Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients

[pfife]

I think you're being devil's advocate here, but I'll respond as if you're serious. The government made a social contract with it's citizens that they would cover their health insurance when they turned 65, with certain limits. Now, if health care providers as a whole refused to accept Medicare (highly unlikely), then the government hasn't met their obligation. They, the government, accepted my money over the last 40 years, and I'm entitled to the coverage.

We should then stop all new enrollments to Medicare, and allow those that have paid the care they've paid for, eventually phasing out the program.

[belcherboy]

Why wouldn't this create a demand for more health care professionals, which would, in turn, lead to better incentives for becoming a health care professional? Why wouldn't this make it profitable for hospital systems to expand? Why wouldn't this make it profitable for more people to go into the hospital business?

It most definitely would, but with the cuts coming, how do you create more health care professionals without an extended period of time? I mean we aren't talking about taking a three month course and you become a doctor.

It most definitely make it profitable for hospital systems to expand, but again, that takes time and money. I'm think it would take several years for this to happen.

Good questions.

[pfife]

It most definitely would, but with the cuts coming, how do you create more health care professionals without an extended period of time? I mean we aren't talking about taking a three month course and you become a doctor.

It most definitely make it profitable for hospital systems to expand, but again, that takes time and money. I'm think it would take several years for this to happen.

Good questions.

when do the cuts come? I've heard that most things w/ the reform don't happen until 2014.

[belcherboy]

when do the cuts come? I've heard that most things w/ the reform don't happen until 2014.

From the article:

Congress last week postponed for two months a 21.5 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements for doctors.

I'm assuming that it was suppose to start on January 1st, but I could be wrong there.

[belcherboy]

mayo "lost" $840 million on medicare patients? how was that calculated exactly? by comparing what they charged medicare patients to what they charged private insurers, which is inflated.

my heart bleeds for mayo and their $840 million "loss."



Mayo Clinic Criticized for Limiting Medicare Patients - washingtonpost.com

I just started reading the article you posted, but it seems to be in direct contrast to this part of the original article:

Mayo’s hospital and four clinics in Arizona, including the Glendale facility, lost $120 million on Medicare patients last year, Yardley said. The program’s payments cover about 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients at the Glendale clinic, he said.

It seems like the bolded word is saying that the Glendale facility is indeed LOSING money. Especially if only 50% of the "cost" is covered!

[shabba4detroit]

the government also doesn't guarantee that lawyers will become lawyers when one takes advantage of constitutionally provided legal counsel. Seems like you'd have the same beef in this circumstance as well.

Apples and oranges.

1. Having a right to the assistance to counsel was guaranteed by the Constitution. The "right" to health care was not.

2. Having a right to counsel means you can hire an attorney at your expense -- except for the limited situation where you are indigent and are charged with a crime for which you would be imprisoned, then you may be appointed an attorney at the state's expense, and then find out that when it comes to representation, that you get exactly what you pay for. If that were the case for health care, we already have that.

[pfife]

Apples and oranges.

1. Having a right to the assistance to counsel was guaranteed by the Constitution. The "right" to health care was not.

So if something is established by the Constitution, your philosophical beef is no longer applicable, even though such Constitutional enshrinement has no bearing on your supply/demand argument that constituted your philosophical beef?

2. Having a right to counsel means you can hire an attorney at your expense -- except for the limited situation where you are indigent and are charged with a crime for which you would be imprisoned, then you may be appointed an attorney at the state's expense, and then find out that when it comes to representation, that you get exactly what you pay for. If that were the case for health care, we already have that.

Ok, assuming accuracy in your statement - is there a shortage of people becoming lawyers because of this, per your philosophical beef?

[shabba4detroit]

So if something is established by the Constitution, your philosophical beef is no longer applicable, even though such Constitutional enshrinement has no bearing on your supply/demand argument that constituted your philosophical beef?

Ok, assuming accuracy in your statement - is there a shortage of people becoming lawyers because of this, per your philosophical beef?

This is about the most obtuse bit of semantical game playing that you've ever attempted, which is saying a lot, because after all, that is your schtick.


The difference between having the right to hire an attorney at a price negotiated in the free market in order to assist you in your dealings with the judicial system, and having the entitlement of your health insurance paid for by the federal government at the burden of the taxpayers are so patently obvious that no further intelligent response is necessary.

However, I will give you (something you've rarely given me ) an intelligent response.

The right to assistance of counsel does not guarantee you a lawyer. Except for the limited situation wherein an indigent person is charged with a crime with the punishment being incarceration, all the right to assistance of counsel means is that the judicial system cannot prevent you from access to the lawyer that you have paid for out of your own pocket. If you don't go get yourself a lawyer, the right is not violated.

That's completely different from the government making sure that you will receive health care and that all your health care is paid for. You cannot even guarantee that there will be someone to provide you that health care. Again, without indentured servitude. You cannot guarantee me a doctor's care, if no one decides to become a doctor. That is fundamentally different from Assistance of Counsel -- if there are no lawyers at all, you simply don't get to charge me with a crime.

[pfife]

This is about the most obtuse bit of semantical game playing that you've ever attempted, which is saying a lot, because after all, that is your schtick.


The difference between having the right to hire an attorney at a price negotiated in the free market in order to assist you in your dealings with the judicial system, and having the entitlement of your health insurance paid for by the federal government at the burden of the taxpayers are so patently obvious that no further intelligent response is necessary.

However, I will give you (something you've rarely given me ) an intelligent response.

The right to assistance of counsel does not guarantee you a lawyer. Except for the limited situation wherein an indigent person is charged with a crime with the punishment being incarceration, all the right to assistance of counsel means is that the judicial system cannot prevent you from access to the lawyer that you have paid for out of your own pocket. If you don't go get yourself a lawyer, the right is not violated.

That's completely different from the government making sure that you will receive health care and that all your health care is paid for. You cannot even guarantee that there will be someone to provide you that health care. Again, without indentured servitude. You cannot guarantee me a doctor's care, if no one decides to become a doctor. That is fundamentally different from Assistance of Counsel -- if there are no lawyers at all, you simply don't get to charge me with a crime.

damn, you're a wordy s.o.b. :D

your last sentence, if true, makes the comparison a bad one, I agree with you.