When doctors go Galt
posted at 12:15 pm on April 18, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
What happens when government regulation makes it more expensive to bill for medical services than providers receive? More and more, providers opt out of those systems like Medicare and Medicaid, and patients have to go out of pocket to see specialists. And if you think that will change in universal health care, think again (via Instapundit)
Here’s something that has gotten lost in the drive to institute universal health insurance: Health insurance doesn’t automatically lead to health care. And with more and more doctors dropping out of one insurance plan or another, especially government plans, there is no guarantee that you will be able to see a physician no matter what coverage you have.
Consider that the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission reported in 2008 that 28% of Medicare beneficiaries looking for a primary care physician had trouble finding one, up from 24% the year before. The reasons are clear: A 2008 survey by the Texas Medical Association, for example, found that only 38% of primary-care doctors in Texas took new Medicare patients. The statistics are similar in New York state, where I practice medicine.
More and more of my fellow doctors are turning away Medicare patients because of the diminished reimbursements and the growing delay in payments. I’ve had several new Medicare patients come to my office in the last few months with multiple diseases and long lists of medications simply because their longtime provider — who they liked — abruptly stopped taking Medicare. One of the top mammographers in New York City works in my office building, but she no longer accepts Medicare and charges patients more than $300 cash for each procedure. I continue to send my elderly women patients downstairs for the test because she is so good, but no one is happy about paying.
The counterargument will be that the only solution to this is a single-payer health system, along the lines of Canada and “England”. In a single-payer system, providers would be forced to accept all patients, since the payment source will be the same for each. Prices will get controlled via Medicare-style diktats, so providers will have to settle for the compensation set in Washington or nothing at all.
That may control prices, but not costs, which is the entire disconnect in socialized systems in any industry. Marc Siegel’s piece highlights the disconnect between prices and costs that occur in highly regulated and socialized systems, but not in free-market systems. Medicare and Medicaid set prices without regard to the cost to bring services and products to market, making the transaction less desireable — and in some cases, actually damaging to the business. In those cases, providers will withdraw from the market, leading to shortages and higher costs; in the medical field, those costs will eventually include unnecessary illnesses and deaths from lack of care.
This scenario is not academic. The health systems in Canada and the UK have shortages of doctors, especially specialists like dentists, transplant surgeons, and the like, which is why it takes months to get testing and diagnosis even for serious illnesses. Why? It costs a lot of money to go through medical school and residencies for surgical specialties. The limited amount of compensation for the work they do makes the debt burden of training too heavy. Instead, more doctors stop at the general practice level, leaving artificial shortages in the specialties. Others move overseas to nations without single-payer systems in order to ply their trade for a proper level of compensation.
If we want to create shortages of medical services here in the US, single-payer care is the way to go. The red tape of Medicare and Medicaid is already creating such shortages among those patients the system is designed to help.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
toothache …. meet pliers.
tommylotto on April 18, 2009 at 12:23 PM
-Dr. Thomas Hendricks, Atlas Shrugged
doodleduh on April 18, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Granny… meet iceberg.
phreshone on April 18, 2009 at 12:28 PM
I challenge the Obama administration. He is to force every White House official and himself to live under the British Health Care system. If he can do that and in 2012 argue for national health care I will listen to him.
William Amos on April 18, 2009 at 12:30 PM
I can confirm this in my neck of the woods. I’m a pharmaceutical rep and over the last few years I’ve seen less and less doctors accept Medicare patients. They are simply too much of a burden for their privately insured and cash patients to carry. Costs on Medicare patients pay back as little as 5 cents on the dollar. That’s unsustainable.
Even small practices have substantial overhead as well as the cost of employing and insuring file clerks, medical assistants, and nurses. This ultimately hurts nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants since they have more training and experience and therefore demand higher compensation.
We’re also seeing less and less specialists take even private insurance, much less government care. Many of them now require the patient to pay them directly and instruct the patient to seek reimbursement on their own.
If we see single-payer care, we’ll not only see early retirement and doctors going “underground” (I’ve already seen this to a point with doctors going to concierge-style medicine), but some that will simply leave the primary-care field for non-patient oriented jobs in the health-care industry, ultimately leading to less doctors having to take on more patients, which in turn means less quality care.
TheMightyMonarch on April 18, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Sorry, I’m not buying that she’s making money. So you lose 10-20 patients for every one that pays cash.
Here in Texas I believe that the stats are that if you factor every pregnant female in the state who has any type of medical coverage, nearly 70 percent are covered by medicaid. There’s not one OB group at my hospitals that I’m at that don’t accept it. You’ll starve, and Texas medicaid isn’t worse than what Aetna or BCBS HMOs are paying by much. I long for the days when lawyers have this dilemma, but “legal care” isn’t a “right”.
Marcus on April 18, 2009 at 12:31 PM
“doesn’t accept it”
Just because I’m a Texan doc don’t mean I doesn’t know proper english.
Marcus on April 18, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Let’s have over 50% foreign doctors just like the UK does…
The “brilliance” of the “liberal” mind…
Same idiots who call conservatives “anti-science”, but didn’t have a science class beyond “rocks for jocks” during college… Hence lack of organic chemistry and biology knowledge which would allow them to understand that CO2 is photosynthetic food, not pollution…
phreshone on April 18, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Here is an interesting anecdote which supports the author’s notion that Medicare/Medicaid patients find it difficult to locate doctors.
A few years back, I was investigating a west coast company that had a sophisticated computer system designed to address the complexities and internal contradictions of Medicare repayment. I was shocked at the level of detail required by Medicare, the insane repayment coding, and the conflicts setup in the system by said coding. Resolving the coding mysteries required a well-paid expert or software such as I was investigating.
The payback for doctors for the software package was that they would simply get paid by Medicare. According to the company (and backed up by further due diligence) it turned aout that approximately 20% of Medicare reimbursement requests were never paid because of coding violations. And, after a year or so of fighting with Medicare, the offices simply wrote the unpayable AP as bad debt, since a collection agency will not serve on the US Government for some reason.
So add to the <50% repayment schedule of Medicare another 20% to represent the true repayment amount. The only reason that doctors can afford to care for Medicare/Medicaid patients is because they can overcharge their patients either covered by private insurance or paying out of their pocket.
So what happens when private insurance and direct payment can no longer subsidize Medicare/Medicaid? That is right, sparky. Less supply and/or less quality. How absolutely wonderful. So to pay for supposedly free care, our society will probably kill more people than supposedly die from lack of medical attention right now.
But Obama and the other idiots will probably blame that on Bush and the GOP as well. Or global warming. Or guns that magically shoot people. To leftists, there is always an excuse for their quack nostrums which fail so spectacularly.
iconoclast on April 18, 2009 at 12:35 PM
What we will see is a two tier system, just as they have in GB….docs work for the PHS, for fixed prices and seeing limited patients and then then make their money on the side with those that are able to pay the market rate….
t on April 18, 2009 at 12:37 PM
It matters now. If doctors and dentists start opting out of accepting Medicare and Medicaid patients the Obama administration will declare medical care not just a public good, but a right and doctors who don’t go along will be declared “Enemies of the People” and will be threatened with loss of their medical liscence, fines and jail time. Health care will join the auto industy and large banks as one of those industries that are too vital to our nation to be left to the private sector alone.
Some Federal judge somewhere will declare that public monies, in the form of student loans and grants to public universites, are responsible for many doctors’ educations, so they have a duty to the citizenry to practice, regardless of how much money they will lose.
This will, of couse, be upheld as Constitutinal in a few years, as a Supreme Court with two or three Obama appointees rules on it.
Teacher in Tejas on April 18, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Hey marcus, how about states where malpractice insurance costs are too high for doctors to be an OBGYN… at least Texas has passed tort reform, allowing those costs to be more reasonable…
phreshone on April 18, 2009 at 12:37 PM
If that does not sound like a government bureaucracy……
………. then I don’t know what does.
Seven Percent Solution on April 18, 2009 at 12:38 PM
I have a friend who was on Medicaid for both her pregnancies and the first 12 months of child care and she most certainly did not have her choice of OBs or pediatricians here in Austin.
Why would a provider deliberately make less money in order to claim that Medicare is financially problematic for her to accept? That makes zero sense.
Missy on April 18, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Friends in Florida or New York practicing *gasp* when I tell them what my yearly malpractice premium is. Also why if you are pregnant in Las Vegas you’re more likely to find a cabbie willing to deliver your baby.
Marcus on April 18, 2009 at 12:40 PM
My wife works for a company who contracts the majority of their business with the Federal government. This isn’t surprising to me at all, they are by far the most delinquent customer they have and are the most difficult to collect from. And they aren’t allowed to collect interest on overdue payments, so in essence they are forced to give the government interest-free loans while their vendors are left to twist in the wind.
TheMightyMonarch on April 18, 2009 at 12:40 PM
They will solve the problem by requiring a doctor to treat patients in government insurance programs or lose his license to practice medicine. Eventually, they’ll make the government insurance program mandatory, and forbid a doctor from taking any form of payment from any insurance plan not approved by SecHHS.
Can’t let kulaks (kul-docs?) get away with being greedy bastards, now can we?
The Monster on April 18, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Public Health care will do one of two things. It’ll either cement the Liberal’s hold on the country for a generation or it will make them all unelectable.
I’m personally hoping we never find out because single payer health care kills. Who knows how many people in Britain and Canada have died because of the “good” intentions of Liberals.
Kronos on April 18, 2009 at 12:42 PM
this is true, Democrats and the media will blame insurance companies, but in the real world they expect people to become wage slaves for the government. Expect a big push by the government to have Physician assistants take over most of a Doctors job.
rob verdi on April 18, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Lately? OBs are reimbursed much higher by the state than peds, so it is a problem.
Marcus on April 18, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Opting out? We can’t have that!
Obama will make it illegal to opt out. That’s the Democrats’ solution. Just you watch.
1 – There’s a reason doctors are responsible for about 1/6th of all political contributions. They’re scared shitless of what stupid politicians will do to them.
2 – Also they’re jerks who have too much money for their own good. But mostly it’s Reason 1.
daryl_herbert on April 18, 2009 at 12:46 PM
single payer health care kills. ………
That certainly played a part in Natasha Richardson’s death…..no access to a comprehensive trauma system….
t on April 18, 2009 at 12:46 PM
I believe Democrats only ruined health care to begin with so they could institute their glorious socialized medicine system, in order to have control (*among other things) life and death. (The elderly need to stop clinging to life and die sooner for the good of the collective, dontcha know.) They have been working on this for decades.
*Just wait until they start taxing fatties by the pound!
Rae on April 18, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Who’s Doc Galt?
hawkdriver on April 18, 2009 at 12:47 PM
I accepted Medicaid for about 2 months of my practice. Even thought the reimbursement was substantially lower than my stingiest insurance, I figured it would allow me to treat kids that needed it and at least cover my staff costs. How wrong I was. They denied procedures all the time, delayed billing ( I didn’t get paid for up to 8 months post-op) and were a pain in the ass generally. The support was rude and clueless. Now insurance companies suck too, but Medicaid was like dealing with Nazi nurse Wratched. So I dropped out and now just see poor kids for free. No way in the world I will ever deal with a Government controlled care system again. Ever.
drballard on April 18, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Marcus… doesn’t Pennsylvania have the worst problem with the cost of OBGYN premiums, and a total lack of doctors willing to deliver… Texas tort reform was only recently passed, I should have known that it will probably take several years for the insurance companies to see a level of savings to pass along as a reduction in premiums…
My belief for a long time is that the biggest problem with medical delivery is the lawyers…
do premiums essential double or triple the cost of your personal time to make a rational cash return on you efforts??
phreshone on April 18, 2009 at 12:51 PM
So…
When do people stop bitching about this and do something about it? There is no constitutional justification for taking over health care. And special interest groups such as trial lawyers are harder to displace than a tapeworm even as they kill the host.
So besides just complaining, what can be done? Do we just whine while the left sends their thugs in industry by industry in their long march to dominance?
iconoclast on April 18, 2009 at 12:51 PM
HA! You obviously don’t work with any financial planner who has connections with doctors nowadays and wonders what the hell?
Part of the reason we will get tossed under the bus is that when polled and asked “What do you think your favorite doctor makes per year”, the responses from the public I saw in one poll ran the gamut from $9,000.00 dollars to 9 million.
Marcus on April 18, 2009 at 12:52 PM
As a healthcare entrepreneur, I am licking my chops. If they socialize healthcare, there will be a massive opportunity to provide private care. That’s why in the UK over 40% buy private care (including the NHS system which buys it for its own employees because even they can’t get it). That is their real goal. Create a system that is substandard, then when people buy their own, the system will cover today’s uninsured (paid for by withholding) and the 40% will have to take the money out of their pockets. There will be many unitended consequences, like inflation as companies have to raise prices to pay people more so they can buy their own private care.
flyoverland on April 18, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Precisely. Won’t be any problem acquiring an abortion under a government plan, but we’ll be looking for back-alley MRIs and treatments that the government doesn’t deem cost-effective in its rationing system.
obladioblada on April 18, 2009 at 12:53 PM
I don’t think they’re that organized or conspiratorial. I think they just always want more government control which always leads to worse performance no matter what area they’re controlling (banks, health care, etc.) And their solution for poor performance is always more government control.
I don’t think they’re evil geniuses with a master plan, they’re just power mad narcissists who couldn’t care less who they have to step on to get the “utopia” they want.
Kronos on April 18, 2009 at 12:53 PM
I have already “opted out”. I pay my Doc $1200.00 a year, every year for my family of four. He has a practice of 400 families. We always get in, all general care is covered (not tests) and I have catastrophic insurance in case we lose a limb, eye, cancer). I use the medical accounts deduction to take it off my taxes.
I don’t understand why the Doctors speak out more, or maybe the MSM is not listening…
GunRunner on April 18, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Too true Marcus. I get grief about sticking to pts, but not a peep about the $180k student loans I’m paying off over 20 yrs, or the fact that I can’t deduct that interest. People have lost the capacity to reason.
drballard on April 18, 2009 at 12:55 PM
My premium per year is 23,000 post reform. In Pennsylvania I’g guess they are charged over 100,000.
Well, I’m off. We work weekends. ;-P
Marcus on April 18, 2009 at 12:55 PM
But we’ll FEEL so good when every one has free health care even if they can’t get treated!
Herb on April 18, 2009 at 12:55 PM
I thought a couple of years ago, the premiums were closer to 200k in penn…
phreshone on April 18, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Oh, come on, Ed. Have some non-denominational faith, buddy!
Our benevolent government will surely seek to control everything including costs. Our bureaucratic betters will just keep moving down the line, mandating prices, profits and costs to the grain-of-sand level. And they’ll do it fairly and effectively, too.
/sarc
Greg Toombs on April 18, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Well, the members of the reality based community also think that nuclear power plants are just waiting to go up in a mushroom cloud when Homer hits the wrong button. So, I would say it is much worse even then you note.
But at least they are learning self confidence and how much freedom stinks in school…and that has to count for something…right?
18-1 on April 18, 2009 at 1:02 PM
They’ve been raised since birth that results don’t matter, only feelings do…so I think you are generally right here. But in saying that, I think that especially at the highest levels, many Leftists realize that their policies have a high chance of making whatever they want to control worse. However, this is ok, because they make sure to never let a crises go to waste.
18-1 on April 18, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Us retired Military folks have this same type of problem…
There is a list on TriCare of doctors who will accept patients, and the list gets smaller every year.
After looking at the reports of what they pay, as compared to what they are billed (ie, what TriCare allows for the procedure) I really can’t blame the Doctor’s at all.
Romeo13 on April 18, 2009 at 1:10 PM
This, and the quote above from Dr. Thomas Hendricks, is why, although I align myself as conservative (and proud of it), I’m also pro-”Choice” (although, I admit, it burns me to even use that phrase).
It’s not because I don’t think that abortion (as a “choice”) is a vile and evil act. It’s not because I would want to see it used as a method of birth control. It’s not because I want to see teenagers make a life-changing decision without consulting their parents first.
It’s because I don’t believe any member of government should stand between my family and my doctor. None. Let us make the tough choices.
I know my fellow conservatives may not see it this way, and feel that the priority is to “save those who do not have a voice”. I understand and appreciate that. I applaud the concept. However, when it stands to negatively affect the well-being of my family, well, I’m sorry. We just have to agree to disagree.
As Ronald Reagan said, “Government isn’t the solution to our problems; government is the problem.” And I see any federal ban on abortion the same way.
Sorry, a bit of a tangent. Still, thought it may be food for thought for others to nibble on.
CatsGodot on April 18, 2009 at 1:10 PM
It’s inevitable that both the quality and availability of good health care will markedly diminish with universal health care if it’s modeled on Medicare and Medicaid. Most with Medicaid end up in emergency rooms where they must be treated and the level of care eventually becomes worse than terrible as each time they show up they see different doctors, get given different meds and nobody co-ordinates or even cares enough to or is aware there may be an ongoing problem. Unless obama can truly live up to his God like image and find a way around this, this is the future for most health care. Good health care will only be for the weatlhy–and of course, those with Federal government health care benefits. The much vaunted MA health care for children is so bogged down with paper work and regulations and bureaucratic red tape that it barely works when it works at all.
jeanie on April 18, 2009 at 1:11 PM
If the Democrats are going to force socialized medicine on us, why does it have to be modeled on the pathetic excuses in Canada and the UK?
Doesn’t France have a decently working national health care system? Or any of the Scandinavian countries?
alice on April 18, 2009 at 1:15 PM
We have only begun to see the exodus of doctors from Medicare. The feds have instituted a program called RAC, or Recovery Audit Contractor. These are basically bounty hunters paid a percentage to come in a recover what they feel are overpayments to providers. In the pilot program in Florida, providers were hit with hundreds of thousands of dollars in presumed overpayments. There is little option for appeal. Those hit with a windfall bill will never again see another Medicare patient. There will be an army of Dr. John Galts in the near future.
BrianA on April 18, 2009 at 1:16 PM
WHAT? IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Send Roesgen onto the case. She’ll get down to it.
“SIR! SIR! Don’t you know that all patients will get free medical service under Obama? How can a doctor be so stupid? All this ‘National Health Care Hate’ is drummed up the right-wing fascists over at Fox.
Care to comment?*”* Oops, realized, if she was covering this, she wouldn’t let the people she’s interviewing actually answer her questions. My bad.
CatsGodot on April 18, 2009 at 1:16 PM
I just love the theoretical world of the left. They honestly believe hard working people are just going to suck up and accept their fate as servants of the federal government. Boy are they in for a surprise.
BardMan on April 18, 2009 at 1:17 PM
My sister used to do well as a doctor, now she works insane hours and gets less and less money for it…she is burning out but at 50 there is not much else she can do except to tell her very bright and beautiful daughter with a big heart…”don’t go into medicine” very very sad…
CCRWM on April 18, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Oh, and as to the larger issue, I think that it is amazing that no one talks about why health care costs continue to rise, namely an aging population and a rapid base of discoveries of new medicines and procedures.
Fundamentally the “solutions” have to fit into one of the following;
1) Minimize government control of the industry. With individuals deciding how much they can pay, we will continue to see the continued fast pace of development and most people will get a high level of service. There will be significant differences in what people can afford however so the “rich” will get significantly better care then the “poor”.
2) Continue to push government control of the industry and institute rationing. The government will now decide who gets what procedures. Those with political connections and whose views are most in line with the bureaucracy will get significantly better care then those who are not. As government attempts to minimize costs research and development will slow to a crawl and almost all such spending will be in regards to making care cheaper, not better.
3) Continue to push government control of the industry and enact massive tax increases. As opposed to rationing, the government could always instead just open the treasury (presuming Obama doesn’t loot it all first). In this case medical costs will continue to skyrocket but there will be no loss in health care quality or research as long as the treasury can take the hits. Functionally this will be a massive transfer of wealth from the young/middle aged to the elderly much like Social Security and also from those who work to those who do not.
18-1 on April 18, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Outside of free care for low income families, it’s an out of pocket expense for Canadians.
Last I checked, we didn’t have a dentist shortage. Probably because dentists are essentially free from universal health care.
Krydor on April 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM
In MA, as and with Medicare(to a lesser degree)you must meet specified deadlines each year filing your child and your income, health status, age etc. etc. Should you forget to do this on time or cannot fill in all the requested info for one or another reason–eventually the almighty computer removes you from the rolls. Also, eventually, it will get around to telling you that it has done so at its own leisure. If this happens your insurances lapses until you, more of less, re-enrol and for all intents and purposes start all over again. Heaven help you if you become seriously ill while all this is happening. Often you must wait for the ‘next enrollment date’. Now, I do not want to be subject to the whims of that great computer in the sky. Do you?
jeanie on April 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM
I know the tea parties were a start…and I so enjoyed going. I felt like I was doing something to take my own fate into my own hand but what is the plan now?
CCRWM on April 18, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Marcus,
Kids were born in 2003 and 2006, fwiw.
Missy on April 18, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Sorry guys but if you treat a Medicare enrolled patient and do not bill Medicare for the visit you are breaking the law.
It doesn’t matter whether you are non-par or not.
This has been on the books for a while now and is why I do not see Medicare patients any longer. Socialized medicine has been creeping along very subtlely, just sheds its skin ever so often, grows some and we’re aghast all over again.
I refer them out to one of two docs that see a substantial percentage of their practices as senior care.
But don’t get me started.
Sitting down to ribs, chicken and hot links with cowboy beans, potato salad and cole slaw.
Gonna wash it down with a Shiner Commemorator while I watch a movie.
I don’t want to think about this away from work.
OkieDoc on April 18, 2009 at 1:31 PM
The answer to medical costs is twofold: eliminate mandatory insurance, and allow doctors to compete on price. Neither has much chance of getting past the vested interests, but these two factors are what is causing the problem. Over the past couple of decades, cosmetic surgery, which is not covered by insurance, and where doctors do compete on price, has become cheaper in real dollars, while insured medical procedures have risen faster than inflation in every year. How can anyone argue that more insurance and regulation of doctor fee schedules will solve the problem?
Vashta.Nerada on April 18, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Well sure, that makes sense. While we are at it, why not just raise the abortion limit to post-birth up until the child is 18 years old. Who knows, that child could turn out to be a burden to the well-being of the family if he ends up being autistic or causes trouble in school.
NeverLiberal on April 18, 2009 at 1:35 PM
I can certainly sympathize with the “choice” argument that pro-choice advocates frequently use. It has a libertarian slant that almost rings true.
However, we are not talking about a mere medical procedure here, to be decided upon between patient and doctor. We are talking about someone’s life. Inherent in most libertarian arguments is the concept that anything is permissible, provided it does not infringe on the life, liberty, or property of others.
Abortion, to those who oppose it, see this procedure as a clear violation of the first. Many, including myself, see life as beginning at the moment of conception and therefore no longer subject to the convenience of others (which you have to admit is the main reason for most abortions). The idea that a pregnancy should be terminated for the convenience of anyone is reprehensible to those who oppose the idea.
Most people would probably agree that terminating a pregnancy at eight and a half weeks for non-medical reasons is also reprehensible. Fine, say pro-choice advocates, but abortions should certainly be permissible in the first trimester. Does that mean that a fetus that is three months and one day old suddenly acquires special rights, or a different “level” of life that a fetus at the age of two months and thirty days does not? Medical advances have produced actual survival for children barely past the first trimester. Would you willingly terminate that child’s life after modern medicine has saved it? How is that any different from terminating it in the womb?
I’m being long-winded here, but I guess I’m just saying that I have yet to hear an argument for abortion that isn’t full of fallacies and holes. The moment you accept that fetus as a separate living being you must address the moral implications of ending that life.
TheMightyMonarch on April 18, 2009 at 1:35 PM
I bsee we’e on the same page…
CCRWM on April 18, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Write to your Senators and Congressmen/women to make certain that if they pass this insane plan, they too will have to be on the Plan. All government workers would too along with all union workers. While you are at it, tell the same “great minds” in Washington that it’s time that they start paying social security taxes like we do. They want all this crap for us, while they have something “special” just for them. They are a bunch of useless human debris in Washington.
suzyk on April 18, 2009 at 1:39 PM
So…
besides complaining about the endless march of the statists to complete government control or ownership of everything–to the detriment of the general welfare and individual citizen–what can be done?
The lovers of ubiquitous government control have succeeded in sabotaging the judiciary to the point where the state can even consider “taking over healthcare”, though only someone on LSD would consider that to be a legitimate interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The media arm serves up various “panics” with depressing predictability (remember acid rain? AIDS pandemic? Ice Age? the population bomb? China Syndrome? 3 million homeless? the list goes on forever) and the government-schooled & propagandized populace just eats it up. We have massive voter-fraud, the result of which is that the biggest organization promoting voter fraud just received $4 billion from the Democrats–clearly gratitude and encouragement for more.
I am just wondering if all everyone will do is just mutter on their way to serfdom while hoping they will be one of the few who are either in the Party or get to live in our Potemkin village…..
iconoclast on April 18, 2009 at 1:39 PM
This thread has been very enlightening! It won’t be long now until I am supposed to enroll in Medicaire. My company with whom I’ve had insurance up to now will no longer provide primary health insurance, only secondary after Medicaire. So what is a person to do to get good healthcare? Find independent insurance and disavow Medicaire? Or are we just stuck?
Christian Conservative on April 18, 2009 at 1:39 PM
CCRWM on April 18, 2009 at 1:25
Felt the same way about the tea party I attended, finally something I can do besides write my totally indifferent Dem pol. If there are more close enough, and I hope there are,I will not miss them. I hope we get more and more people–so many that even Nancy has to take notice. There are just too many taxes, fees, and government interference in our lives in this country. Government has made it clear that our money is their money and our lives are theirs to make decisions about.
jeanie on April 18, 2009 at 1:41 PM
If that had been the case my sister wouldn’t have made it past fifteen. It would have been over the moment she accused my folks of “ruining her life” because they wouldn’t let her go into the city with her barely-driving age friends on a Saturday night.
TheMightyMonarch on April 18, 2009 at 1:41 PM
“If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders–what would you tell him to do?”……”To shrug.”
Francisco d’Aconia
Altas Shrugged, p455
BrianA on April 18, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Awhile back many employers switched their choice of healthcare benefits to DMO/HMO in order to cut costs. But what ended up happening was the employees & employers saw first hand the lousy treatment they received. Also, HMO doctors were penalized by the HMO’s for referring pts. out to a specialist etc.
With the DMO’s (dental) pts. had to wait a longtime to get an appt. & instead of treating the patient for a filling, which they received hardly any money for, the DMO dentist did nothing & let the cavity get worse.
Finally came the backlash & employers started offering choices such as PPO’s & indemnity insurance.
Now imagine what happens when employers stop offering insurance since the government will be providing it.
The government can’t afford to provide QUALITY healthcare to everyone. Instead we will have a watered down version of Medicare & Medicaid and as a result many people will die.
redridinghood on April 18, 2009 at 1:52 PM
I like the Atlas Shrugged quotes in this thread. Keep em coming. I wanted to read the book but it was too dang long.
NeverLiberal on April 18, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Christian Conservative on April 18, 2009 at 1:39 PM
It is my understanding that you do not have to enroll in Medicare. However, the cost of unsupplemented private health care is very high. If you can afford it easily, go for it. If, however, you choose not to enroll in Medicare immediately, I am quite sure that if you wish to enroll later it will cost you more. ‘Punishment’ I suppose for initially rejecting our loving government.
jeanie on April 18, 2009 at 1:53 PM
jeanie on April 18, 2009 at 1:41 PM
My senator are /Feinstein and Boxer…forn as long as I can remember!
When I was protesting I was standing next to this guy jewish and democrat and on my other side a biracial family… a lot of us see the writing on the wall!
CCRWM on April 18, 2009 at 1:54 PM
You can get it on tape as well.
Vashta.Nerada on April 18, 2009 at 1:55 PM
I’m reading Atlas Shrugged so I’m skipping the post. It is long but I probably would have finished it by now but I’m on here and on C4P a lot…I’m at the Rearden party right now…
CCRWM on April 18, 2009 at 1:55 PM
CatsGodot on April 18, 2009 at 1:10 PM
You presented your point well, sir. I am against abortion, but think that we should ONLY cut out Government funding for any abortion effort. Same idea you have – if that woman wants to pay for her own child’s murder, then we should let her do it. Why? I want less government control. A tough place to draw the line, but you aptly summarized why the line has to be there.
catlady on April 18, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Right now you can find good doctors in some Medicare Advantage Plans. These are private plans that Medicare sub-contracts out to private insurers. I don’t expect they will be around long with the push toward a single payer system.
BrianA on April 18, 2009 at 1:56 PM
As a surgeon, let me throw out some examples of how Medicare pays;
Need a re-do aortic heart valve replacement? For the three-four hour operation, three days (or so) in the ICU, two weeks in the hospital, and three months followup office visits, the surgeon can expect to see. . . . . . .$1700.
How about a total hip joint? Another three hour or so operation, several days in the hospital. . . . about $1300 for the surgeon.
No one should be surprised that doctors are trying their best to get out of the profession. . . .
Narniaman on April 18, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Read it!
BrianA on April 18, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Perhaps I should add a contrast for private pay patients;
Breast augmentation? one hour operation, surgeon’s fee about $2000-$3000.
Lap Chole? one hour operation, home the same day — $1800.
Narniaman on April 18, 2009 at 2:00 PM
What’s your point?
BrianA on April 18, 2009 at 2:02 PM
TheMightyMonarch on April 18, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Good points on this issue, but there will always be people who are will to kill, whether it is their unborn child, or the guy who ticks them off in traffic. Again, it comes to drawing lines in sand…
catlady on April 18, 2009 at 2:04 PM
We still have Judd Gregg here, but he is not going to run again I’m pretty sure. In CA, you really have gotten a big swallow of government taking advantage of you–my sympathies. We are seeing it start to happen here as Dems take over slowly but relentlessly. The nanny laws are the first symptom and those are coming thickly. Let me tell you about the latest nut case: We have a pol(man) here who has a bill before the Leg. to allow cross dressers to use the public rest room of their choice. Once upon a time it would have been laughed out of town, but I’m not so sure any more.
jeanie on April 18, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Christian Conservative on April 18, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Get this – my husbands a doc and we had to get private insurance because his group doesn’t have insurance – it was too expensive for the practice!! Irony alert!
catlady on April 18, 2009 at 2:05 PM
The point is that the way Medicare is paying surgeons, they can’t cover their costs. The only way a surgeon can afford to see Medicare patients is if they have private insurance patients to make up the slack.
Narniaman on April 18, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Govenrnment isn’t intruding in the cosmetic surgery business so you can still make a decent living in it….
CCRWM on April 18, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Narniaman on April 18, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Exactly!! My husband is an anesthesiologist and the Medicare patients killed his practice! He could only bill for the time spent in the surgery room administering anesthesia, never mind the hours following up on patients, etc. So if you are in surgery or anesthesia, you can’t follow up on your patients like you might want to you have to herd them like cattle. Fast turnover between cases, etc.
catlady on April 18, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Which is why my husband got out of that practice.
catlady on April 18, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Yes, this is true. But guess what the hospital makes on your $1800 lap chole or that 6 hour craniotomy that the neurosurgeon does?
BrianA on April 18, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Problem is that our youngsters have never known anything except having their lives run by Big Brother. It starts in pre-school and they grow up with it as a way of life. There are elements of our population who have never known anything except AFDC, SSI and other welfare. I wonder if it’s possible to ever reach these. My guess would be NO! These have been bought and paid for and the poor souls don’t even know it.
jeanie on April 18, 2009 at 2:15 PM
“If the Democrats are going to force socialized medicine on us, why does it have to be modeled on the pathetic excuses in Canada and the UK?
Doesn’t France have a decently working national health care system? Or any of the Scandinavian countries?”
alice on April 18, 2009 at 1:15 PM
————————————-
YES! Switzerland. They have a wonderful system, which is a private system, not government-run. Just as we have to have liablity insurance on our cars here, they are required to have the basic insurance coverage, which I understand covers quite a lot more than one might think. Now, the Insurance companies are not allowed to profit on that basic plan, so it is quite inexpensive, and they make enough on premium plans that they stay in business. This is the plan that I think Mitt Romney was trying to learn from, and I think he was headed in the right direction. I understand that the people who took over after him changed the system quite a bit. I think he believes that we need to implement a good system, or we will get stuck with a horrible one, but many people don’t seem to differentiate between his private plan and the socialistic/communistic ones….
The problem is, the collectivist mindset does not really care if the people have health care. It is just one more form of control. It gives them power over life and death, putting them one step closer to being the “gods” they think they are, or are trying to be….
We actually could learn a lot from the Swiss. They also are very pro-guns and self-defense, plus they make really great chocolate! LOL
Peggy Snow Cahill on April 18, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Read in Newsweek or maybe it was US News that on average the lowest NET pay for GPs and family practitioners in this country was 140,000. Perhaps that’s not a lot for the training and time and responsibility but, must admit, it seems like a lot to me(just sayin’). The specialties went on up from there with anasthesiologists and gyns near the top. I do not recall their figures though.
jeanie on April 18, 2009 at 2:30 PM
We have insurance. Our Doctor is a plan provider. Our Doctor requires payment in full up front for all proceedures. We file with insurance and suffer the “allowable” “co-pay” mark downs. This past week cost us $1200. Blue Cross will probably reimburse us about $400 of that.
It ain’t just Medicare that doctors are sloughing off. It’s full medical insurance plans. It used to be that it was hard to find a plan provider. Now even if you find one that doctor won’t actually take the insurance.
I have Cigna Dental. No doctor will take it. There may be one about 80 miles from my house in the plan. Still checking on that.
Whatever. I am fortunate that I can just pay it when needed and hope that the insurance will actually cover anything catastrophic if needed. Other than catastrophic there’s no real reason for health insurance anymore.
Our county offers nearly free care to anyone – no financial qualifier – for basic checkups. It’s an odd little secret not many seem to know about.
Now if I can just get my Vet to stop pushing unnecessary tests on me for my critters, trying to jack up the cost, that would be nice.
BrideOfRove on April 18, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Sorry, I do not know how to spell the anasthesia thing–did my best!
jeanie on April 18, 2009 at 2:33 PM
BrideOfRove on April 18, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Fill me in on the secret! I have to pay much for a full checkup–insurance does not cover it at all–just some tests.
jeanie on April 18, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I see a future where large companies set-up in house medical facilities. Bypassing the whole system of insurance. Doctors would have a “job” as opposed to running a business. The companies could go self-insured since
they could control 85% of the costs. This could certainly make interesting times for doctors, insurance comapnies, the companies that are paying high insurance premiums and the patients themselves.
izoneguy on April 18, 2009 at 2:39 PM
One, you’re not a Conservative. Two, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. Three….uh, genius, the aborted baby is part of your family. Four….what are you, 12?
xblade on April 18, 2009 at 2:40 PM
If we adopt this single payer nonsense I hope Obama gets stuck with the most half-assed proctologist ever.
gsherin on April 18, 2009 at 2:46 PM
drballard on April 18, 2009 at 12:49 PM
God Bless you, Sir. I am one in the position to have to see a lot of doctors, and I have learned that there are doctors, and there are true healers, who became doctors to answer a call on their life.
You are a healer.
koz on April 18, 2009 at 2:48 PM
“I just love the theoretical world of the left. They honestly believe hard working people are just going to suck up and accept their fate as servants of the federal government. Boy are they in for a surprise.”
BardMan on April 18, 2009 at 1:17 PM
——
“I know the tea parties were a start…and I so enjoyed going. I felt like I was doing something to take my own fate into my own hand but what is the plan now?”
CCRWM on April 18, 2009 at 1:25 PM
———————————–
Good question. I think that we are building momentum. Right now, we need to be informing ourselves and all those around us that will listen, just to help people understand what is happening. And we need to realize that the next election is next year! 2010, all the members of the house are up for election, as well as Harry Reid and others in the senate. If we can get more good people into congress, that could make a big difference. And the more we get people to wake up, and to stop falling for the silly lies that those who seek to control us tell, the greater the momentum will be.
Read/listen to Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, the founding fathers. We gotta turn our hearts back to God, and to eternal principles, like FREEDOM.
—————————–
You know in works of fiction, the best heroes are always the ones who are reluctant to try to seize the power to destroy evil. We have played reluctant too long now, and somehow, we gotta find a way to see the world as it is, and to help others see it too, and to stand up against those who would take away our freedom.
Peggy Snow Cahill on April 18, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Actually, I wish our medical system was run like the veterinary system. I recently had a cat get x-rays and 4 staples to close a wound at an emergency pet clinic. Total cost? $121.00. They use the same kind of x-ray technology, and the same kind staples that humans use. If that had been me, it probably would have cost at least $2,000.
xblade on April 18, 2009 at 2:52 PM
So many points, so little time -
All the “health care should be free” folks think that they will get the level of care we currently enjoy for free. And we probably will – for the first few years. Then the laws of the universe will assert themselves and the reality of costs without coverage will set in.
Not only does Medicare reimburse poorly (and pay less each year for the same codes) but the rules work against efficient patient care and Medicare rates are the defacto rate-setters for the industry. We often schedule our Medicare pts on two separate days (unless they have to travel a long distance) because Medicare refuses to pay for more than one “visit” in a day, regardless of how much what we actually do for the patient costs our practice. If Medicare would pay for what we do, there would be one trip to the office. As for the second point, insurers set their rates as 110%, 105%, etc. of Medicare and that’s where they start contract negotiations, even for specialists.
Ever wonder why your Gyn doc is now offering Botox and specialty care “spa” services in his/her office? It’s because the reimbursement for care has gotten so abysmally bad that just practicing medicine, including surgery, is not profitable anymore. I know two Ob/Gyn docs who have closed practice and are now hospitalists in L&D because they now make approx 30% more as hospital employees than they could in private practice.
The ridiculously low reimbursement for Medicaid pts. is just part of the reason they have trouble findings docs who accept it. These patients have a larger percentage of high-risk pregnancies with drug-use, PIH, long histories of STDs/PID, gestational diabetes, poor nutrition, etc. What incentive does an MD have to take even less money than usual to treat a pt that requires more intensive care with a possibly poor outcome that may lead to a lawsuit?
Last in my rant, socialized health care does not provide for accommodation of excellence. If all docs get the same government mandated salaries and fees, those practitioners who are at the top have no incentive to continue or to move into specialty areas (as is happening in England and Canada). When salaries are equalized, you lock in mediocrity.
inmypajamas on April 18, 2009 at 3:17 PM
In my uninformed opinion, the biggest problem with health care in the United States is the idea of “wellness”. HMO’s all started with the idea that they could lower health care costs by promoting a “healthy” life style. By providing regular health maintenance, costs would decrease in the long run.
So now we have an entire generation of people who call the doctor at the first sign of a twinge. We have another generation that doesn’t seem to understand what growing old means so won’t know how to act once they get to old age.
How many doctors reading this thread would have the nerve to tell a 50 year old woman like me that menopause is a fact of life and I’ll get over it. In a couple of years?
How many doctors reading this thread would the take chance of telling me that?
How many doctors reading this thread would take the chance of telling me that my knees hurt when I climb stairs that knees don’t last forever and one alternative to knee replacement is called “using the elevator”.
Not many.
Because of “wellness” programs we have a lot of people on the verge of old age who have no idea how to deal with normal aches and pains, and a younger generation who will be responsible for paying for the care of people who will live much longer, miserable lives.
Jaynie59 on April 18, 2009 at 3:23 PM
ANOTHER BORING AS SHIT ED ARTICLE
ed, i challenge you to come up with a SINGLE original, insightful though.
Seven Seas on April 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM
*thought
Seven Seas on April 18, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »