Thursday, March 18, 2010

Walgreens to cut off Medicaid patients

This story says Walgreens will not take any new Medicaid patients as of April 16, saying that dealing with Medicaid patients is a money-losing proposition. Who can blame them?

I have to say that if the federal government can't compensate providers in a plan as relatively small-scale as Medicaid, how can they claim with a straight face that they can manage to compensate all providers (and fairly at that) and provide all health care services for all Americans?

They can't.

The suggestion that the US government is able or fit to run a massive health care system for all American citizens is a load of steaming, heap-high crap. They need to do a better job running Medicare and Medicaid before they run around claiming they have the wherewithal to run everyone else's healthcare. As far as I can see, they're making a right pig's ear of the responsibility they already have.



Cliff47 said...

And rightfully so...

Anonymous said...

I thought I read that it was Wal-Mart.
Either way, a sign of things to come.

B Woodman

Jon said...

Medicare and Medicaid are tens of trillions in the red for unfunded mandates. The more I 'cipher on this health care bill, the more I'm thinking there is a strong push to tranfer costs of both of these money pits into something that can generate new taxes without them being glaringly obvious. Hide the weinie, for lack of a better term.

I still think at least one of these reprobates needs tar and feathering every year, just for shits and grin. I have my 'druthers, although it would require a handfull of toothpicks to make the final decision.

Roscoe said...

Mrs. Roscoe stopped accepting new *Medicare* patients at her office here in the Tampa suburbs because the reimbursements to family physicians for services got so ridiculously low.

She has a couple who fly in from the UK twice a year to see her on their own dime, outside their NHS. The last time they came through her office, they said, "Don't make the mistake our country made."

(Though, Phlegmmy, you know that you're probably preaching to the choir here.)

Old NFO said...

It's starting... :-(

Anonymous said...

I'm usually a lurker here (but I'm not creepy, really!) but this is a subject that really gets me going.

Having worked for the government for nearly 40 years, I can't even begin to comment on how far off kilter things have gotten since I first started in 1977.

But the thing I find most interesting about Medicaid? It doesn't reimburse doctors at a reasonable rate, yet it will cover things like Viagra, fertility treatments (excuse me, but if you can't afford health insurance then you can't afford to have a child), and sex reassignment surgery. Medicaid coverage can vary by state, even though it's a federal program, but I'm from New York and all of the above are covered expenses. How messed up is that?

Robert the Skeptic said...

Oddly, I never hear of anyone who refuses Medicare when they reach age 65. I pay $1,200 a month for medical insurance, 1/3 of my income. My premiums have risen between 12% and 18% per yer, they are expected to raise by 15% next year. And that does not include the out of pocket costs.
We like anecdotes about Brits or Canadians coming to the US for medical care. Here are some hard statistics: The number of Brits and Canadians who declare bankruptcy due to medical expenses: "Zero". In the US, medical bills are the second largest cause of bankruptcy. If premiums keep rising before I reach 65, I might be one of them.