Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (8127)	8/10/2009 7:03:02 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 42652

>> All it tells you is that the budget estimate turned out wrong. The reason the budget was wrong is clear: the extent to which allowing large private insurers to negotiate for these medications turned out to work better than anyone anticipated. Big budgets are always wrong. But they are not usually under by 10 or 20 or 30%. I opposed the Part D program because I didn't think the country could afford it, and I suppose I still do. But it is inarguable that the program has performed better than anyone expected. The model for Part D should not be ignored in this debate. I'm not saying it is the "right" model for health care, but it seems to me to be a conceptual improvement over Parts A & B. I wonder whether the Medicare Advantage programs couldn't have been better negotiated to deliver the same kind of results.