100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > Drivinmenutz
|
|
|
Why are you guys resorting to insults and name calling of a country.If you are educated and intelligent,lets debate and argue based on facts.Thats more civil please Perhaps if you produced facts, others would follow suit... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insurers are slashing payments to medical practices in many of the plans they sell through the new health-law marketplaces—sparking worries that Americans signing up for coverage will have fewer doctors to choose from if low fees spark an exodus from the plans. UnitedHealth Group Inc. sent some New York City physicians contract amendments as recently as this month setting rates well below what doctors normally see from private insurance, including less than $40 for a typical office visit and about $20 for reading a mammogram, according to confidential documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. "We have heard from a lot of physicians the rates [insurers] are offering them are very low, and physicians are questioning whether they are going to participate," said Sam Unterricht, a Brooklyn ophthalmologist and president of the Medical Society of the State of New York. Some of United's rates fall close to what the state Medicaid program for low-income people pays for the same services. The fees for some office visits are less than half of what doctors in the city say they receive for treating people covered by employer-sponsored insurance. Six doctors elsewhere in New York reported lower rates from a range of insurers, including United, but declined to specify rates citing confidentiality agreements. "Our goal is to provide exchange members with a robust choice of providers," said a statement issued by United. The insurer added that it would "offer physicians the choice of participating at rates that are above Medicaid and comparable to historical rates." Few New Yorkers have historically purchased coverage on the individual market, and doctors say their rates for most employer-sponsored plans are much higher. The company initially notified doctors of new rates in April. WellPoint Inc.'s Anthem unit in Connecticut offered Steven Levine, an ear nose and throat specialist in Trumbull, rates for exchange plans he said "were not what a reasonable person would consider acceptable." He says he declined the contract. A spokeswoman for Wellpoint said that in designing its exchange plans, it "focused on affordability to allow the maximum number of individuals to purchase coverage." The exchange plans are expected to cover more than 20 million people by 2016. Doctors have long protested declining or stagnant rates from government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, and had looked to the exchanges to usher in more privately insured patients. More physicians may leave the plans as awareness of the new rates spread, doctors and experts said. Many doctors surveyed in September by the Medical Group Management Association said they weren't aware of the fees they would be offered for treating patients gaining coverage on the exchanges. Of those that had heard, 37% said the rates offered were lower than Medicare, and 18% said they were lower than Medicaid rates, according to the survey. The 2010 health-care law itself doesn't include any requirements limiting physicians' payments or restricting insurers' arrangements with doctors. But in order to keep prices low for exchange plans, many health insurers cobbled together narrow networks of doctors who agreed to lower their fees. But United's move, affecting plans designed around broader physician networks, is meant to rein in costs, too. Some doctors said they had learned of the fee cuts even as consumers began picking health plans. As a result, consumers may end up selecting doctors who haven't yet agreed to participate in the plans. United is giving doctors who don't want to accept the rates 30 days to opt out. State-run Medicaid programs are being expanded in some states under the law. The program has long grappled with problems in patients' access to services because not all doctors are willing to accept the generally low reimbursements. Experts worry that a stratified system could emerge for the insured, where people who get health insurance through their jobs can go to a broad slate of doctors, while those newly covered in the exchanges get fewer choices. Depending on their plan, people may be able to see an out-of-network doctor and get some level of reimbursement. But many plans on the exchanges are HMO-style closed networks. "It is going to be very tough for consumers to have accurate information about which physicians they really have access to," said Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a Washington think tank. But Joanne Peters a Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman said, "there are now new patient protections that require qualified health plans to offer sufficient networks of providers." Under some contracts, doctors don't have to agree to the new rates—they are automatically enrolled in the new networks. Other contracts give doctors as many as 90 days to opt out. Also, some plans are still offering the same rates as before. How much leverage plans have to push down rates for physicians could depend in part on the number of consumers who sign up for coverage in the exchanges, which have gotten a slow start due in part to technical obstacles and a troubled rollout. If few people enroll in coverage, insurers may not need broad networks, but if enrollment soars, they may have to return to the negotiating table. Blue Shield of California sent doctors contract amendments allowing them to opt in to treat exchange patients earlier this year. The health plan asked doctors to accept fees up to 30% lower than their normal commercial rates, according to doctors and the insurer. "We said, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense for us," said Richard Thorp, an internist in Paradise, Calif., and president of the California Medical Association. Too few doctors agreed to the change in some mostly rural areas, so Blue Shield had to agree to continue usual rates for some doctors, said Steve Shivinsky, a spokesman. Meanwhile, community health centers, long accustomed to treating the uninsured, are ramping up. Lone Star Circle of Care, a federally funded health center in Austin, Texas, is adding 80,000 square feet of clinic space next year, said Tamarah Duperval-Brownlee, its chief medical officer, and is participating with all seven insurers serving its market. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/insurers-cut-doctors-fees-health-015500812.html Not used to taking yahoo news seriously, but I was checking my email and saw this story. Seems to coincide with rumor mills floating around the medical field. It's also true the medicaid and medicare cut reimbursements short quite often. When they do pay, its often late by several years in some cases. Again, perhaps this will be proven false. But I felt compelled to share. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Biometric weapons
|
|
I think the technology is meant to considerably reduce the chances of theft and traffic of weapons. You know, the types who still think their gloves box in the car as secure?  You guys are worried about your government? Scary  What it's meant to do, and what it does are two different things. Grandmother always said "the road to hell was paved with good intentions". As Conrad stated, these are easily by-passable. They are also very expensive. And, for those that use these firearms (police, or maybe military included) your dependability goes down as previously stated. (Dirt, grease, etc. can interrupt fingerprint scan for instance). So to sum it up; gun traffickers = uneffected cops/military/civilians = increase spending and decrease effectiveness Interesting article, terrible idea Interesting, this is all I hear from people who don't have answers to a very specific and problematic issue. Your guns are falling in the wrong hands because again, some are too stupid to realize that glove boxes are not a safe place to keep weapons. Again, Your weapons are falling in the wrong hands... no better suggestions? As someone who as tested technology for our military, 90% of these inventions have no practical field use. No action is better than the wrong type of action. Throwing gasoline on a burning house would be an "action", right? Yet, it would do little to save the house, or put out the fire. There is no simple or complete answer to the issue of guns falling in the wrong hands. Even if guns were all illegal and these devices were a requirement for all government issued weapons, it wouldn't make much of a difference. FYI my weapons are either within arms length of my person, or under double lock and key. Not in a glove box. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Biometric weapons
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Fri 11/22/13 08:37 AM
|
|
I think the technology is meant to considerably reduce the chances of theft and traffic of weapons. You know, the types who still think their gloves box in the car as secure? You guys are worried about your government? Scary What it's meant to do, and what it does are two different things. Grandmother always said "the road to hell was paved with good intentions". As Conrad stated, these are easily by-passable. They are also very expensive. And, for those that use these firearms (police, or maybe military included) your dependability goes down as previously stated. (Dirt, grease, etc. can interrupt fingerprint scan for instance). So to sum it up; gun traffickers = uneffected cops/military/civilians = increase spending and decrease effectiveness Interesting article, terrible idea |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow....just, wow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once a government is allowed to set a cap on ANYONES wages it sets a precedent for setting a cap on EVERYONES wages. Be careful what you wish for, your wages could be the next to be considered excessive by political elitist who know what's best and fair. It's kind of like a government determining what everyone's health insurance needs are and what you HAVE to buy because they, the political elitists, know what's best and fair for everyone!!! Valid point. Only problem is the government's already over regulating businesses. I was kind of thinking that the idea of caps in wages could replace almost every other regulation. In that case it could be beneficial. Perhaps you are right, there is too much room for uncle sam to just run with it and control everything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wish I knew more about the man and his treatment... 25% cure rate with any cancer (supposedly) and zero side effects. Sounds like a win-win.
Watched the video on him once. Claimed the FDA keeps bringing him to court and yank his license without actual charges. According to the video, the FDA is almost entirely funded with donations from Pharmaceutical companies. Not sure how true this all is, but I will definitely be doing some research on this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The other Idea about an unearned 2500Sfr Income hasn't even been formulated by the Legislature yet,it's another Brainfart! https://www.ch.ch/en/referendum/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland Ok, i heard this 12:1 issue being brought up before, right around the same time the unearned income was referenced. Again, I had not researched this particular topic beyond a light skimming. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's a good idea, no matter how you look at it... i have no clue as to whats "fair" to the CEO's, but what they are doing now is less than fair to us...(for them to make the money they are making, it comes from us, the consumers) Agreed. Many, not all, are hording instead of being fair. Many will get substantial raises while telling their employees the company is "in the red" and won't provide cost of living adjustments for years. It is important to not swing the pendulum too far though, as it will hurt anyone who wants to start new companies, discourage those who work hard at advancing, and shut down anyone who isn't a corporate giant. (Hence my 50:1 suggestion) Done poorly it could, and would, wreck any economy. The General Consensus here is,to keep Government out of micromanaging Issues like this! Shareholders are a much more effective way of doing that! They do, just not always. Sometimes shareholders merely emphasize the "bottom line" over making a good product for a fair price. That being said, businesses are over regulated, which needlessly drives prices up, and shuts down smaller local companies. Often regulations actually prevent the free market from keeping things in check. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't disagree with the notion of setting pay caps for CEO's as there as been a growing gap between the lowest paid employee and the highest for decades. In the 1920's the difference was supposedly about 25 times, in the 70's that grew to 50 times, in the 90's the gap grew to around 500 times. Granted i heard this from a lecture a few years ago, but i do see a trend. There are several mistakes the swiss are making though. First is 12:1 being a bit too extreme. Perhaps 25:1 or even 50:1 to justify 80-90 hour work weeks for years on end, for those who haven't been born into their position. I was also under the impression that this was linked to the notion of their government paying everyone $2000+ a month for nothing. If so this is a terrible idea on so many levels. Admittedly I haven't done enough research on the idea to actually come up with a definitive opinion, as school is consuming my life (hopefully not in vain). If I remember correctly,we already capped the Remuneration of CEOs in an earlier similar Vote!All that will happen is,that the Corporations leave for other European Countries,and all the SS-Taxes and Income-taxes will benefit them instead of Switzerland!  You are right. It is a balancing act. I think the extremism of this bill will either keep it from passing, or when it does your prediction will come true. I still agree with the heart of the idea, it's just being implemented poorly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it's a good idea, no matter how you look at it... i have no clue as to whats "fair" to the CEO's, but what they are doing now is less than fair to us...(for them to make the money they are making, it comes from us, the consumers) Agreed. Many, not all, are hording instead of being fair. Many will get substantial raises while telling their employees the company is "in the red" and won't provide cost of living adjustments for years. It is important to not swing the pendulum too far though, as it will hurt anyone who wants to start new companies, discourage those who work hard at advancing, and shut down anyone who isn't a corporate giant. (Hence my 50:1 suggestion) Done poorly it could, and would, wreck any economy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't disagree with the notion of setting pay caps for CEO's as there as been a growing gap between the lowest paid employee and the highest for decades. In the 1920's the difference was supposedly about 25 times, in the 70's that grew to 50 times, in the 90's the gap grew to around 500 times. Granted i heard this from a lecture a few years ago, but i do see a trend.
There are several mistakes the swiss are making though. First is 12:1 being a bit too extreme. Perhaps 25:1 or even 50:1 to justify 80-90 hour work weeks for years on end, for those who haven't been born into their position. I was also under the impression that this was linked to the notion of their government paying everyone $2000+ a month for nothing. If so this is a terrible idea on so many levels. Admittedly I haven't done enough research on the idea to actually come up with a definitive opinion, as school is consuming my life (hopefully not in vain). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Clint says it all
|
|
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." ~Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Fri 11/15/13 10:19 AM
|
|
only gun control law that will work if you are eligible to be president you must be armed freedom is not free so earn it ---- the armed forces protect overseas supposedly it is the citizens responsibility to protect it on the home front protect your freedoms from terrorist criminals and invasion forces Problem is the growing popularity of not wanting to earn things and not wanting responsibility. Independence is quite synonymous with "freedom" and it's becoming a 4 letter word as it REQUIRES responsibility. Carrying a firearm and learning to protect one's self is a strong act of independence, and therefore a huge responsibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the thread is not really about accomplishments just another 'attaboy' thread for the haters to pretend in,,, carry on,,,by all means   Haters? There you go again, using ad hominem against people because they are criticizing President Obama's policies. I started this thread so that President Obama's supporters could offer examples of positive things that President Obama has been responsible for. I wanted to add balance to the debates in this forum. As for the passage of the ACA, that isn't a good thing according to physicians. Here is an excerpt from a newspaper story about it: New York doctors are treating ObamaCare like the plague, a new survey reveals. A poll conducted by the New York State Medical Society finds that 44 percent of MDs said they are not participating in the nation’s new health-care plan... ... The survey invited doctors to anonymously share opinions about the new health care law, and many took time out of their busy days to vent. "Obama Care wants to start right away, but who see all these new patients???? Not me," e-mailed one doc. Another said, "I plan to retire if this disaster is implemented. This is a train wreck." "I refuse to participate in the exchange plans! I am completely opposed to this new law," said a third respondent. One doctor recycled the mantra used to attack addictions: "The solution is simple: Just say no." One physician was so disgusted, he threatened to taken only cash patients going forward. "I am seriously considering opting out of all insurance plans including Medicare because of [ObamaCare]." Some physicians said the pressure on insurance carriers to control costs is leading to rationed care. "OBAMACARE is a disaster. I have already seen denial of medication, denial of referrals," one doc said. And they worry that stingy payments for medical services offered by insurers could put some doctors out of business and force others into retirement. "Any doctor who accepts the exchange is just a bad businessman/woman. Pays terrible," argued one doctor. Said another MD, "Can't imagine any doctors would be willing to work for so little money? All doctors should boycott." Doctors complained they've gotten the shaft for years even before ObamaCare. "I get screwed from insurance companies already. I refuse to get screwed any longer," one doctor said. Others said they don't have enough information to make an informed choice. "This is a joke. We are flying blind," said one doctor. As someone who works in the medical field, and a future physician, I have to agree with the docs' statements above. At least half the under funding of healthcare institutions comes from government programs (medicare and medicaid) setting pay rates. Hospitals are now pinching pennies and you have HMO systems being so strictly upheld MD's are literally getting fired (I personally know 3) for spending more than their allotted 7-15 minutes per patient. i would agree on the government setting rates... everywhere i look out here (in Houston) they are building new hospital complexes, dialysis centers, emergency care centers and rebuilding the old ones... if hospitals are pinching pennies, it's because the ceo's and others on the board are making to much money and not putting it back into the hospital itself... the hospital/medical is making more money than the oil companies right now... Indeed, there lies another problem with greedy hospital administration. Staff is getting laid off left and right as medicare/medicaid owe maine's hospitals hundreds of millions still. Yet the CEO of CMMC still gets a $100,000 bonus last year, on top of cost of living raises on his 1.5 M salary. Note, that no medical staff member has received a raise of any type in years. The reason you see construction done on hospitals, however, is how the government sets up it's grant system. Similar to how states fund reconstruction projects, the gov usually gives 2 million for every million the hospital spends on construction. Not to mention there is a write-off potential. Unfortunately none of this helps the staff. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the thread is not really about accomplishments just another 'attaboy' thread for the haters to pretend in,,, carry on,,,by all means Haters? There you go again, using ad hominem against people because they are criticizing President Obama's policies. I started this thread so that President Obama's supporters could offer examples of positive things that President Obama has been responsible for. I wanted to add balance to the debates in this forum. As for the passage of the ACA, that isn't a good thing according to physicians. Here is an excerpt from a newspaper story about it: New York doctors are treating ObamaCare like the plague, a new survey reveals. A poll conducted by the New York State Medical Society finds that 44 percent of MDs said they are not participating in the nation’s new health-care plan... ... The survey invited doctors to anonymously share opinions about the new health care law, and many took time out of their busy days to vent. "Obama Care wants to start right away, but who see all these new patients???? Not me," e-mailed one doc. Another said, "I plan to retire if this disaster is implemented. This is a train wreck." "I refuse to participate in the exchange plans! I am completely opposed to this new law," said a third respondent. One doctor recycled the mantra used to attack addictions: "The solution is simple: Just say no." One physician was so disgusted, he threatened to taken only cash patients going forward. "I am seriously considering opting out of all insurance plans including Medicare because of [ObamaCare]." Some physicians said the pressure on insurance carriers to control costs is leading to rationed care. "OBAMACARE is a disaster. I have already seen denial of medication, denial of referrals," one doc said. And they worry that stingy payments for medical services offered by insurers could put some doctors out of business and force others into retirement. "Any doctor who accepts the exchange is just a bad businessman/woman. Pays terrible," argued one doctor. Said another MD, "Can't imagine any doctors would be willing to work for so little money? All doctors should boycott." Doctors complained they've gotten the shaft for years even before ObamaCare. "I get screwed from insurance companies already. I refuse to get screwed any longer," one doctor said. Others said they don't have enough information to make an informed choice. "This is a joke. We are flying blind," said one doctor. As someone who works in the medical field, and a future physician, I have to agree with the docs' statements above. At least half the under funding of healthcare institutions comes from government programs (medicare and medicaid) setting pay rates. Hospitals are now pinching pennies and you have HMO systems being so strictly upheld MD's are literally getting fired (I personally know 3) for spending more than their allotted 7-15 minutes per patient. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
i,d love to have Money..
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Sat 11/09/13 07:46 AM
|
|
Funny, I know people who make $1M + annually. They are far from having the perfect life. They have issues on the family front, and get just as stressed about most things in life just like the rest of us.
My grandfather (on my mother's side) has typically had very little. There were no birthday gifts growing up for my aunts and uncles, and my grandfather hand-built his own house while working 1 full time and 2 part time jobs. However, the family I come from is very close. In fact we all live on the same street pretty much (grandparents aunts, uncles, cousins after they've grown up). I see much more happiness and satisfaction from my grandparents than I do the family mentioned above. Point is, there is little to no correlation between volume of money and happiness. Perhaps happiness is an attitude that comes from within (which creates and attracts other happy people), thereby making it almost a personal choice rather than the ability to purchase a jet ski or luxurious vacation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
i,d love to have Money..
|
|
I honestly cant understand people who say money wouldn't make you happy..! how could you not be happy having enough money to go or to do anything you please..! jesus..!! id luv to be in that position.. you try wiping the smile from my face..!! Money would make anyone happy, for a short time. But you wouldn't be consistently happy as having all that cash would become the norm. Most of your old problems would return, and you would have a few different problems like, keeping your money. You'd be surprised how many people who come into large sums of money end up with less than they had prior to receiving it. That being said... It would be nice if money weren't an issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not idolizing an object (the flag) it's an pledge to the United States of America. You know the part where it says "and to the republic for which it stands" http://youtu.be/-6m5ZGvtGGE hand over heart, and pledging allegiance to n object, IS IDOLIZING THE OBJECT you know the part where it says 'I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG',, whie facing a flag..lol it doesn't require a trip to dc and facing the 'republic' An object can be given meaning. In the case of our flag it becomes a symbol. When you pledge allegiance to a symbol you are, in fact, pledging allegiance to the meaning behind the object, not the object itself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Told people a long time ago that this would happen the moment we left. Not saying leaving was a bad idea, just that it wouldn't be fluffy clouds and flowers.
When i was over there in 2004, a large number of insurgents we would capture on raids turned out to be Syrians and Iranians. Not something that the news ever mentioned. Oh what a tangled web we weave... |
|
|
|
|
Previous
