The Far-Right Conspiracy against the NHS

[Terry Mauro]

There is no way Dr. Joseph Shanahan could bring himself to stop seeing Medicare patients. "My mother would kill me," he said.

But the Raleigh rheumatologist, who is also board certified in internal medicine, takes a huge financial hit by participating in the federal insurance program for older people. The program's fees to doctors are already low, and a looming 21 percent cut would make a difficult situation worse.

"By cutting reimbursements so low, what kind of quality of care are we expecting?" Shanahan said.

Although Congress acted last week to once again delay the fee cut, the political wrangling over its enactment and the threat that it will eventually take effect have prompted many doctors to drop their participation in Medicare or quit taking new patients who rely on the government program.

A recent survey by the American Medical Association found that 17 percent of doctors nationwide now limit the number of Medicare patients they take, and they cite the uncertainty about the future payment cuts as the reason.

"People are scared," said Dr. Conrad L. Flick,

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07/03/1541586/medicare-cut-scares-doctors-patients.html#ixzz0si9LmBCJ

This is Obama's British/Nazi austerity program for poor and aged.

[Len Colby]

OBAMA'S CMS NOMINEE ADVISED BRITISH NHS, WAS KNIGHTED BY QUEEN

FOR IT

March 29, 2010 (LPAC) -- The physician President Obama is

nominating to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

(CMS) was recently named an honorary knight commander of the

British Empire. The service for which the Queen Elizabeth honored

[...]

Funny Mauro and Larouche somehow think an American effecting policy in Britain in ways they disapprove of backs their theory that the evil all powerful Brits are behind almost every ill (or perceived ill) from which the US and other parts of the world suffer from.

[Len Colby]

There is no way Dr. Joseph Shanahan could bring himself to stop seeing Medicare patients. "My mother would kill me," he said.

But the Raleigh rheumatologist, who is also board certified in internal medicine, takes a huge financial hit by participating in the federal insurance program for older people. The program's fees to doctors are already low, and a looming 21 percent cut would make a difficult situation worse.

"By cutting reimbursements so low, what kind of quality of care are we expecting?" Shanahan said.

Although Congress acted last week to once again delay the fee cut, the political wrangling over its enactment and the threat that it will eventually take effect have prompted many doctors to drop their participation in Medicare or quit taking new patients who rely on the government program.

A recent survey by the American Medical Association found that 17 percent of doctors nationwide now limit the number of Medicare patients they take, and they cite the uncertainty about the future payment cuts as the reason.

"People are scared," said Dr. Conrad L. Flick,

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07/03/1541586/medicare-cut-scares-doctors-patients.html#ixzz0si9LmBCJ

This is Obama's British/Nazi austerity program for poor and aged.

Either Mauro 1) didn’t read the article carefully

2) has severe reading comprehension problems OR

3) was trying to pull a fast one

The threatened 21 percent Medicare fee cut stems from a 1997 law Congress passed in an attempt to stabilize Medicare expenditures. That law pegged the cost of Medicare doctor services to growth in the broader economy, as measured by the gross domestic product.

For the past 13 years, updates in Medicare doctor fees have been calculated on that targeted growth rate. But doctor bills have outpaced economic growth.

[...]

As a result, actual spending on doctor fees soon exceeded the targets set by the formula, triggering the need for a correction. In 2002, Medicare required a 5 percent fee cut. Doctors howled. Congress allowed the cut to stand, but the next year it intervened with a temporary delay on a second scheduled cut. Similar delays have been approved every year since.

Instead of fixing the formula, however, legislators have simply kicked the problem into the future, with each year's cut stacked onto the last. As a result, annual cuts of up to 5 percent have grown to the current 21 percent whack. It will likely be even bigger six months from now, when the most recent fix expires.

In 1997 Republicans controlled both houses of congress and Obama was a 1st year member of the Illinois House and Senior Lecturer at the U. of Chicago Law School. So at best this could be described as part of “Clinton’s British/Republican /Nazi austerity program for poor and aged.” But Clinton is of course one of LaRouche’s heros and before we blame him we would have to see if the former actually backed the bill, signed it under political pressure, refused to sign it or vetoed it and was overridden.

[Terry Mauro]

There is no way Dr. Joseph Shanahan could bring himself to stop seeing Medicare patients. "My mother would kill me," he said.

But the Raleigh rheumatologist, who is also board certified in internal medicine, takes a huge financial hit by participating in the federal insurance program for older people. The program's fees to doctors are already low, and a looming 21 percent cut would make a difficult situation worse.

"By cutting reimbursements so low, what kind of quality of care are we expecting?" Shanahan said.

Although Congress acted last week to once again delay the fee cut, the political wrangling over its enactment and the threat that it will eventually take effect have prompted many doctors to drop their participation in Medicare or quit taking new patients who rely on the government program.

A recent survey by the American Medical Association found that 17 percent of doctors nationwide now limit the number of Medicare patients they take, and they cite the uncertainty about the future payment cuts as the reason.

"People are scared," said Dr. Conrad L. Flick,

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07/03/1541586/medicare-cut-scares-doctors-patients.html#ixzz0si9LmBCJ

This is Obama's British/Nazi austerity program for poor and aged.

Either Mauro 1) didnt read the article carefully

2) has severe reading comprehension problems OR

3) was trying to pull a fast one

The threatened 21 percent Medicare fee cut stems from a 1997 law Congress passed in an attempt to stabilize Medicare expenditures. That law pegged the cost of Medicare doctor services to growth in the broader economy, as measured by the gross domestic product.

For the past 13 years, updates in Medicare doctor fees have been calculated on that targeted growth rate. But doctor bills have outpaced economic growth.

[...]

As a result, actual spending on doctor fees soon exceeded the targets set by the formula, triggering the need for a correction. In 2002, Medicare required a 5 percent fee cut. Doctors howled. Congress allowed the cut to stand, but the next year it intervened with a temporary delay on a second scheduled cut. Similar delays have been approved every year since.

Instead of fixing the formula, however, legislators have simply kicked the problem into the future, with each year's cut stacked onto the last. As a result, annual cuts of up to 5 percent have grown to the current 21 percent whack. It will likely be even bigger six months from now, when the most recent fix expires.

In 1997 Republicans controlled both houses of congress and Obama was a 1st year member of the Illinois House and Senior Lecturer at the U. of Chicago Law School. So at best this could be described as part of Clintons British/Republican /Nazi austerity program for poor and aged. But Clinton is of course one of LaRouches heros and before we blame him we would have to see if the former actually backed the bill, signed it under political pressure, refused to sign it or vetoed it and was overridden.

Had you read the article you might have noticed that all the article states about the 1997 law is that it pegged the cost of Medicare doctors fees to the growth in GDP (Hardly a cost cutting measure you sophist moron!). Actual payments outstripped the indexed payment schedule, and most if not all shortfalls were fully funded. This law is not at the heart of the proposed cuts. The government has been funding these payments for 13 years.

For the past 13 years ( the bill enacted under Clinton)doctors fees "updates" have been calculated on the growth of GDP. The policy was not to cut Medicare or Medicaid.

What do you think the recent Obama Nazi healthcare bill pushed passed by congress is calling for? "Cut these Medicare payments"!

Congress has been funding the "spread" between the difference in real payments versus the budgeted index cost for the last 13 years.

The killer cuts to Medicare is being enforced by that British tool Obama.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Terry Mauro

[Len Colby]

There is no way Dr. Joseph Shanahan could bring himself to stop seeing Medicare patients. "My mother would kill me," he said.

But the Raleigh rheumatologist, who is also board certified in internal medicine, takes a huge financial hit by participating in the federal insurance program for older people. The program's fees to doctors are already low, and a looming 21 percent cut would make a difficult situation worse.

"By cutting reimbursements so low, what kind of quality of care are we expecting?" Shanahan said.

Although Congress acted last week to once again delay the fee cut, the political wrangling over its enactment and the threat that it will eventually take effect have prompted many doctors to drop their participation in Medicare or quit taking new patients who rely on the government program.

A recent survey by the American Medical Association found that 17 percent of doctors nationwide now limit the number of Medicare patients they take, and they cite the uncertainty about the future payment cuts as the reason.

"People are scared," said Dr. Conrad L. Flick,

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07/03/1541586/medicare-cut-scares-doctors-patients.html#ixzz0si9LmBCJ

This is Obama's British/Nazi austerity program for poor and aged.

Either Mauro 1) didn’t read the article carefully

2) has severe reading comprehension problems OR

3) was trying to pull a fast one

The threatened 21 percent Medicare fee cut stems from a 1997 law Congress passed in an attempt to stabilize Medicare expenditures. That law pegged the cost of Medicare doctor services to growth in the broader economy, as measured by the gross domestic product.

For the past 13 years, updates in Medicare doctor fees have been calculated on that targeted growth rate. But doctor bills have outpaced economic growth.

[...]

As a result, actual spending on doctor fees soon exceeded the targets set by the formula, triggering the need for a correction. In 2002, Medicare required a 5 percent fee cut. Doctors howled. Congress allowed the cut to stand, but the next year it intervened with a temporary delay on a second scheduled cut. Similar delays have been approved every year since.

Instead of fixing the formula, however, legislators have simply kicked the problem into the future, with each year's cut stacked onto the last. As a result, annual cuts of up to 5 percent have grown to the current 21 percent whack. It will likely be even bigger six months from now, when the most recent fix expires.

In 1997 Republicans controlled both houses of congress and Obama was a 1st year member of the Illinois House and Senior Lecturer at the U. of Chicago Law School. So at best this could be described as part of “Clinton’s British/Republican /Nazi austerity program for poor and aged.” But Clinton is of course one of LaRouche’s heros and before we blame him we would have to see if the former actually backed the bill, signed it under political pressure, refused to sign it or vetoed it and was overridden.

Had you read the article you might have noticed that all the article states about the 1997 law is that it pegged the cost of Medicare doctors fees to the growth in GDP (Hardly a cost cutting measure you sophist moron!). Actual payments outstripped the indexed payment schedule, and most if not all shortfalls were fully funded.

Read it again the law, if it had been obeyed would have cut costs because medical expenses grew faster than GDP:

“But doctor bills have outpaced economic growth....As a result, actual spending on doctor fees soon exceeded the targets set by the formula, triggering the need for a correction. In 2002, Medicare required a 5 percent fee cut. Doctors howled. Congress allowed the cut to stand, but the next year it intervened with a temporary delay on a second scheduled cut. Similar delays have been approved every year since.”

"This law is not at the heart of the proposed cuts."

According to your article it is “threatened 21 percent Medicare fee cut stems from a 1997 law Congress passed in an attempt to stabilize Medicare expenditures.”

The government has been funding these payments for 13 years.

For the past 13 years ( the bill enacted under Clinton)doctors fees "updates" have been calculated on the growth of GDP. The policy was not to cut Medicare or Medicaid.

See above you misread, the mandated that updates be limited to GDP but docotors bills have grown faster than that. Since 2002 congress has postponed the cap. Now presumably due to economic crisis there is speculation they won’t do so this year which could result in a 21% cut accumaled over the last 8 years. This is Clinton era legislation there was no indication of Obama administration involvement.

"What do you think the recent Obama Nazi healthcare bill pushed passed by congress is calling for? "Cut these Medicare payments"!"

Citation

Congress has been funding the "spread" between the difference in real payments versus the budgeted index cost for the last 13 years.

The killer cuts to Medicare is being enforced by that British tool Obama.

There is no mention that the Obama administration is responsible for the possible cut, in fact thay aren't mentioned at all, provide evidence they are. Your hero Clinton of course was responsible for various cuts to social programs

[Terry Mauro]

There is no way Dr. Joseph Shanahan could bring himself to stop seeing Medicare patients. "My mother would kill me," he said.

But the Raleigh rheumatologist, who is also board certified in internal medicine, takes a huge financial hit by participating in the federal insurance program for older people. The program's fees to doctors are already low, and a looming 21 percent cut would make a difficult situation worse.

"By cutting reimbursements so low, what kind of quality of care are we expecting?" Shanahan said.

Although Congress acted last week to once again delay the fee cut, the political wrangling over its enactment and the threat that it will eventually take effect have prompted many doctors to drop their participation in Medicare or quit taking new patients who rely on the government program.

A recent survey by the American Medical Association found that 17 percent of doctors nationwide now limit the number of Medicare patients they take, and they cite the uncertainty about the future payment cuts as the reason.

"People are scared," said Dr. Conrad L. Flick,

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07/03/1541586/medicare-cut-scares-doctors-patients.html#ixzz0si9LmBCJ

This is Obama's British/Nazi austerity program for poor and aged.

Either Mauro 1) didn’t read the article carefully

2) has severe reading comprehension problems OR

3) was trying to pull a fast one

The threatened 21 percent Medicare fee cut stems from a 1997 law Congress passed in an attempt to stabilize Medicare expenditures. That law pegged the cost of Medicare doctor services to growth in the broader economy, as measured by the gross domestic product.

For the past 13 years, updates in Medicare doctor fees have been calculated on that targeted growth rate. But doctor bills have outpaced economic growth.

[...]

As a result, actual spending on doctor fees soon exceeded the targets set by the formula, triggering the need for a correction. In 2002, Medicare required a 5 percent fee cut. Doctors howled. Congress allowed the cut to stand, but the next year it intervened with a temporary delay on a second scheduled cut. Similar delays have been approved every year since.

Instead of fixing the formula, however, legislators have simply kicked the problem into the future, with each year's cut stacked onto the last. As a result, annual cuts of up to 5 percent have grown to the current 21 percent whack. It will likely be even bigger six months from now, when the most recent fix expires.

In 1997 Republicans controlled both houses of congress and Obama was a 1st year member of the Illinois House and Senior Lecturer at the U. of Chicago Law School. So at best this could be described as part of “Clinton’s British/Republican /Nazi austerity program for poor and aged.” But Clinton is of course one of LaRouche’s heros and before we blame him we would have to see if the former actually backed the bill, signed it under political pressure, refused to sign it or vetoed it and was overridden.

Had you read the article you might have noticed that all the article states about the 1997 law is that it pegged the cost of Medicare doctors fees to the growth in GDP (Hardly a cost cutting measure you sophist moron!). Actual payments outstripped the indexed payment schedule, and most if not all shortfalls were fully funded.

Read it again the law, if it had been obeyed would have cut costs because medical expenses grew faster than GDP:

“But doctor bills have outpaced economic growth....As a result, actual spending on doctor fees soon exceeded the targets set by the formula, triggering the need for a correction. In 2002, Medicare required a 5 percent fee cut. Doctors howled. Congress allowed the cut to stand, but the next year it intervened with a temporary delay on a second scheduled cut. Similar delays have been approved every year since.”

"This law is not at the heart of the proposed cuts."

According to your article it is “threatened 21 percent Medicare fee cut stems from a 1997 law Congress passed in an attempt to stabilize Medicare expenditures.”

The government has been funding these payments for 13 years.

For the past 13 years ( the bill enacted under Clinton)doctors fees "updates" have been calculated on the growth of GDP. The policy was not to cut Medicare or Medicaid.

See above you misread, the mandated that updates be limited to GDP but docotors bills have grown faster than that. Since 2002 congress has postponed the cap. Now presumably due to economic crisis there is speculation they won’t do so this year which could result in a 21% cut accumaled over the last 8 years. This is Clinton era legislation there was no indication of Obama administration involvement.

"What do you think the recent Obama Nazi healthcare bill pushed passed by congress is calling for? "Cut these Medicare payments"!"

Citation

Congress has been funding the "spread" between the difference in real payments versus the budgeted index cost for the last 13 years.

The killer cuts to Medicare is being enforced by that British tool Obama.

There is no mention that the Obama administration is responsible for the possible cut, in fact thay aren't mentioned at all, provide evidence they are. Your hero Clinton of course was responsible for various cuts to social programs

I stand on my earlier post. Pegging Medicare expenditures to GDP growth has nothing to do with Medicare cuts. The fact that the HMO system looted the system at a rate greater than budgeted for by Congress does not prove your point. As usual you're wrong.

This is precisely why the congress delayed making any cuts. They established a bench mark based on GDP growth but they did not enact any cuts to reconcile the budget to actual cost.

You confuse the 1997 legislation that indexed annual medicare payments to GDP growth with the upcoming Medicare cuts under President Obama.

[Len Colby]

I stand on my earlier post. Pegging Medicare expenditures to GDP growth has nothing to do with Medicare cuts.

You can stand on your head if you wish but it won’t change the fact that the article you cited indicated that “Pegging Medicare expenditures to GDP” amounts to “Medicare cuts “ because medical expense grew faster than GDP.

"The fact that the HMO system looted the system at a rate greater than budgeted for by Congress does not prove your point. As usual you're wrong."

Neither I nor the article mentioned HMOs nor did it say HMO's were responsible cost increases. The standard criticism of HMO's is the opposite they got to far in holding prices down

"This is precisely why the congress delayed making any cuts. They established a bench mark based on GDP growth but they did not enact any cuts to reconcile the budget to actual cost."

That might well be the case but the article said the delays were due to pressure from doctors. If you have evidence Republican contolled congresses put off these cuts because they felt the HMO’s were ‘looting the system’ then post it.

"You confuse the 1997 legislation that indexed annual medicare payments to GDP growth with the upcoming Medicare cuts under President Obama."

I didn’t confuse anything, the article YOU cited in no way indicated the Obama administration was in anyway responsible for the POSSIBLE 21% cut rather they said it was result of the legislation passed when a president your guru supported (and still supports)