I agree, that would suck. Hence my concerns about fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid. They aren't bad, per se, but I think they could certainly be better. However, this death panel thing that Sam and others keeps bringing up seems to be the opposite. They seem to think that the big bad government is going to deny you care and send you off to die. That, I'm pointing out, is more of a private insurance gig. Government insurance has the opposite problem.
Judah On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Scott Stroz <boyz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It seems a lot of people think that if the government gets in to the > business of healthcare that there will be no limits on any care and > that Uncle Sam will just keep cutting checks. > > That would not be a good thing as it will bankrupt this country faster > than anything else we spend/spent money on. > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com> wrote: >> >> I thought we were talking about Death Panels. My point, however, is >> that government programs are routinely more generous in what they pay >> for the physician to do. In some cases that's good (covering important >> tests to determine what is wrong) and in some cases it is bad (more >> fraud and gaming of the Medicare/Medicaid system than I'd like). Since >> these "death panels" and the whole notion of a public option is a >> under the umbrella of government-run health insurance, I'm not seeing >> where your fear is being based. Private insurance is more likely to >> deny coverage for a procedure than public-run insurance. I personally >> think that is a double-edged sword. I want appropriate procedures to >> be easily green-lighted and reduce the red tape around insurance >> approval/payments. At the same time, I want fiscal accountability and >> to have a tight ship. >> >> Judah >> >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> We're talking Medicaid not Medicare. Medicare isn't available to women >>> under 40. >>> Five times the number of doctors will refuse new Medicaid patients >>> than they will private insurance patients. >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> But why would it be any different than it is now? Private insurers >>>> give a lot more grief to physicians than Medicare does. Which is a >>>> problem, really, there is a fair bit of billing fraud in the Medicare >>>> system that they are working to bring down. Many physicians may not >>>> like the reimbursement rates provided by Medicare but if anything >>>> Medicare should be faulted for being too liberal with the claims it >>>> accepts, not the other way around. Private insurance companies are the >>>> ones requiring pre-approval for everything under the sun and making >>>> doctors jump through hoops to show medical necessity before approving >>>> things. All available evidence points to it becoming easier to get >>>> treated under new regulations, not harder >>> >>> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:309762 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
