LGP Political Discussion Thread

[Shyster]

Medicare's denials are higher because of medicare fraud. Doctors take advantage of the system and milk it for every penny they can, often ordering unnecessary tests and procedures and scheduling equally unnecessary appointments just so they can collect the paycheck. It should actually be a lot higher than 7%.

Medicare fraud does exist, but as a health care lawyer who represents both physicians and hospitals, and a man with more than a half-dozen doctors in my family, I can say that your blanket smearing of doctors is simply not true. Medicare reimbursements for many items and services is less than cost. Doctors lose money on many if not most Medicare patients. That's one of the dirty secrets of healthcare costs in this country. The federal government pays Medicare rates that are less than break-even, and expects doctors and hospitals to make up the difference by charging their private-insurance patients more. Private insurance subsidizes Medicare. Why would doctors schedule “unnecessary appointments” when they lose money on each one?

[Shyster]

The White House has touted the support from the AMA...what a lot of people don't realize is that the American Medical Association represents far less than half of the practicing physicians in the United States.

I can't speak to the AMA, but if it's anything like the American Bar Association, it is dominated by left-wing individuals and their views. The ABA clearly and unabashedly has a left-wing, “progressive” agenda, and I any many other conservative and libertarian lawyers wouldn’t be members if you paid us. Do not assume that just because something comes from a professional association it is politically unbiased.

[HomerPenguin]

Medicare reimbursements for many items and services is less than cost. Doctors lose money on many if not most Medicare patients.

What does that mean, "cost"?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... ost_w.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On March 17th, Glenn Hackbarth, the chairman of MedPAC, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee on this very issue. Hospitals, Hackbarth argued, are inefficient. Their costs are too high. And this was backed up in the data. "MedPAC analysis has identified a set of low-cost hospitals that consistently out-perform other hospitals on a series of quality measures, including mortality and readmissions," Hackbarth explained. "Among this set of hospitals, we found that Medicare payments on average roughly equaled the hospitals’ costs." In less "efficient" hospitals, Medicare's payments were below costs.

[Geezer]

Medicare reimbursements for many items and services is less than cost. Doctors lose money on many if not most Medicare patients.

What does that mean, "cost"?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-k ... ost_w.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On March 17th, Glenn Hackbarth, the chairman of MedPAC, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee on this very issue. Hospitals, Hackbarth argued, are inefficient. Their costs are too high. And this was backed up in the data. "MedPAC analysis has identified a set of low-cost hospitals that consistently out-perform other hospitals on a series of quality measures, including mortality and readmissions," Hackbarth explained. "Among this set of hospitals, we found that Medicare payments on average roughly equaled the hospitals’ costs." In less "efficient" hospitals, Medicare's payments were below costs.

The most "inefficient " hospital in America likely runs like a Swiss watch compared against the cost effectiveness / fraud in government programs. Attacking doctors , hospitals , etc over future larger medicare cuts under the government plan is more propagana for their "deficit neutral" sham.

[Shyster]

[snip]

You levied an accusation of fraud against doctors, not hospitals. And on that point, the article you referenced says:

Medicare underpays primary care providers, and it needs to redress that balance.

The MedPAC commission report that is the subject of the article says:

The Commission remains concerned that primary care services are undervalued and at a significant risk of being underprovided, despite some recent increases in payments for primary care services.

That doesn't seem to support your contention.

[HomerPenguin]

[snip]

You levied an accusation of fraud against doctors, not hospitals.

Actually I didn't levy an accusation of anything against anybody. You might want to be more careful about attributing things like that.

And on that point, the article you referenced says:

Medicare underpays primary care providers, and it needs to redress that balance.

Of course, you said that

Doctors lose money on many if not most Medicare patients.

Not, "primary care physicians lose money on many if not most Medicare patients." Primary care physicians are screwed by every level of our health care system. Why should Medicare be any different?

Then of course, you wrote

(The government) expects doctors and hospitals to make up the difference by charging their private-insurance patients more

Which actually does reference hospitals in there somewhere if I'm not mistaken. And it seems that a lot of those don't really have a "difference" that they need to "make up," so much as they have a problem with "overcharging people" because they "run their hospital inefficiently."

[Hockeynut!]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_ ... _us_israel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Israel continues to stir the pot.

[Geezer]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_ ... _us_israel

Israel continues to stir the pot.

They're not giving up East Jerusalem. That's been their position all along, nothimg's changed.

[shafnutz05]

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsN ... 8620091118

Wow.......Obama is just now realizing that all of this massive debt we are piling up could lead to a double-dip recession? Fascinating. Especially because I and others have been screaming this for months.

I have a feeling he is trying to prepare us for just this very occurrence. A lot of economists warned us that while there would be a brief, artificial boost in the economy due to the stimulus, the long term effects of the bill would be minimal. Even now, we are finding out that the positive effects touted by the White House were wildly exaggerated.

It doesn't make sense for Obama to just come out and say this, especially after the massive, massive spending bills he has been pushing through since he was elected. I think they see the writing on the wall....unemployment continuing to rise, home sales down again....sure the stock market is up, but you can thank the corporate bailouts for that. I have a feeling we are going to be entering the double dip soon...I hope not, but indicators pointing that way.

I think the economic "experts" that told us the worst of the recession is over may have been borrowing a page from Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech in 2003.

[GaryRissling]

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsN ... 8620091118

Wow.......Obama is just now realizing that all of this massive debt we are piling up could lead to a double-dip recession? Fascinating. Especially because I and others have been screaming this for months.

I have a feeling he is trying to prepare us for just this very occurrence. A lot of economists warned us that while there would be a brief, artificial boost in the economy due to the stimulus, the long term effects of the bill would be minimal. Even now, we are finding out that the positive effects touted by the White House were wildly exaggerated.

It doesn't make sense for Obama to just come out and say this, especially after the massive, massive spending bills he has been pushing through since he was elected. I think they see the writing on the wall....unemployment continuing to rise, home sales down again....sure the stock market is up, but you can thank the corporate bailouts for that. I have a feeling we are going to be entering the double dip soon...I hope not, but indicators pointing that way.

I think the economic "experts" that told us the worst of the recession is over may have been borrowing a page from Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech in 2003.

Obama has his head in the sand regarding our economy. The driving influences that have created the statistical growth have been the cash-for-clunkers program and the Fed pumping money into Goldman/Citi/etc. Even the "stimulus" money primarily went to public sector jobs, and did not create much discernible sustainable growth. Now the unions are ratcheting up their pressure on the president (and all of their politicians - including Pgh City Council - re: the prevailing wage bill being considered here) that "american workers" need a raise. I'd be shocked if any jobs bill passed by this congress doesn't just go to create more public sector or union jobs. I don't believe that they have the capacity or inclination to create any other.

[Geezer]

While I agree we have done much to foster "radical Islam", it is what it is. I have no control over what our government did over the past 50 years. It's done, and it can't be undone. But we have to face the facts: radical Islam is an extremely dangerous threat, and putting our head in the sand isn't going to change that. The Fort Hood Massacre is a great example. And if you think that completely gutting our national defense and withdrawing from the Middle East is going to make all of these radicalized Muslims suddenly want to play nice, that is a very naive way of thinking.

I do agree on the democracy delusion...to think we can instill a modern democratic government in a third-world, Stone Age country is beyond wishful. For starters, the Koran makes it very clear that the only acceptable form of government is a theocracy. Unlike the Bible, there is no allowance for the separation of church and state, i.e. "Give unto Caesar's what is Caesar's." If people living in these countries want to escape the tyranny of these mullahs, they can emigrate. But we will never be able to instill democracy over there.

On a side note, be prepared for a complete monkey trial in New York City. Even Gov. Paterson (whom I have never agreed with) is outraged at the White House decision to try the 9/11 masterminds in a civil courthouse in NYC. This opens up the door to so many problems....death threats, suicide attacks, etc. And I guarantee you that this trial is going to be less of a prosecution of KSM, and more of a prosecution of the United States. Let's make it very clear...there is no doubting the guilt of these individuals. This is the latest in a long line of apologetic maneuvers by this administration. Sec. Holder is not placing the terrorists on trial...he is placing the United States on trial.

No we haven't done much to foster radical Islam. We haven't been perfect but the bleating of the blame-America-first-last-and always crowd relishes our enemies' view of the U.S. whether it's jihadists, Chavez, Cuba, or 3rd world countries who blame their own non-development on anyone but themselves. The comic book quotes from Salon, Huffington post or anti-American books are similar to quotong Pravda or Al-Jazeera.

[tonysoprano]

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsN ... 8620091118

Wow.......Obama is just now realizing that all of this massive debt we are piling up could lead to a double-dip recession? Fascinating. Especially because I and others have been screaming this for months.

This guy has got some balls. He really does.

[shafnutz05]

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsN ... 8620091118

Wow.......Obama is just now realizing that all of this massive debt we are piling up could lead to a double-dip recession? Fascinating. Especially because I and others have been screaming this for months.

This guy has got some balls. He really does.

lol I will absolutely give him credit for that. Every action he has taken since accepting the oath of office has been to increase the number of Americans that are dependent on the government entitlement system. If more people are unemployed, more people are going to be forced to rely on Obamacare. Do you think for one second Obama (or anyone else on his staff) thought he was being honest when he said the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%? Of course not. The more people that are unemployed = more people without health insurance = more people that are going to be dependent on government entitlement programs = better chance of keeping the Democrats in power in perpetuity.

I think it's hilarious that no one is calling out the president on this. He scared the American people into supporting the stimulus, and he warned us that unemployment could "rise above 8%" if it wasn't passed. Over a trillion dollars later, we are now hearing that the effects of the stimulus are just about over, as unemployment surges over 10% and beyond. Yet, people are willing to completely overlook the president's bold-faced lie regarding the stimulus, and trust him 100% when he tells us his healthcare bill will create a better system. It chills me to the bone how utterly naive so many people are in this country...while the Obamamania has cooled off quite a bit, there are still plenty of people out there that would cut off their own finger if he told them it would "make things better"

[Shyster]

Actually I didn't levy an accusation of anything against anybody. You might want to be more careful about attributing things like that.

My apologies; I got the posters mixed up.

Hockeynut accused doctors of gaming Medicare and ordering additional tests and visits. But Medicare generally pays somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of what private insurance pays. For many physicians and hospitals, that reimbursement amount is below what they have to spend on the item or service. Ordering more of something that loses you money will only result in greater losses.

[Gaucho]

The more people that are unemployed = more people without health insurance = more people that are going to be dependent on government entitlement programs = better chance of keeping the Democrats in power in perpetuity.

Absurd.

[shafnutz05]

The more people that are unemployed = more people without health insurance = more people that are going to be dependent on government entitlement programs = better chance of keeping the Democrats in power in perpetuity.

Absurd.

Absurd? I could not agree more...that concept is ridiculous, no? Unfortunately, it's the only way that I can explain this administration's complete lack of understanding of basic economic principles. Between their desire for cap and trade, their wasted stimulus spending that was never meant to boost the private sector in the first place, and their rushed attempts at ramming a multi-trillion dollar healthcare bill through in the middle of a severe recession, it's almost like they are deliberately tanking the economy. Absurd? Oh, you bet it is. Instead of creating an environment that fosters job growth, they are massively growing the public sector and obscenely deficit spending. But don't worry..Rahm Emanuel said that they were gonna have a "jobs summit" at the White House next week...

[GaryRissling]

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsN ... 8620091118

Wow.......Obama is just now realizing that all of this massive debt we are piling up could lead to a double-dip recession? Fascinating. Especially because I and others have been screaming this for months.

This guy has got some balls. He really does.

IMO our bank (China) really laid into him during his visit, as he seems to really be giving priority to fiscal responsibility in all of his recent soundbites. He is really between a rock and hard place with China forcing his hand to be fiscally responsible, while at home, he is being hounded to give priority towards fiscally irresponsible entities and policies - be it unions, socialized medicine, special interests, Goldman Sachs, etc. It's going to be interesting to see how this shakes out as China can derail virtually all of ObamaPelosiReid's bold, sweeping, ambitious policies. IMO it's the plan of this government to enact as much legislation as quickly as possible, even if it costs them seats in the house. IMO China let Obama know that there is more at stake than just some election losses.

[shafnutz05]

It's pretty crazy that I am rooting for China right now...I would have never imagined the ChiComs would be giving us sound economic advice!!

[GaryRissling]

The more people that are unemployed = more people without health insurance = more people that are going to be dependent on government entitlement programs = better chance of keeping the Democrats in power in perpetuity.

Absurd.

It's not really absurd, so much as it is incomplete. Obama does want people to have jobs, so long as they are union or public sector jobs. I'll back up this point by looking at his administration violating US property/bankruptcy law in the case of GM where secured creditors were demonized and forced to relinquish their lawful claims to GM assets in order to give those assets to the UAW. I'll further back it up by pointing to Obama's promise to consult SEIU union president Andy Stern when shaping his healthcare plan - and that he is the most frequent visitor to the WH. I think you'll agree those are two massive portions of the US economy. Added to that, you have the unions also intimately involved in carving out our immigration reform (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/14 ... 4706.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). I can go on with Obama's lack of priority in the stimulus bill toward non-union private sector jobs, but I think the goals of this administration are very clear, which is why we are in deep trouble until after Dems lose seats and/or China really digs in and derails it's agenda.

[GaryRissling]

It's pretty crazy that I am rooting for China right now...I would have never imagined the ChiComs would be giving us sound economic advice!!

China may technically be a centrally planned economy, but it is my understanding that they are increasingly allowing entrepreneurs to determine how their economy grows. However, to and increasing extent, Obama is allowing the unions to decide how our economy grows. If would seem to me that China is on a better track, economically and can teach this government a thing or two about the allocation of capital.

[shafnutz05]

China is a VERY free market country....that is why their economy is growing at an astronomical rate. Deng Xiaoping and the rest of the Chinese leaders realized pretty quickly (and learned lessons from the USSR) that communism was an unsustainable system. They have been reforming since the 1970s, and now, as you pointed out, have really worked to encourage the entrepreneurial spirit, and the economy has boomed.

[pittsoccer33]

The more people that are unemployed = more people without health insurance = more people that are going to be dependent on government entitlement programs = better chance of keeping the Democrats in power in perpetuity.

Absurd.

Youre kidding right? Look at all the legacies of the Great Society Program. It has destroyed families and created a class of government dependant people. When Republicans want to make cuts to these programs in order to use dollars more efficiently somewhere else, these people will vote against them for fear of "taking their stuff" away.

I truely believe that the president wants as much unemployment as possible because that will make it easier to pass programs like card check and socialist healthcare. His chief of staff said almost as much saying they dont want to waste this crisis to push a radical agenda through. They aren't worried about having to deal with it in the 2012 election either, they think he can continue running against Bush.

[Gaucho]

I truely believe that the president wants as much unemployment as possible.

And you ask me if I am kidding?

[shafnutz05]

I truely believe that the president wants as much unemployment as possible.

And you ask me if I am kidding?

Again, Gaucho, it sounds absurd, doesn't it? But it is the only way to explain how absolutely reckless this administration has been over the last nine months. Any one with a 10th grade education could tell you that his policies foster the complete OPPOSITE of job growth.

[Sarcastic]

c) "only" cost $1.2 trillion over 10 years?

I would seriously like to know where that money is going. Because I thought he would use that to cover everybody: Medicare for all. I could understand such a sum. But if people are still going to be forced to stay with the private insurers and the 30 to 50 million uninsured will be forced to sign up ANYWAY (if you read my link from a couple of days ago, it seems that any public option is likely to be more expensive than going private), then what the hell is this money to be used for? If someone would explain it me really quick, please do so.

By the way - I'm looking at you, Shaf - CBS news reported yesterday that currently 61% of people want a public option. I remember that number being in the 70's when it all started, before going down to 50 or so when the right began scaring people we're heading toward socialism communism.