We will never reform health care
 

If we pass this bill we will never again have an opportunity to reform health care.

A point of clarification
 

Again what I meant to enforce is that Cardiology has been hit the hardest of all specialty groups. Medicare has cut reimbursement across the board 40%. I reviewed this today with our head Cardiologist.

The problem is that there is no fat to cut in Cardiology. We don't order tests that are not needed or do procedures that are not needed. Cardiolgists are not Cardiovascular surgeons and so they do not get paid the big bucks of a surgeon. They do Cardiac Catheterizations and stents and some peripheral cardiovascular and or renal stents. All of which are only done if needed.

What my group has done is join a large umbrella goup that is a part of our local hospital. This umbrella group then takes up the slack from other groups to keep them floating. The end result was that no one lost jobs or had to cut services.

This has nothing to do with the upcoming changes in Health Reform. It is in effect today- started Jan 1.

My point is to shed light on the original post regarding the letter they received from their Cardiologist.

Hope this has cleared up some of the misunderstanding. This is why I don't see this as political.

Thanks

Thank you for clarifying.

Thanks ssmith. However, I don't think the question was ever answered about whether the letter came from the cardiologist. So while your post was welcome and informative, so far, light has not been shed on the source of the letter that kicked off this discussion. :(

TOTV"ers... I want to reinforce a very important part of this post: "THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH UPCOMING CHANGES IN HEALTH REFORM". This issus is and has been an ANNUAL issue Congress faced at the end of every year for many years. Rather than fix the problem correctly, every year around Dec 15th, at the 11th hour, Congress did a patch job to get through another year so physician providers did not face a huge reimbursement cut. Congress realized (correctly) that in most parts of the country, physicians would simply STOP participating as medicare providers if their reimbursement for services was severely cut. It appears that what happened this year was that Congress was so wrapped up in other issues that the "patch job" did not occur. Do NOT confuse this thread with Health Care Reform. Medicare reimbursement will deteriorate to what Medicaid is in most states. As such, most private practitioners offices may soon be saying to pts who call for services: "I'm sorry, we do not accept Medicare ins in this office."
It doesn't take a PhD in accounting or economics to recognize that if your expenses (rent, malpractice ins, utilities, payroll) stay the same or GO UP and your collections go DOWN 40% you wont stay in business very long.

Thanks
 

RSHOFFER..Thanks for adding to the background on the problem. I have intentionally not identified the "source" as that is not important. What is important is the accuracy. It is up to the nay sayers to read the facts and then "factually" challenge it if is wrong. Identifying source's only allows for one more avenue for the nay sayers to attack the messenger without knowledge. Hopefully they will do their homework, be unbais in their analysis and add to the discussion with intellegence and not political leaning nor
generally negative attitudes. Again, thanks for constructive input.:agree:

It is amusing
 

The only people being poitical here are the ones complaining about the politization of the subject.
Not only has the reduction in doctor reimbursment already law, but we also will be facing higher deductibles with our supplemental insurance.
Insurance companies are now legally required to increase their deductables effective July 2010.

Now Xavier I understand you. Attack, attack without fact. Go back and read your REH quote and what you said below it. Those two sentences are so far removed from each other that they make no sense at all.

I still strongly suggest you read the pending bills. Based on all your posts in this thread, I do not believe you have done that. Until you do, your making statements and attacking issues that make me laugh at your biased one sided view. This is not a political issue, but a health care issue with a bill that is targeted against seniors. I assume you are one and as with all seniors you have to read this thing to understand how you will be impacted. It is not good for us.

What the heck??
 

:shrug:Xavier..you say:
"I think that if I were you I wouldn't bother with us; the biased, uneducated, factually challenged, unknowledgeable, non-homework doing, unintelligent, political leaning, negative, naysaying masses. We aren't worth your time. It is very evident that you are so much better prepared to deal with this problem on your own. I think we all look up with you with deepest respect."

What the heck is wrong here. I see nothing in your response that addresses the issue?? As they say, 'If you don't like the message yell at the messenger, if you don't know the facts, just yell'..It appears you have been successful in doing both. Please stay on point and address the facts, avoid emotions. I am just part of the masses trying to understand what is going on?

:wave:All of those words are from your posts. I just read them back to you.:wave:

If you don't agree , like or care for for REH7380 posts, you can put him on your ignore list since you seem to already have all the answers and don't care to hear someone else's opinion that doesn't copy yours.

We're there.

The let's get nasty and hostile forum
 

I see the administrators have moved this post on reimbursement problems in Medicare (a HEALTH INSURANCE topic) to The Political Forum. The impetus for this after 53 other posts in the same thread appears to be, not that the topic changed, but that some of the posts became passionate, heated, challenging or even nasty.
Perhaps this forum should be renamed: The Let's Get Nasty and Hostile Forum.

ANYBODY who thinks their future health care will be better
 

or cost less in the future is either non lucid, naieve, unconscious, been out in the cold too long or simply has not a clue about how those who represent us do no not, nor have they ever fixed ANYTHING that costs too much.

There will be less service....the government is going to be paying less!!!!

Premiums will go up...the government is taxing the insurers who will pass it on to you.

Call it what you will, there will be "rationing" of services, tests....etc.

If it takes months to get an appointment now just wait till the new 30,000,000 to be covered get in line.

AND anybody who thinks there will be an actual cost offset by reducing medicare by $500,000,000,000 (that is with a 'b') is dead between the ears or otherwise. As was simply stated in a previous post in this thread....reduced revenues...same or most likely increasing expenses = somethings gotta give and it will be either the services go or the doctors who provide them go to a non government run business.

Your annual costs for the same coverage you have today will go up dramatically as you take on supplemental insurance to maintain the health care quality and quantity you have been used to getting all these years.

For those who speculate about the impact who are not 65 or older, they have no real knowledge of the scenario where there is no more personal revenue coming in (for most) after retirement....medical cost increases or take aways = reduced quality of life......the math is easy for those with their eyes and ears open.

btk

medicare/insurance
 

Are we supposed to wait until there is a bill passed to question its merits, if any? Are we supposed to wait until the Doctor tells us he will no longer accept Medicare or insurance for payment and you will have to come up with the $$$ for treatments and diagnosis up front?
How many seniors will be able to afford to fund the up front payment? How many seniors will forego their annual well check-up to save the extra $$$? How many will forego necessary surgery, treatments, and medications which would have given them a better quality of life to save the $$$ that our congress so willing hands out to pork projects and foreign governments who don't even offer so much as a thank you?
Once this legislation is passed, can it ever be reversed? Those who are pushing for a quick passage of these unread and unknown bills to be paid for by the hard working American people can well afford the above scenario. Our seniors cannot. Those who are try to foister Obamacare down our throats have little regard for anyone who is not part of their political base. Simply, they are NOT listening to the majority of the American electorate.
The time to make your voice heard is now and not take a wait and see position. This is not a political issue but an alert as to what people ought be thinking and considering, at least in part.
To bury this issue in the political forum is a disservice to us all. Consider,where will the money come from? What sacrafices will we be willing to make and at what expense? Who, will in fact, be the beneficiaries of this legislation?
Is all of this a diversionary tactic i.e., the Stimulus and bailout packages, wherein monies are being diverted to other programs and agencies which the powers that be are spending, nay, giving, to their cronies for useless projects under the guise of JOBS (Just OBama's Sidekicks)? Watch not what they say but where the money goes.

Moving to Political
 

Politics is censored on "Talk of the Villages" by limiting its exposure to all. Religion and Sex are not.

Where is the logic in that.

I Understand
 

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?

Wow!
 

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

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.... :cryin2: (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."

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?

Thanks
 

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. :mornincoffee:

The unfortunate aspect of any and all analysis is the fact
 

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

Question
 

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?

One of the many suggestions that have been made regarding
 

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:D

btk