15 Oct 12
Originally posted by utherpendragonHow exactly does cutting $716 billion in excess payments to Medicare providers "hurt[s]....... the program's solvency"?
Here are the top ten worst lies told by Biden during the debate:
Update - Honorable Mention: "There's not one Democrat who endorsed his...plan." Biden lied--as Ryan pointed out, amidst the Vice President's interruptions--about the fact that Ryan had worked with both Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and former Clinton budget director Alice Rivli ...[text shortened]... en-Worst-Lies-by-Joe-Biden-in-VP-Debate
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's true; "solvency" is bad phraseology. Utility or effectiveness would have been better.
How would that "hurt the program's solvency" even if it were true?
It is possible that fewer people would pay their Medicare premiums if their providers would refuse to accept Medicare in any case, but I would tend to agree that this is unlikely given that even if relying on supplemental insurance, most seniors would keep Medicare for hospitalizations.
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by sh76The program's solvency is in danger because of medical costs that keep increasing well above any economic standard like wages paid, inflation, etc. Limiting payments is an essential step to restore the program's solvency; in no way does it hurt that.
That's true; "solvency" is bad phraseology. Utility or effectiveness would have been better.
It is possible that fewer people would pay their Medicare premiums if their providers would refuse to accept Medicare in any case, but I would tend to agree that this is unlikely given that even if relying on supplemental insurance, most seniors would keep Medicare for hospitalizations.
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by sh76Im not going to copy/paste but you can go to this link at Forbes that breaks it down pretty good.
Possibly by decreasing the number of providers that will continue to accept Medicare.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/16/fact-checking-the-obama-campaigns-defense-of-its-716-billion-cut-to-medicare/
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraFor Medicare this is perhaps true, because treating the elderly is so lucrative. But as a concept, that is incorrect, as there are many, many providers who refuse Medicaid patients due to low profits. In my community, I would estimate the number of doctors who refuse Medicaid patients to be about 50%.
US health care is renowned for its inefficiency and huge profit margins, so it seems unlikely health care providers would exit the market because there is no money in it if they make slightly less profits.
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by sh76A link in Uther's article leads to another good article on this subject.
For Medicare this is perhaps true, because treating the elderly is so lucrative. But as a concept, that is incorrect, as there are many, many providers who refuse Medicaid patients due to low profits. In my community, I would estimate the number of doctors who refuse Medicaid patients to be about 50%.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/20/how-obamacares-716-billion-in-cuts-will-drive-doctors-out-of-medicare/
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by sh76So what? It's a free country, if doctors don't want to make money they don't have to. There's no shortage of doctors and health providers for Medicaid patients.
For Medicare this is perhaps true, because treating the elderly is so lucrative. But as a concept, that is incorrect, as there are many, many providers who refuse Medicaid patients due to low profits. In my community, I would estimate the number of doctors who refuse Medicaid patients to be about 50%.
15 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Sleepyguy😴😴
A link in Uther's article leads to another good article on this subject.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/20/how-obamacares-716-billion-in-cuts-will-drive-doctors-out-of-medicare/
A bunch of anecdotes from a Romney policy advisor isn't very convincing.