raghu wrote: > This headline appears to be seriously misleading. If you read the > actual article, here's what it actually says about those Medicare and > Medicaid 'cuts': >> "Negotiators said they were seriously considering cuts in Medicare >> payments to hospitals for uncollectible patient debt and the training >> of doctors; steps to eliminate Medicare 'overpayments' to nursing >> homes; a reduction in the federal share of some Medicaid spending; and >> new restrictions on states' ability to finance Medicaid by imposing >> taxes on hospitals and other health care providers," according to the >> Times. > > What is wrong with these so-called cuts? Isn't this the progressive > way to contain runaway health-care costs?
1) hospitals are going to pay for the uncollectable patient debts, so they're going to deny treatment more (or raise the price, whatever's easier) -- at a time when more and more patient debts are uncollectable due to persistently high unemployment, low consumer asset prices (401k, housing, etc.), and tighter consumer credit; 2) getting rid of "overpayments" is great in a perfect world (assuming that they really are overpayments), but in the kind of situation that we now face, this means that nursing homes will cut admissions (or raise the price, whatever's easier) -- or possibly shut down;(Note that the savings of the retired on not in very good shape these days.) 3) in a period when state governments' finances are almost all severely in deficit, cutting the federal share puts more weight on them, so they'll cut services, raise fees, or even go into bankruptcy; and 4) last and most obviously, cutting spending on "the training of doctors" is cutting exactly the kind of "investment spending" that Obama used to be in favor of. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
