Mark my words, insurance premiums and deductibles will rise at the fastest rate in our lifetimes once the dust settles. Nothing was done to bring down costs and insurance companies are now responsible for sick people who have never paid in... math and common sense.
If you read my posts Fred, instead of just a knee jerk response you would see that I am defending the ACA and not what anyone said, or didn't say about it. In spite of the early problems I believe that it is better than doing nothing and will eventually be refined to be as beneficial to America as Medicare already is.
archer wrote: I believe that it is better than doing nothing and will eventually be refined to be as beneficial to America as Medicare already is.
Medicare’s physician reimbursement regimen is fraught with underpayments and perverse incentives. During the health care debate, supporters of the PPACA praised Medicare’s ability to exploit its size to obtain lower fees with providers. While it is true that Medicare can bludgeon down physician fees, this is not one of the program’s greatest strengths, but actually one of its greatest weaknesses. These underpayments are ultimately shifted to patients in the form of shorter visits, less doctor face time, quick hospital discharges, and compromised care. Rather than reforming the government’s flawed reimbursement regimen, the PPACA merely expands its scope to more people.
Yes, lets set the bar nice and low and see where that leads us.
As if Medicare’s declining reimbursements was not a big enough deterrent to lengthier, more satisfying higher-quality visits, Medicare’s reimbursement system actually outright punishes doctors for spending more time with patients. As the length of visit increases, Medicare reimburses physicians marginally less. For example, in the D.C. metro area, Medicare reimburses physicians $47.53 for a 10-minute follow up visit (CPT 99212), but only $154.76 for a comparable 40-minute visit (CPT 99215). Financially, doctors are better off taking care of four established patients in a 40-minute block as opposed to seeing one patient for 40 minutes. This puts additional pressure on physicians to see more patients in less time, with job satisfaction and quality of care suffering as a result.
Inevitably, the government market share will increase in the health care sector. As costs soar and promised savings from preventive medicine and electronic health records fail to materialize, the government will need some way to control costs. Section 3403 of the law establishes an Independent Payment Advisory Board designed to do just that. Steep physician pay cuts, as well as more regulations designed to get physicians to do more for less, such as the abolishment of consultation codes, will likely be forthcoming. This will only accelerate the trend toward hospital discharge one day post surgery and further undercut the patient-doctor relationship. When the government squeezes money out of health care, it is not shortchanging the industry, it is shortchanging the patient.
Thanks for the Link Rick. Despite the "Arches" cheer-leading, I am not looking forward to Medicare in 10 years from now. Better make some connections now with a good Doc who takes cash or gold coins.
I really do appreciate medical professionals and am always amazed at the hard work they do under the thumb of the gubbermint. Hope it lasts a bit longer, or they take cash.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
I've never understood those people who would rather see seniors go without health insurance (for sure if they had to pay the going rate with insurance companies most could never afford it) than require medical facilities to accept lower fees for those covered by Medicare. Basically that is placing the ever increasing profits of health care industry and drug companies above the health and quality of life of seniors. You are entitled to your opinion and can believe that Medicare isn't worth the cost, but I sure don't understand you.
I've had Medicare for several years, my husband for even longer.....we had no change in providers our quality of care from Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and we are saving over 1200/month over what we paid before Medicare.
archer wrote: I've never understood those people who would rather see seniors go without health insurance .....
Which are "those" people you are assuming again?
Did you ever consider present Medicare is on a trajectory to failure and insolvency?
LOL, it's easier to make things up and pretend like you can read minds than to deal with facts. Nobody on this board and nobody on the right has ever voiced that made up statement. Oh ya, and lets not forget the right wants to starve children and breath dirty air. And if all that fails to convince, pull out the race card for good measure.
archer wrote: I've never understood those people who would rather see seniors go without health insurance (for sure if they had to pay the going rate with insurance companies most could never afford it) than require medical facilities to accept lower fees for those covered by Medicare. Basically that is placing the ever increasing profits of health care industry and drug companies above the health and quality of life of seniors. You are entitled to your opinion and can believe that Medicare isn't worth the cost, but I sure don't understand you.
I've had Medicare for several years, my husband for even longer.....we had no change in providers our quality of care from Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and we are saving over 1200/month over what we paid before Medicare.
If you want all healthcare to be like Medicare, including the way it pays doctors, we will all see a drastic decrease in quality of care, except for the rich. That's just my opinion but it's based on facts.
archer wrote: I've never understood those people who would rather see seniors go without health insurance (for sure if they had to pay the going rate with insurance companies most could never afford it) than require medical facilities to accept lower fees for those covered by Medicare. Basically that is placing the ever increasing profits of health care industry and drug companies above the health and quality of life of seniors. You are entitled to your opinion and can believe that Medicare isn't worth the cost, but I sure don't understand you.
I've had Medicare for several years, my husband for even longer.....we had no change in providers our quality of care from Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and we are saving over 1200/month over what we paid before Medicare.
In other words you got yours so screw everyone else. Are you sure you are not a republican. :faint: :rofllol :rofllol
(Oh, am I putting words in your mouth. Well color me a progressive. )
If Obamacare is so great why didn't Sebelius defend it? I would prefer an apology but we all know that's not gonna happen.
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus
:faint: :rofllol :rofllol
)
