50
   

What should be done about illegal immigration?

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 07:39 am
@cicerone imposter,
You have it wrong. The number of doctors accepting Medicare has increased tremendously, and it is now hard to find one who doesn't accept it. Further, insurance companies are generally pay less or the same as Medicare.

In any event, I guess that some doctors will have to make do with only two homes, instead of three, as it was not many years ago.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 11:17 am
@Advocate,
Not from most of my readings on this subject going back into last year.

From the NYT:
Quote:
April 2, 2009
Doctors Are Opting Out of Medicare
By JULIE CONNELLY

EARLY this year, Barbara Plumb, a freelance editor and writer in New York who is on Medicare, received a disturbing letter. Her gynecologist informed her that she was opting out of Medicare. When Ms. Plumb asked her primary-care doctor to recommend another gynecologist who took Medicare, the doctor responded that she didn’t know any " and that if Ms. Plumb found one she liked, could she call and tell her the name?

Many people, just as they become eligible for Medicare, discover that the insurance rug has been pulled out from under them. Some doctors " often internists but also gastroenterologists, gynecologists, psychiatrists and other specialists " are no longer accepting Medicare, either because they have opted out of the insurance system or they are not accepting new patients with Medicare coverage. The doctors’ reasons: reimbursement rates are too low and paperwork too much of a hassle.

When shopping for a doctor, ask if he or she is enrolled with Medicare. If the answer is no, that doctor has opted out of the system. Those who are enrolled fall into two categories, participating and nonparticipating. The latter receive a lower reimbursement from Medicare, and the patient has to pick up more of the bill.

Doctors who have opted out of Medicare can charge whatever they want, but they cannot bill Medicare for reimbursement, nor may their patients. Medigap, or supplemental insurance, policies usually do not provide coverage when Medicare doesn’t, so the entire bill is the patient’s responsibility.

The solution to this problem is to find doctors who accept Medicare insurance " and to do it well before reaching age 65. But that is not always easy, especially if you are looking for an internist, a primary care doctor who deals with adults. Of the 93 internists affiliated with New York-Presbyterian Hospital, for example, only 37 accept Medicare, according to the hospital’s Web site.

Two trends are converging: there is a shortage of internists nationally " the American College of Physicians, the organization for internists, estimates that by 2025 there will be 35,000 to 45,000 fewer than the population needs " and internists are increasingly unwilling to accept new Medicare patients.


roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 03:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
That article reflects my own reading on the subject. Both are reflected by personal experience. No primary care doctors in my town accept new Medicare patients. Only some will continue with existing patients when they move to Medicare. The situation with specialists is somewhat better.

The good part is that the only hospital accepts Medicare, and all pharmacies (that I know of) accept Part D prescription plans.

I know I've pointed out these facts on numerous occasions, but it doesn't seem to sink in. Neither will your documented source.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 04:10 pm
@roger,
Maybe we just don't believe your statements about Med not being accepted. So you have proof?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 04:15 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:


That is a ridiculous statement. Medicare is 10 times more cost efficient than is any of the insurance companies.


So, you have proof? After defining "cost efficient", that is.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 04:19 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate, You still haven't provided reliable sources for your claims. Most reliable sources oppose your belief about doctors accepting Medicare patients.

Here's another:http://www.aapsonline.org/medicare/medrep.htm
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 05:35 pm
@cicerone imposter,
CI, I looked up this organization and noticed that they are anti medicare. Why are they afraid of fraud investigations. Where I live several doctors have been convicted of billing for procedures that werent performed. Beside that your survey is 10 years old. Consider that if not for medicare many older folks wouldent have adiquite care.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 06:07 pm
More and more doctors are accepting Medicare despite a scheduled reduction in reimbursements. See http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-9952974.html
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 06:14 pm
@Advocate,
That's dated 2006, and it's now 2010. There have been more Medicare cuts to reimburse doctors and hospitals since then, so I'd like to see the current trends on doctor's accepting Medicare patients.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 06:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 06:35 pm
@cicerone imposter,
And note the doctors' reasons in the NYT article: reimbursement rates are too low and paperwork too much of a hassle.

If you know a physician (general practice or any specialty) ask him/her how many people they've had to hire just to handle the paperwork.

0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 08:43 pm
@Irishk,
There's more. . . .

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703436504574640711655886136.html

Quote:
President Obama last year praised the Mayo Clinic as a "classic example" of how a health-care provider can offer "better outcomes" at lower cost. Then what should Americans think about the famous Minnesota medical center's decision to take fewer Medicare patients?
[url][/url]
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 08:48 pm
I'm not at all sure what we are doing with this on the "What should be done about illegal immigration?" thread, though.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 09:09 pm
@roger,
LOL, I know. I think Cicerone is right, though, so wanted to get the link posted. There are a lot more than just that one.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 03:40 pm
Amnesty legislation would kill jobs. See:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/22/amnesty-legislation-will-kill-jobs/
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 03:52 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate, That's a bunch of bull if I ever saw one! Do you know where most of the illegals work in the US? Guess?
Even when times were good (and bad), hardly any whites looked for work doing what most illegals do in this country.

Trying to argue from Rep Gary Miller's (R) position is to deny the realities of his argument.

Rather, I'm against illegal immigrants, because they broke the law of this land to come here, and our government under both parties failed to control it.

Quit blaming democrats for your myopia.
Pemerson
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 04:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Democrats? I guess Bill Clinton allowed tons of people to immigrate from Mexico, but it seemed popular at the time (their tricks to get here were in the movies!). But, so did George Bush. I expect they both wanted votes.

I just wish one of them had organized a manner in which these people could have arrived here legally. Was that too complicated, or something?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 04:41 pm
@Pemerson,
My point precisely! Both parties are guilty of not controlling illegal immigration.

I was also responding to Gary Miller's nonsense that illegals take away jobs from Americans. Maybe some, but not the most important threat facing our country.

1. Both parties are guilty of not controlling illegal immigration.
2. Some jobs taken by illegals are jobs that others will not apply for whether it's good or bad economic times. This has been proven during past recessions - and this one. Most of the waiters, dishwashers, and laborers are Mexicans in our area. That doesn't mean most are illegal immigrants.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 06:25 pm
@Pemerson,
Sure, there's room for a world of improvement in the process and laws involved. Personally, I that the McCain/Kennedy proposal was the best shot. I didn't like the appearance of rewarding illegal behavior to some extent, but given the size of the problem and the numbers involved, it seemed like the best compromise.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 06:45 pm
@roger,
I agree, but given the mood of the country, now might not be the best time to revisit it. The electorate seems to want the priority to be that 3-letter word of Biden's: J-O-B-S.

And the economy overall, of course. Then we can tackle some of this other stuff.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 3.06 seconds on 11/22/2024 at 09:32:05