2012 Elections in the USA

What we should be able to agree on:

1. There are multiple factors influencing the U3 unemployment rate.
2. There are multiple factors influencing the LFPR.
3. Millions of jobs were lost during the Great Recession.
4. Millions of jobs have been created since the recession ended - but fewer.
5. The unemployment rate is still elevated, and it's a challenge to get a good paying job.

What I think is a more interesting discussion is #5. Why is it tough for many people to find a good paying job? This should be a good topic for those who advocate digging into the numbers, and looking at the complete picture.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;421726]in order to help achieve his ultimate desire of destroying free markets and capitalism.[/QUOTE]Unfortunately, Punter flushes his credibility down the toilet here. He started off with a fair point about the LFPR influencing the U3. But it became little more than a one-sided presentation to mask the progress that has been made. Now he caps off his argument with an outright lie about my political views. Not exactly objective commentary.

For the record (again), I believe in both a strong private sector and a strong government. I posted somewhat of a position statement on 1/24/2011: [url]http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Administration&p=415194&viewfull=1#post415194[/url]
Discussing the negative aspects of free market capitalism does not negate the positive aspects. I choose to look at both sides, than to live in some fantasy world where capitalism is a system is which jobs are only created and never lost.

For all our liberal members of AP who wish for you to believe Obama's US Bureau of Labor Statistics' unemployment rate of 8. 2% is accurate, please read the article I have attached to this post.

As I have pointed out in earlier posts the unemployment rate has decreased primarily due to a decrease in the US labor force as defined by the Bureau, to the tune of about 9 Million people, and not by job creation.

It is not that these 9 million folks are not still unemployed but the Bureau has 'defined' them right out of existence as far as the US labor force is concerned. The Bureau has managed to reduce the unemployment numbers from over 10% to 8. 2% and is attempting to project a continued downward trajectory for unemployment by simply reducing the labor force by changing a 'definition'.

Esten, liberals and the Obama administration attempt to explain away this 9 Million person reduction in the labor force as the Baby Boomers moving into retirement. The article points out only 26% of those 'defined' out of the labor force by Obama's Bureau of Labor Statistics are in the 55 and above age bracket, while the remain 74% of those 'defined' out of the labor force by the Bureau are in the 16-54 age bracket. The folks I know who are between 55 and 65 are still working until they qualify for Medicare, but that's a story for a different day.

While this pretty much blows up Obama's assertion all the folks are Baby Boomers retiring, the Obama Bureau of Labor Statistics adds insult to injury by making the cynical judgment that the job situation has been so bad for so long the 74% of folks of that 9 million who fall in the 16-54 bracket are being scrubbed from labor force since they have no hope of finding a job.

Interesting reading and very straightforward without the psycho babble / static smoke and mirrors used by the liberals, you know like counting the Medicare funds twice: once as a cut then as revenue.

Those 9 million folks Obama's US Bureau of Labor Statistics made vanish from the labor force are sure as hell going to reappear on Election Day!

[url]http://danielamerman.com/articles/2012/WorkC.html[/url]

Doppleganger,

That's an interesting article, but it's simply too complicated for the typical Democratic voter (excluding the esteemed Democrat readers of this forum, of course) to comprehend.

Can you reduce it to a sound bite? Hahahaha!

Anyway, I was particularly humored by this comment...

[quote]a government which desires to control public perceptions can, by manipulating that obscure definition, make the reported [strike]unemployment[/strike] inflation rate "sit, roll over or bark like a dog" at will, almost regardless of what is actually happening with [strike]jobs[/strike] prices.[/quote]...which reminded me of the way that the Argentina government manipulates their official inflation statics.

Thanks,

Jackson

That's what John Boehner said in a television interview last September.

[QUOTE]"We have 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day. It’s time for us to get serious about ensuring that these programs are going to be there for them."[/QUOTE]
Politifact checked that statement out and ranked it as completely true.
[url]http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/sep/26/john-boehner/house-speaker-john-boehner-says-10000-baby-boomers/[/url]

Retiring baby boomers are by no means the only factor influencing the LFPR. But it is certainly a factor, and probably a significant one.

Gee whiz this is fun, isn't it?

Doppel's article is from a blogger who uses his own metric "Workforce Participation Rate Change" to arrive at the 74% being from the 16-54 age group. Google this term and you'll get one hit. It's not an official statistic. I see this gentleman has a bunch of books and dvd's for sale too. Sometimes, these bloggers make claims nobody else is making to draw attention to themselves. Regardless, the 16-54 group would be the most likely to resume looking for work, in which case they'll be counted in the official unemployment rate. We can watch in the months ahead whether there is or isn't a surge of job seekers back into the labor market.

BTW, it's not the "Obama Bureau of Labor Statistics", it's the "Bureau of Labor Statistics". There is no manipulation, BLS has been using the same method to calculate the unemployment rate for 30 years.

Esten, John Boehner is a congressman, not a CFP, economist, statistician or even an accountant. I doubt he has anything to backup his claim.

I also don't really consider PolitiFact to be the end all of fact checking, particularly in this case. An excellent example of this was their rating of Obama's claim the US has only 2% of the worlds reserves, a number which has not changed since the 1940's as it refers to Proven Reserves. Folks in the energy business have successfully refuted this number due to advances in technology, discoveries of new fields, and rehabilitation of existing fields through technology increasing the US reserves from 2% to 26% of world reserves.

So what was PolitiFact's rating of Obama's statement – it was partly true and partly false. Wow does not mean it's more lie than truth. Face it Obama never let the truth stand in the way of a good campaign speech or sound bite!

[QUOTE=Esten; 421747]Regardless, the 16-54 group would be the most likely to resume looking for work, in which case they'll be counted in the official unemployment rate. We can watch in the months ahead whether there is or isn't a surge of job seekers back into the labor market.

BTW, it's not the "Obama Bureau of Labor Statistics", it's the "Bureau of Labor Statistics". There is no manipulation, BLS has been using the same method to calculate the unemployment rate for 30 years.[/QUOTE]Esten, even you do not dispute the persons falling in 16-54 bracket of long term unemployed have been dropped from the 'unemployed' figure to get the magic 8. 2%. Since these folks still don't have a job did they just vanish? They are still unemployed just not being counted due to the Bureau's change in 'definition' therefore making the unemployment number look better than it really is. Face it Esten, you like the 8. 2% number regardless of if it is true or not since it serves your purposes.

Esten, please don't insult everyone's intelligence by attempting to convince us the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not being leaned on by the Obama administration to make the unemployment picture look better than it is. If not why change the underlying assumptions for the numbers by changing definitions of who is unemployed when such a change has not been made in 30 years until the Obama admininstration came along.

Wasn't sure how much the books were being cooked until I read this.

Discouraged workers dropping out of the labor force make the unemployment rate look fractionally better, but the 8. 2 percent headline masks the misery. It is a reflection of the U-3 statistic, which counts only people who have applied for a job in the last four weeks. Among the jobless army, a staggering 42 percent of them are long-term unemployed, without jobs for six months or longer. Look instead at the more relevant U-6 statistic, which counts the number of people who have applied over the last six months. U-6 also includes those who are involuntarily working on a part-time basis. That U-6 unemployment is now in the range of 15 percent. Since 2008, some 3 million people have dropped out of the job market. If they hadn't, the unemployment rate would be about 10. 8 percent. In March, the unemployment rate seemed to fall a tenth of 1 percent, yet the number of people who are actually employed dropped by 31, 000. Why? Because the number of people who looked for a job dropped by 164, 000 and they are not considered unemployed. Not to mention that half the new jobs are in temporary help agencies.

I think Christina could take a few tips from us on how to manipulate statistics.

There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Mark Twain.

In every kind of statistical sample there are assumptions. The easiest way to play with data is to jigger with the population assumptions. The surveys tend to be fairly static. But a changing population, in the statistical not demographic sense, is the way to move the needle. Not living stateside, I don't have a good feel for what is really happening but from the doublespeak I see in the news. Something funny is going on.

Let's get the acronyms out of the way first:

Bureau of Labor & Statistic (BLS)

Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

Government Accountability Office (GAO)

Talk about piling on, after the BLS released its rosy unemployment number of 8. 2% with its prediction of a continued downward trajectory for unemployment with cooked numbers, see earlier post, along comes the CBO with their prediction on unemployment numbers which show: 1. Unemployment is higher than the 8. 2% BLS crows about; 2. Unemployment is going to rise to nearly 10% in the next two years; 3. Unemployment will not be below 8% for several years.

If the CBO blowing the BLS's numbers and Obama's claims out the water is not bad enough along comes the GAO and blasts ObamaCare for paying out $8 Billion in 'bonuses for quality of care' within the Medicare Advantage program which really is nothing of the sort since you get the bonus for delivering the same care as you provided today without any 'improvements'. You might note this little 'bonus' scheme did not come up until Obama started fading heat for the cuts to the Medicare Advantage program from seniors. Typical ObamaNomics, just keep throwing our money at the problem.

Guess Obama was so busy leaning on the BLS he forgot to make sure the CBO & GAO were all telling the same story. ROFLMAO

PolitiFact is probably the best site out there for checking what is based on fact and what isn't. It should be a go-to site for anyone interested in getting at the truth. The part-true part-false on the 2% claim sounds more than fair. Obama is citing proven reserves and based on information available, the 2% figure is correct. The USGS study released last week doesn't render that inaccurate, because the study measured "undiscovered, technically recoverable" reserves. Two different things. I can't find the page on PolitiFact but the part-false rating is probably to the critic's point that some could infer the US has less oil than we do. I'm not sure that's false but PolitiFact does attempt to be fair.

To me the % of world reserves is not the main point. It's how many years of oil we have left. Some estimates put it at hundreds of years, but I for one don't want to wait to act. Many others aren't waiting either. There is a nascent solar energy revolution happening now, at individual, government and industry levels. Federal support to help kick-start this industry in the US has been absolutely the right call. Why buy from China when we can buy from the US and create jobs here in the US at the same time. And that's just solar.

"All of the Above"? Or just "Drill Baby Drill"?

For me there isn't even a debate as to which is the superior approach for energy.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;421589]Esten, perhaps you should revisit the changes in Medicare which are already coming on line due to ObamaCare. Now many tests have been dropped from the approved payment list and when physicians order these test it is now up to the patient to pay if the tests are preformed.[/QUOTE]Doppel, do you have a credible link as to what tests were dropped? I asked you before.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;421753]Esten, please don't insult everyone's intelligence by attempting to convince us the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not being leaned on by the Obama administration to make the unemployment picture look better than it is. If not why change the underlying assumptions for the numbers by changing definitions of who is unemployed when such a change has not been made in 30 years until the Obama admininstration came along.[/QUOTE]Do you have a credible link showing how BLS changed how they calculate the official unemployment rate, let alone how Obama "leaned" on them to do it?

It's time for us to check your sources Doppel, looking forward to your responses.

Esten, the link I provided uses the BLS's numbers to demonstrate how the numbers have been fudged to lower the number in the labor force and improve the unemployment number. No Esten, I provided the link, so since you don't like the author and you consider him not credible even though his analysis stands up, you go back and see if you can find anywhere in the years before Obama when this basic assumption has been changed. Sorry you will not find it because it was only changed since 2009. Guess you missed the CBO's predictions on unemployment as well.

Do you want the specific IDC-9 and CPT codes regarding Medicare? You seem to have missed the $500 Billion cut from Medicaid to be transfered to the debt and ObamaCare. I really love this one. They count it twice, once as a reduction then as income. Just exactly how do you spend the same money twice. Only in Washington. You think they are taking all this money out of Medicare and not cutting services? Guess you are blind to the manipulation of the Medicare Advantage program as well. Even the GAO called Obama on this one.

Your losing Esten and losing badly, even the governmental wonks are coming down on Obama.

Esten, I do some work in the oil patch, Obama chose a very outdated statistic to suit his needs not what is a commonly accepted FACT in the industry. Esten can you say horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing, better software analysis of seismographic data, just to name a few? When the folks who do the work tell me it's out there for another hundred years I tend to believe them, after all these are the folks that find, develop and deliver the product with private funds they put at risk. They know a lot more about it than the knot head in the White House.

Boy do I love your argument on Solar, without all the government subsidies the wind and solar industries would fold. Why did China cash in on our push for solar and bankrupt many American companies you failed to ask. I know this is an alien concept for you Esten. But they delivered an acceptable product at a lower cost even after shipping it half way around the world than American companies. Guess you missed the auto maker deciding to build cars in Mexico even though it has facilities in the US because their labor rate is about 25% of that in the US. It's about economics Esten, first last and always.

If you want it clean, forget the exotic stuff that can't survive in the real world without massive subsidies, go with natural gas or spend the money on clean coal research since we have some of the largest coal deposits in the world. But, NO, that is not sexy enough for liberals. Not cool to have a coffee table book about coal or nature gas, so much better to show pretty mirror arrays and slowing turning turbine blades – which by the way are killing eagles. Bet they didn't show that on their glossy photos!

Any nitwit knows that so called green, renewable energy is a hoax. Even Obama. It is possible that Obama is naive enough to believe this green energy baloney and waste trillions of our tax dollars on it. However, I think it is more likely that Obama has to pander to these green energy frauds because they are his voter base. Either way, this is not the type of change we baggained for when we put this birdbrain in the White house.

[QUOTE=El Alamo;421830]Any nitwit knows that so called green, renewable energy is a hoax. Even Obama. It is possible that Obama is naive enough to believe this green energy baloney and waste trillions of our tax dollars on it. However, I think it is more likely that Obama has to pander to these green energy frauds because they are his voter base. Either way, this is not the type of change we baggained for when we put this birdbrain in the White house.[/QUOTE]With that attitude in the 1900's we would still be riding horse drawn buggies and sailing on the titanic instead of airplanes. Also Obama himself did not waste "trillions", you may need to drop a few zeros.

Gato Hunter, I don't think you want to choose that era to compare to solar and wind. Back then the government did not hand out huge multi-million dollar subsidies to inventors. Back then folks with an idea secured private funds and if the inventions they came up with were commercially viable they succeeded if not they failed. Look at all the inventions which came about during that time, it was not the 'government' that brought those products to market but free enterprise and the now hated '1%'ers' who plowed the money into the products. No burdensome government entities and regulations or green weenies to get in the way of progress. I'm all for shrinking the federal and state governments back down to the size they were in the 1900's!

Doppel can't provide any credible evidence to back up his statements.

On the Affordable Care Act dropping covered tests, he's got nothing. He just asks if I want the codes, then segues into a different subject. Nothing. BTW did you notice Doppel sounded like a liberal, suggesting a drop in covered services was a bad thing.

On the unemployment rate calculation method changing, he refers again to his blogger link. The method used by BLS involves a ~60000 household telephone survey, asking a set of prescribed questions and recording the answers. A computer then classifies each person into buckets based on their answers. Nothing in the blogger's article proves that this method has changed. The LFPR is indeed influencing the U3 as previously discussed, but that doesn't mean BLS is "fudging" or changing definitions. You'd think if this were true the right wing media would be all over it.

Tonight Bill O'Reilly was talking about internet misinformation. I think he was referring to people who post stuff but can't back up their statements.

Esten, if you knew anything about medical billing you would have realized IDC-9 and CPT coding is how Medicare recognizes services and what they cover and do not cover. When they release information regarding services cut by Obama's raiding the fund is done using these identifiers, again showing you know nothing about this subject! I could send you a list and you would have no idea what you were looking at.

Want real world facts; try these two since they are family members I personally take to their appointments.

82 year old female with a diagnosed aneurism on a major artery near the heart, diagnostic imaging to monitor this condition has been removed from covered services – yes the physician knows she has it but if she wants it monitored even annually the physician has to order it but she has to pay as Medicare has cut this screening.

80 year old female diagnosed with a cancerous spot in the lung, a lifelong NON-Smoker, had surgery two years ago to remove upper lobe of one lung. The physician recommends annual imaging of the lungs to monitor any further activity, yes you guessed it, it's no longer paid for. Again the physician can order it but the patient now has to pay for it.

Remember the 'death panels' from the ObamaCare debate, here you begin to see one manifestation of it – your old, we know you have life threatening conditions but we won't pay to see if it progresses even though you paid Medicare Tax and your employer matched since the inception of the program. Nope we are going to spend it on Super Medicaid for folks who can afford cars, computers, smart phones, big screen TVs and all manner of other toys but not health insurance.

Stop whining about the unemployment numbers, the facts are there you just choose to ignore them since you don't like them. BLS even admits U-3 is only a limited view of unemployment and does not include all the folks in U-6 who are unemployed even after BLS changed the definition. Perhaps you can't add and that's the problem. I guess you are OK with the idea you drop folks who are long term unemployed since the BLS has decided they will never find a job – they are still unemployed and want a job but it's inconvenient for propaganda purposes to count them.

Even the CBO has higher unemployment numbers than those BLS are trying to push, not to mention CBO is predicting INCREASES in unemployment for at least another 3 years.

Esten, go look in the mirror, O'Reilly was talking about that guy looking back at you.

Doppel, I do know about CPT codes, you just didn't provide any, or even any test names. Remember, you don't have a clue what I do for a living.

Finally, you tell us the cuts are for medical imaging. No credible links though, just anecdotes. I don't doubt your story, or that PPACA may have cut reimbursement on some services (e.g, less cost-effective) while expanding coverage on others (e.g, preventive).

However:
- There are studies that have demonstrated no significant survival benefits among cancer-resection patients who received scans on a routine basis.
- It's not clear these Medicare imaging cuts are tied to PPACA as you claimed. These may be simply another round of cuts from CMS, which has cut reimbursement for imaging before under Bush. If you have a link, please share.
- It's not clear that CMS cut coverage altogether, vs. reduced reimbursement. Are you sure your family members are responsible for the entire cost, or just part of the cost?

I'll continue my research. In the meantime you may want to consider how PPACA may be helping reduce prescription drug costs for your family members, and how that will be affected if Republicans gut PPACA.

Do you guys really get OFF on this Shit?

Sad Life You RePublicos Have!

Oh, Yes!

Happy 6th anniversary to Romney Care.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 421886]Do you guys really get OFF on this Shit?

Sad Life You RePublicos Have![/QUOTE]'If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen'.

I am continually amazed how effortlessly Obama can destroy an economy. Obama is a natural. Takes to this like ducks to water. Now, if he could only switch gears and try to improve the economy. Oh, I forgot, Obama wants everyone to be unemployed so they will be dependent on his handouts.

Esten, you have used the 'you don't have a clue what I do' so many times for so many fields it has become meaningless.

It is painfully evident you don't know anything about medical coding and how it relates to reimbursement or lack thereof from Medicare. It was obvious from your response, you just Googled the term and kicked back an answer. If you did know what you were talking about there would have been at least 2 and probably 3 other questions you would have asked. So save the BS for someone else.

Here is the link, I doubt you will understand what you are looking at or have the requisite knowledge to utilize it.

[url]http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/OutpatientCodeEdit/downloads//SumofDataChngsV130.pdf[/url]

Enjoy

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 421886]Do you guys really get OFF on this Shit?

Sad Life You RePublicos Have!

Oh, Yes!

Happy 6th anniversary to Romney Care.[/QUOTE]WT69, If the Olympics had "a pissing contest" AP would have the dream team.

Maybe the 'dream team' is pissing in an attempt to put out Obama's forest fire which is destroying the economy.

More dodging from Doppelganger.

I've known about CPT codes for a long time. That's beside the point. Focusing on what CPT codes are is a dodge. The current debate is all about the following claim:

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;421589]Esten, perhaps you should revisit the changes in Medicare which are already coming on line due to ObamaCare. Now many tests have been dropped from the approved payment list and when physicians order these test it is now up to the patient to pay if the tests are preformed. I guess you missed the millions being cut from Medicare and shifted to Medicaid.[/QUOTE]This was news to me so I wanted to learn about it. After considerable chasing, we finally learn Doppel was referring to medical imaging. As I've pointed out, there are studies that have demonstrated no significant medical benefit from annual imaging in some cases. In fact, imaging reimbursements have been cut eight times in six years. Was there a recent cut attributable to the Affordable Care Act (PPACA)? Doppel still hasn't provided any evidence of this. The closest he came was referencing a "$500 Billion cut" in Medicare that is included in PPACA. I guess Doppel thinks annual medical imaging was part of this $500 Billion "cut".

Let's look at the facts:

No $500 billion in Medicare cuts
[url]http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_8307e73a-de48-11df-80ad-001cc4c002e0.html[/url]
[url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/16/mitt-romney/500-billion-medicare-obamacare-romney-says/[/url]
[QUOTE]The bill doesn't take money out of the current Medicare budget but, rather, attempts to slow the program's future growth, curtailing just over $500 billion in anticipated spending increases over the next 10 years. Medicare spending will still increase, however.[/QUOTE]You can read the links to see where the savings come from, but they aren't from cutting benefits. This explains how I searched for 2 hours and couldn't find anything linking PPACA with medical imaging cuts. What I did learn is that by reducing the future rate of growth in Medicare spending, PPACA delays a projected Medicare Part A shortfall from 2016 to 2024. Sounds like just the kind of thing conservatives have been telling us we need to do.

Go back and look at Doppel's original statement (quoted above). Then follow his series of responses. He started with deception and ended with dodging. Just another conservative spreading misinformation on the internet.

I think this whole thread is anti productive and reducing profits.

[QUOTE=Gato Hunter;421911]I think this whole thread is anti productive and reducing profits.[/QUOTE]Seems a bit odd that you didn't post similar feelings when Bush was POTU and being slammed on a daily basis???

[QUOTE=Gato Hunter;421911]I think this whole thread is anti productive and reducing profits.[/QUOTE]What we need is more information and real discussion, and less propanganda and finger-pointing. We already have that outside AP. Throw away the cliches, like "class warfare" and "socialism vs capitalism", that will be a good start. I shut my mouth about Iraq for many years, out of support for the Presidency. Universal health care in whatever form can only help. Whereas, people on the right side of the railroad tracks will always get better food, doctors, lawyers, colleges, etc. That is from the beginning of time.

Esten, the only dodging going on here is from you and your total lack of knowledge regarding procedure and diagnostic coding. You're making a fool of yourself here my friend.

You asked for specifics and I gave you two direct experiences with the cuts and clearly stated they involved imaging in answer to your post.

You asked for more and I gave you the direct link to the source Medicare coding provided by the program. If you will look at the information provided earlier via the link you will find what you are looking for regarding Medicare's failure to pay for specific items. Since you don't understand the material the effort is lost on you. It is not my job to provide instruction unless you wish to pay my base rate for consulting.

I guess you now consider a chest x-ray to be a non-essential test to follow up on lung cancer, providing in your words 'no significant benefit'? This was one of the 'imaging' examples given.

The bottom line here is the reduction in services to Medicare recipients to shift spending to Obama's Super Medicaid recipients. Simply put, taking health care funding from those who paid for years into the Medicare program through payroll taxes and giving it to those who paid nothing but will be rewarded for not taking responsibility for their own healthcare with OUR dollars via Obama's Super Medicaid program.

Here are some great true examples of how great Medicaid is:

A Chinese woman comes to the US on a visa. She speaks no English but is pregnant. She already has one child and China has a one child law which they enforce. She goes to an obstetrician with an interpreter and pays $3, 000 up front for total post-partum, delivery and anit.partum care. She tells the physician if it is a boy she will stay in and deliver in the US, but if it is a girl she will return to China and be aborted for free. Her next visit 30 days later she demands a refund and presents a Medicaid card!

A patient shows up with commercial insurance provided by the employer and has Medicaid as a SECONDARY Payer. How exactly do you get Medicaid when you have commerical insurance?

A patient shows up with commercial insurance provided by the employer and because there is a deductible which must be met for a scheduled procedure this person tells the employer to cancel the commercial insurance and then applies and receives Medicaid. The person is still employed!

Now you should know I can not provide names since it would be a violation of HIPAA.

Simple concept – those who paid are first in line and those who don't come last. In this case Medicaid should be totally shuttered and turned over to the States to administer as they see fit.

The 2nd Bush administration began with the unemployment rate 5. 3% and ended with 8 percent. The rate kept increasing and peaked around 10% in the 1st year of Obama, but now it is about 8. 2. Thanks.

[QUOTE=El Alamo;421889]I am continually amazed how effortlessly Obama can destroy an economy. Obama is a natural. Takes to this like ducks to water. Now, if he could only switch gears and try to improve the economy. Oh, I forgot, Obama wants everyone to be unemployed so they will be dependent on his handouts.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 421941]You asked for more and I gave you the direct link to the source Medicare coding provided by the program. If you will look at the information provided earlier via the link you will find what you are looking for regarding Medicare's failure to pay for specific items. Since you don't understand the material the effort is lost on you. It is not my job to provide instruction unless you wish to pay my base rate for consulting.

I guess you now consider a chest x-ray to be a non-essential test to follow up on lung cancer, providing in your words 'no significant benefit'? This was one of the 'imaging' examples given.[/QUOTE]Doppel, the link you provided is simply a listing of codes and descriptions, grouped into categories. The file does not provide any explanation or reason for the various changes. These codes undergo changes every year. I am indeed familiar with most of the terminology in the file. Presumably you are referring to the following line:

[QUOTE]The following APC (s) were deleted from the IOCE, effective 01-01-12.
00307 Myocardial Positron Emission Tomography (PET) imaging[/QUOTE]Please confirm this is the service you believe has been dropped by CMS. Do you have a single shred of evidence that imaging services for Medicare recipients have been dropped [u]because of the Affordable Care Act[/u]?

Esten, I have to give you credit, you at least looked at the information, sort of. Again we are back at the point of you not understanding the material or medical coding.

I will make this simple so even a liberal can understand. Procedure codes which still appear must be linked with diagnostic codes. While a specific procedure code maybe paid when submitted with one diagnostic code it may not be when submitted with another diagnostic code. Understand? The cuts are made by removing procedure codes and / or diagnostic codes from what will be paid.

Now is there a specific listing from all the procedure and diagnostic codes which have been eliminated by ObamaCare? Of course not and if you don't know this you should. They are not about to publish a listing of specific care cuts, makes it too easy for people to target them and complain. What Medicare / CMS does is publish the revised lists each year and each specialty and / or healthcare service provider reviews what is or is not paid based on the scope of services provided and the associated diagnostic and procedure codes used to bill. Third parties usually ferret out the minutia and publish for specific providers.

If you think this is sneaky and convoluted, your right! This is how it works and how the shell game is played by Federal Healthcare.

Sorry your stab at the procedure regarding the heart condition was not very close and do you now understand the other half of the question you have not answered? I am disappointed you did not address the chest x-ray, it should have been very easy to located.

Have you noticed the new filings for unemployment are up again. Guess all those folks BLS dropped from the rolls are out looking again and pestering the government for payments.

BLS can erase them from being counted in the national unemployment rate but they can't stop them from showing up November 6th to vote the Blamer in Chief out of office

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;422011]Now is there a specific listing from all the procedure and diagnostic codes which have been eliminated by ObamaCare? Of course not[/QUOTE]Well well. So you don't have any evidence.

[QUOTE]If you think this is sneaky and convoluted, your right![/QUOTE]The only thing sneaky and convoluted is your attempt to save face in being unable to support your original claim. You've offered no evidence that PPACA has dropped medical imaging coverage for Medicare recipients.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;421864]80 year old female diagnosed with a cancerous spot in the lung, a lifelong NON-Smoker, had surgery two years ago to remove upper lobe of one lung. The physician recommends annual imaging of the lungs to monitor any further activity, yes you guessed it, it's no longer paid for. Again the physician can order it but the patient now has to pay for it.[/QUOTE]Hmmm, blame it on "Obamacare"? Or maybe just a prudent measure to manage costs and allocate spending to maximize medical benefit?

Annual Screening With Chest X-Ray Does Not Reduce Rate of Lung Cancer Deaths, Study Finds
[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111026143717.htm[/url]

[QUOTE]In a trial that included more than 150,000 participants, those who underwent annual chest radiographic screening for up to 4 years did not have a significantly lower rate of death from lung cancer compared to participants who were not screened, according to a study in the November 2 issue of JAMA. The study is being published early online to coincide with its presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST 2011).[/QUOTE]Note the accompanying editorial:

[QUOTE]In an accompanying editorial, Harold C. Sox, M. D, of Dartmouth Medical School, West Lebanon, N. H, comments on the findings of this study.

"The PLCO lung cancer study result provides convincing evidence that lung cancer screening with chest radiography is not effective. The study is important for putting this question to rest and providing strong empirical grounds for comparing low-dose computed tomography to a real-world alternative: usual care.[/QUOTE]

Smoke and mirrors again Esten.

If you took the time to read your cited study it deals with general population sampling and not with patients who have undergone surgical intervention and / or previous diagnosis of lung cancer. Pretty poor example of your reasoning but typical for a liberal.

Occurence vs. recurrence? Merely different by an additional risk factor. Yes perhaps the ideal study addressing your example would have focused on populations previously diagnosed and treated for lung cancer. However the study I cited is far from irrelevant to this population. It highlights the limitations of chest x-ray to visualize early cancers, including a high false positive rate.

Perhaps you'll find this more convincing:

Utility of screening procedures for detecting recurrence of disease after complete response in patients with small cell lung carcinoma
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9264350[/url]

[QUOTE]CONCLUSIONS: These data, demonstrating that clinical histories and physical examinations are the most fruitful means of detecting evidence of recurrent lung carcinoma, are consistent with data regarding the follow-up of other curatively treated cancers, such as breast carcinoma and melanoma. Chest X-rays in asymptomatic patients detect recurrences in a small proportion of patients, whereas routine blood tests appear to be of little value.[/QUOTE]No medical organization recommends chest x-ray for lung cancer screening in asymptomatic persons, and several in fact recommend [u]against[/u] it (Table 1):
[url]http://www.dcmsonline.org/jax-medicine/2007journals/CancerScreening/lung_cancer_screening.pdf[/url]

Which really begs the question: Do you have any evidence Medicare has EVER covered annual chest x-ray for monitoring lung cancer recurrence ?

Esten, read what you post links to. Chest X-Rays for lung cancer screening does not reduce mortality when the cancer is found in it's late stages. Duh!

Chest X-Ray is still one of the primary tools used to diagnose the condition in its early stages when it is treatable. Chest-X Rays are also used to monitor as well as MRI for post surgical, radiation therapy and other treatment s used for lung cancer. Here is a link for you.

[url]http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/2005/plcolungbaseline[/url]

If you want the last word in the conversation go to the MD Anderson site, after all they are one of the leading cancer research and treatment hospitals in the nation.

I guess the next thing you are going to tell me is ObamaCare is not gutting the Medicare Advantage program, which the Democrats passed additional funding for the Advantage program so cuts won't kink in during an election year.

This is all going to be a moot point in June when ObamaCare is struck down by the Supreme Court. Wonder how the Anointed One is going to handle the double whammy of the Court slapping down his healthcare grab and upholding Arizona's immigration law?

Monger on Dude!

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;422079]Wonder how the Anointed One is going to handle the double whammy of the Court slapping down his healthcare grab and upholding Arizona's immigration law?[/QUOTE]That's an easy one.

1. It's the Supreme Court's fault.

2. It's Congress' fault.

3. It's George Bush's fault.

Thanks,

Jackson

I love the way the BLS reports the new 'drop' in unemployment from 8. 2% to 8. 1, while the real rate is still over 14% The Wall Street Journal lays it out pretty simply, here is the link:

[url]http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/05/04/why-did-the-unemployment-rate-drop-7/[/url]

A good analogy of the BLS's reasoning when it comes to unemployment would be:

As the Titanic is sinking. 60% of the ship is underwater, but then the ship breaks in half and the portion under water slips away leaving the other half sill sinking but now more out of the water than under.

BLS would say we are no longer 60% under water we are only 10% under since we are not counting the half that just broke off!

Just as BLS is not counting the folks who are long term unemployed and ran out of benefits, but are still unemployed and wanting a job.