The more time passes, the more lies told about 'DeathCare' by Pelossini, Reid, and 'The UN' start to leak out ... and when people find out that they HAVE been lied to, they ain't gonna be happy. Not even the ones who thought possibly that they could have understood what they thought they might have maybe been getting changed and 'improved' in the 'DeathCare' bill ... perhaps. Once again, the 'True Believer' types will discover they've been 'tooled' ... but hey, they wanted it ... let's give it up for the 'True Believers' that created this load in our national diaper by voting these people into power ...

But, like Randy Newman said, "You can leave your hat on ... "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/11/AR2010061106066.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Health-care rules may force some to change coverage, leaked document suggests

By Associated Press | Saturday, June 12, 2010

President Obama said repeatedly during the health-care debate that people who like their current coverage would be able to keep it. But an early draft of an administration regulation estimates that many employers will be forced to change their health plans under the new law.

In just three years, a majority of workers -- 51 percent -- will be in plans subject to new federal requirements, according to midrange projections in the draft.

Plans that predate the health-care law are exempt from many, but not all, of its consumer protections. Types of changes could include offering preventive care without co-payments and instituting an appeals process for disputed claims that follows new federal guidelines. The law already requires all health plans to extend coverage to young-adult children until they turn 26.

"What we are getting here is a clear indication that most plans will have to change," said James Gelfand, health policy director for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "From an employer's point of view, that's a bad thing. These changes, whether or not they're good for consumers, are most certainly accompanied by a cost."

The Obama administration said the draft regulation is an early version undergoing revision, but the leaked document was drawing wide interest Friday.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said it showed that Obama's assurance that Americans would be able to keep existing plans was "a myth."

"Since its passage, Republican arguments against the bill have been repeatedly vindicated, even as the administration's many promises about the bill have been called into question again and again," McConnell said.

lol,, was he supposed to prevent insurance companies from changing,,,?

obviously,, if your COMPANY changes their coverage,, you wouldnt be keeping the SAME coverage,,,,,perhaps the President is wrong to figure Americans would use common sense

Hussein said he wouldn't touch medicare.

Just recently the coverage paid to the Doctors dropped.

Now, many aren't taking new patients.

They can't afford it.

A little secret. Most of those Doctors wrote off the deductible of patients who couldn't afford to pay it and accepted only what Medicare paid for the services.

Hussein is really fvkin' the elderly and kids.

odd,, just TODAY , OBama has been working to INCREASE the payment to doctors,,,,but keep trying

Nice try. Maybe next time.

He's workin' alright.

Workin' at supporting Israel. NOT!!!!
" " " building the fence.
" " " securin' the border.
" " " sending troops to El Paso to stop the overflow of violence.
" " " sending troops to make sure the illegals pass safely.

Seems like he's workin' at, awful hard.

Only problem is, he ain't gettin' nothin' done.

The amount and coverage reductions cause Doctors to quit taking new patients.

http://www.medequote.com/insurance/medicare.html

Doctors fleeing Medicare, Medicaid

By Carol M. Ostrom
Seattle Times staff reporter

On a recent visit to the Edmonds Family Medicine Clinic, Curtis Wiggins was shocked to find a flier announcing the clinic will no longer take new Medicare patients.

It made him so angry he started calling and writing his elected officials.

What's going to happen to retired and disabled people? demanded Wiggins, who is 63 and soon will be eligible for Medicare. "Why don't we put 'em in an incinerator and burn them up, if nobody's going to take care of them?"

The 26-doctor Edmonds facility is among clinics and practices around the state closing their doors to new patients insured by Medicare, a federal health-insurance program for retirees and disabled people.

Many clinics also are refusing to take new patients receiving Medicaid, a state-federal insurance plan for low-income residents.

Doctors and clinic managers say they're losing money on reimbursements from these public programs as their costs rise. They are no longer able to shift costs to private insurers, they say, and must limit Medicare and Medicaid patients in order to stay solvent.

Federal and state officials counter that Washington's doctors aren't any worse off than those in other states when the complex formulas governing these rates are decoded.

There is no definitive truth yet, and no statewide statistics on clinic closures. But local medical officials, pointing to an effective cut this year of more than 5 percent in Medicare reimbursements, say the anecdotal evidence points to a growing crisis, particularly outside the Seattle area.

Clinics respond


Here is a sampling of what some clinics around the Puget Sound area are doing in response to what they say are inadequate Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements:

• The Polyclinic: 85 doctors, about 25 of them in primary care. Most primary-care doctors are not accepting new Medicare patients, unless they're on Secure Horizons, a Medicare managed-care plan. All specialists and a few new primary-care doctors are taking new Medicare patients. All doctors are taking new Medicaid patients.

• Minor & James: 70 doctors, 22 of them primary care. Limiting, but not barring, new Medicaid patients. More cuts in Medicare reimbursement, said Lowell Doyle, administrator, will likely precipitate a discussion about barring or limiting new Medicare patients.

• Virginia Mason Medical Center: 400 doctors. Takes new Medicare patients, except at its Port Angeles Clinic. Not taking new Medicaid patients in primary-care practices.

• PacMed Clinics: 120 providers, including primary- and specialty-care doctors, nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Accepts new Medicare patients in primary-care practices but limits new Medicaid patients.

• Group Health Cooperative: About 1,200 doctors, mostly primary care and pediatric, around Puget Sound. Open to new Medicare patients in King and Pierce counties; limits in Skagit, Whatcom and Kitsap counties. No new Medicare patients in Snohomish County. New Medicaid patients accepted in King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish and Spokane counties.

Thurston County doctors

In Thurston County, not a single doctor will take new pediatric patients insured by Medicaid, says Dr. Doug Green, president of the Thurston-Mason County Medical Society.

A large Olympia clinic went bankrupt last year, and patients flooded the remaining doctors. As a result, many aren't taking any new patients, even those paying with cash, Green said. "It's quite frightening."

In Spokane, the largest clinics have all decided to stop taking new Medicare and Medicaid patients, said Jan Monaco, CEO of the Spokane County Medical Society.

Last week, Madrona Medical Group, the largest medical group in Whatcom County, with 50 primary- and specialty-care doctors, decided to bar new Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Many doctors say they think political pressure from angry Medicare and Medicaid patients is their only hope of persuading elected officials to change public insurance rates.

"Part of the reason doctors are closing (their doors) to Medicare is they can't think of a single solution," said Dr. Paul Buehrens, one of 22 physicians at Lakeshore Clinic in Kirkland, which stopped taking new Medicare patients last spring. "But part of the solution will be that Medicare patients will find themselves with nowhere to go and they'll start screaming."

Many practices began taking a hard look at their finances after the demise last spring of Memorial Clinic in Olympia, a 51-year-old multispecialty practice that at one time included about 90 doctors.

Then, last fall, Everett Family Practice Center, a 24-year-old practice once composed of 14 doctors, shut down. This year, a 19-year-old women's health-care practice in Everett dissolved.

"Let's face it, doctors are lousy businessmen," Buehrens said. "Any good business should have had the financial depth to analyze what they were doing, and see this coming. But medical groups run on a shoestring and they always have."

Lakeshore managers last year took a hard look at reimbursements vs. the cost of services, and what they found stunned them: Every patient visit reimbursed by Medicaid lost the clinic $25; every visit reimbursed by Medicare, $10.

"It was truly charity care. You could pay patients to go away and save money," Buehrens said.

Edmonds Family Medicine Clinic struggled with the same issue and came up with similar figures, said CEO Marcy Shimada.

On Jan. 1, after calculating the clinic was losing $10 per Medicare patient visit, the Edmonds clinic closed to new Medicare patients. It hadn't taken on new Medicaid patients for several years.

Both Edmonds and Lakeshore say they'll continue to see current patients.

Medicare and Medicaid facts


Medicare:

• Federal health-insurance program for people age 65 and older and those with severe disabilities.

• About 40 million people insured nationally, and 725,000 in Washington state, according to estimates by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

• Reimbursement: Formula is set in federal law, requiring congressional action. The formula looks at a number of factors, including the time it takes a doctor for the given visit or procedure, overhead costs such as office rent and labor, malpractice-insurance expenses and cost adjustments by locale.

Medicaid:

• A state-federal health-insurance program for low-income and disabled residents, including children.

• About 920,000 enrolled statewide as of January; about 434,000 of those are enrolled in a managed-care plan called Healthy Options.

• Medicaid is now about 17 percent of Washington state spending, and projected to increase by 11.6 percent a year between 2000 and 2003, according to a 2002 report by the Urban Institute.

• Reimbursement rates are set by the state Legislature and the Department of Social and Health Services.

But the decision has been hard on patients who are trying to find a doctor now.

"When people come to us, they've called two or three other offices. They're finding it harder and harder to find some place to go," Shimada said.

Some patients have begun lying to clinics, saying they're private pay when they're actually insured by Medicare, said Carol Stevens, CEO of Lakeshore Clinic.

The patients pay cash but then ask Medicare for reimbursement. But Lakeshore's doctors, because they are continuing to see existing Medicare patients, are barred by law from accepting cash from any Medicare patient, said Pam Negri, spokeswoman for the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

When Lakeshore found out about the deception, the clinic refused to see the patients in the future, Stevens said.

So what are patients covered by Medicare or Medicaid supposed to do if they move to an area where they can't find a doctor?

"Go somewhere else for care or move," Negri said

so are the complaints that he is not TRYING or not trying 'hard enough'?

Is it that he isnt getting things done or he isnt getting them done 'fast enough'?


seems like the qualifiers keep changing,,, I only stated that he is trying to increase the payments,,,which he is, and which contradicts the conclusion(based on medicare payments) that he is ***ing elderly or kids,,,

Well when you send troops to the borders because of the violence with orders to do nothing....That's getting nothing done.

Actually, it's so much simpler than that - HE's LYING. Nothing new there ...

where can I see these orders,, ,,from the seattle times three days ago

'The administration's plans appear to use Guard troops only in a supporting role, according to the military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the details were still being worked out. Some of the troops will be armed, but others will not.'

,,can we wait for the troops to arrive and have their role determined before jumping to conclusions?

Don't hold yer breath while you're waitin' to be seeing troops on th' border.

Remember, he didn't say when they'd be there. I predict 2016, if at all.

In a couple weeks, the libs will be claiming he never said he'd send 'em or Bush wouldn't let him do it.

How does he plan to do this voodoo magic? You must understand, msharmony, that no matter how sincere politicians sound, they can't make money out of nothing. The closest they can come to this is printing up cheap money, thus creating inflation and inflicting a lower quality of life on everyone who uses FRNs (dollars).

tell that to my doctor,, or my brother who is also a doctor,,,medicare (according to them) is their most reliable payer ,,,

We should start jumping the border into Mexico, you know, beat them to the punch and all.

There is an answer to the problem of private for-profit clincs and it has been addressed within the health bill.

States will be responsible for making sure nonprifit clinics are up and running. NOTE: this is just one of the many responsibilities each state will be take on.

This may be a good thing for our nonprofit sector becasue many of them will go under as State grants, which currently fund them, are diverted in support of all the 'required' measures of the new Health Care bill. As the nonprofits dissolve, a great number of people will find themselves being added to the high ranks of the unemployed. But if States follow their usual path, they will build their Health Care agencies from the nonprofit sector and at least some of the unemployeed will find new jobs.

On the other hand, this can be a really BAD thing especially now, when the unemployment rate is placing an unsatiable demand on the nonprofit sector for all kinds of human services, especially for the necessities.

The 'clinics' of the future will be nonprofit - it is the only solution that fits with the costs associated with the new HC bill.

Many hospitals are already working under nonprofit status and I expect many more will join the ranks. (my opinion) Considering the millions who will be added, routed to, or choose State associated medicaid or insurance exchanges. For profit hospitals (in the future) will compete heavily for premium insurance holders and those well off who can pay huge fees, some for profit hospitals will be caught between the competition for high paying customers and the nonprofit hospitals and they will lose the battle. Most likely the flow of those employees will divert to the nonprofit.

except, Mexico kind of sucks,,,,now if it were like Canada,,,,,,I may consider,,lol

I am sorry, that was a bit bigoted,, Mexico is a large country, I apologize if I offended anyone,,sincerely

When I have traveled to Mexico, however, I have not enjoyed it AT all,,the resort area is surrounded with mexicans who have nothing and need to beg tourists,,,thats depressing and a national shame in my opinion,and then theres the crime and corruption in the media (although I am totally aware media can be very biased).

I dont have the best impression, but I dont know all of Mexico,,,,,

All your base are belong to us.

Another 'issue' that was brought up has to do with poeple having a choice to maintain their health care options with employers or find alternative souces.

The OP suggests that is a myth for the following reason.



This has been taken completely out of context, as most of the OP was and is difficult to respond to because it assumes a position far to broad to address.

I will address only one.

The HC bill (as I have researched it) actually has a provision which in effect will force businesses (who fall within certain requirement/catagories) to bring pay standards up to a living wage level. This will be one of THOSE "new federal requirements" placed on 'Businesses'. Very simplified it amounts to the following.

Employers will be limited in how much of their insurance plan costs can be passed on to employees, even for family coverage - where today insurance is considered an 'employee' benefit and so family coverage can be passed on at 100% of cost, which is why so many children and spouses are uninsured.

But here is the rub - if an employee chooses to change from their employee plan (for any reason), AND they are not able to choose anything except medicaid, it means their wages are below what the Federal gov determines to be a living wage. The EMPLOYERS in this case will face a fine (PER EMPLOYEE)if that should occur. In a very large corporation that could be a real reason to adjust wages so that low income earners level out at least to a living wage.

Currently most state maintain a 'levels of poverty' which has not been update for decades and so employers of those states consider minimum wage a living wage.

This is not so of the Federal gov they update what they call living wage FAR more often than anyone considers minimum wage. (go figure!)

Anyway - I see this as a major benefit because big business makes it big by paying its employees as little as the law allows. So with the HC bill, IF businesses choose to offer insurance plans they will have to make sure all thier workers are making a living wage.

ONE BAD THING - Insurance offering is not mandatory, there is a way to opt out - just pay the fines and some major employers like ": AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar and Deere" are reviewing that possibility. In fact some econ people think it would be less expensive to pay the annual penalties than to offer insurance benefits - but whether the social conscience of those employers will win out is anyone's guess.

EDIT: The inability of some poeple to assess the quality of what they read(whether due to mental incapacities or laziness or blind hate) leads to an total lack of critical thinking and in this country we suffer from that inabiltiy in mass - and thus we have a new vocabulary word which the same people enjoy using - 'SHEEPLE'

That's beside the point. Medicare is only able to do this because they steal resources from taxpayers. Medicare could never handle such an absurd scheme if it were subject to free market forces. Did you know Medicare's hospital program went BROKE in 2008?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north740.html

Mexico has a public option for health care that even covers illegal citizens who happen to need a doc there.

Go figure.

most countries probably cover the illegal in some way or another when it comes to medical help