Medicare Advantage Is A Massive Scam: The Program Rips Off The Tax Payers And It's Own Enrollees

[debbiedowner]

I'd guess that 98% of Americans don't know how the full system works.

You're correct and when they try and research the find articles written by hacks.

 

[debbiedowner]

Are there any honest, unbiased references out there that break down how the system actually works?

you can find most questions answered at cms.gov

 

[1srelluc]

If that insurance came in for that sole purpose and you did not ask about MA and if you got his card or you know who he is then by all means google the number for the fraud division of CMS. That is against the law unless you asked him about it first. Get his ass thrown out of the business. These GD agents that cannot follow the rules set down by CMS need to go, that is why you have so many scam the pubic, they just won't report. CMS does not give out your name if you file a complaint.

Fuck that noise, he's OK and a "gun guy", he just over-stepped and was corrected....Good enough.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I don’t claim to know the ins and outs of Medicare Advantage Plans, and I don’t doubt that in some locals where there are effective private networks of doctors and for some folks with special issues they may offer real advantages. But what I suspect strongly is that many fall victim to the hype.

I am bombarded here in FL with advertisements on TV and in the mail (every changeover season) promising I can get more benefits, and save money over traditional Medicare, without giving up anything. They even promise I can get more of my money back from Social Security. I half expect “the Pillow Man” to advertise next.

Of course all this ends up making some terribly naive oldtimers think that government funded “original” Medicare is actually somehow bad. It is not advertised to nearly the same extent. Today, some seem to argue it is suspiciously “socialist” as compared to the available private profit insurance plans … that use Medicare money.

 

[Grumblenuts]

If that insurance came in for that sole purpose and you did not ask about MA and if you got his card or you know who he is then by all means google the number for the fraud division of CMS. That is against the law unless you asked him about it first. Get his ass thrown out of the business. These GD agents that cannot follow the rules set down by CMS need to go, that is why you have so many scam the pubic, they just won't report. CMS does not give out your name if you file a complaint.

Their mailings look and sound authoritative and intimidating. Fear, fear, fear! Don't get left behind!
So I'm sure many return their "Yes, please send me my free, official information kit uncovering every important fact about choosing MA in super dee duper detail asap" or some such crap. Then they're screwed. Just a guy, you know? Selling insurance.. Whaaaat?

 

[Grumblenuts]

You know in my area there are many just living of SS and cannot afford a supplement, then in another I work full of wealthy and could very well afford a supplement but choose MAPD because the like to save money and can afford the moop if need be.

Okay, self-proclaimed experts.. What's the purpose of insurance?..

Oh, that's right, search engines exist now.. Why ask some anonymous political junkie on a MB?

Purpose of insurance​

Technically, the basic function of property/ casualty insurance is the transfer of risk. Its aim is to reduce financial uncertainty and make accidental loss manageable. It does this substituting payment of a small, known fee—an insurance premium—to a professional insurer in exchange for the assumption of the risk a large loss, and a promise to pay in the event of such a loss.

So, yeah, they left a word out of the last sentence or something and now all "insurance" is somehow about "property/casualty insurance".. Still, others no doubt provide roughly the same answer. {Shame on you, insurance-101}.

Alright, let's just proceed with the first bit.

"insurance is the transfer of risk"

Whose risk? Shirley not that of the insured party.. unless they're rich.. and don't really need it to begin with.. then fine. Their use of "small" gives it away. Small if you're rich. Expensive otherwise. But why do even rich people bother with it then? Because they'll likely gain from it, others not so much. So this "transfer of risk" is really just a calculation based upon how much the rich think they can extract from the poor through use of these manipulative financial instruments, either willfully or via legal mandates such as requiring "collision" insurance until one's car loan is paid off in full. Who's risk is being eliminated there? The bank's. In exchange for paying a monthly "fee" the buyer gets to drive something around that they don't own, and by the time they manage to pay it off, if they manage to pay it off, it likely won't be worth shit compared to its original sticker price.

So, for most, insurance boils down to paying for the privilege of being robbed by all those who comparatively need for nothing. What else? Divide and conquer. This scheme can always be enhanced by strategically splitting the pool of insureds into groups.. say those who will likely need lots of drugs vs. those who won't. Elderly, obese smokers vs young, fit workers. We simply can't allow people in general to pay less just because they're old or fat or smokers. Those with money sure, but otherwise fuck 'em. Medicare Part D divided and conquered -- done.

 

[JustAGuy1]

But, some of these people like being on the receiving end of Greek.

Oh, this thread about their perverted ways.

LOL

 

[debbiedowner]

Okay, self-proclaimed experts.. What's the purpose of insurance?..

Oh, that's right, search engines exist now.. Why ask some anonymous political junkie on a MB?

So, yeah, they left a word out of the last sentence or something and now all "insurance" is somehow about "property/casualty insurance".. Still, others no doubt provide roughly the same answer. {Shame on you, insurance-101}.

Alright, let's just proceed with the first bit.

"insurance is the transfer of risk"

Whose risk? Shirley not that of the insured party.. unless they're rich.. and don't really need it to begin with.. then fine. Their use of "small" gives it away. Small if you're rich. Expensive otherwise. But why do even rich people bother with it then? Because they'll likely gain from it, others not so much. So this "transfer of risk" is really just a calculation based upon how much the rich think they can extract from the poor through use of these manipulative financial instruments, either willfully or via legal mandates such as requiring "collision" insurance until one's car loan is paid off in full. Who's risk is being eliminated there? The bank's. In exchange for paying a monthly "fee" the buyer gets to drive something around that they don't own, and by the time they manage to pay it off, if they manage to pay it off, it likely won't be worth shit compared to its original sticker price.

So, for most, insurance boils down to paying for the privilege of being robbed by all those who comparatively need for nothing. What else? Divide and conquer. This scheme can always be enhanced by strategically splitting the pool of insureds into groups.. say those who will likely need lots of drugs vs. those who won't. Elderly, obese smokers vs young, fit workers. We simply can't allow people in general to pay less just because they're old or fat or smokers. Those with money sure, but otherwise fuck 'em. Medicare Part D divided and conquered -- done.

Hey, can you narrow this down to are you for Medicare for All, lowering the age to opt in to Medicare. I just don't understand what you want and since being on an MAPD plan since 2013 I personally don't see a damn thing wrong with it for most people. Granted, different plans are different in states and counties.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Hey, can you narrow this down to are you for Medicare for All, lowering the age to opt in to Medicare. I just don't understand what you want and since being on an MAPD plan since 2013 I personally don't see a damn thing wrong with it for most people. Granted, different plans are different in states and counties.

Not to mention that over the last few years they have been greatly improved.

 

[debbiedowner]

Not to mention that over the last few years they have been greatly improved.

I personally have no problem with it and the good majority of clients love it. In all these years I have had one complaint to CMS and the lady complained I did not explain the donut hole in the seminar she attended. That was resolved real quick because there was one of those CMS in that particular seminar and disputed right away.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Hey, can you narrow this down to are you for Medicare for All, lowering the age to opt in to Medicare.

I've covered all that. Nothing personal unless one is trying to promote private insurance here as some people clearly have been. The answer is no, you can't narrow this down to "Medicare for All" when some think that term means one thing, others another. One can't just gloss over the distinctions and pretend making existing "Medicare" available to younger people is somehow equivalent to implementing "Medicare for All." And they know it. They smear it all together deliberately because they want government destroyed and prefer everything be privatized. Any Reaganites arguing that government is "the problem" here wear it proudly while others try to be sneaky (perhaps that's you, definitely fits JustaGuy and Mac1958 who have more convincingly pretended to remain somehow more knowledgeable yet simultaneously oblivious and at the same time too).

When Medicare was first implemented everyone presumed Medicare (the government) would soon handle your prescription drug costs as well. It was blocked for decades by private special interest group support of key representatives from both major Parties.

Today's problems and policy options are in part “legacies” of earlier decisions and non-decisions. Based on the work of Mark Peterson (1997), we demonstrate how the reform proposals of 2003 reflected not only the primary problems facing beneficiaries today but also the lessons learned from earlier episodes by beneficiaries, interest groups, and government officials. The chief legacies reflected in the design of the new program are that participation is voluntary and that the costs will be shared by the Medicare beneficiaries and taxpayers, rather than borne entirely by the beneficiaries themselves. In addition, policymakers went to great lengths to ensure that the new prescription drug benefits will be administered principally by private companies and not by the federal government. Since the history of Medicare demonstrates that expansion of the federal regulatory role is nearly inevitable, the pharmaceutical industry has long anticipated similar controls in any Medicare prescription drug program and strongly resisted a benefit that would be centrally administered by the federal government.

 

[Mac1958]

I personally have no problem with it and the good majority of clients love it. In all these years I have had one complaint to CMS and the lady complained I did not explain the donut hole in the seminar she attended. That was resolved real quick because there was one of those CMS in that particular seminar and disputed right away.

They're very good plans. Everyone should have access to them. Ramping up and tweaking cost structures would be fairly easy.

 

[Grumblenuts]

They're very good plans.

Little reminder.. this is the actual topic:

Medicare Advantage plans are typically a combination of “Medigap” plans, which cover services not included in the government plan like vision and dental, plus a privatized version of traditional Medicare. About 28 million American seniors are now on Advantage plans, or about 40 percent of the whole program. As Barbara Caress explains in the Prospect, it was set up back in the late 1990s as a way for those wonderful private insurance companies we all know and love to work their free-market magic on one corner of the system America carved out as publicly run. Once we got business involved, surely the quality of coverage would improve and costs would go down, right?

Medicare Advantage Is a Massive Scam

The program rips off both the taxpayer and its own enrollees.

prospect.org

Have the costs gone down? Really? Be honest for a change.

 

[JustAGuy1]

I've covered all that. Nothing personal unless one is trying to promote private insurance here as some people clearly have been. The answer is no, you can't narrow this down to "Medicare for All" when some think that term means one thing, others another. One can't just gloss over the distinctions and pretend making existing "Medicare" available to younger people is somehow equivalent to implementing "Medicare for All." And they know it. They smear it all together deliberately because they want government destroyed and prefer everything be privatized. Any Reaganites arguing that government is "the problem" here wear it proudly while others try to be sneaky (perhaps that's you, definitely fits JustaGuy and Mac1958 who have more convincingly pretended to remain somehow more knowledgeable yet simultaneously oblivious and at the same time too).

When Medicare was first implemented everyone presumed Medicare (the government) would soon handle your prescription drug costs as well. It was blocked for decades by private special interest group support of key representatives from both major Parties.

Dude I have your as in this from the first post. Nobody relies on just Original Medicare, it would break them. You just like being an ass and yes, I know far more about insurance than you ever will.

 

[Mac1958]

I've covered all that. Nothing personal unless one is trying to promote private insurance here as some people clearly have been. The answer is no, you can't narrow this down to "Medicare for All" when some think that term means one thing, others another. One can't just gloss over the distinctions and pretend making existing "Medicare" available to younger people is somehow equivalent to implementing "Medicare for All." And they know it. They smear it all together deliberately because they want government destroyed and prefer everything be privatized. Any Reaganites arguing that government is "the problem" here wear it proudly while others try to be sneaky (perhaps that's you, definitely fits JustaGuy and Mac1958 who have more convincingly pretended to remain somehow more knowledgeable yet simultaneously oblivious and at the same time too).

When Medicare was first implemented everyone presumed Medicare (the government) would soon handle your prescription drug costs as well. It was blocked for decades by private special interest group support of key representatives from both major Parties.

Who here has said that they "prefer everything be privatized"? Not even close.

So you either you have no idea what we're talking about, or you're lying. Or, most likely, both.

As I've said, 98% of people don't understand how the full system works. You're clearly one of them.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Who here has said that they "prefer everything be privatized"? Not even close.

So you either you have no idea what we're talking about, or you're lying. Or, most likely, both.

As I've said, 98% of people don't understand how the full system works. You're clearly one of them.

He likes being an ass.

 

[Mac1958]

He likes being an ass.

There's something about the combination of arrogance and ignorance...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Who here has said that they "prefer everything be privatized"?

There you go. You glossed right over the "sneaky" part.

They're very good plans.

Not the topic, dufus.

There's something about the combination of arrogance and ignorance...

Tell us about it, twinkletoes:

As I've said, 98% of people don't understand how the full system works. You're clearly one of them.

Your wailings are 100% not the topic. Try proving you're so knowledgeable (like anyone could possibly care less) by discussing the actual topic instead of just posting these stupid distractions from it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

So you either you have no idea what we're talking about, or you're lying. Or, most likely, both.

Listen, dickweed. I post sources, links, and quotes from what I'm talking about. You've got nothing but your high opinion of yourself and pissy opinions of others to show for your efforts to make some useful point here. Hint, when you find yourself pairing up with JustAGuy1..

 

[Mac1958]

Listen, dickweed. I post sources, links, and quotes from what I'm talking about. You've got nothing but your high opinion of yourself and pissy opinions of others to show for your efforts to make some useful point here. Hint, when you find yourself pairing up with JustAGuy1..

Not to mention (1) six years of working with a Fortune 100 insurer, putting together MA plans piece by piece for my state, (2) giving seminars on MA plans to other advisors, and (3) working with my advisory clients on going over their options on MA and Supplement options.

But don't let me cramp your prodigious expertise.