• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Interesting Insight on the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

M

Marietta Deac

Active member
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
675
Reaction score
26
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/84364.html?hp=t3_3

Basically, it says pubs will give $1.2 T in new revenues including rate hike and Dems will give at least $400B in entitlement savings along with other cuts such as reduced war spending. The entitlement savings won't come for ten years, so they may be phantom as another Congress and POTUS could reverse them in the future. Just shows that there is the substantive negotiation that you don't see and the political negotiation that you do see in the media. Both sides have to keep up a good front until they compromise at the end. Let's just hope they end the charade sooner rather than later.
 
They want this over ASAP. The GOP doesn't want to see Obama on the news locally and nationally every night for weeks saying,"I'll immediately sign the bill making the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone making under $250,000/year, but the Republicans are putting millionaires and billionaires over 98% of the American public."

The public (including Republicans) overwhelmingly support this.
 
The public (including Republicans) overwhelmingly support taxing anyone who has one dollar more than they do. A free market is the best way to control these greedy, envious slimeballs.
 
Marietta Deac said:
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/84364.html?hp=t3_3

Basically, it says pubs will give $1.2 T in new revenues including rate hike and Dems will give at least $400B in entitlement savings along with other cuts such as reduced war spending. The entitlement savings won't come for ten years, so they may be phantom as another Congress and POTUS could reverse them in the future. Just shows that there is the substantive negotiation that you don't see and the political negotiation that you do see in the media. Both sides have to keep up a good front until they compromise at the end. Let's just hope they end the charade sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

That is some straight horseshit if true. Then the revenue increases shouldn't come for 10 years.
 
For starters, Medicaid needs to be completely reevaluated. Half the people who are on it shouldn't be, and half the claims are bogus. Often, it is the doctors submitting the bogus claims in order to make the sub-standard reimbursement rates manageable. Everybody within the system knows it, but nobody has any desire to fix it. If the rates were increased such that the fraud can be eliminated, I gauranty it would be a huge net savings.
 
So doctors are submitting bogus (and I assume fraudulent) claims, and the solution is to increase their rates so they aren't "forced" to game the system? ok

What else?
 
"Half the claims are bogus"- given that Medicaid has been in place for almost half a century, these stats should be easy to produce.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
For starters, Medicaid needs to be completely reevaluated. Half the people who are on it shouldn't be, and half the claims are bogus. Often, it is the doctors submitting the bogus claims in order to make the sub-standard reimbursement rates manageable. Everybody within the system knows it, but nobody has any desire to fix it.

If the rates were increased such that the fraud can be eliminated, I gauranty it would be a huge net savings.
Click to expand...

Typical compassionate government program. Anything else would be anarchy.
 
One other big problem with Medicaid is the way the fraud is reported. If a state reports potential fraud to the feds, then the feds count it as "owed" by the state back to the feds, regardless of whether or not the state ever recovers the money. So the state, knowing it has to make up the shortfall if it reports it, has minimal incentive to report it, so the fraud goes intentionally ignored. The whole system is screwed up.
 
What a fucking joke. Like I said, tax later and cut now. And this is a prime example of why you do that-- because they will never cut a goddamn thing. Ever. Until we are broke. Tax hikes won't do dick.
 
WakeandBake said:
So doctors are submitting bogus (and I assume fraudulent) claims, and the solution is to increase their rates so they aren't "forced" to game the system? ok

What else?
Click to expand...

There should be a ligitimate asset search for qualification (not just an income test), with an offset of eligibility until assets are used up (similar to how long-term care eligibility is determined). If you're riding around in a BMW, you shouldn't be on Medicaid until after you sell the BMW, get a Honda, and use those funds first.
 
2&2 is stuck in 1985....BMW Medicaid recipients......what typical race baiting BS.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
There should be a ligitimate asset search for qualification (not just an income test), with an offset of eligibility until assets are used up (similar to how long-term care eligibility is determined). If you're riding around in a BMW, you shouldn't be on Medicaid until after you sell the BMW, get a Honda, and use those funds first.
Click to expand...

How much does that cost, the asset search? Who performs it?

couldn't all of this just be eliminated by a single-payer system?
 
WakeandBake said:
How much does that cost, the asset search? Who performs it?

couldn't all of this just be eliminated by a single-payer system?
Click to expand...

Asset searches usually cost about $100. That is far less than the cost of one claim. Plus, I'm sure there would be plenty of firms lining up to do it for a significant discount if awarded a state contract.

And sure, some of this (the eligibility issues) could be eliminated by a single-payer system. But some of the problems (the fraud caused by the low government reimbursement rates) would become exponentially worse. Additionally, does anybody but BKF and his red army want a single-payer system?
 
I am a provider who has Medicaid recipients as a part of my practice and can assure you I have never sent in a fraudulent claim. It does occur, but my guess would be less than 5-10%, to high but nowhere near 50%. There are some cheaters on Medicaid and it really makes me mad when I see someone drive up in a new Mercedes and then bring in the MC card to pay for their healthcare but that is certainly the exception. Most of the patients that we see have to bum a ride off other family or friends or come in a 10-15 year old beater, so yet again your characterization is grossly wrong. Just more of the same "you could balance the budget if you eliminated all the fraud, waste, and abuse" talk that gets thrown around by the right.
 
bcobb, don't give 2&2 your years of experience. It doesn't fit in his tinfoil hat world.
 
2and2 it does sound yet again like another "blame the poor" line of reasoning, don't you think? But hey, I'm all for cleaning up fraud and abuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top