Sunday, 16 June 2013

OBAMACARE AND CASH DOCTORS

Ken Berwitz

So how are some doctors dealing with the overwhelming amount of red tape, paperwork, etc. associated with accepting medical insurance?

Well, apparently some of them have given up on medical insurance altogether, and now conduct an all-cash medical practice.

Read this excerpt from Steve Hargreave's article at cnn.com and see for yourself (and then use the link I've provided and read the rest - believe me, it's worth it):

Fed up with declining payments and rising red tape, a small but growing number of doctors is opting out of the insurance system completely. They're expecting patients to pony up with cash.

Some doctors who have gone that route love it, saying they can spend more time with and provide higher-quality care to their patients. Health advocates are skeptical, worrying that only the wealthy will benefit from this system.

In Wichita, Kan., 32-year old family physician Doug Nunamaker switched to a cash-only basis in 2010 after taking insurance for five years. ("Cash-only" is a loose description. Nunamaker accepts payment by debit or credit card too.)

Under the traditional health insurance system, a large staff was required just to navigate all the paperwork, he said. That resulted in high overhead, forcing doctors like Nunamaker to take on more patients to cover costs. Plus, the amount insurance companies were willing to pay for procedures was declining, leading to a vicious cycle.

"The paperwork, the hassles, it just got to be overwhelming," Nunamaker said. "We knew that we had to find a better way to practice."

 What does this mean?  It means that - at least for some doctors - the current medical insurance system has become so unwieldy, so expensive, that they can function successfully by forgoing all insurance patients and restricting themselves to cash-paying customers. 

Does this, in turn, mean there is something wrong with the current medical insurance system?  You certainly can make that argument, can't you?

And what effect do you suppose ObamaCare will have on this?  Do you suppose it will make things less unwieldy?  Easier to navigate?  If you do, please signify by saying "I believe the more government gets into an activity the more efficiently that activity runs".  Then take two truth pills, three logic pills, a large sip of history serum, and see me  in the morning.

In a scene which takes place toward the end of the (absolutely wonderful) movie "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel", a very unhappy couple is stuck in traffic heading toward the airport.  Suddenly there is a way for just one of them to get there in time to make the plane, but not both. The wife turns to the husband and says that this situation inadvertently is telling them something they need to realize -- it is over -- and that she is going to be the one making the plane.

Maybe the "I'm better off without any medical insurance patients at all than with medical insurance patients under these circumstances" situation described above, is telling the government something too.  I wonder if it will listen, and act accordingly.

free` Ken, that part of the movie was awesome, but remember the choice was between both people or one person and the luggage. Not sure it makes any difference to your point, but I thought I would add it in case you had forgotten. And her last line was "At least I'll be turning left ie; towards the first class seats. I really liked that movie, I have watched 2 or 3 times now. (06/16/13)

free` Now to address a part of the report. -- Health advocates are skeptical, worrying that only the wealthy will benefit from this system. ------- And the wealthy shouldn't benefit because they make more money? Do these same advocates want the wealthy to eat only mac and cheese and order from the 99 cent item menu at fast food places? Should having wealth really be looked down upon? It used to be something that inspired people to strive harder. What happened to the country I used to live in? (06/16/13)


WHAT IS OUR SYRIA POLICY?

Ken Berwitz

Could the bumbling incompetence and complete disarray of Barack Obama and his administration be more in evidence than it is regarding our Syria policy?

Excerpted from Lee Smith's article at weeklystandard.com:

Thursday the White House announced that the American intelligence community assesses, with a level of high confidence, that the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against the opposition multiple times, in a limited fashion. Now that it is clear Assad has crossed the Obama red line by using chemical weapons, the question is, has this changed the president's "calculus," as he said it might? The media is reporting that it has. According to the press, Obama has decided to arm the opposition.

However, there are other administration officials who tell the press that the White House is not going to send weapons to the opposition.

So is the White House arming the rebels or not? There's been confusion since Thursday afternoon when Sen. John McCain said on the Senate floor that Obama "will announce that we will be assisting the Syrian rebels by providing them with weapons and other assistance. I applaud the president's decision." Shortly after, McCain retracted his remarks, explaining that "the president has not made the final decision on arming." Afterward, McCain's spokesman, Josh Rogin reported, said the senator had been told by reliable sources that Obama was planning to arm the rebels.

A White House conference call with reporters Thursday afternoon hardly clarified matters. Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes was asked several times whether the White House intended to arm the rebels...said Rhodes..."suffice it to say its going to be substantively different from what we were providing certainly before our initial [chemical weapons] assessment in April."

What we know then from the administration's public and on the record statements is this: the White House is going to do more than what it was doing before. But we don't know if that includes weapons or just more non-lethal aid and equipment because the White House's point man for strategic communications won't say-he can't inventory-what's being sent.

Does this get more pathetic?

The world is busy taking sides for and against what it thought was President Obama's new, decisive policy on Syria.  Russia and Iran (what a lovely pair that is) are ready to back al-assad with armaments and, in Iran's case, troops.  al qaeda-infested rebels are licking their chops at the prospect of fighting for, and winning, control of Syria using USA resources......

...but, apparently, this administration doesn't have a clue as to what it is doing (or why, if you're asking me).

Here's a great idea: If one side is led by a mass murderer, and the other side is infested with al qaeda terrorists - you know, the ones who gave us 9/11 - then maybe, just maybe, the best course of action is to STAY OUT OF IT.

But, then again This is the Obama administration we're talking about, isn't it?  So why end a virtually unbroken string of foreign policy failures by doing something intelligent? 

Can we survive four more years of Obama?  Sadly, the voters have insured that we will find out.

Zeke .... .... The White House says "100-150 deaths are believed caused by Sarin" .... ...... 1) Why not an exact count ... how do you know it's Sarin gas, if you don't even have an accurate count of the bodies. ..... .... 2) Given that Assad is winning at the moment, WHY would he open this can of worms (and a supply line to the rebels) for such a SMALL number of the 90,000 deaths. .... ... 3) How do we know if these are really Sarin deaths, and how do we know WHO released the gas. .... .... 4) Could these deaths have been caused by artillery hitting Sarin storage buildings . .... .... 5) Could the rebels have done a 'false flag' -- caused the Sarin deaths and then blame it on Assad. .... ..... 6) This is a civil war -- both sides are guilty of major human rights violations. ,,,,, 7) If the rebels win, minorities in Syria will certainly suffer (Druse, Aliwites, Christians, etc) ..... ..... 8) Obama proposes arming the "rebels" who are... ... pure and simple ... al Q'aida. ..... the WTC - 9/11 folks --- --- 9) Is Obama out of his mind ? (06/16/13)

free` Here's a great idea: If one side is led by a mass murderer, and the other side is infested with al qaeda terrorists - you know, the ones who gave us 9/11 - then maybe, just maybe, the best course of action is to STAY OUT OF IT. ------------------------ Ken, I may have a better idea, arm both sides and let them destroy each other, while we protect the non-muslims. (06/16/13)

BOB W I agee with Free. Let those a--holes kill each other off and we should sit back - stay out and let them do it. The world will be a better place (06/16/13)


OBAMACARE AND CASH DOCTORS

Ken Berwitz

So how are some doctors dealing with the overwhelming amount of red tape, paperwork, etc. associated with accepting medical insurance?

Well, apparently some of them have given up on medical insurance altogether, and now conduct an all-cash medical practice.

Read this excerpt from Steve Hargreave's article at cnn.com and see for yourself (and then use the link I've provided and read the rest - believe me, it's worth it):

Fed up with declining payments and rising red tape, a small but growing number of doctors is opting out of the insurance system completely. They're expecting patients to pony up with cash.

Some doctors who have gone that route love it, saying they can spend more time with and provide higher-quality care to their patients. Health advocates are skeptical, worrying that only the wealthy will benefit from this system.

In Wichita, Kan., 32-year old family physician Doug Nunamaker switched to a cash-only basis in 2010 after taking insurance for five years. ("Cash-only" is a loose description. Nunamaker accepts payment by debit or credit card too.)

Under the traditional health insurance system, a large staff was required just to navigate all the paperwork, he said. That resulted in high overhead, forcing doctors like Nunamaker to take on more patients to cover costs. Plus, the amount insurance companies were willing to pay for procedures was declining, leading to a vicious cycle.

"The paperwork, the hassles, it just got to be overwhelming," Nunamaker said. "We knew that we had to find a better way to practice."

 What does this mean?  It means that - at least for some doctors - the current medical insurance system has become so unwieldy, so expensive, that they can function successfully by forgoing all insurance patients and restricting themselves to cash-paying customers. 

Does this, in turn, mean there is something wrong with the current medical insurance system?  You certainly can make that argument, can't you?

And what effect do you suppose ObamaCare will have on this?  Do you suppose it will make things less unwieldy?  Easier to navigate?  If you do, please signify by saying "I believe the more government gets into an activity the more efficiently that activity runs".  Then take two truth pills, three logic pills, a large sip of history serum, and see me  in the morning.

In a scene which takes place toward the end of the (absolutely wonderful) movie "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel", a very unhappy couple is stuck in traffic heading toward the airport.  Suddenly there is a way for just one of them to get there in time to make the plane, but not both. The wife turns to the husband and says that this situation inadvertently is telling them something they need to realize -- it is over -- and that she is going to be the one making the plane.

Maybe the "I'm better off without any medical insurance patients at all than with medical insurance patients under these circumstances" situation described above, is telling the government something too.  I wonder if it will listen, and act accordingly.

free` Now to address a part of the report. -- Health advocates are skeptical, worrying that only the wealthy will benefit from this system. ------- And the wealthy shouldn't benefit because they make more money? Do these same advocates want the wealthy to eat only mac and cheese and order from the 99 cent item menu at fast food places? Should having wealth really be looked down upon? It used to be something that inspired people to strive harder. What happened to the country I used to live in? (06/16/13)

free` Ken, that part of the movie was awesome, but remember the choice was between both people or one person and the luggage. Not sure it makes any difference to your point, but I thought I would add it in case you had forgotten. And her last line was "At least I'll be turning left ie; towards the first class seats. I really liked that movie, I have watched 2 or 3 times now. (06/16/13)


MEDIA BIAS? NAAAAHHHHH

Ken Berwitz

Iran, arguably the world's leading exporter of terrorism, has elected a new figurehead. His name is hasan rowhadi*, and he is being referred to by some benighted fools in media as a "moderate":  ridiculous on its face, given that, in order to run at all, every candidate had to be approved by ayatollah khameini, the radical Islamist cleric who really runs the show.

So how did CBS Reporter Elizabeth Palmer describe this election?

"Well he was seen as the most reform-minded of all the candidates who ran this time. That being said, they were all very conservative. In U.S. terms, it was as if all the candidates for the presidency came from the Tea Party."

In other words, this "reporter" is telling viewers that the Tea Party movement is equivalent to radical Islamists who foment terrorism around the world.

This is supposed to be a neutral report?  Elizabeth Palmer is supposed to be a professional journalist?  We're supposed to take this seriously?

Media bias?  Naaaaahhhhh

============================================

*One of about six different spellings of the name I have seen so far.


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Today's Quote Of The Day comes to us from the estimable Charles Krauthammer, who, like the child who debunked the Emperor's new clothes, manages, in very few words, to lay bare the obvious contradiction between Barack Obama's braggadocio about decimating terrorism, and his administration's rationale for turning the USA into a Big Brother state:

"So here is a guy saying, 'It's over, essentially. I am winding it down.' And at the same time running this unbelievably huge, invasive program whose only idea, whose only basis is the vast terror threat out there.  So he doesn't only support the program, he contradicts it in public.  That's a total lack of leadership and that's why his numbers, the poll numbers he now has are markedly down."

That's right, Charles.  That is exactly what he is saying, exactly what he is doing, and exactly why he is losing the trust of people whom, against all facts and logic, have maintained their trust of him until now.

Excellent point, excellently made.  Quote Of The Day honors are yours.

 


WHAT IS OUR SYRIA POLICY?

Ken Berwitz

Could the bumbling incompetence and complete disarray of Barack Obama and his administration be more in evidence than it is regarding our Syria policy?

Excerpted from Lee Smith's article at weeklystandard.com:

Thursday the White House announced that the American intelligence community assesses, with a level of high confidence, that the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against the opposition multiple times, in a limited fashion. Now that it is clear Assad has crossed the Obama red line by using chemical weapons, the question is, has this changed the president's "calculus," as he said it might? The media is reporting that it has. According to the press, Obama has decided to arm the opposition.

However, there are other administration officials who tell the press that the White House is not going to send weapons to the opposition.

So is the White House arming the rebels or not? There's been confusion since Thursday afternoon when Sen. John McCain said on the Senate floor that Obama "will announce that we will be assisting the Syrian rebels by providing them with weapons and other assistance. I applaud the president's decision." Shortly after, McCain retracted his remarks, explaining that "the president has not made the final decision on arming." Afterward, McCain's spokesman, Josh Rogin reported, said the senator had been told by reliable sources that Obama was planning to arm the rebels.

A White House conference call with reporters Thursday afternoon hardly clarified matters. Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes was asked several times whether the White House intended to arm the rebels...said Rhodes..."suffice it to say its going to be substantively different from what we were providing certainly before our initial [chemical weapons] assessment in April."

What we know then from the administration's public and on the record statements is this: the White House is going to do more than what it was doing before. But we don't know if that includes weapons or just more non-lethal aid and equipment because the White House's point man for strategic communications won't say-he can't inventory-what's being sent.

Does this get more pathetic?

The world is busy taking sides for and against what it thought was President Obama's new, decisive policy on Syria.  Russia and Iran (what a lovely pair that is) are ready to back al-assad with armaments and, in Iran's case, troops.  al qaeda-infested rebels are licking their chops at the prospect of fighting for, and winning, control of Syria using USA resources......

...but, apparently, this administration doesn't have a clue as to what it is doing (or why, if you're asking me).

Here's a great idea: If one side is led by a mass murderer, and the other side is infested with al qaeda terrorists - you know, the ones who gave us 9/11 - then maybe, just maybe, the best course of action is to STAY OUT OF IT.

But, then again This is the Obama administration we're talking about, isn't it?  So why end a virtually unbroken string of foreign policy failures by doing something intelligent? 

Can we survive four more years of Obama?  Sadly, the voters have insured that we will find out.

BOB W I agee with Free. Let those a--holes kill each other off and we should sit back - stay out and let them do it. The world will be a better place (06/16/13)

free` Here's a great idea: If one side is led by a mass murderer, and the other side is infested with al qaeda terrorists - you know, the ones who gave us 9/11 - then maybe, just maybe, the best course of action is to STAY OUT OF IT. ------------------------ Ken, I may have a better idea, arm both sides and let them destroy each other, while we protect the non-muslims. (06/16/13)

Zeke .... .... The White House says "100-150 deaths are believed caused by Sarin" .... ...... 1) Why not an exact count ... how do you know it's Sarin gas, if you don't even have an accurate count of the bodies. ..... .... 2) Given that Assad is winning at the moment, WHY would he open this can of worms (and a supply line to the rebels) for such a SMALL number of the 90,000 deaths. .... ... 3) How do we know if these are really Sarin deaths, and how do we know WHO released the gas. .... .... 4) Could these deaths have been caused by artillery hitting Sarin storage buildings . .... .... 5) Could the rebels have done a 'false flag' -- caused the Sarin deaths and then blame it on Assad. .... ..... 6) This is a civil war -- both sides are guilty of major human rights violations. ,,,,, 7) If the rebels win, minorities in Syria will certainly suffer (Druse, Aliwites, Christians, etc) ..... ..... 8) Obama proposes arming the "rebels" who are... ... pure and simple ... al Q'aida. ..... the WTC - 9/11 folks --- --- 9) Is Obama out of his mind ? (06/16/13)


THE QUOTE OF THE DAY

Ken Berwitz

Today's Quote Of The Day comes to us from the estimable Charles Krauthammer, who, like the child who debunked the Emperor's new clothes, manages, in very few words, to lay bare the obvious contradiction between Barack Obama's braggadocio about decimating terrorism, and his administration's rationale for turning the USA into a Big Brother state:

"So here is a guy saying, 'It's over, essentially. I am winding it down.' And at the same time running this unbelievably huge, invasive program whose only idea, whose only basis is the vast terror threat out there.  So he doesn't only support the program, he contradicts it in public.  That's a total lack of leadership and that's why his numbers, the poll numbers he now has are markedly down."

That's right, Charles.  That is exactly what he is saying, exactly what he is doing, and exactly why he is losing the trust of people whom, against all facts and logic, have maintained their trust of him until now.

Excellent point, excellently made.  Quote Of The Day honors are yours.

 


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!