The official blog of the Libertarian Party
October 14, 2005
Companies Commit Medicare Fraud Again and Again
This week the Government Accountability Office found 1,038 equipment suppliers that were suspended from Medicare in 2003 for multiple violations according to CNN.com. Of these suppliers, 192 were back on the Medicare reimbursement program on May 31, 2004 according to CNN.com. Of the 192 suppliers who were reenrolled, the average length of their suspension was only three months.
Government investigators working for the Government Accountability Office believe equipment suppliers who commit fraud against Medicare should not be able to reenter the program in such a short period. One investigator commented, "Suppliers whose previous performance was poor or that demonstrated a lack of integrity should not be allowed to quickly re-enter the program."
Investigators also found that Medicare has weak standards in terms of reimbursing suppliers. A woman testified before the Senate Finance Committee that she was able to open up a sham business using just $3,000. This hoax enterprise began billing Medicare, according to CNN.com. A GAO investigator said, "Having weak standards for suppliers helps individuals intent on defrauding Medicare to obtain billing privileges and be paid for fraudulent claims."
During the 2004 fiscal year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services paid $8.8 billion to suppliers.
Fraud associated with Medicare billing costs American taxpayers millions of dollars and results in higher premiums for recipients of the federal health insurance program. Senator Charles Grassley said, "Money is wasted or lost to fraud, and quality of care can be jeopardized when products and services come from con artists rather than qualified suppliers."
Posted by at October 14, 2005 05:28 PM
Reader Comments:
 |
Mr. Dailey:
Some research along the lines of cost of present system extended 10+ years from today vs. a one time buy-in by government into medical savings accounts would be good to know.
It's my un-expert opinion that the american people will never accept the current libertarian stances on both retirement and health care, and that something new is going to have to be put on the table. For better or worse, they won't accept no government role in either - so it's up to us to try to get the best deal we can. Expecting the entire country to come to our side of the fence wont make us more free anytime soon. The last 35 years have proved that.
The 2 times when medical care is more important in life is childhood and old age. Think of a bell curve with the ends representing need for health care - the high points are birth and death, with points from those ages decreasing for most people and then increasing again with age again. Most young adults and middle aged are fairly healthy and have somewhat less need for health care.
Unless we can get into the debate and influence it's direction, we are doing nothing. Lets start talking about what we can do to move this in a ownership direction towards more liberty than present. The alternative is HillaryCare.
I think that if private charities were set up to help the poor, they would greatly prefer it to the inneffective government aid they've been getting.
Timothy West commented that we need to lean more towards socialism in our stance on health care. That's right Timothy, I said socialism. I will never support any type of socialism, no matter how well intended. I give to charities to help people having problems in life and I don't use any government agency for any handouts, nor do I support anyone else receiving them. The government system is always corrupt and inefficient. Fight the good fight and don't compromise your integrity. The Republican Party used to be the party of freedom but one compromise after another led to their party now being more socialist than the Democrats of the 1960s. Give me my money back and let me choose how to spend it!
Do what you want with you and yours, but leave me and mine alone.
1. This has nothing to do with illegal immigrants.
2. The Libertarian position on immigration is free and open immigration.
3. With Libertarians in power, illegals wouldn't cost the government (or us taxpayers) anything at all, because we wouldn't support them.
Michael Robertson, cut them some slack. People like West are simply impatient. He thinks immediate, overnight success is possible.
He wants everyone else in the Party who marches to a different beat than his to leave, so that his vision -- which he can't even sell in his own home county -- can save the Party and the nation.
West's followers are apparently unaware that the transformation of the United States from a relatively free nation into something a few cards shy of a full-blown police state took two centuries.
These folks think a movement to reverse that transformation should take a week or something.
They also seem unaware that "compromise" is what brought the country to its current condition.
Barry Goldwater said it much better than I ever could: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."
The Communists/Socialists didn't win by "moderating their positions" or by compromising. They won because they stayed on-message for a century, and the political center moved towards them.
The political center compromised -- the collectivists didn't have to.
Neither do we.
To suggest otherwise is tantamount to saying "I don't even believe in myself."
If we're not going to speak a different tune than the DemReps, there simply is no point in being a separate political party.
I read with interest Mr. Dailey's Column. As a Utilization Review Professional, I think the problems with Medicare and Medicaid have been the fault of everyone: [government, businesses, and people].
Government because they want to "cover everything in a paternalistic manner". Businesses [including Insurance Companies] which also want a piece of "the pie". People [Politicians and Certain People] who have the philosophy of entitlement which has become a Dead End.
I recommend people to take a look at my website: alvarez-galloso.us/ There are two E Books titled:
"CUTTING HEALTH CARE: THE PROS AND CONS". This E Book is based on a research that I did of 8 states and two countries on how the state has dealt with Health Care. I also included Tennessee with its Tenn Care Crisis.
There is another book: "DEFENSIVE DOCUMENTATION AND MORE/DOCUMENTACION PREVENTIVA VOLUME II" for the general public [including my fellow Libertarians] in their quest for knowledge of Medicine as it is today.
Posted by: Nigel Watt at October 14, 2005 11:22 PM
Things can be changed. But I guess it ok to let anyone here, eventually if the government don't kill us. The other countries will.
I don't really know if this has any bearing, but it seems to me that Americans have learned from an early age that robbing the rich to give to the poor is a good idea. I refer to Robin Hood. He certainly seems to be a hero, to young children and to adults. Some people I talked to got offended when I pointed out that robin hood was a CRIMMINAL, that he was STEALING from some people to give to others,and it wasn't right. When I pointed out that the Government was doing the same thing, I got a hurray for the government. (NOT my intention at ALL) My point is that stealing to give to those in need is psycologically acceptable to most Americans. We need something to counter this acceptance, or I highly doubt we'll ever get rid of the lie that is "Benevoulent Government."
Tim West wrote: "Some research along the lines of cost of present system extended 10+ years from today vs. a one time buy-in by government into medical savings accounts would be good to know."
Then why don't you do that research Tim? It's one thing to criticize what another party member is saying. It's entirely another thing to criticize him for not doing research that you are unwilling to do yourself.
Michael Robertson, you must really love socialism, because sitting there saying that you will not stand for any socialism has only gotten us more socialism. Look over the last thirty-five years, have we moved to more liberty or more socialism? It is obvious to me that we have moved to more socialism. Tim is not asking for more socialism, he is asking for us to incrementally move towards more freedom and less socialism. Preaching that incrementally moving towards freedom is a bad thing has only gotten us more socialism. The only way we are going to get people to understand that charities will work better than gov't in regards to health care is by giving them a taste of it, not by telling them we have to make a 100% change over to it now. Once they have an understanding that charities and not more gov't may work better, than we can move more and more towards getting gov't completely out of health care. We need to set the stage now so we can move away from gov't and towards more freedom. The way you are suggesting we fight the war on socialism has not worked for the last 70 years or so and will not work in the future. Let's try something different such as incrementally working towards more freedom.
D Walter. Tim, it seems to me is not asking for immediate success to our goal. It seems more like you are. He is trying to incrementally work towards the same goal you are. He just understands that you have to take baby steps in that direction, not immediate, 100% moves like you are suggesting. Just as you described, the socialists knew that they had to take small steps to reach their goals. Think back to a 100 or 200 years ago or even fifty years ago. If you would have asked the people of that day if they would jump to what we have now immediately, they would have freaked and said no way. They believed in their freedoms they held at that time to much, but over time little baby steps against freedom and towards socialism have taken away more of our freedoms and brought us to this point. The only way we are going to gain our freedoms back is by turning that tide and start taking baby steps back towards freedom. Over time those baby steps will total up to major steps towards freedom. Hopefully instead of just taking baby steps all the time we can take some very large steps towards freedom on our journey and it won't take us as long to reach our ultimate goals of freedom. If we don't start taking those baby steps towards freedom now you might as well start kissing some more of the current freedoms you enjoy goodbye, because many more will be gone in a few years as the socialists continue to take little bites of them.
Libertarian TV
Tim seems to be just making a point that we should do a study looking at costs in the future and comparing that to a present cost of doing something different now. He wasn't criticizing anyone for not doing research. He seems to be making a suggestion that if someone who has the ability and the information to do a study that we will likely find that making some incremental changes now, we could save money and move towards freedom. What is wrong with that? Do you not want more freedom? Or would you rather just put your head in the sand and hope for the best. At least he is trying to come up with some workable solutions to bring us more freedom. That is more than I can say for some libertarians, they would just rather bury their head in the sand preaching their utopian world and getting us nowhere. This approach has only pushed us down our current path of less freedom and more socialism. It’s not working and hasn’t worked for many years. Let’s try something different, such as working incrementally towards more freedom.
Mr. Dailey is the policy research guy at National. I would think he probably has some resources available to him I dont have, but maybe I'm wrong.
National needs to get as many ideas from members as possible, and it needs to be a two way discussion, not a one way diatribe. I'm looking for ways to advance liberty that might actually be adopted in my lifetime, becuase after I'm dead, a free America does me no good. I'm in the ground.
If Bush cant even get his Social Security plan passed with the R's behind him, what makes you think the LP will have any pull with it's present stances? The only way we will do anything is by putting forth politically possible ideas and forming a coalition with like minded others who desire the same thing, and there are others out there who think retirement savings accounts and medical saving accounts are better public policy than what we have now, as well as being far less socialistic. I would rather the government pay once and then wipe their hands of it than what we have now.
The upshot of all this is: I dont believe the voting public will accept absolutely no government role in health care or retirement. Instead of insisting on no government role, lets try for a minimum government role. Something either people might vote us in for or vote in a R or D that will make it a reality, like the Socialist Party USA and the Democrats did during the New Deal.
Sometimes I think I could get on here and say the sky is blue and I would be attacked by people that swear it is green. :/
I dont go by what has been done. If it has been done and failed, we need to try something new that hasnt been done. As long as it does not call for higher taxes or more government, it's not un-libertarian - and any claims to the contrary have their own axes and motivations to grind.
Terry, I think Tim's post following your post proved my point. He wasn't just raising a hypothetical point. He was trying to assign a rather lengthy research project to Matthew Daily...or at least to "encourage" him to take on that project.
I consider his suggestion to be a distraction rather than a contribution. Remember, Tim's original note was specifically addressed to Mr. Dailey. It wasn't just a general post about his own ideas on the subject. If it were the latter, your point would be well taken.
Tim's inference is that if Mr. Dailey doesn't do the research that Tim wants him to do, we can't move the party in the right direction. You seem to be seconding his inference. Tim thinks that if Mr. Dailey is some sort of "policy research guy" that he should be doing the research that Tim wants him to do. I object to the whole idea that someone who has a different viewpoint from one's own should have to do research to prove one's own point. It's a tactic that has been used by a number of posters on these blogs, and I think it's a cheap one. Of course I want freedom, Terry, but I don't think someone else should have to do my research so I can validate my point. If I want to make a point of some kind backed by research, I think it's up to me to do that research. And I think the same thing is true of anyone else, including Tim.
Walt,
That's a giant canard. I dont have the power or the wherewithal to command anyone at National to do anything. I made a suggestion just like anyone else can do on here, and I thought he might have an interest in it.
I dont know if that's true or not - and if not, he can certanly tell me so.
"Tim's inference is that if Mr. Dailey doesn't do the research that Tim wants him to do, we can't move the party in the right direction."
No, Walt, that's YOUR inference. If you apply your statement across the board, then I think you should start some research into if a libertarian GOTV effort will help the party instead of coming on here and recommending it without doing research into it yourself. Someone at National might think that's a good idea and look into it, and we cant have that, can we?
You can bet I'll be looking into it myself, as well as getting input from everyone in the LP who has a interest, positive or negative.
No LTV it should not be just up to you to do the research. Not when some other people have been making good valid points.
LTV you may be in the position to do TV and the etc. But I have notice if the ideas that are very logical does not work in the way you like them. You put out what you want from your prospective. I think it is time that someone else also has some involvement in this as well.
I agree that no government is not the answer either, however I also have to say it is soo ridiculous how the rich give to the poor, how they make tax cuts. All these rules and crap is just another way to put you at the mercy of Government when if things were done right in the first place, people would not need necessarily anything from the rich. This in a way is controdictory.
It like your taking more from the poor giving to the rich, for the rich to give back to the poor again. So stupid, and they call it tax cut, or whatever term they wish to come up with at the time.
I will have to go along with the minimal government role which also is more logical.
It seems I am seing more people are saying the same thing about wanting to get this party to work and get going toward more freedom and see the same thing that other are seeing. Whether some of you are serious or not. But changes have to be made and those of you who are stubborn whether you like it or not need to go with the program or we are not going to get our freedom back. We will get NOWHERE.
"Things can be changed. But I guess it ok to let anyone here, eventually if the government don't kill us. The other countries will." Posted by ""
Could you translate that into English for me so that I can understand what you're saying?
Regarding the lp party, things can be changed.
Letting anyone here is in regards to illegals who can bring bombs, nukes or whatever not saying that a legal person couldn't. If our own government don't ruin our lives first. The other country will.
Micheal, TIM WEST did not comment more towards socialism in the extreme manner you claim. He is talking with logical and what has more of a good chance of working then you realize. Just because you are to stubborn to wake up and small the coffee here. We will not get anywhere. More people are speaking up and agree in the same manner of Tim.
I you expect to stay the same then be happy with only a very small percentage of people that is going to look at us along with we are pot heads.
Then do not come crying to some of us who do want freedomm but we know what is going to be logical and the direction that it needs to go in order to get us there. Some of us really do know what we are talking about.
Maybe questions should be ask to certain people. Like do you want or like to be a slave. Who here like being a slave. We are slaves to the government. Only this time it is not just against the blacks.
I bet if we had a running candidate this should be brought up, how quickly do you think people will start listening.
We are slaves to government. Even the article someone posted that talks about what happened to doctors. We all are walking on thin ice.
If the Anti-hate speech law. you can kiss our free speech good-bye. Then how hard do you think it will let people know about the Libertarians?
"Regarding the lp party, things can be changed."
O.....K.
"Letting anyone here is in regards to illegals who can bring bombs, nukes or whatever not saying that a legal person couldn't. If our own government don't ruin our lives first. The other country will."
Open immigration doesn't mean open borders. My idea of open immigration includes bringing all our soldiers back from overseas and posting them along our borders to carefully screen anybody coming across.
Regarding the idea of taking "baby steps" towards liberty on the issues of socialized medicine, education, 'general' welfare, social 'security', etc.:
The 'powers that be', no matter the source (global elite, RP/DP...) certainly have been taking 100-200 years of baby goose-steps, much like every other government that has seized control of its people. Can anybody name a time to where it has taken "baby steps" back?
Bueller? :)
I can only think of one way *any* visible government has 'gotten smaller'.
It takes control (power, money, propaganda) to build control. Should we take control to dissolve control? Is that feasable? Something to consider.
Immigration and borders and two very different issues.
The Federal Constitution gives the government very limited power in this area. It certainly does not view border control as a core function. It is something you see in tyrannies.
Immigration involves either the right to transit, or if the person wishes to be resident, than an invitation and/or sponsorship by a local inhabitant. It is not a government issue, and certainly not one of coercive government action.
Borders are national boundaries in peacetime. By definition they're not so much open as non-existent for practical purposes: somewhat like the borders between US States. Their purpose is administrative and cultural, not to keep people in or out.
What the major parties are doing is confusing people by talking about wartime and peacetime boundaries as if they were the same, then mixing it all up with immigration. Boundaries in wartime (or states of siege, such as for puposes of controlling terrorism or plagues) are called marques, not borders.
In the Constitution private persons--not primarily the military or police groups--may patrol the marque under letters of marque. Congress may keep out importation of slaves and tax certain imports. It may prevent states from in effect creating internal marques. Otherwise it is pretty much a personal or local matter, and was so understood for many decades until racist Democrats and socialists got control of immigration policy.
The US also has specific treaties on immigration it is not following. Under the treaty of San Lorenzo it has no actual borders with Latin countries, including Spain, and it is in fact a crime to detain a Latin attempting to enter the US. A Latin has the same rights in the US as his own country (and vice versa)--vote, travel, you name it. It has marque exception for contraband and (in effect)terrorism. It began to default under FDR with the problems we see today.
There is no specific Constitutional authority to prevent convicted criminals or anyone else from entering the country, nor need there be. As a transitional matter the US should move back to models such as Switzerland and other countries, which have minimal entry controls but there is local registration with police and long term residency treated as a neighborhood matter, which also keeps localities informed and involved.
The real long term solution is of course spreading Libertarian attitudes, which Libertarians are doing in over 100 countries by groups such as www.Libertarian-International.org ; and short term solving specific policing or military and other concerns on a bi-lateral and local basis. Keep central Federal controls out of it.
| 
Mr. Dailey:
Some research along the lines of cost of present system extended 10+ years from today vs. a one time buy-in by government into medical savings accounts would be good to know.
It's my un-expert opinion that the american people will never accept the current libertarian stances on both retirement and health care, and that something new is going to have to be put on the table. For better or worse, they won't accept no government role in either - so it's up to us to try to get the best deal we can. Expecting the entire country to come to our side of the fence wont make us more free anytime soon. The last 35 years have proved that.
The 2 times when medical care is more important in life is childhood and old age. Think of a bell curve with the ends representing need for health care - the high points are birth and death, with points from those ages decreasing for most people and then increasing again with age again. Most young adults and middle aged are fairly healthy and have somewhat less need for health care.
Unless we can get into the debate and influence it's direction, we are doing nothing. Lets start talking about what we can do to move this in a ownership direction towards more liberty than present. The alternative is HillaryCare.
Posted by: Timothy West at October 14, 2005 06:19 PM