Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[classicman]

The way they are being handled not the actual objectives.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

More on the Medicare Commissions which operate now and will receive a significantly new role in the Healthcare Reform Bills now before Congress.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...025055040.html

Oh Man...this opinionated writer used all the buzz word except "death panels" -- we have ObamaCare, government run, health care rationing, making your medical decisions for you.....blah blah blah.

Come on, Merc.....give us something new and original, that pretends, at least to some degree, to actually cite facts.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Come on, Merc.....give us something new and original, that pretends, at least to some degree, to actually cite facts.

Which parts do you think are not factual.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Which parts do you think are not factual.

The Independent Medicare Commission proposed in the Senate bill is charged with developing cost-containment recommendations for Medicare to curb the anticipated exploding growth with the baby boomers so that it remains sustainable.

That might include more comprehensive and coordinated research on the cost-effectiveness of various treatments as well as specific cost cutting measures to providers.

It will not establish clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment. It will not adversely impact essential medical services to seniors.

There is specific language in the bill:

The proposals (of the Commission) shall not include any recommendation to ration health care....or Medicare beneficiary premiums....or increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria....

Another scare tactic...like the death panels.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

The Independent Medicare Commission proposed in the Senate bill is charged with developing cost-containment recommendations for Medicare to curb the anticipated exploding growth with the baby boomers so that it remains sustainable.

That might include more comprehensive and coordinated research on the cost-effectiveness of various treatments as well as specific cost cutting measures to providers.

It will not establish clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment.

There is specific language in the bill:

The proposals (of the Commission) shall not include any recommendation to ration health care....or Medicare beneficiary premiums....or increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria....

Another scare tactic.

But Medicare already does this. Why do you think it is going to change. None of that language prevents them from doing what they already do. They do establish payments by procedure, which they low ball, and they dictate coverage by only paying for certain procedures in certain enviroments but not in others. And they dictate what is covered and what is not. Nothing will really change in that matter. They do it every single day. Only now thay are going to add more to the rolls. I don't think you are familiar with how billing works. What they hell do you think "developing cost-containment recommendations for Medicare" means?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

But Medicare already does this. Why do you think it is going to change. None of that language prevents them from doing what they already do. They do establish payments by procedure, which they low ball, and they dictate coverage by only paying for certain procedures in certain enviroments but not in others. And they dictate what is covered and what is not. Nothing will really change in that matter. They do it every single day. Only now thay are going to add more to the rolls. I don't think you are familiar with how billing works.

I agree. For the most part, it is nothing new...so why the new scare?

Why didnt the WSJ writer acknowledge that it is "nothing new" rather than characterize it as "ObamaCare rationing...government making health care decisions...."?

The biggest change will drastically cut payments to MA providers, who had agreed to hold costs to 5% of Medicare schedules and are now at 15+%.

IT might mean that Medicare wont continue to pay MA private providers to subsidize grandma's membership in a health club.

I agree that neither bill "fixes" the Medicare problem.....but they do address some of the waste and fraud...particularly to MA providers that have been overcharging for years.

On an entirely different level, we need long-term entitlement reform.....Social Security and Medicare and it wont be easy....but IMO, those issues should be handled separately.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I agree. For the most part, it is nothing new...so why the new scare?

Why didnt the WSJ writer acknowledge that it is "nothing new" rather than characterize it as "ObamaCare rationing...government making health care decisions...."?

The biggest change will drastically cut payments to MA providers, who had agreed to hold costs to 5% of Medicare schedules and are now at 15+%.

Oh I never read it as a "scare". If it is nothing new why are you trying to say it is not happening and will not happen in the future. It is rationing. We have had rationing of healthcare since the insurance industry was invented. So why are you saying it is not? As go Medicare payments so go many private insurance companies. And now the government will add millions of people the rolls.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

IT might mean that Medicare wont continue to pay MA private providers to subsidize grandma's membership in a health club.

Why choose one tiny aspect of Medicare Advantage? That is right out of the liberal talking points. Why don't you want to support preventive care and activities that keep seniors healthy?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Why choose one tiny aspect of Medicare Advantage? That is right out of the liberal talking points. Why don't you want to support preventive care and activities that keep seniors healthy?

I support preventive care...I dont support lining the pockets of MA providers with excessive profits. The savings is not tiny and other providers will fill the niche at lower costs.

I also support equity. Why should wealthier retirees get free or discounted gym memberships through MA while those might need it more are excluded because of more limited income.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I support preventive care...I dont support lining the pockets of MA providers with excessive profits. The savings is not tiny and other providers will fill the niche at lower costs.

I also support equity. Why should wealthier retirees get free gym memberships?

Who says they are wealthier? Where is the data that shows that seniors who use Medicare Advanatge to support health maintenance at a gym are all wealthy?

[TheMercenary]

BOHICA! Taxes are going to go up and the pass through of fees will be felt by the consumer.

The CBO may grab all the headlines in wonky conversations about the costs and effects of big health-care bills. But the Joint Committee on Taxation, another nonpartisan body, also plays a key role: Estimating how much revenue new taxes are likely to generate.

Last night, JCT put out this handy PDF estimating the effects of the new tax rules included in the Senate health-care bill. The document shows how many different sources the Senate bill would draw on to pay for increasing the number of Americans with health insurance.

We won’t repeat the whole list, but here’s how much revenue some of the provisions are estimated to generate over the next decade:

Tax on high-end health insurance plans: $149.1 billion
Capping flexible spending accounts at $2,500: $14.6 billion
Fees for drug makers: $22.2 billion
Fees for medical device makers: $19.3 billion
Fees for health insurance companies: $60.4 billion
Higher floor for deducting medical expenses: $15.2 billion
Higher payroll tax for top earners: $53.8 billion
Tax on cosmetic surgery: $5.8 billion

Additional 0.5% hospital insurance tax on wages
in excess of $200,000 ($250,000 joint)

40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of
$8,500/$23,000 indexed for inflation by CPI-U
plus 1% and increased thresholds for over age 55
retirees or certain high-risk professions; levied at
insurer level; employer aggregates and issues
information return for insurers indicating amount
subject to the excise tax; nondeductible; high 17
state transition relief

http://www.jct.gov/publications.html...rtdown&id=3635

[TheMercenary]

Reid has decided to raise the Medicare payroll tax on individuals making more than $106,800

And this whole tax on cosmetic surgery. Does this not bother anyone? Talk about a attacking a narrow group of people. Do they think that only rich people get cosmetic surgery? Anybody here ever have their teeth whitened? Is it a value statement about people who get cosmetic surgery? The effective date is 1 Jan 2010.

Page 2045

SEC. 9017. EXCISE TAX ON ELECTIVE COSMETIC MEDICAL PROCEDURES.

(a) IN GENERAL.-Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:

''CHAPTER 49-ELECTIVE COSMETIC MEDICAL PROCEDURES ''Sec. 5000B. Imposition of tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures.

''SEC. 5000B. IMPOSITION OF TAX ON ELECTIVE COSMETIC MEDICAL PROCEDURES.
''(a) IN GENERAL.-There is hereby imposed on any cosmetic surgery and medical procedure a tax equal to 5 percent of the amount paid for such procedure (determined without regard to this section), whether paid by insurance or otherwise.
''(b) COSMETIC SURGERY AND MEDICAL PROCEDURE.-For purposes of this section, the term 'cosmetic surgery and medical procedure' means any cosmetic surgery (as defined in section 213(d)(9)(B)) or other similar procedure which-
''(1) is performed by a licensed medical professional, and
''(2) is not necessary to ameliorate a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or disfiguring disease.
''(c) PAYMENT OF TAX.-
''(1) IN GENERAL.-The tax imposed by this section shall be paid by the individual on whom the procedure is performed.
''(2) COLLECTION.-Every person receiving a payment for procedures on which a tax is imposed under subsection (a) shall collect the amount of the
tax from the individual on whom the procedure is performed and remit such tax quarterly to the Secretary at such time and in such manner as provided
by the Secretary.
''(3) SECONDARY LIABILITY.-Where any tax imposed by subsection (a) is not paid at the time payments for cosmetic surgery and medical procedures are made, then to the extent that such tax is not collected, such tax shall be paid by the person who performs the procedure.''.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.-The table of chapters for subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by this Act, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 48 the following new item:
''CHAPTER 49-ELECTIVE COSMETIC MEDICAL PROCEDURES''.

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendments made by this section shall apply to procedures performed on or after January 1, 2010.

Statistics concerning cosmetic surgery:

http://www.cosmeticplasticsurgerysta...tatistics.html

[TheMercenary]

The Full Report from the CBO November 18, 2009 about the impact and details of the Senate Bill

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...r_11_18_09.pdf

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And this whole tax on cosmetic surgery. Does this not bother anyone? Talk about a attacking a narrow group of people. Do they think that only rich people get cosmetic surgery? Anybody here ever have their teeth whitened? Is it a value statement about people who get cosmetic surgery?

Nope, doesn't bother me. In-office teeth whitening cost: $650 per visit (on average) nationwide. 5% tax on that amount = $32.50.

It's just another luxury tax. It's true that it's not only rich people who get cosmetic surgery--which ought to make you happy, since you're always upset about the idea that rich people would be unfairly taxed more than others. You can't seem to reconcile whether you want everything to be fair for everyone, or for government to stop targeting us average middle-class folks. If you think there should be no taxes for anything, just come out and say it.