Quote:
Originally Posted by flghtr65
What do you know, Lexus Lover agrees with me. I should go buy a lotto ticket today.
|
You have to get all the numbers right on the same line to win!
Not just the cherry-picked ones. Sorry.
I'm still waiting for YouRong to give "us" the link (besides WIKI) that says:
"when Medicare reduces reimbursement to physicians,
the private plans follow suit. ...."
Particularly since Medicare modifies benefits through Congressional action.
Physicians contract with carriers to accept their reimbursement codes/charges schedule.
That is why some physicians do not accept some insurance, but do others, and also why so many physicians are no longer accepting Medicare/Medicaid patients.... which includes hospital facilities as well.
The Medicare rates are established independently of what private carriers pay ... and what private carriers will pay is NOT tied to Medicare rates, which are set based on a regional standard, since various regions of the country have different costs of living and economic condition levels.
The "reason" why under the ACA guidelines consumers will not be able to keep their "original" physicians is that the carriers may not be able to pay the physicians at the same rate based on the new guideline coverage and physicians will no longer accept that insurance, BECAUSE it no longer pays the same and the physician will be LOCKED INTO A CONTRACT FOR THE LOWER PAY RATES.
It doesn't have a damn thing to do with Medicare, other than, if, a carrier qualifies for the "portal" to sell a product, and the carrier (for that product) is required by regs to pay benefits consistent with Medicare. And if that happens the consumer will be restricted to "network" choices, which will be limited, and physicians will not accept the coverage.
YouRong ... one way to learn something about the system is to study it, rather than listen to the propaganda being spewed out by your hero, Obaminable, and the wishful thinking about how this all will play. You are so hell bent on being right, you are not looking at the facts as they exist now, but you are looking at what "ought to be" or what "should be."
If this country had 15 million people who: (1) had no coverage (2) could not get coverage, and (2) wanted coverage, (which are the numbers vetted from all the hype), then it would have been CHEAPER in the short and long run, to sign them up for Medicare .. and reimburse the States for the coverage.
The problem with that would be ... the rolls of Medicaid would swell beyond the 15 million as folks "gamed" the system, and the taxpayers would have to pay for it by a tax increase directly to those who can pay the increase. There would have been a revolt ... immediately ... and your man would have been defeated in 2012 ... so they created this nightmare and pushed off the awakening until after the elections .... but could no longer push it off until after 2014...... they waited as long as they could .... with the hope that short-memories will prevail .. if they can quell the uprising.
If you think that 15 million number is "unrealistic" .............. then where are they?
Right now that looks high!!!!
One of the primary "assumptions" underlying the success of the ACA was applications within certain consumer criteria to maximize income and minimize costs in benefit claims .... the 2nd assumption was the actual response by applications ..... the 3rd was "cooperation" with private carriers to "accept" lower quality coverage as a standard ... the 4th was providers accepting the lower reimbursement levels offered by the "lower quality coverage" .... and then increased employment and income so that many of the "uninsured" would be shifted to employer based insurance with increased incomes to pay for the premium increases necessary required to cover the lower premiums on the "lower quality coverage" .... and increased revenues (taxes) from increased employment ......
Remember that Obaminable was a "community organizer" who orchestrated the stripping of insulation in multi-family housing in Chicago, but FAILED to replace it and walked off the job. The primary "architect" of ramming ACA legislatively down everyone's throat was Nancy whose experience comes from a bankrupt state from which most of its revenue generating businesses either closed or fled the state ... along with many workers. Legislation in California failed to junk the Kaiser-Retirement benefits, which the state has not been able to fully fund, even though that was a requirement. In Texas Reliant Energies rate increase "plan" included the losses it suffered in California when folks (and businesses) fled without paying their Reliant bills.
