Hi, Sen. Decker. I was just skimming through the MJS politics blog when I noticed a headline from today that says "Decker: Trade hospital tax for medical malpractice fund transfer".
That's a fantastic idea, both pragmatically and politically. Wisconsin hospitals will gain additional federal revenue for MA patients - which if I use the logic of my conservative friends, means hospitals will have to pass less of those MA losses on to regular joes in the form of higher bills for their services. That's good for regular people like you and me. Whatever we can do to improve MA reimbursement is a good thing for Wisconsinites.
And you want to use the hospital tax to offset that PCF raid, which makes the doctors (read: contributors) upset. If I use the logic of my conservative friends, doctors would simply pass those premium increases resulting from the PCF raid right along to their clients, regular joes like you and me.
So by bringing in excess federal revenue that will more than exceed the hospital tax levied, regular joes should see their hospital costs go down. And by restoring the integrity of the PCF, regular joes should see their medical costs go down.
I can't believe I didn't think of this myself.
Oh, but apparently I did. Last Friday. Hmmm.
Well, it's no matter whose idea it was. We probably came up with it at the same time. I mean, you're smart. I'm smart. If the GOP was smart, they'd go along with it. But their leadership will probably oppose it because they're still groveling for something, anything to run on in 2008. Like any party destined for the minority, all they know how to do is object to your ideas. They don't have any of their own, unless it involves green license plates or tax breaks for their buddies.
And as long as we're chatting, one last thing? You've got two Republicans among your three-member Assembly delegation. One of them is Mary Williams, who makes a living selling 2,000-calorie thickburgers and other weapons of gastronomic destruction to her constituents. Go back and click on that link and turn up the sound on your computer. Hear that sound when the burger hits? That is not the sound of a health care reformer. Can we really trust someone like that to reform our health care system? It'd be sad if someone pointed that out in a campaign, you know, is all I'm saying.
Anyway, I'll let you get back to work. I'm sure you're busy tinkering with committee assignments and making your naughty/nice list. I hope I'm on the nice list.
Congratulations on being my Reader of the Month. You rule!
Best wishes,
RS
That's a fantastic idea, both pragmatically and politically. Wisconsin hospitals will gain additional federal revenue for MA patients - which if I use the logic of my conservative friends, means hospitals will have to pass less of those MA losses on to regular joes in the form of higher bills for their services. That's good for regular people like you and me. Whatever we can do to improve MA reimbursement is a good thing for Wisconsinites.
And you want to use the hospital tax to offset that PCF raid, which makes the doctors (read: contributors) upset. If I use the logic of my conservative friends, doctors would simply pass those premium increases resulting from the PCF raid right along to their clients, regular joes like you and me.
So by bringing in excess federal revenue that will more than exceed the hospital tax levied, regular joes should see their hospital costs go down. And by restoring the integrity of the PCF, regular joes should see their medical costs go down.
I can't believe I didn't think of this myself.
Oh, but apparently I did. Last Friday. Hmmm.
Well, it's no matter whose idea it was. We probably came up with it at the same time. I mean, you're smart. I'm smart. If the GOP was smart, they'd go along with it. But their leadership will probably oppose it because they're still groveling for something, anything to run on in 2008. Like any party destined for the minority, all they know how to do is object to your ideas. They don't have any of their own, unless it involves green license plates or tax breaks for their buddies.
And as long as we're chatting, one last thing? You've got two Republicans among your three-member Assembly delegation. One of them is Mary Williams, who makes a living selling 2,000-calorie thickburgers and other weapons of gastronomic destruction to her constituents. Go back and click on that link and turn up the sound on your computer. Hear that sound when the burger hits? That is not the sound of a health care reformer. Can we really trust someone like that to reform our health care system? It'd be sad if someone pointed that out in a campaign, you know, is all I'm saying.
Anyway, I'll let you get back to work. I'm sure you're busy tinkering with committee assignments and making your naughty/nice list. I hope I'm on the nice list.
Congratulations on being my Reader of the Month. You rule!
Best wishes,
RS
4 comments:
Be for you do your own reach-around (to pat yourself on the back) about the Decker reach-around(that screws the taxpayers), yours has not been a novel idea since the WHA changed their mind and made the same suggestion.
But, you can have Decker as your favorite.
The federal recapture should mean that taxpayers notice no difference in aggregate cost - unless the hospitals just pocket the entire difference. If the hospital passes off the cost of the tax AND the revenue from the federal recapture, that's a net positive for consumers. Consumers would get back more than they pay.
This is great. You really did a good job thanks.
Just a quick note: doctors can't often pass along increases in overhead to their patients because of the constraints of contracts with private insurance companies (who decide what's "usual and customary") and organizations like Medicare and Badger Care. In many cases, we can't bill the patient for the difference at all, or we can only bill so much. In other words, we can ASK for higher fees, but we generally can't have them. The Patients' Compensation Fund contains NO tax revenue. For that reason and that reason alone, the state is not entitled to use it to pay for programs that should be paid for by state funds (read: tax revenue). Just FYI. Thanks.
Post a Comment