Politics - why all the corruption?

[doug yowell]

Politicians are not the only ones that are corrupt in politics. Even the AMA has it's political and moral fish to fry. Has anyone ever heard of the AMA alternative,Doc's for Patient Care? At docsforpatientcare.org? Karl, I think you know some Dr's, are any of them (or even 1 of them)familar with this group?

[phkrause]

Politicians are not the only ones that are corrupt in politics. Even the AMA has it's political and moral fish to fry. Has anyone ever heard of the AMA alternative,Doc's for Patient Care? At docsforpatientcare.org? Karl, I think you know some Dr's, are any of them (or even 1 of them)familar with this group?

That's very true doug, but we are talking about politics, no? And yes I agree with you they are no better, they are all in cahoots.

pk

[karl]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Politicians are not the only ones that are corrupt in politics. Even the AMA has it's political and moral fish to fry. Has anyone ever heard of the AMA alternative,Doc's for Patient Care? At docsforpatientcare.org? Karl, I think you know some Dr's, are any of them (or even 1 of them)familar with this group?

That's very true doug, but we are talking about politics, no? And yes I agree with you they are no better, they are all in cahoots.

pk

The original alternative to the AMA was AAPS - American Association of Physicians and Surgeons. This group formed in the mid-eighties when the government told physicians to either opt out completely from Medicare or to knuckle under to the government's price controls. Most people didn't hear much about this, but any doctor who was in private practice knows about the omnibus reconciliation act of 2005 (OBRA), This is when the restrictions started and this is when many doctors left the AMA. The exodus has been steady until now the AMA represents only 17% of physicians.

[karl]

I just saw a new hero on Fox News. Robert Healey is running for Lt Gov in RI. The Lt Gov does nothing - he is an understudy for the Gov. THis office costs RI a million a year. Healey says, if elected, he will forego the $150K salary, fire the 8 employees of the office, and wait for the possibility of taking over the Gov. mansion from home... for FREE!!

Love it.

[doug yowell]

I just read thru all the comments on this topic and now I feel like the wart on the end of Cindy Crawford's nose. One needs to be wary of any undue negative influence from Australia. After all, those convicts still think they have the biggest coral reef in the world!I'm probably the only person left that actually believes that most politicians are NOT motivated by monetary gain. Figure it out, if so many of our representitives are multi-millionares already why would they need that extra 150 grand or so?Anyway, I think that the overwhelming % of politicians are not crooked. Idealogues,civicly challenged? Maybe. But given the small number of politicians (you are including ALL politicians,right?)who are indicted compared to the number who serve with integrity and dedication....unlike the lawyer who once complained: "90% of these attorneys are giving the rest of us a bad name!" IF there is any increase in governmental corruption I attribute it to the decline (as one has already alluded to)of Christian values in the country as a whole. When the fear of accountibility to God for one's actions (the judgment)and the desire to serve one's fellow man from a godly perspective is removed so is the ability to resist the inevitible power rush that accompanies the office. There have been many "good" politicians over the years.And Karl, doesn't your last post about Robt.Healey undermine the general thrust that all politicians are greedy? I'm headed for Wal-Mart to see if I can find something that will get rid of warts. Out

ly

[Woody]

"

Quote:

I just read thru all the comments on this topic and now I feel like the wart on the end of Cindy Crawford's nose."

[karl]

- big snip of long diatribe of how wonderful politicians are -

And Karl, doesn't your last post about Robt.Healey undermine the general thrust that all politicians are greedy?

Healey is not a politician. He is a long-haired hippy and probable Jesuit just like some guy I know from Loma Linda. Did you see your picture on the special session thread?

You and Woody.

Busted again.

[Gerr]

Just tagging on.

I just heard in the news that many people are disgusted with the Republicrats in Washington and would like more officials in Washington who are more interested in solving the country's problems rather than locking horns over ideologies. I hope this movement grows. I may just start voting again.

[karl]

Just tagging on.

I just heard in the news that many people are disgusted with the Republicrats in Washington and would like more officials in Washington who are more interested in solving the country's problems rather than locking horns over ideologies. I hope this movement grows. I may just start voting again.

Good for you. Let's oust these clowns.

[doug yowell]

"

Quote:

I just read thru all the comments on this topic and now I feel like the wart on the end of Cindy Crawford's nose."

If I would have known that you had access to that picture,Woody, I wouldn't have gotten this tatoo of a battleship on my stomach. Wait, how'd you do that?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Just tagging on.

I just heard in the news that many people are disgusted with the Republicrats in Washington and would like more officials in Washington who are more interested in solving the country's problems rather than locking horns over ideologies. I hope this movement grows. I may just start voting again.

Good for you. Let's oust these clowns.

Very clever,Karl. The only good politicians we can vote for are now all Jesuits with hippie alias'. I think we should reconsider that GC President position for you and see if we can go all the way to the top!!Don't cut your hair for awhile.

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

Good for you. Let's oust these clowns.

Very clever,Karl. The only good politicians we can vote for are now all Jesuits with hippie alias'. I think we should reconsider that GC President position for you and see if we can go all the way to the top!!Don't cut your hair for awhile.

Doug, did you see your picture over on the Special Congress in Session thread?

[doug yowell]

Doug, did you see your picture over on the Special Congress in Session thread?

Yes, and I'm as good looking as ever! But, if we Jesuits infiltrate everywhere, who infiltrates us? Adventists? Who leaked that photo?

[karl]

Quote:

Doug, did you see your picture over on the Special Congress in Session thread?

Yes, and I'm as good looking as ever! But, if we Jesuits infiltrate everywhere, who infiltrates us? Adventists? Who leaked that photo?

It was Pam, I think, ratting us out!

Isn't there a special place in Jesuit hell for this kind of thing?

[doug yowell]

Yes, and I'm as good looking as ever! But, if we Jesuits infiltrate everywhere, who infiltrates us? Adventists? Who leaked that photo?

[karl]

Yes, and I'm as good looking as ever! But, if we Jesuits infiltrate everywhere, who infiltrates us? Adventists? Who leaked that photo?

[karl]

Bring the Fight Over Physician-Owned Hospitals Into the Open

Elyas Bakhtiari, for HealthLeaders Media, January 22, 2009

It has already passed in the House, and the legislation to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program will likely make its way through the Senate with little resistance. After all, who would want to deny emergency health coverage to children who need it, particularly in a time like this?

Therein lies the brilliance of opponents of physician-owned hospitals, who have buried in the SCHIP bill a provision aimed at curtailing the growth and development of these facilities. The restrictions aren't currently in the Senate version of the bill, and it's unclear if they will make it into the final legislation. If they do, existing physician-owned hospitals would be barred from expanding, investment in such hospitals would be restricted, and no new Medicare reimbursement approvals would be issued.

It's an old trick in Washington—you hide potentially controversial measures in a must-pass bill to limit debate and tie opponents' hands—and it is a familiar tactic in this old fight.

In 2008, similar language was slipped into several bills, including legislation related to funding the war in Iraq and a completely unrelated farm bill, but the ban never passed. As I wrote last spring, this is a very divisive battle involving both physician and hospital heavyweights.

Physician owners contend that their specialty hospitals offer patients greater choice and better care, while hospitals warn that physician ownership can lead to self-referrals and doctors cherry-picking patients.

Both sides make a valid point or two, and it is a debate worth having—just not like this.

Although it may not fit the technical definition, the provision in SCHIP is essentially an earmark. A number of hospitals have lost market share to physician-owned competitors, and the ban could have a substantial financial impact on their bottom lines.

Are there legitimate concerns about self-referral? Sure. But CMS already has an elaborate process for dealing with that issue. Why not debate the constraints to put on physician hospital ownership through the usual channels?

I suspect it is because hospital associations are afraid they would lose. There are already 199 physician-owned hospitals nationwide, and another 85 currently under development, according to Physician Hospitals of America. That represents "$2.4 billion in total payroll, $509 million in federal taxes, $1.9 billion in trade payables, and 55,000 full- and part-time employees."

Physician-owned hospitals have already proven their utility. CMS has investigated the claims and given them the green light. An open debate would likely focus on how to regulate these entities, rather than whether or not they have a right to exist.

"The real issue at the heart of this is competition and control," says Molly Sandvig, executive director of Physician Hospitals of America. Opponents of physician-owned hospitals don't want regulated competitors. They'd prefer to not have the competition at all, which is why they keep trying to sneak a ban through Congress.