And so it begins.

[Fern]

What a joke. I would suggest you research the claims that doctors and hospitals 'lose money' on Medicare patients more thoroughly. You might be surprised at what you find. (hint: check into optimal resource utilization)

Well, they certainly claim to.

I know first hand from an ownership stake in a durable goods company that some Medicare fees are actually less than the product can be purchased for. That's before factoring in shipping, and overhead (rent, employee labor for fitting etc.).

An oncologist I spoke with last week complained that the Medicare reimbursement for drugs his patients needs is only 80% of the drug's costs.

I don't care how good you are at "optimal resource utilization", you can't break even, much less make a profit under those circumstances.

[QUOTE=eskimospy;37118266
Regardless, doctors and hospitals are free to stop taking Medicare at any time. Participation is entirely voluntary.

Yes, it's voluntary. But many hospitals can't drop Medicare/Medicaid. E.g., the hospital nearest me is a nonprofit 'owned' by the county I live in. The county govt will simply not allow Medicare/Medicare to be dropped. The poor and elderly would no longer have access to health care as most physicians here don't accept Medicare/Medicaid patients.

Fern

 

[Zstream]

Lol. Your slate article backs up my point. You are also not addressing the point of the thread or any of the empirical data provided so far in topic, which is the efficacy of differential payments based on hospital acquired infection rates.





You picked a tangent that no one was discussing and furiously argued against it. The links you supplied to fight this imaginary tangent are a mix of ones that support what I'm saying and advocacy pieces. Not only do you not seem to be familiar with the literature on the subject, you appear to have a problem reading your own links.





If you're going to rant about a tangent nobody is talking about at least be sure you have your facts straight.

No, the slate link I posted is exactly what you're stating. I apologize if my language was off but the article is stating you're point and its sad indeed.



You two don't know anything about the medical field and its laughable when you exert yourself as knowledgeable.



The only reason why for profits take those in is because a room paying 60-80% of costs is still better than 0%. Unfortunately, everyone else with proper insurance has to pay more to make margin. I'm not sure how you find this difficult to understand but don't bring business and healthcare in a debate you're unfamiliar with.



The fact remains, all government owned properties are terrible in implementation. Thank God the ACA still allows companies to compete, albeit in a shitty form.