Death Panels You Say?

How is the government deciding how much doctors are getting reimbursed. I suppose you're talking about Medicare. That has nothing to do with Obama. Rant and rave against President Johnson. Comprende?

 

And Medicare has nothing to do with private insurance coverage. How can you be so stupid?

 

I am sorry, my mistake. I assumed you understood how obamacare will effect our current medical system.

 

A lot of people that post in Politics and Current Events forum are glued to Drudge Report, Glenn Beck, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc.--i.e. they've been brainwashed.

There is a feature in your user control panel called the Ignore function. You may find it very useful of you post here a lot.

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Yup. There's also a lot of folks who throw red herrings out so they don't have to answer questions.

 

Obamacare Finds Its Cost Savings — Stop Paying Doctors

As Peter Suderman noted, the Obama administration is simultaneously pushing for Medicaid expansion and arguing that states should be allowed to reduce reimbursement to providers as a means of controlling costs in the bloated program. This comes even as Medicaid is already struggling to find providers willing to see patients — with low compensation cited as a major reason for the shortage.

The Obama administration's argument for reducing reimbursements for providers who see Medicaid patients was made very succinctly in a California courtroom:

"There is no general mandate under Medicaid to reimburse providers for all or substantially all of their costs."


http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/01/obamacare-finds-its-cost-savings-stop-pa

 

Top Five Reasons Obamacare Is Bad for Doctors

Creates a new board to further cut provider payments. Obamacare uses the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a board of 15 unelected bureaucrats, to contain cost growth in Medicare by finding ways to cut spending to meet a new budget target. The board is limited in how it can achieve its goal, but one avenue definitely available is to further ratchet down provider payments. As IPAB cuts reimbursements, seniors will experience growing access problems as doctors discontinue seeing Medicare beneficiaries. If IPAB elects to limit seniors’ access to certain treatments and services—which is also within its abilities—patient choice and physician autonomy will also be sacrificed.


http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/22/top-five-reasons-obamacare-is-bad-for-doctors/

 

The New Health Law: Bad for Doctors, Awful for Patients

The deleterious effects of this legislation will be felt the most by physicians and their patients. It is brutal for physicians, and the detriment transcends dollars and cents. New regulations will place unaccountable regulators in Washington, D.C., between physicians and patients and will grant these bureaucrats unprecedented control in the medical decision-making process. It will strip away physician autonomy, drown doctors in bureaucracy, and drain job satisfaction. As physicians are required to do more, they will likely be paid less.

http://www.theihcc.com/en/communiti...bad-for-doctors-awful-for-patie_gn17y01k.html

 

Brainwashed? :laugh:

It appears they are probably the only ones who have actually read what had to be passed to know what was in it.

Seems like many others are like frogs sitting in a nice warm swimming pool. Water's fine, now, as many of the provisions of ObamaCare haven't been turned up yet. Ever wonder why implimentation was drawn out over so many years?

Or perhaps a better illustration is to envision cowboys slowing driving a herd of cattle into a boxed canyon. Far away walls of the canyon don't pose a threat as there's plenty of room to turn around and head the other way. Complacency doesn't allow them to see the walls narrowing in on them. That is until those cows realize the only way out is blocked by their handlers. Handlers with branding irons in hand. Along with the capability and authority to turn bulls into steers.

Where ya gonna go when federal administrators dictate the rules, regardless of the label applied to insurance -- private, Medicare, Medicaid, or whatever name is used in England, for example.

 

Well it's clear that there are many posters on BB that don't have a clue as to what ObamaCare actually is. Like those that cite government oversight over Medicare and then assuming the same thing happens with ObamaCare.

 

Why don't you explain it to me? Tell me about the non-existent government option. Tell about how people will obtain insurance and from whom. Could our current system get any worse? I hope not. We're now about 18th in the world in the effectiveness of our health care barely above Cuba. We're the worst among developed countries. Of course I'm talking about all Americans not just the priviledged few.

 

It is just plain false that if the system is not called a government option then it is not controlled by the government. But I have addressed this with three previous posts in a row.

18th in the world according to whom? Liberals who want make everything out to be doomsday so they have an excuse to head in the wrong direction and create a government option? Yea well most folks aint buying it.

 

My level of insurance coverage is still controlled by the company I work for and the rules are set by the insurance company that provides the service. Nothing has changed. How is my insurance controlled by the government? Saying something 3 times or a hundred times doesn't make it right.

 

umm.. I suppose a well know fact that you have missed is that most of obama care has not kicked in yet. Secondly the types of things covered is being forced on the carriers under obamacare. Third, the new taxes on medical equipment under obamacare is driving up the cost of insurance. Also lack of reasonable compensation to doctors under medicaid is driving them out of the business altogether. And there is more to come. Not that you really care or will admit to.

 

I agree that reduced pay to doctors is causing many of them to leave the profession. My college roomate and his wife practiced medicine in a small town in VA and both retired early. But it was Medicare not Medicaid that put the squeeze on them. The other factor was increasing malpractice insurance costs. But what has caused the reduction in Medicare funding? The Republicans party's refusal to raise taxes to payfor that of course. They have rejected tax increases for 30 years. Since most companies now provide Medicare supplements rather than full medical insurance, we're not talking about your usual scapegoats, those poor welfare cheats. We're talking about most retirees. Are you recommending taking away medical care for most retirees? Good luck in getting support for that radical position.

 

What we need is asnwers to problems that do not include raising taxes. That is the extreme liberal answer to everything. And it never resolves anything.

There is not an unlimited pool of money out there. There are no more taxes to collect. Not one dime.

But in the end this is really all about something else isnt it. It is not really about helping the poor. It is really about making the rich less rich. Nothing more.

Liberals do not really care about helping the poor, it is just there excuse to raise taxes and redistribute wealth.

 

The last time the Medicare payroll tax was raised was under Reagan. As far as I know there has been zero proposals to raise the Medicare payroll tax in the past 30 years. There has been talk of raising the income limit. So it's unfair to blame Republicans for something they did not do (though I concede they would likely oppose it.)

 

Today's income tax rates are strikingly low relative to the rates of the past century, especially for rich people. For most of the century, including some boom times, top-bracket income tax rates were much higher than they are today.

Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1

When we used to fight wars we raised the costs of the war by raising taxes. But the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq werer fought "off-budget." In additiuon, the top income tax rates are right around historic LOWS. That coupled with the ridiculous capital gains tax rate and the capability of corporations to hise revenue off-shore has resulted in U.S. federal tax revenue as a % of GDP being lower than at any time since 1951! Tax rates are NOT low. Tax receipts are NOT excessive. Radical conservatives are misrepresenting thes FACTS are arguing against and rejecting tax increases for the last 30 years.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

At6 least understand the facts before making foolish statements.

 

Aah...I see just ignore what I said. Nice!

 

Attached is the historical top income tax rate for the U.S. Do you really think tax rates on upper income citizens are too high? Compared to what? (Upload failed ?) This chart is on the following web page:

http://www.businessinsider.com/histo...tax-rates?op=1