Why Ryan Might Be Right

[Listening]

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.

Horse crap.

Some seniors will need help. But far to many are willing to go see the doctor for the smallest thing.....

And I know from the experience of people who work in hospitals that there are many seniors who wind up in expensive wards just because it is easy to put them there (I am not kidding).

When they feel it, they won't be so willing to spend money they don't need to.

Oh: And does this mean you are arguing with the JAMA ? Just asking.

 

[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.

Horse crap.

Some seniors will need help. But far to many are willing to go see the doctor for the smallest thing.....

And I know from the experience of people who work in hospitals that there are many seniors who wind up in expensive wards just because it is easy to put them there (I am not kidding).

When they feel it, they won't be so willing to spend money they don't need to.

Why wouldn't they? The GOP, including Ryan poured billions into Medicare part D.

The insurance companies will demand higher rates, citing higher costs, the seniors will then demand bigger vouchers, citing higher costs,

and the politicians will take care of the senior lobby like they always do.

 

[francoHFW]

Teddy/Romneycare proves Obamacare will lower all costs (not just to the gov't like Ryan's -OMG stupid OP article!), save Medicare/aid and the COUNTRY all by itself. Pub dupe tools of the greedy rich/corps/big health! Dumbazzes!

 

[Listening]

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.

Horse crap.

Some seniors will need help. But far to many are willing to go see the doctor for the smallest thing.....

And I know from the experience of people who work in hospitals that there are many seniors who wind up in expensive wards just because it is easy to put them there (I am not kidding).

When they feel it, they won't be so willing to spend money they don't need to.

Why wouldn't they? The GOP, including Ryan poured billions into Medicare part D.

The insurance companies will demand higher rates, citing higher costs, the seniors will then demand bigger vouchers, citing higher costs,

and the politicians will take care of the senior lobby like they always do.

I grow tired of this kind of pie-slice analysis. If you've got numbers...produce them and their source.

I guess you are arguing with the JAMA....which I do to from time to time.

 

[Vanquish]

Speaking of the JAMA...

I read a study in the JAMA that said the problem with doctors isn't some insane shortage (the shortage is real, but has been happening waaaay before now. Again - their words, not mine) but the maldistribution of doctors.

We increase the numbers of doctors every year — and yet still costs continue to rise. Healthcare is not, and never will be a free market. Increasing numbers of docs = higher healthcare costs, period. Thats why NYC has the highest healthcare costs in the country, despite the fact that it has more doctors per capita than any other city WORLDWIDE, even when you adjust for COI indices.

Here's something else to consider: At the beginning of the 90s, the average patient in Medicare saw 3 doctors within a year. In 2004 the number went up to 8. By 2012, that number got to 15. Those 15 doctors are doing the same work that 3 doctors did in 1990, except now they are billing the crap out of Medicare for crap tests that make no difference to the patient. There is no difference in morbidity or mortality between 1990 and 2012. What does that mean? We have TOO MANY doctors, not too few.
But none of this addresses the issues of the substitutability of other types of workers for doctors or maldistribution of doctors. There’s also the issue of whether more doctors actually DOES mean better care. (Does Having More Physicians Lead to Better Health System Performance? Dr. David C. Goodman, MS; Dr. K. Grumbach, in the JAMA)

The maldistribution of pcps appears to be a larger problem than an overall shortage. Primary care providers have been shown to congregate in suburban and urban areas at a higher rate than the overall population leaving rural and some poor, inner-city areas without an adequate supply of primary care providers.

The ACA greatly expands scholarships for medical students who go into primary care and will “Go Where No ONe Else Will Go” The ACA also provides funding to double the capacity of Community Health Centers, often located in urban inner cities where nurse practioners provide very good primary care, chronic disease management, etc. In addition, it expands scholarships for nurses who want to become nurse practioners.

Finally, under the ACA we will be rewarding new models of delivering care- (paying doctors and nurse practioners to email and telephone, to renew routine prescriptions for example. Today, the pcp can be paid only if the patient comes in. Those who suggest that a greater supply of physicians is likely to lead to higher costs are right: in the health care market, supply drives demand.

That said, we do need more health care professionals in those places where most doctors are reluctant to practice. The problem is maldistribution, not absolute numbers.

 

[Seawytch]

Another factor that will be on the table.......

when Romney is elected - tort reform.

That alone will decrease costs by a bunch. And that's something the Pubs have long advocated.

I would like to see tort reform, but I seriously doubt it will ever happen. Tens of Thousands of trial lawyers make very good livings by filing suits for damages. Most of our elected representatives are lawyers, and they are very good at protecting their interests.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...m-did-not-reduce-health-care-costs/?mobile=wp

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

They can always opt into traditional medicare and give up that check paying them the difference between their plan and the cost of Medicare.

 

[Listening]

Watched as much cable TV as I could stand tonight.

Ed Shultz was pissed because the CBO report might mean that the GOP will force....yes, force Obama to discuss the economy.

To help him look stupid, he brought on Barbara "B.S." Boxer. And she didn't let him down.

 

[edthecynic]

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?

By how well the seniors do health-wise, obviously.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

They can always opt into traditional medicare and give up that check paying them the difference between their plan and the cost of Medicare.

No they can't! Traditional Medicare for those under 55 will no longer exist according to the Lyin' Ryan plan.

 

[Listening]

Obama up by 1.5.

Used to be up by 4.0.

Uh oh.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

By how well the seniors do health-wise, obviously.

Funny thing is, all that summit established is that Ryan is better at extemporaneous speaking than Obama.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

They can always opt into traditional medicare and give up that check paying them the difference between their plan and the cost of Medicare.

No they can't! Traditional Medicare for those under 55 will no longer exist according to the Lyin' Ryan plan.

You just proved you have no idea what his plan is, thanks.

 

[edthecynic]

How do you measure health care quality?

By how well the seniors do health-wise, obviously.

Funny thing is, all that summit established is that Ryan is better at extemporaneous speaking than Obama.

Actually that summit established is that Lyin' Ryan can only take cheap shots and get away with spouting his phony numbers when no one is allowed to speak afterward, which was not the case at the summit. Obama completely dismantled the Little CON$ervoFascist Man-Child.

 

[edthecynic]

They can always opt into traditional medicare and give up that check paying them the difference between their plan and the cost of Medicare.

No they can't! Traditional Medicare for those under 55 will no longer exist according to the Lyin' Ryan plan.

You just proved you have no idea what his plan is, thanks.

And you have just proven the first quote in my sig.

The most current version of the Lyin' Ryan plan brought before Congress H.CON.RES.34, the follow up to the one that passed the House, has no provision for traditional Medicare for people under 55. You've been had by Lyin' Ryan yet again, SUCKER!

When you go to this link below, click on #3 H.CON.RES.34.PCS and then Title V Sec 501 - Medicare and you find this:

(c) Assumptions- This resolution assumes reform of the Medicare program such that:
(1) Current Medicare benefits are preserved for those in and near retirement, without changes.
(2) For future generations, when they reach eligibility, Medicare is reformed to provide a premium support payment and a selection of guaranteed health coverage options from which recipients can choose a plan that best suits their needs.

Now highlight where it offers traditional Medicare as one of the choices!

Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

There are 3 versions of Bill Number H.CON.RES.34 for the 112th Congress. Usually, the last item is the most recent.

1 . Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2012 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2013 through 2021. (Reported in House - RH)[H.CON.RES.34.RH][PDF]
2 . Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), (Engrossed in House [Passed House] - EH)[H.CON.RES.34.EH][PDF]
3 . Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2012 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2013 through 2021. (Placed on Calendar Senate - PCS)[H.CON.RES.34.PCS][PDF]

 

[Listening]

Obama completely dismantled the Little CON$ervoFascist Man-Child.

Bold faced B.S. If Obama dismantled anything, it is his ass so that Valerie Jarrett could climb up there and run the country while looking like him. By himself, Obama is Lost In Space.

Why don't you start your own thread on this topic ? That way we don't have to scroll past all your drivel.

From the article:

The other way to control costs is regulation, as embodied in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). One argument for this is that cost savings from vouchers are a statistical mirage. Harvard health economist David Cutler -- a co-author of the JAMA study and an outspoken supporter of the ACA -- thinks this is possible. Medicare Advantage's lower costs might stem mostly from healthier patients, who use fewer medical services. It's unclear that statistical "risk adjustments" eliminate all these differences, he says.

Lower reimbursement rates are the most common form of cost regulation. The ACA cuts $700 billion from Medicare over a decade by slashing payment rates for hospitals and other providers. But reimbursement reductions don't change the delivery system. Providers often react by increasing the volume of services; the system becomes more wasteful. (The Medicare cuts don't actually reduce health spending; they just transfer funds from Medicare to spending mandated by the ACA.)

As for the ACA's other cost controls, they're mostly fluff. One idea is "accountable care organizations" (ACOs), which link payment to better coordination of medical treatment. The administration says its ACO proposal might save $470 million from 2012 to 2015, a period when projected Medicare spending exceeds $2 trillion; savings would be a rounding error. Then there's the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a body of 15 experts charged with limiting Medicare spending if it passes certain targets. But the law handcuffs IPAB. It can't increase patient cost-sharing, restrict benefits, modify eligibility requirements or -- in any one year -- cut spending by more than 1.5 percent, reports the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Limits must be imposed on the health sector. There are no pleasing ways to do this. Still, the increasing evidence from large-scale experience is that market mechanisms offer the best chance of reconciling Americans' desire for personal choice with cost control. If there are better ideas, let's hear them. Otherwise, we shouldn't reject the obvious merely because it's unfamiliar.

Voucher plans are not right-wing, extremist ideas. They enjoy support in both parties. Ryan would permit continuation of fee-for-service; if it's more efficient and effective, it would survive. If not, its decline would be no great loss. The Ryan plan's greatest defect may be that it doesn't start for a decade. We can't wait that long.

 

[edthecynic]

Obama completely dismantled the Little CON$ervoFascist Man-Child.

Bold faced B.S. If Obama dismantled anything, it is his ass so that Valerie Jarrett could climb up there and run the country while looking like him. By himself, Obama is Lost In Space.

Why don't you start your own thread on this topic ? That way we don't have to scroll past all your drivel.

From the article:

The other way to control costs is regulation, as embodied in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). One argument for this is that cost savings from vouchers are a statistical mirage. Harvard health economist David Cutler -- a co-author of the JAMA study and an outspoken supporter of the ACA -- thinks this is possible. Medicare Advantage's lower costs might stem mostly from healthier patients, who use fewer medical services. It's unclear that statistical "risk adjustments" eliminate all these differences, he says.

Lower reimbursement rates are the most common form of cost regulation. The ACA cuts $700 billion from Medicare over a decade by slashing payment rates for hospitals and other providers. But reimbursement reductions don't change the delivery system. Providers often react by increasing the volume of services; the system becomes more wasteful. (The Medicare cuts don't actually reduce health spending; they just transfer funds from Medicare to spending mandated by the ACA.)

As for the ACA's other cost controls, they're mostly fluff. One idea is "accountable care organizations" (ACOs), which link payment to better coordination of medical treatment. The administration says its ACO proposal might save $470 million from 2012 to 2015, a period when projected Medicare spending exceeds $2 trillion; savings would be a rounding error. Then there's the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a body of 15 experts charged with limiting Medicare spending if it passes certain targets. But the law handcuffs IPAB. It can't increase patient cost-sharing, restrict benefits, modify eligibility requirements or -- in any one year -- cut spending by more than 1.5 percent, reports the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Limits must be imposed on the health sector. There are no pleasing ways to do this. Still, the increasing evidence from large-scale experience is that market mechanisms offer the best chance of reconciling Americans' desire for personal choice with cost control. If there are better ideas, let's hear them. Otherwise, we shouldn't reject the obvious merely because it's unfamiliar.

Voucher plans are not right-wing, extremist ideas. They enjoy support in both parties. Ryan would permit continuation of fee-for-service; if it's more efficient and effective, it would survive. If not, its decline would be no great loss. The Ryan plan's greatest defect may be that it doesn't start for a decade. We can't wait that long.

you keep posting the same discredited lies as if repeating them will suddenly make them true. The wasteful Medicare Advantage costs 14% MORE than traditional which even Lyin' Ryan had to agree with after Obama cut the little CON$ervoFascist Man-Child down to size at the health summit.

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)

 

[Listening]

Obama completely dismantled the Little CON$ervoFascist Man-Child.

Bold faced B.S. If Obama dismantled anything, it is his ass so that Valerie Jarrett could climb up there and run the country while looking like him. By himself, Obama is Lost In Space.

Why don't you start your own thread on this topic ? That way we don't have to scroll past all your drivel.

From the article:

The other way to control costs is regulation, as embodied in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). One argument for this is that cost savings from vouchers are a statistical mirage. Harvard health economist David Cutler -- a co-author of the JAMA study and an outspoken supporter of the ACA -- thinks this is possible. Medicare Advantage's lower costs might stem mostly from healthier patients, who use fewer medical services. It's unclear that statistical "risk adjustments" eliminate all these differences, he says.

Lower reimbursement rates are the most common form of cost regulation. The ACA cuts $700 billion from Medicare over a decade by slashing payment rates for hospitals and other providers. But reimbursement reductions don't change the delivery system. Providers often react by increasing the volume of services; the system becomes more wasteful. (The Medicare cuts don't actually reduce health spending; they just transfer funds from Medicare to spending mandated by the ACA.)

As for the ACA's other cost controls, they're mostly fluff. One idea is "accountable care organizations" (ACOs), which link payment to better coordination of medical treatment. The administration says its ACO proposal might save $470 million from 2012 to 2015, a period when projected Medicare spending exceeds $2 trillion; savings would be a rounding error. Then there's the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a body of 15 experts charged with limiting Medicare spending if it passes certain targets. But the law handcuffs IPAB. It can't increase patient cost-sharing, restrict benefits, modify eligibility requirements or -- in any one year -- cut spending by more than 1.5 percent, reports the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Limits must be imposed on the health sector. There are no pleasing ways to do this. Still, the increasing evidence from large-scale experience is that market mechanisms offer the best chance of reconciling Americans' desire for personal choice with cost control. If there are better ideas, let's hear them. Otherwise, we shouldn't reject the obvious merely because it's unfamiliar.

Voucher plans are not right-wing, extremist ideas. They enjoy support in both parties. Ryan would permit continuation of fee-for-service; if it's more efficient and effective, it would survive. If not, its decline would be no great loss. The Ryan plan's greatest defect may be that it doesn't start for a decade. We can't wait that long.

you keep posting the same discredited lies as if repeating them will suddenly make them true. The wasteful Medicare Advantage costs 14% MORE than traditional which even Lyin' Ryan had to agree with after Obama cut the little CON$ervoFascist Man-Child down to size at the health summit.

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)

Their claim is that it cost less on an apples to apples basis. Not just a straight up comparison. But you knew that.

Wow....look at this thing spread. I'd love to see the actual JAMA paper.

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/08/20/why-ryan-might-be-right-about-medicare/
http://cs.dogpile.com/ClickHandler....1&mid=9&hash=7B3F1F877AB04090C598FE5F5A98B10D
http://www.i4u.com/2012/08/paul-ryan/be-might-why-ryan-samuelson-robert-right-j
http://cs.dogpile.com/ClickHandler....3&mid=9&hash=6F3BADC415C86C3EAA1E999840A3212B

 

[Liability]

The maniacal ATTACKS by liberal Democratics against Ryan are going to go totally fucking nuclear when the pictures of him defiling America's sweetheart get aired:

 

[Listening]

Funny picture.

Wrong Ryan.