Medicare cuts go into effect today

Post #322,227 by dmcarls 3/2/10 12:02:26 PM Reply	Medicare cuts go into effect today This 21% cut also affects TRICARE which is the version that reimburses the cost of treating elderly soldiers and military personnel. http://www.medicalne...ticles/180789.php "Starting today, doctors face a 21 percent cut in their reimbursements from Medicare based on a federal budget law that sets physican payments based on other economic factors." One doctor's take on this (long post explaining how doctors are reimbursed): http://thehappyhospi...h-is-it-time.html [...] "As part of the Congressional act in the late 1990's, our brilliant Congress decided to cap the total value of moneys paid to physicians based on inflation and population growth (a sort of GDP modifier). They called this the sustainable growth rate. But physicians were spending more money than population and inflation allowed. Why? It was a combination of increased technology, more CPT codes, new procedures, higher severity of illness and an older population living longer and requiring more intense care. " [more..] Physicians are getting frustrated: http://money.cnn.com...edicare_patients/ [...] "In the meantime, physicians are asking the AMA to prepare handouts they can give patients to prepare them for the worst-case scenario: getting dropped completely. And a new report on the AMA's Web site tells doctors how they can help their patients find other doctors if they decide to no longer accept Medicare. " Expense cutting, indeed.
Post #322,228 by Another Scott 3/2/10 12:17:48 PM Reply	No mention of Bunning's filibuster? http://tpmdc.talking...ors.php?ref=fpblg http://tpmdc.talking...-need.php?ref=fpb http://www.washingto...html?hpid=topnews :-/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #322,229 by boxley 3/2/10 12:20:50 PM Reply	no mention of how to pay for any of it either :-/ If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #322,230 by Another Scott 3/2/10 12:32:25 PM Reply	It's just a 30 day extension; part of a larger package.
Post #322,318 by Another Scott 3/3/10 8:26:18 PM Reply	Kevin Drum offers some guidance. http://motherjones.c...ing-rock-stimulus Tying a Rock to the Economy Â By Kevin Drum Wed Mar. 3, 2010 11:01 AM PST Jim Bunning's ostensible reason for blocking the extension of unemployment benefits was one of fiscal rectitude: he wanted the benefits paid for instead of added to the deficit. For some reason I haven't noticed anyone pointing out how dumb this is, but CBPP does the job today: [...] ;-) (See the original for embedded links.) Cheers, Scott.
Post #322,319 by boxley 3/3/10 8:47:22 PM Reply	question, and I dont have a link some repos wanted to use some of the UNSPENT stimulus money for this but the democrats demurred. Why is that? If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
Post #322,324 by Another Scott 3/3/10 9:34:18 PM Reply	Lots of arguments about those things. I haven't paid much attention to many Republican arguments these days because the ones I have heard have been nonsensical. Something to remember: All of the "stimulus" money adds to the deficit no matter what bucket it comes from. That's its purpose - to temporarily run a larger deficit to stimulate the economy to grow faster, and to help those who have been hurt by the downturn. There have been lots of arguments about what the TARP money should be used for, and how it should be "recycled" before being finally returned to the Treasury. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP The TARP will operate as a Ârevolving purchase facility.Â The Treasury will have a set spending limit, $250 billion at the start of the program, with which it will purchase the assets and then either sell them or hold the assets and collect the 'coupons'. The money received from sales and coupons will go back into the pool, facilitating the purchase of more assets. The initial $250 billion can be increased to $350 billion upon the PresidentÂs certification to Congress that such an increase is necessary.[3] The remaining $350 billion may be released to the Treasury upon a written report to Congress from the Treasury with details of its plan for the money. Congress then has 15 days to vote to disapprove the increase before the money will be automatically released.[2]. The first $350 billion was released on October 3, 2008, and Congress voted to approve the release of the second $350 billion on January 15, 2009. One way that TARP money is being spent is to support the "Making Homes Affordable" plan, which was implemented on March 4, 2009, using TARP money by the Department of Treasury. Because "at risk" mortgages are defined as "troubled assets" under TARP, the Treasury has the power to implement the plan. Generally, it provides refinancing for mortgages held by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Privately held mortgages will be eligible for other incentives, including a favorable loan modification for five years.[4] Personally, I think the TARP money should be used for the purposes that were listed in the law, or reasonable extensions that are related to its mission. Extending unemployment benefits, fixing physician payment rates, paying for government employees, etc., are far enough away from the financial purpose of TARP that it shouldn't be used. Money for those activities should come from a different bill. If TARP could be used to pay for those things, then why not use it to pay for MRAPs? If I had to guess, I'd say that that's the argument that the Democrats would use. Just a guess, though. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #322,242 by lincoln 3/2/10 1:49:57 PM Reply	Bunning the front man for Kyl Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., has put a hold on the extension bill, but one of the key reasons the measure is blocked is the effort of Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., to use it as a way of forcing a cut in the estate tax. Kyl is essentially leveraging the unemployed to get a deal on estate tax relief that would cost $138 billion over the next decade, according to estimates by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The estate tax has already been cut sharply, so the reduction Kyl is pushing along with Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., would affect the estates of fewer than three out of every 1,000 people who die, according to the Tax Policy Center. The proposal helps estates worth more than $7 million in the case of couples. I guess struggling millionaires deserve the same empathy we feel for those without a job. source: http://www.truthout....partisanship57270 "Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow

Welcome to IWETHEY!