Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
That is not at all what was charged. What was charged was that they were looking for ways to screw over Medicare patients and using sequestration as an excuse to do so. That these patients, were, in fact, still profitable, and that the companies in question were willing to A) lie about that and B) give up their own profits, apparently just so that they could then have the pleasure of denying care to Medicare patients. :roll: Utter horse-hockey.
As for profit - without profit, clinics cannot serve 3/3rds of patients. Doctors know enough math to realize that if you can still serve 2/3rds, that is more than 0/3rds, an insight that appears to have escaped (or, more likely, simply been been refused by) some on this thread.
Malpractice and administrative costs are and remain huge. I would agree that OB-GYN's are probably among the most expensive to ensure, but that was the one example I had seen first-hand. The point remains the same. If a Doctor is "profiting" $330K a year, but $125K goes to malpractice, $100K goes to administrative costs, and $20K goes to student loans, then he's actually only bringing in $85K a year. Cut his "profit" by a third (as in the example under discussion) to $220K a year, and he's in quite a pickle.
The refusal on the part of those who wish to simply cut reimbursement schedules to accept that doctors do not have a magic pile of never-ending money from which they can make good the resultant losses of providing care is now starting to prove disastrous for our elderly. There is, never has been, and never will be, such a thing as a free lunch, and when we make plans which assume its' appearance, we shouldn't be surprised when those plans go badly. This loss of coverage was entirely predictable, and thus widely predicted.
No, that Medicare patients will be screwed. They will. And in effect that is what this group will be doing. By seeking greater profit versus lessor profit (not no profit as you seem to suggest).
Not as huge absent those two specialties that mention to justify the cost to patients as it tends now. No. I have a brother in law who is a doctor and your numbers are off. After mal practice and student loan payments, taking Medicare patients, he clears 285 k a year.
Now, we both need more than our generalities and too small sample size, but no one seriously thinks physicians are only making 85k a year.
that is incorrect on both fronts - the argument was not that "medicare patients will be screwed" - that was the entire point of the thread. The claim put forth - which you foolishly agreed with - was that clinics sought to screw medicare patients. Nor is it between "greater" and "lesser" profit - but rather between "profit" and "loss". McDonalds does not refuse to sell burgers because it's profit margin is greater on its' drinks, and Medical Providers do not refuse to take Medicare Patients because the profits on them are merely smaller. It is only when taking those patients starts becoming a net burden and loss on the provider that they can no longer afford to provide care.
:shrug: and good for him. That does nothing to alter the fact that A) doctors have large expenses and B) when you reduce the reimbursement schedule below those expenses, doctors can no longer afford to provide care.
After everything else? Yeah - one of my friends from college is, I think, actually coming in a bit below that. Mind you, he just graduated and started out a couple of years ago, so he's still in the lower-earning but higher-paying phase.
It was Obama's plan. Jesus.
Sperling is the President's Chief Economic Advisor.
White House Admits (Third Time) President Obama Fibbed On Sequester - Forbes
While it's true it was his idea, a bad idea that was approved by Congress and the Senate. There's plenty of blame to go around
You're reasoning and comprehension here is not sound. The premise of which the agreement was on is simple: 1) There is no reason for them to cut loose medicare patients
2) they choose to do so for more profit.
3) this will screw medicare patients and they know
They are doing so on purpose.
Doctors make more than enough to compensate. They are not paid below those expenses at all.
Then the premise fails on the merits. There is a simple enough reason to cease distributing this care - the medicare reimbursement schedule was lowered past the point at which doctors can provide it without incurring losses by doing so.
Actually if you would bother to read the OP, you would note that they chose to do so so that they could stay in business. As I pointed out from the get-go; they could have stopped seeing 1/3 of their Medicare patients, or 3/3 of their Medicare patients.
Yup. And the Administration knew this as well, when it put this plan into effect.
:shrug: There are plenty of people who do in fact think that the administration intends to create a crises in healthcare that they can use to create popular pressure for single-payer.
Feel free to re-read the OP, where it bluntly states that in fact Medicare reimbursement schedules for the medicines under discussion did, in fact, drop below expenses.
Why let him off the hook? Congress is in a no win situation with Obama...Either they do everything his way or get trashed by him even if it is his own policies that are to blame.
Where did I let him off. It's things like this that keep me from either main party. I'm smart enough to know that no matter how loud either side cry's about the other side they both only have their own interest in mind. In the very near past both side have had complete control of all three houses and didn't change the things that they constantly cry about. What does that tell you? It tells me they are no more then a different side of the same coin.
the salient point is that you acknowledged that the house of representatives, that one with the republican majority, has not effected appropriations needs by our government agencies to operate
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?