Reply With Quote
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA606.html
linky here.
Doctors are saying that Obamacare is gonna bring more taxes, more reg, decreased pay and a higher workload.
so then stop making unsubstantiated claims.. easy to fix
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA606.html
linky here.
Doctors are saying that Obamacare is gonna bring more taxes, more reg, decreased pay and a higher workload.
MATT PATTERSON
POLICY ANALYST
Matt Patterson is an author and analyst whose work has appeared in The Washington Post, The New York Post, FoxNews.com, and National Review Online, among others. In 2009 he was named a National Review Ins ute Washington Fellow.
From 2008-2009, Matt served as research assistant to Charles Krauthammer. In the 2008 Republican primary race, he served as policy communications coordinator and a state political coordinator for the Rudy Giuliani presidential campaign.
Matt is an honors graduate of Columbia University, where he studied ancient Greek and Latin, and has performed across the U.S. and abroad as an award winning sleight-of-hand artist. He grew up in Colorado.
Oh he is an objetive source....
About Us
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a communications and research foundation supportive of a strong national defense and dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems. We believe that the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility provide the greatest hope for meeting the challenges facing America in the 21st century.
So it's a biased right wing blogger...
Are you really trying to reason with George?
You'll have better luck with George of the Jungle.
I guess proof of what they are dealing with now, Medicare, and late reimbursements from Private insurances, then a public expansion of both would be worse off for them. But these are the guys that deal with this everyday.But talk to older doctors. Many will tell you that they intend to retire as soon as it is financially feasible. They are tired of fighting for insurance reimbursement − from private insurers, and especially from Medicare and Medicaid.
More physicians are opting out of Medicare. They endure endless resubmissions of claims, endless denials and endless appeals − and even demands for refunds months later. Question: How much of the Medicare “waste, fraud and abuse” that President Obama talks about actually represents valid claims for needed treatment that were arbitrarily denied?
If you think dealing with an insurance company can be maddening, try dealing with Medicare. When an insurance company denies a claim, you can go to court or appeal to your state insurance commissioner. Your chances are slim, but at least there is a chance. But where do you go when the federal government denies your claim?
About one-third of physicians say they will leave practice if ObamaCare is enacted. Some may not carry out their threat. But others, who do not now intend to leave medicine, will do so if they find a government-run system unbearable.
I don't see how much more evidence you want.
http://stolinsky.opinioneditorial.co...rationed-care/
wait I am going to some left wing blog to respond...
He qouted a survey of doctors, he didn't make the survey.
But i'm rigth wing biased, so i guess my own personal testimony wouldn't be enough.
don't be re ed.
If they take effect, physicians' fees will be slashed 21 percent and hospital reimbursements for Medicare patients will be cut by $1.3 billion. Tens of thousands of doctors and thousands of health care ins utions -- hospitals, ho es, outpatient clinics and such -- will refuse to treat Medicare patients.
Entire cities will be without one doctor in important specialties who will take care of the elderly on Medicare. Particularly in fields like G.I. care or arthritic and joint pain, doctors will simply refuse to accept the low reimbursement rates they are being offered and hospitals will refuse all but emergency care to Medicare patients. In effect, the elderly will experience a doctors' strike against Medicare patients.
Congress, faced with this massive revolt coming right on the verge of the election, may back down and postpone the cuts. Originally, doctor reimbursement rates were scheduled to drop on March 1 of this year, but Congress postponed it until the fall.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...es_104860.html
even thought the source is D. Morris. He articulates the reasons from the Doctor's survey.
yeah, all these doctors really hate it.By Parija Kavilanz, senior writerMarch 22, 2010: 9:49 PM ET
.......Doctors weigh in: Some of the nation's leading physician groups called the new health care legislation a step in the right direction, but said that it still does not address all of their concerns.
The American Medical Association (AMA), the largest physician group, applauded new measures to increase payments for primary care physicians caring for Medicaid patients and give bonus payments to physicians who work in underserved areas.
"Those who have insurance will see improvements right away: lifetime caps on coverage end, children can stay on parents' policies until age 26, and insurance companies can't cancel coverage except in the case of fraud," AMA president Dr. James Rohack, said in a statement Monday.
At the same time, he lamented that the legislation does not repeal the Medicare physician payment formula that threatens to cut what doctors receive from the program.
Dr. Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said she was mostly pleased with the legislation.
"Our health care system has so many significant problems that no one legislation will rectify then in one fell swoop," Heim said.
She particularly liked a 10% increase in Medicare payments to all primary care physicians for certain services, including preventive visits, management of new diagnoses and related follow-up visits and management of acute medical problems.
However, Heim pointed out flaws not addressed, including malpractice reform, controlling costs and shifting the system to be more focused on patient outcome and not the number of procedures performed.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) said the legislation addressed most of its concerns.
From a coverage standpoint, the group said the measure comes closer to providing health care to every child in America, although families without legal do entation will still be barred from coverage unless its emergency care.
Under the new measure, insurers can no longer charge customers a co-payment for preventive visits, which include routine check ups and vaccination visits, until the age of 21.
However, one of the biggest concerns for the AAP is that Medicaid payments to providers typically are lower than what Medicare pays providers for services that are comparable. The AAP hopes the Senate will later this week pass a fix in a reconciliation bill that would put Medicaid payments on par with Medicare for comparable services.
........
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/22/news...try_reactions/
Which part of the bill forbids you from paying cash for a doctor's visit? Serious question. I'd like to see the actual part of the bill, not a blog.
And 50% of the doctors in your precious survey thought their income would go down without any reform. So your point about their feelings about their income is useless.
I await your butthurt attempt to make it about me.
Lmao @ Chumpdumper, is this a serious question? Can you come across less as a moron?
Which part of the bill forbids you from paying cash for a doctor's visit? Serious question. I'd like to see the actual part of the bill, not a blog.
.
I don't go to the doctor to give a donation, i go to pay them for work done or diagnosis. This bill mandates me to pay for insurance i don't want. That's the problem.
This bill impacts my personal freedom to choose whether i elect to use insurance.
NM, i'm talking to the Austin Toros moron.
The AMA's endorsement was bought off for support.yeah, all these doctors really hate it.
Hijacking Of AMA’s Support Of ObamaCare
By ROBERT B. SKLAROFF and ROBERT R. GUZZARDI, For The Bulletin
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Did the American Medical Association (AMA) truly endorse ObamaCare this weekend? Not really, notwithstanding media reports.
To understand the dynamics of what transpired, it is necessary to depict the interaction of the House of Delegates – which convenes semi-annually – and the president, who conducts business in the interim. All actions of the latter must be divulged to and corroborated by the former, recognizing that public emergence of any schism would foment embarrassment, enervating to the AMA and, thus, to both.
Why physicians cannot, instead, become energized by the healthcare reform debate is dramatized by events of the past five days. They can easily be tracked by consulting one page on the AMA’s Web site – after one learns how to interpret both “commissions” and “omissions.”
Policy is Codified
What happened during this interim meeting of the House of Delegates can be gathered following a critical review of the hyperlinks originating on the “Meeting Highlights” page of the AMA Web site’s Interim Meetings link.
During this convocation, four core principles adopted at the annual meeting this past June were reaffirmed – pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of practice, and universal access for patients – and elucidated thusly:
• Health insurance coverage for all Americans.
• Insurance market reforms that expand choice of affordable coverage and eliminate denials for pre-existing conditions or due to arbitrary caps.
• Assurance that health care decisions will remain in the hands of patients and their physicians, not insurance companies or government officials.
• Investments and incentives for quality improvement and prevention and wellness initiatives.
• Repeal of the Medicare physician payment formula that triggers steep cuts and threaten seniors’ access to care.
• Implementation of medical liability reforms to reduce the cost of defensive medicine.
• Streamline and standardize insurance claims processing requirements to eliminate unnecessary costs and administrative burdens.
Chicago-Style Politics Intervene
In lieu of addressing the “public option” controversy, the AMA rendered this generic endorsement, even as other en ies within the structure of organized medicine — both independent of the AMA and subsidiary thereto — opted to deviate from this script.
The not-so-silent hand that had created this discrepancy was unearthed during a site-visit this past summer to the Illinois Medical Society headquarters, which had staked-out a neutral posture.
The AMA’s imprimatur was juxtaposed by opposition by the Chicago Medical Society because the former had been garnered — at least in part — due to the Obama administration’s pledge to endorse the annual “doctor fix,” reversing the 21.5 percent Medicare reimbursement cut scheduled for January, 2010.
That physicians are paid less than they were at the beginning of this millennium (despite rising overhead) is to be ignored; rather, their endorsement is to be extorted, even if the payoff is subject to being rescinded during subsequent years. The shifting alliances and pledges afoot are illustrated by how endorsements were amassed from other stakeholders, only to be undermined by a classic “bait and switch” tactic. Recall that insurers had funded the iconic “Harry and Louise” kitchen-table discussion of complaints against ClintonCare, while this year’s couple had endorsed ObamaCare. Through it all, the Administration shoulder-shrugged, claiming Congress was merely functioning independently.
The President Pre-Empts
Immediately after the House of Representatives approved ObamaCare Saturday night, the AMA’s president hailed its passage. This transpired before the House of Delegates could assess resolutions in opposition thereto, scheduled for testimony on the following day in Reference Committee B. His awareness thereof, which was overtly phrased as intending to reign in his out-of-touch Board of Trustees – by, for example, mandating roll-call votes thereof – cons uted a brazen challenge to this policy-making body to dare to undo what he had already trumpeted.
As anticipated, it relented. Gone were citations of policies promoting Health Savings Accounts and the need to rescind the McCarran-Ferguson an rust pre-emption enjoyed by health insurers, for these were inimicable with ObamaCare. Inserted were specifications regarding insurers, “elimination of denials due to pre-existing conditions is understood to include rescission of insurance coverage for reasons not related to fraudulent representation,” and insurance exchanges, “be self-supporting; have uniform solvency requirements; not receive special advantages from government subsidies; include payment rates established through meaningful negotiations and contracts; not require provider participation; and not restrict enrollees’ access to out-of-network physicians.”
The House Sends a Message
How did the House transmit its displeasure with the president’s unilateral action, without communicating overt antagonism? By compiling its objections to key facets of ObamaCare, to wit:
• Reduced payments to physicians for failing to report quality data when there is evidence that widespread operational problems still have not been corrected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
• Medicare payment rate cuts mandated by a commission would create a double-jeopardy situation for physicians who are already subject to an expenditure target and potential payment reductions under the Medicare physician payment system.
• Medicare payments cuts for higher utilization with no operational mechanism to assure that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services can report accurate information that is properly attributed and risk-adjusted.
• Redistributed Medicare payments among providers based on outcomes, quality, and risk-adjustment measurements that are not scientifically valid, verifiable and accurate.
• Medicare payment cuts for all physician services to partially offset bonuses from one specialty to another.
• Arbitrary restrictions on physicians who refer Medicare patients to high quality facilities in which they have an ownership interest.
• Creation of an Independent Medicare Commission, or other similar construct, which would take Medicare payment policy out of the hands of Congress and place it under the control of a group of unelected individuals.
• Replacement of the sustainable growth rate (SGR) with a Medicare physician payment system that automatically keeps pace with the cost of running a practice and is backed by a fair, stable funding formula.
• Creation of a single-payer system.
This “something for everyone” approach served to beg the question of whether the specifics of ObamaCare should have been endorsed. Meanwhile, however, the weight of the AMA –representing all of 17 percent of practicing physicians – can now be used by the Obama administration to administer this poison-pill program to a reluctant America.
http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2...e487973886.txt
But you can still pay your doctor in cash?
Yes or no.
You haven't proved that at all.This bill impacts my personal freedom to choose whether i elect to use insurance.
Show me the part of the bill that forces you to pay using insurance only.
I'm talking to the moron who wants to make it about me.NM, i'm talking to the Austin Toros moron.
And you just did.
Again.
That is like saying all the teachers agree with what their union does.
That follows no logic.
Which part of the bill forbids you from paying cash for a doctor's visit? Serious question. I'd like to see the actual part of the bill, not a blog.
And 50% of the doctors in your precious survey thought their income would go down without any reform. So your point about their feelings about their income is useless.
I await your butthurt attempt to make it about me.
You've illustrated that you don't actually think things through, and i'm happy for having such an easy time debunking your silly arguments.
That's like saying, people know their going to die anyway, so a study illustrating the dangers of smoking is pointless.
rofl! butthurt! clever!!!
But you can still pay your doctor in cash?
Yes or no.
You haven't proved that at all.
Show me the part of the bill that forces you to pay using insurance only.
I'm talking to the moron who wants to make it about me.
And you just did.
Again.
THis dumbass thinks we're ing because this bill wont allow for co-pay.
That's not the argument. The argument is mandated insurance is an affront to personal liberty.
That's like saying all catholics have a soft stance on pedophillia because of the Vaticans lax rules.
It's from your precious survey.
Did you not read it?
You've illustrated that you don't even read the articles you google.You've illustrated that you don't actually think things through, and i'm happy for having such an easy time debunking your silly arguments.
No, it's like saying 50% of doctors think they are going to lose money even without health care reform, which s all over your whining about your doctor's oncoming poverty.That's like saying, people know their going to die anyway, so a study illustrating the dangers of smoking is pointless.
What part of that do you not understand?
Eh, it fits. If you were anything but a butthurt moron I would call you something else.rofl! butthurt! clever!!!
This is so funny, after arguing with Chumpdumper, i feel as if Boutons, Nbadan and Random Guy is a more worthy cerebral opponent.
I mean this is like arguing with the " Nbadan" stewie version.
You said you wouldn't be able to pay your doctor in cash for services and would have to use insurance.THis dumbass thinks we're ing because this bill wont allow for co-pay.
That's not the argument. The argument is mandated insurance is an affront to personal liberty.
Why are you trying to change your argument now?
It's not my fault you ed up.
I understand the mandate for insurance, but are you required to use it?
That is my question to you. Serious question -- I don't know the answer.
Do you understand it now?
Yeah i do, but can you give me a serious question that was formed out of a sort of logical system rather than one that was formed as an evasion type moving the goal post type of procedure.
I don't believe we should be forced to pay for mandated insurance. anytyhing else is secondary. Whether i have the freedom to not use it after i already paid for it (chuckles, a serious question by this moron), is pointless, i also have the freedom to wear pancakes on my head while paying for mandatory insurance, that's not the crux of my argument. My argument is one shouldn't have to be forced to pay for a private insurance plan.
It wasn't. Quit whining. It was a direct question directed at you.
So you aren't going to answer my question I have been asking all along and instead you will move your goalposts and try to evade it.I don't believe we should be forced to pay for mandated insurance. anytyhing else is secondary. Whether i have the freedom to not use it after i already paid for it (chuckles, a serious question by this moron), is pointless, i also have the freedom to wear pancakes on my head while paying for mandatory insurance, that's not the crux of my argument. My argument is one shouldn't have to be forced to pay for a private insurance plan.
Fair enough.
when i said, "My personal liberty, the right to not have to buy insurance and instead pay out of pocket. ", any normal person would have understood it as the right to not pay for insurance and instead pay out of pocket.
But instead the casual up you are, read the argument as, "The govt won't let me pay out of my pocket" only type argument, which no one is making here.
It's not my fault you're a up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions