IIRC, it didn't even have that -- it had a specification specifically *allowing* medicare funds to be used for discussions and counseling about hospice and end-of-life care with the patients involved, *for patients that wanted it*.I know - a very tentative step indeed. However, even that step provoked considerable vitriol. I only heard two even remotely plausible arguments why that might be a concern: i) when it comes to Medicare, anything that doctors can get paid for will be aggressively promoted to every patient they possibly can (even when it's not appropriate); and ii) this was a 'nose under the camel's tent' provision that would lead to more aggressive efforts to tamp down on spending in the old-old cohort. The first seemed like it might be a legitimate concern (though I don't find it to be all that negative, honestly), while the second is such a common objection to legislation on both sides it's hard to really evaluate.Again, though, that's my point. Anything that comes anywhere close to looking like it might possible have something to do with approaching the proximity of creating a remote chance of taking money from old people's health care and reallocating it elsewhere is going to raise a political outcry. So it never gets discussed much.Albaby
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra