Mayo Clinic Lamblastes Obama's bill

July 20, 2009

Mayo Clinic lambastes House healthcare bill

@ 12:02 pm by Michael O'Brien
President Obama might have touted the Mayo Clinic as a model of healthcare delivery, but the Minnesota medical center is hardly showing affection for House Democrats' healthcare reform proposals.
The Clinic believes the proposed House legislation "misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients," it said on its Health Policy Blog. "In fact, it will do the opposite."
The House bill currently being marked-up by three key congressional committees would establish a public (or "government-run") option for consumers, and finance it in part with a surtax on high-earning Americans.
And while that bill received a boost from the American Medical Association's (AMA) backing, the Mayo Clinic hardly seemed enthused about the proposal.
The blog continued:

In general, the proposals under discussion are not patient focused or results oriented. Lawmakers have failed to use a fundamental lever — a change in Medicare payment policy — to help drive necessary improvements in American health care. Unless legislators create payment systems that pay for good patient results at reasonable costs, the promise of transformation in American health care will wither. The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.

Obama had promoted the Clinic during the June 24 live ABC News special, "Prescription for America," broadcast from the White House.
"It turns out that Mayo Clinic oftentimes provides care that is as much as one-third less expensive than the average that's provided or — or some other health care systems that aren't doing as good of a job," the president said. "So they are doing all kinds of smart things that we could easily duplicate across the system, but we don't. And our job…is to identify the best ways to achieve the best possible care in a way that controls costs and is affordable for the American economy long term."

FYI: MAYO is a non-profit medical clinic.

If the Mayo Clinic doesn't like it, its obviously not good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spursmania

FYI: MAYO is a non-profit medical clinic.

---

...with one of the lowest cost of high quality health care.

Any entity that is worried its reimbursements will go down is going to be against it.

Yep, 'results oriented' is corporate-speak for 'give me my money biatch!'

From Media Matters...

Quote:

---

In a July 21 article, The Washington Times reported that the Mayo Clinic is "joining the growing chorus of critics the Obama administration is trying to fend off as the debate intensifies from Capitol Hill to Main Street" and that "White House aides did not have a response to the criticism from the Mayo Clinic, which Republicans exploited." The article later stated: "Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, used his Twitter feed to spread the Mayo Clinic statement, adding: 'They are right.' " A Fox Nation headline also falsely claimed, "Mayo Clinic Rebukes Obama's Rationing," and linked to a NewsBusters post, as well as the Times article. In fact, in the statement to which the Times and NewsBusters referred, the Mayo Clinic did not criticize Obama's health care proposal. Rather, it criticized the House bill for "fail to use a fundamental lever -- a change in Medicare payment policy -- to help drive necessary improvements in American health care," and the Obama administration has itself proposed reforms to Medicare payment policy.

In a June 2 letter to Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Max Baucus (D-MT), President Obama listed several proposals to reform Medicare, including "reducing overpayments to Medicare Advantage private insurers; strengthening Medicare and Medicaid payment accuracy by cutting waste, fraud and abuse; improving care for Medicare patients after hospitalizations; and encouraging physicians to form 'accountable care organizations' to improve the quality of care for Medicare patients." Obama also proposed "giving special consideration" to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to "identify and achieve additional savings." Obama said the commission "could be a valuable tool to help achieve health care reform in a fiscally responsible way."

Subsequently, White House budget director Peter Orszag stated in a July 17 statement that "one of the most potent reforms is a change in the process of health care policymaking: empowering an independent, non-partisan body of doctors and other health experts to make recommendation about Medicare payment rates and other reforms." And in a July 17 letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Orszag proposed creating a nonpartisan Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC), which would "have the authority to make recommendations to the President on annual Medicare payment rates as well as other reforms."

---

Any talk about reducing costs, which in Good Old U$A, are 2x per capita costs in other countries for worse outcomes, is about reducing somebody's revenues.

And those somebody's will fight, with 100s of $Ms of lobbying, advertising, sliming, lying any attempts to reduce those revenues.

Payers (citizens, patients) want simpler, cheaper health care, but they don't really have a prayer against the very powerful (iow, rich) corps that want to maintain the disastrous status quo.

And of course the all-politics all-the-time Repugs have the self-interest of working to block and trash ANY Magik Negro project.

If MN gets health care reform done (he won't), the Repugs will be dead in the 2010 mid-terms, and they know it. No matter what is costs the country and invidividuals, Repugs want MN to fail on every count.

Obama does this a lot.

Touts companies/groups/people as loving him while the truth is they know he is a conniving mfer.

Nice manipulation of CAT bambam.

The Mayo Clinic is one of the best clinics not only in the US but in the world. If they think Obama's plan stinks, it does. To attempt to read Mayo's discontent any other way is viewing reality with rose-colored glasses.

well, they're right - any health care reform that doesn't include regulation of how much can be charged for various procedures (the problem at the heart of the problem with Medicare) hasn't gone far enough.

However, this is what happens when you have to get health care reform through 100 senators and hundreds of reps. It gets mangled and butchered.

That being said, anything that comes out at this point will be better than what we have, because what we have is a national disgrace. And anything that comes out will be tweaked and altered in 6 months, a year, etc, to make it better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

...with one of the lowest cost of high quality health care.

---

Exactly, so people questioning the Mayo Clinic's opinion as self-serving have no idea that all its physicians are paid by salaries not reimbursements. So, all their cynicism about corporate profits being the motive behind their opinion goes out the window.

If you think not-for-profit entities don't care about how much money is coming is, you are very naive. Many physicians are paid a salary, but it does not mean they are not pressured to bring in more money. Ask any faculty member at any medical school or residency program. The physician gets a salary but the clinic runs on reimbursements.

If you noticed, it is not the physicians but the administration making these statements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

well, they're right - any health care reform that doesn't include regulation of how much can be charged for various procedures (the problem at the heart of the problem with Medicare) hasn't gone far enough.

However, this is what happens when you have to get health care reform through 100 senators and hundreds of reps. It gets mangled and butchered.

That being said, anything that comes out at this point will be better than what we have, because what we have is a national disgrace. And anything that comes out will be tweaked and altered in 6 months, a year, etc, to make it better.

---

Perhaps we have this "national disgrace" because politicians have spent the last six or seven decades mangling and butchering the market for health care services?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supergirl

That being said, anything that comes out at this point will be better than what we have, because what we have is a national disgrace. And anything that comes out will be tweaked and altered in 6 months, a year, etc, to make it better.

---

The premise that anything our government does, even if it's not perfect, will make things better is a fundamentally flawed premise. It's a very distinct possibility that our government will actually make things worse than they are now. Look at our government's resume.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

The premise that anything our government does, even if it's not perfect, will make things better is a fundamentally flawed premise. It's a very distinct possibility that our government will actually make things worse than they are now. Look at our government's resume.

---

That premise is so flawed in so many ways. Who in their right mind would want the government running our health care given its track record. When will some Americans ever learn? Remember Santa Ana, "what we do not learn from our past we are doomed to repeat".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

The premise that anything our government does, even if it's not perfect, will make things better is a fundamentally flawed premise. It's a very distinct possibility that our government will actually make things worse than they are now. Look at our government's resume.

---

No kidding. Who in their right mind thinks government makes things better?

What accomplishments does the government have on it's resume of properly managing resources? Very few. I'd say less than 5%, and I'm being generous. Statistically, things would be worse. With so few things done right by government, why do people think something as large as health care will be?

How about national security or the military?
Should we privatize them?
Does the government does such an incredibly shitty job on either?

I'm arguing from the point of the government being unable to do anything right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

How about national security or the military?
Should we privatize them?
Does the government does such an incredibly shitty job on either?

I'm arguing from the point of the government being unable to do anything right.

---

I never claimed that. I did conservatively give them 5%.

Now one of the biggest idiotic thing about health care is they are pushing it for political reasons. Not because it's the right thing to do. Liberals want to buy your vote! With my money!

Show me a plan that will work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

How about national security or the military?
Should we privatize them?
Does the government does such an incredibly shitty job on either?

I'm arguing from the point of the government being unable to do anything right.

---

How does spending half a trillion per annum on "national defense" and being unable to thwart an attack consisting of 20 individuals armed with box cutters sound?

Yet we see our military prove that 'we're not pussies' to the world by pummeling some 3rd or 4th world military and automatically assume that it is a "success."

The state is power. It's no coincidence that virtually every square inch of land that isn't frozen over on this Earth is claimed by at least one state. The history of the state is force, violence, and conquest. Yet we have those who think it doesn't bear fangs and believe it doesn't have an ulterior motive when it dresses up in a Santa Claus suit and gives us "gifts."

We also have those who cheer on its global fornication and yet fear it at home, pretending that the qualities which give them pause in regards to it domestically don't matter when it's flexing itself abroad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I never claimed that. I did conservatively give them 5%.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

How does spending half a trillion per annum on "national defense" and being unable to thwart an attack consisting of 20 individuals armed with box cutters sound?

Yet we see our military prove that 'we're not pussies' to the world by pummeling some 3rd or 4th world military and automatically assume that it is a "success."

---

LOL, this is exactly the contrast I was looking for when I posted the question. :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

How does spending half a trillion per annum on "national defense" and being unable to thwart an attack consisting of 20 individuals armed with box cutters sound?

Yet we see our military prove that 'we're not pussies' to the world by pummeling some 3rd or 4th world military and automatically assume that it is a "success."

The state is power. It's no coincidence that virtually every square inch of land that isn't frozen over on this Earth is claimed by at least one state. The history of the state is force, violence, and conquest. Yet we have those who think it doesn't bear fangs and believe it doesn't have an ulterior motive when it dresses up in a Santa Claus suit and gives us "gifts."

We also have those who cheer on its global fornication and yet fear it at home, pretending that the qualities which give them pause in regards to it domestically don't matter when it's flexing itself abroad.

---

The military doesn't decide to go to war Marcus. The civilians in charge do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

The military doesn't decide to go to war Marcus. The civilians in charge do.

---

I'm aware.

Though I'm sure there are those would prefer to do away with that, um, technicality and turn the generals and admirals loose upon this godforsaken Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

I'm aware.

Though I'm sure there are those would prefer to do away with that, um, technicality and turn the generals and admirals loose upon this godforsaken Earth.

---

Perhaps. Though I think you'd find there's be a fair variety of generals who wanted to take down everyone, generals who didn't want to start a war unless necessary, and everything in between.

I mean, after all, the F-22 vote got shot down, and it was championed by a Republican Secretary of Defense! I never thought I'd see that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Perhaps. Though I think you'd find there's be a fair variety of generals who wanted to take down everyone, generals who didn't want to start a war unless necessary, and everything in between.

---

I know. I was being facetious.

That generals wouldn't be ready to eliminate, say, France, if they just had the chance, is lost on Water Closet.

Quote:

---

I mean, after all, the F-22 vote got shot down, and it was championed by a Republican Secretary of Defense! I never thought I'd see that.

---

True. Maybe our Constitution still exists.



Nah.

Ah Marcus, you cynical ragamuffin.

Luxembourg's been acting rather smug lately. It's time for the Eagle to show 'em just how big its talon is, if you know what I mean.

Ain't no pussies here!

Ha! I lived in Luxembourg for 5 years as a kid.

Most people think it's in Germany.


carry on...

I think the demographics of the patient-base for the Mayo Clinic factors into the equation more than what people would like to admit...