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 (615822)	6/11/2011 10:48:07 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579897

>> what the hell does the doughnut hole have to do with generic drug penetration? You really have no idea, do you? That this is not intuitive to you should not be a surprise. >> He did...the CBO, 93%? Your rationale or proof for your dismissal? I've never seen the 93% figure, and anyone who made such a projection would be certifiable - there wouldn't even be 93% MEDICARE (overall) participation but for the fact people are essentially REQUIRED BY LAW to participate. Most people would much prefer to keep the coverage provided by their employers as primary carrier, since it provides better access to coverage. The testimony before Congress indicated 70%, however, these figures are highly complex and you can't just "70% will participate". It is comprised of both state and individual participation -- and the rates would likely be different. There WAS at one point a 90% figure referenced, but it was in regard to the proportion of Part B beneficiaries who might participate. The documents the original CBPP "study" references (Letter to Don Nickles) do not support the 93% as far as I can see. In short, the number is bullshit unless he can back it up. And I don't think he can (nor can the report from which he took the figure).