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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (131548)	2/26/2010 11:08:07 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540958

Kate, it's my understanding that the Medicare cost savings come from ending Medicare Advantage. If you recall, that plan was seen as the Bush administration's nose-of-the-camel-under-the-tent to lead to a privatization of Medicare. Pay private providers $1.15, according to several statements yesterday, for what Medicare would pay $1. The idea was that private providers would provide better service and better health outcomes. Research now says that did not happen. So the Obama administration proposes to save that extra $.15. That's the bulk of the savings. No doubt they also proposed some savings from their version of Tom Coburn's idea of coordinated treatment. But I didn't hear any quantification of it. Nonetheless, ending Medicare Advantage is their basis for saying they will reduce Medicare payments but not benefits. At that level of explanation, it makes sense to me.

To: Katelew who wrote (131548)	2/26/2010 12:01:59 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540958

<<<My basic problem is that I'm not convinced the cost curve can be bent. In trying to research it, I can't find reasonable methods for doing it. >>> It is a given that in any large organization there is at least 10% in cost cutting that is easily achievable but in this case my sense is that that could easily be doubled. But my personal feelings are neither here nor there. I have absolutely no experience or special knowledge in this area and I can only rely on people on the scene with hands on experience. In this case, just look at Peter Orszag and his background. He is director of OMB. He is a real economist and a policy wonk. "Orszag grew up in Lexington, Massachusetts. After graduating from Phillips Exeter Academy with high honors (1987), he earned an A.B. summa cum laude in economics from Princeton University in 1991, and a M.Sc. (1992) and a Ph.D. (1997) in economics from the London School of Economics. He was a Marshall Scholar 1991–1992, and is a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science. Economists Alan Blinder (who taught him at Princeton) and Joseph Stiglitz were his mentors early in life, and later Robert Rubin" His resume goes on and on but this kind of stand out: Orszag was director of the Congressional Budget Office from January 2007 to November 2008. During his tenure, he repeatedly drew attention to the role rising health care expenditures are likely to play in the government's long-term fiscal problems—and, by extension, the nation's long-term economic problems. "I have not viewed CBO's job as just to passively evaluate what Congress proposes, but rather to be an analytical resource. And part of that is to highlight things that are true and that people may not want to hear, including that we need to address health-care costs."[10] During his time at the CBO, he added 20 full-time health analysts (bringing the total number to 50), thereby strengthening the CBO's analytical capabilities and preparing Congress for health-care reform.[10]. If there is debate on this issue, just who is on the other side of this debate. <<<Where did you get the '1800 daily health-care related personal bankruptcies' from? >>> It was in an article I posted to you earlier in the discussion.