Most doctors are in some way connected to a hospital so anything that is good for the hospital would probably be good for the doctor. When large sums of money are involved there is an incentive for any doctor to facilitate that money going towards the hospital they are associated with.

Once again, Michele’s statements are not logical, reasonable or factual. Links to PRISON PLANET and Michelle Malkin are not credible.
The following statements contains many projections of Michele’s own need to find fault with Obama.
“What is up with Obama and doctors? Does he really think a doctor isn’t going to treat diabetes because he/she isn’t getting paid enough? Why mention the $30,000 a surgeon gets for amputating a foot (is it really that much?) when speaking of the primary care physician? It’s not like the primary care physician is getting a take of the surgeon’s and hospital’s fees, so he doesn’t have a monetary reason for not treating the patient. I could see if he blamed amputations on lack of healthcare insurance but to imply that it’s lack of compensation to the primary care physician is ludicrous.”
Obama never said primary care physicians were not treating diabetes
Obama’s point was primary care physicians need to be paid more for performing more preventative care functions, which would cost less than paying for an amputation.
By the time someone gets to the point of needing an amputation, they have already received substantial medical care that could have been reduced with better preventative measures. After the amputation, the person will continue to received substantial medical care, such as an artificial limb, physical therapy, and other health problems associated with diabetes.
Recent research found that fewer doctors were deciding to be primary care physicians. Instead they were going into specialties that pay better. Being a primary care physician is a tough job that requires considerable knowledge to recognize a very large number of health problems.
I watched Obama’s entire Town Hall. I disagree that he did not receive tough questions from individuals that did not agree with him. For example, he received and answered a great question about generic drugs.
Town Hall Transcript
http://tinyurl.com/o3byd9

I did not find any fact check on the USAToday website.
I think the people were more respectful for several reasons. They were talking to the President of the United States, the place was full of security and secret service, and most of the tickets were given out in advance through a website lottery, which means the number of protesters actually receiving tickets would probably be lower. There were people from Maine and Massachusetts that asked questions. Many came to see President Obama.
Obama and Hillary Clinton both campaigned on making a health care option like Congress/federal employees have. Obama is now using the word Exchange to reference a public plan similar to the health care options that Congress/federal employees have.
Michele has been one of many questioning the federal governments ability to manage a public health care option. The federal government has been very effectively managing a very good health insurance program for many years:
June 24, 2009 – Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program.
The FEHB law provides OPM with authority to offer competitive health benefits products for Federal workers by contracting with private sector health plans, much like other large employers. OPM currently contracts with 111 health plans which provide 269 health plan options nationwide from which employees and retirees may select the option which meets their needs.
http://tinyurl.com/mpsyse
Another question from yesterday’s Obama Town Hall that was not a friendly question, the video needs to be watched to determine the person’s attitude:
Q So my question is for you, and I know in the White House the stand which you’re on has often been referred to as the bully pulpit. Why have you not used the bully pulpit to chastise Congress for having two systems of health care — one for all of us, and one for them? (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, first of all, if we don’t have health care reform, the gap between what Congress gets and what ordinary Americans get will continue to be as wide as it is right now. And you are absolutely right — I don’t think Carol or Paul would deny they’ve got a pretty good deal. They’ve got a pretty good deal. I mean, the fact is, is that they are part — by the way, I want you to know, though, their deal is no better than the janitor who cleans their offices; because they are part of a federal health care employee plan, it is a huge pool. So you’ve got millions of people who are part of the pool, which means they’ve got enormous leverage with the insurance companies, right? So they can negotiate the same way that a big Fortune 500 company can negotiate, and that drives down their costs — they get a better deal.
Now, what happens is, those members of Congress — and when I was a senator, same situation — I could, at the beginning of the year, look at a menu of a variety of different health care options, most of them — these are all private plans or they could be non-for-profit, Blue Cross Blue Shield, or Aetna, or what have you — they would have these plans that were offered. And then we would then select what plan worked best for us.
But there were certain requirements — if you wanted to sell insurance to federal employees there were certain things you had to do. You had to cover certain illnesses. You couldn’t exclude for preexisting conditions. I mean, there were a lot of rules that had been negotiated by the federal government for those workers.
Now, guess what. That’s exactly what we want to do with health care reform. (Applause.) We want to make sure that you are getting that same kind of option. That’s what the health exchange is all about, is that you — just like a member of Congress — can go and choose the plan that’s right for you. You don’t have to. If you’ve got health care that you like, you don’t have to use it.
So for example, for a while, Michelle, my wife, worked at the University of Chicago Hospital. She really liked her coverage that she was getting through the University of Chicago Hospital, so I did not have to use the federal employee plan. But I had that option available.
The same is true for you. Nobody is going to force you to be part of that plan. But if you look at it and you say, you know what, this is a good deal and I’ve got more leverage because maybe I’m a small business or maybe I’m self-employed, or maybe I’m like Lori and nobody will take me because of a preexisting condition, and now suddenly got these rules set up — why wouldn’t I want to take advantage of that?
Now, there are legitimate concerns about the cost of the program, so I understand if you just think no matter what, no matter how good the program is, you don’t think that we should be paying at all for additional people to be covered, then you’re probably going to be against health care reform and I can’t persuade you. There are legitimate concerns about the public option — the gentleman who raised his hand. I think it’s a good idea, but I understand some people just philosophically think that if you set up a public option, that that will drive public insurance out — or private insurers out. I think that’s a legitimate concern. I disagree with it, but that’s a legitimate debate to have.
But I want everybody to understand, though, the status quo is not working for you. (Applause.) The status quo is not working for you. And if we can set up a system, which I believe we can, that gives you options, just like members of Congress has options; that gives a little bit of help to people who currently are working hard every day but they don’t have health care insurance on the job; and most importantly, if we can make sure that you, all of you who have insurance, which is probably 80 or 90 percent of you, that you are not going to be dropped because of a preexisting condition, or because you lose your job, or because you change your job — that you’re actually going to get what you paid for, that you’re not going to find out when you’re sick that you got cheated, that you’re not going to hit a lifetime cap where you thought you were paying for insurance but after a certain amount suddenly you’re paying out of pocket and bankrupting yourself and your family — if we can set up a system that gives you some security, that’s worth a lot.”

Here is what Obama said: “Right now if a family care physician works with his patient to modify diet, etc they might get reimbursed a pittance, but if that same diabetic ends up getting his foot amputated that’s $30,000-50,000 the surgeon is reimbursed.” A quick search of the CPT code 27888 (amputation of foot at the ankle) found physician reimbursement rate of $715.64 (Medicare). How can Obama be SO ill-informed about his central issue?

Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. Where this $30,000. Figure comes from I don’t know. That might be the amount to all parties, including the hospital.
As to the comment that Doctors are connected to the hospitals, about the only connections are where the doctors are salaried employees, and will make the same amount each year regardless of how many amputations they do.

President Hussein Obama prefers a teleprompter and scripted stage. He wants the peasants to read their scripts too. The serfs and peasants need to stay in line, and say what President Hussein wants.

I’m an orthopaedic surgeon. Medicare reimbursement for amputation of a leg is $820 in Nashville. This includes 3 months of office visits and aftercare. Obama made this whole scenario up.

The 30K figure is likely the entire bill for the procedure–the doctor’s fee and the hospital bill for the recovery, the aftercare, etc. The point that has been lost on all of you retards is that preventative care, which is not incentivized in the current model, can save money in the long term. A stitch in time saves nine. You all are so prepared to hate anything that the Obama administration proposes. You’d rather sink the ship.

Watch this video and then tell me that he even has a clue about what he is talking about! I’m sorry, but I think he is a moron when it comes to understanding the real medical world. To suggest that “ineffective treatment” is the cause of all foot amputations is insulting to physicians everywhere.
A few points:
1. Doctors DO work with their patients to control diabetes. One of three things usually happens.
a. in spite of great treatment, the disease is uncontrollable and amputations or other complications of diabetes still happen
b. patients are non-compliant and the disease progresses to bad things like amputation (probably the most common scenario)
c. patients and doctors do manage to control the disease and maybe these bad side effects are avoided or postponed for many years.
Oh, and as a practicing plastic surgeon myself, tell me where I can get $30,000 for ANY operation, much less an amputation, and I will go practice medicine there.
An additional word about the Utopian wonders of “preventative care”:
The vast majority of Americans know that obesity, smoking, drinking, drug use, and poor diets are bad for you. BUT THEY STILL CHOOSE TO DO THEM. You can talk all you want about “preventative care” but as long as you have fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs readily available, people will continue to make detrimental choices. You can’t legislate these kinds of choices.

For people saying preventive care is the solution, my husband who is a surgeon is always told he is rude when he suggests that his patients consider exercise and dietary changes instead of surgery. He is always walking on egg shells because many times he sees problems clearly related to obesity and tries to stir people away from surgery. People don’t want to hear that their weight is causing their ailments. He has even been threatened that if he does not operate they would sue him for denying care. How can a physician work like this? And Obama has done nothing but misinform by saying surgeons get 30,000 for an amputation. At that rate we should be living in Bermuda in a year or two. He makes 300 dollars for a hernia and 600 for an amputation. My plumber charges more than that. We are planning to move from the US if Obama has his way. Other plans proposed by Obama are actually good for the country. But the lack of tort reform and paying all specialities the same as per his proposal, takes away all the incentive to plod away away through backbreaking residencies and school debt. As if the shortage of doctors is not enough, this will cripple the profession.

The surgeon’s fees for an amputation total around $800. The surgeon’s overhead accounts for $480 including malpractice leaving $320 for the surgeon. The amount of surgeon’s time to diagnose, set up, perform and follow the patient is approximately 4 to 8 hours. An amputation is more complicated post-operatively due to the need for wound management and the fitting/design of a prosthesis. Progress in PT must be monitored. Remember that the global free period is 90 days after surgery.
Thus, the surgeon makes $40 to $80 per hour for an amputation. Is that a lot or too little? What do you think?

If a doctor would be negligent in his treatment of a diabetic patient in order to profit more from an amputation, then why wouldn’t this same type of doctor declare to my family, after I receive a bump on the head, that I was brain dead because Ted Kennedy needed a new liver, mine a perfect match and he can slip the doctor some cash under the table?
If Obama is right, doctors this profit driven … I don’t want to be an organ donor.

This comment along with his other recent “doctors might be yanking out kids’ tonsils rather than treating a sore throat” is clearly just a scare tactic… However, it doesn’t make it any less a blatant lie.
1. Tonsillectomy rates have dropped precipitously in the past few years
2. Sore throats aren’t treated with antibiotics just for the heck of it, when warranted; antibiotics are often used to prevent post infectious complications, i.e. Rheumatic Fever/Heart Disease.
Maybe our President could leave the medical talk to health care professionals.
As a recent graduate from Medical School I am absolutely terrified of the current legislative bill. I challenge all to actually read HR 3200 in it’s current form. You will see it laden with “The Commissioner” giving him/her and other non medically trained bureaucrats many of the decisions which Physicians should be making. Everything from fees, what illnesses will be covered, how many times you can be admitted to the hospital depending upon your illness..
If you want to strip many of your health care decisions from those who dedicated their life to it’s scientific pursuit and place them onto your beloved bureaucrats and lobbyists, then this is the plan for you……….

I, too, am shocked at the blatant, manipulative lies coming from our President. No surgeon ever made anything close to $3,000-5,000 for a leg amputation, let alone $30,000-50,000. Medicare (and Medicaid and other insurers aren’t far different) pays $740-1,140 for an amputation. Amputations are done only after all other attempts at saving the limb have been exhausted. There are just some, in fact many, surgical conditions-appendicitis, gallbladder disease, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, etc., that we just can’t yet prevent, even with the most attentive preventive care. To accuse ENT surgeons of doing tonsillectomies to make more money than they would by treating children with antibiotics borders on slander and accusation of malpractice. This overlooks the fact that the person who treats tonsillitis with antibiotics is usually the pediatrician, who only refers a child for surgery after it is clear that the tonsillitis will be a recurring problem, with risks such as heart valve disease, if further infections are not prevented by tonsillectomy. If the pediatrician were to get any part of the money for the surgery, this would be considered “fee-splitting”, which is illegal and immoral.
In all the discussion of passing the health care bill and funding it, in part, by cutting Medicare expenditures, I have seen no one ask how this would be possible, when a huge number of people-the “Baby Boomers”- is getting ready to enter the Medicare system. How can costs be cut from their current level when such a large number of people is going to hit the system? Or will the eligibility age be raised so high that most of this group willhave, in the government’s eyes, “fortuitously” died, before becoming eligible for Medicare and requiring money be put into the system for their care. The only other option would be to place the financial burden on the providers in the system-physicians, PA’s, hospitals, etc., who already bear a huge burden of the cost of care by limitations on co-pays (which, of course, private insurers mimic). While physicians’ overhead, including, but not limited to malpractice insurance premiums (but also including office staff salaries, health insurance, utilities, taxes, rent, and so on) continue to increase. Malpractice insurance premiums, in particular, have risen at astronomical rates. Between 1984, when I started general surgery private practice and 2004, when I retired, my insurance rose from $6,000/year to $43,000/year, even though I had never been sued. That is an increase of over 600%. Other specialities have seen even hgher inceases, leaving many communities without obstetrical or anesthesia or neurosurgical coverage. All of us, physicians and non-physicians, are potential patients, and may need these services. No health care reform can succeed without tort reform legislation tied to it.
The current proposed health care reform legislation must not succeed-it intrudes too much between the physician and patient, with a whole new (expensive) bureacracy which will surely “contain” costs by denying or delaying care to millions.

First of all his figures are completely off but it appears he now wants to villianize physicians to get his agenda pushed thru. I am to rich by any stretch but after college I spent 4 years in medical school did a 3 year internal medicine residency and then a 3 year cardiology fellowship. After 10 years of post college education and over $250,000 in debt I’m not allowed to make a decent living? The main reason physicians order a number of test is not just for better pt care but to cover their ass from law siuts that are sure to come if god forbid you miss anything. Do you know how much money would be saved if we did’nt have to practice defensive medicine? But there is no talk of Tort reform from Obama since trial lawyers are one of the biggest supports of the democratic party.

I am NOT rich by any stretch

He demonized the Physicians as one of his many straw-boogymen.
Mean venal evil penurious doctors chopping off limbs that don’t need to be chopped off because they make more money than merely giving you a pill.

If only more people would hear about this..

http://nostradamo.pl/