Did you vote today?

Created by Rick on Jun 8, 2010

6,229 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Guest

Mountain Home, AR

#13858 Aug 14, 2012
Why bother....
Super Troll

United States

#13859 Aug 14, 2012
peachy keen wrote:
<quoted text>
hey idiot wher you get that idea that some dem said this peachy keen canada stuff but yo cant name 1
Sounds like someone was hitting the rock last night.
Reality Check

Warren, AR

#13860 Aug 14, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"My original post said that there are more doctors declining to take medicare patients and that is correct"
You are sadly mistaken, it is not correct.
Overall, beneficiary access to physician services is good or better than that reported by privately insured patients age 50 to 64. For example, in 2010, 75 percent of beneficiaries reported that they had no problem scheduling timely routine-care physician appointments.
Multiple surveys show that most physicians are accepting Medicare patients. For example, the 2008 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey found that 90 percent of physicians with at least 10 percent of their practice revenue coming from Medicare accepted at least some new Medicare patients.
Medicare’s payment for physician fee-schedule services in 2009 averaged 80 percent of private insurer payments for preferred provider organizations, a figure unchanged from the preceding year.
A recent study found that in 2007, hourly compensation rates for some specialties were more than double the rate for primary care. The Commission has recommended enhancements to primary care, such as increasing Medicare payments for primary care services provided by primary care practitioners.(Note: The 2010 Affordable Care Act increased payments to primary care doctors by 10%.)
In 2009, the Medicare margin for the median efficient hospital was 3.0 percent.(We define efficient hospitals as those that consistently perform relatively well on cost, mortality, and readmission measures.) While most of these relatively efficient hospitals generate profits on Medicare patients, about one-third do not.
http://tucsoncitizen.com/medicare/2011/08/23/...
You are cherry picking again. For example, the unemployment rate in N. Dakota is 3.8% but you can't take that and say that America is doing just fine because we are not. That is exactly what you are doing. I never said that no doctors are taking new medicare patients. I said that the number of doctors not taking new medicare patients is on the rise. Let's assume your argument is correct that payments have increased 10%. On Feb. 26, 2010 Congress failed to stop a 21% decrease in payments doctors already considered to be too low so that means that a 10% increase still keeps reimbursement payments too low. Besides, the stats you quote are irrelevent because they were pre-Obamacare and about half of them were pre-Obama. That makes a huge difference. The stats I quoted were there because of Obamacare and Obama's policies. What you just essentially did is give Bush credit for a healthier medicare program than under Obama. I didn't think you had that in you.
guest

Blytheville, AR

#13861 Aug 14, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"My original post said that there are more doctors declining to take medicare patients and that is correct"
You are sadly mistaken, it is not correct.
Overall, beneficiary access to physician services is good or better than that reported by privately insured patients age 50 to 64. For example, in 2010, 75 percent of beneficiaries reported that they had no problem scheduling timely routine-care physician appointments.
Multiple surveys show that most physicians are accepting Medicare patients. For example, the 2008 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey found that 90 percent of physicians with at least 10 percent of their practice revenue coming from Medicare accepted at least some new Medicare patients.
Medicare’s payment for physician fee-schedule services in 2009 averaged 80 percent of private insurer payments for preferred provider organizations, a figure unchanged from the preceding year.
A recent study found that in 2007, hourly compensation rates for some specialties were more than double the rate for primary care. The Commission has recommended enhancements to primary care, such as increasing Medicare payments for primary care services provided by primary care practitioners.(Note: The 2010 Affordable Care Act increased payments to primary care doctors by 10%.)
In 2009, the Medicare margin for the median efficient hospital was 3.0 percent.(We define efficient hospitals as those that consistently perform relatively well on cost, mortality, and readmission measures.) While most of these relatively efficient hospitals generate profits on Medicare patients, about one-third do not.
http://tucsoncitizen.com/medicare/2011/08/23/...
You may want to get some more "up to date" facts.
http://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media-room/n...
http://www.physiciansforreform.org/hcr08medi....
http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx...

"Thirty-six percent of doctors say they are no longer accepting new Medicaid patients due in large part to declining reimbursements, a new national survey has found.
The survey of 2,232 physicians across all specialties conducted in late April by Jackson Healthcare in Atlanta — the fourth-largest health care staffing company in the U.S."

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/survey-more...

According to Richard L. Jackson, chairman and CEO of Jackson Healthcare, the low reimbursement rate paired with the large influx of new Medicaid patients will be a problem.

“This is creating the perfect storm that will make it very difficult for the poor and elderly to access a doctor,” Jackson said.“Physicians say they just can’t afford to be part of a system that generates so many patients for so little compensation.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/survey-more...
mary smith

Toledo, OH

#13862 Aug 14, 2012
Well you finally got it. "The poor and elderly and that includes 99% of America wont be able to afford dctors and acess medical care." They will force us to use our last dollars to pay premiums for policies we cant afford to use due to copays and lack of doctors willing to take decreased fees. The well to do will simply leave the country as they are doing now and that includes the doctors.

Unemployment numbers are a joke. Most people unemployed gave up long ago or are working part time and are not counted. Just look aroundyour towns and you can figure the real pecentage either not employed or under employed.

As long as we keep paying for derivatives we dont owe on our nation will be bankrupt. The government is preparing for civil war when they implode the economy. They will take our guns and any food and wter you have stored and that includes livestock and crops in the fields. You need to decide now how you plan on dealing with it.
guest

Jonesboro, AR

#13863 Aug 14, 2012
mary smith wrote:
Well you finally got it. "The poor and elderly and that includes 99% of America wont be able to afford dctors and acess medical care." They will force us to use our last dollars to pay premiums for policies we cant afford to use due to copays and lack of doctors willing to take decreased fees. The well to do will simply leave the country as they are doing now and that includes the doctors.
Unemployment numbers are a joke. Most people unemployed gave up long ago or are working part time and are not counted. Just look aroundyour towns and you can figure the real pecentage either not employed or under employed.
As long as we keep paying for derivatives we dont owe on our nation will be bankrupt. The government is preparing for civil war when they implode the economy. They will take our guns and any food and wter you have stored and that includes livestock and crops in the fields. You need to decide now how you plan on dealing with it.
Who is "they"? I have heard that "they" are going to do all sort of evil things my entire life and even when "they" are in office, those evil things never happen. I know that you are willing to sacrifice the future generations to avoid addressing the issues today, but I really don't believe that "they" are out to get you.

Level 1

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#13864 Aug 14, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>You may want to get some more "up to date" facts.
http://www.jacksonhealthcare.com/media-room/n...
http://www.physiciansforreform.org/hcr08medi....
http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx...
"Thirty-six percent of doctors say they are no longer accepting new Medicaid patients due in large part to declining reimbursements, a new national survey has found.
The survey of 2,232 physicians across all specialties conducted in late April by Jackson Healthcare in Atlanta — the fourth-largest health care staffing company in the U.S."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/survey-more...
According to Richard L. Jackson, chairman and CEO of Jackson Healthcare, the low reimbursement rate paired with the large influx of new Medicaid patients will be a problem.
“This is creating the perfect storm that will make it very difficult for the poor and elderly to access a doctor,” Jackson said.“Physicians say they just can’t afford to be part of a system that generates so many patients for so little compensation.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/23/survey-more...
The topic was MEDICARE, NOT MEDICAID patients.

Two different programs.

Level 1

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#13865 Aug 14, 2012
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
You are cherry picking again. For example, the unemployment rate in N. Dakota is 3.8% but you can't take that and say that America is doing just fine because we are not. That is exactly what you are doing. I never said that no doctors are taking new medicare patients. I said that the number of doctors not taking new medicare patients is on the rise. Let's assume your argument is correct that payments have increased 10%. On Feb. 26, 2010 Congress failed to stop a 21% decrease in payments doctors already considered to be too low so that means that a 10% increase still keeps reimbursement payments too low. Besides, the stats you quote are irrelevent because they were pre-Obamacare and about half of them were pre-Obama. That makes a huge difference. The stats I quoted were there because of Obamacare and Obama's policies. What you just essentially did is give Bush credit for a healthier medicare program than under Obama. I didn't think you had that in you.
"What you just essentially did is give Bush credit for a healthier medicare program than under Obama"

LMAO-Sure I did, read on.......

March 4, 2010 – The legislatively mandated cut in Medicare’s pay to physicians of 21.2 percent has been delayed until at least April 1 by a bill passed by the Democrats late Tuesday and signed by President Obama.
guest

Blytheville, AR

#13866 Aug 14, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
The topic was MEDICARE, NOT MEDICAID patients.
Two different programs.
What? Don't the poor count in your world anymore? You expose a darker liberal side to yourself everyday. Besides, read the text, the Jackson Health survey was for MEDICARE AND MEDICAID.
guest

Jonesboro, AR

#13867 Aug 14, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"What you just essentially did is give Bush credit for a healthier medicare program than under Obama"
LMAO-Sure I did, read on.......
March 4, 2010 – The legislatively mandated cut in Medicare’s pay to physicians of 21.2 percent has been delayed until at least April 1 by a bill passed by the Democrats late Tuesday and signed by President Obama.
Cutting the pay to the employees of the healthcare system is something to brag about?
guest

Blytheville, AR

#13868 Aug 14, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"What you just essentially did is give Bush credit for a healthier medicare program than under Obama"
LMAO-Sure I did, read on.......
March 4, 2010 – The legislatively mandated cut in Medicare’s pay to physicians of 21.2 percent has been delayed until at least April 1 by a bill passed by the Democrats late Tuesday and signed by President Obama.
Watch out, Realy Check, oppressive slave master BARNEYII will no try to claim ownership over your ass because you did not live up to standards expected of you but not of himself.

Level 1

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#13869 Aug 14, 2012
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
You are cherry picking again. For example, the unemployment rate in N. Dakota is 3.8% but you can't take that and say that America is doing just fine because we are not. That is exactly what you are doing. I never said that no doctors are taking new medicare patients. I said that the number of doctors not taking new medicare patients is on the rise. Let's assume your argument is correct that payments have increased 10%. On Feb. 26, 2010 Congress failed to stop a 21% decrease in payments doctors already considered to be too low so that means that a 10% increase still keeps reimbursement payments too low. Besides, the stats you quote are irrelevent because they were pre-Obamacare and about half of them were pre-Obama. That makes a huge difference. The stats I quoted were there because of Obamacare and Obama's policies. What you just essentially did is give Bush credit for a healthier medicare program than under Obama. I didn't think you had that in you.
Would you mind giving me the post number for the "stats" you say you quoted.

"The stats I quoted were there because of Obamacare and Obama's policies"

Level 1

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#13870 Aug 14, 2012
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
You are cherry picking again. For example, the unemployment rate in N. Dakota is 3.8% but you can't take that and say that America is doing just fine because we are not. That is exactly what you are doing. I never said that no doctors are taking new medicare patients. I said that the number of doctors not taking new medicare patients is on the rise. Let's assume your argument is correct that payments have increased 10%. On Feb. 26, 2010 Congress failed to stop a 21% decrease in payments doctors already considered to be too low so that means that a 10% increase still keeps reimbursement payments too low. Besides, the stats you quote are irrelevent because they were pre-Obamacare and about half of them were pre-Obama. That makes a huge difference. The stats I quoted were there because of Obamacare and Obama's policies. What you just essentially did is give Bush credit for a healthier medicare program than under Obama. I didn't think you had that in you.

The fact is, this decrease in payments to doctors, began long before the H.C.R.A. was ever thought of.

“In 1992, Congress adopted Hsiao's physician-payment scale, and it worked - but only for a few years.

There are different explanations for what happened. Hsiao blames lobbyists. Lobbyists and doctors say health care is just expensive, and most of the time Medicare actually underpays doctors.

“Congress tried to slow the growth of doctor pay by saying total payments to doctors could not grow faster than the overall economy. When the total amount Medicare was paying to doctors grew faster than the overall economy, the rates for each procedure and service were supposed to be cut.

“But doctors, naturally, lobbied against letting those cuts take effect. And Congress passed short-term measures, again and again, blocking the planned cuts. That's where things stand now — cuts about to kick in, doctors lobbying Congress to block the cuts and no clear answer for the best way to pay them.

http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2010/2...
Reality Check

Warren, AR

#13871 Aug 14, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is, this decrease in payments to doctors, began long before the H.C.R.A. was ever thought of.
“In 1992, Congress adopted Hsiao's physician-payment scale, and it worked - but only for a few years.
There are different explanations for what happened. Hsiao blames lobbyists. Lobbyists and doctors say health care is just expensive, and most of the time Medicare actually underpays doctors.
“Congress tried to slow the growth of doctor pay by saying total payments to doctors could not grow faster than the overall economy. When the total amount Medicare was paying to doctors grew faster than the overall economy, the rates for each procedure and service were supposed to be cut.
“But doctors, naturally, lobbied against letting those cuts take effect. And Congress passed short-term measures, again and again, blocking the planned cuts. That's where things stand now — cuts about to kick in, doctors lobbying Congress to block the cuts and no clear answer for the best way to pay them.
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2010/2...
What are you trying to say? 1992? Really? I am talking about 2012 and doctors reimbursement rates dropping and you are trying to pin it on the 1992 Congress. Is there nothing that you will blame this president for? There is a lot to choose from in that category and none of it good besides his war on terror. Why don't I just say that Lyndon Johnson cut doctors medicare reimbursements to $0 in 1963 and that means the Democrats want to cut out medicare. It shouldn't matter that there was no medicare in 1963. We are just trying to find a party to blame by any means neccessary. You are impossible.

Level 1

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#13872 Aug 14, 2012
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you trying to say? 1992? Really? I am talking about 2012 and doctors reimbursement rates dropping and you are trying to pin it on the 1992 Congress. Is there nothing that you will blame this president for? There is a lot to choose from in that category and none of it good besides his war on terror. Why don't I just say that Lyndon Johnson cut doctors medicare reimbursements to $0 in 1963 and that means the Democrats want to cut out medicare. It shouldn't matter that there was no medicare in 1963. We are just trying to find a party to blame by any means neccessary. You are impossible.
OMG, you are as dense as a brick, where/when do you think the mandate to cut reimbursements came from?
guest

Jonesboro, AR

#13873 Aug 14, 2012
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG, you are as dense as a brick, where/when do you think the mandate to cut reimbursements came from?
Twenty years and you still can't get it done, he might not be the dense one.
Reality Check

Conway, AR

#13874 Aug 14, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Twenty years and you still can't get it done, he might not be the dense one.
Liberals will fail miserably 100 times and then get one small thing right and claim total success. It appears we are somewhere in the middle of the 100 epic failures and Barney just doesn't realize it.
Super Troll

United States

#13875 Aug 14, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Twenty years and you still can't get it done, he might not be the dense one.
Do you have a political opinion any more, or is out gonna be screw with Barney day every day?
guest

Jonesboro, AR

#13876 Aug 14, 2012
Super Troll wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have a political opinion any more, or is out gonna be screw with Barney day every day?
No need to screw with Barney, he screws himself. There was a political point there, does everything have to be spelled out for you to understand the point? He was referring to a twenty year old piece of legislation that evidently is still unresolved, that was the point of the statement. I am not used to non objective people, sometimes your side is wrong,vsometimes mine is, no need to defend bad policy, some on here ignore reality, that doesn't bother me as much as they are voters.
Dohbama is killing you

Amsterdam, Netherlands

#13877 Aug 14, 2012
August 14, 2012 5:00 am

A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region, the Washington Free Beacon has learned.

It is only the second time since 2009 that a Russian attack submarine has patrolled so close to U.S. shores.

The stealth underwater incursion in the Gulf took place at the same time Russian strategic bombers made incursions into restricted U.S. airspace near Alaska and California in June and July, and highlights a growing military assertiveness by Moscow.

The submarine patrol also exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities—forces that are facing cuts under the Obama administration’s plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years.

The Navy is in charge of detecting submarines, especially those that sail near U.S. nuclear missile submarines, and uses undersea sensors and satellites to locate and track them.

The fact that the Akula was not detected in the Gulf is cause for concern, U.S. officials said.

The officials who are familiar with reports of the submarine patrol in the Gulf of Mexico said the vessel was a nuclear-powered Akula-class attack submarine, one of Russia’s quietest submarines.

A Navy spokeswoman declined to comment.

One official said the Akula operated without being detected for a month.

“The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews,” said a second U.S. official.

“It’s a very stealthy boat so it can sneak around and avoid detection and hope to get past any protective screen a boomer might have in place,” the official said, referring to the Navy nickname for strategic missile submarines.

The U.S. Navy operates a strategic nuclear submarine base at Kings Bay, Georgia. The base is homeport to eight missile-firing submarines, six of them equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles, and two armed with conventional warhead missiles.

“Sending a nuclear-propelled submarine into the Gulf of Mexico-Caribbean region is another manifestation of President Putin demonstrating that Russia is still a player on the world’s political-military stage,” said naval analyst and submarine warfare specialist Norman Polmar.

“Like the recent deployment of a task force led by a nuclear cruiser into the Caribbean, the Russian Navy provides him with a means of ‘showing the flag’ that is not possible with Russian air and ground forces,” Polmar said in an email.

The last time an Akula submarine was known to be close to U.S. shores was 2009, when two Akulas were spotted patrolling off the east coast of the United States.

Those submarine patrols raised concerns at the time about a new Russian military assertiveness toward the United States, according to the New York Times, which first reported the 2009 Akula submarine activity.

The latest submarine incursion in the Gulf further highlights the failure of the Obama administration’s “reset” policy of conciliatory actions designed to develop closer ties with Moscow.

Instead of closer ties, Russia under President Vladimir Putin, an ex-KGB intelligence officer who has said he wants to restore elements of Russia’s Soviet communist past, has adopted growing hardline policies against the United States.

Of the submarine activity, Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said,“It’s a confounding situation arising from a lack of leadership in our dealings with Moscow. While the president is touting our supposed ‘reset’ in relations with Russia, Vladimir Putin is actively working against American interests, whether it’s in Syria or here in our own backyard.”

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Paragould Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
rabies shot (Dec '12) 2 hr deltadawn 6
Paragould now a Black city 2 hr deltadawn 14
how to know when your spouse is a freeloader 2 hr advice 1
Joseph lee gilbee 24. Lives in lafe 2 hr Just wondering 1
randy couch 3 hr guest 1
Republican Budget Blueprint 3 hr Rupert B Jigglebo... 4
why abc lets bars have gambling machines 3 hr guest 10
More from around the web

Paragould People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]