FactCheck: Veep debate violations - page 2

by NRSKarenRN 1,942 Views | 32 Comments Admin

FactCheck: Veep debate violations... Read More


  1. 1
    Medicare spending less than private insurers. See Table 14. -- Medicare spending rose by an average of 4.6 percent each year between 1997 and 2009, while private insurance premiums grew at a rate of 6.7 per year.

    The CBO predicted that the private insurance equivalent of Medicare would cost almost 40 percent more in 2022 for a typical 65-year old. -- the rising cost of private insurance will continue to outstrip Medicare for the next 30 years.

    Medicare delivers health care more efficiently than private insurers. Medicare’s public accountability and bargaining power give it the ability to drive system change and control skyrocketing health care costs, while profit-driven private insurers have offered no solution. -- http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/0...ate-insurance/

    Medicare Beneficiaries Less Likely To Experience Cost- And Access-Related Problems Than Adults With Private Coverage -- http://content.healthaffairs.org/con....1357.abstract
    tewdles likes this.
  2. 2
    And yet those programs are still going broke. Why? Could it be that the issue of overhead is a relatively small one? And that out-of-control costs apply to both privately and publically funded health care? Perhaps capitalism isn't really the main problem. Or even the problem at all.

    Private insurers are now required to refund a portion of premiums if they fail to meet certain benchmarks. Why is the same not required of government plans? Why are we not refunded tax dollars to compensate for fraud and waste when Medicare and Medicaid fail to be proper stewards of taxpayer funds?
    Spidey's mom and tntrn like this.
  3. 1
    Quote from Jolie
    I'm sorry, Karen, but your "fact check" is wrong. Ryan's statement on the increased cost of yearly family premiums since the passage of Obamacare is right on target, and your own statement acknowledges that millions of seniors stand to lose Medicare Advantage coverage. If Ryan had claimed that those seniors would lose Medicare coverage altogether, then you might have a point, but that is not what you have indicated.

    When he ran for president in 2008, Obama promised he would lower health insurance premiums for families by $2,500 in his first term. But earlier this month, the Kaiser Family Foundation released its annual Employer Health Benefits Survey showing that average family health insurance premiums have gone up by more than $2,500 ($2,730 to be exact), not down. Then, this week, the Health Care Cost Institute released its annual Health Care Cost and Utilization Report showing that, after briefly slowing down due to the recession in 2009 and 2010, overall health care spending rose 4.6 percent last year, far outpacing both inflation and wages.

    Obamacare isn't reducing health care costs | WashingtonExaminer.com


    During his first run for president, Barack Obama made one very specific promise to voters: He would cut health insurance premiums for families by $2,500, and do so in his first term.
    But it turns out that family premiums have increased by more than $3,000 since Obama's vow, according to the latest annual Kaiser Family Foundation employee health benefits survey.
    Premiums for employer-provided family coverage rose $3,065 — 24% — from 2008 to 2012, the Kaiser survey found. Even if you start counting in 2009, premiums have climbed $2,370.


    Read More At IBD: Health Premiums Up $3,000 Under Obama; He Had Vowed $2,500 Cut - Investors.com
    The major cost savings measures don't take effect until January of 2014, so it's not surprising that we didn't really see a change in the rate premiums were increasing in 2009 to 2011, a law doesn't do much when it hasn't gone in to effect yet.

    2013 premiums were projected to rise between 5 to as much as 30% prior to the passage of Obamacare, the Kaiser foundation found that currently we're only expecting a 3-9% increase, much better than it could have been.

    I do agree with you though, I don't think the savings will be as big as we once thought, and may largely be a wash.
    herring_RN likes this.
  4. 1
    Quote from Jolie
    And yet those programs are still going broke. Why? Could it be that the issue of overhead is a relatively small one? And that out-of-control costs apply to both privately and publically funded health care? Perhaps capitalism isn't really the main problem. Or even the problem at all.

    Private insurers are now required to refund a portion of premiums if they fail to meet certain benchmarks. Why is the same not required of government plans? Why are we not refunded tax dollars to compensate for fraud and waste when Medicare and Medicaid fail to be proper stewards of taxpayer funds?
    Overhead is by no means a small issue, unless you consider Billions a year to be small. Private insurer overhead runs 14-30%, Medicare overhead runs 2-3%. The overhead benchmark private insurers are expected to reach is to keep their overhead less than 20%, so essentially yes, Medicare is expected to meet this same benchmark (and does so with a large margin).

    The government is required to rid Medicare of fraud and waste. Much of Obamacare is actually aimed at reducing waste, everything from limiting re-admissions to not paying for inadequate care, which then saves or "refunds" the payers of the system. Fraud is not being ignored either; http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/bu...t-91.html?_r=0

    Medicare is going broke because they are responsible for the medical care of a poorly maintained society. By definition, Medicare is responsible for every elderly, disabled, chronically acutely ill citizen, private insurers on the other hand get to hand these patient's over to medicare when they start to actually cost large amounts of money. Even so, Medicare coverage per person is only slightly more than that of private insurers, even though medicare is dealing with exponentially more expensive patients to cover.
    aknottedyarn likes this.
  5. 1
    Quote from Jolie
    And yet those programs are still going broke. Why? Could it be that the issue of overhead is a relatively small one? And that out-of-control costs apply to both privately and publically funded health care? Perhaps capitalism isn't really the main problem. Or even the problem at all.

    Private insurers are now required to refund a portion of premiums if they fail to meet certain benchmarks. Why is the same not required of government plans? Why are we not refunded tax dollars to compensate for fraud and waste when Medicare and Medicaid fail to be proper stewards of taxpayer funds?
    Lots of issues here.

    Can you clarify "out of control costs"....are you meaning administrative costs or the actual costs of healthcare? I'm not thinking these programs are going broke because of administrative costs only. It's health care costs for a growing number of both people entering the programs for the elderly and the poor, and uninsured on top of higher costs that I feel is the main problem.

    As far as fraud goes, I heard a special on PBS recently about the teams investigating fraud (which are largely done by private citizens or for profit organization like HCA) are how they underfunded to do the job properly and unlikely to get their budget increased to address the problem but they do have some impressive technology out there recovering funds. If your employees or customers steal from you, is that a reflection that you aren't a good steward of your own money?
    Jolie likes this.
  6. 0
    I'm more interested in what's going on in my state of Massachusetts. One ballot question would legalize medical marijuana and another would legalize assisted suicide. I'm voting yes to both.
  7. 0
    Quote from Tweety
    Lots of issues here.

    Can you clarify "out of control costs"....are you meaning administrative costs or the actual costs of healthcare? I'm not thinking these programs are going broke because of administrative costs only. It's health care costs for a growing number of both people entering the programs for the elderly and the poor, and uninsured on top of higher costs that I feel is the main problem.

    Federal law now requires insurers to refund a portion of premiums if they spend "too much" on admnistrative costs. While all costs add up, it is my belief that administrative overhead represents a small portion of the excessive increase in the cost of healthcare and subsequently health insurance. I believe this is a "feel good" measure that will do little to moderate, and certainly won't lower the cost of healthcare or insurance. Yet politicians tout this as a major victory for the consumer. I question why federal plans are not subject to the same scrutiny. Medicare and Medicaid tout extremely low overhead as compared to private plans. If we accept that as fact (which I don't, but will here for the sake of argument), then why are they going broke? the answer, in part, is fraud, which is far more ampant in the public sector than the private. My contention is that if private plans must refund for excessive overhead, then public plans should have to do the same for excessive fraud.

    As far as fraud goes, I heard a special on PBS recently about the teams investigating fraud (which are largely done by private citizens or for profit organization like HCA) are how they underfunded to do the job properly and unlikely to get their budget increased to address the problem but they do have some impressive technology out there recovering funds. If your employees or customers steal from you, is that a reflection that you aren't a good steward of your own money?
    To a large extent, yes. All businesses are subject to loss. Some unintentional (such as mis-communications, honest mistakes), some which can be prevented (poor quality work, theft.)

    When we first opened, we were approached by a number of people wanting to sell us loss prevention plans for many aspects of our business. Some focused on employees, some focused on inventory, some on customers, some on security of the building. We chose to take an internal approach and educate ourselves, our managers and our staff on normal operations and what to watch for that might indicate theft or fraud. We have had some losses, including an employee who was stealing from customers, as well as a few that were stealing from us. We've also had some customers attempt to defraud us. We've learned what to watch for, and how to prevent loss, but will probably never be 100% secure, as few businesses are. We have also been very public about the known cases, to make people aware that we will not be an easy mark.

    I think the primary difference between private business and government is personal investment and motivation. Since I don't get paid unless we make a profit, you can bet that I'm a hawk. While most high level managers receive both a salary and bonus, the motivation for manager who does not own the business to detect and stop loss is still great, but not as high as an owner. And sadly, since many government employees are not held accountable for loss, there may be very little motivation for them to detect, report or act on fraud. This is a major drawback of publically funded healthcare and is evident when we read stories about the same provider billing hundreds and thousands of times for the very same services in an unrealistic time frame from some little storefront.
  8. 0
    Quote from MunoRN
    The major cost savings measures don't take effect until January of 2014, so it's not surprising that we didn't really see a change in the rate premiums were increasing in 2009 to 2011, a law doesn't do much when it hasn't gone in to effect yet.
    Then why did Obama make such a lofty claim?
  9. 0
    Quote from Jolie
    Then why did Obama make such a lofty claim?
    That was the prediction at the time from auditors, although many of the variables involved have changed since then.
  10. 0
    Quote from Jolie
    Then why did Obama make such a lofty claim?
    Because he's a politician and that's what they do. They mean well and they are actually grandiose enough to think they might pull it off. They say what people want to hear...we want to believe they can solve our major problems. They make these claims and hope for the best, but really know it's all B.S. I remember posting here during his campaign for years ago when he was talking about education, that he was blowing smoke up our butts. I could tit for tat about some of Romney's claims too.
    Last edit by Tweety on Oct 14, '12


Top