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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (607841)	4/15/2011 10:31:55 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583507

>>> Congress expected Medicare Advantage plans to use the cost-control methods of managed care to save money. But Medicare Advantage plans cost the government an average of 11% more than traditional Medicare, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said in a recent report. I don't know who wrote this sentence but they quite obviously weren't aware of the origins of Medicare Advantage. Congress allowed MA insurers an additional 11%. There was NEVER an intent that the COVERAGE would be less expensive; they knew it was going to be more expensive. But the point was to provide more comprehensive, managed care because the belief was that would result in overall long-term costs going down. So, for example, many MA plans provide such things as gym memberships. And fee structures that encourage well-care visits. Prescription drugs. More paid screenings. Better mental health coverage. And many other features of managed care. The idea was the same as the original "Obamacare" -- that more preventive care would drive costs down long-term. The comments in this article are just one more example of someone trying to twist the facts to get a desired result. The 11% was ALWAYS going to be there. It isn't as though they pitched it out there and said, "Oh, hell, look how much more expensive this is". It doesn't work that way. Congress could do away with the 11% and return these patients to the status quo Medicare coverage, and they would STILL receive better care than straight Medicare patients. Why? Because the health insurers will compete with one another to drive prices down. Which is, in fact, what I think they ought to do. It would be similar to the TREMENDOUSLY EFFECTIVE Medicare Part D arrangement GWB implemented, which caused the plan to come in massively under budget every single year (at least, until the democrats got hold of it and corrupted the program, which will result in massive increases in cost due to the elimination of the donut hole). We have TONS of absolute proof that commercially run health care insurers can deliver this care for a fraction of the cost of Medicare/Medicaid. But liberal ideologues believe the only good care is government taking care of everyone. So that's what you're holding out for.