Why Ryan Might Be Right

[Lakhota]

Why Ryan Might Be Right | RealClearPolitics

Overlooked in the furor surrounding Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal -- a plan, it should be recalled, that wouldn't start until 2023 and even then would affect only new beneficiaries -- is a just-published study in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) suggesting that, well, Ryan might be right. The study finds that a voucher-type system might noticeably reduce costs compared to "traditional" fee-for-service Medicare. Three Harvard economists did the study, including one prominent supporter of President Obama's health care overhaul.

The study compared the costs of traditional Medicare with Medicare Advantage, a voucher-like program that now enrolls about 25 percent of beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage has cost less for identical coverage. From 2006 to 2009, the gap averaged 11 percent between traditional Medicare and voucher plans that, under the proposal by Ryan and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., would serve as a price "benchmark."

The central issue here is whether the runaway costs of the health sector, comprising nearly one-fifth of the economy, can be controlled without eroding medical quality. Almost everyone agrees that the delivery system -- the amalgam of hospitals, clinics, doctors and nurses -- should be reorganized to lower costs and eliminate unneeded care. The question is how.

Less? Really?

Yes, really. As a matter of fact, it cost 9% less than traditional Medicare for identical coverage. This is an undisputed fact, even Greenbeard never challenged the number.

Okay, but all the reports I've read say Medicare Advantage costs the government MORE than traditional Medicare.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Less? Really?

Yes, really. As a matter of fact, it cost 9% less than traditional Medicare for identical coverage. This is an undisputed fact, even Greenbeard never challenged the number.

Okay, but all the reports I've read say Medicare Advantage costs the government MORE than traditional Medicare.

Do those reports also point out that it provides more benefits that traditional Medicare?

 

[Lakhota]

This report is almost 3 years old, but it makes the same point as the other more recent reports I've read.

Free Perks With Medicare Advantage Plans Aren't Really Free

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This report is almost 3 years old, but it makes the same point as the other more recent reports I've read.

Free Perks With Medicare Advantage Plans Aren't Really Free

i never said they were free, politicians say that. Kinda the same way Obama says that Obamacare has a bunch of free perks.

 

[Lakhota]

IMO, Medicare should be the SAME for all nationwide - with no variations regardless of which state you live in.

 

[edthecynic]

Why Ryan Might Be Right | RealClearPolitics

Overlooked in the furor surrounding Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal -- a plan, it should be recalled, that wouldn't start until 2023 and even then would affect only new beneficiaries -- is a just-published study in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) suggesting that, well, Ryan might be right. The study finds that a voucher-type system might noticeably reduce costs compared to "traditional" fee-for-service Medicare. Three Harvard economists did the study, including one prominent supporter of President Obama's health care overhaul.

The study compared the costs of traditional Medicare with Medicare Advantage, a voucher-like program that now enrolls about 25 percent of beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage has cost less for identical coverage. From 2006 to 2009, the gap averaged 11 percent between traditional Medicare and voucher plans that, under the proposal by Ryan and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., would serve as a price "benchmark."

The central issue here is whether the runaway costs of the health sector, comprising nearly one-fifth of the economy, can be controlled without eroding medical quality. Almost everyone agrees that the delivery system -- the amalgam of hospitals, clinics, doctors and nurses -- should be reorganized to lower costs and eliminate unneeded care. The question is how.

Less? Really?

Yes, really. As a matter of fact, it cost 9% less than traditional Medicare for identical coverage. This is an undisputed fact, even Greenbeard never challenged the number.

That NON fact not only was disputed but also totally destroyed already in this very thread. Medicare Advantage costs an average of 14% MORE than traditional FFS Medicare, and you know it.

 

[edthecynic]

Why Ryan Might Be Right | RealClearPolitics

Overlooked in the furor surrounding Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal -- a plan, it should be recalled, that wouldn't start until 2023 and even then would affect only new beneficiaries -- is a just-published study in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) suggesting that, well, Ryan might be right. The study finds that a voucher-type system might noticeably reduce costs compared to "traditional" fee-for-service Medicare. Three Harvard economists did the study, including one prominent supporter of President Obama's health care overhaul.

The study compared the costs of traditional Medicare with Medicare Advantage, a voucher-like program that now enrolls about 25 percent of beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage has cost less for identical coverage. From 2006 to 2009, the gap averaged 11 percent between traditional Medicare and voucher plans that, under the proposal by Ryan and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., would serve as a price "benchmark."

The central issue here is whether the runaway costs of the health sector, comprising nearly one-fifth of the economy, can be controlled without eroding medical quality. Almost everyone agrees that the delivery system -- the amalgam of hospitals, clinics, doctors and nurses -- should be reorganized to lower costs and eliminate unneeded care. The question is how.

Since the highlighted part is untrue the so called study is worthless. Which is always obvious when they claim some unnamed Obama supporter is involved in the study to validate it rather than giving any details about the study.

The real fact is Medicare Advantage costs an average of 14% more than the Fee For Service plan of traditional Medicare.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...PD07nn&sig=AHIEtbQlig1xzl50AA9asLI79SvTJNaCUw

Medicare Advantage plans are currently paid more, on
average, than FFS costs in their area. According to MedPAC,
payments to Medicare Advantage plans per enrollee in 2009
will average 114% of FFS costs for the counties where
Medicare Advantage enrollees reside (Figure 3).

Ed I still don't know what cynic means. The part of the post you are trying to disprove by talking about something else is 100% true.

The link you obviously ignored is an in-depth study of Medicare Advantage, the topic of the lie I exposed that you, of course, say is 100% true. Anything you say is 100% true or an undeniable fact is 100% false and a complete lie.
Thank you.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes, really. As a matter of fact, it cost 9% less than traditional Medicare for identical coverage. This is an undisputed fact, even Greenbeard never challenged the number.

Okay, but all the reports I've read say Medicare Advantage costs the government MORE than traditional Medicare.

Do those reports also point out that it provides more benefits that traditional Medicare?

As was established in the Health Care Summit, with Lyin' Ryan nodding his head in agreement, Medicare Advantage costs more without providing any measurable improvement in health care quality.

 

[FA_Q2]

After all the demonizing. This is hilarious.

The attacks will not cease though.

 

[editec]

How can one evaulate a proposed voucher system without any actual numbers?

 

[thanatos144]

To you progressives slaming Ryan about Medicare I ask this.... Which candidate actually cut medicare 700 billion dollars?????

Lyin' Ryan in his budget passed by the House which Willard Mitt said he would sign. He takes 716 billion completely out of Medicare and applies it to the debt, but you knew that already.

Again you are avoiding answering the question and instead are just spouting bullshit.

 

[Katzndogz]

The medicare voucher's will take care of those with out illness and just need their scripts filled.
Unfortunately when you get diagnosed with a illness like cancer as I did this last Christmas.
With the many tests, surgeries, chemotherapy ( almost $1000.00 each time I go in )
Heart tests, and an upcoming major surgery at the end of Sept.
Total costs around $100.000.00 so far
Vouchers are $6.000

I see the hospital packed with people coming in for chemo everyday.
This voucher system will not work, unless if you are rich of coarse.

Vouchers aren't to pay for medical care, but to buy insurance that would pay for medical care.

 

[Vanquish]

The medicare voucher's will take care of those with out illness and just need their scripts filled.
Unfortunately when you get diagnosed with a illness like cancer as I did this last Christmas.
With the many tests, surgeries, chemotherapy ( almost $1000.00 each time I go in )
Heart tests, and an upcoming major surgery at the end of Sept.
Total costs around $100.000.00 so far
Vouchers are $6.000

I see the hospital packed with people coming in for chemo everyday.
This voucher system will not work, unless if you are rich of coarse.

Vouchers aren't to pay for medical care, but to buy insurance that would pay for medical care.

True.

I have different reasons why I don't think the voucher system will work.

#1.

The government's bargaining power is stronger than even the entire insurance industry. Why? For the reason lots of people love to hate government...it's bigger. As an aside...that's why a single-payer system WORKS. If you want to work as a provider, they're the source of your work. So they can dictate better prices and terms.

Ryan's voucher system picks the negotiator with LESS power to negotiate lower prices.

#2.
Competition hasn't created the reduction in prices that was thought would come. Private insurers, rather than haggling with doctors and hospitals, try to make money by limiting the procedures they cover and by taking on fewer sick people....or dropping them when they should be bound to cover them. In fact, competition has led to GAPS in coverage.

Ryan says that more competition will help, which sounds good on the surface. Until you see what competition has done already.

But you know what...more variety isn't needed. It already exists. Retirees can already make choices about what sort of health-care coverage they want. Although Medicare is often regarded as a monolithic system, the average Medicare enrollee today may choose among an average of 24 plans, in addition to traditional Medicare.

So again, Ryan's screaming about a problem that doesn't exist to get control.

#3
The CBO says as a result of the ACA...“[m]edicare premiums, currently estimated to be 11 percent lower than private insurance premiums for the same benefit package, will be about 30 percent lower by the end of the next decade.”

Romney and Ryan want to cut taxes to pay the rich...hoping and praying that the increase in revenues from their investments (supply-side economics) will replace the money. That's just not going to happen. What happened before 2008 taught us that. Investors weigh risk and decide if capital outlays are worth that risk. Often times they keep cash as cash...like they're doing now! If the Bush tax cuts were going to spur economic growth...it would ALREADY BE DOING IT. Which it's not.

That's just the start. Romney & Ryan aren't running on the best ideas. If they were, I'd vote for them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Less? Really?

Yes, really. As a matter of fact, it cost 9% less than traditional Medicare for identical coverage. This is an undisputed fact, even Greenbeard never challenged the number.

That NON fact not only was disputed but also totally destroyed already in this very thread. Medicare Advantage costs an average of 14% MORE than traditional FFS Medicare, and you know it.

And provides considerably more benefits than Medicare, which is why progressives hate it. They think everyone should get the exact same bad care and that only the privileged ruling class deserves good care.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay, but all the reports I've read say Medicare Advantage costs the government MORE than traditional Medicare.

Do those reports also point out that it provides more benefits that traditional Medicare?

As was established in the Health Care Summit, with Lyin' Ryan nodding his head in agreement, Medicare Advantage costs more without providing any measurable improvement in health care quality.

How do you measure health care quality?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The medicare voucher's will take care of those with out illness and just need their scripts filled.
Unfortunately when you get diagnosed with a illness like cancer as I did this last Christmas.
With the many tests, surgeries, chemotherapy ( almost $1000.00 each time I go in )
Heart tests, and an upcoming major surgery at the end of Sept.
Total costs around $100.000.00 so far
Vouchers are $6.000

I see the hospital packed with people coming in for chemo everyday.
This voucher system will not work, unless if you are rich of coarse.

Vouchers aren't to pay for medical care, but to buy insurance that would pay for medical care.

True.

I have different reasons why I don't think the voucher system will work.

#1.

The government's bargaining power is stronger than even the entire insurance industry. Why? For the reason lots of people love to hate government...it's bigger. As an aside...that's why a single-payer system WORKS. If you want to work as a provider, they're the source of your work. So they can dictate better prices and terms.

Ryan's voucher system picks the negotiator with LESS power to negotiate lower prices.

#2.
Competition hasn't created the reduction in prices that was thought would come. Private insurers, rather than haggling with doctors and hospitals, try to make money by limiting the procedures they cover and by taking on fewer sick people....or dropping them when they should be bound to cover them. In fact, competition has led to GAPS in coverage.

Ryan says that more competition will help, which sounds good on the surface. Until you see what competition has done already.

But you know what...more variety isn't needed. It already exists. Retirees can already make choices about what sort of health-care coverage they want. Although Medicare is often regarded as a monolithic system, the average Medicare enrollee today may choose among an average of 24 plans, in addition to traditional Medicare.

So again, Ryan's screaming about a problem that doesn't exist to get control.

#3
The CBO says as a result of the ACA...“[m]edicare premiums, currently estimated to be 11 percent lower than private insurance premiums for the same benefit package, will be about 30 percent lower by the end of the next decade.”

Romney and Ryan want to cut taxes to pay the rich...hoping and praying that the increase in revenues from their investments (supply-side economics) will replace the money. That's just not going to happen. What happened before 2008 taught us that. Investors weigh risk and decide if capital outlays are worth that risk. Often times they keep cash as cash...like they're doing now! If the Bush tax cuts were going to spur economic growth...it would ALREADY BE DOING IT. Which it's not.

That's just the start. Romney & Ryan aren't running on the best ideas. If they were, I'd vote for them.

You made a couple of good points. Here is the problem.

1. The government doesn't actually bargain, they just set prices based on a formula that figures an average cost, and they throw in a fudge factor based on political expedience. This means that providers in some states get paid more than they would charge a regular patient, and providers in other states get paid less. The ones that get paid more have no problems, the ones that get paid less lobby for higher fees. Since these are usually states with large populations they get the attention of politicians, who adjust the fudge factor, and they get paid more. Fees should be figured by location, not nationally. That gives private insurers an advantage because they are more flexible.
2. Actually, it has. One reason Obama worked so hard to get Obamacare passed is that the cost curve was already bending down. He hoped that getting it shoved through quickly would let him claim that that development was the result of his work, not the natural result of market forces. Unfortunately, he reversed the trend.
3. That is a result of Obamacare shifting the costs of Medicare from the government to private insurers, not a result of cost savings to Medicare.

You are taking the wrong lessons from 2008. What happened was a result of the government doing something wrong, politicians blaming someone else for the problem, and then making things worse by fixing the wrong things. Trying to use that as proof that Ryan's economic analysis, which is significantly different from Romney's, is flawed is about as sensible as arguing that we need to make sure everyone has a home, even if they can't afford it.

 

[Listening]

People....

The point of this thread is that JAMA published an article (I can't find it on the net and my guess is that they don't give full access to them) which Samuelson, who, if you look at his recent articles, is no right wing Ann Coulter type, summarized by saying the JAMA article might be agreeing with Ryan.

That's it.....

The AMA has been Obamacarish for as much as I've seen. This was interesting to me.

 

[Listening]

How can one evaulate a proposed voucher system without any actual numbers?

Thanks for the post.....

While I am sure they have the numbers....I'd love to see them.

On this and anything else where people are making claims about relative costs and efficientcies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To you progressives slaming Ryan about Medicare I ask this.... Which candidate actually cut medicare 700 billion dollars?????

Obama lowered the future cost of Medicare.

If Romney/Ryan aren't going to do that, how are they going to keep it solvent after 2016?

How are they going to save any money on Medicare?

As Ezra Klein aptly pointed out last night, Romney/Ryan are now claiming, with their budget plans that they will

1. cut taxes
2. not touch Medicare for 10 years
3. increase military spending
4. cut somewhere else, other than the above, to balance the budget.

Where are their biggest cuts?

Programs for the poor. Huge cuts in Medicaid, food stamps, etc.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The voucher system won't work because

1. seniors will go broke making up the difference, or,

2. political pressure from seniors going broke will cause poltiicians to just keep increasing the voucher amount as insurance costs rise,

and then we're back where we started, with the only difference being that the profiteers in the insurance business will be getting a much bigger chunk.