Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I going to disagree with your thought that being with BCBS Premera of Alaska is any help getting a doctor to see you. I have found 75% of the primary care doctors in Anchorage belong to clinics which have a policy of not taking Medicare patients. It's isn't just the lower reimbursement rate it's the greed that gets in the way. A $175 charge for a visit to the doctor which is reimbursed at about $40 means they can't live better than the rest of us by so far it's not funny. They seem to forget the aid they got in college from the Federal Government and the fact their internship was paid for by our taxes. What we need is some kind of law that means they pay many times higher in taxes on their extravagant income so they pay for their own subsidy. And don't come back with how much debt they have to take on to get their MD because over a lifetime their income is in the multi millions of dollars at decent rates for the service. They want it all: its called instant gratification.
I should have said that it "helps" to have a quality secondary. I guess it depends on where you are located - I'm not in Alaska, so obviously don't seek health care there. But, with BCBS as secondary to Medicare, my husband has not had a problem getting care from any doctor in the past 6 years, and he has 7 doctors that he sees on a regular basis (about 1-2 times every 3 months).
I don't think it is right for 75% of doctors in an area to refuse Medicare - it makes it very difficult for those that do accept Medicare to take all the needy patients. Obviously, some do not get care. And in a location such as Alaska, then it is doubly problematic as you can't just "drive somewhere else".
Since this is degenerating into a political issue I think we need to look at what is behind the political philosophy of both major parties. The Republicans have always been the party of money. If things existed in a perfect Republican world everyone would pay the same amount of taxes. That way the more you had the less you would pay in taxes and the more you'd have to invest in jobs so someone else worked for you. In a perfect Democratic world everyone would pay according to how much they had so the poorest person would pay the same percentage of their wealth as would the richest person. No; that's not Communism where everyone gets an equal amount from the public trough and contributes according to their ability. Somewhere in between are the Progressives who would try to get everyone into the same class where everyone was going to have the same chance at the same status. Blaming one side or the other is an exercise in futility. The American people are going to have to decide whether, as a Nation, we want cradle to grave care or whether an individual''s ability to accumulate sufficient wealth would give them more at the end of their life. The problem with that is most people start out with more or less at the beginning so the determinative factor in where they end is muddy at best. So health care is going to be rationed according to an individuals ability to pay modified by your health as you age. It's not an easy problem to solve and our present Congress isn't exactly the place to solve it because there are to many competing forces out there wanting a share of the golden goose.
I should have said that it "helps" to have a quality secondary. I guess it depends on where you are located - I'm not in Alaska, so obviously don't seek health care there. But, with BCBS as secondary to Medicare, my husband has not had a problem getting care from any doctor in the past 6 years, and he has 7 doctors that he sees on a regular basis (about 1-2 times every 3 months).
I don't think it is right for 75% of doctors in an area to refuse Medicare - it makes it very difficult for those that do accept Medicare to take all the needy patients. Obviously, some do not get care. And in a location such as Alaska, then it is doubly problematic as you can't just "drive somewhere else".
Very true. I know of some who have had to fly to Seattle for certain procedures.
A few months ago the one neighbor was telling me how she went to a podiatrist to have her toenails cut (she is a diabetic). He charged her $180 for this! She said the wait for him in the room was actually longer then it took him. He looked at her feet, said they look good, cut the toenails and told her "have a good day."
I honestly wonder if some doctors come up here for the lifestyle and could care less about their patients; but care only about the big bucks.
If things existed in a perfect Republican world everyone would pay the same amount of taxes. That way the more you had the less you would pay in taxes and the more you'd have to invest in jobs so someone else worked for you. In a perfect Democratic world everyone would pay according to how much they had so the poorest person would pay the same percentage of their wealth as would the richest person.
Do a little more research and get back to us on that one would you?
I'll give you a starting point..
Republicans = Tax is a dirty word
Democrats = "Tax the rich" is a rally cry
Google "republican vs democrat taxes"
if you take some time to read some of these documents you will find that the Republican party believes in less government and more personal choice and control. The Democratic party believes in more taxes more spending more government control.
These two ideologies can NEVER reconcile to bring a RESPONSIBLE solution to the current health care issues which is why I seriously doubt you will ever see a bipartisan health care bill.
Not that one is right and the other wrong.. Just the way it is..
medicaid payments have been raised for Alaska. thanks to Stevens but it is still pitiful low payments.
Tricare is in the same boat as those on Medicaid. I have however found a wonderful clinic ran by NP's that takes both. www.myhealthclinicak.com
I haven't seen anyone mention the SHINE or SHIP program in this thread....this program is for senior citizens and disabled people. It is specifically for assistance with insurance, medicare, Medicaid, and supplemental insurances for each. A really good SHINE/ SHIP program councilor will tell you which supplemental insurances are not paying their bills or difficult to deal with. Your insurance terms change every years so yearly visit this program and find out whether to select new secondary insurer or not. did some looking an it is called SHIP in Alaska.
[quote=Crossfire600;13116621]Do a little more research and get back to us on that one would you?
OK Crossfire--How about this? I don't have to do any research; the facts stand on their own merits. Your starting points fall because they are both fallacies. If tax is a dirty word to Republicans, then essentially you're saying 'if we had only Republicans there would be no taxes---Is that correct? I dare say that is a statement worthy of retraction. With no taxes we would have no government and even the staunchest Republican has never made such a statement. If by stating "less government and more personal choice and control", which is what is usually referred to as "State's Rights", are you telling us we should substitute State Government for Federal Government? I can't believe anyone would want that; the State of Alaska is a case in point for bad government. In my lifetime I saw the fallacy of "State's Rights" in the Deep South" which brought about the Brown v Board decision which cured the problem of state control of schools and who could go to which school. I surely hope we never visit there again. Alaska had much the same problem with Alaska Natives and I'm pleased to know that isn't here any longer. Your talking points are similar to the talking points used by the NRA in that they are derived from an ideology. There are Democrats and Republicans between which there isn't an iota of of difference in ideology and those are the ones we need to solve the problems we face today. The ideology of "NO" is neither Democrat nor Republican but rather the losers philosophy, since both have used it when they were out of office. I say a POX on both ideologies and ditch both of them. In the South they call what you are professing a "Yellow Dog (Democrat/Republican choose your label) and it means, to me, someone who can't compromise which is what politics is all about. Perhaps you need to research what you are espousing---The fact is it has never worked and never will.
Last edited by richelles; 03-02-2010 at 02:29 PM..
Do a little more research and get back to us on that one would you?
OK Crossfire--How about this? I don't have to do any research; the facts stand on their own merits. Your starting points fall because they are both fallacies. If tax is a dirty word to Republicans, then essentially you're saying 'if we had only Republicans there would be no taxes---Is that correct? I dare say that is a statement worthy of retraction. With no taxes we would have no government and even the staunchest Republican has never made such a statement.
Near as I can tell, everything above this line is totally BS. It isn't that no research is needed, it's obvious that you've alreadydone the research. That is why you do have facts that stand on their own. Regardless, Conservatives (which today mostly means Republicans) all say no taxes. They don't, however, say no to spending. That raises the national debt, which causes inflation, and we all pay for it... except those with non-earned income pay less because their assets inflate too, so the poor pay more! Of course the alternative to paying off the debt is to raise taxes, which Liberals are willing to do because the taxes can be targeted at the wealthy, and that is exactly why Conservatives dislike taxes.
Back to the line in the sand drawn above! Near as I can tell everything below the line is dead on correct.
Quote:
If by stating "less government and more personal choice and control", which is what is usually referred to as "State's Rights", are you telling us we should substitute State Government for Federal Government? I can't believe anyone would want that; the State of Alaska is a case in point for bad government. In my lifetime I saw the fallacy of "State's Rights" in the Deep South" which brought about the Brown v Board decision which cured the problem of state control of schools and who could go to which school. I surely hope we never visit there again. Alaska had much the same problem with Alaska Natives and I'm pleased to know that isn't here any longer. Your talking points are similar to the talking points used by the NRA in that they are derived from an ideology. There are Democrats and Republicans between which there isn't an iota of of difference in ideology and those are the ones we need to solve the problems we face today. The ideology of "NO" is neither Democrat nor Republican but rather the losers philosophy, since both have used it when they were out of office. I say a POX on both ideologies and ditch both of them. In the South they call what you are professing a "Yellow Dog (Democrat/Republican choose your label) and it means, to me, someone who can't compromise which is what politics is all about. Perhaps you need to research what you are espousing---The fact is it has never worked and never will.
The biggest problem I have with Republicans is this insistence on ideology. It can't be "socialist". It can't be "communist". It can't be "liberal". They don't seem to ever consider the most significant characteristic of a proposed solution: does it work? Instead they want sound bites; they want something that sounds simple enough even they can understand it. Most proposals so simple that average dumb people (e.g., average conservative Repubicans) think they understand, are too simple to work!
I am pretty sure that most doctors could reasonably prove that their maintaining a practice is more than the reimbursments provided, that's why many of them struggle working really long hours seeing not only office patients but also referrals in the hospitals. so enuf doctor bashing please, if you had a job like they do that ate your private time like termites you might think twice. also bear in mind that most doctors in Europe are well compensated and work much fewer hours in general than their counterparts here. (Soapbox off)
Many hospitals and physicians are quiting Medicare, it's becoming a losing proposition. I think other than losing money, having to deal with the government is also driving them away. I'm employed in the health care industry in No Fl. Mayo has quit in AZ, they will likely quit across the country with in the coming two years. It's not uncommon for a hospital or physician to wait up to a year for reimbursement.
I'm neither Republican or Democrat, however, I think the government creates a problem with anything they are involved with. Medicare and the Post Office are two very good examples. Both could be contracted to the private sector. It is said the government could realize as much as 20% savings if Medicare was controlled by the private sector.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
