an office visit. Now it pays 15.00 of a visit.. Seems like a cut to me.. At least to the consumer.

Link?

Medicare has thousands of billing codes (HCPCS codes) that are used depending on what services are rendered. I don't believe the $15 you state.

Originally Posted by Clyde

I read today (and I think someone alluded to this in another thread) that the reported "gutting of Medicare" by the President is not a CUT of $700B as claimed but rather a decrease in the rate of increase. In other words, Medicare spending would continue to rise but at a slower rate than previously planned.

So this begs the question.

When Gov Romney and his supporters say it's a $700B cut ie gutting Medicare do they a)not fully understand or b)they're playing a game of semantics?

Semantics. Although they are being consistent with how the word "cut" is used in Washington. Based on Washington's definition I'd sure like a pay cut this year.

edit

I cannot speak to medicare issues as intellegently as the posters here, but, could we first deal with the requirement that emergency rooms treat patients regardless of the ability to pay? This requirement, signed into law by the Reagan administration of all people, is used by the indigent an uninsured for emergency, and, non - emergency purposes. It is also exploited by non-citizens who are not here legally. I think it would be wise to focus on the benefits and services provided to non-citizens before dealing with the benefits to citizens. Since there is no mandate for insurance, this is where the costs will be incurred and they will be completely unshared by thos receiving care.

Can't disagree with that at all.

Originally Posted by Clyde

I read today (and I think someone alluded to this in another thread) that the reported "gutting of Medicare" by the President is not a CUT of $700B as claimed but rather a decrease in the rate of increase. In other words, Medicare spending would continue to rise but at a slower rate than previously planned.

So this begs the question.

When Gov Romney and his supporters say it's a $700B cut ie gutting Medicare do they a)not fully understand or b)they're playing a game of semantics?

Spending has automatic increases built in every year. If congress passes a budget that limits those increases it's touted as a cut. Example: spending for 2012 is $3T, 2013 it will be $3.3T if nothing is done. Congress acts and 2013 ends up being $3.1T, it is advertised as a $200B cut. In reality it was a $100B increase. The R's have played the game, the D's have played.

That said with Medicare you can project what it is going to cost based on the additional people added for each year with benefits being what they are today. So if Medicare costs $1T in 2012, it stands to reason it will cost more next year. That money is budgeted in there. If over the next 10 years you take that additional funding out, at least a % of it, it will be a cut. In 10 years you will have more people on Medicare then today yet you will not be funding it at the same level.

So to answer your question to say it is a cut it is according to Washington speak. It's not that supporters don't understand or that their playing a game of semantics. They are following Washington's lead.

Originally Posted by woodsrider

Spending has automatic increases built in every year. If congress passes a budget that limits those increases it's touted as a cut. Example: spending for 2012 is $3T, 2013 it will be $3.3T if nothing is done. Congress acts and 2013 ends up being $3.1T, it is advertised as a $200B cut. In reality it was a $100B increase. The R's have played the game, the D's have played.

That said with Medicare you can project what it is going to cost based on the additional people added for each year with benefits being what they are today. So if Medicare costs $1T in 2012, it stands to reason it will cost more next year. That money is budgeted in there. If over the next 10 years you take that additional funding out, at least a % of it, it will be a cut. In 10 years you will have more people on Medicare then today yet you will not be funding it at the same level.

So to answer your question to say it is a cut it is according to Washington speak. It's not that supporters don't understand or that their playing a game of semantics. They are following Washington's lead.

95%+ of people who hear $700B cut do the math this way.

Today's $$
less $700B

Originally Posted by Clyde

95%+ of people who hear $700B cut do the math this way.

Today's $$
less $700B

Of course they do, that's why EVERYONE in Washington calls it a cut. As far as Medicare goes if you are servicing 20% more people tomorrow then you are today for only 10% more money isn't that really a cut? Even though you are spending 10% more tomorrow the dollar per person spent is less.

Originally Posted by cammando

Before ObamaCare Medicare paid 45.00 of an office visit. Now it pays 15.00 of a visit.. Seems like a cut to me.. At least to the consumer.

I would like to see a source for this. It doesn't seem right, in fact, it seems wildly implausible. None of my mother's doctors have dropped Medicare patients. That doesn't mean that others aren't.