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.
Since it would likely result in the vast majority of people taking that option, why would Doctors not want to take the business?
Why do you think more doctors are refusing to take Medicare? It is not profitable.
If it's not profitable, increasing the volume of business won't help.
An increasing proportion of doctors are already not accepting Medicare patients, and the primary reason is low payment for services. A 2008 report by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel, said that 29 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one. In the 2008 HSC national survey, more than 20 percent of primary care doctors accepted no new Medicare patients (only 4.5 percent accepted no new privately insured patients) and about 40 percent of primary care doctors and 20 percent of specialists refused most new Medicare patients. Today, in some states, more than half of doctors already do not accept new Medicare patients.
Why do you think more doctors are refusing to take Medicare? It is not profitable.
If it's not profitable, increasing the volume of business won't help.
An increasing proportion of doctors are already not accepting Medicare patients, and the primary reason is low payment for services. A 2008 report by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel, said that 29 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one. In the 2008 HSC national survey, more than 20 percent of primary care doctors accepted no new Medicare patients (only 4.5 percent accepted no new privately insured patients) and about 40 percent of primary care doctors and 20 percent of specialists refused most new Medicare patients. Today, in some states, more than half of doctors already do not accept new Medicare patients.
Make medical school less expensive, or even free; Reform tort law and malpractice insurance; Increase the supply of GPs; Cut down on insurance administrative costs; And any number of other reforms... These steps will lower the pay Dr.s require to practice and make Medicare worth accepting.
Make medical school less expensive, or even free; Reform tort law and malpractice insurance; Increase the supply of GPs; Cut down on insurance administrative costs; And any number of other reforms... These steps will lower the pay Dr.s require to practice and make Medicare worth accepting.
....were it that simple.
The government is kicking the can down the road anticipating a 27% decrease in Medicare reimbursement that is ALREADY too low for doctors to accept. Makes a lot of sense to cut a program that is already in trouble with physicians.
It's not solely GPs. Read the link. Specialists also are not accepting Medicare.
Either the physicians are wrong, or the government is wrong. Either way, the senior patients are caught in the middle with no one to represent their interests except the AMA (which represents only a small percentage of doctors) or the AARP who backed Obamacare,...which is nothing but a Medicare clone.
The government is kicking the can down the road anticipating a 27% decrease in Medicare reimbursement that is ALREADY too low for doctors to accept. Makes a lot of sense to cut a program that is already in trouble with physicians.
It's not solely GPs. Read the link. Specialists also are not accepting Medicare.
Either the physicians are wrong, or the government is wrong. Either way, the senior patients are caught in the middle with no one to represent their interests except the AMA (which represents only a small percentage of doctors) or the AARP who backed Obamacare,...which is nothing but a Medicare clone.
I realize that was a very simplified take on the issues. But some of what needs to be done is not just reforming government programs like Medicare, but also doing something about the artificially high barriers of entry to become a doctor and the ridiculous cost of malpractice insurance and administration. A doctor wouldn't have to charge what they do if (s)he didn't have hundreds of thousands in student loans to repay, $100,000 of insurance premiums and a staff of three just to handle the various insurance forms.
This is a question I have been wondering about for some time now - I realize that Medicare was initiated by Democrats, but for the past couple of decades the segment which benefits the most from it (seniors/elders) have been voting Republican by heavy margins.
I can't figure out what Democrats gain by continuing to be the "protectors" of Medicare - surely there is no political gain as they continue to lose the senior vote by heavy margins. Why not just let the drastic Paul Ryan modifications take place for Medicare and let the GOP take responsibility for one of its main voting base?
Am I missing something here?
Translation: We should screw over a large portion of our population because they tend to vote for the other party. Dang dude, are you really that partisan?
Reality: The seniors would WRECK the democratic party. You'd see a republican house-senate-presidency for years if you did this.
The government is kicking the can down the road anticipating a 27% decrease in Medicare reimbursement that is ALREADY too low for doctors to accept. Makes a lot of sense to cut a program that is already in trouble with physicians.
It's not solely GPs. Read the link. Specialists also are not accepting Medicare.
Either the physicians are wrong, or the government is wrong. Either way, the senior patients are caught in the middle with no one to represent their interests except the AMA (which represents only a small percentage of doctors) or the AARP who backed Obamacare,...which is nothing but a Medicare clone.
By reducing the reimbursement, the government is setting itself up to blame the "greedy doctors" and "insurance companies" blah blah blah for the problem.
It's a benefits cut that someone else is going to have to communicate.
They do this ALL the time with insurance, I remember when Nevada and Georgia (among other states) essentialy froze the rates insurers could charge for OBGYN insurance and in the face of rampant jury verdicts and piles of lawsuits the insurers stopped selling insurance.
People had to go to OTHER STATES to see doctors and give birth....and of course the politicians blamed everyone but themselves.
Translation: We should screw over a large portion of our population because they tend to vote for the other party. Dang dude, are you really that partisan?
So you admit that ceding control of Medicare to the GOP = screwing over seniors ?
We should let Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Health Care Act (Aka ObamaCare) for Universal Health Care.
Medicare is the closest thing we have to Universal Healthcare. Why not make Medicare Universal Health Care, provided Congress allows Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices and comparative- effectiveness reviews of medications.?
The U.S. pays more for the same meds than anywhere else in the world because Big Pharm owns Congress.
Despite the naysayers, all one has to do is drive in Florida and notice the medical center billboards targeting Medicare patients. If Medicare was such a loss, why the ads to attract new business?
Medicare is the closest thing we have to Universal Healthcare. Why not make Medicare Universal Health Care, provided Congress allows Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices and comparative- effectiveness reviews of medications.?
The U.S. pays more for the same meds than anywhere else in the world because Big Pharm owns Congress.
Despite the naysayers, all one has to do is drive in Florida and notice the medical center billboards targeting Medicare patients. If Medicare was such a loss, why the ads to attract new business?
Or make a streamlined and reformed Medicare the public option available to all adults? Let it provide basic coverage and allow private insurers to provide cadillac plans and/or a competitive basic coverage.
By reducing the reimbursement, the government is setting itself up to blame the "greedy doctors" and "insurance companies" blah blah blah for the problem.
It's a benefits cut that someone else is going to have to communicate.
They do this ALL the time with insurance, I remember when Nevada and Georgia (among other states) essentialy froze the rates insurers could charge for OBGYN insurance and in the face of rampant jury verdicts and piles of lawsuits the insurers stopped selling insurance.
People had to go to OTHER STATES to see doctors and give birth....and of course the politicians blamed everyone but themselves.
It's costly and redundant to have 50 different politically motivated and appointed insurance commissions and laws. Cancer, heart disease and child birth are the same regardless of state.
Much of the opposition to Obama Care is protection of state insurance commissions, the source of substantial direct and indirect super pac political contributions and rewards.
There are 1300 different health care insurers in the U.S., each with different " arrangements" with certain health care providers. It's insanity and entirely motivated by politics.
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.
Dang dude, are you really that partisan? 
