Originally Posted by REH7380

I understand the TOTV moving it to Political. I do not agree that the subject is BUT we have allowed some to hijack the issue, make it political and thereby destroying the rational discussions it deserves. I would have rather seen the ones that sent in responses that were political moved and the basic quesiton to remain but I am sure that would be difficult for TOTV's Administrators to do.
It is sad that open discussions regard health and medicare is throttled by a few malcontents but I guess that is a way of life today..

REH, first I want to thank you for bringing this issue up again. It deserves to be clearly aired. Some posters have questioned your integrity, requesting/demanding that a copy of the letter be produced. Others have chosen to attack you feeling, apparently, that any questioning of the Medicare system is an attack on Barack Obama and the current healthcare reform legislation.

Neither of these is correct. In support of the information you provided about your cardiologist, I can say from immediate personal experience that The Mayo Clinic no longer accepts Medicare. Medicare covers services provided in the ER and in the Hospital since that is the law. Services provided in the clinic are not. Mayo submits the documentation to Medicare, but requires payment from the patient. Mayo does not bind itself to government approved reimbursement rates. For those of you familiar with Mayo Jacksonville, this means that work performed in the Mayo building will be billed to Medicare while work performed in the Davis building will be billed to the individual. If anyone doubts this, please PM me and I will be happy to provide you with bills I have received of nearly $6,000 for work done in November and December. To date, I have received less than $2,000 in reimbursement from Medicare. This is a squeeze, but I can afford it to receive the best available medical care. Many seniors cannot.

What we are seeing emerge today is a two level delivery system of healthcare similar to that in the UK where the private system (the Harley street physicians) offer significant better and faster care than is available to the general public under the national health plan.

The second issue is whether or not the present proposals for healthcare reform should be considered in an objective look at these issues. My belief is that they should. The present proposals assume a $400-500 billion dollar reduction in Medicare payouts over the next ten years. Savings on this level are not possible without either rationing of services or severe reduction in reimbursement rates. Either would result in an increasing separation of services from those that can afford private coverage and those who cannot.

For those who say reducing fraud and waste can do this; I would refer them to the statement by our Secretary of HHS that there is a potential for a savings of $2.5 billion here but only at a cost of one dollar for every $1.55 saved. This is what, we consider in private industry, a rounding error. Should we go after the money –absolutely, but will it make a difference? NO!

My personal preference is that we start working through this problem with a series of easily done steps. The first of these would be to make existing Civil Service plans available to every company and every person in the United States. This would immediately eliminate the problems of pre-existing conditions, portability, competition and any other issue of ‘evil’ insurance companies profiting on the backs of the people. It also ensures that individuals can purchase plans that they believe are appropriate to them.

I would then propose that we look at tort reform, increasing availability of experimental treatments to those that may be terminally ill w/o fear of finding of fault, overhauling our Medicaid system (don’t get me started on this) and supplemental support for those American citizens who can still not afford adequate health insurance. My first and most basic proposal could pass Congress tomorrow with near universal support from both sides of the aisle. What’s wrong with starting there - a rational, simple step that provides at least half of what we want to accomplish, that can be started in 2010 rather than 2013 and requires very little increase in taxpayer funding? I must be wrong – it cannot be that simple, or can it?

There are two bills in Congress under review (one from the Senate, one from the House). There will be some effort to devise a version that may passable in both houses and sent to the President for approval or veto. Please advise what you know they are going to advance -- even before ?
If you oppose what appears to be going forward, would you share with us why you feel that way?
Also, are you currently benefiting from Medicare?

Originally Posted by REH7380

I have intentionally not identified the "source" as that is not important. :

Of all the statements on this board concerning this subject, I find this one the most frightening! The source is not important??? Since when?

I, for one, would love an answer to that question before I would even consider looking into this. My husband just went to the cardiologist without receiving any such notification.

Take it from me, "the source" is always the most important, the cornerstone of deciphering how credible any "alleged" fact is.

I feel a Glenn Beck moment coming on....sniff.... sniff.... (Oh! That's right! He was the guy who said "He was not a journalist, just a commentator and didn't have to have the facts."

Originally Posted by saratogaman

There are two bills in Congress under review (one from the Senate, one from the House). There will be some effort to devise a version that may passable in both houses and sent to the President for approval or veto. Please advise what you know they are going to advance -- even before ?
If you oppose what appears to be going forward, would you share with us why you feel that way?
Also, are you currently benefiting from Medicare?

Let me answer your second question first - I am presently on Medicare as the law requires for those of us over the age of 65. As to what I know of the two bills, I take my lead from the people supporting them and the CBO. Both the House and Senate bills require a decrease in projected Medicare outlays by more than $400 billion in order to 'make the books balance.' This is totally unrealistic. Politicians will never have the guts to reduce payments to seniors - it's not going to happen.

For Chelsea, whom I respect, I do not know the source of REH's information, nor do I care - I have provided my own, personal information that includes the decision of The Mayo Clinic to refuse reimbursement from Medicare. I have also offered to provide proof of this to any member of this board who sends me a PM. Please forgive me if I do not want to out the details of my condition and treatments on this board for all to follow.

Lastly, why is this a 'Glenn Beck' moment? I went to Mayo because Mayo offers better treatment and therefore a better chance of continuing to live than our local cardiologist's treatment. I wanted and still want to see my grandchildren grow up. Why, in the name of God, does this make me a Glenn Beck acolayte?

BBQMan..Thanks for the solid analysis and your points. Unfortunately, there are still attempts to "hijack" the issue and make it political when in fact it is a matter of understanding what is best for the senior citizens and the future of medical. Beck has nothing to do with the subject unless people are reluctant to make up their own mind. Identifying it as "frightening" not to know the source is, again being reluctant to do your homework and understanding the best solution and making up your own mind. The "source" is only one input. There are many!! I will make a promise. If the source is identified there will be a wild attack on the source as opposed to the issue.
If someone does not agree with the source data throw it out and remember it is only one of many sources needed to make an intellegent decision.

that Washington will continue to march forward no matter what any analysis portrays. This is not to turn the subject political but address the reality of what is happening.

I would venture to say the majority (pick a number that suits you....but in my opinion, the real number is a larger margin than Obama won the election).....would like for health care reform to be a more orderly process instead of the current time, dated, forced march to get "anything" passed.

I continue to suggest every breathing senior educate themselves as this thread is attempting to do. Then in addition to discussing with friends and neighbors, contact your representatives and make your desires known. The fact of life is, it is an election year and it may just have an affect on some (we don't need them all) to slow the process down.

What we all know intuitively from each of our respective backgrounds and experience is that what we have as health care today, may well turn out to be the best we have ever had. For certain, it will turn out to be the least cost compared to the future guesstimates.

Yes this thread could have remained elsewhere in TOTV for hopefully broader exposure.....there are only 500+ signed up for political and thousands not.

Such a pity because some FEW cannot address the time of day without snipping and jabbing partisan fluff that intellectually (or otherwise) adds zero value.

btk

I don't know if this is what you would call a hijack or not or if perhaps it has been answered, but I'd like to ask it anyway. No, I don't like what I've heard thus far and it has nothing to do with Beck or whatever. My question is, however: Regardless of what is passed that forces eveyone to have insurance or else.....who's going to ensure that you actually have "coverage". Look at how much is already not covered regardless of what or how much insurance you have. You can have all the insurance in the world but if you are the only one doing the paying, what good is it?

policing who has insurance or not is some sort of validation via the annual tax return.
As if that is the gold standard for truth and honesty and reality

btk