Markey D-CO says Medicare recipients must give up some benefits to fund health reform.

[madfloridian]

She is at least being forthright about it. We just learned that huge cuts are coming to oncologists, cardiologists, and nursing homes..20 to 44% in fact. So I was not surprised to hear her words.

"Medicare recipients, will have to give up some current benefits to truly reform the nation's health-care system"

Those are her words.

Markey: Medicare will take hit

Some people, including Medicare recipients, will have to give up some current benefits to truly reform the nation's health-care system, Rep. Betsy Markey told a gathering of constituents in Fort Collins on Wednesday.

Markey has repeatedly said during the August congressional recess that Medicare spending needs to be reined in to help pay for reforming the broader health-care system.

"There's going to be some people who are going to have to give up some things, honestly, for all of this to work," Markey said at a Congress on Your Corner event at CSU. "But we have to do this because we're Americans."

That has got to be the worst PR ever. Right at this time with the talk of the death panels and death books.

I think that is probably what they are doing....cutting Medicare for a new health reform of some sort, and that is a shame.

313 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid spending.

Among the proposed policy changes outlined by the president are:

* Reductions in payments to providers to reflect increased efficiencies in the system, which the White House estimates could save $110 billion over the next decade.

* Cuts in federal subsidies to hospitals that treat large populations of uninsured patients, estimated to save $106 billion over the next decade.

* Cuts in how much the federal government pays pharmaceutical companies to provide prescription drugs to seniors and others, estimated to save $75 billion over the next decade.

That goes along with the words of a health care advisor to the president.

The Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan will be administered by a National Health Board and regional boards modeled on the Federal Reserve System with fiscal, administrative, and political independence to make tough decisions based on the merits, not special interest lobbying. There will also be an Institute for Technology and Outcomes Assessment to assess the effectiveness of new drugs, devices, procedures, and other interventions. It will also assess and make publicly available data on the clinical outcomes of patients in different insurance companies. This will permit comparative shopping based on real quality results.

No one (I think he means to say "anyone") receiving Medicare, Medicaid, or any other government program will not be forced out, but there will be no new enrollees. People who turn 65 will simply stay in the Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan. The special tax benefits related to employer based coverage will be eliminated and most employers will stop offering health insurance.

Phasing out Medicare

I think what Betsy Markey said is the first time someone has been so open and honest about the fact that Medicare recipients will pay a dear price for the health care reform that is not yet done.

The cuts are starting, and they are going to be deep. Yet there is no other program for seniors to turn to yet.

I fear that soon MORE doctors will begin to refuse patients on Medicare if this continues. They should at least wait until there is a program in place so there will not be a chance of seniors being refused by physicians.

[DJ13]

1. Trillions to the wealthy, cutbacks for our elderly

And we wonder why the fringe gets mad enough to join tea party's?

[Kansas Wyatt]

2. The Pentagon should give up A LOT of funding...

For Health Care reform.

[Donnachaidh]

3. uhh, doctors already DO refuse Medicare patients

NOTHING new. When we lived in Los Angeles and tried to find a doctor that would only take Medicare it was frightening -- NOT ONE in my area took those patients.

What we need to do is REQUIRE anyone practicing medicine in this country to see a percentage of the Medicare patients in their area. The patients can be spread out between doctors, so they don't get swamped. But to practice in this country and refuse patients care? They should run the real risk of losing their licenses over it.

[HillbillyBob]

11. I am an hiv/aid patient, heart patient, seizures, migraines and cancer.

Which treatments do I give up? I already do without meds on some days to make them go further. I only have SS income which is 1/5 of what my meds cost and about 400 less than one visit to the dr and blood work every three months.
What do I give up?
I would not be in quite such bad shape if I had been able to afford fucking insurance while I was working, I did have insurance which dropped me upon learning I had Pnuemocystis Pneumonia, claimin it was a preexisting. I was not diagnosed as hiv until after I was out of the hospital. Which cost me all of my retirement savings. Then spent most of 2 yrs homeless and unemployed getting sicker the whole time, I did not get any more care until I got so sick that an aquaintance called a dr he knew of in another city and took me there and dr put me immediately in hospital with CMV Solid organ, and my liver and kidneys were in first stage shut down.

I cannot get care locally I have to drive 45 miles each way to see my dr.
I don't own a car I have to borrow one, If I were to get the county van it runs once a month and not when I can get an appointment.

[Duval]

42. You're right. Happened to me in NC

a few years ago. However, this "news" about Medicare that's going on right now, is not so, according to
Ed Schultz on Air America.:crazy:

[JDPriestly]

55. Problem is, you can't force doctors to give good care or to spend

time with patients. That is why the healthcare has to be universal. Doctors should be paid good wages, but specialists in some areas will probably take cuts.

[Donnachaidh]

72. I'd also like to see bad doctors culled from the herd

For profit medicine has spent millions protecting the bad ones from malpractice. Those folks need to go too.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. CMS was to vote on this today, 8/31. Has it happened or are these changes to rates still a proposal?

[madfloridian]

6. I don't know. I did a search about an hour ago. Commenting time ended I know.

And found nothing much new.

Those darn seniors expecting so much...:sarcasm:

[madfloridian]

25. Still looking.

Can't find much at all right now.

[lumpy]

5. Many doctors have been refusing to take on Medicare

patients for quite a long time. $80.00 for a 15min. consultation isn't enough to satisfy Doc's lack of expertise.

[madfloridian]

7. Yes, I know that.

[Ajaye]

10. Aetna pays less

than Medicare. 30 bucks for 15 minute consult with psychiatrist. 30 bucks for 45 minute psychotherapy session.

30 bucks for office visit to primary care doctor.

I mean, honestly, if doctors take Aetna, why wouldn't they take Medicare?

[FLDCVADem]

67. I think it must depend on where you live

I'm in N. Va, and Aetna pays nearly $60 for an office visit, and I pay a $15 co-pay.

C-Span radio in the DC area had a very good program on yesterday and today from Virginia Hospital Center. The CFO said they lose money on every single Medicare patient they treat, but that they make it up by negotiating higher fees from insurance companies. Said they've been losing money on Medicare patients for more than a decade.

[OwnedByFerrets]

8. How about we give up a overseas war or two to fund it?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. There is no reason we can't we have the all the marbles.

[OwnedByFerrets]

28. And no reason why I cant wish for the US to

spend less on killing machines and war profits.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant we have the power to leave both wars.

I didn't mean to imply we could continue both wars and fully fund a single payer system.

[OwnedByFerrets]

74. Gotcha!

[Biker13]

9. In My Town...

Two out of three Doctors won't asccept new Medicare patients as it is.

[valerief]

12. Just as long as the uber-wealthy don't have to give up any of their chump change to save the country

:sarcasm:

[ieoeja]

13. Nice spin (find-and-replace "savings" with "cuts").

Claim: Reductions in payments to providers to reflect increased efficiencies in the system, which the White House estimates could save $110 billion over the next decade.

Truth: The White House estimates healthcare reform would decrease healthcare costs by $110B which means $110B less we would have to pay to cover those costs. It's not a cut in service, but a cut in cost for the same service.


Claim: Cuts in federal subsidies to hospitals that treat large populations of uninsured patients, estimated to save $106 billion over the next decade.

Truth: Since there would be no large populations of uninsured patients, we would save a lot of the money we are spending on those populations today, n'est-ce pas?


Claim: Cuts in how much the federal government pays pharmaceutical companies to provide prescription drugs to seniors and others, estimated to save $75 billion over the next decade.

Truth: Healthcare reform includes allowing the gov't to negotiate for lower drug prices. Again, this describes a savings in cost, not a reduction in service.

[EC]

14. Thanks

you saved me some typing...it makes me upset when people do this without thinking about it...


If one would just logically think about the proposals they'd realize these are the estimated savings when procedures and uncovered are streamlined.


To make a comparison: When my mom was sick last year, she had 3 angiograms when 1 should have been enough, but each doctor wanted one of their own...This is where the first item stated would get the savings. A panel of DOCTORS will make the standards and new computerized systems would have cut this testing down to one (and by the way the test is stressful and invasive so it would save pain and time). Second stated point is simple, no uninsured, no cost to fund them. etc.

[madfloridian]

15. Where is the program for seniors refused by doctors?

is it there yet?

Why are they making drastic cuts in payments to doctors if there is nothing in place for the seniors who will not have a doctor?

Do you know what that program is that will take seniors when doctors refuse them right now?

I don't.

They are cutting Medicare. Why? Why not open it to other enrollees and make it work correctly?

[EC]

17. You are panicking and you are wrong...

they are not cutting it, they are closing it because everyone else will be enrolled in new program...nothing narfarious....


I have not had any experience with Doctors refusing patients with Medicare, especially if they also have a supplemental policy...I just don't see it happening...

[madfloridian]

18. There is no new program yet. The CMS ends comments at midnight.

It is not panic. It is anger.

[madfloridian]

20. So you say they are closing Medicare?

Yes, doctors are more and more refusing Medicare patients. It is happening.

You say they are closing Medicare for the new program. Don't you think they should wait until there is a new program? I do.

In fact I think hurting Medicare will break the hearts of seniors who voted for the Democrats in droves. I can't believe our party would do that....but I fear they are.

[katkat]

30. Geez, get a grip

You are stampeding just like Faux viewers.

[madfloridian]

31. I was responding to EC who said that...not me.

Truthtelling or stampeding. I am not sure. These are the words of a Democratic congresswoman from Colorado.

[WillowTree]

71. Then you're fortunate.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-02-19-medicare.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html

Just google "doctor doesn't accept Medicare" and see how many articles and web postings you can see on the subject.

This could be coming to a clinic near you.

[jwirr]

44. As I read it is not so much cuts as procedures that are no longer needed

because of a more efficient system. If my doctor actually has the balls to object to a more efficient system then I will be quiting him not the other way around.

[madfloridian]

47. Fine. Then show me the system in place. Tell which procedures are not needed.

They are cutting huge amounts. Let them explain it clearly to us. I am all for efficiency.

Could you list procedures that are "no longer needed."?

Here are some of the things they are cutting. Please tell me which procedures used by cardiologists and oncologists that are not longer needed.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/4806

[jwirr]

51. I hear what you are saying but we have all had tests that are taken

over and over by each doctor we see. That is the kind of thing I think they are talking about. I am not suggesting you are wrong about wanting this statement clarified. It is not your post they will use it is her statement so President Obama is going to have to address it.

[JDPriestly]

56. Madfloridian, whether we have health care reform or not, Medicare

will be cut. Thank the parents of the baby boomers for that. The demographic baby boomer bulge will overpower the system. Why do you think big business started pulling out of the U.S. back in the 1980s? Because they knew that this demographic squeeze would make manufacturing in the U.S. unprofitable.

Yes, baby boomers supported their children and parents in a style never seen on the face of the earth. Too bad, Bush and friends used all the savings (which would not have been enough anyway) to fight for glory and profits in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No. You will not enjoy the Medicare or the Social Security benefits that your parents had. If you have to blame anyone, blame the so-called "greatest generation" that produced so many children all at once and made sure that so many of us survived.

Do the math. This country is headed into oblivion. It isn't a matter of choosing the best policy. It's just the numbers.

[madfloridian]

59. So you are saying we are done....and no public health care?

Gee. I guess we lose for sure in 2010 and 2012.

[JDPriestly]

63. I'm saying that regardless of what happens on health care reform,

we will have cuts in Medicare. Better with health care reform than without it. Better health care reform with a public option than without it. And best of all, single payer for everyone.

Take your pick, but there will be cuts in Medicare. That is simply due to the demographic bubble that will become eligible for Medicare in the next few years. I question whether we have the national resources to provide healthcare for the baby boomers meeting the quality of healthcare that those now receiving Medicare enjoy.

We will need to train a lot of nurse practitioners for simpler things. We will need to retrain doctors to work with and supervise nurse practitioners and other medical workers without the training that our doctors have.

Specialists will not be paid what they receive today. The pay of internists, GPs and pediatricians will probably rise as they assume more management roles. That's my view on it.

[madfloridian]

16. "Since there would be no large populations of uninsured patients"

That might be true if there were a public option already, but there is not. There is just Medicare for the senior population many of whom might be otherwise uninsurable.

What program in place now would help those hospitals who would still have to see those patients who are uninsured?

I see your point, but if the cuts happen now....where is the other program.

[ieoeja]

39. It might help if you'd pick one topic ... and stick to it.

I was addressing the pure bullshit in your third topic. I mistakenly assumed the OP was referring to one topic.

As to whatever CMS is doing ... I am going to take it on faith that you are full of it based on what you did with topic #3.

Don't blame me for losing interest in a thread because you thought it would be cute to tie a completely unrelated matter to the healthcare reform act in a smear effort. You have no one to blame but yourself.

[madfloridian]

45. You are attacking my post instead of answering my question.

That is par for the course now.

If they are going to hurt Medicare without something visible and viable in place, our party will lose.

Period. Bottom line.

Everyone I have talked with lately is furious that our party has let the other side control the conversation on health care.

They need to clarify what they are doing to Medicare, why they are doing it.

Your attack on my post is outrageous. But it is what I expect here now.

I don't care since I post the truth, but you never answered by question because you can't.

[bobbolink]

68. Huge cuts in Medicare and Medicaid are already scheduled for COLORaDo, thanks to DEM

governor.

:nuke:

It's a done deal.

Thank you, DEMS.

[jwirr]

43. As I read the section talking about specifics I realizes they were not

talking about cuts for seniors but a more efficient system. I calmed down considerably. I can just see her statement repeated by all the rw idiots.

[madfloridian]

49. They are talking about payments to oncologists and cardiologists.

You know all that care that seniors don't need.

If you fear my post will be repeated by the right wing, then have our Democrats set the record straight.

[wiggs]

57. Exactly right and good point. Now tell me why dems and pundits aren't spinning

this the right way...that is, the truthful honest description of what the bill does?

[Go2Peace]

73. Can I rec your post for truth? The OP is quite misleading

[madfloridian]

19. More details: comments to CMS end at midnight,

http://www.rtmagazine.com/press_release.asp?id=10230501

"CPF Submits Comments to CMS to Save Only Effective Therapy Available to PF Patients

Proposed Medicare Ruling Would End Pulmonary Rehab for Thousands of Dying Patients

SAN JOSE, Calif., Aug. 31 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, pulmonary fibrosis (PF) patient Ellen Foley went to the pulmonary rehabilitation (rehab) program near her home in Middlesex, N.C. At the same time, the Coalition for Pulmonary Fibrosis (CPF) took a stand for her and thousands of patients like her. Soon, Foley may not be able to go to therapy if the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are successful in pushing forward a proposed ruling regarding pulmonary rehabilitation coverage that would limit coverage and eliminate patients with diseases like Foley's. PF has no treatments and no cure and is a disease that scars the lungs and suffocates its victims. It is almost invariably fatal. Most patients live less than three years and the only affective therapy to help them is pulmonary rehab.

The CMS proposed ruling states "because there is not data to substantiate significantly improved outcomes for any other medical conditions, we are proposing to allow moderate to severe COPD as the only covered condition." There is, in fact, substantial evidence that there is significant benefit to PF patients and patients with other respiratory diseases."

Even though Congress passed a national coverage policy for pulmonary rehab earlier this year that was designed to include patients with PF and other lethal or chronic lung diseases, CMS threatens to prevent them from receiving the benefit that Congress worked to provide. Patients and experts worry that private insurance payers will follow suit and no coverage for pulmonary rehab will be available for the majority of patients who suffer from deadly lung diseases like PF. The only disease CMS plans to cover, under the proposed ruling, would be Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD); and even COPD is being negatively affected by the ruling that plans to limit its coverage to basically only end stage patients.

"We are stunned that CMS would propose such a sweeping and negatively impacting ruling that harms so many patients. We hope that they will thoroughly review our comments and the more than 2,000 that have been submitted to them by concerned medical professionals and patient groups nationwide," said Mishka Michon, Chief Executive Officer of the CPF. "Then, it is hope that CMS will reconsider its position and provide coverage for the many types of patients who need and deserve it."

CMS accepts public comment on the proposed ruling until midnight tonight"

[madfloridian]

23. I can't believe they would discontinue therapy for these people.

"SAN JOSE, Calif., Aug. 31 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, pulmonary fibrosis (PF) patient Ellen Foley went to the pulmonary rehabilitation (rehab) program near her home in Middlesex, N.C. At the same time, the Coalition for Pulmonary Fibrosis (CPF) took a stand for her and thousands of patients like her. Soon, Foley may not be able to go to therapy if the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are successful in pushing forward a proposed ruling regarding pulmonary rehabilitation coverage that would limit coverage and eliminate patients with diseases like Foley's. PF has no treatments and no cure and is a disease that scars the lungs and suffocates its victims. It is almost invariably fatal. Most patients live less than three years and the only affective therapy to help them is pulmonary rehab.

The CMS proposed ruling states "because there is not data to substantiate significantly improved outcomes for any other medical conditions, we are proposing to allow moderate to severe COPD as the only covered condition." There is, in fact, substantial evidence that there is significant benefit to PF patients and patients with other respiratory diseases."

[spanone]

21. democrats lie too

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. Who is lying?

[madfloridian]

22. Dean says make Medicare the public option. Says Dems must not wimp out.

Here is the audio from the Montel show on AAR...Karen Finney is interviewing Dean.

http://airamerica.com/montelacrossamerica/blog/2009/aug/31/karen-finney-and-howard-dean

Democrats, he said, "must find their spine." Or they won't be there very long. Says if right wing beats him on a health care bill...he will be seen as weak leader. Needs to finish the job on health care. Show that he means what he says. Don't worry about the polls, don't worry about the lies, just get it done.

Says those who say a bill at any price are wrong...it will be the destruction of the Democratic Party.

Says if you don't stand for things as a party you won't get re-elected.

More outspoken than usual.

Admits the American people are not prepared for a long stay in Afghanistan. We are in a terrible dilemma...

[madfloridian]

24. More details from The Atlantic on the cuts.

This article says they will concentrate on the Medicare Advantage program. It is a combo of RNC talk and AARP talk..go figure.

If they would concentrate on these private Medicare plans, I would not gripe as much. But someone needs to speak clearly.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/08/will_health_reform_cut_medicare_benefits.php

"Democrats say they'll slash spending from Medicare without reducing benefits, trimming wasteful spending from the program without reducing seniors' coverage. Republicans say President Obama's Medicare spending cuts would hurt seniors (in fact, the National Republican Congressional Committee just launched ads against three House Democrats today alleging that the projected Medicare spending cuts--projected at $500 billion by sources with knowledge of Senate Finance Committee talks--would pay for health care reform "on the backs of America's senior citizens.") AARP agrees with the Democrats. Who is right?"

"The spending cuts will come in payment rates and subsidies to private insurers in Medicare Advantage, the private-coverage form of Medicare. Medicare Advantage already costs taxpayers more than regular Medicare does, but plans that don't closely resemble traditional medicare--insurance plans in the program "to make a quick buck," Marc Steinberg of Families USA told Politifact--may have to change some benefits. The House proposal cuts the growth in payment rates, and there's a fear that this will trickle down in the form of fewer benefits or worse coverage.

So saying Obama will cut Medicare, as Republicans do and Democrats & the AARP don't, is about a fear that slowing the growth of payment rates and cuts to Medicare Advantage will end up resulting in fewer benefits."

STILL...cutting payments to specialists will cause many to refuse to take patients. That is a problem.

[katkat]

29. that's FUD/Markey is an idiot

There's some FUD going on here.

The Medicare Advantage programs were Repig things tacked on for their buddies in the Insurance industry. They cost the government far more that regular Medicare + Medigap policies for the same services. If Medicare Advantage goes down the tubes, we are all better off. And I speak as someone on Medicare + Medigap who researched the devil out of the various options before I decided what to do.

This article is trying to make a more efficient system look like it will harm people, when in fact it will be a significant step towards a better system for seniors, and they will not lose out.

[madfloridian]

32. I agree about the Medicare Advantage programs. The Dems need to clarify.

I have written that several times here, that most people do not know the difference.

[windbreeze]

60. Medicare advantage programs meant one thing.....

money money money flowing into the pockets of the private insurance companies, that the American taxpayer is funding...They need to be totally ELIMINATED...PERIOD!!Each person who signed up, had to opt out of their private retiree insurance program....they opted out of those programs, hoping to get something better than they already had, for nothing...for some it sounded good when the guy said, your gov't is willing to pay us $500 to $600 a month MORE to cover you on Advantage, and all you have to pay is your regular Medicare premium....but bells started ringing for me...I didn't want to give up a sure thing, for something he couldn't quite make me believe...sure glad I didn't sign up...wb

[Vinca]

33. If they opened up Medicare to everyone, it would be a whole lot

easier to fund. Now it's the old folks big insurance doesn't want because they cost a fortune. If we threw younger, healthier people into the mix there would be more money coming into the system in premiums and benefits probably wouldn't have to be cut. Big insurance wants to skim the healthy 20-somethings off the pile and dump the sickest onto the government. That's not fair.

[librechik]

34. BS

Betsy has been spun into a curb. They are going to reform the way medicare pays and find other savings--not cut benefits. In fact, benefits will be expanded to more people, in the best case scenario.

Why does CO have so few real Dems in office? It's too new blue, that's why. Betsy is still surrounded by powerful snorting Repiglicans wherever she walks.

[madfloridian]

35. If they deal with the private Medicare Advantage plans, I'm fine with that.

The private companies that run it got 43 billion from the government the last few years.

But if congressional Democrats don't speak clearly about it...how can the public understand??

[katkat]

36. the public, what about us

The public understand, what about the wholesale nuttiness here that this post resulted in. You'd think we had the brain cells of Republicans.

[katkat]

37. call her office

I suggest people call her office.

[SoCalDem]

38. Not necessarily.. medicare now is 2.8 percent

1.4 from the employer & 1.4 from the employee..

Just make it 2+2..and eliminate the cap from Social security (now 100K or so) & divert half of the "extra" into medicare..

open medicare to 50 yr olds for a fee, and that frees up employers from having to have those 50-64 yr olds in their insurance pool..costs should go drown dramatically, so the employers could pay half of the "savings" as a medicare surcharge (over and above what their 2% share would be)... they would still be ahead of the game, and should see costs drop, as more employees move into the 50 + group.

the medicare "fee" could be simple too.. If the employee-share was now $400 a month, they could pay $300 a month & be ahead of the game..all the while still paying the ordinary 2% from the check..

[Jackpine Radical]

40. Medicare is already incomplete and inadequate coverage.

Most people--the ones who a afford it--buy supplemental insurance to cover the gaps.

[madfloridian]

41. Medicare is a lifesaver in many ways.

Supplements help. There could be improvements.

But it appears they are stripping it further for a yet unknown plan. That would be a nail in the coffin of our party, I fear.

IF they are talking about doing away with the private Medicare plans....let them explain themselves.

They need to clarify.

When someone starts questioning it I ask if they want the medical responsibility of their parents. If they question Social Security I ask if they want their parents living with them.

It usually shuts them up.

More premiums going into it, plus take the 43 billion the govt gave to the private plans....no problem.

But a stealth movement to do away with it...a death knell for the party that does it.

[Jackpine Radical]

76. It would be a supreme irony for Democrats to go down to defeat

because they tampered with the third rail and weakened Medicare. Talk about suicidal impulses...

[Blue_In_AK]

46. If the doctors didn't charge so much,

Medicare wouldn't be so expensive. My mother-in-law was in the hospital from July 10 until she passed away on August 14. Her doctor bills alone were over $57,000, paid by Medicare. The going rate for about a 10-minute "visit" by the heart surgeon after her bypass was almost $500. To me, that's just insane.

We haven't even seen the hospital bill yet, which I'm sure is going to be astronomical. I'm thankful we haven't been responsible for any of this, it's no wonder Medicare is having financial issues when the doctors are allowed to charge the system this much.

[McCamy Taylor]

50. On the other hand, Medicare underpays for preventive services, like family med check ups.

This creates a system in which there is no profit in keeping the elderly healthy and lots of profit in letting them get sick.

The Medicare payment formulas are created by a committee which is dominated by specialists. The federal government needs to step in and make preventive care at least pay for itself. It is hard to find a doctor who will do a whole history and physical that might take up to an hour in the office on a complicated patient with many medical problems for the $15-30 Medicare pays for such service. Most doctor's hourly overhead (mostly staff salaried but also rent, equipment etc) is higher than that.

[Blue_In_AK]

64. I agree with that wholeheartedly.

Here in Anchorage there are NO primary-care physicians who will take new Medicare patients. My mother-in-law got her minor stuff taken care of at the Neighborhood Health Center which is basically a charity clinic here that treats indigent and low-income patients using a sliding-scale fee, but they do accept new Medicare patients. For many years I haven't even had a primary-care physician because I never get sick, but when I saw what MIL had to go through to find a doctor, I decided I'd better get one quick. Hopefully, I won't get booted when I turn 65 in two years.

[madfloridian]

58. Doctors do not get all of what they bill. Only a portion.

Neighbor had eye surgery, doctor charged 2000, got 600.

I am sorry but that does not sound like greed.

[Blue_In_AK]

65. Was it hospital surgery or outpatient?

I could understand the doctors' very high fees if a large portion of it were going for overhead, but when the hospital also bills, where is all of that money going? I was not exaggerating when I said that the doctors, each of them, charged $547 every time they stuck their head in the door, no matter how brief the stay. My husband was up there nearly all day every day and he knows how much time the doctors spent with her after the surgery, and it wasn't much.

Another thing that didn't make sense to me is that they wouldn't let her take her own medications from home, but instead gave her the exact same pills while she was in the hospital but charged about three times as much.

I know doctors deserve to be paid, and I don't have a problem with that, but I think there's a tremendous amount of waste and inefficiency -- and, yes, overbilling -- that goes on in the hospitals. I could easily see how someone not on Medicare or who didn't have an outstanding insurance policy could get completely wiped out by a major illness. It's a really sad situation.

[madfloridian]

66. Well, since they are going to cut subsidies to hospitals who treat uninsured...

it could get worse.

[McCamy Taylor]

48. Um...I do not believe that Medicare can be denied to those who qualify.

Unless the law is rewritten, and what Congressman is going to mess with Medicare? I am sure that insurance companies would loooove to see the feds deny Medicare coverage to anyone who is healthy and has enough money to pay for private insurance. That way the privates could cherry pick the healthy elderly. But I just do not see it happening.

[madfloridian]

52. Doctors refuse Medicare patients quite often now.

No one can force them to take them on as patients.

That is a fact.

People are automatically put on Medicare at 65. But doctors don't have to take them.

[madamesilverspurs]

53. Markey's two final town hall meetings

will be handled by her staffers, she will not be in attendance. There are "last minute scheduling conflicts that could not be resolved any other way."

[Cleita]

54. I'll give them up when he gives up his taxpayer funded health insurance

through the Federal Employees Health Benefits.

[meow2u3]

62. Medicare "advantage" plans should be scrapped

All these plans to is funnel taxpayer money to Big Insurance, which is free to scam seniors and people with disabilities by denying coverage to the sickest, oldest, and youngest among us. Cut out the middleman and the government will save trillions of dollars without forcing Medicare beneficiaries to sacrifice their health care benefits.

[diane in sf]

69. If so, this is wrong, tax the rich instead

[democracy1st]

70. this admin has screwed this crap up,looking forward to seeing if they can get back on track

[mmonk]

75. Yep, Forthright. To keep our health insurance gods in play,

medicare must be cut so we can fund those entities.

[katkat]

77. pay attention late posters

Pay attention late posters and read how Markey's brains are either scrambled or she just mis-represents what is being proposed.

Honestly, no wonder town hall meetings are filled with teabaggers going nuts if this thread is the way Democrats react, jumping around in hysteria without bothering to get the actual facts.

Facts:

Talking about savings by eliminating fraud and artificially high BigPharma med costs is not a "cut."

Straightening out Medicare Advantage plans (the alternative to Medicare + Medigap), which are run for the benefit of private insurance companies and which cost the government far more than Medicare+ Medigap for the same services, is not a "cut." If someone is eligible for Medicare Advantage, they are eligible for Medicare + Medigap. Better that Medicare Advantage, a Repig construct, should be thrown out altogether, imho.

It's already been pointed out that hospitals that treat the uninsured will be getting less money for the uninsured because, surprise, there will be fewer uninsured. Surprise, those patients' insurance will be paying their bills.

Markey must be off her meds, or has taken a bundle in lobbyists' money.


Medicare facts not related to this:

Yes, some doctors don't take Medicare due to the low reimbursement. They are a minority in my area anyway. I think the reimbursements should be higher, and if we can cut the drastic overspending on healthcare that goes to waste in this country, they could be. We spend more per capita on healthcare than any other country, and our results suck - a lot of the money goes into BigPharma and Private Insurance companies pockets. We're 17th in infant mortality, etc.

Yes, you want a Medigap policy on top of Medicare. Medigap is regulated by the government. Mine costs me, I forget exactly, $100 a month. I have not had to pay a co-pay or any type of medical bill in a year and a half since I went on Medicare + Medigap. How many of you on private insurance can say that? The paperwork hassle disappearing alone is "priceless."

The current big flaw in Medicare is Plan D, which covers prescription drugs. It has two problems. One is thanks to the Repigs and Blue Dogs, the government can't negotiate on med prices like private insurance can, so Medicare pays through the nose. The other is the donut hole, where after spending a certain (n.b. inflated) amount on meds, the patient is 100% responsible to continue paying the inflated amount until they hit some astronomical deductible.

I'm currently in the donut hole and so paying $500 a month out of pocket for meds that used to be available for $150 a month from Canada, until BigPharma stopped supplying meds to Canadian pharmacies that sell to U.S. customers.

Medicare covers almost any med that's FDA approved. I got immense hassle from United Healthcare that ended in denials for two meds, both of which my doctors said were necessary, but which were expensive. So I was paying out of pocket for them twelve months of the year, not just in a donut hole.