Is Joe Biden okay?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Nothing in that article supports the assertion that the so-called "cuts" would "hurt ...... the program's solvency".

I believe sh76 already conceded that point. Seniors increasingly can't get appointments but yay the program is solvent.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
I believe sh76 already conceded that point. Seniors increasingly can't get appointments but yay the program is solvent.

Gee throw some more money at the program isn't usually a right wing solution. But since it would be going to high income professionals and big corporations I guess it's OK here.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Gee throw some more money at the program isn't usually a right wing solution. But since it would be going to high income professionals and big corporations I guess it's OK here.

You put the words right into my mouth. You win!

Actually the "right wing solution" to this is nicely summarized in that article:

The Romney and Wyden-Ryan plans for Medicare reform do far more to get at the problem of waste, by using the tried-and-true methods of choice and competition. The plans use competitive bidding to challenge insurers, and traditional Medicare, to pay doctors whatever they want to pay, while providing a Medicare benefit package at the best possible price.

A similar method is already used in the Medicare prescription-drug program, or Part D, which has, remarkably, come in more than 30 percent under Congressional Budget Office projections for its fiscal cost. This year, the program actually reduced premiums, relative to 2011: something that almost never happens in government health-care programs.

Instead of a politically-motivated, one-size-fits-all, across-the-board fee cut, the Romney approach allows competing insurers to negotiate with hospitals and doctors to gain the optimal combination of access and price. Under a competitive bidding system, insurers are likely to pay primary care physicians more, while bearing more scrutiny upon the wasteful, costly procedures that drive Medicare spending higher.

The key to putting Medicare on a fiscally sustainable path isn’t to take a sledgehammer to the program, as Obamacare does, and ration care from above, but to make structural improvements that give seniors and their doctors the bottom-up incentive to avoid wasteful spending.

And hospitals in particular can avoid reduction in payments if they meet efficiency based goals regarding patient outcomes. Thus, hospitals which do a crappy job will (rightfully) get paid less. If they drop from the program, so what? More likely they'll try to do a better job to insure their cash cow.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
You put the words right into my mouth. You win!

Actually the "right wing solution" to this is nicely summarized in that article:

The Romney and Wyden-Ryan plans for Medicare reform do far more to get at the problem of waste, by using the tried-and-true methods of choice and competition. The plans use competitive bidding to challenge insurers, a ...[text shortened]... hat give seniors and their doctors the bottom-up incentive to avoid wasteful spending.

As has been pointed out many times, the health insurance market is impervious to the laissez faire ideas of Adam Smith. Health care demand is essentially inelastic; people will pay almost anything to reduce their chance of dying in the short and medium term.

The only thing the Romney plan will result in is seniors not being able to pay for necessary care because their vouchers are too meager. Insurers will be happy to dump the sickest patients back into the regular Medicare option available under the Ryan (Wyden has bailed) plan thus leading to increased costs to the program itself. And all this is after Romney tosses $716 billion in excess payments back to providers with no plan to pay for them.

Of course, real right wingers think the program is "socialism" and should be abolished (Ronald Reagan screamed this in the early 1960s). IF the Romney-Ryan blueprint is followed, the program will explode in costs while providing worse benefits (a remarkable achievement).

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
You put the words right into my mouth. You win!

Actually the "right wing solution" to this is nicely summarized in that article:

The Romney and Wyden-Ryan plans for Medicare reform do far more to get at the problem of waste, by using the tried-and-true methods of choice and competition. The plans use competitive bidding to challenge insurers, a ...[text shortened]... hat give seniors and their doctors the bottom-up incentive to avoid wasteful spending.

Since you guys are in a cut and pasting mood:

The vast bulk of health-care costs arise from an extremely small share of patients, whose insurance will inevitably bear a substantial share of their expenses.
That’s why competition in health care doesn’t work as well as in other sectors, and it’s also why the key to keeping costs to a minimum is to encourage providers to offer better, less costly care in complex cases.


Unfortunately, proponents of moving Medicare to a private “consumer-driven” system, including Republican vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan, seem to instead believe in a health-care competition tooth fairy -- that if we just increase the patient’s share of costs and bolster competition among insurance companies, the expense will come down. As Karl Rove recently argued, “Competition will lower costs by using market forces to spur innovation and improvement.”
Someone might want to tell that to the Congressional Budget Office, which evaluated Ryan’s original 2011 proposal to gradually move all of Medicare to private insurance companies. (In all these comparisons, we must remember that the goal is to reduce total cost -- to the government and the beneficiary combined -- compared with current projections. Merely shifting costs across the two categories is not a particularly impressive accomplishment.)
What did the budget office conclude? “A private health insurance plan covering the standardized benefit would, CBO estimates, be more expensive currently than traditional Medicare.” The reason was that “both administrative costs (including profits) and payment rates to providers are higher for private plans than for Medicare.” And that effect was larger than any cost savings achieved by people getting less health care.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-20/private-market-tooth-fairy-can-t-cut-medicare-cost.html

Originally posted by no1marauder
Gee throw some more money at the program isn't usually a right wing solution. But since it would be going to high income professionals and big corporations I guess it's OK here.

Romney was insistent on decreasing Medicare benefits for high income people.

I would think that this common sense solution would be very much in accordance with the liberal viewpoint and much more efficient than screwing over the providers who are already dealing with intense bureaucracy in billing Medicare.

Originally posted by sh76
Romney was insistent on decreasing Medicare benefits for high income people.

I would think that this common sense solution would be very much in accordance with the liberal viewpoint and much more efficient than screwing over the providers who are already dealing with intense bureaucracy in billing Medicare.

Like most right wingers, you don't have the slightest clue what the PPACA actually does.

Medical providers are "getting screwed" in the US? Give me an effing break.

Originally posted by sh76
Romney was insistent on decreasing Medicare benefits for high income people.

I would think that this common sense solution would be very much in accordance with the liberal viewpoint and much more efficient than screwing over the providers who are already dealing with intense bureaucracy in billing Medicare.

Where BTW did Romney insist on decreasing Medicare benefits for high income people?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Like most right wingers, you don't have the slightest clue what the PPACA actually does.

Medical providers are "getting screwed" in the US? Give me an effing break.

Like most jerks, you constantly move the goalposts when it suits your pathetic need to insult people rather than just debate.

THIS is what we were discussing:

cutting $716 billion in excess payments to Medicare providers

Let's take this slowly:

cutting....

that means decreasing

$716 billion in excess payments...

that means money

to Medicare providers

That means to Medicare providers.

That is the exact extent of what this conversation is about, not the PPACA in general or whether "Medical providers are "getting screwed" in the US"

Originally posted by sh76
Like most jerks, you constantly move the goalposts when it suits your pathetic need to insult people rather than just debate.

THIS is what we were discussing:

cutting $716 billion in excess payments to Medicare providers

Let's take this slowly:

[b]cutting....

that means decreasing

$716 billion in excess payments...

Your compulsive need to turn everything into an ad hominem at zero provocation is pathetic.[/b]

Here get an education:

http://www.healthlawyers.org/Events/Programs/Materials/Documents/HCR10/barry_luband_lutz.pdf

Section II explains it. It is in the PPACA BTW which is why your failure to understand the legislation is relevant.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Where BTW did Romney insist on decreasing Medicare benefits for high income people?

He said it in the debate.

YouTube

4:35

Originally posted by sh76
He said it in the debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnX3q1AiKSk

4:35

He said a lot of things in the debate he has no intention of doing. He also constantly complained about cuts in Medicare Advantage which would do the exact thing he says he supports!

What specific proposals did he have for cutting the Medicare benefits for high income seniors? Have fun trying to find some.

In fact, despite the "cuts" Medicare spending will almost double in ten years:

Q. Is the federal government cutting its spending on Medicare?

A. No. Medicare spending will increase each year but at a slower rate. For example, before the health law was passed, Medicare was expected to grow by 6.8 percent a year for 2010 through 2019. With the health law, that yearly growth rate is projected to be 5.6 percent during that same time frame, according to an analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of the Foundation).

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2012/august/17/faq-716-billion-medicare-reductions.aspx