I've been hearing more about how Medicare would be so much better...

[TreasonousBastard]

when privatized.

But I haven't heard how. Breathtaking silence when asked.

Medicare has an incredibly low overhead, and, of course no built in profit, so how could privatizing it possibly give us any savings?

Better coverage would be nice, but where would that come from?

[dhol82]

1. Privatizing Medicare - smoke and mirrors

Single payer with no middleman is the only way to truly have affordable health care.

[ReformedGOPer]

2. My husband is on medicare and it is a great program.

When I confronted all my tRump relatives over the holiday and mentioned orangeman taking away medicare, they all swore he wouldn't touch it.

Yea, right.

[Mariana]

10. They probably believe he won't touch their Medicare.

It will only be taken away from people who aren't already on it. That's what my tRump relatives believe. That's all they care about.

[subterranean]

3. Where have you been hearing that?

I haven't heard anyone say that other than maybe Paul Ryan.

[Skittles]

5. pay attention

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trumps-hhs-pick-favors-dismantling-obamacare-privatizing-medicare/

[Hoyt]

4. Ask the 30% of Medicare beneficiaries who choose Medicare Advantage Plans, which are privatized

Medicare plans right now, been in place since 1998 (Democrats).

If the subsidies are adequate and one can get back into traditional Medicare, it might not be a bad way to go. You give up somethings with an Advantage Plan, but gain other things like an actual cap on out-of-pocket costs that traditional Medicare does not have forcing you to buy a supplemental policy or face certain bankruptcy with any serious illness requiring a few weeks in the hospital.

While I am suspect, I'd like to see the actual specifics of GOPers' proposal. The truth is, there is a lot of suck in the current Medicare program, even if we don't want to admit it or really don't know much about it. Another thing, for whatever stupid reason, Medicare cannot negotiate on drug costs. But, Medicare Advantage and the private drug plans can and do negotiate.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/26/503158039/paul-ryans-plan-to-change-medicare-looks-a-lot-like-obamacare

[sinkingfeeling]

8. Medicare has been blocked from negotiating drug prices

by your friendly GOP Congress.

[Hoyt]

12. But not Advantage Plans.

[marybourg]

9. They negotiate by having limited "formularies"

which then require you and/your doc to negotiate or you to pay out of pocket when you need a brand or type of med not on their formulary, which they can change at any time, but you can only change 1x a year.

Phooey on privatized Medicare.

[Hoyt]

13. As someone who paid for my mom's meds before 2005, Part C was worth it, despite its faults.

And, they do negotiate directly with drug companies. Would be better if Medicare in total did, but that is not the law.

If you want a plan the covers every drug, you can probably get one. It will cost you out the rear, but you won't have to gripe because every alternative is not available.

[marybourg]

15. I don't want a plan that covers every drug.

Just the ones I need to take.

[Hoyt]

18. Don't know your situation, but a lot of patients go nuts if they have

to take two pills a day rather than the time released that costs 20 times the 2 a day med. Or, without even trying them, pitch a fit over a generic or a close substitute. I get that some patients say the generic doesn't work as well as the brand name advertised on TV, but some won't even try it.

Again, I'm not saying any of the examples apply to you. I am saying some people don't care about the impact on the plan premiums. I get we'd be better if the government ran the program, but until either Dems or Rcons have the guts to push it, this is what we have and it's a lot better than what we had before 2005, which was nothing.

[pnwmom]

20. I can't take most generics because most either contain gluten

or won't label, so you can't know what it's in there. (The govt. doesn't require medications to list it, or wheat.)

Gluten causes me to bleed, so that's not an option.

(The brand names almost always are gluten-free, but if they aren't the information is easily available.)

[marybourg]

21. Thanx. I'm not having any problems

because I have regular Medicare with a supplement and can get any med I've needed, but I do have a serious food intolerance and have to check each new med for inactive contents. Most manufacturers of generics don't even know what their inert ingredients are most of the time.

I know many others with my intolerance and with these formularies, some have had serious problems changing brands or brand for generic.

I wish everyone had the kind of insurance I have. I hope nothing happens to interfere with my having it for the rest of my life. I wouldn't be able to investigate inactive ingredients and fight with insurance companies when I'm in my late 80's or older, should I live so long.

[pnwmom]

17. The GOP Congress purposely handicapped Medicare

by forbidding it by law from negotiating drug prices.

They purposely gave Advantage an edge.

[Hoyt]

19. Well, there are other edges Advantage plans have too. Not sure that's bad if it's the only

alternative we have to traditional Medicare, a costly supplement, and a drug plan. I do believe people should have a choice, but the latest data I saw indicated 50% of new Medicare beneficiaries choose Advantage over traditional. They must be doing something right.

[marybourg]

22. One thing they're doing is bamboozeling new

65 years olds with their tv ads and mailings, dropping the word "Advantage" and leading people to think they're "Medicare" and calling them is how you get "Medicare". Unless folks have savvy friends, they don't even know there's a "regular" Medicare.

[Hoyt]

33. Well, when I had Kaiser, I knew the difference and liked it. Know plenty of other people who do too.

[Horse with no Name]

24. For surgery purposes

traditional Medicare is the Gold Standard. They will approve necessary surgeries. They will expedite elective surgeries.
The "advantage" plans....minimum two week approval....and then it is almost always conditional.

Plus....our facility (which is the largest in the area I work)....doesn't accept many of the "advantage plans" because they don't pay even after they give approval sticking the patient AND the hospital with the bill.

[pangaia]

27. I have Medicare with i guess what one calls a supplement. Or GAP

Plan.the first 6-7 years the gap premium was really low..0- $30/mo. W part D. When i had lymphoma it saved my asd...The last 2-3 years they got wise.. premium has more than doubled and worst of all chemo is now covered only 80%.

[Horse with no Name]

23. very limited formularies

I spend hours every week begging these sham companies to cover necessary meds.
Then the patients get angry at me because they say no--which they almost always do.
I try to explain that THEY are the ones that chose this plan.....it has nothing to do with the provider.

[okasha]

25. I have a very good Part D,

and the insurer will grant waivers even for very expensive drugs if there's no substitute.

[marybourg]

28. Yes, i have a very good

supplementary insurance from DH's employer, but a lot of people I know are struggling to get the meds they need when, e.g., they have intolerances to substances used as fillers, or needs change mid-year, or they're required to "fail" a med they already failed years ago and/or got sick from it.

[Hoyt]

31. There are plenty of good plans out there. I was very happy with my Kaiser Medicare Advantage Plan.

But I'm one of those people just thankful for what is available, having seen what is was like before.

[pnwmom]

16. The subsidies WON'T be adequate. They will be fixed amounts,

not a fixed percentage -- as Medicare pays now. And that amount will be a smaller and smaller percent of the cost as prices rise.

[davekriss]

30. "Medicare plans right now, been in place since 1998 (Democrats)" - not quite

In 1998, the Republicans held the Senate 55 to 45. And the House consisted of 226 Republicans vs. 207 Democrats. (There were 2 independents, too.)

So I kinda think it's wrong to parenthetically add "Democrats" in the way that you did.

Further, Medicare Advantage, formerly called Medicare+Choice, and prior to that was just known as Medicare Part C (of which Medicare Advantage was/is just an evolution of what was already in place), was passed in 1982 as part of the TEFRA legislation of the Reagan years. At the time, in addition to the Presidency, the Republicans held the Senate by a 54 to 46 margin, albeit the Democrats had a large majority in the House. I thus would not attribute Medicare Advantage to any one party.

Personally, I think premium support (the Ryan plan) is absolutely diametrically opposite to the direction things should go. We'd all fare much better with a single-payer, Medicare-for-all program, enhanced perhaps by private supplemental programs.

[Hoyt]

34. I agree with where we should go, but no chance of that for quite awhile, if ever now.

[spanone]

6. it's 100% total bullshit. privatization. does. not. work.

[Tanuki]

7. Anyone who claims it will be better for the consumer is lying.

I am on my cell phone right now and can't easily cut and paste text, but there is a good explanation in this article of how the Medicare defined benefits guarantee would be replaced by "premium support" which could be applied toward benefits. If it isn't sufficient to cover the costs, you would be screwed. More seniors will deplete their life savings and lose their homes, or will forego treatment they can no longer afford.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2016-11-30/tom-price-appointment-underscores-gop-plans-to-overhaul-medicare-and-medicaid%3Fcontext%3Damp?client=ms-android-att-us

Also, to your point about controlling costs: To the extent that privatization has been implemented with the Medicare Advantage plans, this has not only failed to rein in costs, but has cost the taxpayer about 17% more than traditional Medicare. Privatization will only benefit the insurance industry.

[DURHAM D]

11. So I read that Ryan's plan calls for

* No more regular Medicare enrollees after 2022 - iows - starve the fund

* Medicare enrollment age raised to 67

One thing I have not been able to figure out is his voucher plan that you take around to private insurance companies to get your coverage. Is the voucher amount based on how much you paid into the fund over your working life or will it still be based on paying in for at least 16 quarters (anywhere from .01 to whatever each of those 16 quarters) ?

Also, will a non-contributing spouse get a voucher for the same amount as a working spouse or is he eliminating the coverage for the non-working spouse?

[pangaia]

29. Trust me this voucher business is crap...

You will go broke, and as was said lose everything and then die.

[90-percent]

14. Any examples in the last three decades.....

Any examples in the last three decades of privatizing government functions where the net benefit to the average joe was positive?

"privatization" to me means you have to make enough profit to support 80k a day ceo's, an equally greedy board of directors and corrupt upper management that need high pay to perform their morally bankrupt evil misery producing jobs.

in the case of private health insurance, their business model was to deny and obfuscate and engineer obstacles to getting any coverage at all. Lifetime caps and pre-existing conditions made health insurance companies real live present day death panels. Because that business model is literally the more they deny medical coverage to their customers, the more profit they make!

I think this is rooted in the Reaganomics meme "I'm from the government and I'm here to help". This has really stuck in the "conventional wisdom cloud" and I think its fundamentally incorrect. But they're trotting out trickle down economics yet again, because, after thirty years of failure, maybe trickle down will produce shared prosperity THIS TIME? Or not. They don't care as the American people have demonstrated they can tolerate record levels of economic abuse and exploitation without nary a peep.

I hope Trump does prove his point some time that he could shoot people down like wild animals in the streets of NYC and not get in trouble for it. In these times we would just accept cold blooded murder by our President elect as "the new normal"


-90% Jimmy

[Wounded Bear]

26. Repubs don't do "how"....

they just bloviate about the magic of the market and other bullshit.

The fact is that the only reason that Medicare exists is because Insurers would not cover the elderly because of the risks. Someone who had been on a policy for many years could possibly retain their coverage, but anybody with a break in coverage or a pre-existing condition could not get coverage unless they had a retirement income in 6 figures.

Old people were dying from lack of care, so Johnson got Medicare and Medicaid passed. Much like SS, Repubs have been pissed about it ever since, because it circumvented their precious "free market."

[Crunchy Frog]

32. It will be so much better for making profits. n/t