The Myth of Medicare's Efficiency

[The Rabbi]

It is virtually a rule that government does nothing efficiently. Yet in the face of Obamacare's obvious failure some libs here are touting the idea of "let's just expand Medicare to everyone", which is effectively single payer. They claim Medicare is more efficient than private business, standing the old rule on its head.
This goes to the basic belief of liberals: anything motivated by profit is dirty and unethical. Anything coming from the government is impartial and wonderful.
If only.
In this artiicle the author shows why Medicare's efficiency is a myth and a numbers game. Of course since libs are bad at math, they won't get it.
The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs' - Forbes

 

[Edgetho]

I knew all the prior stuff..... Off budget help in every facet of the operation but this is interesting..

Administrative costs are calculated using faulty arithmetic

But most important, because Medicare patients are older, they are
substantially sicker than the average insured patient — driving up the
denominator of such calculations significantly. For example: If two patients
cost $30 each to manage, but the first requires $100 of health expenditures
and the second, much sicker patient requires $1,000, the first patient’s
insurance will have an administrative-cost ratio of 30%, but the second’s will
have a ratio of only 3%. This hardly means the second patient’s insurance is
more efficient — administratively, the patients are identical. Instead, the more
favorable figure is produced by the second patient’s more severe illness.

 

[Indeependent]

Medicare rarely rejects treatment.
The elderly are more expensive to care for.
The CEO is not the only one making more than 15K/year.
Medicare has a far larger patient base.
ReaganCare is supported by tax payers.

I don't hear any private providers bitching about the ACA.

 

[Vox]

Medicare rarely rejects treatment.

a lie
The elderly are more expensive to care for.

true

The CEO is not the only one making more than 15K/year.
Medicare has a far larger patient base.
ReaganCare is supported by tax payers.

I don't hear any private providers bitching about the ACA.

they simply do not participate in that crap

 

[Edgetho]

Medicare rarely rejects treatment.
The elderly are more expensive to care for.
The CEO is not the only one making more than 15K/year.
Medicare has a far larger patient base.
ReaganCare is supported by tax payers.

I don't hear any private providers bitching about the ACA.

Have you ever heard an Insurance Company bitch? About anything?

They just pass the costs along to the consumer.... You.

In fact, it would make most of the Companies happy as a clam if they were told to stop operating tomorrow.

They'd get back the BILLIONS they have in reserves in State Treasuries and could put the money to work doing something profitable, rather than in Insurance.

The lack of understanding of Insurance is not surprising. Nor should it be.

The amount of numbskulls who think they DO understand it, is.

You can't hurt Insurance Companies. They're smarter than you could ever imagine.

But the upside USED TO BE, that they really were on the side of the Public Good more often than not.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Oh yes, very efficient.
Two out of three area hospitals have laid off staff due to the increase in Medicaid members that will come.
One hospital alone is planning to lay off approximately 100 by Dec. 2015.
Oh...but the healthcare will be better - right?

 

[Indeependent]

Medicare rarely rejects treatment.

a lie
The elderly are more expensive to care for.

true

The CEO is not the only one making more than 15K/year.
Medicare has a far larger patient base.
ReaganCare is supported by tax payers.

I don't hear any private providers bitching about the ACA.

they simply do not participate in that crap

I see you don't have many elderly relatives.
My in-laws would be in the hospital for 10 days, be refused NOTHING, and get an EOB showing about 70K.
I also know people who worked for BC/BS who got paid nothing.

ReaganCare is costing us an arm and a leg.
Any Republican who loves Reagan should just LOVE ReaganCare.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi continues as an apparatchik of the far right.

That is what you need to know before you read his material.

 

[Indeependent]

The Rabbi continues as an apparatchik of the far right.

That is what you need to know before you read his material.

Thank you.
I am well aware of "The Rabbi's" predilection.
I am also well that most articles published in Forbes are written by snobs who view everything from 30K feet.
After all, a snob can't get their feet wet, even when in the shower.
By the way, isn't the relevant Forbes going under?

 

[itfitzme]

The Rabbi continues as an apparatchik of the far right.

That is what you need to know before you read his material.

Thank you.
I am well aware of "The Rabbi's" predilection.
I am also well that most articles published in Forbes are written by snobs who view everything from 30K feet.
After all, a snob can't get their feet wet, even when in the shower.
By the way, isn't the relevant Forbes going under?

And it draws from a "research" article done by the Heritage foundation.

 

[Edgetho]

The Rabbi continues as an apparatchik of the far right.

That is what you need to know before you read his material.

Hey scumbag.... You got something to refute what he's saying or are you just here to make an ad hominem hit-and-run attack?

You got nothing. As usual.

Eat shit

 

[Edgetho]

The Rabbi continues as an apparatchik of the far right.

That is what you need to know before you read his material.

Thank you.
I am well aware of "The Rabbi's" predilection.
I am also well that most articles published in Forbes are written by snobs who view everything from 30K feet.
After all, a snob can't get their feet wet, even when in the shower.
By the way, isn't the relevant Forbes going under?

And it draws from a "research" article done by the Heritage foundation.

The Heritage Foundation was formed to counter the over-reaches of government under Richard Milhouse Nixon, Republican.

Keep showing us your ignorance, idiot.

You got anything to refute Rabbi's point or are you just defecating out of your mouth? As usual

 

[kiwiman127]

The Heritage Foundation has a history of blunders. And example would be their contribution to Paul Ryan's Blueprint for America, ala Ryan's budget.
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's initial analysis of the House GOP budget released today by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is filled with nuggets of bad news for Republicans.

In addition to acknowledging that seniors, disabled and elderly people would be hit with much higher out-of-pocket health care costs, the CBO finds that by the end of the 10-year budget window, public debt will actually be higher than it would be if the GOP just did nothing.

Under the so-called "extended baseline scenario" -- a.k.a. projections based on current law -- debt held by the public will grow to 67 percent of GDP by 2022. Under the GOP plan, public debt would reach 70 percent of GDP in the same window.

In other words, the spending cuts Republicans would realize in the first 10 years would be outpaced by deficit increasing tax-cuts, which Ryan also proposes"
The Washington Monthly

 

[Vandalshandle]

Medicare rarely rejects treatment.
The elderly are more expensive to care for.
The CEO is not the only one making more than 15K/year.
Medicare has a far larger patient base.
ReaganCare is supported by tax payers.

I don't hear any private providers bitching about the ACA.

Have you ever heard an Insurance Company bitch? About anything?

They just pass the costs along to the consumer.... You.

In fact, it would make most of the Companies happy as a clam if they were told to stop operating tomorrow.

They'd get back the BILLIONS they have in reserves in State Treasuries and could put the money to work doing something profitable, rather than in Insurance.

The lack of understanding of Insurance is not surprising. Nor should it be.

The amount of numbskulls who think they DO understand it, is.

You can't hurt Insurance Companies. They're smarter than you could ever imagine.

But the upside USED TO BE, that they really were on the side of the Public Good more often than not.

The level of misinformation posted above staggers the imagination!

Having spent 50 years in upper management of the health insurance industry, I can assure you that virtually every word is utterly false. Health insurance coampanies switched to the HMO model back in the 1970's and 1980's. That means that they passed all the risk to the providers. Insurers now pay a flat monthly fee to each contracted provider, regardless of how often the patient goes to see him. They pay a flat fee to hospitals per patient, regardless of how long a patient stays there. In short, Insurers are now on a gravy train, and DON"T CARE how sick their patients are. They simply add up all their contracted fees, slip an andministrative expense, profit, and premium tax on top of it, and bill it to the insured. They have absolutely NO risk of losing money under this model. The only people at risk are the docs and hospitals, who may accidently contract to care for the insureds members at a lower reimbursement than their cost. When this happens, they renegotiate next year, and the insurance company simply finds a provider who is either more efficent, or willing to provide the services at a lower rate. Insurers routinely engage in bidding wars with docs and hospitals. If their are two hospitals in town, and a HMO, who has 300,000 members in the town, then they are the 800 pound gorrilla, and can pretty much dictate what they want to pay to the hospital, neither of which is in a position to lose 300,000 potential patients to the other hospital.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Rabbi continues as an apparatchik of the far right.

That is what you need to know before you read his material.

Hey scumbag.... You got something to refute what he's saying or are you just here to make an ad hominem hit-and-run attack?

You got nothing. As usual.

Eat shit

You're dealing with Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement. He is incapable of anything more than drive by ad homs. Best ignored.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Rabbi continues as an apparatchik of the far right.

That is what you need to know before you read his material.

Thank you.
I am well aware of "The Rabbi's" predilection.
I am also well that most articles published in Forbes are written by snobs who view everything from 30K feet.
After all, a snob can't get their feet wet, even when in the shower.
By the way, isn't the relevant Forbes going under?

And it draws from a "research" article done by the Heritage foundation.

Gd forbid.
If it's so awful then I expect you will easily pick apart those findings. Go ahead. Dazzle us with your brilliance.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Heritage Foundation has a history of blunders. And example would be their contribution to Paul Ryan's Blueprint for America, ala Ryan's budget.
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's initial analysis of the House GOP budget released today by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is filled with nuggets of bad news for Republicans.

In addition to acknowledging that seniors, disabled and elderly people would be hit with much higher out-of-pocket health care costs, the CBO finds that by the end of the 10-year budget window, public debt will actually be higher than it would be if the GOP just did nothing.

Under the so-called "extended baseline scenario" -- a.k.a. projections based on current law -- debt held by the public will grow to 67 percent of GDP by 2022. Under the GOP plan, public debt would reach 70 percent of GDP in the same window.

In other words, the spending cuts Republicans would realize in the first 10 years would be outpaced by deficit increasing tax-cuts, which Ryan also proposes"
The Washington Monthly

Another irrelevant drive-by poster with an axe to grind rather than a point to make.
Thank you, Capt Irrelevant.

 

[kiwiman127]

The Heritage Foundation has a history of blunders. And example would be their contribution to Paul Ryan's Blueprint for America, ala Ryan's budget.
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's initial analysis of the House GOP budget released today by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is filled with nuggets of bad news for Republicans.

In addition to acknowledging that seniors, disabled and elderly people would be hit with much higher out-of-pocket health care costs, the CBO finds that by the end of the 10-year budget window, public debt will actually be higher than it would be if the GOP just did nothing.

Under the so-called "extended baseline scenario" -- a.k.a. projections based on current law -- debt held by the public will grow to 67 percent of GDP by 2022. Under the GOP plan, public debt would reach 70 percent of GDP in the same window.

In other words, the spending cuts Republicans would realize in the first 10 years would be outpaced by deficit increasing tax-cuts, which Ryan also proposes"
The Washington Monthly

Another irrelevant drive-by poster with an axe to grind rather than a point to make.
Thank you, Capt Irrelevant.

By calling me a "drive-by poster" are you referring to the fact that I have a job that I actually devote my work day to, which dwarfs my daily post numbers versus your daily post count?

 

[flacaltenn]

The fact that there is ample propaganda about Medicare efficiencies is well documented. Don't expect to get these numbers from the Govt. Just like you shouldn't expect honesty about the Mountain of Cash in the SS Trust Fund from the govt.

Beyond the phoney efficiencies, there's the matter of COVERAGE efficiency.. For the TRULY NEEDY, this is a real issue since they can NOT survive with a 20% co-insurance on Part B and the Part A deductibles. For folks who can afford SUPPLEMENTAL insurance -- this is not an issue. But a realistic assessment of "adequate coverage" tends to screw over the very folks who are economically vunerable.

Same deal is going on with the absolutely CRAPPY cheaper options being offered on the ACA exchanges. Although the left bitches and moans about "awful insurance policies" that they are outlawing, they CONTINUE to sell them themselves now to the vulnerable poor. There are MANY "bronze" option policies being pushed with only 50% coverage of costs. This is a bankruptcy magnet for folks trying to comply on limited budgets..

 

[The Rabbi]

The Heritage Foundation has a history of blunders. And example would be their contribution to Paul Ryan's Blueprint for America, ala Ryan's budget.
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's initial analysis of the House GOP budget released today by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is filled with nuggets of bad news for Republicans.

In addition to acknowledging that seniors, disabled and elderly people would be hit with much higher out-of-pocket health care costs, the CBO finds that by the end of the 10-year budget window, public debt will actually be higher than it would be if the GOP just did nothing.

Under the so-called "extended baseline scenario" -- a.k.a. projections based on current law -- debt held by the public will grow to 67 percent of GDP by 2022. Under the GOP plan, public debt would reach 70 percent of GDP in the same window.

In other words, the spending cuts Republicans would realize in the first 10 years would be outpaced by deficit increasing tax-cuts, which Ryan also proposes"
The Washington Monthly

Another irrelevant drive-by poster with an axe to grind rather than a point to make.
Thank you, Capt Irrelevant.

By calling me a "drive-by poster" are you referring to the fact that I have a job that I actually devote my work day to, which dwarfs my daily post numbers versus your daily post count?

No. I am referring to the fact that you post garbage that lacks any substance or proof and is based on something you saw on Rachel Maddow or similar maybe 6 months ago that may or may not be even tangentially related to the topic.
But carry on.