Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yea. I saw this article. I only didn't post it b/c it was a bit of an equation and I didn't want to have to spend a lot of time explaining it to nimrods who won't accept the truth afterwards anyways.
Basically he's using $8.3 billion of taxpayer dollars to hold their votes and then bam in 2013 they wake up to a kick in the ass.
HUH? tha money is bonus money paid to private providers of Medicare part C.
Medicare advantage costs the govt 14% more than traditional medicare.
This whole thing is corporate welfare for privatized medicare.
Yes it sucks and Obama sucks for doing it but you have the entire story/concept wrong.
Do some googling and reading and find out the truth.
Good try. Only real problem with that position is the GAO is calling him on it.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-slush-fund-to-hide-how-bad-obamacare-is.html
Yes the GAO is calling him on it it is corporate welfare.
It IS bonus money for Medicaid Advantage private insurance outfits already funded more than standard medicare providers are.
Duplicate threads deserve duplicate responses.
The Medicare Advantage experiment with privatization has been a money pit for the last decade. How many ways is administration after administration going to find to prop up these private insurers to make their service and product look as appealing to seniors as fee-for-service Medicare?
Quality bonuses are a nice idea until they become a tool for papering over the deficiencies of privatization. The GAO is correct, this should be canceled. And if the administration is correct that overpaying private insurers is the only way to ensure quality, then perhaps we ought to re-examine the entire Medicare Advantage program. Before the Ryans of the world double down on it.
Do we need to reform the system or not? Wheres Obama's plan to do so?
The Democratic Party's plans for comprehensive Medicare reforms have already been presented. And debated. And passed. (P.S. Medicare spending growth has now fallen to historic lows).
Indeed, NPR had a story today looking at the mess that would result if those comprehensive reforms were inexplicably voided ("If The Health Care Overhaul Goes Down, Could Medicare Follow?"):
Rosenbaum says there could be an even bigger problem: Medicare might be looking at hundreds, if not thousands, of policies that are suddenly null and void. She says it's not at all clear that the agency has the authority to go back to the policies that were in effect before the law was passed.
"This is a conversation that's happening between the Supreme Court and Congress," she says. Medicare officials would "have to sit there and wait to see what Congress wants to do."
What makes it an even bigger potential mess, says Mendelson, is that the health law has fundamentally changed almost every aspect of the way the Medicare program now does business. And undoing that would be almost unimaginably difficult.
So Republicans are hoping seniors lose their coverage? Seems cruel.
The money is a bailout for privatized Medicare Advantage so that seniors do not lose their Medicare advantage coverage. No one on standard medicare is in danger of losing coverage.
And Medicare advantage costs the govt 14% more than standard Medicare.
Privitizing medicare fails.
Duplicate threads deserve duplicate responses.
The Medicare Advantage experiment with privatization has been a money pit for the last decade. How many ways is administration after administration going to find to prop up these private insurers to make their service and product look as appealing to seniors as fee-for-service Medicare?
Quality bonuses are a nice idea until they become a tool for papering over the deficiencies of privatization. The GAO is correct, this should be canceled. And if the administration is correct that overpaying private insurers is the only way to ensure quality, then perhaps we ought to re-examine the entire Medicare Advantage program. Before the Ryans of the world double down on it.
Do we need to reform the system or not? Wheres Obama's plan to do so?
The Democratic Party's plans for comprehensive Medicare reforms have already been presented. And debated. And passed. (P.S. Medicare spending growth has now fallen to historic lows).
Indeed, NPR had a story today looking at the mess that would result if those comprehensive reforms were inexplicably voided ("If The Health Care Overhaul Goes Down, Could Medicare Follow?"):
Rosenbaum says there could be an even bigger problem: Medicare might be looking at hundreds, if not thousands, of policies that are suddenly null and void. She says it's not at all clear that the agency has the authority to go back to the policies that were in effect before the law was passed.
"This is a conversation that's happening between the Supreme Court and Congress," she says. Medicare officials would "have to sit there and wait to see what Congress wants to do."
What makes it an even bigger potential mess, says Mendelson, is that the health law has fundamentally changed almost every aspect of the way the Medicare program now does business. And undoing that would be almost unimaginably difficult.
We should get rid if a hugely popular program because it doesn't meet contrived standards imposed after the fact that are actually designed to make the hugely popular program unprofitable? I know that makes sense to you, but I doubt it is going to make sense to the seniors who are going to have to live without their health plans.
Duplicate threads deserve duplicate responses.
The Medicare Advantage experiment with privatization has been a money pit for the last decade. How many ways is administration after administration going to find to prop up these private insurers to make their service and product look as appealing to seniors as fee-for-service Medicare?
Quality bonuses are a nice idea until they become a tool for papering over the deficiencies of privatization. The GAO is correct, this should be canceled. And if the administration is correct that overpaying private insurers is the only way to ensure quality, then perhaps we ought to re-examine the entire Medicare Advantage program. Before the Ryans of the world double down on it.
The Democratic Party's plans for comprehensive Medicare reforms have already been presented. And debated. And passed. (P.S. Medicare spending growth has now fallen to historic lows).
Indeed, NPR had a story today looking at the mess that would result if those comprehensive reforms were inexplicably voided ("If The Health Care Overhaul Goes Down, Could Medicare Follow?"):
We should get rid if a hugely popular program because it doesn't meet contrived standards imposed after the fact that are actually designed to make the hugely popular program unprofitable? I know that makes sense to you, but I doubt it is going to make sense to the seniors who are going to have to live without their health plans.
Live without their helath plans?
They will still have standard medicare if the choose to have it and supplememental medigap ins too if the want that.
The govt will just be paying less.
Trustees: Medicare Will Go Broke in 2016, If You Exclude Obamacare's Double-Counting
The Trustees of the Medicare program have released their annual report on the solvency of the program. They calculate that the program is “expected to remain solvent until 2024, the same as last year’s estimate.” But what that headline obfuscates is that Obamacare’s tax increases and spending cuts are counted towards the program’s alleged “deficit-neutrality,” Medicare is to go bankrupt in 2016. And if you listen to Medicare’s own actuary, Richard Foster, the program’s bankruptcy could come even sooner than that.
The Trustees, by saying that Medicare will go bankrupt in 2024, instead of 2016, are simultaneously saying that the program will increase the deficit by several hundred billion dollars. This is precisely the insight that Charles Blahous, one of the Medicare Trustees, explained in his recent report on the program.
Think of it this way: if supporters of the Affordable Care Act came clean, they would say one of two things: (1) Medicare is going bankrupt in 2016, but the CBO scores the ACA as deficit neutral; or (2) Medicare is going bankrupt in 2024, and Blahous’ score of the ACA as increasing the deficit by $300-500 billion is accurate.
We should get rid if a hugely popular program because it doesn't meet contrived standards imposed after the fact that are actually designed to make the hugely popular program unprofitable? I know that makes sense to you, but I doubt it is going to make sense to the seniors who are going to have to live without their health plans.
Live without their helath plans?
They will still have standard medicare if the choose to have it and supplememental medigap ins too if the want that.
The govt will just be paying less.
Why is Obama paying these companies a bonus?
Paul Ryan's New-and-Improved Plan for Medicare and Medicaid Reform
Other health care-related provisions are basically the same: repeal Obamacare, and block-grant Medicaid. Ryan’s proposal seeks to move toward “patient-centered reform,” which he describes as including malpractice reform, purchasing insurance across state lines, and expanding consumer-driven insurance plans. Notably, he advocates allowing employees to opt out of employer-sponsored care, and giving workers the option to take their employer’s insurance contribution and devote it to buying plans for themselves:
“There is a consensus of willing leaders from both parties coalescing around the right way forward in health care. Reform should address government-imposed inequities and barriers to true choice and competition. Common-sense solutions include enacting medical liability reform, ensuring Americans can purchase quality coverage across state lines, and expanding access to consumer-directed health care options. Addressing distortions in the tax code could begin by giving employers the opportunity to offer their employees a free choice option, so that workers could be free to devote their employer’s health coverage contribution to the purchase a health insurance plan that works best for them"
HUH? tha money is bonus money paid to private providers of Medicare part C.
Medicare advantage costs the govt 14% more than traditional medicare.
This whole thing is corporate welfare for privatized medicare.
Yes it sucks and Obama sucks for doing it but you have the entire story/concept wrong.
Do some googling and reading and find out the truth.
No not really Obama is shifting money to win an election so how many people think Obama care is going to actually save us money without rationing? Republicans have plans to save these programs where are the Democrats plans? Putting off the pain to win an election while using demagoguery on Paul Ryan who wants to reform and save these programs is pathetic
Ok what part of that is untrue?
yes Obama is selling corporate welfare as helping seniors. But that does not in any way make my statement untrue.
It IS bonus money for Medicare Advantage corporations.
And Medicare Advantage DOES cost 14% more on average than traditional Medicare.
T initially get the Medicare Advantage passed in 97 (i think) they made the Advantage companys get 5% less than traditional Medicare.
That has however been changed over the years. As I predicted at the time that it would. The govt now pays 14% more for medicare Advantage customers.
No not really Obama is shifting money to win an election so how many people think Obama care is going to actually save us money without rationing? Republicans have plans to save these programs where are the Democrats plans? Putting off the pain to win an election while using demagoguery on Paul Ryan who wants to reform and save these programs is pathetic
Ok what part of that is untrue?
yes Obama is selling corporate welfare as helping seniors. But that does not in any way make my statement untrue.
It IS bonus money for Medicare Advantage corporations.
And Medicare Advantage DOES cost 14% more on average than traditional Medicare.
T initially get the Medicare Advantage passed in 97 (i think) they made the Advantage companys get 5% less than traditional Medicare.
That has however been changed over the years. As I predicted at the time that it would. The govt now pays 14% more for medicare Advantage customers.
That 14 percent doesn't take into account the positive benefits to the economy and overall medical costs therein because of the preservation of free market forces Medicare Advantage incentivizes. You call it corporate welfare, but by your standard, ANY incentive to use the free market is nothing more than corporate welfare.
That's your same take on Medicare Part D too, which helps the elderly get the drugs they need that keeps them out of the hospitals and other medical treatments for chronic conditions saving Medicare money in the long term. And your rational there is that the govt failed to limit or negotiate drug prices, which of course over the long haul would reduce the drugs available for those same folks.
Why would anyone want to opt out of employer HC ins?
The employer usually pays a lot fo the premium and you do not get hacked for pre existing conditions and get lower group rates?
Live without their helath plans?
They will still have standard medicare if the choose to have it and supplememental medigap ins too if the want that.
The govt will just be paying less.
Why is Obama paying these companies a bonus?
Ohh the same reason they have been getting "bonuses" for some time. Not just Obama.
Think about it, you can figure it out. Just remove the partisan blinders for a bit.
the health care industry lobbied for and got Medicare part C in 1997 as part of the balanced budget deal and they got 5% less than regular medicare reimbursement. But it got the door open for them to get more of the medicare tax dollars.
And since then they have been spending lots of money lobbying...
Now they get 14% more than for traditional medicare.....
Why would anyone want to opt out of employer HC ins?
The employer usually pays a lot fo the premium and you do not get hacked for pre existing conditions and get lower group rates?
The Ryan plan is lots of crapola.
Ok what part of that is untrue?
yes Obama is selling corporate welfare as helping seniors. But that does not in any way make my statement untrue.
It IS bonus money for Medicare Advantage corporations.
And Medicare Advantage DOES cost 14% more on average than traditional Medicare.
T initially get the Medicare Advantage passed in 97 (i think) they made the Advantage companys get 5% less than traditional Medicare.
That has however been changed over the years. As I predicted at the time that it would. The govt now pays 14% more for medicare Advantage customers.
That 14 percent doesn't take into account the positive benefits to the economy and overall medical costs therein because of the preservation of free market forces Medicare Advantage incentivizes. You call it corporate welfare, but by your standard, ANY incentive to use the free market is nothing more than corporate welfare.
That's your same take on Medicare Part D too, which helps the elderly get the drugs they need that keeps them out of the hospitals and other medical treatments for chronic conditions saving Medicare money in the long term. And your rational there is that the govt failed to limit or negotiate drug prices, which of course over the long haul would reduce the drugs available for those same folks.
How exactly do you know my take on Part D?
Ohh I see you know all?
Paul Ryan's New-and-Improved Plan for Medicare and Medicaid Reform
That 14 percent doesn't take into account the positive benefits to the economy and overall medical costs therein because of the preservation of free market forces Medicare Advantage incentivizes. You call it corporate welfare, but by your standard, ANY incentive to use the free market is nothing more than corporate welfare.
Ohh the same reason they have been getting "bonuses" for some time. Not just Obama.
I think you have a serious problem with facts.
The MA bonus program is part of ObamaCare, it didn't exist before 2010. Unless previous presidents had access to some sort of time machine they could not have used it to pay bonuses to anyone. The thread I started, which I linked to earlier, made that clear, of you had bothered to read it.
