« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Should You Be Allowed Your Choice of Doctor?

Not in Dan Coats's America

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  April 27th, 2010 at 10:25 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Should you be allowed your own choice in doctor? It seems like a no brainer.

What about senior citizens? Should they be allowed to go to the doctor of their choice or keep the doctor they had before they crossed that magic threshold into senior citizenship?

This is just common sense. Or at least it should be. But in 1995 the issue came before the United States Senate. Dan Coats was in the Senate in 1995. He voted against allowing senior citizens to choose their own doctor if they were on medicare.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • youngmonte

    …or John Ashcroft’s…or Judd Gregg’s…or Connie Mack’s…or, well, you get the idea. Each one of these conservative stalwarts, and more, voted the same way Coats did. I have no idea what caused Coats, Thompson, Ashcroft, et al to vote as they did (Congressional Records from that congress are not online). But I do know that when guys like Fred Thompson and John Ashcroft vote a certain way, there was likely a pretty good reason. When I have more time later maybe I’ll do more research. But Erick has given us no context (not even a roll call vote number), just a line from an table on Stuztman’s website. RedState readers deserve better.

    I do not have a dog in this fight – I would be very happy with either as senator from Indiana. I just can’t get worked up over Stuztman vs. Coats the way I can McCain vs. Hayworth, where you have a real black and white choice. It’s great that so many RedStaters have taken on Martin Stuzman’s candidacy and are actively pulling for their man. But to demonize Dan Coats as some liberal Republican in the process is just plain silly.

  • thurman

    I was just barely a med student at the time, and my memory may fail me, but if I recall– the bill would have forced doctors to take Medicare patients.

    There is no way a single conservative should have voted for this bill — doctors can see whomever they damn well please, without the government mandating they accept 70 cents on the dollar to see a Medicare patient.

    If a doctor wants to run a cash business, or just see private insurance plans that pay him fairly, that’s his right.

    To suggest otherwise to demonize Coats on this is misleading.

    Sorry, but without providing the details about this bill (which I can’t find myself now), this seems a bit manipulative.

  • thurman

    I was just barely a med student at the time, and my memory may fail me, but if I recall– the bill would have forced doctors to take Medicare patients.

    There is no way a single conservative should have voted for this bill — doctors can see whomever they damn well please, without the government mandating they accept 70 cents on the dollar to see a Medicare patient.

    If a doctor wants to run a cash business, or just see private insurance plans that pay him fairly, that’s his right.

    To suggest otherwise to demonize Coats on this is misleading.

    Sorry, but without providing the details about this bill (which I can’t find myself now), this seems a bit manipulative.

  • Gandalf

    Are you even checking the facts anymore before you post yet-another-anti-Coats piece?

    Technically, the facts are absolutely square-on. But the fact that everyone at RedState would have cheered this vote (and rightfully so) and that Stuzman and Hostetter would have voted the exact same way, and rightfully so, if they had been in office in 1995 is misleading.

    I’ve been around here a long time, through some of the roughest elections in our country’s life and through some of the most partisan, bloody politicaltimes. I’ve never seen this kind of treatment to a fellow conservative at RedState.

    Honestly, I can’t wait until this primary is over so we can stop seeing posts about how eeeevvvviiiilllll Dan Coats is.

  • southernilpat

    First I had to go to the Dan Coats tag link and found this post http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/04/20/does-indiana-really-remember-dan-coats/ I assume that what you are talking about is the vote described as “Allow seniors to choose their own doctor under Medicare.” This was vote 508, in the 104th Congress. Vote 508 was Jesse Helms’ amendment to S. 1357 Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995. The amendment’s name was misleading because it was not strictly speaking about whether seniors can choose their own doctor but whether insurance companies can be forced to pay for it.

    The text (from Library of Congress THOMAS http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r104:3:./temp/~r1046p5At2:: ): “If a Medicare Choice sponsor offers a Medicare Choice plan that limits benefits to items and services furnished only by providers in a network of providers which have entered into a contract with the sponsors, the sponsor must also offer at the time of enrollment, a Medicare Choice plan that permits payment to be made under the plan for covered items and services when obtained out-of-network by the individual.” In other words, sign up for the benefits of the HMO and then demand that the plan pay like a fee for service.

    In the interest of full disclosure I have not followed this race closely enough to have an opinion on the better candidate. I just can’t resist a mystery. It’s impossible to have an intelligent debate without some facts.

  • red_baron

    When did honesty go out the window at Redstate? You have been, day in and day out, dumping dishonest postings here re Coats without any kind of follow up, clarification, correction, or comment when it is shown to be total BS. This post certainly is one of those. And since this dishonesty originated with Stutzman’s campaign, I’m starting to feel the same way about him.

  • lightfootletters

    The Federal Government or the several States have no authority to force doctors to work for the benefit for any other citizen. This amounts to a permanent type of servitude which is clearly un-constitutional !!

  • ihateliberals

    when you grow up. why should a senior citizen have to accept any less treatment than anyone else. I take you yo only got into medicine for the money. sounds like you must have a wonderful beside manner as well. I think that all doctors should have to accept medicare patients and accept whatever they get paid for the service. many years ago people were duped into medicare and were taught to depend on it in their retirement years just like Soc Sec. now when we need it the most all you young punks want to take it away from us. there has to be a solution to the Soc Sec and medicare medicaid problems but don’t punish those that are already on the system. Stop the young people g=from getting on it at all. this is an area that the private sector could have handled do much better if we had been allowed to. if i could have invested my money over the years instead of paying soc sec then even with the market going up and down i would have faired much better. it wil be nice when you are old and insecure and have the government tell you what you can or can’t do.

  • rivahmitch

    “I think that all doctors should have to accept medicare patients and accept whatever they get paid for the service.”

    I’m not a doctor, nor am I “rich”. However, I don’t believe anyone purporting to be conservative and believe in the sovereignty of individuals can support the idea that people should be coerced to provide a product or service for less than their costs.

    Modern slavery has nothing at all to do with shackles, and everything to do with economics, money manipulation, and taxation.

  • meghan

    Re: Seniors/disabled.
    Doctor’s who make the decision to refuse medicare or medicaid patients simply say they are not taking on any new patients. With (Obamacare) they say you can keep you own doctor’s, this applies to only your primary care doctor. For specialists you have to use who they chose for you. Depending on where you live, the choices may be limited and again, no new patients. having had Kaiser for over 40 yrs., they walked us through the system, bypassing state representatives who had us in a government vice-grip. We do have to pay more, but the excellent care that has kept my husband alive and well after 8 heart attacks and numerous surgeries is certainly worth sacrificing other necessities for. As we are both disabled, this does present a challenge.

    The one hospital we have is third world state run, so like a hotel, they have to keep the beds full to survive. Thus the problem exists that instead of AirMed to HNL for proper treatment in a real hospital, they keep you until it is too late. Having Kaiser gives patients the security of knowing they will be cared for ASAP and transferred to their medical center for proper treatment and procedures.

  • southernilpat

    They say “you can keep your doctor” because technically, THEY are not telling you that you have to change. Your doctor, however, is perfectly free to not accept your insurance, either public or private.

    For now.