Would The Media Prefer Mr. Bachmann's Clinic Turn Away Poor Medicaid Patients?
NBC News's Michael Isikoff believes it's hypocritical of presidential candidate Michele Bachmann to criticize Medicaid because her husband's clinic receives money from this government healthcare program for the poor.
As he wrote at MSNBC.com Tuesday evening:
While Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., has forcefully denounced the Medicaid program for swelling the "welfare rolls," the mental health clinic run by her husband has been collecting annual Medicaid payments totaling over $137,000 for the treatment of patients since 2005, according to new figures obtained by NBC News. [...]
The issue of her receipt of government aid has gotten attention because Bachmann, a Tea Party favorite, has been a fierce critic of federal spending programs and has called for drastic cutbacks. This has especially been the case on health care, including the expansions of Medicaid called for under the new health care law.
When Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton signed an executive order earlier this year expanding the state's Medicaid program for more than 95,000 state residents, Bachmann was joined [sic] state Republican lawmakers in denouncing the move.
"Right now, Governor Dayton is wanting to commit Minnesota taxpayers to add even more welfare recipients on the welfare rolls at a very great cost," Bachmann said at a news conference in St. Paul in January.
"She's giving hypocrisy a bad name," said Ron Pollock, executive director of Families USA, a consumer health care advocacy group, when asked about the Medicaid payments to Bachmann & Associates. "It's clear when it feathers her nest she's happy for Medicaid expenditures. But people that really need it — folks with disabilities and seniors — she's turning their backs on them."
Optometrist Jason Whitman noted Wednesday, "Perhaps the author of this article, Michael Isikoff, has never actually operated a medical clinic before, but most of us who practice medicine accept payments from government health insurance programs such as Medicaid and Medicare because so many of our patients are on them."
Indeed.
As for Bachmann feathering her nest, payments for most medical services by Medicaid are far less than from private insurers and often below the actual cost for the service.
As the American Hospital Association reported last December, "[H]ospitals received payment of only 89 cents for every dollar spent by hospitals caring for Medicaid patients in 2009."
As such, doctors that accept Medicaid patients are typically losing money for the services they provide and should therefore be depicted as benevolent rather than greedy.
Not surprising, Bachmann's detractors in the media are choosing to ignore this inconvenient truth.
But there's another side of this that folks like Isikoff are being dishonest about. Since Medicaid is a healthcare plan for the poor, if clinics like Mr. Bachmann's didn't take such patients, they'd be turning away the neediest in our country.
Just imagine the kind of negative press Mrs. Bachmann would be getting if that were the case.
Unfortunately, the Bachmann's are in a lose-lose situation as far as the media are concerned. If he takes such patients, she's a hypocrite. If he doesn't, she's a heartless so-and-so.
Which leads me to ask Isikoff and all the other Bachmann-haters in the press the following question: Which would you prefer - conservative doctors turn away Medicaid patients because they don't believe in the program or accept them despite their political views with a government payment that doesn't cover their costs?
Let's get this out in the open now so that every conservative doctor in the country knows what the media deems acceptable concerning this matter.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
media has no shame
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:12am.
They all congratulated Michelle Obama for working at a hospital even though she cooked up a scheme to refuse Medicaid patients, and the media never questioned her on it.
You know this is a damned if you do and Damned if you don't.....
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:48am.
situation. If Dr Bachmann takes the money (which is less than the care actually costs,) he,and his wife are hypocrites. If on the other hand, Dr. Bachmann refuses to see Medicare patients, then he is an elitest pig that only gives care to the wealthy. The media is trying to set Rep Bachmann up as a hypocrite ignoring their own hypocrisy on issues like the one you raise about MOOCHELLE!
On another health note,
Submitted by seven on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:50am.
On another health note, Michelle is taking her anti obesity drive to Africa.
Haha, nice
Submitted by IgnatzJFahrquar on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:13pm.
Her little junket (on our dime) reminds me of the Southpark episode where big, fat Sally Struthers went over to help the starving.
Just request another heaping pile of deep fried (fill in the blank) Moo.
On another health note,
Submitted by seven on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:50am.
On another health note, Michelle is taking her anti obesity drive to Africa.
On another health note,
Submitted by seven on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:50am.
On another health note, Michelle is taking her anti obesity drive to Africa.
not the point
Submitted by as promised on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 11:57am.
It isn't the fact that Mr (Dr?) Bachmann made money from treating Medicaid patients, I don't care about that ... it's that he would have had far far less patients if it weren't for Medicaid. The Bachmanns and people like them must recognize the vast benefits of social safety net.
Big difference there.
a few thoughts for 'as promised'
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:12pm.
1) Far less people would have to be on Medicaid in the first place if companies started hiring them. Oppressive debt has brought an end to our consumption-based economy.
2) As Noel correctly points out, Bachmann is already taking a loss when he treats Medicaid recipients, and most of the money paid ends up going for the man hours it takes to nag the state for payment. Most doctors would be far better off they rejected Medicaid cases and got rid of their staffers who spend all day begging Medicaid for payment.
3) As I mentioned above, treating Medicaid patients is such a burden that Michelle Obama's hospital in Chicago started refusing to treat them.
Far less patients on Medicaid = far less of a burden on the doctors
In summation, Noel was right. You should be thanking Dr. Bachmann for giving to charity and holding himself to a better standard than Obama.
Dear Hoosier
Submitted by as promised on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:48pm.
"Far less people would have to be on Medicaid in the first place if companies started hiring them. Oppressive debt has brought an end to our consumption-based economy."
Have you considered how we got to this point? It didn't just happen over the space of a couple years. It was years of failed upside-down policies with unpaid-for wars (Iraq!), deregulation, watching corporations systematically move jobs overseas with no repercussions. Didn't matter how low the corporate taxes are or were or will be... the jobs are gone! The middle-class has been decimated, those who have jobs have seen their incomes stagnated. You have a supply/demand economy, the only problem being those who would provide the 'demand' have been removed from the equation. Their credit is maxxed and they have no money to spend and no future.
Corporate tax rates have never dictated hiring practices and it's not going to change now, quit buying that line.
that didn't take long
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 1:01pm.
A long and winding rant about evil corporations. How original.
I'd like to know exactly how consumers got into the mess of maxxing out their credit. They bought a house with marble counters that they couldn't afford.... because jobs were going overseas? They jacked up credit card bills at the mall... because of an unpaid war in Iraq?
"Corporate tax rates have never dictated hiring practices and it's not going to change now, quit buying that line."
Show me where I mentioned corporate tax rates here. I blamed the problem on oppressive debt - which was EXACTLY THE SAME as what you said.
And now where are we? "Economic stimulus" in the form of sending cash to middle class families does no good. They use the money to .... wait for it .... catch up/pay down their debt, it all gets funneled right back to the bill collectors, and retailers lay off more workers.
Government-spending economic demand does nothing to dictate hiring practices, quit buying that line.
Tell me how many liberal politicans were screaming about household debt in the 90s and turn of the century, precisely at the time these problems started. As I remember it, the economy was peachy-deachy fabulous under Bill Clinton, and Bush was being partisan when he "talked down the economy" in 2000.
"Corporate tax rates have never dictated hiring practices?"
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 1:05pm.
I assume you have a corporation? You are right to a tiny degree.
What dictates hiring practices is what you feel the future will bring, and what sort of return you think you will get over the next few years to recover your increased expenses, whatever they are.
Right now, with this idiot in charge, corporations see NOTHING good coming down the pike. They aren't going to expand anything. Slap a tax increase on top of that, and you can bet your sweet asset that they won't hire more people.
If you think taxes don't matter to business, I suggest you check on how many businesses and private citizens are moving to Texas and Florida, and getting the hell out of California and New York.
I have a buddy who has a business that his family has owned for almost 160 years. It has been in the same state the entire time. It's getting ready to move, all 5000+ employees. The rest is going off shore. How's that going to work out for his old home state? It's all about the state income and corporate tax rate.
expansion
Submitted by as promised on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 2:51pm.
"What dictates hiring practices is what you feel the future will bring, and what sort of return you think you will get over the next few years to recover your increased expenses, whatever they are.
Right now, with this idiot in charge, corporations see NOTHING good coming down the pike. They aren't going to expand anything. Slap a tax increase on top of that, and you can bet your sweet asset that they won't hire more people."
Sure, won't dispute some of that and only to a certain extent because we have been on this same path for years. Lower taxes started long before this particular govt and companies were shrinking and stagnating - so again I ask - how do you explain the lack of expansion, hiring etc in those years?
What dictates hiring
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 3:01pm.
What dictates hiring practices is what you feel the future will bring
This was his original answer. Forecasts concerning tax climate, export demand, inflation, fuel prices, and consumer spending all play into how business owners see the future.
promised, lack of expansion
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 3:25pm.
Companies (assuming you are using that term as a general term to refer to all companies they make up the economy) and the economy have expanded more years than not since the Industrial Revolution. Market creation is a difficult concept to explain in a short post but suffice to say there is nothing so beneficial to an economic system than the creation of new markets that do not reflexively diminish another market within the same economy (exploration, income gaps, foreign markets and R&D are the keys - not the government deciding who should win or lose).
The tax issue is important in two ways:
1) the tax rate compared to other nations - this determines to a significant degree whether business will want to be based in your country or not.
2) the tax rate as a trend - this determines to a small degree the confidence level a company can have in doing business within your nation
That being said the issue isn't so much the tax rate as the confidence the compels businesses to risk taking on more expenses in order to obtain the goals of the business (profit generally being a large but often unstated goal). The social political rhetoric combined with the transfer of power to business stagnating groups such as the FCC and EPA is destroying confidence in the economic outlook for America. Lowering taxes is a shot in the arm but it is not end all be all for economic woes. Right now the US is in the top three in Corporate tax rates in the world and we still have an enviable GDP, so it obvious that it isn't tax rates alone. However, a lot has happened to off set the other positives America does offer and the quickest and easiest method to counter those deterrents to business is tax cuts. It is not the only solution but it is the only one that will have an immediate effect despite the numerous other problems the economy is faced with at this time.
Easy explanation.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 4:11pm.
Democrats won control of both houses of Congress. Talk of tax increase began before they were sworn in.
Democrats blocked the attempted reform of Fannie and Fredie, and Barney Fwank's boy friend continued to have a cushy job. Anyone with half a brain could see that disaster coming.
Businesses took notice and saw the disaster of Bambi coming before he got here. Remember "We are going to fundamentally transform this country?" They believed him, and knew what he meant even if alf the moron's in the country didn't.
Not defending Republicans because they acted brain dead the last few years, and really went stupid when Pelosi took over.
Doesn't matter who did what now. The problem has to be fixed, and all the solutions are totally against what liberals believe in. Therefore, business isn't going to get better until they see something else on the horizon. Note Texas and Virginia and Indiana and New Jersey?
Don't count the Fascist business leaders who threw in with the Bambi, like GE and GM. They just delayed their demise for awhile useless they break with the RBFSOB.
Corporate tax rates have never dictated hiring practices
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 1:28pm.
On which planet?
As someone who has been involved in running more than one corporation in my life, I can tell you with 100% certainty that tax implications are a factor in just about every decision made, whether it be hiring, purchasing equipment, how much to charge clients, or even something as simple as deciding what size and how many plants to have in the lobby.
What are you, like 12 or something?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
paging Buddy Holly
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 1:51pm.
.
A one hour wonder?
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 1:23pm.
The probots have gotten their marching orders from MediaMatters, MoveOn, Du and dKos, as promised, and here they come!!!
UN, Little wonder these idiots end up "working" in government
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 1:34pm.
LOL - They're too stoopid to run even a lemonade stand.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
safety net
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:13pm.
The larger the social safety net - the larger the failure of society. The social programs created in the West have been a failure because they are not about being temporarily supportive. Instead they exist as a crutch, a way of life and as an alternative to production. Socialism fails on its own and socialism will fail in a free-market system it will only take longer.
The vast benefits of a social safety net is a downward social and economic spiral until those in political power deem themselves worthy enough to keep the few remaining luxuries unto themselves. No Thank you!!!
Agnostic
Submitted by as promised on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:28pm.
Please explain the "failed societies" in Australia, Germany, Canada.... all countries infinitely better off than the US. Exactly what is it that you are defending here?
Also, you are very confused about 'socialism'. NOT socialism, it's blended economy.
nice
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:48pm.
So you mention 3 countries with socialist economies and then say it's not socialism. K
Why don't you tell us how wonderfully public healthcare is working in Greece, and how much longer Germany will last before it suffers the same fate as the rest of Europe.
Promise, not confused on socialism
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 1:07pm.
No - not really. The idea of 'blended' at least used to be called a mixed economy. One in which free markets generated the extra resources needed to establish social programs. The social programs themselves do not actually contribute to the economy to any real extent like so many in the media and the political class would have you believe now. Australia, Germany and Canada have all moved slowly back from the abyss of over loading their social programs and you can add to that in a small way - the very small defense budgets they have to account for because they rely on the UN, NATO and the US to take care of the heavy lifting. Recent governments in those countries have pushed economic rejuvenation through free market ideas and reigning in restrictive regulations, taxes and the effects of the social safety nets. There work is a step in the right direction but they have done no real overhaul that I have been able to ascertain so unless they can open up new markets I would expect to see these markets plateau in 15-20 years - maybe shorter if the citizens get nostalgic and re-elect the old regime under the promise to provide more social options.
There is hypothetical percentages on were a nation needs to be on a mixed economy in order to properly take care of the citizenry (opinions vary on what constitutes 'taking care of') and allow the free market to remain flexible and viable enough to support the social portion. We argue forever what those percentages should be but the reality of the situation is this:
Too low a percentage of social programs and the nation will shift too much power to large corporations which will take advantage of labor
A percentage of social programs too close to a theoretical tipping point and the economy will always be under strain and it will be difficult for the market to react normally to economic changes and the market will be sluggish due to strained confidences. (were we are now, imo).
A percentage of social programs too high and you will go into a death spiral that can only be stopped by drastic and socially/politically damaging measures, aka - deep and drastic spending cuts. (I don't think we are there yet but will be by 2025 if little changes in our current policies)
Mixed economies allow for more flexibility but for every $ ($=power) you shift from free markets to political social programs you are giving up a percentage of economic freedom, sacrificing the effectiveness of your personal vote and shifting power to a political class whose first priority is retaining power (all political parties) and not the citizens - specifically not the workers and small business owners. In essence - social nets hurt the middle class the most.
If you lose money providing the service
Submitted by KornKing on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:14pm.
You aren't going to make it up with volume.
First off,
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:15pm.
...it's "fewer" patients, not "less".
Second, who says they don't "recognize the vast benefits of social safety net"?
Third, Mrs. Bachmann supports reform of the Medicare (a federal program) system, not its elimination.
Fourth, if you don't care that they made money off Medicaid (which is state run) why did you mention it. It's like Chris Snuffleupagus saying, "According to the Pullitzer Prize winning website Politfact" in setting up a specious argument.
So what would you rather have
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:16pm.
THREE HUNDRED patients (each of which cost you more to treat than the Government gives you money for) or ONE HUNDRED Patients that actually help you grow your practice, Hire a nurse or two maybe some office staff and maybe someone to clean your offices. Quanity is NOT the Point as Promised. Who reaps the "vast benefits of the social safety net? CERTAINLY NOT THE DOCTOR!!! No the only ones that do are the "Gimmies" the "Non Producers" that depend on the ones the do "Produce" to take care of them.
Dave81
Submitted by Dave81 on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:26pm.
It's more like a social safety web. Once you're caught in it, there's no getting out.
Did you pass fifth grade math, AP?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:52pm.
Doctors DO NOT MAKE MONEY on Medicaid, or for that matter, Medicare! They lose money on every government insured person they see.
Some have already made the choice to not see Medicaid, and many more are planning to drop Medicare if it gets cuts much more.
The only doctors who love to get Medicaid patients are the ones who have no other customers, and probably don't speak English, so they skim along on the Medicaid.
I know for a fact that my doctor loses money on me almost every time I see him. I see the bills and I see what the government allows him. It ain't close. Tricare doesn't even get close to making it up. I asked him how he ran a business like that. His answer; people on private insurance have to pay more so he can stay in business. He was very frank. He told me that if I had not been his patient for so long, he wouldn't even see me now. He has already started to refuse Medicare as new patients, but is nice enough to keep seeing his long time patients. Forget Medicaid. Not even interested.
Don't you love how Bambi rails against Big Insurance because they keep raising their rates. That's because they are covering the shortfall from Uncle Sam.
Dr. Bachmann is doing people a favor taking Medicaid. He sure as hell ain't making money on it.
And crickets
Submitted by optimist on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:58pm.
What a surprise.
McDonalds has far fewer
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 2:22pm.
McDonalds has far fewer customers than it would if it gave away food for free. What's your point?
"it's that he would have had far far less patients if it weren't for Medicaid"
Here are more examples of
Submitted by Van Halen on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:39pm.
Here are more examples of hypocrisy Mr. Isakoff can explore:
- Obama telling us he'd get us out of two wars and then expanding them to five wars - one with a record death toll now.
- Obama telling us we all have to make sacrifices while he sets a Presidential record for number of golf games played and both he and ME-Chelle are constantly on vacation.
- Obama telling us we all have to make sacrifices while he's worth millions.
- ME-Chelle telling us to watch what she eats while constantly being photographed eating ribs, fries, fat cakes, and tamales.
Hard hitting stuff
Submitted by Djinn1975 on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 12:46pm.
by NBC and Isikoff, as per usual. I saw this last night before I hit the sack and couldn't wait to see NB cover it. Noel, you are a champ, concise and vigilant.
Here's a fun, liberal bubble bursting, fact finding mission. The expense of Dr. Bachmann's services rendered to Medicare recipients compared to compensation from Medicare recipients' benefits. My assumption: Compensation significantly short of expense.
To summarize the ever increasing hypocrisy that is indicative of the chaos that the left is becomming with the realizations that will be 2012: Liberal involvement, of any form, in government aid, good. Republican/Conservative involvement, of any form, in government aid, baaaaad, not to mention racist.
But is it really hypocritical?
Submitted by Rhymes With Right on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 2:11pm.
Not from where I stand. After all, arguing that the rules should be different than what they are but playing by them as they are is PRECISELY WHAT LIBERALS DO when they complain about "the Bush tax cuts" yet fail to calculate their taxes according to the Clinton (or Kennedy or Roosevelt) tax tables that would require them to pay more money to the government. They are simply operating within the framework of the existing tax structure -- just as Mr. Bachmann operated within the framework of existing government insurance rules, even if he and his wife think they ought to be different.
Why would MB receive negative
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 2:25pm.
Why would MB receive negative press for clinic turning away medicare patients? Didn't Michelle Obama do the same thing in Chicago" And MO's loved and adored by the same media! Talk about hypocrisy.
As for the hypocrisy charge, that's a non-starter. A farm should not have to put itself at a competitive disadvantage by refusing funds that its taxpayers put into the system and/or that are available to all of its competitors. Indeed, a person can be against medicare and social security and still accept the benefits without being a hypocrite, since he/she paid into the system.