Today Medicare reimbursement rates are set to be slashed by 21% and many doctors will no longer be accepting Medicare patients.
Congress and the media was hoping this one would squeak by. If you or a relative relies on Medicare, it might be a good idea to check with your doctor, and look into supplemental plans.
Having trouble finding it on any regular news sites, but here is a link:
http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/display.php?id=12066
WSJ reported on it last week and CNN Money made it a back page article. I just IM'd a MD friend of mine. She says she stopped accepting Mcare patients two weeks ago! She is also exiting the program by making arrangements to transfer existing patients. She says getting out of it is not easy.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 01, 2010, 08:22:54 AM
WSJ reported on it last week and CNN Money made it a back page article. I just IM'd a MD friend of mine. She says she stopped accepting Mcare patients two weeks ago! She is also exiting the program by making arrangements to transfer existing patients. She says getting out of it is not easy.
Just another greedy doctor only thinking about herself. When will these people learn that they should be providing free health care services?
/sarc (if anyone thought otherwise)
Quote from: guido911 on March 01, 2010, 09:49:42 AM
Just another greedy doctor only thinking about herself. When will these people learn that they should be providing free health care services?
/sarc (if anyone thought otherwise)
Thank god you put that I was gettin ready to reem your azzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Gaspar on March 01, 2010, 07:48:08 AM
Today Medicare reimbursement rates are set to be slashed by 21% and many doctors will no longer be accepting Medicare patients.
Congress and the media was hoping this one would squeak by. If you or a relative relies on Medicare, it might be a good idea to check with your doctor, and look into supplemental plans.
A little background: this is part of Republican Jim Bunning's one-man filibuster of the Senate's job bill. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/bunning-blockade-leads-to-21-percent-pay-cut-to-doctors.php?ref=fpa) In addition to the Medicare support (covering that 21% cost gap) the bill would also extend unemployment benefits and COBRA coverage to literally millions of jobless citizens.
Bunning (in a Coburnesque move) has decided to block the bill because it's unfunded, which -- as a moral stance -- would have a much bigger punch behind it if the Republican party didn't line up to a man to defeat PAYGO limits.
But all of that is to say that, yes, without the bill being passed, Medicare will go up, along with several million people will having their unemployment/COBRA shut off as well.
This was an instructive article, (http://www.medpagetoday.com/PracticeManagement/Reimbursement/18711) showing that the 21% increase in fees is actually part of the mandated structure of payment tied to Part B, which tracks GDP. From the article:
QuoteThe scheduled cuts are mandated under the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula -- the Medicare accounting scheme that links Part B reimbursement to the gross domestic product (GDP). The formula has mandated large cuts every year over most of the last decade, forcing organized medicine to rally the troops to fight the cuts.
Who cares. Medicare cannot afford to pay doctors, and doctors cannot afford to accept Medicare.
Now we want to make everything Medicare?
Quote from: Gaspar on March 01, 2010, 03:34:36 PM
Who cares. Medicare cannot afford to pay doctors, and doctors cannot afford to accept Medicare.
So let's call the whole thing off?
Quote from: we vs us on March 01, 2010, 03:03:06 PM
A little background: this is part of Republican Jim Bunning's one-man filibuster of the Senate's job bill. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/bunning-blockade-leads-to-21-percent-pay-cut-to-doctors.php?ref=fpa) In addition to the Medicare support (covering that 21% cost gap) the bill would also extend unemployment benefits and COBRA coverage to literally millions of jobless citizens.
Bunning (in a Coburnesque move) has decided to block the bill because it's unfunded, which -- as a moral stance -- would have a much bigger punch behind it if the Republican party didn't line up to a man to defeat PAYGO limits.
But all of that is to say that, yes, without the bill being passed, Medicare will go up, along with several million people will having their unemployment/COBRA shut off as well.
This was an instructive article, (http://www.medpagetoday.com/PracticeManagement/Reimbursement/18711) showing that the 21% increase in fees is actually part of the mandated structure of payment tied to Part B, which tracks GDP. From the article:
I cannot recall, is this 21% medicare payment issue part of the "doc fix" plan from last fall? If so, a couple of things: 1) the cost of this thing was around $200B dollars; and 2) Congress has been trying to get something done (unsuccessfully) on this for a long time.
As for Bunning, I applaud his efforts at trying not to spend what we do not have. He wanted to use stimulus money to cover the $10B price tag but that went nowhere.
(http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2010/03/01/17/20100301_BUNNING_map.wide_photo.prod_affiliate.91.jpg)
Attaboy, Jim.
Bunning sticks to his guns:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/03/bunning_defends_his_position.html
Quote from: guido911 on March 02, 2010, 11:11:05 AM
Bunning sticks to his guns:
And shooting himself in both feet, apparently.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 02, 2010, 11:15:59 AM
And shooting himself in both feet, apparently.
Why, because he wants the government to quit spending money like crazy? You really are a "gimme gimme gimme and let someone else pay for it" sort of have not aren't you.
Quote from: guido911 on March 02, 2010, 01:28:00 PM
Why, because he wants the government to quit spending money like crazy? You really are a "gimme gimme gimme and let someone else pay for it" sort of have not aren't you.
He's single-handedly branding the GOP as the party that refuses to help regular Americans. I'll be interested to see at what point the Republican leadership decides that that is NOT a winning message.
Quote from: we vs us on March 02, 2010, 02:04:34 PM
He's single-handedly branding the GOP as the party that refuses to help regular Americans. I'll be interested to see at what point the Republican leadership decides that that is NOT a winning message.
You make that sound like they're in the process of branding themselves that way. They've been like that for years. They're just more out in the open about it now, trying to make healthcare 'his Waterloo'. :D
Now I guess they're trying to make big-bad government leaner at the expense of the people who were most affected by the years of republican mis-management of the economy. Or at least THEY had the majorities where the purse-strings were concerned.
I know of at least four of my friends who will be affected by this grandstanding Southerner.
Hell, even members of his own party are trying to reason with him.
Quote from: we vs us on March 02, 2010, 02:04:34 PM
He's single-handedly branding the GOP as the party that refuses to help regular Americans. I'll be interested to see at what point the Republican leadership decides that that is NOT a winning message.
What is a "regular American". First, it seems to me that by Bunning demanding that our government pay for things with money it has (and not just keep borrowing indefinitely) is just what "regular Americans" have to do every damned day. Second, those persons most affected by this action are how many? A few hundred thousand out of a nation of 300 million? Are those your idea of "regular Americans"? Oh I know what you mean, "regular Americans" are those that are unemployed right now and not paying taxes. It's not the small business owners, those working two-three part time jobs and refusing to take government hand outs, or those that do not live beyond their means. Makes sense.
Quote from: guido911 on March 02, 2010, 04:55:32 PM
What is a "regular American". First, it seems to me that by Bunning demanding that our government pay for things with money it has (and not just keep borrowing indefinitely) is just what "regular Americans" have to do every damned day. Second, those persons most affected by this action are how many? A few hundred thousand out of a nation of 300 million? Are those your idea of "regular Americans"? Oh I know what you mean, "regular Americans" are those that are unemployed right now and not paying taxes. It's not the small business owners, those working two-three part time jobs and refusing to take government hand outs, or those that do not live beyond their means. Makes sense.
Looks like Bunning caved...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/02/jobless.benefits.bill/index.html?hpt=T3
Quote from: guido911 on March 02, 2010, 04:55:32 PM
First, it seems to me that by Bunning demanding that our government pay for things with money it has (and not just keep borrowing indefinitely) is just what "regular Americans" have to do every damned day.
That's rich. Bunning was a member of the Republican-controlled Senate that let the pay-as-you-go spending law expire in 2002. That law helped President Clinton and the Congress get control of spending during the 1990s and led to a budget surplus.
Guess what current commander-in-chief wants the law reinstated?
Quote from: guido911 on March 02, 2010, 04:55:32 PM
those that do not live beyond their means.
I may live well within my means at the moment, but if I were to lose my job, there would be a nice divide by zero error that would result in your statement becoming meaningless. I guess I could live within my means if that happened. I could always put a bullet in my brain.
Wait, no. Bullets cost money. OK, I guess I could repeatedly bash myself in the skull with a rock until I expired. Surely that wouldn't cost anything. ::)
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 02, 2010, 09:17:38 PM
That's rich. Bunning was a member of the Republican-controlled Senate that let the pay-as-you-go spending law expire in 2002. That law helped President Clinton and the Congress get control of spending during the 1990s and led to a budget surplus.
Guess what current commander-in-chief wants the law reinstated?
No, this is rich. I thought "pay as you go" passed very recently.
Here is a humorous take on folks like you going after Bunning.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/01/EDEV1C930S.DTL
Another rw epic FAIL!
Ha, this is funny. And before you tightie-righties get your panties in a bunch about my source, I got it before this from Wolf Blitzer on CNN yesterday.
Bunning flips the bird at ABC's Jonathan Karl. This happened right before his tirade about the elevator he was on being a 'senators only' elevator.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/jim-bunning-bird-ab
From the clips I saw of the press badgering Bunning, JK is probably lucky the bird is all he got.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 03, 2010, 12:43:37 PM
From the clips I saw of the press badgering Bunning, JK is probably lucky the bird is all he got.
Yeah, because anything more would be 'unprofessional'? Wow.
Let's keep in mind here about the fact that the republicans during the ramp up to the Iraq war didn't give a squat about this pay-as-you-go scheme. Smacks of double-standard here. And somehow they found a way to keep the war off the budget.
Quote from: Hoss on March 03, 2010, 01:20:53 PM
Yeah, because anything more would be 'unprofessional'? Wow.
Probably learned his manners from "FU, you POS" guido. :D
Quote from: rwarn17588 on March 03, 2010, 04:16:34 PM
Probably learned his manners from "FU, you POS" guido. :D
or FU Rahm.
(http://sfist.com/attachments/SFist_Brock/TheManyPosesofRahmEmanuel.jpg)
More itsy-bitsy-spider. Seems to be a theme in the admin.
Wow, for all the hand-wringing Bunning and his party was doing regarding this, the last time the PAYGO bill was brought to a vote, guess what his was?
NO.
What a friggin' hypocrite. And even more so than the average politician. Granted there were several Dems that did vote for this, but to hold up a bill and demand it be paid for first after voting no the Pay As You Go previously. Can some republicans be so damned stupid?