Obama to launder money so seniors don’t lose coverage before Election

[rdean]

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.

"If people think there's something wrong with being successful in America, then they'd better vote for the other guy, because I've been extraordinarily successful, and I want to use that success and that know-how to help the American people."

-- Mitt Romney

Bankruptcy and sending jobs to China is an awful funny way of wanting people to know his success. Doncha think?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Bonus money is usually spent on good performers, not average ones.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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? Where’s 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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So Republicans are hoping seniors lose their coverage? Seems cruel.

No, Republicans are insisting Obama doesn't hand money to insurers in order to delay seniors losing their insurance until it doesn't matter to his reelection. If ObanaCare is such a good idea, why does he have to have a slush fund that hides all the savings?

 

[uscitizen]

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

So, instead of saving money, Obama is spending more.

And you think it is a good idea.

Got it.

 

[uscitizen]

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? Where’s 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.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why is Obama paying these companies a bonus?

 

[Jroc]

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.

Trustees: Medicare Will Go Broke in 2016, If You Exclude Obamacare's Double-Counting - Forbes

 

[uscitizen]

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?

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.....

 

[Jroc]

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"

Paul Ryan's New-and-Improved Plan for Medicare and Medicaid Reform - Forbes

 

[American Horse]

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.

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.

 

[francoHFW]

Ryan plan does the same thing. Medicare Plus is expensive Pubcrappe.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

How exactly do you know my take on Part D?

Ohh I see you know all?

 

[Jroc]

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?

Really where's Obama plan? Ryan is attempting to reform these entitlements which haft to be done Obama budget was defeated unanimously the Democrat have no plan no budget no solutions nothing that is why they’ll be swept out in Nov.. G-d willing

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.....

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Because ObamaCare charges a higher tax on Empoyer based health care plans. which will effectively encourage employers to cut plans?

 

[American Horse]

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?

I've read and responded to your take on that in the past.

 

[Greenbeard]

Paul Ryan's New-and-Improved Plan for Medicare and Medicaid Reform

As always, Ryan's "plans" remain hopelessly muddled and detached from reality. But they sure do appeal to the base!

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.

What is "the free market" in this context? Is an HMO a free market model of payment? Is subsidizing the additional costs of Medicare Advantage plans (at additional cost to the taxpayer and Medicare beneficiaries who remain in fee-for-service Medicare) the free market approach? I've heard time and again from folks on the right that the existing private insurance industry does not constitute a free market (however they're using the phrase), so you seem to be an anomaly. I'd be interested in hearing what exactly you're talking about.

Beyond that, maybe you can explain those great benefits of the program. It costs more, it's making the entire program less viable in the long run, and it hasn't improved outcomes for seniors. All it does is tack on some additional benefits with extremely limited value-added for the Medicare consumer (Pizer, Frakt, and Feldman pinned the consumer surplus at 14 cents on the dollar for that extra spending). The choice of insurers you get is balanced by the choice of providers you lose in joining an HMO or PPO over FFS Medicare (unless you choose a private FFS plan--but then what's the point of managed care minus the managed care?).

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.

Here's a reading tip, genius: "Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it and are often used to express irony."

Citizen isn't talking about the specific bonus program, he's obviously talking about the constant "corrections" (quotation marks again!) that have pushed the benchmark bids upward and thus lined the pockets of participating private insurers.