Too many doctors are dropping Medicare, why?
Too many doctors are dropping Medicare, why?
So you say.
Figure 1: Percentage of Physicians Accepting New Patients with Medicare and Private Insurance, 2005-2012
Approximately 90% of all office-based physicians report accepting new Medicare patients. The percentage of physicians who report accepting new Medicare patients is similar to the percentage of physicians who report accepting new privately insured patients. In addition, the share accepting new Medicare patients has been relatively stable over the 2005-2012 period and shows a slight increase in 2011-2012 based on initial NAMCS data. Beneficiary reports of access to care, including the ability to find a physician and see a doctor in a timely manner, are also favorable. Again, these results are comparable to reports by patients with private insurance and have been stable over time. Overall, Medicare beneficiary access to care has been consistently high over the last decade and continues to be high today.
In addition I can post articles and you can post articles that support our point of view but what you cannot point to are govt. entitlement programs that ever cost what they were supposed to cost without providing incentive to the patient. There is no incentive for the Federal Govt. to provide incentive as they buy votes instead of cutting costs.
Last edited by Conservative; 07-10-15 at 03:31 PM.
So obviously either Part D didn't save money, or entitlement programs can indeed be designed in ways that save money. Figure out what you believe and get back to me. Watching you debate yourself is a bit tedious.
Obviously you have no concept of what incentive means show me the incentive in ACA to create savings of healthcare costs
Corrected to say incentive for patients to save money in their healthcare expenses like they have with ACA
Last edited by Conservative; 07-10-15 at 04:14 PM.
Is it a parody, or is it real?
Poe's law is an internet adage which states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, parodies of extremism are indistinguishable from sincere expressions of extremism. Poe's Law implies that parody will often be mistaken for sincere belief, and sincere beliefs for parody.
Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.
Plans thus have every incentive to sell the cheapest plan (not dissimilar from the concept of competitive bidding in more government-heavy programs like Part D--the difference is sellers are bidding directly for consumers' business in the open market) and consumers have a personal financial incentive to buy the cheapest plans. The incentive is stronger under the ACA than it is under Part D.
This dynamic is why premiums have been way below expectations ("Private Premiums Under Affordable Care Act 15% Below Forecast, Says CBO") and it's a big part of why the ACA's expected cost has fallen dramatically: "Obamacare will cost less than thought."
Meanwhile, when it comes to actually shopping for health services, people are increasingly price sensitive because of the cost-sharing in their insurance plans, e.g., deductibles and the like. They're incentivized to use lower-priced health care providers, which puts downward pressure on health care price growth (which is at about the lowest level ever right now).
You've admitted that a government program structured in this way can be expected to save money. The only thing left to do is take that one last step and admit the obvious: the ACA has and will save money.
By the way, private insurance offers the same thing and we didn't need ACA to make those programs available to others as well. A tax credit program would do the same thing and allow people to save money by keeping more of that tax credit if they saved money. Those not paying taxes would be eligible for true help from the state and local communities
Last edited by Conservative; 07-11-15 at 09:38 AM.
So your alternative would be an approach that "offers the same thing." That sounds like a tacit admission that the ACA is achieving exactly what you'd want a health reform plan to be achieving.By the way, private insurance offers the same thing and we didn't need ACA to make those programs available to others as well. A tax credit program would do the same thing and allow people to save money by keeping more of that tax credit if they saved money. Those not paying taxes would be eligible for true help from the state and local communities
At this point you're just quibbling.