Huh, it turns out that when you cut reimbursement you DO cut access to careW

[cpwill]

Who could have possibly forseen this?

..... other than the majority of Americans who opposed the implementation of Obamacare with it's $700Bn in cuts to Medicare through this process?

Cancer clinics across the country have begun turning away thousands of Medicare patients, blaming the sequester budget cuts.

Oncologists say the reduced funding, which took effect for Medicare on April 1, makes it impossible to administer expensive chemotherapy drugs while staying afloat financially...

“If we treated the patients receiving the most expensive drugs, we’d be out of business in six months to a year,” said Jeff Vacirca, chief executive of North Shore Hematology Oncology Associates in New York. “The drugs we’re going to lose money on we’re not going to administer right now.”
After an emergency meeting Tuesday, Vacirca’s clinics decided that they would no longer see one-third of their 16,000 Medicare patients.
“A lot of us are in disbelief that this is happening,” he said. “It’s a choice between seeing these patients and staying in business.”...

 

[ttwtt78640]

Who could have possibly forseen this?

..... other than the majority of Americans who opposed the implementation of Obamacare with it's $700Bn in cuts to Medicare through this process?







[/FONT][/COLOR]

Killing off a few older voters (that tend to vote 60% for the GOP) a few years earlier is not a big deal in NY. I think the goal is to get Medicare rates down to Medicaid rates, while adding enough new "private" patients (via PPACA) to make up the difference. If the demorats succeed in getting millions of new "amnesty" immigrant voters into the mix, while making seniors suffer from "bipartisan" efforts at entitlement reform (cutting SS/Medicare benefits) then they still win in the long game.

Vote Data Show Changing Nation - WSJ.com

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Who could have possibly forseen this?

..... other than the majority of Americans who opposed the implementation of Obamacare with it's $700Bn in cuts to Medicare through this process?







[/FONT][/COLOR]

Hey at least they partially unpassed the doc fix, sorta.

 

[MaggieD]

Who could have possibly forseen this?

..... other than the majority of Americans who opposed the implementation of Obamacare with it's $700Bn in cuts to Medicare through this process?

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Well, this isn't new. Cancer Centers of America has long been turning away Medicare patients. Mayo Clinic doesn't either. Those are just two that I know of. Our medical system is going to change. It has to.

 

[Helix]

it doesn't need to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to die. we're the only first world country on earth with that stupid model.

the medical industry amounts to a death tax the government could only dream of. the costs are unsustainable. we should have enacted single payer.

 

[Fisher]

This is BS. The article clearly states that medicare pays for the drugs on an average cost plus basis. If they are the most expensive drugs, then they would still make more net dollars off them instead of something else. This isn't Obamacare--this is greed--and this is one of the reasons I want UHC--to cap these bastards' salaries. On the plus side, I suspect that this will only happen with places that give crappy turnstyle chemo anyway. I have faith most small treatment centers will still treat seniors and treat them like people, not cattle.

 

[rocket88]

Who could have possibly forseen this?

..... other than the majority of Americans who opposed the implementation of Obamacare with it's $700Bn in cuts to Medicare through this process?

Socialized medicine is bad! Except for Medicare....

 

[cpwill]

This is BS. The article clearly states that medicare pays for the drugs on an average cost plus basis. If they are the most expensive drugs, then they would still make more net dollars off them instead of something else. This isn't Obamacare--this is greed--and this is one of the reasons I want UHC--to cap these bastards' salaries. On the plus side, I suspect that this will only happen with places that give crappy turnstyle chemo anyway. I have faith most small treatment centers will still treat seniors and treat them like people, not cattle.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the policy in a nutshell. Go ahead and cut how much we pay for stuff, and just have faith that it will magically continue to appear. Supply and Demand Ceases To Apply When Inconvenient.

 

[MaggieD]

This is BS. The article clearly states that medicare pays for the drugs on an average cost plus basis. If they are the most expensive drugs, then they would still make more net dollars off them instead of something else. This isn't Obamacare--this is greed--and this is one of the reasons I want UHC--to cap these bastards' salaries. On the plus side, I suspect that this will only happen with places that give crappy turnstyle chemo anyway. I have faith most small treatment centers will still treat seniors and treat them like people, not cattle.

I agree with this. ^^

“If you get cut on the service side, you can either absorb it or make do with fewer nurses,” said Ted Okon, director of the Community Oncology Alliance, which advocates for hundreds of cancer clinics nationwide. “This is a drug that we’re purchasing. The costs don’t change and you can’t do without it. There isn’t really wiggle room.”

Manufacturers' drug costs change all the time. It's called supply/demand.

 

[WWGWD]

Who could have possibly forseen this?

..... other than the majority of Americans who opposed the implementation of Obamacare with it's $700Bn in cuts to Medicare through this process?

Cancer clinics across the country have begun turning away thousands of Medicare patients, blaming the sequester budget cuts.

I'm having trouble following your logic here. I did read the whole article, just what you posted here. You quote seems to imply that the cuts are do to the implementation of ACA, yet the title of the article says it's due to sequester budget cuts. Is there something I'm missing tying those things together, or are they just arbitrarily interchangeable?

 

[Slyfox696]

I'm having trouble following your logic here. I did read the whole article, just what you posted here. You quote seems to imply that the cuts are do to the implementation of ACA, yet the title of the article says it's due to sequester budget cuts. Is there something I'm missing tying those things together, or are they just arbitrarily interchangeable?

Shhh...don't confuse people with logic and facts. They HATE that when it is so much easier to just shout at the rain.

 

[cpwill]

I'm having trouble following your logic here. I did read the whole article, just what you posted here. You quote seems to imply that the cuts are do to the implementation of ACA, yet the title of the article says it's due to sequester budget cuts. Is there something I'm missing tying those things together, or are they just arbitrarily interchangeable?

Sure. That probably could have been better delineated. I'll draw it out better:

1. These cuts are not due to the ACA, but the Sequester

2. These cuts are the same type of cuts as those of the ACA

3. These cuts are having the result of reduced access to care

4. Which proponents of the ACA furiously denied would be the result of these kinds of cuts. Folks "had faith" that doctors would just magically continue to come up with medical care.

 

[Fisher]

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the policy in a nutshell. Go ahead and cut how much we pay for stuff, and just have faith that it will magically continue to appear. Supply and Demand Ceases To Apply When Inconvenient.

Well in my city chemo/oncology are done by a hospital outpatient clinics so people can have integrated, cohesive treatment in and out of the hospital by the same team. The same hemo and oncology people who treat in you in the hospital treat you when you are not in the hospital. Vertical investment done by health care systems will stave off this kind of niche churn and burn medical treatment, which probably won't be a bad thing in the end. Lord forbid a doctor actually have to go to the hospital to treat one of his patients, in the mean time, these people will discover their profit margins dropping faster than they think :shock:

 

[Helix]

meanwhile at Wellpoint, the CEO was forced out, but still got a $20 million dollar parachute.

Former WellPoint CEO quit last year, still earned $20.6 million - latimes.com

i see some places where we could cut costs.

 

[Slyfox696]

Sure. That probably could have been better delineated. I'll draw it out better:

1. These cuts are not due to the ACA, but the Sequester

Which immediately renders the rest of your post irrelevant, and opening post as fictitious.

meanwhile at Wellpoint, the CEO was forced out, but still got a $20 million dollar parachute.

Former WellPoint CEO quit last year, still earned $20.6 million - latimes.com

i see some places where we could cut costs.

Yes, but that would get in the way of blaming the Democrat.

 

[UtahBill]

Want proof that drug costs are crazy stupid? The meds that my granddaughter takes are $8K per month in the USA, half that in Canada, and even less in Mexico.....and that was before Obamacare was enacted.

 

[cpwill]

Which immediately renders the rest of your post irrelevant, and opening post as fictitious

Ah. You lack reading comprehension. Noted.

 

[cpwill]

Want proof that drug costs are crazy stupid? The meds that my granddaughter takes are $8K per month in the USA, half that in Canada, and even less in Mexico.....and that was before Obamacare was enacted.

Those costs are connected. It is R&D that is expensive, and painfully so thanks not at all a little bit to the infamously tortuous FDA approval pathway. So, if you develop drugs in America, it costs a crap ton, but other countries don't protect your intellectual property as well and allow everyone to make cheap generics quickly, meaning that if you are going to make back all the costs you sunk into R&D, you have to do it quickly, and off American consumers. Your grandaughter is paying for folks in Canada and Mexico to have those cheaper drugs.

 

[UtahBill]

Those costs are connected. It is R&D that is expensive, and painfully so thanks not at all a little bit to the infamously tortuous FDA approval pathway. So, if you develop drugs in America, it costs a crap ton, but other countries don't protect your intellectual property as well and allow everyone to make cheap generics quickly, meaning that if you are going to make back all the costs you sunk into R&D, you have to do it quickly, and off American consumers. Your grandaughter is paying for folks in Canada and Mexico to have those cheaper drugs.

perhaps, but there is no generic for the drug she is on.....she has good insurance, pays 100% after the annual deductible of $1500.

 

[Slyfox696]

Ah. You lack reading comprehension. Noted.

No no, my reading comprehension is just fine. For example, I read that had it not been for the sequester, your thread would not exist. My ability to comprehend what I read is apparently far greater than the ability you've demonstrated here to logically connect facts in a timeline.

Allow me to provide a parallel example I bet you'll understand. The House of Republicans refused to spend more money to protect consulates in foreign countries. 4 Americans died in Benghazi. Clearly the deaths of 4 Americans is the fault of the House of Republicans.

Now when you understand why you (most likely) object to the previous statement, you'll understand why others are objecting to yours.

 

[WWGWD]

Sure. That probably could have been better delineated. I'll draw it out better:

1. These cuts are not due to the ACA, but the Sequester

2. These cuts are the same type of cuts as those of the ACA

3. These cuts are having the result of reduced access to care

4. Which proponents of the ACA furiously denied would be the result of these kinds of cuts. Folks "had faith" that doctors would just magically continue to come up with medical care.

Alright, I'm interested, mostly because I have no idea what you mean by 'these kinds of cuts', lol. Again sounds very arbitrary. I did go back and read the article in it's entirety. The cuts described are a straightforward percentage, with no real regard to the effect of that cut, since that's the point of sequestration after all. I'm not a huge fan of the ACA, but from what I've read of the bill, that's not the way the cuts are laid out. The cuts I've seen to medicare are incredibly specific, targeted, and designed to be counter balanced by other provisions. I'd love to know some specifics as to your comparison of the two.

 

[274ina]

Who could have possibly forseen this?

..... other than the majority of Americans who opposed the implementation of Obamacare with it's $700Bn in cuts to Medicare through this process?







[/FONT][/COLOR]

They are just the dying breed of extosionist criminal Dr's that get paid $500 for 30 min work, and are striking to maintain there criminal enterprise.

They will conform or be replaced.

Wait untill they get paid $100 hr for the same work in our UHC system. If they dont like it, THEN LEAVE.

 

[penn1954]

They are just the dying breed of extosionist criminal Dr's that get paid $500 for 30 min work, and are striking to maintain there criminal enterprise.

They will conform or be replaced.

Wait untill they get paid $100 hr for the same work in our UHC system. If they dont like it, THEN LEAVE.

What's up with this jealous nonsense!!

A good medical Dr is worth his or her weight in gold!

Not talking about the facelifters like do Pelosi's botox,

but honest to god drs.

We as a country are so screwed once this goes thru

you'll wish it had never happened!:rantoff:

 

[274ina]

What's up with this jealous nonsense!!

A good medical Dr is worth his or her weight in gold!

Not talking about the facelifters like do Pelosi's botox,

but honest to god drs.

We as a country are so screwed once this goes thru

you'll wish it had never happened!:rantoff:

The Dr's in France, new zealand, england, etc etc etc all are on salary and NEVER get convicted of over billing.........
or other crimes. (becasue there is no bill)

Looks like the USA dr's REALLY are the problem.

 

[penn1954]

The Dr's in France, new zealand, england, etc etc etc all are on salary and NEVER get convicted of over billing.........
or other crimes. (becasue there is no bill)

Looks like the USA dr's REALLY are the problem.

To a point you are correct. A few drs in the US are the problem.

Most drs spend tons on schooling and need to make decent $

The govt is a big problem with some of the crap they allow !

ie hoverround. Ads on tv nitely saying medicare will pay for it.

I don't believe in socialized medicine.I don't think it allows for

new tech and drugs,the research money alone would bankrupt

medicare.

Single-payer aka medicare for all,would have been a decent idea

but the borders would have to be secured and the illegals

would have to be gone.