advertisement
Deals | News | Forums

 

AAPL stock: $442.93 ( +9.67 )

*Cached every 60 seconds. For live updating, Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: June 28, 2012 08:01PM
Quote
swampy
Medicare is wonderful if you can find a doctor that will accept it. My family physician of 40 years died in December 2010. It took me 9 months to find another family practice doctor who accepted Medicare. I was notified last winter that my breast surgeon was dropping all his Medicare patients effective 12/31/11.

Best of luck to you and your family finding doctors even if you have the best coverage money can buy.

Florida has the highest percentage of Medicare users of any state. Most Florida doctors would go out of business if they stopped taking Medicare patients, though it's true that there were some increases in the numbers of doctors cutting Medicare patients a couple of years ago.
Those are two problems healthcare reform addresses: shortage of primary care physicians, which is severe in some states, and making sure Medicare remains viable.
Did you know that in the UK primary care doctors are paid more on average than they are in the US? We need to start treating those docs like the highly valuable care givers they are. The health care bill is one stop in the right direction.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: lafinfil
Date: June 28, 2012 08:05PM
My mother & uncle both in their late 80's are on Medicare and we have never had any problem finding doctors including in the last 2 years referrals for an orthopedic surgeon, a rheumatologist, an ophthalmologist, and a gastrologist for my mother.

My uncle has had a referral to a ophthalmologist / glaucoma specialist and a nephrologist in the last couple years with no problems. It sounds like the problem is possibly with your groups plan. They are not contracting enough specialist to meet demand.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: Dennis S
Date: June 28, 2012 08:15PM
I don't think it's nearly as bad as swampy says. I'm around lots of old people in Arkansas and I never hear of anyone having a problem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2012 08:27PM by Dennis S.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: $tevie
Date: June 28, 2012 08:19PM
My mother has been on Medicare in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Mississippi (hey, I never noticed the alliteration before) and not only has she been able to find an array of doctors including primary care, but she has been able to find doctors that she liked.



"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: billb
Date: June 28, 2012 08:25PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
wowzer


My concern is that RomneyCare has bankrupted Massachusets--one of the most wealthy states in the Union. If I were in a less wealthy state, I'd opt out...and hope that all of my less wealthy citizens would move to a neighboring state that accepts the Medicaid money.

[video.foxnews.com]

RomneyCare costs have risen over 600% in a few years. Wait until the fraud folks get access to ObamaCare, it will even be worse...


You might want to take a look at the facts instead of the Fox spin. Massachusetts health care reform has led to a state with the lowest rate of uninsured and lower premiums but more offered coverage by employers.
[www.mahealthconnector.org]



for what the BCBS research didn't cover and left out


our taxes have gone up and they are going up more ( and more than what was anticipated and expected)



We would have had some sort of healthcare reform law here whether Romney signed the current one into law or not.



WE get insurance through the small business connector clearinghouse and for the last two years copays and deductibles have gone up and dental coverages have gone down.
How much of that is due to economic factors is debated as nauseum. Everyone just picks data sets that support their position.


They're talking about price controls to further stem the rising costs, but that hasn't been a perfect system with car insurance here, either.





[www.freethegrapes.org]

norwegian wood reality TV

[www.youtube.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2012 08:30PM by billb.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: swampy
Date: June 28, 2012 08:48PM
I live in the boondocks of Florida 125 miles from the closest urban center. Not the kind of place that attracts young general practitioners. There are a number of specialists, but not the highly trained doctors you'd find at large urban hospitals so if you have anything out of the norm medically, or need special procedures you have to commute. The old country doctors are a dying breed. My family doctor for so many years was still bartering, in some cases, his services for chickens and fresh garden vegetables when he died. The few general practice/family doctors that remain are over worked and under paid. There are 4 listed on the phone book that serve 30,000 people. There are a couple nurse PAs that run clinics for doctors that are 60 miles away. It took six months, but I finally got an appointment with one of two local doctors that were accepting new Medicare patients.

You guys in the big city will soon be facing the same scenario. Like I say, good luck.

A note to Dennis... There is no need for you to call me a liar and that's basically what you did. Please STOP it!





If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: Dennis S
Date: June 28, 2012 09:11PM
"I don't think it's nearly as bad as swampy says" does not equal "You're a liar."

I'll change it to: "I don't believe it's as bad as swampy says in much of the rest of the country."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 28, 2012 09:14PM
The fact that Medicare can cover only half of its costs apparently is not an issue to anyone here.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: davester
Date: June 28, 2012 09:42PM
The actual text of the court decision is a very interesting read (though I skimmed quite a bit of the really gory legalese). For me, the tack of the Roberts decision was quite a surprise, given that there were so many discussions of how the commerce clause would be used to justify this. However, his reasoning seems quite brilliant and now that I see it, obvious. It really is clear that the non-compliance penalty of PPACA is a tax pretty much any way you look at it. He is doing exactly what he should be doing as a justice.

On the other hand, the dissenting opinion is a politically charged mess, with divisive republican talking points like "tax and spend" sprinkled throughout. Thomas and Scalia in particularly should be drummed out of the court. They are incompetent idealogues (and Thomas is a crook to boot).




"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 28, 2012 10:30PM
>>It really is clear that the non-compliance penalty of PPACA is a tax pretty much any way you look at it<<

Then why when Obama told Stephanpolus that it is absolutely not a tax and that my opponents call everything a tax, you were dead silent?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: Grateful11
Date: June 28, 2012 11:02PM
My wife and I are trying remember if there was even one Dr. that we took our parents, whom all passed away
between July '08 and Mar. '09, that didn't take Medicare and believe me there were plenty of Drs. between the
three of them. We can't come up with a single Dr. that didn't take their Medicare. We live outside of a city of
about 17K but there is a large metropolis about 45 minutes away but none of their Drs. were located there.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: Black
Date: June 29, 2012 12:40AM
Quote
swampy
Medicare is wonderful if you can find a doctor that will accept it. My family physician of 40 years died in December 2010. It took me 9 months to find another family practice doctor who accepted Medicare. I was notified last winter that my breast surgeon was dropping all his Medicare patients effective 12/31/11.

Best of luck to you and your family finding doctors even if you have the best coverage money can buy.

Huh??? The only way this is possible is if you're limiting yourself to high-rolling doctors who cater to the rich and famous.



MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: Pam
Date: June 29, 2012 08:12AM
Quote
swampy
I live in the boondocks of Florida 125 miles from the closest urban center. Not the kind of place that attracts young general practitioners. There are a number of specialists, but not the highly trained doctors you'd find at large urban hospitals so if you have anything out of the norm medically, or need special procedures you have to commute. The old country doctors are a dying breed. My family doctor for so many years was still bartering, in some cases, his services for chickens and fresh garden vegetables when he died. The few general practice/family doctors that remain are over worked and under paid. There are 4 listed on the phone book that serve 30,000 people. There are a couple nurse PAs that run clinics for doctors that are 60 miles away. It took six months, but I finally got an appointment with one of two local doctors that were accepting new Medicare patients.

You guys in the big city will soon be facing the same scenario. Like I say, good luck.

A note to Dennis... There is no need for you to call me a liar and that's basically what you did. Please STOP it!

Nice of you to wish your circumstances on others.

Your situation has been around a long time. Doctors don't want to go to rural areas for a multitude of reasons. Money is definitely one of them. You seem to think the health care act is responsible or going to make it worse when this is a situation it's trying to correct.

You can always move. It's a choice you can make. If you choose to stay you're better off rooting for the act to slowly work and turn your situation around. But don't go wishing your circumstances on others. That's beyond callous.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 29, 2012 08:27AM
>>You can always move. It's a choice you can make.<<

Funny, I didn't see this prescription on the occasions we have been talking about post office closures in rural areas. Did you?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: Pam
Date: June 29, 2012 09:15AM
Quote
Avenger
>>You can always move. It's a choice you can make.<<

Funny, I didn't see this prescription on the occasions we have been talking about post office closures in rural areas. Did you?

Do you have a brain? People have made the decision to move out of rural areas for a host of reasons for a very long time. It's all about balancing the pros and the cons.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: $tevie
Date: June 29, 2012 09:37AM
In 1969 Rock Hall, MD had a large banner strung across their main street: ROCK HALL NEEDS A DOCTOR CALL XXX-XXXX.

Rural areas have had a doctor shortage for a long time. If someone wants to have an intelligent discussion about why, fine, but you can't blame Medicare.



"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: Ted King
Date: June 29, 2012 10:17AM
Quote
davester

On the other hand, the dissenting opinion is a politically charged mess, with divisive republican talking points like "tax and spend" sprinkled throughout. Thomas and Scalia in particularly should be drummed out of the court. They are incompetent idealogues (and Thomas is a crook to boot).

The part of the dissenting opinion that is really disturbing is the bit about rationalizing throwing out the whole law - even parts that were passed with the main part of the law that are not affected by provisions of the main part of the law (that they were determined to find unconstitutional). That they rationalized that it was in their purview to throw out parts of the law that they agreed were constitutional on the grounds that those parts wouldn't have become laws on their own is the worst kind of judicial activism - not new precedent to balance rights, freedoms and responsibilities, but activism in service of partisan politics. That Alito and even Kennedy seem to be willing to hug those putrid rationalizations doesn't speak highly of their judicial restraint either. I'm glad Roberts didn't want to embrace that stink, but I'm still not at all happy that he was willing to go along with the bogus notion - in the Citizens United decision - that it is a matter of fact that granting much more freedom of speech rights to corporations (and other virtual legal entities) cannot lead to corruption of the government. The rank odor of that rationalization should have been enough to keep Roberts from embracing it, too.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 29, 2012 11:22AM
Quote
Pam
Quote
Avenger
>>You can always move. It's a choice you can make.<<

Funny, I didn't see this prescription on the occasions we have been talking about post office closures in rural areas. Did you?

Do you have a brain? People have made the decision to move out of rural areas for a host of reasons for a very long time. It's all about balancing the pros and the cons.

So you have no problem for the Post Office to close their rural offices?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: Pam
Date: June 29, 2012 01:18PM
Quote
Avenger
Quote
Pam
Quote
Avenger
>>You can always move. It's a choice you can make.<<

Funny, I didn't see this prescription on the occasions we have been talking about post office closures in rural areas. Did you?

Do you have a brain? People have made the decision to move out of rural areas for a host of reasons for a very long time. It's all about balancing the pros and the cons.

So you have no problem for the Post Office to close their rural offices?

Congress has already listened and has an alternative plan [www.nytimes.com]

I'm sure people who don't have doctors in their towns appreciate you equating the post office with medical care.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: Chakravartin
Date: June 29, 2012 07:33PM
Quote
Avenger
Quote
Pam
Quote
Avenger
>>You can always move. It's a choice you can make.<<

Funny, I didn't see this prescription on the occasions we have been talking about post office closures in rural areas. Did you?

Do you have a brain? People have made the decision to move out of rural areas for a host of reasons for a very long time. It's all about balancing the pros and the cons.

So you have no problem for the Post Office to close their rural offices?

Nationalize the healthcare system, outlaw all medical care that doesn't come from the government and pass a universal service law to provide medical care to every household in the country.

Then we'll have a few things in common to compare doctors' offices with post offices.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: Avenger
Date: June 29, 2012 08:50PM
>>Nationalize the healthcare system, outlaw all medical care that doesn't come from the government and pass a universal service law to provide medical care to every household in the country.
<<

These words give them wet dreams.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: wowzer
Date: June 29, 2012 09:10PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Quote
wowzer


My concern is that RomneyCare has bankrupted Massachusets--one of the most wealthy states in the Union. If I were in a less wealthy state, I'd opt out...and hope that all of my less wealthy citizens would move to a neighboring state that accepts the Medicaid money.

[video.foxnews.com]

RomneyCare costs have risen over 600% in a few years. Wait until the fraud folks get access to ObamaCare, it will even be worse...


You might want to take a look at the facts instead of the Fox spin. Massachusetts health care reform has led to a state with the lowest rate of uninsured and lower premiums but more offered coverage by employers.
[www.mahealthconnector.org]


I've never said that ObamaCare will result in less people who are insured. That's obviously going to happen. What I've said is that costs will increase beyond our ability to regulate or pay for it.

In fact, if you look at the last 2 slides that you presented, it shows that Masscare is the most expensive in the country. Massachusets health care costs is projected to rise faster than the rest of the US (at least before Obamacare). Who knows that expenditure will be like now that Obamacare is constitutional.

I also saw some other graphs detailing how MassCare costs much more to provide coverage, while having negative margins for their hospitals and providers. It will be a disaster--I hope not, but from what I've seen, it'll bankrupt America faster than any war or natural disaster.



All I ever really needed to know, I learned from watching Star Trek.
Nassau County, NY
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: wowzer
Date: June 29, 2012 09:23PM
Quote
Dennis S
"I don't think it's nearly as bad as swampy says" does not equal "You're a liar."

I'll change it to: "I don't believe it's as bad as swampy says in much of the rest of the country."

Dennis,

I think you may be completely wrong. As babyboomers get older, they will need more physicians per capita. If you accept the fact that babyboomers are going to live longer, then we've got a massive shortage coming up...the AMA has underestimated the shortage:
[content.healthaffairs.org]

For many years, the Congressional Budget Office completely neglected this singular fact. They told medical schools to decrease the number of graduates...they told many specialty societies to train less doctors. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise--they didnt' think of the fact that America is getting older. When they came up with newer (more realistic estimates), it was way past time. It takes about 10-15 years (4 for med school, between 3-5 years for a residency, and another 5-7 years to become a good Attending physician) to 'train' a doctor. In order to increase the number of physicians, we have to increase the number of Graduate Medical Education programs. Well, we had been decreasing those as well. With ACA, the number of GME positions does not increase---in fact, Obama's administration wants to decrease the number of GME sponsored positions...that is not pay for the training of the medical school graduates to learn how to practice medicine. The net effect of such a policy would close many residency training programs--and the more distressed the hospital (AKA Safety Net Hospitals), the more likely they will close their GME programs. Thus, when 30 million more people are added to the health care 'system' (it's really not a system per se), there will be less and less physicians for these new enrollees.

To be fair, many are talking about physician substitutes like PA's and Nurse Practitioners---when they become viable targets, malpractice attorneys will sue them and their years of training requirements will increase and therefore costs will go up too. It's an ugly, ugly situation.



All I ever really needed to know, I learned from watching Star Trek.
Nassau County, NY
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: wowzer
Date: June 29, 2012 09:25PM
Quote
Avenger
The fact that Medicare can cover only half of its costs apparently is not an issue to anyone here.

I am concerned.



All I ever really needed to know, I learned from watching Star Trek.
Nassau County, NY
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: wowzer
Date: June 29, 2012 09:35PM
Quote
Chakravartin
Nationalize the healthcare system, outlaw all medical care that doesn't come from the government and pass a universal service law to provide medical care to every household in the country.

Then we'll have a few things in common to compare doctors' offices with post offices.


Actually, at a recent national convention, I said that very same thing to the Medicare Administrator. They ought to nationalize all doctors, hospitals, and other hospital employees--or better yet, they can national those institutions and people who are part of the safety net hospitals. Of course, there is the problem of the fifth amendment--and the Federal Government would have to seize these institutions with due process of the law...



All I ever really needed to know, I learned from watching Star Trek.
Nassau County, NY
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: RgrF
Date: June 30, 2012 01:38AM
Quote
$tevie
Quote
mick e
It appears that Roberts is turning into a leftist, and Scalia is none too pleased, as evidenced by his loony rant on the Arizona immigration case.

Right or wrong, it's nice to see Roberts making some independent decisions lately.

I'm not sure that moving towards the center is becoming leftist.

I believe that Roberts may be awakening to the nature of being a Supreme Court Justice - this is something we used to see back in the good old days as the justices would acquire an awareness of his/her solemn position and begin to make rulings based on the Constitution and not on someone else's agenda.

In short, Roberts may just be stepping up to the plate as a Supreme Court Justice in the finer traditions. I hope so.

...and I thought my pharmaceuticals were screwing up my perception of things, can i have some of yours?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Supreme Court PPACA decision
Posted by: $tevie
Date: June 30, 2012 12:04PM
I said "may be". I have a sunny, optimistic nature. :-)



"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login