orangemtl on December 12, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Yes, they are in a pickle here, aren’t they? Unless they pass a law saying physicians must accept Medicare/aid, they can’t really not pass the “docfix”

They need to change the law so that the fix is permanent. At least then projected costs of Medicare/aid would be more accurate. I’m sure they use the intended reimbursement rates instead of what really happens.

(I’m assuming Medicare/aid will continue on. I’m not saying I agree that it should.)

Harry Reid does not look like George Clooney.

True. He looks like a screw worm infected dirt bag.

Hey, Harry Reid can’t even compare favorably to hair shaved off George’s ***. And I don’t even LIKE Clooney.

As for the Doc Fix: everyone knows that Congress LIKES this method. From their standpoint, it keeps physicians eternally beholden to their largesse. Only, it doesn’t. Go ahead, let the Doc fix lapse for ONE year, and brace yourself for the results.
Any physician that spends more than….oh, about 15 seconds per year worrying about this hasn’t done the internal math correctly.
Our practice saw about 52% Medicare patients, who provided EIGHT percent of practice revenues. We could have dropped Medicare, halved our workloads (if our driving force was simple profit/loss), fired some staff, and reduced income by less than 10 percent. A cut of 26% in reimbursement? Excellent excuse for physicians across the country to drop additional office staff, tell Medicare to **** themselves, and knock off at 3:15 every afternoon with weekends off.

Congress will do no such thing, and know they can’t. But please: Give it a try—I’ve never seen my home on a weekday in daylight. I’d like to see what it’s like.

Spoiler alert: Harry Reid does not look like George Clooney.

No, but he does look like someone’s hemorrhoids and is just about as pleasant.

SWalker on December 12, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Hemorrhoids are easier to get rid of than Dingy Harry is.

Release Date: December 12, 2012
For immediate release

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in October suggests that economic activity and employment have continued to expand at a moderate pace in recent months, apart from weather-related disruptions. Although the unemployment rate has declined somewhat since the summer, it remains elevated. Household spending has continued to advance, and the housing sector has shown further signs of improvement, but growth in business fixed investment has slowed. Inflation has been running somewhat below the Committee’s longer-run objective, apart from temporary variations that largely reflect fluctuations in energy prices. Longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.

LIES.

Ah, so $85 billion a month now. That’s $1,020 a year, give or take, or most of the federal deficit. It would be nice if this was “sacrifice free” but of course it’s not. We can predict it shouldn’t be due to arithmetic (when you increase the quantity of money you decrease the value of each unit) but what’s worse is that the math has validated empirically.

All we should have to do is look at the employment rate of the population. After all, The Fed has massively accommodated thus far, yes? Therefore there should be improvement. There is, right?

No, but he does look like someone’s hemorrhoids and is just about as pleasant.

SWalker on December 12, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Key word – about.

Spoiler alert: Harry Reid does not look like George Clooney.

No, but he does look like someone’s hemorrhoids and is just about as pleasant.

Conspiracy to commit fraud?
Racketeering?
False representation?
Grand Theft?

LoganSix on December 12, 2012 at 3:42 PM

You’re going to have to be more specific. Those are crimes, not torts. Yes, there is civil RICO, but it would only apply to the Democrat Party in the context of, say for example, collusion with unions to extort businesses pay campaign contributions (protection fees) and hire only union workers or face the legal might of Democrats and physical might of unions. In such a case, there would probably be more than 2 predicate acts in furtherance of a conspiracy, racketeering or other specified illegal activity. That requires proof of an “enterprise” between the two and, though that clearly exists on many levels, I am not sure that RICO would be applicable or be allowed.

If you are referring to acts like Reid’s failure to put a budget up for a vote, then there is no cause of action that the citizens can plead in a civil suit — at least, I’m not aware of any — because they have immunity. Impeachment by the House and then conviction/removal by Reid’s Senate (yep) are the only procedural recourse. The people get the government that they vote for.

Unfortunately, there is no cause of action against politicians for lying (unless under oath, of course), not doing their jobs, and for being cowards.

For what?

Resist We Much on December 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Did you read the blog post where it talks about the failure to do that which is required by law? Did you read the part of my question that asks if that is true, what can be done about it?

I guess I’m not following why you’d ask that if you’d read any of the above.

If they are required by law to pass a budget, then failing to do so is breaking the law. Typically that means consequences, and not just ‘electoral’ ones. People don’t get to continue breaking the law just because they get re-elected. There are examples of elected officials experiencing consequences for breaking the law.

I know there’s a distinction between civil and criminal offenses, etc, I’m just sick to death of these people breaking the law openly, routinely, and not being held accountable (again, don’t give a damn about ‘electoral consequences’).

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 12, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Thanks but a) I know the House is sackless and won’t do anything, and b) that wasn’t my question.

Can *we* – you know, “we the people” – enlist a class action suit against them somehow? Damnit, anything would be better than watching these people simply, openly and literally break the law daily, for years on end.

If there truly is no legal approach to take, then the tyranny is already far worse than anyone’s been complaining about – and there *is* a founder-provided and supported remedy for that.

Permanent “temporary” fixes

In my experience in writing and supporting software apps, I have maintained for years that there is nothing more permanent than a temporary fix. Seems that politicians subscribe to the same view…
Wish I could ‘work’ as little as these guys and still keep my job.

Any attorneys in the house? Why can’t we the people sue the Senate?

Midas on December 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM

For what?

Resist We Much on December 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress? ;-)

Any attorneys in the house? Why can’t we the people sue the Senate?

Midas on December 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM

For what?

Resist We Much on December 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Conspiracy to commit fraud?
Racketeering?
False representation?
Grand Theft?

This dereliction of duty series of criminal acts [Reid's refusal to pass a budget for three years] has gone virtually unremarked upon in the press.

FIFY; GOP House and Senate Leadership response: crickets …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 12, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Stole my thunder; well said!

I’d add that the failure to pass a budget for three years

1333 days. 3 years, 7 months, 23 days.

Shouldn’t someone be impeached or removed from office for not doing their job?

Any attorneys in the house? Why can’t we the people sue the Senate?

Midas on December 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM

For what?

Since the AP article’s intro didn’t list the party my guess is he is a democrat.

chemman on December 12, 2012 at 3:20 PM

But of course. The MSM always unexpectedly forgets to ID Democrats in scandals.

I am STILL waiting for the stark, raving, deranged, Progressive lunatic — but I repeat myself…over and over again — on TH to provided me with the “Proof E11111eventy!11!11!11!” that he promised me more than 2 years ago that would “utterly destroy” my “manufactured outrage” directed at Democrat officials in Bell, California, ‘cuz ‘erybody knows that all of the people that ripped off the poor people living in the very poor, heavily Hispanic community of Bell were ALL REPUBLICANS!!!

**eyeroll**

Any attorneys in the house? Why can’t we the people sue the Senate?

Midas on December 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Because the Weeping Boner and his GOP House allowed Hairy Reed and the Indonesian to make a mockery of the Constitution with continued budgetless spending. It was the House’s job to force a budget, not pass ridiculous CRs time after time.

Of course, the Indonesian has committed tens of clearly impeachable acts that the House hasn’t even bothered to mention (something like one a month since the Dog-Eating Retard slimed into office) let alone take action on.

Since the AP article’s intro didn’t list the party my guess is he is a democrat.

chemman on December 12, 2012 at 3:20 PM

He’s from Sopranos State, aka New Jersey. Here, even if you’re a Republican, you’re still a Democrat. Case in point: Gov. Chris Christie.

Schadenfreude on December 12, 2012 at 3:17 PM

War on Wymminesses!

Keep cutting the Dr’s fees and when the patient numbers from Medicare go thru the roof let’s see how many Docs hang around.

docflash on December 12, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Doctors, unlike hospitals, and immune to EMTALA threat. They always have an option to stop accepting any insurance, both brands of Mediscam including, and switch to cold hard cash. They will, of course, have to charge less, and settle for fewer patients, but it’s still a decent living – and a much friendlier and honester crowd in the office.

I’d add that the failure to pass a budget for three years, even though they’re required by law to do so, is a flagrant move to turn all of government budgeting over to this process. Sen. Harry Reid has openly stated he doesn’t care to put his budget down on paper because voters might not like it. This dereliction of duty has gone virtually unremarked upon in the press. The public doesn’t care much for process stories, and therefore won’t care about a lack of budget unless the press floods the zone on the story, as they no doubt would if it were a Republican Senate who’d flouted the law for three years.

Any attorneys in the house? Why can’t we the people sue the Senate? Seriously, “required by law to do so” usually means consequences for failure to do so – and no, not just “elections” and “well the voters sent Reid back”, that’s bullsqueeze – those are electoral consequences, or lack thereof – I mean LEGAL consequences for breaking the f-ing law.

Or are they exempt from that, too?

DanMan on December 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Special people have special rules. Isn’t that special?