August 16, 201214 yr 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.
August 16, 201214 yr 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.
August 16, 201214 yr 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. Edited August 16, 201214 yr by Clyde
August 16, 201214 yr 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.
August 16, 201214 yr 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.
August 16, 201214 yr 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.
August 16, 201214 yr 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 $$ less $700B
August 16, 201214 yr 95%+ of people who hear $700B cut do the math this way. Today's $$ 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.
August 16, 201214 yr Author 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.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.