Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (607987)	4/16/2011 5:07:15 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583507

a) Medicare is paying lower than customary fees...maybe not the best for doctors but certainly good for the finances of the program (ie: medicare saves money..that is it would be worse off if not for these mandated fees and we know it's already pretty bad off). It isn't the doctors who suffer; the patients do. b) Doctors continue to see patients with the help of their PAs, their pain lessens since they pay the PAs lower salaries and that leaves them with more time to see their non medicare patients. Medicare's fees remain lower than customary, that is good for the program (ie: medicare saves money). Medicare's fees are essentially unaffected, i.e., Medicare does NOT save money, certainly not a significant amount, because they are paying a PA vs. a physician, and the fees are the same. The same number of patients are being seen on a FFS basis and the result is the same Part B expenditure. c) The pressure to raise repayment fees is lessened since the use of a PA is a cost containment measure for the doctor (ie: medicare saves money). Nonsense. When you're not covering fixed costs of providing services, the pressure to raise fees will always be present (Google "Doc Fix"). Doctors, like you and everyone else, are out to make as much money as possible. d) PAs who work independently (this is not common by the way) receive reduced fees and once again medicare SAVES MONEY. It is NOT common -- probably 0.1% or less, and the savings amount to 15% of the otherwise billable fee. In short, it is insignificant in amount. And meanwhile, these patients are receiving a lesser quality of care because they're being seen by less qualified individuals. e) Last but certainly not least, if the medicare program is privatized and doctor fees are normalized to industry customary, the cost of health care for seniors would go through the roof ie: a HUGE shift of cost to then participant seniors would result, since they are the most expensive patients in the demographic spectrum. Wrong, from start to finish. If the Medicare program is privatized, market forces will once again come into play. Practicing as a physician will once again be worthwhile, and the result is you'll have more people becoming physicians rather than choosing alternative careers. Particularly if do something about the med schools at the same time. If you think the AARP is not making these calculations now or if you think that the little trick of making this effective on 54 and younger lessens the AARP concern, then you and he are from Mars...which I have long suspected anyway. I could care less what AARP has to say; they're an insurance company selling Medicare supplements who has everything to gain by the status quo. All of this contributes to my long held belief that the only solution to a nation's health needs is SINGLE PAYER. No, what contributes to your belief is your ignorance of the fact that government is unable to manage these programs due to politics and bureaucracy. Government is the problem, NOT the solution.