Guest guest Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Anyone who has a PPO or HMO is familiar with this concept. The insurance company tells us which doctors we can and cannot see and which tests they will and will not pay for, which hospital we must go to and where we have to go to have our labs drawn. If I have any extra money left after paying their exhorbitant premiums I can go to any doctor that I choose, though. We're all going to have to get used to PA's and NP's. My brother-in-law just had major surgery at a large teaching hospital. He saw the surgeon once in his office before surgery. While in the hospital he never, not once, saw the surgeon, he saw only the NP that works with his medical group. She made rounds, wrote orders, checked his incision, ordered his discharge, etc. a Too bad you have no choice. Val Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Bill has to go to joint committee? I don't expect things to be like it is/was, anyway. Dr's aren't getting paid on time or are getting lower fees. (not from AARP as far as I know). And still there are several health groups advertising they can do it (Medicare) at lower cost. Thinking out loud, regardless of the system, even a Nurse Practioner must send patient as diagnosed to the spec. for sever stuff. They can do many things a Dr doesn't want to bother with. They can dispense prescription drugs, except the heavies which no Dr wants to prescribe now anyway. Regards Doc choice From the bill (H.R. 3962) passed in the night Saturday: Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a " medical home. " The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to " disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis. " A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that " medical homes " were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority. Val From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Clarence Grim One can always choose any Dr they want in the US. On Nov 8, 2009, at 6:45 PM, Valarie <val@...> wrote: Too bad you have no choice. Val Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Before a joint committee, it still has to pass the Senate. I don't think it will, at least in its present form. I do recall a Senate version had " medical homes " in it. We'll see. The issue for me is not NPs, it is lack of choice. Val From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright Bill has to go to joint committee? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Here is a study that my VA Dr R. PETER MOGIELNICKI was part of http://www.springerlink.com/content/gl7r34l062443346/fulltext.pdf?page=1 > > Before a joint committee, it still has to pass the Senate. I don't think it will, at least in its present form. I do recall a Senate version had " medical homes " in it. We'll see. The issue for me is not NPs, it is lack of choice. > > Val > > From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright > > Bill has to go to joint committee? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 I can tell you from what both my father and mother went through Dartmouth does this. They told us in was because of Medicare. Medicare does change there rules. IT was around 2000 when this seemed to Medicare rules This is what it now says on medicare web site. Section 6: List of What Original Medicare Covers Hospital Care (Inpatient) (For Outpatient Services, see page 43.) Medicare Part A covers inpatient hospital care when all of the following are true:• A doctor says you need inpatient hospital care to treat your illness or injury.• You need the kind of care that can be given only in a hospital.• The hospital accepts Medicare.• The Utilization Review Committee of the hospital approves your stay while you are in the hospital.Medicare-covered hospital services include the following: a semiprivate room, meals, general nursing, and other hospital services and supplies. This includes care you get in critical access hospitals and inpatient mental health care. See page 41. This doesn't include private-duty nursing, a television, or a telephone in your room. It also doesn't include a private room, unless medically necessary. In 2008 YOU pay for each benefit period: Days 1 - 60: $1,024 deductible Days 61 - 90: $256 coinsurance each day Days 91 - 150: $512 coinsurance each day Beyond 150 days: all costs You pay for private-duty nursing, a television, or a telephone in your room. You pay for a private room unless it's medically necessary. For information > > > > Before a joint committee, it still has to pass the Senate. I don't think > it will, at least in its present form. I do recall a Senate version had > " medical homes " in it. We'll see. The issue for me is not NPs, it is lack of > choice. > > > > Val > > > > From: hyperaldosteronism > [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright > > > > Bill has to go to joint committee? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 I think that except for Medicare hospitals can still charge what ever they want. So if you were in hospital more then 4.6 days you would be billed for this time. If you don't pay it does go on your credit report. By law if medicare is the payer they can not charge you any more then 20% of the 4.6 days cost. > > > > > > Before a joint committee, it still has to pass the Senate. I don't think it will, at least in its present form. I do recall a Senate version had " medical homes " in it. We'll see. The issue for me is not NPs, it is lack of choice. > > > > > > Val > > > > > > From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright > > > > > > Bill has to go to joint committee? > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Why can't they give us a grant and let us go buy wherever we want and whatever we want. I hate being on a plan that is looked upon as inferior. Val From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Francis Bill Any one that has medicare and been in hospital soon learn they don't have many choices. Medicare tell Dr and hospital what they will pay them. Dr or hospitals can not charge any more the medicare will pay. So some don't take medicare. If you have to go in hospital Medcare will tell hospital to keep you only until you are stable then you go to nursing home if you need more care. Nursing homes realy don't have proper help to take care of many that medicare sends to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Unless something changed Medicare isn't controled by the state. States can have laws that all insurances in the that state have to abide by. Medicaid is controled be each state but still have to use federal guidelines. If we were part of AIG then we would not have to worry about our health care needs. AIG probleme are due to greed not because of lack of money. Now all tax payers are fnding this greed. > > All costs will be increased to meet the money allowed. > I don't think Medicare is flawed if you compare it to 1959, eg. > > An Austin, TX, AARP rep is saying that our Medicare will not be changed > with the new House plan. > That may be just Texas. And I do think states regulate what happens in the > state. > > Confusion is there are plans here that say they will pay ALL costs, just > sign with them and pay their supplement. Some medicare " ADVANTAGE " plans > have no monthly fee, but there is a copay. > > They get from medicare your gov't contribution and use it " better " , > supposedly. > > Thay's why I say it's different here. > I use AARP, because several of those " advantage " plans have gone bankrupt, > and further my Dr likes AARP. > They don't like the agents that are lowering pay to ther Dr's, and get > behind in their payments. > > I find wherever I go, hospital, Dr lab tests, I am never charged for > anything and I never get a bill that is to be " unpaid " . SOME vaccines, like > shingles are not fully paid but covered under " drugs " . > > You know, part of the reason we need a systemized plan is to get rid of the > gimmicks and the gimmickers. > > Regards > > RE: Re: Doc choice > > > > Why can't they give us a grant and let us go buy wherever we want and > whatever we want. I hate being on a plan that is looked upon as inferior. > > Val > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 > > > > Before a joint committee, it still has to pass the Senate. I don't think it will, at least in its present form. I do recall a Senate version had " medical homes " in it. We'll see. The issue for me is not NPs, it is lack of choice. > > > > Val > > > > From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright > > > > Bill has to go to joint committee? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Actually, bondholders are funding the greed - or at least backing it while the company is liquidated for a profit. No one's taxes have gone up to bail out AIG and the money borrowed will eventually be repaid from the proceeds of the liquidation. Bindner From: Francis Bill <georgewbill@...>Subject: Re: Doc choicehyperaldosteronism Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 9:58 AM Unless something changed Medicare isn't controled by the state. States can have laws that all insurances in the that state have to abide by.Medicaid is controled be each state but still have to use federal guidelines. If we were part of AIG then we would not have to worry about our health care needs. AIG probleme are due to greed not because of lack of money. Now all tax payers are fnding this greed. >> All costs will be increased to meet the money allowed.> I don't think Medicare is flawed if you compare it to 1959, eg.> > An Austin, TX, AARP rep is saying that our Medicare will not be changed> with the new House plan.> That may be just Texas. And I do think states regulate what happens in the> state.> > Confusion is there are plans here that say they will pay ALL costs, just> sign with them and pay their supplement. Some medicare "ADVANTAGE" plans> have no monthly fee, but there is a copay.> > They get from medicare your gov't contribution and use it "better",> supposedly.> > Thay's why I say it's different here.> I use AARP, because several of those "advantage" plans have gone bankrupt,> and further my Dr likes AARP.> They don't like the agents that are lowering pay to ther Dr's, and get> behind in their payments.> > I find wherever I go, hospital, Dr lab tests, I am never charged for> anything and I never get a bill that is to be "unpaid". SOME vaccines, like> shingles are not fully paid but covered under "drugs".> > You know, part of the reason we need a systemized plan is to get rid of the> gimmicks and the gimmickers.> > Regards> > RE: [hyperaldosteronism ] Re: Doc choice> > > > Why can't they give us a grant and let us go buy wherever we want and> whatever we want. I hate being on a plan that is looked upon as inferior..> > Val> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 No, Medicare is entirely national and Health Care Reform won't change it, unless you are offering or using a Medicare Advantage Plan. Offering them will become less profitable - however this many not lead to a decline in care - especially since care under Medicare, especially involving prescription drugs - will improve in the general plan. Bindner Web Directory (links to my sites and blogs): http://www.geocities.com/mikeybdc/index.html http://mikeybdc.blogspot.com From: jwwright <jwwright@...>Subject: Re: Re: Doc choicehyperaldosteronism Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 11:12 AM All costs will be increased to meet the money allowed.I don't think Medicare is flawed if you compare it to 1959, eg.An Austin, TX, AARP rep is saying that our Medicare will not be changedwith the new House plan.That may be just Texas. And I do think states regulate what happens in thestate.Confusion is there are plans here that say they will pay ALL costs, justsign with them and pay their supplement. Some medicare "ADVANTAGE" planshave no monthly fee, but there is a copay.They get from medicare your gov't contribution and use it "better",supposedly.Thay's why I say it's different here.I use AARP, because several of those "advantage" plans have gone bankrupt,and further my Dr likes AARP.They don't like the agents that are lowering pay to ther Dr's, and getbehind in their payments.I find wherever I go, hospital, Dr lab tests, I am never charged foranything and I never get a bill that is to be "unpaid". SOME vaccines, likeshingles are not fully paid but covered under "drugs".You know, part of the reason we need a systemized plan is to get rid of thegimmicks and the gimmickers.Regards RE: [hyperaldosteronism ] Re: Doc choiceWhy can't they give us a grant and let us go buy wherever we want andwhatever we want. I hate being on a plan that is looked upon as inferior.Val Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 All costs will be increased to meet the money allowed. I don't think Medicare is flawed if you compare it to 1959, eg. An Austin, TX, AARP rep is saying that our Medicare will not be changed with the new House plan. That may be just Texas. And I do think states regulate what happens in the state. Confusion is there are plans here that say they will pay ALL costs, just sign with them and pay their supplement. Some medicare " ADVANTAGE " plans have no monthly fee, but there is a copay. They get from medicare your gov't contribution and use it " better " , supposedly. Thay's why I say it's different here. I use AARP, because several of those " advantage " plans have gone bankrupt, and further my Dr likes AARP. They don't like the agents that are lowering pay to ther Dr's, and get behind in their payments. I find wherever I go, hospital, Dr lab tests, I am never charged for anything and I never get a bill that is to be " unpaid " . SOME vaccines, like shingles are not fully paid but covered under " drugs " . You know, part of the reason we need a systemized plan is to get rid of the gimmicks and the gimmickers. Regards RE: Re: Doc choice Why can't they give us a grant and let us go buy wherever we want and whatever we want. I hate being on a plan that is looked upon as inferior. Val Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 , the ultimate plan is to put all old people into managed care by making them have " medical homes. "  For now, they are supposed to be demonstration projects. God help us if this bill ever becomes law. I had an HMO once and it nearly killed me before I escaped. Rather than be part of a managed care again, I will choose death. And if I have a choice, it will never be AARP. That organization supports the socialization of all health care. Val From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Bindner No, Medicare is entirely national and Health Care Reform won't change it, unless you are offering or using a Medicare Advantage Plan. Offering them will become less profitable - however this many not lead to a decline in care - especially since care under Medicare, especially involving prescription drugs - will improve in the general plan. Bindner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Medicare is socialized medicine. The only way around it is to provide incentives for employers to fully cover retirees and ex-employees who have retired in their own systems (either through an insurance plan or through the direct provision of care) as a way to avoid paying taxes for socialized medicine. You are correct that the current reforms will lead to socialized medicine, since the current for-profit model for health insurance is unsustainable and unreformable (meaning the planned reforms will eventually cause such firms to fail or consolidate, leading to some kind of government controlled or heavily regulated insurance). This is why the insurance industry is fighting so hard - however if they admitted it we would see single-payer sooner than later. Bindner From: Valarie <val@...>Subject: RE: Re: Doc choicehyperaldosteronism Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 11:59 AM , the ultimate plan is to put all old people into managed care by making them have "medical homes." For now, they are supposed to be demonstration projects. God help us if this bill ever becomes law. I had an HMO once and it nearly killed me before I escaped. Rather than be part of a managed care again, I will choose death. And if I have a choice, it will never be AARP. That organization supports the socialization of all health care. Val From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldost eronism@gro ups.com] On Behalf Of Bindner No, Medicare is entirely national and Health Care Reform won't change it, unless you are offering or using a Medicare Advantage Plan. Offering them will become less profitable - however this many not lead to a decline in care - especially since care under Medicare, especially involving prescription drugs - will improve in the general plan. Bindner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Or a congress person. Tiped sad Send form miiPhone ;-)May your pressure be low!CE Grim MDSpecializing in DifficultHypertensionOn Nov 10, 2009, at 11:32 AM, jwwright <jwwright@...> wrote: Semantics. Medicare is a gov't funding plan. Entities providing Medicare services are regulated. Medicare supplement plans are licensed, bonded, else they couldn't be sued for not paying. If not licensed they can't sell their plan here. AARP maintains a rep in the legislature. Medicare advantage plans claim to offer hearing, visual and dental coverage as well. From your description, your state is different. Dr's can choose to not accept Medicare patients, but if they admit to a hospital, that hospital will be receiving funds from Medicare. Medicaid is gov't plan IMPLEMENTED by the state. How they integrate those plans will be interesting. I view it as a managment change in Washington. Regards Re: Doc choice Unless something changed Medicare isn't controled by the state. States can have laws that all insurances in the that state have to abide by. Medicaid is controled be each state but still have to use federal guidelines. If we were part of AIG then we would not have to worry about our health care needs. AIG probleme are due to greed not because of lack of money. Now all tax payers are fnding this greed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Medicaid is really two separate programs - one for the poor and one for the elderly. They should be separated.. Now, it is an interesting question whether the part that is for the elderly should be altogether federal or whether Medicare as a whole should be administered by the individual states. It should go one way or the other, although it can't be funded that way or else Florida and the Midwest will go broke. Bindner Web Directory (links to my sites and blogs): http://www.geocities.com/mikeybdc/index.html http://mikeybdc.blogspot.com From: jwwright <jwwright@...>Subject: Re: Re: Doc choicehyperaldosteronism Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 2:32 PM Semantics.Medicare is a gov't funding plan.Entities providing Medicare services are regulated.Medicare supplement plans are licensed, bonded, else they couldn't be suedfor not paying.If not licensed they can't sell their plan here. AARP maintains a rep in thelegislature.Medicare advantage plans claim to offer hearing, visual and dental coverageas well.From your description, your state is different.Dr's can choose to not accept Medicare patients, but if they admit to ahospital, that hospital will be receiving funds from Medicare.Medicaid is gov't plan IMPLEMENTED by the state.How they integrate those plans will be interesting. I view it as a managmentchange in Washington.Regards [hyperaldosteronism ] Re: Doc choiceUnless something changed Medicare isn't controled by the state. States canhave laws that all insurances in the that state have to abide by.Medicaid is controled be each state but still have to use federalguidelines.If we were part of AIG then we would not have to worry about our health careneeds. AIG probleme are due to greed not because of lack of money. Now alltax payers are fnding this greed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Semantics. Medicare is a gov't funding plan. Entities providing Medicare services are regulated. Medicare supplement plans are licensed, bonded, else they couldn't be sued for not paying. If not licensed they can't sell their plan here. AARP maintains a rep in the legislature. Medicare advantage plans claim to offer hearing, visual and dental coverage as well. From your description, your state is different. Dr's can choose to not accept Medicare patients, but if they admit to a hospital, that hospital will be receiving funds from Medicare. Medicaid is gov't plan IMPLEMENTED by the state. How they integrate those plans will be interesting. I view it as a managment change in Washington. Regards Re: Doc choice Unless something changed Medicare isn't controled by the state. States can have laws that all insurances in the that state have to abide by. Medicaid is controled be each state but still have to use federal guidelines. If we were part of AIG then we would not have to worry about our health care needs. AIG probleme are due to greed not because of lack of money. Now all tax payers are fnding this greed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Right, Graham says it's dead on arrival at the senate. Leiberman says he'll filibuster, if it contains a public option. Maybe the best solution is if they continue to argue it for the next 100 yrs and we will fix it ourselves. Regards Re: Re: Doc choice Or a congress person. Tiped sad Send form mi iPhone ;-) May your pressure be low! CE Grim MD Specializing in Difficult Hypertension On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:32 AM, jwwright <jwwright@...> wrote: Semantics. Medicare is a gov't funding plan. Entities providing Medicare services are regulated. Medicare supplement plans are licensed, bonded, else they couldn't be sued for not paying. If not licensed they can't sell their plan here. AARP maintains a rep in the legislature. Medicare advantage plans claim to offer hearing, visual and dental coverage as well. From your description, your state is different. Dr's can choose to not accept Medicare patients, but if they admit to a hospital, that hospital will be receiving funds from Medicare. Medicaid is gov't plan IMPLEMENTED by the state. How they integrate those plans will be interesting. I view it as a managment change in Washington. Regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009  Soon to become one group. Re: Re: Doc choice Medicaid is really two separate programs - one for the poor and one for the elderly. Bindner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Yes, Medicare is socialized but an HMO is not yet required. There is no other choice for people over 65. There are so many free-market reforms that could be made if only the controllers were willing to turn loose with control. BTW, Medicare has $74 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. That is unsustainable. Val From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Bindner Medicare is socialized medicine. The only way around it is to provide incentives for employers to fully cover retirees and ex-employees who have retired in their own systems (either through an insurance plan or through the direct provision of care) as a way to avoid paying taxes for socialized medicine. You are correct that the current reforms will lead to socialized medicine, since the current for-profit model for health insurance is unsustainable and unreformable (meaning the planned reforms will eventually cause such firms to fail or consolidate, leading to some kind of government controlled or heavily regulated insurance). This is why the insurance industry is fighting so hard - however if they admitted it we would see single-payer sooner than later. Bindner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 , you have no idea what you're talking about. Medicaid and Medicare are two totally separate programs. Medicare is for those over 65. While people have no choice in insurance, it is not a welfare program. People paid into it for many years while employed (although not enough). Medicaid is a welfare program. Medicaid is administered by the states with federal supplementation. Val From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Bindner Medicaid is really two separate programs - one for the poor and one for the elderly. They should be separated.. Now, it is an interesting question whether the part that is for the elderly should be altogether federal or whether Medicare as a whole should be administered by the individual states. It should go one way or the other, although it can't be funded that way or else Florida and the Midwest will go broke. • Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Why should they worry? They have a very good taxpayer funded plan. But don't force it on the public is the matra. Clarence E. Grim, BS, MS, MD Specializing in Difficult High Blood Pressure and recent evolutionary forces on high blood pressure in population's today. On Tuesday, November 10, 2009, at 03:22PM, "jwwright" <jwwright@...> wrote: > Right, Graham says it's dead on arrival at the senate. Leiberman says he'll filibuster, if it contains a public option. Maybe the best solution is if they continue to argue it for the next 100 yrs and we will fix it ourselves. Regards Re: Re: Doc choice Or a congress person. Tiped sad Send form mi iPhone ;-) May your pressure be low! CE Grim MD Specializing in Difficult Hypertension On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:32 AM, jwwright <jwwrighteastex (DOT) net> wrote: Semantics. Medicare is a gov't funding plan. Entities providing Medicare services are regulated. Medicare supplement plans are licensed, bonded, else they couldn't be sued for not paying. If not licensed they can't sell their plan here. AARP maintains a rep in the legislature. Medicare advantage plans claim to offer hearing, visual and dental coverage as well. From your description, your state is different. Dr's can choose to not accept Medicare patients, but if they admit to a hospital, that hospital will be receiving funds from Medicare. Medicaid is gov't plan IMPLEMENTED by the state. How they integrate those plans will be interesting. I view it as a managment change in Washington. Regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 My guess is if they could make money on it they would be on it now. Clarence E. Grim, BS, MS, MD Specializing in Difficult High Blood Pressure and recent evolutionary forces on high blood pressure in population's today. On Tuesday, November 10, 2009, at 06:32PM, "Valarie " <val@...> wrote: > Yes, Medicare is socialized but an HMO is not yet required. There is no other choice for people over 65. There are so many free-market reforms that could be made if only the controllers were willing to turn loose with control. BTW, Medicare has $74 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. That is unsustainable. Val From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Bindner Medicare is socialized medicine. The only way around it is to provide incentives for employers to fully cover retirees and ex-employees who have retired in their own systems (either through an insurance plan or through the direct provision of care) as a way to avoid paying taxes for socialized medicine. You are correct that the current reforms will lead to socialized medicine, since the current for-profit model for health insurance is unsustainable and unreformable (meaning the planned reforms will eventually cause such firms to fail or consolidate, leading to some kind of government controlled or heavily regulated insurance). This is why the insurance industry is fighting so hard - however if they admitted it we would see single-payer sooner than later. Bindner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Actually, I have a degree in public administration with extra work in federal finance, plus Hill and state level experience. I know how the program works - reread my original post. I was describing what should happen to it, since it serves two constituencies - those who require long term care (especially the elderly) and those who are on TANF or among the working poor. As I stated, these two groups have different needs and should be served by separate programs. Indeed, the working poor and those poor in need of education (and who should be paid to get it) should be covered through work or as if they were working. The other program should be combined with Medicare and taken away from state governments entirely (unless of course Medicare is made a state level program so that they become responsible for cost control). Bindner Web Directory (links to my sites and blogs): http://www.geocities.com/mikeybdc/index.html http://mikeybdc.blogspot.com From: Valarie <val@...>Subject: RE: Re: Doc choicehyperaldosteronism Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 7:32 PM , you have no idea what you're talking about. Medicaid and Medicare are two totally separate programs. Medicare is for those over 65. While people have no choice in insurance, it is not a welfare program. People paid into it for many years while employed (although not enough). Medicaid is a welfare program. Medicaid is administered by the states with federal supplementation. Val From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldost eronism@gro ups.com] On Behalf Of Bindner Medicaid is really two separate programs - one for the poor and one for the elderly. They should be separated.. Now, it is an interesting question whether the part that is for the elderly should be altogether federal or whether Medicare as a whole should be administered by the individual states. It should go one way or the other, although it can't be funded that way or else Florida and the Midwest will go broke. • Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 You cannot stress the unfunded liabilities without also counting the anticipated funding. The liability is only unfunded if you cancelled all tax support today or if society became totally automated so that no one need work (of course, if you did this, the unfunded liability would be meaningless, since health care would be free). Bindner Web Directory (links to my sites and blogs): http://www.geocities.com/mikeybdc/index.html http://mikeybdc.blogspot.com From: Valarie <val@...>Subject: RE: Re: Doc choicehyperaldosteronism Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 7:32 PM Yes, Medicare is socialized but an HMO is not yet required. There is no other choice for people over 65. There are so many free-market reforms that could be made if only the controllers were willing to turn loose with control. BTW, Medicare has $74 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. That is unsustainable. Val From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldost eronism@gro ups.com] On Behalf Of Bindner Medicare is socialized medicine. The only way around it is to provide incentives for employers to fully cover retirees and ex-employees who have retired in their own systems (either through an insurance plan or through the direct provision of care) as a way to avoid paying taxes for socialized medicine. You are correct that the current reforms will lead to socialized medicine, since the current for-profit model for health insurance is unsustainable and unreformable (meaning the planned reforms will eventually cause such firms to fail or consolidate, leading to some kind of government controlled or heavily regulated insurance). This is why the insurance industry is fighting so hard - however if they admitted it we would see single-payer sooner than later. Bindner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.