Posted by Tina
Now that the Obama administration and the Democrats have federalized our healthcare system can we expect instances of partisan cronyism and fraud to increase? That was the first thing that came to mind for me as I read about the Florida doctors, an opthalmologist and a cardiologist, who were rewarded with unusually large sums of Medicare reimbursement…and who also donated heavily to Democrats:
…Dr. Salomon E. Melgen, 59, an ophthalmologist from North Palm Beach, Fla., who received $21 million in Medicare reimbursements in 2012 alone. The doctor billed a bulk of his reimbursements for Lucentis, a medication used to treat macular degeneration made by a company that pays generous rebates to its doctors.
Dr. Melgen’s firm donated more than $700,000 to Majority PAC, a super PAC run by former aides to the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada. The super PAC then spent $600,000 to help re-elect Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, who is a close friend of Dr. Melgen’s. Last year, Mr. Menendez himself became a target of investigation after the senator intervened on behalf of Dr. Melgen with federal officials and took flights on his private jet.
Another physician, Dr. Asad Qamar, an interventional cardiologist in Ocala, Fla., has sent at least $250,000 in donations over the last decade to the political campaigns of President Obama and other prominent Democrats; he has become the target of scrutiny related to cardiovascular treatment centers he runs in Central Florida.
Dr. Qamar was paid more than $18 million in 2012, making him and Dr. Melgen by far the largest payment recipients nationwide, according to the data. A pathologist from New Jersey received the third largest Medicare reimbursement, $12.6 million.
This is one of the many reasons that the federal government should be downsized. Limited government leaves little opportunity for corrupt politicians to manipulate and corruptly use the system for their own ambitions.
Good News, the Republican controlled House voted today to cut Medicare. You may get your wish.
Jim, not to worry, it’s only a rough draft, a non-biding proposal only at this point. They are looking to balance the budget, that’s all and whole lot of things could go into that. Medicare would be one of the last things to be cut, if ever. WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans are marching ahead with an election-year budget promising to balance the government’s books with wide-ranging cuts in programs like food stamps and government-paid health care for the poor and working class despite the knowledge that they could be checkmated by Senate Democrats and President Barack Obama’s veto pen.
The plan being considered Thursday is a nonbinding framework aimed more at engaging GOP voters than rival Democrats. It paints a picture of what Republicans would try to do if they claim the Senate this fall and the White House in 2016.
Medicare is safe Jim.
Tina: “Now that the Obama administration and the Democrats have federalized our healthcare system”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/
Never forget, Jim, cutting Medicare is a necessity for balancing our budget when Paul Ryan does it, even when it means cutting services to seniors and raising the eligibility age. But cutting waste from Medicare without doing sacrificing care is evil and socialistic when Barack Obama does it.
Keep your government hands off my Medicare!
Everyone should remember what a “cut” means in budget speak. A cut means that the planned budget for Medicare will increase by 2% instead of 5%.
So, they aren’t really cutting spending for Medicare at all…they are just not increasing it by as much.
As for Obama and the ACA, it’s the bad penny that just keeps turning up:
Now for all of those working in the field, what do you suppose those companies will have to do if they manage to stay in business? I’d say they will cut staff, cut the hours for staff, or try to squeeze more patients into the current hours, placing stress on workers and giving patients inferior quality of care.
The problem with “evil socialist” solutions is that they don’t make sense…they promise something and then don’t fund it, as the example above illustrates.
This isn’t waste cutting.
The thing that makes this law lots of fun for those who must provide care as well as those who must provide insurance is that the regulations can change ay time the HHS secretary takes a whim. The uncertainty and the chaos makes it very hard for these businesses and care providers to plan their own budgets.
@ #3 Chris.
I take exception to some of the assertions made by Politico to prove the ACA is not a “government takeover”…a term I did not use.
Politico: “Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.”
We won’t know whether this is true or not until next year. Many small businesses have already signaled that they will not continue to cover their employees. Also can we really call it private insurance when they all have to offer the same plans? It isn’t that we have choices; it’s that we will fit into a prescribed set and our premium is determined by the set into which we fit. That’s not the free market and it is a move toward federalizing the healthcare industry.
Politico: “more people will get private health coverage”
So far the majority of new sign ups on the exchange have qualified for medicaid.
Politico: “The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.”
Bologna! The credits are given with tax dollars (or debt). the private market has been compromised. Now this may be the only way to do it but lets not pretend we haven’t expanded federal management and control.
Politico does acknowledge the truth: “It’s true that the law does significantly increase government regulation of health insurers.”
But even here they are fudging. When the government decides what the policies can offer and all policies are the same that isn’t the free market..it is federal control of the insurance, and therefore the healthcare, of any citizen who participates.
The truth is we are all going to have to face the music. The problem that we created back in 1965 when Medicare was created is the debt that is created when government gets involved in trying to supply coverage for care. Not only has it driven medical and insurance costs higher, FICA taxes higher, and the debt higher it is well known that can’t be sustained for younger workers. Obamacare makes the consequences of this error even worse.
Republicans are attempting to 1. Speak honestly to the people about the problem and possible solutions, and 2. Make changes that will not cause shock waves through the industry, that will use market principles to bring costs down, and will continue to provide a safety net for the truly needy while asking wealthier citizens to pay a bit more. Hopefully the citizens will see the wisdom in doing what must be done through careful, targeted planning and execution. I’d take that approach over promising the moon and delivering chaos any day of the week.
Tina, quoting Businessweek: “The rate Medicare pays them is scheduled to drop 14 percent over the next four years, the maximum reduction allowed under the Affordable Care Act.”
Tina, I’d like you to re-read that sentence a few more times until you can figure out what it means. I’ll wait. The author of the Businessweek article apparently didn’t understand it either.
Got it yet? It says that this is the MAXIMUM reduction allowed under the ACA. Meaning that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services might have lowered payments even further, if not for the limit set by the ACA. So you are blaming the ACA for cutting Medicare payments by citing the fact that the ACA sets a maximum limit for Medicare cuts.
Do you understand why that doesn’t make any sense?
“I take exception to some of the assertions made by Politico”
I take exception to you not knowing the difference between Politico and Politifact.
“to prove the ACA is not a “government takeover”…a term I did not use.”
You said they “federalized our healthcare system,” which has the same meaning, and is just as much of a lie.
“Politico:”
Politifact.
“Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.”
Tina: “We won’t know whether this is true or not until next year.”
Ridiculous. Only a doomsday prophet would think the statement you quoted is in any way uncertain. I guess you could say that we won’t know whether this is true or not until next year, in the same way we won’t know if white men will still be allowed to vote until next year. But it’s pretty likely.
“Many small businesses have already signaled that they will not continue to cover their employees.”
Ooh, your favorite number: many! The problem with that is that it’s not a real number, can’t be objectively measured, and has no statistical significance.
Facts matter more in this debate than anecdotes. I know that me pointing this out bothers you, but that’s only because the facts are not on your side.
“Also can we really call it private insurance when they all have to offer the same plans?”
Look, I don’t believe for a moment that you don’t know the difference between all plans have a required minimum standard and all of them being “the same plans.” To illustrate this difference, think of the fact that all cars sold in America have to have a minimum number of required safety features, yet no rational person would argue that this means that all carmakers who do business in America have to offer the same cars.
It’s really a shame that for your arguments to work, you have to 1) pretend to be a lot stupider than you really are, and 2) hope that the people you’re talking to are either actually that stupid, or willing to buy into the pretense for their cause. That would indicate that your arguments are not worth making.
“Politico:”
P-O-L-I-T-I-F-A-C-T.
“more people will get private health coverage”
“So far the majority of new sign ups on the exchange have qualified for medicaid.”
Ugh, is your reading comprehension really that terrible? Politifact did not say that “more people will get private health coverage than government-run coverage.” They said that “more people will get private health coverage.” Do you really not understand the difference between those two statements?
“Politico does acknowledge the truth:”
*headdesk*
“It’s true that the law does significantly increase government regulation of health insurers.”
“But even here they are fudging. When the government decides what the policies can offer and all policies are the same”
Again, all policies are NOT the same, any more than all cars currently sold in America are the same.
“that isn’t the free market..it is federal control of the insurance, and therefore the healthcare, of any citizen who participates.”
Well, sure, in the same way that we currently have federal control of all food in America. After all, the government sets minimum standards for food safety that all businesses who deal with food must comply with.
But no one is out there arguing that there has been a “government takeover” of food, or that we have “federalized the food industry.” Because those terms have a certain meaning in the minds of most Americans, and they mean a lot more than what has happened here. Republicans know that. You know that this phrase sounds scary to Americans, and that the phrase is meant to blow things out of proportion. That’s you entire goal.
“The truth is we are all going to have to face the music. The problem that we created back in 1965 when Medicare was created”
*falls asleep*
“Republicans are attempting to 1. Speak honestly to the people about the problem”
Ha! Tina “Death Panels” Grazier is going to pretend that her and her party are “speaking honestly?” You’ve never met a lie about this law you didn’t like, as long as it served your narrative.
“…and will continue to provide a safety net for the truly needy while asking wealthier citizens to pay a bit more.”
Whoa, slow down there, Comrade. Why should the wealthy pay a bit more? Aren’t they already paying enough? Are you now a soldier in the Progressive Krystallnacht? Progressive Krystallnacht?
Post Scripts: “It paints a picture of what Republicans would try to do if they claim the Senate this fall and the White House in 2016.
Medicare is safe Jim.”
If the Republicans control the Senate and the White House, Medicare is NOT safe. They have already cut Food Stamp benefits that millions of seniors rely on, can Medicare and Social Security be far behind?
Jim the Democrats ran against Republicans at the end of the Bush term based on the massive debt they said he racked up and the expansion of Medicare through his Rx drug program. Then they promptly spent the next six years pushing just such a program and racking up twice the debt.
When Nancy Pelosi took over the House at the end of Bush’s term the debt jumped from 6.3% to 15.9%. Under her budget spending and the debt both rose and they used that fact to hammer Republicans and win support.
Obama won…Democrats won…and under President Obama and the Democrats the debt has risen from 9.6 trillion to 17.5 trillion. (I submit part of this debt is due to the fact that the President and Harry Reid have refused to do what is necessary to get people working and earning money again.)
Medicare and SS are two of the largest budget items. (MC 799 billion/SS 823 billion) We know these programs are adding to the debt and cannot be sustained for future generations. It will be particularly difficult when interest rates start to rise. Right now our government must pay 2.6 trillion in interest on the debt. Imagine what that figure will be as the interest rate rises.
The Republican vision is to protect those who have or will soon retire while making the programs sustainable for future generations. Their vision is to bring the debt down while meeting our obligations. They have ideas to accomplish this goal without harming those most in need. A growing economy and a broad base of taxpayers (Because Americans are working again) will help meet the goal but the rise in the RATE of spending must slow down.
I think after seeing the failings of the current approach to our budget problems their ideas should at least be honestly considered. The market principles that were placed in the Rx program under Bush and the Republicans has come in under budget rather than adding to the debt as MC and SS do. Imagine if some of the same principles, and perhaps a few others were incorporated into Medicare.
We have to find smarter ways to use the money that Americans pay in taxes so that more of it actually helps those we intend to help. 2.6 trillion in interest is a huge amount of money that isn’t working to help anyone who needs it.
Democrats love to say Republicans will “gut” programs but never has anything even close to that happened under Republican administrations or under Republican control of House and Senate.
As I wrote above spending on food stamps and medicare have not been cut…the rate of increase in spending has been pulled back.
If Republicans are elected in November, and if the president cares enough about his legacy to cooperate with them as Clinton did, the food stamp program will drop like a rock for lack of need as our citizens will once again be able to find a JOB!
Republicans are mean and nasty monsters only in the eyes of radical progressives that want total control over all of our lives.
Apologies to Politifact for my error in referring to them as politico.
President Obama appearing on 60 Minutes in October 2012:
PolicyMic responds siting three fact checkers:
Yes…an honest discussion IS something we all need in Washington DC.
Follow the link above to read the reasons that the Presidents claims are simply not true.
Tina writes” yes…an honest discussion IS something we all need in Washington DC” Agreed!
We could use a bit more here from contributers with different opinions. What good does it do to spin words and try to make a point based on that obvious misdirection by replacing words from a previous poster to try and make a point or make it seem like the other person is merely misinformed. It serves no real meaningful reason at all other than to further a divided country for what? a ideology based majority without real balanced representation.
“… other than to further a divided country for what? a ideology based majority without real balanced representation.”
Yes, but I have noticed, down through the years, that you don’t seem to mind so much if it’s your ideology in the majority … heh, heh, heh.
The earth does not tremble, much, … and the sky will not fall, and the ACA will be tweaked.
I will say this: if you thought you were going to get rich in nursing home stock … I would reconsider.