Ben Stein on L.K. said the Baucus bill cuts Medicare payments to doctors.

Anyone know if that's true? I know Stein is a Repub, but he is a Repub who has said that everyone in American SHOULD have health care, that it is shocking that they don't. He also said that he doesn't like the Baucus bill, but he'd rather SOME bill than no bill, if it helps poor Americans get health care.

For the above reasons, I tend to believe that Stein has studied up on the bill and may know something about it.

Does anyone know if the bill cuts Medicare payments to doctors? Or not? If it does, I'm not liking that. Doctors aren't the main money problem, as I see it. Ins. cos. are. Doctors already don't get paid that much under Medicare. I'm also concerned that more doctors will simply stop accepting Medicare patients.

Any thoughts? (It's not like what WE think about the health care bill matters, but that doesn't stop me from educating myself and having an opinion!)

the Baucus bill pays for its $900 billion price tag in part with $400 billion in cuts to Medicare or Medicare Advantage, not sure which. Seems like that's just going to come out of payments to providers. According to another post on DU, to make up for that lost revenue to doctors and to secure their support for reform, Senate Democrats are considering a separate bill that would boost Medicare payments to doctors by $200 billion.

from Medicare everytime I open a billing statement from them.

I have absolutly no problem if my doctors make a lot more money than I do. They worked hard to be where they are and deserve more than adequate compensation.

The whole billing system is so out of whack it is ridiculous.

their payments are cut further.

Thanks for the information.

Yes, the Baucus bill does cut payment to Docs but as been mentioned in a prior entry, in order not to break the CBO score for the Baucus bill, Reid will consider a seperate bill, a payment of over $200 billion to pay the docs. Of course, there is no money to pay for this, so we shall simply borrow money again and add to the new, recording breaking deficit of $1.4 trillion for fiscal 09, adding even more to the astounding $9.1 trillion debt and climbing. And guess who will eventually pay for all of this? I assume most of you reading this are young people so YOU will and your children will with higher taxes and a poorer lifestyle than you have now. Meanwhile, Congess continues to work feverishly to put all of us into another government-run program that will cost more than originially projected, just like they did with Medicare back in 1965. Originally projected to cost $12 billion in 1990, the actual cost was $107 billion. Medicare hospital insurance was projected to cost $9 billion in 1990, actual cost was more than $66 billion. Of course, to control the costs, the government will eventually ratchet down payments, like they have done before, and care will be rationed. Remember, the baby boomers are starting to retire and you will get to pay for all of it. I could never understand why progressives would want to turn their healthcare over to the government. You dont really think the Republicans will never get control of the executive branch or congress again, do you? Do you want a Karl Rove type deciding the kind of care you will or wont get?

Payments to doctors are already scheduled to be reduced, but Congress always passes an exemption. This happens even without health care reform.

Here is a fact check on the AHIP paid spin:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091015/ap_on_go_co/us_health_insurers_fact_check

###

With a series of beleaguered-looking elderly people on camera, a soothing female voice says accurately that Congress has proposed cutting more than $100 billion from Medicare Advantage. The program, administered by private companies that provide extra services like eye and dental care, serves about a quarter of Medicare beneficiaries, more than 10 million people.

Then the announcer adds, "The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says many seniors will see cuts in benefits." Words flash on the screen for three seconds saying, "50 percent reduction in extra benefits."

The announcer's words are true — but could be easily misunderstood to mean that basic Medicare coverage is at risk.

The budget office's director, Douglas Elmendorf, has said that as a result of the proposed cuts, the extra benefits Medicare Advantage recipients receive would be halved over the next decade. But the ad leaves unspoken that under the Finance bill, Medicare coverage for doctors, hospitals and other basic services would remain fully intact, with no reduction in benefits.

The ad also fails to mention the reason senators targeted Medicare Advantage for savings: The program is expensive for the government to administer, costing about 14 percent more per recipient than regular Medicare.

###