70% Ca. doctors will not participate in obama's unaffordable care act

[Yurt]

Today, 02:31 PM
Remove user from ignore listJakeStarkey
This message is hidden because JakeStarkey is on your ignore list.

 

[Antares]

"70% Ca. doctors will not participate in obama's unaffordable care act" is a nonsense statement.

Let's move on.

An estimated seven out of every 10 physicians in deep-blue California are rebelling against the state's Obamacare health insurance exchange and won't participate, the head of the state's largest medical association said.

“It doesn't surprise me that there's a high rate of nonparticipation,” said Dr. Richard Thorp, president of the California Medical Association.

Doctors boycotting California's Obamacare exchange | WashingtonExaminer.com

Huh.

 

[Amelia]

"70% Ca. doctors will not participate in obama's unaffordable care act" is a nonsense statement.

Let's move on.

An estimated seven out of every 10 physicians in deep-blue California are rebelling against the state's Obamacare health insurance exchange and won't participate, the head of the state's largest medical association said.

“It doesn't surprise me that there's a high rate of nonparticipation,” said Dr. Richard Thorp, president of the California Medical Association.

Doctors boycotting California's Obamacare exchange | WashingtonExaminer.com

Huh.

California offers one of the lowest government reimbursement rates in the country -- 30 percent lower than federal Medicare payments. And reimbursement rates for some procedures are even lower.

Perhaps Jake can refute this claim from the article.

 

[Mac1958]

They will certainly not be below net cost: you can't even make an argument for that.

But it will be a great brake for cost containment.

That is what you are crying about.

As I made as simple as I could in post #22, providers and provider groups work off of negotiated contracts. Often they will drop insurers when the net benefits of the plan (and there's a ton of variables in any given provider contract) drop below the standards and thresholds of the provider or group. This is just the way it works, every single day.

I realize you have some obligation to defend this horrific law, Jake, but you're making points based on pure thin air. There are going to be providers who are not going to accept plans in the ACA because they make no economic sense for them to do so. Plus, now, the providers know damn well they're going to be flooded with low-LOW-reimbursement Medicaid cases. This is going to get worse, regardless of your denials.

I don't know how much more plain I can make it, but I strongly suggest you'll deny it based on, well, whatever it is you're basing this stuff.

.

Tell us your better plan for getting Medicaid eligible patients healthcare.

I'll assume from your response that you understand my point and concede that I may be right. I appreciate that, especially after the bizarre, simplistic, abject denial I've been dealing with.

Please see post 43 on the following thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...y-politics-and-unintended-consequences-3.html

.

 

[Katzndogz]

So a doctor in California is not going to take a patient who bought a policy from, say, Kaiser in CA, on the exchange?

And why not, exactly?

No doctor in California will treat a patient on the Kaiser exchange except doctors on the Kaiser exchange. They won't be paid at all. Those who have Kaiser understand this very well. If you have Kaiser all you can go to is a Kaiser facility.

 

[Amelia]

Only in September did insurance companies disclose that their rates would be pegged to California’s Medicaid plan, called Medi-Cal. That's driven many doctors to just say no.

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What percentage of Californians will ultimately be buying insurance on that exchnge?

Anyone?

 

[Yurt]

"70% Ca. doctors will not participate in obama's unaffordable care act" is a nonsense statement.

Let's move on.

An estimated seven out of every 10 physicians in deep-blue California are rebelling against the state's Obamacare health insurance exchange and won't participate, the head of the state's largest medical association said.

“It doesn't surprise me that there's a high rate of nonparticipation,” said Dr. Richard Thorp, president of the California Medical Association.

Doctors boycotting California's Obamacare exchange | WashingtonExaminer.com

Huh.

California offers one of the lowest government reimbursement rates in the country -- 30 percent lower than federal Medicare payments. And reimbursement rates for some procedures are even lower.

Perhaps Jake can refute this claim from the article.

jake back something up

 

[MACAULAY]

Go to a five star restaurant and tell them you will pay six bucks for a lobster dinner and they have to give it to you for that price because you are a paying customer.

.........................................

Excellent. T

Some of this has occurred to the Socialists. They mean to spread the wealth...even things out to where nobody at all (except Democratic Party apparatchiks) can afford to pay more than 6 bucks for that lobster dinner.

Then the Restaurant will have to sell it to you for six bucks.

That's Utopia. The Socialist Utopia.

But, the Restaurant has 10 bucks in the lobster and will be filing bankruptcy right after lunch.

Meantime--Lobster for all! And Vote Democrat.

 

[MACAULAY]

What percentage of Californians will ultimately be buying insurance on that exchnge?

Anyone?

........................................................

Well, is this your defense of the Law.

That not a majority will have to put up with it?

 

[Vox]

"70% Ca. doctors will not participate in obama's unaffordable care act" is a nonsense statement.

Let's move on.

nope, it is not. It is the reality. Ca already has an extreme shortage of physicians, especially specialists, because of the extreme taxation in the state, most of the doctors never accept medicaid ( this is across the US) and this crap is even MORE restrictive and more problematic than Medicaid is.

 

[Redfish]

The Bottom Line:

Obamacare is destroying the best medical system in the history of the world.

Way to go dems and libs--------------------er, morons.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the payment is below net cost, the provider is losing money on each visit and/or service.
You don't make that up with volume. AAAAUUUUGGGGGHHHHH .

They will certainly not be below net cost: you can't even make an argument for that.

But it will be a great brake for cost containment.

That is what you are crying about.

As I made as simple as I could in post #22, providers and provider groups work off of negotiated contracts. Often they will drop insurers when the net benefits of the plan (and there's a ton of variables in any given provider contract) drop below the standards and thresholds of the provider or group. This is just the way it works, every single day.

I realize you have some obligation to defend this horrific law, Jake, but you're making points based on pure thin air. There are going to be providers who are not going to accept plans in the ACA because they make no economic sense for them to do so. Plus, now, the providers know damn well they're going to be flooded with low-LOW-reimbursement Medicaid cases. This is going to get worse, regardless of your denials.

I don't know how much more plain I can make it, but I strongly suggest you'll deny it based on, well, whatever it is you're basing this stuff.

.

Why aren't they going to 'accept the plans' exactly? And how is this any different than before?

 

[LoneLaugher]

What percentage of Californians will ultimately be buying insurance on that exchnge?

Anyone?

........................................................

Well, is this your defense of the Law.

That not a majority will have to put up with it?

Well........that is not an answer to the question, is it?

Do you think it will be 30%?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Bottom Line:

Obamacare is destroying the best medical system in the history of the world.

Way to go dems and libs--------------------er, morons.

Okay, tell us, with some degree of verifiable detail, why our medical system is better than that of the Japanese.

 

[TooTall]

As there is not a left wing loon (working without talking points) with the capacity to refute the article...I will do it for him. for the sake of fair discussion.

The quote is from Insurance Bokers who foresee that the government will soon take their jobs.

Doesn't mean they are Liars (like our president)...just means they are prejudice...like every body in Obama's huge propaganda machine. The Citizens (and the Congress) have just about given up trying to get the Truth out of this White House.

Things are so partisan that an American despairs of getting the Truth about anything.

It's not partisan in this case, it's business and the doctors will not refuse patients. They're paying customers.

I heard on TV that Medical only pays $24 for a Dr visit whereas Medicare pays $78. Most doctors can't pay their overhead with the $24 payment. The people, the building, and all of the equipment at the doctors office and even the doctor have to be paid for or he goes out of business.

 

[Katzndogz]

They will certainly not be below net cost: you can't even make an argument for that.

But it will be a great brake for cost containment.

That is what you are crying about.

As I made as simple as I could in post #22, providers and provider groups work off of negotiated contracts. Often they will drop insurers when the net benefits of the plan (and there's a ton of variables in any given provider contract) drop below the standards and thresholds of the provider or group. This is just the way it works, every single day.

I realize you have some obligation to defend this horrific law, Jake, but you're making points based on pure thin air. There are going to be providers who are not going to accept plans in the ACA because they make no economic sense for them to do so. Plus, now, the providers know damn well they're going to be flooded with low-LOW-reimbursement Medicaid cases. This is going to get worse, regardless of your denials.

I don't know how much more plain I can make it, but I strongly suggest you'll deny it based on, well, whatever it is you're basing this stuff.

.

Why aren't they going to 'accept the plans' exactly? And how is this any different than before?

The only difference in the way it will be from the way it was before, is that many many more individuals will find out that their doctor is not going to be their doctor any more, unless they pay for it out of pocket.

Very few doctors take medicaid patients. Medicaid patients are relegated to county hospitals with very very poor care.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Bottom Line:

Obamacare is destroying the best medical system in the history of the world.

Way to go dems and libs--------------------er, morons.

Okay, tell us, with some degree of verifiable detail, why our medical system is better than that of the Japanese.

Why are the Japanese changing their health care system if it was so good? Why are they privatizing it?

Maybe because of this:

National health expenditures rose from about 1 trillion yen in 1965 to nearly 20 trillion yen in 1989, or from slightly more than 5% to more than 6% of Japan's national income. The system has been troubled with excessive paperwork, assembly-line care for out-patients (because few facilities made appointments), over medication, and abuse of the system because of apparent low out-of-pocket expenses to patients.[citation needed] Another problem has been an uneven distribution of health personnel,

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Bottom Line:

Obamacare is destroying the best medical system in the history of the world.

Way to go dems and libs--------------------er, morons.

Okay, tell us, with some degree of verifiable detail, why our medical system is better than that of the Japanese.

Why are the Japanese changing their health care system if it was so good? Why are they privatizing it?

Maybe because of this:

National health expenditures rose from about 1 trillion yen in 1965 to nearly 20 trillion yen in 1989, or from slightly more than 5% to more than 6% of Japan's national income. The system has been troubled with excessive paperwork, assembly-line care for out-patients (because few facilities made appointments), over medication, and abuse of the system because of apparent low out-of-pocket expenses to patients.[citation needed] Another problem has been an uneven distribution of health personnel,

Your post means nothing without verifiable citation, context, and nuance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As I made as simple as I could in post #22, providers and provider groups work off of negotiated contracts. Often they will drop insurers when the net benefits of the plan (and there's a ton of variables in any given provider contract) drop below the standards and thresholds of the provider or group. This is just the way it works, every single day.

I realize you have some obligation to defend this horrific law, Jake, but you're making points based on pure thin air. There are going to be providers who are not going to accept plans in the ACA because they make no economic sense for them to do so. Plus, now, the providers know damn well they're going to be flooded with low-LOW-reimbursement Medicaid cases. This is going to get worse, regardless of your denials.

I don't know how much more plain I can make it, but I strongly suggest you'll deny it based on, well, whatever it is you're basing this stuff.

.

Why aren't they going to 'accept the plans' exactly? And how is this any different than before?

The only difference in the way it will be from the way it was before, is that many many more individuals will find out that their doctor is not going to be their doctor any more, unless they pay for it out of pocket.

Very few doctors take medicaid patients. Medicaid patients are relegated to county hospitals with very very poor care.

"Very few"? Want to quantify that?

This is not "Medicaid."

Now step up with solid states.

You can't.