home

Competition

Ezra Klein:

Medicare Advantage is a Medicare carve-out that allows private insurers to offer plans for seniors. The original vision for the program was simple enough: Private competition will drive costs down. The private market, as you may have heard, is more efficient and effective and adaptable. No reason seniors shouldn't benefit from that ingenuity. So Medicare would give private insurers the money it would spend on a beneficiary, and the private insurers could try to do a better job with it. Medicare Advantage, however, failed in its mission: prices shot up. Private insurers complained that they couldn't compete with Medicare for the same amount of money Medicare spends.

(Emphasis supplied.) And yet, Ezra tells us that exchanges, the private market, will be the magic wand that fixes health care. Which makes this line from Ezra ironic -- "faced with an instance where the government program proved relatively lean and efficient, and the private market expensive and wasteful, Republicans have mounted a ferocious defense of the market's right to continue burning through taxpayer dollars." Ezra's insistence that an exchange with a mandate without a public option is the magic bullet for health care reform is pretty much what he is criticizing Republicans for on Medicare Advantage.

Speaking for me only

< Benchmarks: Clinton 1993 Vs. Obama 2009 | Thursday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Just goes to show that just (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:03:55 AM EST
    because someone writes about a particular topic on a regular basis is not an indication of their actual level of understanding of said topic.

    I'm not even going to ask why he's considered a definitive voice in this debate because it would probably provoke accusations that as yet couldn't be proved.

    Private insurance only exchanges (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:29:34 AM EST
    Reid has long argued that health insurance companies are able to gouge consumers because they are not subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act, which outlaws trusts and monopolies that stifle competition.

     "They could be conspiring to fix prices as they do every day and not a single thing could be done about it because they are not subject to the law like everybody else," Reid told a crowd of healthcare workers at a Tuesday rally.

    Well what does Reid plan to do about this?

    But senior Democratic aides said that Reid would not include legislation repealing antitrust exemptions for the health insurance industry in the healthcare package he will bring to the Senate floor.

    "The bill has enough problems," said a Democratic aide, in reference to a bill pending in the Senate Finance Committee that has drawn an array of Democratic criticisms and failed to pick up any Republican support.

    Source: The Hill

    Collusion... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by masslib on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:44:34 AM EST
    I've tried to tell people this.  It even happens in the vaunted MA Exchange.  It's extremely difficult to stop this sort of collusion, which is why treating health care like a commodity is a disaster.

    Parent
    Unbelievable (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:33:17 AM EST
    Great idea (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:43:31 AM EST
    Let's have the health insurance companies sell "national plans" which would be exempt from state benefit mandates.

    That worked so well with the credit card companies why not do it with health insurance. :)

    That's why I don't like framing health care (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by masslib on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:48:43 AM EST
    in terms of competition.  Health care is not a commodity.  The reason most supporters of a Medicare-like option want it isn't competition, it's because it would drive most people into public health insurance and out of the failed private insurance market.  When you frame a public program as a means for competition someone will inevitability come up with some other competitive plan.

    Erza is a green behind the ears (3.25 / 4) (#5)
    by SOS on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:19:19 AM EST
    inexperienced and probably spoiled 25 year old kid. How can any serious adult expect to take him seriously.

    meh (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:20:51 AM EST
    Go after him for what he says, not who he is.

    Parent
    Who he is (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:22:31 AM EST
    is actually one of the mosrt influential voices on this issue. Which, imo, is a bad thing.

    But that's why I spend a lot of time criticizing what he writes.

    Parent

    That's fine (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:24:04 AM EST
    But "he's young, therefore he's an idiot" is just insulting and fallacious.

    Parent
    You read the word "idiot" apparently, (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:32:12 AM EST
    but it doesn't appear in that post.  The question was posed how he could be taken seriously; and based on what he has written, I think that is a very fair question.  It doesn't help his case that he might have been like five years old when the last big healthcare debate actually took place either.  Sorry, but it seems like he "knows" his hstory, but it really doesn't appear that he understands it.

    Parent
    Experience matters (4.66 / 3) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:26:59 AM EST
    It is insulting to older people for the young to say that experience that comes with age doesn't matter.  In fact, it is ageist to say so.

    Parent
    Um who said that here? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Faust on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:28:29 AM EST
    Or is this just a helpful reminder?

    Parent
    If that's how you want to justify (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:28:53 AM EST
    your own ageism, fine. But don't pretend it's anything else.

    Parent
    LOL (3.83 / 6) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:40:21 AM EST
    So you think you know more about practicing law than BTD (an experienced lawyer) does?

    Probably not.

    But you think you know more about life and even politics than an experienced liver, twice your age.

    I'd say probably not, as well.

    You're the one engaging in a logical fallacy, not me.  You're the one making excuses, minimizing other people's experience, to make your fallacious point.  You're the ageist here, not me.

    Parent

    You are totally full of it (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:46:15 AM EST
    Age does not imply experience and knowledge. "He's old, therefore he must be experienced" makes no more sense than "he's young, therefore he knows nothing" or "she's a woman, therefore she can't play baseball."

    If Ezra is wrong, and he frequently is, there is no reason to attribute that fact to his age. Should I attribute David Broder's stupidity to his advanced age?

    Parent

    No, no (none / 0) (#76)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:37:40 PM EST
    don't you get it- Broder's not just old, he's also extraordinarily experienced thus his centrist village viewpoints must be more informed than yours or mine.

    Parent
    I'm with you, andgarden (none / 0) (#86)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:27:16 PM EST
    I've known plenty of sensible, intelligent, analytical, and articulate people who are younger than Ezra. If his photo wasn't included with the article, would anyone actually know how old he is?

    Parent
    As I said, experience is not dispositve (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:47:57 AM EST
    One of the most astute legal commenters I have had in my threads was a law student (his handle escapes me at this time.)

    Parent
    Oh you're totally right (none / 0) (#75)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:36:03 PM EST
    we should all just bow down and let the generation that's basically caused the problems that face America today keep it up-- I'm sorry but its one to respect experience and another to assume that just because someones older that they know better.

    Parent
    It sure does... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kdog on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:33:20 AM EST
    matter, some of our older leaders have lots of experience in f*cking the country over.  They've got it down to a science...and it shows.

    Parent
    Sure it matters (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:35:25 AM EST
    But it is not dispositive.

    I think noting his youth is fair. I thought the spoiled brat stuff over the top.

    But I can not cast stones - my theory is his ambition leads him to a lot of places he ends up. But that is sheer speculation.

    Parent

    How many (none / 0) (#26)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:42:07 AM EST
    25-ish year olds do you know working for the Washington Post?

    Ezra likely has family connections, got where he is without the struggles most of us endure, much sooner than most, and obviously without knowing what the he*l he's talking about -- definitely not "wise beyond his years".

    I'd say spoiled brat is probably right on the mark.

    Parent

    I'm pretty sure all of that is false (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:46:45 AM EST
    I have read Ezra since he formed Pandagon with Jesse Taylor.

    I have been critical of him as you well know. But I am almost certain he is not a beenficiary of nepotism.


    Parent

    Interestingly, Wiki says E. Klein (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:01:09 PM EST
    graduated in 2005 from UCI with a bachelor's degree in poli sci.  Immediately co-founded a blog.  Pretty nice gig.  Wonder who pd. the rent.

    P.S.  Didn't know "jounOlist" wasn't a BTD creation.  And that Krugman is a member.

    Parent

    Nice job (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:49:01 AM EST
    making assumptions about his life!

    As far as I am aware, Ezra is not part of one of Greenwald's political/media dynasties.  He has blogged for a long time and JournoList shows you his skills as an @sskisser.  That stuff is actually relevant.  Why not use that to take him to task instead of complaining about his "whippersnapper"ishness.

    Parent

    What does this mean? (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:58:51 AM EST
    not one of Greenwald's political/media dynasties.


    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:04:28 PM EST
    It's about this

    There was a BTD post on the subject as well.

    Parent

    oculus - CST is right. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:20:44 PM EST
    or a more humorous take from Attaturk.

    Parent
    Link is today's salon.com. (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    really? (none / 0) (#71)
    by CST on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:23:49 PM EST
    not when I click on it...

    Here is the date/headline if you wanna google it.

    Sunday Aug. 30, 2009 18:31 EDT
    It's time to embrace American royalty


    Parent

    Got it. I thought it may have meant (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:45:02 PM EST
    Greenwald was the head of a dynasty!

    Parent
    Hmm lets see (none / 0) (#79)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:42:17 PM EST
    He went to a state school, started blogging way back, basically ran Pandagon with Jesse for 3 years, got a break, blogged at Tapped, then got another break when the Wapo decided it needed to start blogging-

    Just a guess but Ezra probably would have attended an Ivy or at least USC if he was one of the "chosen" instead of going to UCLA. Look, its amazing he's at the Wapo so young, but he's also been writing on the net for a long time- basically since he started school- heck, Panda's coverage of the 2004 debates is one of my fondest memories of that Election season.  

    Parent

    Pre Wiki, E. Klein worked for (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:55:52 AM EST
    Howard Dean campaign.  Klein has strayed though.

    Parent
    That seems wrong to me (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:59:05 AM EST
    I am pretty sure Ezra was NOT even a Dean supporter, much less worked for him.

    Ezra supported the Iraq Debacle.

    Parent

    No citation in Wiki. Surprised? (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:03:50 PM EST
    No (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:08:12 PM EST
    But MaryB says he was a big Dean supporter. And I trust MaryB, but my recollection was quite different.

    For one, as a Clark cultist at the time, I imagine I would have been blasting him back then.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#58)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:04:18 PM EST
    He was a big Dean supporter.  

    Parent
    That's not my recollection at all (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:07:09 PM EST
    Indeed, it makes no sense, considering his strong support for the Iraq Debacle.

    Parent
    Sense or not, he was. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:08:40 PM EST
    I remember that's how I knew who he was - from all the Dean blogging.  

    But here, in his own words.  

    ain't google great?

    Parent

    Just found the same article (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:10:32 PM EST
    I find that to be hilarious given what he is about now.

    Parent
    Consider this (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:12:21 PM EST
    "There, the candidate demanded to know why most of his party (and most of the presidential field) had supported the "president's unilateral attack on Iraq," and acquiesced on much of his policy agenda, from tax cuts to health care. Lifting a line from the late senator Paul Wellstone, he told a throng of committee members, "I'm Howard Dean and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."

    And think about Ezra today. What an evolution. oculus is right.

    Parent

    Well .. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:16:30 PM EST
    think about Ezra today ..

    I'm really not all that interested in Ezra.  

    Unlike you.

    Parent

    As I have explained (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:18:09 PM EST
    My only interest in Ezra is due to the influence he has as an opinion maker and his image as a progressive.

    you seem to think that is irrelevant. I do not.

    Parent

    No, I don't think it is irrelevant (none / 0) (#72)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:24:27 PM EST
    I just don't think it is relevant enough to make me as interested as you are.  Not even close to as interested as you are.  

    But I've never told you what to blog about and I'm not telling you now.  

    I'll continue to patiently wait for your blogging interests to shift.  

    Parent

    But it's too early.

    For example, while Obama announced he will continue to detain people without charge, he also accepted they can apply for habeas.

    The big issue will be the next brief from the government.

    Parent

    Previews of coming attractions? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Maryb2004 on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:40:08 PM EST
    Not fair.  Now I'll be impatiently waiting.  :)

    Parent
    I'd say he's still pretty left on FP issues (none / 0) (#80)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:44:23 PM EST
    the problem is that guys like Ezra and Krugman- people who've run the numbers on healthcare reform really seem to think that incremental change is the only possible positive outcome.

    Parent
    That's fine (none / 0) (#74)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:33:55 PM EST
    its also fine I would assume for him to say to you that he's researched the issue far, far more throughly than you and has a more informed opinion what with specializing on Healthcare for basically the last 5 years and writing his way up through the ranks, while attending a state school.

    Parent
    You don't have to be a healthcare expert (none / 0) (#82)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:50:01 PM EST
    to understand this:

    Ezra Klein billed Sen Ron Wyden's exchange concept as "the idea that could save health care reform." Unfortunately for Ezra, who buries the lede, the CBO says it does virtually nothing:

    or see that EK is all over the map at the Washington Post.  

    Parent

    You know alot of media spokesmodels (none / 0) (#8)
    by Faust on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:21:11 AM EST
    are under 30 right?

    Parent
    I want a public option (none / 0) (#2)
    by Exeter on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:11:27 AM EST
    that is actually an option for everyone. As it stands, a public option for 10% and no-choice employer-chosen private health insurance for everyone else versus exchanges for everyone, of course I (and most Americans) are going to choose exchanges!  

    The solution, it seems to me, is to have an exchange and have a public option within that exchange.


    Emloyers will be eligible for the exchange (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:13:39 AM EST
    So that should make you happy.

    Parent
    Individual Mandate (none / 0) (#42)
    by waldenpond on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:57:32 AM EST
    No control on cost... no control of employers forced out of the market.  Individual mandate seems to provide some cover for them.

    Parent
    Employers, yes, Employees, no (none / 0) (#52)
    by Exeter on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:51:39 AM EST
    And that makes a huge difference.  

    Parent
    Exchanges are not what they are cracked up to be.. (none / 0) (#83)
    by masslib on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:24:59 PM EST
    If employers throw people into the Exchange chances are they will pay more for less.  In MA less than 5% of the uninsured bought insurance through the Exchange without a subsidy.  Over half of the newly insured were insured threw the Medicaid expansion, 170k were insured threw the Exchange WITH the subsidy.  It really isn't about the crappy Exchange, which doesn't offer affordable insurance unless you have a subsidy.  It's about the subsidy.  The big employers paying for insurance gets better pricing than the Exchange because of their market size.  Others who are dumped into the Exchange better hope they qualify for the subsidy and that the subsidy keeps up with premium rates.

    Parent
    Yikes, "through" not "threw". (none / 0) (#84)
    by masslib on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:25:38 PM EST
    "Most Americans" (none / 0) (#4)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:16:12 AM EST
    There would not be substantial effects on the total number of people with insurance coverage or the sources of that coverage...
     (link)

    I'm glad we've completely lost sight of the frakking goal here.

    Parent

    Exactly my point (none / 0) (#50)
    by Exeter on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:38:09 AM EST
    You know, all this Bull$-i7 from MS media (none / 0) (#6)
    by Faust on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:20:26 AM EST
    Would be suffocating, but I've been burried under it so long that I seem to have evolved gills to help me breathe while burried under it.

    Private insurers complained..... (none / 0) (#11)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:26:32 AM EST
    not really.  I notice there are no links to any quotes about insurers complaining.  I guess that's to be expected in an opinion piece.  In reality the truth is quite different.  If anything private insurers didn't want to foot the bill (i.e. pass on increased costs to premium paying subscribers/groups) for work that led to significant cost-savings per beneficiary.  I'll say it till I'm blue in the face, it's about the costs for the services rendered.  That is what reform should be about.

    A link to AHIP (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:33:47 AM EST
    Very helpful . . .

    Parent
    Well, I wanted to address the insurers complaining (none / 0) (#25)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:41:36 AM EST
    comment.

    But if you'd rather I address the cost savings.....

    "Medicare Advantage plans are providing enhanced drug coverage at a low cost, as well as other enhanced benefits, contributing to average savings of about $100 a month for seniors," said CMS Administrator Mark B. McClellan, M.D., Ph.D.  "With better benefits more widely available than ever before, a million more people with Medicare have already chosen to get their coverage through Medicare Advantage."

    CMS for those unaware is the gov't agency responsible for Medicare and Medicaid Services throughout the country.

    Parent

    A better way to provide Seniors (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:55:31 AM EST
    enhanced drug coverage at a low cost is to negotiate drug prices like every other country. Negotiated prices would save money for Senior and non-seniors alike and reduce government spending.

    Stupid to keep trying to reinvent the wheel to go around the real reason why Americans pay more for prescription drugs.

    Parent

    Aha! (none / 0) (#46)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:10:49 AM EST
    Costs!

    Parent
    A better way to save them $100 a month (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:45:30 AM EST
    is to send them a check.

    Without sending a $20 check to the private insurance companies.

    Parent

    Never give an inch, do ya? (none / 0) (#38)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:53:20 AM EST
    Heh :-)

    Parent
    Excuse me (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:56:02 AM EST
    Explain what you disagree with in my comment?

    Parent
    I was being snarky. I thought your comment seemed (none / 0) (#45)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:10:22 AM EST
    lawerly.  It sounded like something that would go in a closing argument.  Do not take offense, none was intended.

    However, since you asked, that $100 wouldn't be there to return w/o the case and care management services that private insurer provided.  They should do this for free?  How are they going to pay the salaries of folks saving all that money?

    Parent

    Medicare does not provide (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:17:18 AM EST
    "case and care management services?"

    Parent
    Are you asking or is this an allusion to the (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:26:37 AM EST
    Doctor or Healthcare provider doing these things?  If you are asking the answer is no.  There is no review of services provided today other than ensuring there's no fraud or if, in cases where the doc was denied, review of denied services to see whether reimbursement (or addt'l reimbursement) is warranted.  Fee-for-service means just that, you get paid for what you bill (at substantially reduced rates of course).  If your expectation is the doctor would do this, well that's another matter.....

    Parent
    Except what? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:51:28 AM EST
    Come now.

    Parent
    I'm sorry, I don't follow your comment. (none / 0) (#61)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:08:10 PM EST
    Please elaborate?

    Parent
    It's called denial. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Samuel on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 05:09:50 PM EST
    If you're wondering about the lack of clarity in his response, he appears to have an emotional wall against criticism of his non-researched conclusions of the world.

    Thanks for mentioning that $100 savings doesn't materialize, that people have to be paid to manufacture that efficiency.  

    Parent

    Ok, but the federal government (none / 0) (#39)
    by masslib on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:53:55 AM EST
    pays 14% more per Medicare Advantage recipient than they do if the person is in traditional Medicare.  Hardly just $100 a month.

    Parent
    That's true, but you know the reimbursement rate (none / 0) (#44)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:05:45 AM EST
    under Medicare fee for service is substantially lower than that of private plans.  That 14% needs to be viewed in that context.  Medicare pays well below what a doctor actually charges.

    Parent
    Foolish (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:23:19 PM EST
    Medicare Advantage was created because Republicans claimed that private insurers could offer the same services to seniors at a lower cost if they were allowed access to the market.  The reality is they have to be massively subsidized.  They are unable to provide the same service at the same cost, let alone a lower cost.

    Parent
    Um, not foolish. (none / 0) (#85)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 01:43:49 PM EST
    Fact
    Medicare payment rates continue to be about 80 percent of private insurance payment rates as they have for the past decade

    Whether changes need to made to MA plans is another matter.  There is no doubt as to the reimbursement amount differences between private non-MA plans vs. traditional FFS Medicare.

    Parent

    Except (none / 0) (#87)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 02:35:42 PM EST
    The point of the creation of Medicare Advantage programs is that they were supposed to unleash market forces to provide the same services for less.  They could not do that - the fact that they are unable to negotiate cheaper rates shows that the entire premise was flawed.

    So rather than doing the same for less, they justify their existence by offering more for more.  

    Private insurers couldn't do it more cheaply, which is what was promised.  They failed.  It is foolish to continue to defend a policy that failed.

    Parent

    Apparently, the CBO does not share your opinion. (none / 0) (#88)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 03:46:10 PM EST
    Where's the opinion? (none / 0) (#89)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 04:57:36 PM EST
    The GOP promised that if private insurers were allowed into the Medicare market, they could provide the same services for less.  They have not done so.  That is a failure of policy.

    What CBO "opinion" are you referring to?

    Parent

    Link it! (none / 0) (#90)
    by Samuel on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 05:07:16 PM EST
    Thanks.

    Parent
    Read thru the executive summary or (none / 0) (#93)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 09:06:10 PM EST
    the section titled Medicare Advantage in the CBO report I link to in this comment.  There are pros and cons to Medicare Advantage.  One pro being cost savings associated w/management of care, one con being overpayment for services, i.e. higher reimbursement rates than traditional fee-for-service.  Those higher reimbursement rates are what create that 14% overage so commonly referred to.  Costs for services rendered.  CBO recommends MA start paying providers less to make it more efficient.

    Parent
    Wiki points out Medicare Advantage (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 06:16:26 PM EST
    was purportedly created so people in rural areas would have better health care coverage than Medicare.  But the majority of MedicareAdvantage patients are in urban areas.

    Parent
    To support your argument (none / 0) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:16:11 AM EST
    do you have a comparison of the reimbursement rate of Medicare Advantage to that of regular Medicare?

    Seems to me, we could eliminate Medicare Advantage and increase the reimbursement rate of regular Medicare somewhat and still save money.

    Parent

    BTW, if I were in charge, (none / 0) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 12:41:02 PM EST
    I would expand Medicare to allow me to directly purchase additional coverage from them. IOW,  for an additional premium, I could purchase a Medicare Silver or Gold plan.

    I see no reason to have any insurance company involvement at all.

    Parent

    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:38:03 AM EST
    There is not one silver bullet in making health care affordable.

    Health care is more expensive because of the profit margin in the insurance industry, in the costs for the services rendered and things like people not getting health care on a regular basis and using the ER because that is the only option available to them.

    Parent

    And, more bad news from MA today... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by masslib on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 11:00:41 AM EST
    People are still using the ER at high rates.  The reason...they don't have access to primary care physicians.  National Romney Care is going to bite.

    Parent
    Totally agree with you here (none / 0) (#28)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:43:06 AM EST
    There is not one silver bullet in making health care affordable.


    Parent
    Samuel (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 24, 2009 at 10:41:18 AM EST
    You are permanently banned from my threads.

    You can comment in Jeralyn's threads and Open Threads.

    I'll put one up now so you can comment.

    Do not comment in my threads. Your comments will be deleted.

    Is Ezra that influential? (none / 0) (#94)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 01:26:41 PM EST
    Not arguing, just wondering. I can assure you that 99% of the people I regularly talk to--all educated people, mostly Democrats, most with an interest in politics--have no earthly idea who he is. I don't think that outside the insider-baseball environs of the Beltway (an area I have way too much familiarity with) nobody has a clue who he is.

    Yeah he's in the WaPo but again, outside of that element I dont' think the WaPo is all that influential, again, outside the circle of people like us on this blog, who are obsessively interested/engaged in politics. Everybody knows George Will and Charles Krauthammer 'cuz they're on the teebee, but even old salts like Broder aren't household names outside that circle.

    My apologies (none / 0) (#95)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 01:27:34 PM EST
    for the atrocious grammar and double negatives in that last post. I shudder.