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.
If doctors are merely "surviving", what about nurses, secretaries, sales clerks, cable guys, teachers etc, etc, etc? No sympathy for the latter.
Doctors have done very, very well in this country, perhaps too well, and are now "spoiled" even though they will continue to do very well compared to most American workers. If they are not practicing, at least in part, for altruistic reasons, then they should try to merely "survive" in another profession. Surely they have ample income to provide a very nice life style for themselves and their families but it is never "enough".
I could be wrong but the math involved with not taking Medicare patients doesn't add up since they are a huge block of the population of medical customers.
Also, doctors are permitted to charge a certain amount above Medicare assignment, I think around 115% of Medicare reimbursement. And they will do it. The patient or the patient's insurance supplement, such as Plan F, will cover these allowed excess charges.
There are doctors who make a tremendous amount of money,...but those are normally specialists. Apparently you are ignorant to the fact that primary care physicians are the quarterbacks that feed the specialists,....and THESE physicians earn the least, and are the ones whose livlihood are in jeopardy.
Regarding your statement,..."I could be wrong but the math involved with not taking Medicare patients doesn't add up since they are a huge block of the population of medical customers." If that were true, then why would primary care physicians limit the number of Medicare patients they wish to see? By your statement, if you are losing money seeing Medicare patients,....you just need to see MORE OF THEM.
Maybe this is a regional issue, but most physicians in my area either belong to a small group, or have their own private practices. In either situation, they employ a lot of people. The only up side for physicians dealing with Medicare is the fact that the physician knows exactly what the government will pay, because the government has already fixed the price.
Who said anything about free? The Medicare Advantage plans have. much lower or no premium at all and include part D but, they have co-pays and the hospital co-pays can up if you're in hospital often...although there are limits for each stay as well an annual limit (out-of-pocket maximums).
There are some c-d posters who frequently insinuate that Medicare is tantamount to welfare.
Regarding Medicare Advantage plans: For most of my working years I was forced to participate in managed health plans that restricted my choice of doctors. Fortunately, during those years I rarely needed medical care, so the lack of choice was not a big deal. Now that I am older and more likely to need regular medical care, I want to be able to see the doctor(s) of MY choice, which is not possible with Advantage plans.
Medicare to cut over 27% reimbursement to physicians on January 1, 2012. How many doctors will simply refuse to accept Medicare patients?
Medicare's reimbursement is already miserable, and now it is to be cut even lower. How many people could afford to take a 27% reduction in a major source of income without closing their doors?
Medicare to cut over 27% reimbursement to physicians on January 1, 2012. How many doctors will simply refuse to accept Medicare patients?
Medicare's reimbursement is already miserable, and now it is to be cut even lower. How many people could afford to take a 27% reduction in a major source of income without closing their doors?
Because there are many like me who ask the very same question, and if you ever want our support for your drug-induced hallucinogenic fantasy, you are going to have to answer the question.
And because you're delusional enough to think I am the one complaining about cuts to Medicare?
Do you also happen to believe that Medicare needs no limits, when it comes to spending? That all is fine today, and let the costs be what they ought to be tomorrow?
You can't buy private insurance with minimal coverage, i.e. emergency and catastrophic coverage only. States mandate that insurance companies have to cover everything under the sun which the insurance companies most likely endorse because of the higher premiums. Need a pap smear? You're covered even if you're male. You have both a limited choice of who you can purchase insurance from and what products you can buy, it should come as no surprise the rates are through the roof.
These high deductible policies are basically "catastrophic" coverage, regardless of what specific items they cover, because you pay cash for everything up to the deductible which can be up to 5K per year. The premiums are less, but your out of pocket is more. So these policies only kick in when you are entering some heavy, "catastrophic" expenses.
"A high deductible health insurance plan allows you to save money on your premiums while taking the responsibility of covering minor or routine out-of-pocket medical expenses if they come up. Plus, you have the protection of comprehensive coverage in case of serious illness or injury. This is one of the reasons people call these types of plans "catastrophic health insurance".
I agree that an even lower premium with available "menu choices" would be nice, but the wonderful "free market insurance" people offer only what they offer and do have to work under mandates and regulations (probably a good thing all in all).
In some ways this is is a semantic "argument" only- since the above described policies only kick in when expenses become "catastrophic". Some may not care for the label, but in fact, regardless of what they are called, the policy holder pays out of pocket for routine care up to 2K- 5K per regardless of what services are covered.
This seems to be what many people prefer- to take personal responsibility for medical care, but with a "cap", so that when expenses become "catastrophic", they have some assistance with covering them.
These high deductible policies are basically "catastrophic" coverage, regardless of what specific items they cover, because you pay cash for everything up to the deductible which can be up to 5K per year. The premiums are less, but your out of pocket is more. So these policies only kick in when you are entering some heavy, "catastrophic" expenses.
"A high deductible health insurance plan allows you to save money on your premiums while taking the responsibility of covering minor or routine out-of-pocket medical expenses if they come up. Plus, you have the protection of comprehensive coverage in case of serious illness or injury. This is one of the reasons people call these types of plans "catastrophic health insurance".
I agree that an even lower premium with available "menu choices" would be nice, but the wonderful "free market insurance" people offer only what they offer and do have to work under mandates and regulations (probably a good thing all in all).
In some ways this is is a semantic "argument" only- since the above described policies only kick in when expenses become "catastrophic". Some may not care for the label, but in fact, regardless of what they are called, the policy holder pays out of pocket for routine care up to 2K- 5K per regardless of what services are covered.
This seems to be what many people prefer- to take personal responsibility for medical care, but with a "cap", so that when expenses become "catastrophic", they have some assistance with covering them.
Yeah, but.... Obamacare mandates that routine and preventive care be provided by ALL insurance policies without deductible or copay. One no longer has the choice of covering these items cash out of pocket, while relying on a high-deductible plan to cover catastrophes.
ah, so now you are a physician in private practice?... ok
Will love to see a GOP candidate try to sell this plan in South Florida lmfao....
Yes- They are in a pickle. We, fortunately, are not, and do not need medicare patients in order to survive. In fact, if we saw no medicare patients, we would be much better off financially. "Rationing" medicare patient slots will happen and we will be the better for it. We cannot afford to be cut further.
Medicare to cut over 27% reimbursement to physicians on January 1, 2012. How many doctors will simply refuse to accept Medicare patients?
Medicare's reimbursement is already miserable, and now it is to be cut even lower. How many people could afford to take a 27% reduction in a major source of income without closing their doors?
1. Some day you will be an old geezer if you are lucky.
2. ObamaCare will apply the same rules to all of use eventually.
Welcome to government health care.
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.
