Seniors made stupid by anti Obama righties

By the way, I find it strange that NO ONE has even commented on my previous post that made the comparison between the cost of Medicare to elderlies and the cost of private insurance to everyone (including elderly through supplemental insurance).

So, I think I'll post that again:

My answer:

They don't HAVE to, dear. . .they can use Medicare the same way you and I use our private insurance. . .which doesn't pay for 100 % of our cost EITHER, just in case you forget!

Another example of what medicare does for you that PRIVATE insurance doesn't:

My husband is 73 years old, so he has been on medicare for 8 years. We are lucky enough that we have been able to purchase supplemental insurance for all those years. so, in spite of 3 serious health problems in the last 5 years (Aorta aneurysm repaired, a stroke that led to surgery, and 15 inches of colon removed to take out a pre-cancerous mass), we have not had to pay $1.00 in cost.

But what is the most striking for all this is this: He pays about $50.00 a month in medicare premium. . .and medicare has paid over the lat 5 years about $80,000 for those medical needs

In the other hand, we also pay $190.00 a month in supplemental insurance (the "cadillac" option) and that supplemental insurance (Blue Cross Blue Shield) has paid a total of $20,000 in "co payment" that medicare didn't pay.

So, if you look at it this way, over the last 5 years, we have paid $3,000 in Medicare premium and they paid $80,000 in medical costs to Doctors and hospitals. We have paid about $11,000 to the PRIVATE SUPPLEMENTAL insurance, and they have disbursed $20,000!

If you know ANYTHING about investments, which do YOU think was the better investment?

Investing $3000 and getting back $80,000 in 5 years?

or

Investing $11,000 and getting back $20,000 in 5 years?

Obviously, both investments were profitable. . .but which "company" (government or private) served his "investors" the best?

And which "company" do you think we should look at to provide a more cost effective medical care for the most needy segment of the population. . .the elderly?

And if that "company" can be so much more "cost effective" with the most costly segment of the population. . .how much more "cost effective" would that company be in serving a LARGER segment of the population, that would be made of MOSTLY LOW NEED people, like healthy young adults between the age of 18 and 55?

Does ANYONE who is insured by a private insurance in that healthy category (18 to 55) pay LESS than $55.00 per month, with a 20% co payment and NO deductible?

And yet, stupid people are still accusing the government health care of being "less efficient" than private insurance. . . because medicare has a deficit, while private insurance make a killing for the stock holders!

It is either stupid or totally hypocritical!

So, Smartmouthwoman, do you have a comment?

 

Medicare advantage is not on any target list, that's GOP propaganda, it's not in the healthcare law.

 

Fact Check: Obamacare’s Medicare Cuts

As for the cuts, they come from eliminating a massive subsidy to private insurers and gradually reducing the rate of growth in payments to some providers. These changes, while not catastrophic for Medicare, are important. Under the ACA, the federal government will substantially reduce the amount it spends funding Medicare Advantage, which is privately administered insurance offered to Medicare beneficiaries. About one-quarter of Medicare recipients are enrolled in private Medicare Advantage. In theory, these plans are supposed to manage health care spending better than fee-for-service Medicare. But they don’t actually save the federal government any money. They cost, per patient, 14% more than traditional Medicare. (See Figure 3 of this fact sheet from the Kaiser Family Foundation. And see here for more.) The ACA eliminates this subsidy and pegs Medicare Advantage payments to quality metrics.






Reductions in Medicare Advantage Payments: The Impact on Seniors by Region

According to the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), by 2017, when the changes are fully phased in, 14.8 million senior citizens and disabled Americans who would have had Medicare Advantage benefits under the previous law will be denied coverage for many services and incur higher out-of-pocket costs. About half will lose Medicare Advantage coverage entirely.[3] Others will stay in Medicare Advantage, but at reduced benefit levels and possibly in different plans that do not meet their needs as well.

 

They've alreadu reduced the payments to providers, and even more providers have signed contracts to be medicare providers in 2013.

As for the "subsides", they're not subsides. It's called capitation, and it gets reduced all the time anyway, and the increases are simply passed on to members.

But the main reason I won't lose my job.....even though you seem to be enthused about that prospect.....is because my company has multiple lines of business I work, and medicare is only one of about 10 different lines.

 

I certainly didn't intend to give the impression that I wanted you to lose your job. I apologize if I gave that impression.

As for the subsidies, that doesn't have anything to do with capitation. That's payment to a provider per patient, regardless of the visits or medical care That only applies to a small percentage of providers though.

As for provider payments, I don't think their fee schedule has been impacted. If memory serves we've had a doc fix every year, including this one, to keep the Medicare fee schedule from being automatically cut. I don't think they've gotten any cuts yet.

 

That's good to hear, my bad for assuming you did.

Semantics.....let me clarify what I was trying to illustrate....capitation is what you stated, That's payment to a provider per patient, regardless of the visits or medical care. Medicare makes payments to medicare advantage insurers, and it is payment to an insurer per patient, regardless of the visits or medical care. You seem to have a much better grasp of the system, and I shouldn't have tried to oversimplify the language.

This depends on whether or not you're talking about original medicare FFS contracted rates, or HMO contracted rates from MA insurers, or PPO medicare advantage rates.

I don't know a thing about original medicare schedules because I'm not with medicare, and we don't offer a MA PPO. The trend for MA is MHO's, and many insurers are dropping PPOs because they're not profitable.

The fee schedule is, as you may know, incredibly complex, and depends on what combination of CPT and ICD-9 codes are used on claims...so while the less complex combinations, IE office visits billed with diagnostics (Dr visit with xrays) haven't been impacted...the more complex formulas from facilities billing with revenue codes, or complex pro fees, have been negotiated downward, and I have to be careful with what I say on this site, but there are several facilities that will no longer be contracted hospitals in 2013 because of these reductions, because they're they only ones with staffs large enough to comprehend the changed contracted rates.

So!......I have to conceed that medicare advantage is having an increasingly hard time compensating providers, and even more trouble from increasing premiums and copays...but that has nothing to do with the healthcare law.

The healthcare law will neither destroy healthcare and our economy, nor will it make healthcare affordable.

Healthcare costs have a far greater potential to destroy healthcare and our economy, and they will cause healthcare to become less affordable.

 

Why does your company have a freakshow from California handling a "red state"? Does your company know what a leftwing loon you are? Why not handle MA o CA? Why don't you endorse universal healthcare if you have the nerve to criticize these people and you have the nerve to accept a paycheck to watch them pay for crap they may or may not use? Your messiah set up a ridiculous pile of garbage that is worthy of criticism. A man would have set up universal healthcare. A racist, gubment cheese, affirmative action black set up the next civil war in the terminology of the Affordable Care Act. Deal with your new situation or vote **** boy out.

 

Speaking of semantics, that sounds suspiciously like a premium support amount!

Actually I was talking about regular old Medicare rates. I don't know how that translates down to Medicare Advantage plans since they are all operated by different insurance companies with their own provider contracts, so I guess I can't really know what the impact would be.

 

They keep the amount medicare pays us pretty close, and it's not common knowlege within the company.

But I can tell you this.....I don't understand how we're profitable sometimes. With medicare advantage, it's extremely rare for a senior to not have $20,000-$1,000,000 a year in expenses, even at the medicare allowed amounts.

Something has got to give, and Obamacare isn't the problem here

 

Heh, maybe your company is taking out life insurance policies on the ones that they can tell, based on their medical diagnosis's and treatments, that are probably are not going to be alive for open enrollment next year!

 

Conservatives: Obamacare doesn't take effect in large part until 2014. Hold off blaming everything wrong in the healthcare system on it until then.

Liberals: Obamacare isn't going to give everyone puppies (now there's a spending plan!), it's making people who don't want insurance buy it because you don't want to spend money helping them once something goes wrong of their own fault.


These threads are all the same, I'm thinking of making a list of answers and copy+pasting them into each thread.

 

I wish I could change the title of this thread to "Seniors made stupid, overly sensitive, and hostile by anti Obama righties"

And I rest my case

 

That's pretty tasteless if you're trying to be funny, or sarcastic...but if you aren't.....that kind of thing isn't possible given the level of scrutiny we recieve from CMS.

 

Does that include those who voted for it?

 

Yes, that includes everybody.

What Nancy Pelosi said was actually quite accurate when she stated "we have to pass it to find out whats in it"

When it was written, it was composed by so many different teams, and went through such complex consulting and research, there are only a handfull of people who are experts regarding small parts of it.

I've read about 2000 pages of it, and only understood about 200 pages as they relate to mu job functions.

 

"...It's not even slightly wrong in any way" Then why the deception, if you truly beleive you are in the right?
If your company tells you not to be politically active, then you cannot truly voice your opinion due to fear of losing your job. What is most important, your job and someone else's opinion, or you?