-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Drs. dropping Medicare patients like flies
- Thread starter Mango
- Start date
Beach Runner
beats on hood
That's what I said when she ran out of samples. It's on the insurance company's non-preferred list. You'd think they would put all bc on their preferred drug list because a pregnancy would cost them a lot more money than a few pills.
scooterbug44
SoWal Expert
BR, I think you will find that the doc gives your daughter free samples because they get them from the drug reps (among many other things) to promote it.
I think you will also find that pregnancy is not covered by her insurance either and that the same pills as a generic cost $9 a month from the Target pharmacy. :angry:
Question - considering that at 65 EVERYONE gets medical care subsidized by the government (regardless of their ability to pay) and it is one of the major issues fueling our deficit, what is so wrong with reducing payments when the cost of living goes down?
Everyone complains about how much money we spend - then complains even louder when any attempt is made to cut costs and control said spending.
I think you will also find that pregnancy is not covered by her insurance either and that the same pills as a generic cost $9 a month from the Target pharmacy. :angry:
Question - considering that at 65 EVERYONE gets medical care subsidized by the government (regardless of their ability to pay) and it is one of the major issues fueling our deficit, what is so wrong with reducing payments when the cost of living goes down?
Everyone complains about how much money we spend - then complains even louder when any attempt is made to cut costs and control said spending.
Last edited:
Mango
SoWal Insider
To answer your question, first off, the reduction in Medicare payments is going to be 21%. I don't know about you, but I would hate to have my income cut by that sizable amount, not to mention that doctors were not getting rich off Medicare patients anyway after adding in their time and administrative expenses. They were either breaking even or losing money. Also, Medicare now wants every diagnosis for every patient - even past patients, to be input electronically into their system. Most doctors I know do not want to sit there being key pushers, but want to be healers. Secondly, the payment amount is not tied to cost of living, but to the economy, a silly law to start off with and one that is being raised by a Democratic Congresswoman to be changed.
The elderly have been paying into the system for most of their lives and disabled persons are just getting by without adding to their burden having to pay cash when they walk in to see a doctor.
All this in the meantime while insurance companies rates have gone up significantly higher every year over inflation. I'd love to see them take a 21% cut based on the economy.
scooterbug44
SoWal Expert
Ditto!
How much is a doctor paid for an office visit from a Medicare or Medicaid patient under the old and new numbers?
While it may not make them "rich" my guess is that it is still a decent living - or I wouldn't be seeing commercials on the TV about free scooters and free consultations to any patient on Medicare or soon to be.
And if the big issue really is doctors dropping or refusing to take new patients, it would be a lot cheaper to forgive student loans or discount malpractice insurance rates for those who see a certain percentage of Medicare patients.
Beach Runner
beats on hood
I dunno. I'll check into whether there is a cheap generic equivalent for Femcon FE. I do know that it's the first bc she's taken that doesn't turn her into a hormonal hurricane at certain times of the month, YASMIN being the worst!
She just had a birthday, is no longer eligible to be on either of our group plans, and is now on COBRA with a $600 a month premium. And our group premiums won't go down now that she's not covered by them because our plans are both either employee or employee plus family (where family is considered just a spouse or a spouse and 20 children -- costs the same). Lord knows how much the meds will cost now.
Question, Mango. I am embarrassingly ignorant when it comes to these matters, but don't people contribute to SS proportionate to their income? If my memory serves me correctly, my husband pays the maximum amount of SS from his paycheck in January, and then no more is deducted from his check. Whereas for me, because I make less money, it takes me several months.
So if we pay more, shouldn't we get more when we retire?
30ashopper
SoWal Insider
Medicare has over 400 billion in it's virtual trust fund. If the politicians hadn't spent all that money on hippie museums and wars, the system would be able to weather economic downturns like this without pay cuts.
If we want to fix medicare and prevent issues like this, I'd suggest we start by demanding Congress split medicare and social security out of the federal government's general accounting. Borrowing money from these systems should require an act of congress, with a super majority vote in the Senate.
If we want to fix medicare and prevent issues like this, I'd suggest we start by demanding Congress split medicare and social security out of the federal government's general accounting. Borrowing money from these systems should require an act of congress, with a super majority vote in the Senate.
30ashopper
SoWal Insider
You pay 6.2% all income up to 106K, then the tax cuts off. The system was originally designed to be a get-back-what-you-pay-into-it system, but over the years it has become progressive, where upper income earners get far less that they pay, and lower income earners get far more. Part of the tax also goes to dissability insurance, which is a straight fee.
Beach Runner
beats on hood
Thanks for the info. That doesn't seem fair.
Not exactly
Not exactly.
SS from the get-go has been designed to replace a higher percentage of lower salaried employees earnings than their higher salaried counterparts on the premise that workers with a history of lower salaries could not save additional income to augment their SS benefit.
Social Security is a form of social insurance...it was never designed to be equitable.
Peter Peterson, hedge fund magnate and former Republican Commerce Secretary, calls the idea that most federal benefits go to lower income households a "myth" in his clarion call for fiscal responsibility "Running on Empty".
Most recipients get WAY more from SS than they paid into it. Just look at the SS statement and compare that to the benefit received. Even factoring in the time value of money the vast majority of Americans couldn't come close to a SS benefit on their own.
The folks getting hosed in the SS game are your children and grandchildren along with employers who match your contribution.
Not exactly.
SS from the get-go has been designed to replace a higher percentage of lower salaried employees earnings than their higher salaried counterparts on the premise that workers with a history of lower salaries could not save additional income to augment their SS benefit.
Social Security is a form of social insurance...it was never designed to be equitable.
Peter Peterson, hedge fund magnate and former Republican Commerce Secretary, calls the idea that most federal benefits go to lower income households a "myth" in his clarion call for fiscal responsibility "Running on Empty".
Most recipients get WAY more from SS than they paid into it. Just look at the SS statement and compare that to the benefit received. Even factoring in the time value of money the vast majority of Americans couldn't come close to a SS benefit on their own.
The folks getting hosed in the SS game are your children and grandchildren along with employers who match your contribution.