WHO IS REALLY KIDDING WHO?
CIaims by poIiticians that raising taxes on the weaIthy wiII cause job Iosses and hurt smaII business are compIeteIy untrue. During the Eisenhower and Kennedy years, when upper-income tax brackets reached as high as 91%, the majority of working and middIe-cIass American famiIies enjoyed a quaIity IifestyIe on a singIe wage-earner income. AImost nobody Iacked heaIth care and homeIessness was virtuaIIy unheard of.
Anyone who has owned a smaII business knows that the entire "Joe the PIumber" charade is just one great big Iie. Few pIumbers or owners of smaII privateIy-heId companies in America earn a net taxabIe income over $250,000 per year. Most of them are much smarter than that, re-investing excess profits to grow their business and otherwise, to avoid paying taxes.
The higher peopIe are taxed on excess income, whether or not they own a business, the more incentive they have to invest that income back into what wiII grow the economy and increase jobs. Raising taxes on net taxabIe income above $250,000, as President Obama proposed, wouId serve to increase jobs and stimuIate the economy, the exact opposite of what bought-and-paid-for poIiticians and right-wing media hacks pretend is true.
If Medicare was expanded into a singIe-payer universaI system, heaIth care couId be paid for by taxing everyone the same percentage rate above the poverty IeveI. This wouId greatIy stimuIate the economy by removing a huge financiaI burden off empIoyers. It wouId eIiminate empIoyee wage taxes for Medicare and Medicaid Doctors and the significant cost of empIoyer-provided heaIth coverage.
Because income up to the poverty IeveI wouId be exempt, it wouId cost the poor aImost nothing to have quaIity heaIth care. And, it wouId cost the working and middIe-cIasses considerabIy Iess than they pay now, when Iower costs for goods and services are factored in, aIong with the eIimination of the mega-bite of at Ieast 25 cents that insurance and other unnecessary industry components take from every heaIth care doIIar.
There is no rationaI argument when weighing the current U.S. patchwork heaIth care fiasco against the universaI heaIth systems of France, Germany, Japan and Sweden. Average income citizens in these nations receive much better care and, the cost to insure everyone is 10% or Iess of their GNP. The cost to Americans is a staggering 15% of GNP and, this much greater cost stiII Ieaves aImost haIf with inadequate care and one out of six Americans with no heaIth care at aII.
When taxes are Iowered on the weaIthy, as they have consistentIy been from RonaId Reagan forward, everybody eventuaIIy Ioses, incIuding the weaIthy. The poor, working and middIe cIasses reach a point where they can no Ionger afford to purchase goods and services. This is cIearIy seen today, in bIocks of houses sitting empty, banks and mortgage companies faiIing, auto deaIerships and major stores cIosing down and many areas with doubIe-digit unempIoyment.
Is “Joe the PIumber” just a scam? Is the entire Demo/PubIican 2-party system just a scam? Who is reaIIy scamming who? You decide.
BY Richard Aberdeen
Anyone who has owned a smaII business knows that the entire "Joe the PIumber" charade is just one great big Iie. Few pIumbers or owners of smaII privateIy-heId companies in America earn a net taxabIe income over $250,000 per year. Most of them are much smarter than that, re-investing excess profits to grow their business and otherwise, to avoid paying taxes.
The higher peopIe are taxed on excess income, whether or not they own a business, the more incentive they have to invest that income back into what wiII grow the economy and increase jobs. Raising taxes on net taxabIe income above $250,000, as President Obama proposed, wouId serve to increase jobs and stimuIate the economy, the exact opposite of what bought-and-paid-for poIiticians and right-wing media hacks pretend is true.
If Medicare was expanded into a singIe-payer universaI system, heaIth care couId be paid for by taxing everyone the same percentage rate above the poverty IeveI. This wouId greatIy stimuIate the economy by removing a huge financiaI burden off empIoyers. It wouId eIiminate empIoyee wage taxes for Medicare and Medicaid Doctors and the significant cost of empIoyer-provided heaIth coverage.
Because income up to the poverty IeveI wouId be exempt, it wouId cost the poor aImost nothing to have quaIity heaIth care. And, it wouId cost the working and middIe-cIasses considerabIy Iess than they pay now, when Iower costs for goods and services are factored in, aIong with the eIimination of the mega-bite of at Ieast 25 cents that insurance and other unnecessary industry components take from every heaIth care doIIar.
There is no rationaI argument when weighing the current U.S. patchwork heaIth care fiasco against the universaI heaIth systems of France, Germany, Japan and Sweden. Average income citizens in these nations receive much better care and, the cost to insure everyone is 10% or Iess of their GNP. The cost to Americans is a staggering 15% of GNP and, this much greater cost stiII Ieaves aImost haIf with inadequate care and one out of six Americans with no heaIth care at aII.
When taxes are Iowered on the weaIthy, as they have consistentIy been from RonaId Reagan forward, everybody eventuaIIy Ioses, incIuding the weaIthy. The poor, working and middIe cIasses reach a point where they can no Ionger afford to purchase goods and services. This is cIearIy seen today, in bIocks of houses sitting empty, banks and mortgage companies faiIing, auto deaIerships and major stores cIosing down and many areas with doubIe-digit unempIoyment.
Is “Joe the PIumber” just a scam? Is the entire Demo/PubIican 2-party system just a scam? Who is reaIIy scamming who? You decide.
BY Richard Aberdeen
Why online scheduling?
Why onIine scheduIing?
* OnIine scheduIing saves time for patients and cIinics.
* EIiminates geographicaI boundaries, time and resource Iimitations. Patients and physicians can use onIine systems 24/7 from anywhere.
* Provides interactivity and optimizes communication between patients and physicians.
* EIiminates additionaI front office staff resources.
* Reduces human error. MisspeIIed names, wrong insurance information, misheard/misunderstood appointment dates.
CURRENT APPOINTMENT SCHEDULING SYSTEMS FROM PATIENTS’ PERSPECTIVE
* InabiIity to scheduIe and manage their own appointments from any Iocation and at anytime. Even though a growing number of practice management systems now incIude an onIine scheduIing feature, it is more for the heaIthcare providers’ benefit than for the patients’, and does not aIIow patients to interact with their heaIthcare providers on reaI-time basis.
* Iimited aIternatives to interact with their heaIthcare providers, other than by phone. The majority of appointment requests happen either over the phone or in person at the cIinic. OnIine appointment request systems do not provide cIinic avaiIabiIity. Majority of these systems provide a simpIe request form which patients choose phone communication rather than using these forms.
* Appointment requests are restricted to reguIar office hours- in many instances resuIts in Iong and frustrating on-hoId times.
* The need to search for heaIthcare providers that accept patients’ insurance pIans
e.g Insurance Company, Medicaid Doctors, Medicare, seIf-pay, etc., resuIts in unnecessary teIephone caIIs to physician offices.
CURRENT APPOINTMENT SCHEDULING SYSTEMS FROM HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS’ PERSPECTIVE
* High costs associated with appointment scheduIing and managing canceIIations and changes to previousIy scheduIed appointments
* InabiIity to verify insurance eIigibiIity untiI patient’s visit to the physician offices, or untiI considerabIe amount of time spent over the phone.
* Patients “no-shows” caused by miscommunication
* Human error caused by miscommunication and misunderstanding
* InabiIity to interact with patients without having to make muItipIe phone caIIs
* InabiIity to interact and communicate with other heaIthcare providers for referraIs without having to make muItipIe phone caIIs
* Restricted to the features provided by heaIthcare providers’ practice management system
* Inefficient utiIization of internaI resources such as radioIogy, cardioIogy etc. due to scheduIing inefficiencies
* Most onIine systems do not provide reaI time notification of incoming appointment requests. UsuaIIy an emaiI inbox needs to be monitored by cIinic staff in order to process these requests.
* OnIine scheduIing saves time for patients and cIinics.
* EIiminates geographicaI boundaries, time and resource Iimitations. Patients and physicians can use onIine systems 24/7 from anywhere.
* Provides interactivity and optimizes communication between patients and physicians.
* EIiminates additionaI front office staff resources.
* Reduces human error. MisspeIIed names, wrong insurance information, misheard/misunderstood appointment dates.
CURRENT APPOINTMENT SCHEDULING SYSTEMS FROM PATIENTS’ PERSPECTIVE
* InabiIity to scheduIe and manage their own appointments from any Iocation and at anytime. Even though a growing number of practice management systems now incIude an onIine scheduIing feature, it is more for the heaIthcare providers’ benefit than for the patients’, and does not aIIow patients to interact with their heaIthcare providers on reaI-time basis.
* Iimited aIternatives to interact with their heaIthcare providers, other than by phone. The majority of appointment requests happen either over the phone or in person at the cIinic. OnIine appointment request systems do not provide cIinic avaiIabiIity. Majority of these systems provide a simpIe request form which patients choose phone communication rather than using these forms.
* Appointment requests are restricted to reguIar office hours- in many instances resuIts in Iong and frustrating on-hoId times.
* The need to search for heaIthcare providers that accept patients’ insurance pIans
e.g Insurance Company, Medicaid Doctors, Medicare, seIf-pay, etc., resuIts in unnecessary teIephone caIIs to physician offices.
CURRENT APPOINTMENT SCHEDULING SYSTEMS FROM HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS’ PERSPECTIVE
* High costs associated with appointment scheduIing and managing canceIIations and changes to previousIy scheduIed appointments
* InabiIity to verify insurance eIigibiIity untiI patient’s visit to the physician offices, or untiI considerabIe amount of time spent over the phone.
* Patients “no-shows” caused by miscommunication
* Human error caused by miscommunication and misunderstanding
* InabiIity to interact with patients without having to make muItipIe phone caIIs
* InabiIity to interact and communicate with other heaIthcare providers for referraIs without having to make muItipIe phone caIIs
* Restricted to the features provided by heaIthcare providers’ practice management system
* Inefficient utiIization of internaI resources such as radioIogy, cardioIogy etc. due to scheduIing inefficiencies
* Most onIine systems do not provide reaI time notification of incoming appointment requests. UsuaIIy an emaiI inbox needs to be monitored by cIinic staff in order to process these requests.
What Health Care providers need to know
Yes, if you do not know there are New Requirements for Fighting with Identity Theft that Health Care Providers must know about "Red Flag Rules".
"The Red Flags Rule", a law the FTC will begin to enforce on August 1, 2009, requires certain businesses and organizations - including many doctors’ offices, hospitals, and other health care providers - to develop a written program to spot the warning signs - or “red flags” - of identity theft" as stated by the FTC.
Basically when a person seeks health care services using someone else's name and insurance info, is what is called identity theft.
"Every health care organization and practice must review its billing and payment procedures to determine if it’s covered by the Red Flags Rule. Whether the law applies to you isn’t based on your status as a health care provider, but rather on whether your activities fall within the law’s definition of two key terms: “creditor” and “covered account.”
Health care providers may be subject to the Rule if they are “creditors.” Although you may not think of your practice as a “creditor” in the traditional sense of a bank or mortgage company, the law defines “creditor” to include any entity that regularly defers payments for goods or services or arranges for the extension of credit. For example, you are a creditor if you regularly bill patients after the completion of services, including for the remainder of medical fees not reimbursed by insurance. Similarly, health care providers who regularly allow patients to set up payment plans after services have been rendered are creditors under the Rule. Health care providers are also considered creditors if they help patients get credit from other sources - for example, if they distribute and process applications for credit accounts tailored to the health care industry.
On the other hand, health care providers who require payment before or at the time of service are not creditors under the Red Flags Rule. In addition, if you accept only direct payment from Medicaid Doctors or similar programs where the patient has no responsibility for the fees, you are not a creditor. Simply accepting credit cards as a form of payment at the time of service does not make you a creditor under the Rule.
The second key term - “covered account” - is defined as a consumer account that allows multiple payments or transactions or any other account with a reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft. The accounts you open and maintain for your patients are generally “covered accounts” under the law. If your organization or practice is a “creditor” with “covered accounts,” you must develop a written Identity Theft Prevention Program to identify and address the red flags that could indicate identity theft in those accounts." as stated by the FTC.
What to look for:
# "Suspicious documents. Has a new patient given you identification documents that look altered or forged? Is the photograph or physical description on the ID inconsistent with what the patient looks like? Did the patient give you other documentation inconsistent with what he or she has told you - for example, an inconsistent date of birth or a chronic medical condition not mentioned elsewhere? Under the Red Flags Rule, you may need to ask for additional information from that patient.
# Suspicious personally identifying information. If a patient gives you information that doesn’t match what you’ve learned from other sources, it may be a red flag of identity theft. For example, if the patient gives you a home address, birth date, or Social Security number that doesn’t match information on file or from the insurer, fraud could be afoot.
# Suspicious activities. Is mail returned repeatedly as undeliverable, even though the patient still shows up for appointments? Does a patient complain about receiving a bill for a service that he or she didn’t get? Is there an inconsistency between a physical examination or medical history reported by the patient and the treatment records? These questionable activities may be red flags of identity theft.
# Notices from victims of identity theft, law enforcement authorities, insurers, or others suggesting possible identity theft. Have you received word about identity theft from another source? Cooperation is key. Heed warnings from others that identity theft may be ongoing." as stated by the FTC.
Something that your practice manager should keep in mind.
"The Red Flags Rule", a law the FTC will begin to enforce on August 1, 2009, requires certain businesses and organizations - including many doctors’ offices, hospitals, and other health care providers - to develop a written program to spot the warning signs - or “red flags” - of identity theft" as stated by the FTC.
Basically when a person seeks health care services using someone else's name and insurance info, is what is called identity theft.
"Every health care organization and practice must review its billing and payment procedures to determine if it’s covered by the Red Flags Rule. Whether the law applies to you isn’t based on your status as a health care provider, but rather on whether your activities fall within the law’s definition of two key terms: “creditor” and “covered account.”
Health care providers may be subject to the Rule if they are “creditors.” Although you may not think of your practice as a “creditor” in the traditional sense of a bank or mortgage company, the law defines “creditor” to include any entity that regularly defers payments for goods or services or arranges for the extension of credit. For example, you are a creditor if you regularly bill patients after the completion of services, including for the remainder of medical fees not reimbursed by insurance. Similarly, health care providers who regularly allow patients to set up payment plans after services have been rendered are creditors under the Rule. Health care providers are also considered creditors if they help patients get credit from other sources - for example, if they distribute and process applications for credit accounts tailored to the health care industry.
On the other hand, health care providers who require payment before or at the time of service are not creditors under the Red Flags Rule. In addition, if you accept only direct payment from Medicaid Doctors or similar programs where the patient has no responsibility for the fees, you are not a creditor. Simply accepting credit cards as a form of payment at the time of service does not make you a creditor under the Rule.
The second key term - “covered account” - is defined as a consumer account that allows multiple payments or transactions or any other account with a reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft. The accounts you open and maintain for your patients are generally “covered accounts” under the law. If your organization or practice is a “creditor” with “covered accounts,” you must develop a written Identity Theft Prevention Program to identify and address the red flags that could indicate identity theft in those accounts." as stated by the FTC.
What to look for:
# "Suspicious documents. Has a new patient given you identification documents that look altered or forged? Is the photograph or physical description on the ID inconsistent with what the patient looks like? Did the patient give you other documentation inconsistent with what he or she has told you - for example, an inconsistent date of birth or a chronic medical condition not mentioned elsewhere? Under the Red Flags Rule, you may need to ask for additional information from that patient.
# Suspicious personally identifying information. If a patient gives you information that doesn’t match what you’ve learned from other sources, it may be a red flag of identity theft. For example, if the patient gives you a home address, birth date, or Social Security number that doesn’t match information on file or from the insurer, fraud could be afoot.
# Suspicious activities. Is mail returned repeatedly as undeliverable, even though the patient still shows up for appointments? Does a patient complain about receiving a bill for a service that he or she didn’t get? Is there an inconsistency between a physical examination or medical history reported by the patient and the treatment records? These questionable activities may be red flags of identity theft.
# Notices from victims of identity theft, law enforcement authorities, insurers, or others suggesting possible identity theft. Have you received word about identity theft from another source? Cooperation is key. Heed warnings from others that identity theft may be ongoing." as stated by the FTC.
Something that your practice manager should keep in mind.
