UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (8) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 60024  
Subject: Raising Medicare Age Saves $5.7B Date: 12/3/2012 5:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Saves the government $5.7 billion that is. It will cost citizens an extra $11.4 billion due to higher prices on the private insurance market.

Health care economists see a number of downsides, too. For one thing, Medicare tends to be a pretty efficient program. Its costs have grown slower than private health insurance plans. The Center for Budget Priorities and Policy estimates that, while the federal government would save $5.7 billion, the rest of the health care system would end up spending $11.4 billion more to provide those same benefits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/03/r...
Print the post Back To Top
Author: BlueGrits Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46534 of 60024
Subject: Re: Raising Medicare Age Saves $5.7B Date: 12/3/2012 8:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 64
Almost half as much as we spend in direct farm subsidies each year.

Why not let farmers participate in the free market and unshackle them from gov't interference instead of removing Medicare coverage from hardworking Americans?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Beridian Big red star, 1000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46547 of 60024
Subject: Re: Raising Medicare Age Saves $5.7B Date: 12/4/2012 12:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The Center for Budget Priorities and Policy estimates that, while the federal government would save $5.7 billion, the rest of the health care system would end up spending $11.4 billion more to provide those same benefits.


Well it should be obvious that the Republican "job creators" want to pocket the 5.7 billion difference.

The American public should be asking themselves who is getting rich off of health care, because I guarantee that their are people making a fortune off this business.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: pauleckler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46559 of 60024
Subject: Re: Raising Medicare Age Saves $5.7B Date: 12/4/2012 2:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Even so, Medicare is a strawman for the problem of rising health care costs.

The Medicare solution is in reality a game of three card monte to see who foots the rising costs: 1) providers who accept lower payments and eat costs, 2) supplemental insurance companies (who will charge higher premiums, 3) patients, or 4) some combination of the above.

Driving out waste, fraud, and abuse is a good start, but means to keep health care costs within guidelines is the real need.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: PucksFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46565 of 60024
Subject: Re: Raising Medicare Age Saves $5.7B Date: 12/4/2012 3:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
How much would be saved if Congress had allowed Medicare to negotiate drug costs with the pharmaceutical companies?

PF

Print the post Back To Top
Author: sykesix Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46568 of 60024
Subject: Re: Raising Medicare Age Saves $5.7B Date: 12/4/2012 4:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Even so, Medicare is a strawman for the problem of rising health care costs.

The Medicare solution is in reality a game of three card monte to see who foots the rising costs: 1) providers who accept lower payments and eat costs, 2) supplemental insurance companies (who will charge higher premiums, 3) patients, or 4) some combination of the above.

Driving out waste, fraud, and abuse is a good start, but means to keep health care costs within guidelines is the real need.


That's the part that of the Republican position that I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around. Obamacare has several mechanisms for medical cost control. Medicare is shifting towards outcome based payments instead of procedure based. Results of medical outcomes will be studied and depth and procedures will be recommended (not mandated, recommended) based on what works in the real world. Cadillac health plans will no longer be subsidized through the tax code. None of those are complete solutions, but all good first steps to controlling health care costs, yet improving outcomes.

Paul Ryan's plan is to get rid of all of those cost control measures and push people to private insurance, which is more expensive. In order words, he wants to take concrete steps to drive up costs faster.

What good does that do anybody?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lindytoes Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46569 of 60024
Subject: Re: Raising Medicare Age Saves $5.7B Date: 12/4/2012 5:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Medicare is shifting towards outcome based payments instead of procedure based.

I assume that is not exactly the same thing as number of patients instead of number of procedures but along the same lines. I think that is what I have been hearing lately as a cost control. I'm having some problem understanding all the terminology as it seems to overlap and/or use different terms for basically the same thing.

I thought it was Ezra Klein who was talking about number of patients so I went to his WonkBlog. I didn't find anything with number of patients in the title and gave up. I found this article that might be of interest. I can't remember if it was posted on the boards or not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/12/s...
Study: Paying doctors differently saves lives
The researchers aren’t quite sure what mechanism is driving the changes. “We think that it is very unlikely that improved performance on the process measures alone could explain the reduced mortality that we observed,” they wrote in last week’s New England Journal of Medicine.
We might learn more about the mechanisms at play soon, as the United States introduces a similar program for its hospitals. Under the health care law, hospitals become eligible for bonuses if they hit certain quality metrics — they also get dinged if they lag behind on these measures. There’s still an open debate about how that will change hospitals’ behavior and whether it will save money. But the British study offers the hopeful possibility that it could end up saving more of their patients’ lives.

Here's the WonkBlog: Health Care section
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/tag/health-c...

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: alstroemeria Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 46590 of 60024
Subject: Re: Raising Medicare Age Saves $5.7B Date: 12/5/2012 10:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
who foots the rising costs: 1) providers who accept lower payments and eat costs, 2) supplemental insurance companies (who will charge higher premiums, 3) patients, or 4) some combination of the above.

Raising the Medicare tax rate should be step 1. It has been way too low for way too long, as I've said repeatedly.

Driving out waste, fraud, and abuse is a good start, but means to keep health care costs within guidelines is the real need.

I had an argument on this point, among others, in my ophthalmologist's waiting room a couple of days ago. The woman I was chatting with loathes Obama with the white-hot fury often seen in serious Fox watchers. The main reason appeared to be that she's convinced Obamacare will prevent old people from getting certain procedures due to age--and she has already had 6 (6!) hip replacements (and she looks younger than me) and is afriad she;d be denied additional surgeries.

She also hates Obama because "everything he says is a lie" and "he stole money from Medicare to pay for Obamacare!" I tried explaining to her that Obamacare has a provision to study which procedures are the most effective and to pay for those--much as private insurance companies already do (mine does), that it has nothing to do with denying care due to age (she shook her head No vehemently-). I then said that he didn;t take money from Medicare to pay for Obamacare (by stealing Medicare taxes!) but reduced payments to the experiment in privatizing Medicare known as MedicareAdvantage, which takes more tax money than regular Medicare does (she became nearly apoplectic at that "lie"!). And I pointed out that all politicians spin the truth and even lie. Well, HER candidate didn't! No, she isn't a local--she retired to SC from NY--I recognized the accent. sigh.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (8) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement