BIG F..king LIE: "Medicare pays over 95% of dollars collected back out in benefit cla

I'd say the problem is private sector, for profit doctors and hospitals gouging the taxpayer.

Why is it that government is always getting "gouged," but private corporations almost never do? And somehow this is the fault of the private sector?

Amazing how Conservatives are all about Personal Responsibility except when it comes to Business...then the moral of the story changes to "they earned that money!"

When are bureaucrats and politicians personally ever responsible for being stupid, gullible and corrupt?
 
No... he's talking about "for Profit" doctors and hospitals OVERCHARGING Medicare for Services.

If anything, the doctors and hospitals ought to be audited with a fine tooth comb and retrieve our taxpayer money back.

I love the way people blame government for the sins of the private sector. Same with the thread on the rebuilding of the WTC, same with the bullshit that went on in the Banking industry that damn near killed us.

Yes the government can be an "easy mark" for greedy assholes, but make no mistake... the sin is directly on the greedy asshole.

ROFL! Yeah, it's always the fault of the those greedy capitalists. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lose $300 billion of the taxpayer's money, and no one who works there is to blame. If any private corporation got swindled for 1.0 % of the that amount, the CEO's head would be on the chopping block. Blaming others for their failures is what politicians and bureaucrats specialize in.

Are you libturds always bragging about how the government is so efficient at giving away the taxpayer's money? You forgot to mention that 1/3 of it is for fraud.

hey dickhead... we're talking Medicare here... Not Freddie and Fannie... get with the program.
 
I'd say the problem is private sector, for profit doctors and hospitals gouging the taxpayer.

Why is it that government is always getting "gouged," but private corporations almost never do? And somehow this is the fault of the private sector?

Amazing how Conservatives are all about Personal Responsibility except when it comes to Business...then the moral of the story changes to "they earned that money!"

When are bureaucrats and politicians personally ever responsible for being stupid, gullible and corrupt?

Why is that government is always getting gouged? Because of greedy criminal assholes that have no sense of morals or Community.

They are... you just refuse to accept that...you'd rather get on here and play in your own feces than to look at anything with an unbiased mind.

So basically... what you are saying is that... Because of loopholes that either accidentally or purposefully(due to Lobbying dollars) get written into the rule books... Only the Government is accountable? Not the fuckers doing the cheating?

Bullshit.
 
hey dickhead... we're talking Medicare here... Not Freddie and Fannie... get with the program.

I thought you were claiming how greedy corporations are always responsible whenever government gets swindled. One thing is clear, Our federal government is the world's biggest sucker. If you think the buzzards aren't going to flock when they see such an easy mark, you're the world's biggest fool.
 
hey dickhead... we're talking Medicare here... Not Freddie and Fannie... get with the program.

I thought you were claiming how greedy corporations are always responsible whenever government gets swindled. One thing is clear, Our federal government is the world's biggest sucker. If you think the buzzards aren't going to flock when they see such an easy mark, you're the world's biggest fool.

but those buzzards aren't accountable... nice. Well, their not accountable unless there the buzzards you don't like... you know.... like poor people on welfare... then their buzzards and ticks on the ass of society. But the buzzards that bilk the taxpayer 1000 fold what the welfare buzzards do... they're golden...right?
 
"FACT is Medicare spent in 2010 $37 billion more then they collected!"

So it looks like the program's efficiency is actually OVER 100%!

ARE YOU REALLY that BRAINWASHED? That Ignorant?

Big letters for such a stupid ignorant person!!

Medicare took in $486 billion!

Total Income DO YOU UNDERSTAND???

Medicare spent $523 billion!

That means THEY HAD to get some money from somewhere
to make up the $37 billion MORE THEY SPENT they what they took in!


THAT MEANS they are NOT efficient BUT BrOKE!
They spent MORE then they took in!

In your household.. If you make $50,000 and you spent $60,000 is that
efficient???

MY Goodness I am so ashamed you are on this forum.. !

You can't truly be this ignorant. Can you?

The Medicare Trust, where all excess Medicare revenues are held, has a significant positive balance and is projected to be fully solvent until after 2024. In other words, when you say "THEY HAD to get the money from somewhere", the "somewhere" was from their own trust.

They are not broke.

HHAAAA...
YOU actually THINK THERE IS A LOCKBOX for Medicare???
Go to this web site and GET EDUCATED!
Trustees Report Summary

What Are Key Dates in Long-Range OASI, DI, and HI Financing?
For HI, non-interest income fell short of expenditures in 2010, as it has since 2008, and the HI fund used interest income ($14 billion) and assets ($32 billion) to help finance expenditures.


This report anticipates a $34 billion deficit for 2011 due to lower estimated HI tax revenues and continued HI expenditure growth, followed by a period of declining deficits (2012-18) as the growth in taxable earnings accelerates.

Because the annual HI deficits in this year’s report are higher than estimated in 2010, the projected drawdown of HI Trust Fund assets is accelerated until the trust fund is exhausted in 2024 (five years earlier compared to last year’s report),
after which tax income would be sufficient to pay 90 percent of HI costs, declining to 76 percent in 2050, and then increasing to 88 percent by 2085.

In 2011, OASDI annual cost will exceed the sum of tax income plus General Fund reimbursements (for payroll tax revenue forgone under Public Laws 111-147 and 111-312) by an estimated $46 billion, the second consecutive year in which non-interest income has fallen short of cost.

The DI Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted in 2018 under the intermediate assumptions.
 
ARE YOU REALLY that BRAINWASHED? That Ignorant?

Big letters for such a stupid ignorant person!!

Medicare took in $486 billion!

Total Income DO YOU UNDERSTAND???

Medicare spent $523 billion!

That means THEY HAD to get some money from somewhere
to make up the $37 billion MORE THEY SPENT they what they took in!


THAT MEANS they are NOT efficient BUT BrOKE!
They spent MORE then they took in!

In your household.. If you make $50,000 and you spent $60,000 is that
efficient???

MY Goodness I am so ashamed you are on this forum.. !

You can't truly be this ignorant. Can you?

The Medicare Trust, where all excess Medicare revenues are held, has a significant positive balance and is projected to be fully solvent until after 2024. In other words, when you say "THEY HAD to get the money from somewhere", the "somewhere" was from their own trust.

They are not broke.

HHAAAA...
YOU actually THINK THERE IS A LOCKBOX for Medicare???
Go to this web site and GET EDUCATED!
Trustees Report Summary

What Are Key Dates in Long-Range OASI, DI, and HI Financing?
For HI, non-interest income fell short of expenditures in 2010, as it has since 2008, and the HI fund used interest income ($14 billion) and assets ($32 billion) to help finance expenditures.


This report anticipates a $34 billion deficit for 2011 due to lower estimated HI tax revenues and continued HI expenditure growth, followed by a period of declining deficits (2012-18) as the growth in taxable earnings accelerates.

Because the annual HI deficits in this year’s report are higher than estimated in 2010, the projected drawdown of HI Trust Fund assets is accelerated until the trust fund is exhausted in 2024 (five years earlier compared to last year’s report),
after which tax income would be sufficient to pay 90 percent of HI costs, declining to 76 percent in 2050, and then increasing to 88 percent by 2085.

In 2011, OASDI annual cost will exceed the sum of tax income plus General Fund reimbursements (for payroll tax revenue forgone under Public Laws 111-147 and 111-312) by an estimated $46 billion, the second consecutive year in which non-interest income has fallen short of cost.

The DI Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted in 2018 under the intermediate assumptions.

Who said there was a lockbox? It's not Medicare's fault that other programs have spent it's excess revenues.
 
I'd say the problem is private sector, for profit doctors and hospitals gouging the taxpayer.

Why is it that government is always getting "gouged," but private corporations almost never do? And somehow this is the fault of the private sector?

Amazing how Conservatives are all about Personal Responsibility except when it comes to Business...then the moral of the story changes to "they earned that money!"

When are bureaucrats and politicians personally ever responsible for being stupid, gullible and corrupt?

Why is that government is always getting gouged? Because of greedy criminal assholes that have no sense of morals or Community.

They are... you just refuse to accept that...you'd rather get on here and play in your own feces than to look at anything with an unbiased mind.

So basically... what you are saying is that... Because of loopholes that either accidentally or purposefully(due to Lobbying dollars) get written into the rule books... Only the Government is accountable? Not the fuckers doing the cheating?

Bullshit.

Of course swindlers are guilty of committing a crime, but the people who got swindled almost always also have themselves to blame because they were incredibly stupid. Smart people don't get swindled. Private corporations almost never get swindled. That's because they put procedures in place that make it almost impossible. Government gets swindled because it's not playing with its own money. Bureaucrats aren't that concerned preventing fraud, and they are also just not that smart. The world is full of crooks. They don't disappear under socialism.

Government is inherently incompetent and wasteful. Brain damage is the only explanation for anyone who doesn't know that after watching it in action for the last 6 years.
 
Last edited:
Hey Healthmyths, I appreciate that your user name is honest, you DO post health myths.

You're confused. What the 95% signifies is called medical loss ratio.

Let's have a 20 year Executive VP at CIGNA explain:

BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry?

WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don't want any more competition period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry's--

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

BILL MOYERS: You told Congress that the industry has hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street. You said, "I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors." How do they satisfy their Wall Street investors?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, there's a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.

So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves.

I've seen a company stock price fall 20 percent in a single day, when it did not meet Wall Street's expectations with this medical loss ratio.

BILL MOYERS: And they do what to make sure that they keep diminishing the medical loss ratio?

WENDELL POTTER: Rescission is one thing. Denying claims is another. Being, you know, really careful as they review claims, particularly for things like liver transplants, to make sure, from their point of view, that it really is medically necessary and not experimental. That's one thing. And that was that issue in the Nataline Sarkisyan case.

But another way is to purge employer accounts, that-- if a small business has an employee, for example, who suddenly has have a lot of treatment, or is in an accident. And medical bills are piling up, and this employee is filing claims with the insurance company. That'll be noticed by the insurance company.

And when that business is up for renewal, and it typically is up, once a year, up for renewal, the underwriters will look at that. And they'll say, "We need to jack up the rates here, because the experience was," when I say experience, the claim experience, the number of claims filed was more than we anticipated. So we need to jack up the price. Jack up the premiums. Often they'll do this, knowing that the employer will have no alternative but to leave. And that happens all the time.

BILL MOYERS: So, the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes.

WENDELL POTTER: That's right. Exactly right.

BILL MOYERS: So they want to reverse that. They don't want my premium to go for my health care, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly right. They--

BILL MOYERS: Where does it go?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, a big chunk of it goes into shareholders' pockets. It's returned to them as part of the investment to them. It goes into the exorbitant salaries that a lot of the executives make. It goes into paying sales, marketing, and underwriting expenses. So a lot of it goes to pay those kinds of administrative functions. Overhead.

Bill Moyers Journal . Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients | PBS

from the post above-

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.




Q- who here thinks the gov. could do better than that? 80%?
 
hey dickhead... we're talking Medicare here... Not Freddie and Fannie... get with the program.

I thought you were claiming how greedy corporations are always responsible whenever government gets swindled. One thing is clear, Our federal government is the world's biggest sucker. If you think the buzzards aren't going to flock when they see such an easy mark, you're the world's biggest fool.

but those buzzards aren't accountable... nice.

Who said they weren't "accountable?" Fraud is against the law. The difference is, corporations don't get swindled, only the government does. Yet, libturds like you claim the government does a better job of managing money. That claim is obviously false.

Well, their not accountable unless there the buzzards you don't like... you know.... like poor people on welfare... then their buzzards and ticks on the ass of society. But the buzzards that bilk the taxpayer 1000 fold what the welfare buzzards do... they're golden...right?

You're like a moron who stands out in the rain and curses at the sky. Smart people find shelter from the rain.
 
Hey Healthmyths, I appreciate that your user name is honest, you DO post health myths.

You're confused. What the 95% signifies is called medical loss ratio.

Let's have a 20 year Executive VP at CIGNA explain:

BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry?

WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don't want any more competition period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry's--

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

BILL MOYERS: You told Congress that the industry has hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street. You said, "I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors." How do they satisfy their Wall Street investors?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, there's a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.

So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves.

I've seen a company stock price fall 20 percent in a single day, when it did not meet Wall Street's expectations with this medical loss ratio.

BILL MOYERS: And they do what to make sure that they keep diminishing the medical loss ratio?

WENDELL POTTER: Rescission is one thing. Denying claims is another. Being, you know, really careful as they review claims, particularly for things like liver transplants, to make sure, from their point of view, that it really is medically necessary and not experimental. That's one thing. And that was that issue in the Nataline Sarkisyan case.

But another way is to purge employer accounts, that-- if a small business has an employee, for example, who suddenly has have a lot of treatment, or is in an accident. And medical bills are piling up, and this employee is filing claims with the insurance company. That'll be noticed by the insurance company.

And when that business is up for renewal, and it typically is up, once a year, up for renewal, the underwriters will look at that. And they'll say, "We need to jack up the rates here, because the experience was," when I say experience, the claim experience, the number of claims filed was more than we anticipated. So we need to jack up the price. Jack up the premiums. Often they'll do this, knowing that the employer will have no alternative but to leave. And that happens all the time.

BILL MOYERS: So, the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes.

WENDELL POTTER: That's right. Exactly right.

BILL MOYERS: So they want to reverse that. They don't want my premium to go for my health care, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly right. They--

BILL MOYERS: Where does it go?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, a big chunk of it goes into shareholders' pockets. It's returned to them as part of the investment to them. It goes into the exorbitant salaries that a lot of the executives make. It goes into paying sales, marketing, and underwriting expenses. So a lot of it goes to pay those kinds of administrative functions. Overhead.

Bill Moyers Journal . Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients | PBS

from the post above-

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.




Q- who here thinks the gov. could do better than that? 80%?

From the same interview:

WENDELL POTTER: The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.
 
Hey Healthmyths, I appreciate that your user name is honest, you DO post health myths.

You're confused. What the 95% signifies is called medical loss ratio.

Let's have a 20 year Executive VP at CIGNA explain:

BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry?

WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don't want any more competition period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry's--

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

BILL MOYERS: You told Congress that the industry has hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street. You said, "I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors." How do they satisfy their Wall Street investors?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, there's a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.

So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves.

I've seen a company stock price fall 20 percent in a single day, when it did not meet Wall Street's expectations with this medical loss ratio.

BILL MOYERS: And they do what to make sure that they keep diminishing the medical loss ratio?

WENDELL POTTER: Rescission is one thing. Denying claims is another. Being, you know, really careful as they review claims, particularly for things like liver transplants, to make sure, from their point of view, that it really is medically necessary and not experimental. That's one thing. And that was that issue in the Nataline Sarkisyan case.

But another way is to purge employer accounts, that-- if a small business has an employee, for example, who suddenly has have a lot of treatment, or is in an accident. And medical bills are piling up, and this employee is filing claims with the insurance company. That'll be noticed by the insurance company.

And when that business is up for renewal, and it typically is up, once a year, up for renewal, the underwriters will look at that. And they'll say, "We need to jack up the rates here, because the experience was," when I say experience, the claim experience, the number of claims filed was more than we anticipated. So we need to jack up the price. Jack up the premiums. Often they'll do this, knowing that the employer will have no alternative but to leave. And that happens all the time.

BILL MOYERS: So, the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes.

WENDELL POTTER: That's right. Exactly right.

BILL MOYERS: So they want to reverse that. They don't want my premium to go for my health care, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly right. They--

BILL MOYERS: Where does it go?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, a big chunk of it goes into shareholders' pockets. It's returned to them as part of the investment to them. It goes into the exorbitant salaries that a lot of the executives make. It goes into paying sales, marketing, and underwriting expenses. So a lot of it goes to pay those kinds of administrative functions. Overhead.

Bill Moyers Journal . Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients | PBS

from the post above-

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.




Q- who here thinks the gov. could do better than that? 80%?

From the same interview:

WENDELL POTTER: The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

do you really believe that? seriously? 3%? Donald Berwick doesn't even believe that.

Q- what are the prvt. and medicare rates for waste/fraud?
 
from the post above-






Q- who here thinks the gov. could do better than that? 80%?

From the same interview:

WENDELL POTTER: The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

do you really believe that? seriously? 3%? Donald Berwick doesn't even believe that.

Q- what are the prvt. and medicare rates for waste/fraud?

Here is a market-driven entrepreneur.

brody_243x200.jpg

Bill Brody, M.D. President, Salk Institute for Biomedical Research

Dr. William R. Brody, an acclaimed physician-scientist, entrepreneur and university leader, joined the Salk Institute for Biological Studies on March 2, 2009 after 12 years as president of The Johns Hopkins University.

johns_hopkins_medicine.jpg


June 13, 2003

Is Medicare Cost Effective?

I recently spent a half-day in a meeting discussing a number of issues regarding Medicare. Most of us on the provider side of the street view Medicare as this multiheaded bureaucracy with more pages of regulations than the Internal Revenue Service's tax code. However, I came away from the meeting with some (to me at least) shocking revelations:

Medicare beneficiaries are overwhelmingly satisfied with their Medicare coverage, except for the absence of prescription drug benefits;

The administrative costs of Medicare are lower than any other large health plan.

In fact, Medicare is very efficient by any objective means:

According to the Urban Institute's Marilyn Moon, who testified before the Senate Committee on Aging, Medicare expenditures between 1970 and 2000 grew more slowly than those of the private sector. Initially, from 1965 through the 1980s, Medicare and private insurance costs doubled in tandem. Then Medicare tightened up, and per capita expenditures grew more slowly than private insurance, creating a significant gap. In the 1990s, private insurers got more serious about controlling their costs, and the gap narrowed. But by 2000, Medicare per capita expenditures remained significantly lower than the private sector.

Moon argues somewhat convincingly that Medicare has been a success. While not necessarily denying that certain reforms might be needed, she stresses the importance of preserving three essential tenets of the program:

1. Its universal coverage nature creates the ability to redistribute benefits to those who are neediest.

2. It pools risk in order to share the burdens of health care among the healthy and the sick.

3. Through Medicare, the government protects the rights of all beneficiaries to essential health care.

It has been argued that, in part, Medicare's cost effectiveness arises from the fact that it does not need to expend funds on marketing and sales-functions that are obligatory for the success of competitive, private-sector health plans. Moreover, some argue that the competitive model for health insurance has not been successful. In a market-driven economy, the healthy can and will change health plans for savings of only a few dollars a month, while the sick must remain in their existing plan in order to retain their physicians. Such behaviors lead to asymmetric risk pools and cost inequities.

This was all sobering news to a market-driven entrepreneur such as yours truly. However, given the perverse incentives that frequently drive behavior in health care, my take-home lesson is that there are examples in the success of Medicare we can apply to other sectors of our population.
 
I thought you were claiming how greedy corporations are always responsible whenever government gets swindled. One thing is clear, Our federal government is the world's biggest sucker. If you think the buzzards aren't going to flock when they see such an easy mark, you're the world's biggest fool.

but those buzzards aren't accountable... nice.

Who said they weren't "accountable?" Fraud is against the law. The difference is, corporations don't get swindled, only the government does. Yet, libturds like you claim the government does a better job of managing money. That claim is obviously false.

Well, their not accountable unless there the buzzards you don't like... you know.... like poor people on welfare... then their buzzards and ticks on the ass of society. But the buzzards that bilk the taxpayer 1000 fold what the welfare buzzards do... they're golden...right?

You're like a moron who stands out in the rain and curses at the sky. Smart people find shelter from the rain.

You're right... Corporations don't get swindled.... because they are the ones doing the swindling.(response to first part)


No... that would more describe someone like you. You're the one standing out in the rain, blaming government for everything when it's the never ending greed of the rich and powerful that cause the fraud to happen....On top of it, you want to give them even MORE power. (response to 2nd part).
 
From the same interview:

WENDELL POTTER: The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

do you really believe that? seriously? 3%? Donald Berwick doesn't even believe that.

Q- what are the prvt. and medicare rates for waste/fraud?

Here is a market-driven entrepreneur.

brody_243x200.jpg

Bill Brody, M.D. President, Salk Institute for Biomedical Research

Dr. William R. Brody, an acclaimed physician-scientist, entrepreneur and university leader, joined the Salk Institute for Biological Studies on March 2, 2009 after 12 years as president of The Johns Hopkins University.

johns_hopkins_medicine.jpg


June 13, 2003

Is Medicare Cost Effective?

I recently spent a half-day in a meeting discussing a number of issues regarding Medicare. Most of us on the provider side of the street view Medicare as this multiheaded bureaucracy with more pages of regulations than the Internal Revenue Service's tax code. However, I came away from the meeting with some (to me at least) shocking revelations:

Medicare beneficiaries are overwhelmingly satisfied with their Medicare coverage, except for the absence of prescription drug benefits;

The administrative costs of Medicare are lower than any other large health plan.

In fact, Medicare is very efficient by any objective means:

According to the Urban Institute's Marilyn Moon, who testified before the Senate Committee on Aging, Medicare expenditures between 1970 and 2000 grew more slowly than those of the private sector. Initially, from 1965 through the 1980s, Medicare and private insurance costs doubled in tandem. Then Medicare tightened up, and per capita expenditures grew more slowly than private insurance, creating a significant gap. In the 1990s, private insurers got more serious about controlling their costs, and the gap narrowed. But by 2000, Medicare per capita expenditures remained significantly lower than the private sector.

Moon argues somewhat convincingly that Medicare has been a success. While not necessarily denying that certain reforms might be needed, she stresses the importance of preserving three essential tenets of the program:

1. Its universal coverage nature creates the ability to redistribute benefits to those who are neediest.

2. It pools risk in order to share the burdens of health care among the healthy and the sick.

3. Through Medicare, the government protects the rights of all beneficiaries to essential health care.

It has been argued that, in part, Medicare's cost effectiveness arises from the fact that it does not need to expend funds on marketing and sales-functions that are obligatory for the success of competitive, private-sector health plans. Moreover, some argue that the competitive model for health insurance has not been successful. In a market-driven economy, the healthy can and will change health plans for savings of only a few dollars a month, while the sick must remain in their existing plan in order to retain their physicians. Such behaviors lead to asymmetric risk pools and cost inequities.

This was all sobering news to a market-driven entrepreneur such as yours truly. However, given the perverse incentives that frequently drive behavior in health care, my take-home lesson is that there are examples in the success of Medicare we can apply to other sectors of our population.

and this has what to do with how I commented and what I asked?:eusa_eh:
 
No... he's talking about "for Profit" doctors and hospitals OVERCHARGING Medicare for Services.
Here is where your contention begins to fail. Medicare sets a specific rate for each service. End of part one.
If anything, the doctors and hospitals ought to be audited with a fine tooth comb and retrieve our taxpayer money back.
Second part of post failure. Hospitals (both private and non-profit), doctors, LTC, OP Rehab, etc, DO get audited, but the DOJ<snip>

What I find truly pathetic is a 69 year old woman who had private health insurance until she turned the magic age of 65 and was FORCED onto Medicare rolls. She cannot find a Primary Health care doc to take her as a patient, even her P-doc who has been her P-Doc for 15 years. If she needs to see a Doc, guess where she goes?
ER! How frickin fiscally responsible is that?
 
No... he's talking about "for Profit" doctors and hospitals OVERCHARGING Medicare for Services.
Here is where your contention begins to fail. Medicare sets a specific rate for each service. End of part one.
If anything, the doctors and hospitals ought to be audited with a fine tooth comb and retrieve our taxpayer money back.
Second part of post failure. Hospitals (both private and non-profit), doctors, LTC, OP Rehab, etc, DO get audited, but the DOJ<snip>

What I find truly pathetic is a 69 year old woman who had private health insurance until she turned the magic age of 65 and was FORCED onto Medicare rolls. She cannot find a Primary Health care doc to take her as a patient, even her P-doc who has been her P-Doc for 15 years. If she needs to see a Doc, guess where she goes?
ER! How frickin fiscally responsible is that?

Wow... let's not blame the doctors for not accepting Medicare though, right? Always one sided with you people, isn't it?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top