Semi-Daily Journal

What ever does this article mean? I can not make sense of these points.

The New York Times has a well written article on this particular issue. It would seem CBO and the White House have quite different views as to who would accept each option.

The New York Times has a well written article on this particular issue. It would seem CBO and the White House have quite different views as to who would accept each option.

How did the CBO and CMS arrive at their projected percentages of joiners? Does the CMS projection include folks already in M+C or is the 30-40% supposed to be in addition to M+C enrollees?

Whether people join a private plan for Medicare will depend on alot of things - whether the private plans offer the same basic coverage as Medicare, the extent to which the private plans cover drugs, the extent to which their physicians are in the private plan networks available to them, whether they understand what they might get by switching out of fee for service Medicare (and that's asking alot for many beneficiaries), what the deductibles and copays are in the private plans. The only experience CBO or CMS has to base projections on is M+C enrollment, and that basis is only useful to the degree that the new Medicare option is like M+C.

No subscription, can't read the article.

OTOH, anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that private plan acceptance could be higher than some believe.

My mother is on Medicare now, and has a terrible time getting care. Too many doctors won't treat Medicare patients.

The current plan is B-R-O-K-E-N. Any plan that may make care more attainable -- not just theoretically, but actually -- is worth a listen.

The silver lining, I suppose, is that the upside potential has got to be better than the downside.

No subscription, can't read the article.

OTOH, anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that private plan acceptance could be higher than some believe.

My mother is on Medicare now, and has a terrible time getting care. Too many doctors won't treat Medicare patients.

The current plan is B-R-O-K-E-N. Any plan that may make care more attainable -- not just theoretically, but actually -- is worth a listen.

The silver lining, I suppose, is that the upside potential has got to be better than the downside.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/11/politics/11DRUG.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/11/politics/11MEDI.html

These Radical-Republicans are doing all they can to ruin Medicare and I will surely be extremely suspicious of legislative changes in the program though I think changes necessary. Medicare and Social Security were wonderfuuly strong before the tax cutting for the rich of this Administration.

"These Radical-Republicans are doing all they can to ruin Medicare"

If I've learned anything from this forum, it's that Medicare is one gov't program that needs to be reformed or it will distort the entire country's economy. Keep sticking your head in the sand and pretending it's a good program.

Medicare is a terrific program, and before the tax cuts for the richie rich the program as Social Security was in fine general shape needing smallish structural changes and consideration of a drug allowance. Coming from a family of physicians, I can tell you the program has been harmed by administrative rulings by this Administration and will be undone if this Administration can undo it. Pay attention to what these Radical-Republicans say and do. Of course, if you are rich, young, and right right why care.

Paul Krugman -

"There is a direct link between the administration's affluent-friendly tax cuts and the growing crisis of Medicare underfunding; it really is a case of their wealth versus your health."

Originally published in The New York Times, 4.19.02

Medicare is an unsustainable program and would be even if Bush had increased tax rates.

"Medicare is an unsustainable program and would be even if Bush had increased tax rates."

Rubbish.

Medicare is a terrific program, and before the tax cuts for the richie rich the program as Social Security was in fine general shape needing

Ummmm...

I suppose that depends on how you define it, but difficulty in getting care pre-dates this administration, which makes me believe that it pre-dates any tax cuts by this administration.

I suspect that Medicare is a great idea that needs serious overhaul. For all the talk about it being hurt by tax cuts, I don't see anyone talking about where all the money goes. Folks I respect say that the ratio of administration to care dollars is obscene.

Dean Pannell wonders where the Medicare dollars go and what is spent on administration. Here's some info from the Medicare Chartbook.

What Medicare Buys: In FY 01, $236b of health care. Inpatient hospital almost 40%, managed care 18%, docs 17%, hospital and other facility outpatient care 8%, DME/supplies/labs/other service 7%, skilled nursing 5%, home health 4%, hospice 1%.
Administrative expenses: CMS does other stuff besides Medicare, but they break their program budget out and show that $1,675.1b was spent on Medicare admin. I believe that turns out to be less than 1% of overall program costs. The chartbook nots that in the past 20 years, admin costs as a percentage of total program spending declined.

oops, that's 1,675.1 MILLION, not billion. see what happens when you type with a baby in your lap...

Hmm.
So not much money attributed to administration.

Still, with about 40 million Medicare recipients, we are paying about $500 per month per recipient for a plan that doesn't cover everything, that many providers won't accept, and that the recipients have to kick in more money of their own.

Something doesn't sound right there.

What doesn't sound right?? You're talking about an elderly population, many with disabilities and chronic disease. Over a third need assistance with at least one activity of daily living. Have you priced insurance for sick/disabled lately? Do you know what insurance companies cover for those people (if they insure them at all)?

In 1999, 6% of Medicare beneficiaries accounted for almost half of all program expenditures. Apply that to current figures (and bear with any mistakes I make as I have a 3 yr old hanging on me): 5% of 40 million beneficiaries is 2 million, if they account for half that's 118b spread among 38 million, you end up with about $260 monthly per capita for the 95%. That is EXTREMELY competitive with the private market, especially considering that alot of that 95% is sick/disabled to some degree.

Thanks Hope!

Here is an important article on what Medicare can really mean:

May 20, 2003
VITAL SIGNS: DISPARITIES; Medicare Credited for Closing Gap
By John O'Neil (NYT)

Black women die of breast cancer at higher rates than white women with comparable tumors, but the gap disappears among women old enough to qualify for Medicare, according to a study released yesterday.

The study's authors suggested that the findings indicated that access to treatment rather than differences in biology probably played a bigger role in the higher death rate for black women than previous research had found.

The study also found that later-stage breast cancer was more likely to be diagnosed in black women of all ages, leading the researchers to call for greater efforts to increase screening and follow-up.

For the study, which will be published in the June issue of the journal Cancer, the researchers analyzed data collected on more than 110,000 breast cancer cases in 11 states and cities over seven years.