Will we ever have single payer health care in this country?

[dblack]

The MA plans aren't growing because they are good, they aren't. They are growing because they don't cost much.

Mass. ditches RomneyCare exchange
By KYLE CHENEY
05/05/2014 05:35 PM EDT

RomneyCare’s pioneering health insurance exchange is headed for the scrap heap.

Bay State officials are taking steps this week to junk central parts of their dysfunctional health insurance exchange — the model for President Barack Obama’s health care law — and merge with the federal enrollment site HealthCare.gov.
Mass. ditches RomneyCare exchange

You appear to be trying to directly compare RomneyCare with MA plans.

Have you not yet realized that you're completely out of your depth here?

There are three people in this conversation who know more about this than you ever will. Talk radio does not cover this, because it doesn't want to. You might actually be able to "learn" something "new" here, although I'm not sure if that is allowed.

Ignorance and arrogance are not a good combination.

Argument from authority doesn't make much sense here. You may be well-versed on the inner workings of insurance companies (I'm willing to take your word for it), but that doesn't mean you know much about public policy or health care in general. Your insight is valuable, but not authoritative. And not even necessarily complete or accurate.

Well, since I've worked for several years with one of the primary Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage providers in the country, (1) putting together plans piece by piece, benefit by benefit, cost by cost, (2) seeing how networks are put together, face to face, provider by provider, group by group, hospital by hospital, contract by contract, (3) working with those plans as they were priced county by county, capitation rate by capitation rate, (4) being in the room a few dozen times as one of my advisory clients sat through a full Medicare presentation by the insurance people to whom I refer business, (5) leveraging my training and experience to help people choose plans based on their particular situation as we plan ahead for their medical costs while in retirement, and (6) sitting and talking with many clients who provide their opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of the plans....

...I'd say I know one helluva lot more about this topic than people who are far more worried about belching out shallow, worthless, ignorant political rhetoric and hoping for political advantage than they are in "public policy", or "health care in general".

But I appreciate your attention.

Your expertise is insurance, not government. On the latter, you have no more standing than any of the rest of us.

 

[Mac1958]

The MA plans aren't growing because they are good, they aren't. They are growing because they don't cost much.

Mass. ditches RomneyCare exchange
By KYLE CHENEY
05/05/2014 05:35 PM EDT

RomneyCare’s pioneering health insurance exchange is headed for the scrap heap.

Bay State officials are taking steps this week to junk central parts of their dysfunctional health insurance exchange — the model for President Barack Obama’s health care law — and merge with the federal enrollment site HealthCare.gov.
Mass. ditches RomneyCare exchange

You appear to be trying to directly compare RomneyCare with MA plans.

Have you not yet realized that you're completely out of your depth here?

There are three people in this conversation who know more about this than you ever will. Talk radio does not cover this, because it doesn't want to. You might actually be able to "learn" something "new" here, although I'm not sure if that is allowed.

Ignorance and arrogance are not a good combination.

Argument from authority doesn't make much sense here. You may be well-versed on the inner workings of insurance companies (I'm willing to take your word for it), but that doesn't mean you know much about public policy or health care in general. Your insight is valuable, but not authoritative. And not even necessarily complete or accurate.

Well, since I've worked for several years with one of the primary Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage providers in the country, (1) putting together plans piece by piece, benefit by benefit, cost by cost, (2) seeing how networks are put together, face to face, provider by provider, group by group, hospital by hospital, contract by contract, (3) working with those plans as they were priced county by county, capitation rate by capitation rate, (4) being in the room a few dozen times as one of my advisory clients sat through a full Medicare presentation by the insurance people to whom I refer business, (5) leveraging my training and experience to help people choose plans based on their particular situation as we plan ahead for their medical costs while in retirement, and (6) sitting and talking with many clients who provide their opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of the plans....

...I'd say I know one helluva lot more about this topic than people who are far more worried about belching out shallow, worthless, ignorant political rhetoric and hoping for political advantage than they are in "public policy", or "health care in general".

But I appreciate your attention.

Your expertise is insurance, not government. On the latter, you have no more standing than any of the rest of us.

Um, no. This demonstrates how little you know about the system. There is a very close and symbiotic relationship between CMS and insurance companies in these plans. Do you know that CMS is "the government"?

Just stop, please. This is brutal.
.

 

[danielpalos]

increasing the minimum wage and solving for simple poverty in a market friendly manner can enable more market friendly operations and require fewer social services due to that increase in economic efficiency.

 

[dblack]

Mass. ditches RomneyCare exchange
By KYLE CHENEY
05/05/2014 05:35 PM EDT

RomneyCare’s pioneering health insurance exchange is headed for the scrap heap.

Bay State officials are taking steps this week to junk central parts of their dysfunctional health insurance exchange — the model for President Barack Obama’s health care law — and merge with the federal enrollment site HealthCare.gov.
Mass. ditches RomneyCare exchange

You appear to be trying to directly compare RomneyCare with MA plans.

Have you not yet realized that you're completely out of your depth here?

There are three people in this conversation who know more about this than you ever will. Talk radio does not cover this, because it doesn't want to. You might actually be able to "learn" something "new" here, although I'm not sure if that is allowed.

Ignorance and arrogance are not a good combination.

Argument from authority doesn't make much sense here. You may be well-versed on the inner workings of insurance companies (I'm willing to take your word for it), but that doesn't mean you know much about public policy or health care in general. Your insight is valuable, but not authoritative. And not even necessarily complete or accurate.

Well, since I've worked for several years with one of the primary Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage providers in the country, (1) putting together plans piece by piece, benefit by benefit, cost by cost, (2) seeing how networks are put together, face to face, provider by provider, group by group, hospital by hospital, contract by contract, (3) working with those plans as they were priced county by county, capitation rate by capitation rate, (4) being in the room a few dozen times as one of my advisory clients sat through a full Medicare presentation by the insurance people to whom I refer business, (5) leveraging my training and experience to help people choose plans based on their particular situation as we plan ahead for their medical costs while in retirement, and (6) sitting and talking with many clients who provide their opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of the plans....

...I'd say I know one helluva lot more about this topic than people who are far more worried about belching out shallow, worthless, ignorant political rhetoric and hoping for political advantage than they are in "public policy", or "health care in general".

But I appreciate your attention.

Your expertise is insurance, not government. On the latter, you have no more standing than any of the rest of us.

Um, no. This demonstrates how little you know about the system. There is a very close and symbiotic relationship between CMS and insurance companies in these plans. Do you know that CMS is "the government"?

Just stop, please. This is brutal.

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to pick on you. But listening to insurance experts is what saddled us with ACA in the first place. Knowledge of the insurance industry doesn't make you an expert on federal health care policy. In fact, it means you likely have conflicting interests and motivations that make your opinions suspect.

 

[Mac1958]

You appear to be trying to directly compare RomneyCare with MA plans.

Have you not yet realized that you're completely out of your depth here?

There are three people in this conversation who know more about this than you ever will. Talk radio does not cover this, because it doesn't want to. You might actually be able to "learn" something "new" here, although I'm not sure if that is allowed.

Ignorance and arrogance are not a good combination.

Argument from authority doesn't make much sense here. You may be well-versed on the inner workings of insurance companies (I'm willing to take your word for it), but that doesn't mean you know much about public policy or health care in general. Your insight is valuable, but not authoritative. And not even necessarily complete or accurate.

Well, since I've worked for several years with one of the primary Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage providers in the country, (1) putting together plans piece by piece, benefit by benefit, cost by cost, (2) seeing how networks are put together, face to face, provider by provider, group by group, hospital by hospital, contract by contract, (3) working with those plans as they were priced county by county, capitation rate by capitation rate, (4) being in the room a few dozen times as one of my advisory clients sat through a full Medicare presentation by the insurance people to whom I refer business, (5) leveraging my training and experience to help people choose plans based on their particular situation as we plan ahead for their medical costs while in retirement, and (6) sitting and talking with many clients who provide their opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of the plans....

...I'd say I know one helluva lot more about this topic than people who are far more worried about belching out shallow, worthless, ignorant political rhetoric and hoping for political advantage than they are in "public policy", or "health care in general".

But I appreciate your attention.

Your expertise is insurance, not government. On the latter, you have no more standing than any of the rest of us.

Um, no. This demonstrates how little you know about the system. There is a very close and symbiotic relationship between CMS and insurance companies in these plans. Do you know that CMS is "the government"?

Just stop, please. This is brutal.

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to pick on you. But listening to insurance experts is what saddled us with ACA in the first place. Knowledge of the insurance industry doesn't make you an expert on federal health care policy. In fact, it means you likely have conflicting interests and motivations that make your opinions suspect.

You're right in that I don't care about the politics of any given issue.

All I care about is what is going to work best overall.

With that I am very comfortable.
.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I think the very next time the dems the presidency and both chambers of Congress we’re headed for single payer healthcare.

It will happen if Trump wins a second term. He has always favored single payer.

And when it is his idea all of his sheep will say it is the best idea ever


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I have often said that Trump is the only one capable of getting single payer passed at this time.....most trump supporters are for it anyway, if they can guarantee it is a benefit that only they get and not those other "yucky people"

nothing in your post is true, not a word

I am not responsible for your ignorance.

Why the alt-right loves single-payer health care

This is basically what it boils down to: "welfare chauvinism” , a promise to protect and expand social programs for (white) native workers against migrants who might exploit them and drain money that should be going to noble citizens." -- sound familiar?

LOL, an opinion piece on a Left wing site used to "prove" the Rights racism.

I see you didn't read the article -- the quote I gave is from the actual right wing idiots themselves....

 

[Ambivalent1]

You appear to be trying to directly compare RomneyCare with MA plans.

Have you not yet realized that you're completely out of your depth here?

There are three people in this conversation who know more about this than you ever will. Talk radio does not cover this, because it doesn't want to. You might actually be able to "learn" something "new" here, although I'm not sure if that is allowed.

Ignorance and arrogance are not a good combination.

Argument from authority doesn't make much sense here. You may be well-versed on the inner workings of insurance companies (I'm willing to take your word for it), but that doesn't mean you know much about public policy or health care in general. Your insight is valuable, but not authoritative. And not even necessarily complete or accurate.

Well, since I've worked for several years with one of the primary Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage providers in the country, (1) putting together plans piece by piece, benefit by benefit, cost by cost, (2) seeing how networks are put together, face to face, provider by provider, group by group, hospital by hospital, contract by contract, (3) working with those plans as they were priced county by county, capitation rate by capitation rate, (4) being in the room a few dozen times as one of my advisory clients sat through a full Medicare presentation by the insurance people to whom I refer business, (5) leveraging my training and experience to help people choose plans based on their particular situation as we plan ahead for their medical costs while in retirement, and (6) sitting and talking with many clients who provide their opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of the plans....

...I'd say I know one helluva lot more about this topic than people who are far more worried about belching out shallow, worthless, ignorant political rhetoric and hoping for political advantage than they are in "public policy", or "health care in general".

But I appreciate your attention.

Your expertise is insurance, not government. On the latter, you have no more standing than any of the rest of us.

Um, no. This demonstrates how little you know about the system. There is a very close and symbiotic relationship between CMS and insurance companies in these plans. Do you know that CMS is "the government"?

Just stop, please. This is brutal.

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to pick on you. But listening to insurance experts is what saddled us with ACA in the first place. Knowledge of the insurance industry doesn't make you an expert on federal health care policy. In fact, it means you likely have conflicting interests and motivations that make your opinions suspect.

You just keep digging the hole deeper. You don't know shit about any of it. You read an article written by lawyers with whom you agree. You don't know shit about the Gov's law and I can prove it. Say when.
You are dismissed.

 

[Ambivalent1]

It will happen if Trump wins a second term. He has always favored single payer.

And when it is his idea all of his sheep will say it is the best idea ever


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I have often said that Trump is the only one capable of getting single payer passed at this time.....most trump supporters are for it anyway, if they can guarantee it is a benefit that only they get and not those other "yucky people"

nothing in your post is true, not a word

I am not responsible for your ignorance.

Why the alt-right loves single-payer health care

This is basically what it boils down to: "welfare chauvinism” , a promise to protect and expand social programs for (white) native workers against migrants who might exploit them and drain money that should be going to noble citizens." -- sound familiar?

LOL, an opinion piece on a Left wing site used to "prove" the Rights racism.

I see you didn't read the article -- the quote I gave is from the actual right wing idiots themselves....

You are an idiot who thinks everyone walks in lock step with their "leaders" like you do.
I know insurance, I know the law, you don't know jack.

 

[dblack]

Argument from authority doesn't make much sense here. You may be well-versed on the inner workings of insurance companies (I'm willing to take your word for it), but that doesn't mean you know much about public policy or health care in general. Your insight is valuable, but not authoritative. And not even necessarily complete or accurate.

Well, since I've worked for several years with one of the primary Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage providers in the country, (1) putting together plans piece by piece, benefit by benefit, cost by cost, (2) seeing how networks are put together, face to face, provider by provider, group by group, hospital by hospital, contract by contract, (3) working with those plans as they were priced county by county, capitation rate by capitation rate, (4) being in the room a few dozen times as one of my advisory clients sat through a full Medicare presentation by the insurance people to whom I refer business, (5) leveraging my training and experience to help people choose plans based on their particular situation as we plan ahead for their medical costs while in retirement, and (6) sitting and talking with many clients who provide their opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of the plans....

...I'd say I know one helluva lot more about this topic than people who are far more worried about belching out shallow, worthless, ignorant political rhetoric and hoping for political advantage than they are in "public policy", or "health care in general".

But I appreciate your attention.

Your expertise is insurance, not government. On the latter, you have no more standing than any of the rest of us.

Um, no. This demonstrates how little you know about the system. There is a very close and symbiotic relationship between CMS and insurance companies in these plans. Do you know that CMS is "the government"?

Just stop, please. This is brutal.

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to pick on you. But listening to insurance experts is what saddled us with ACA in the first place. Knowledge of the insurance industry doesn't make you an expert on federal health care policy. In fact, it means you likely have conflicting interests and motivations that make your opinions suspect.

You just keep digging the hole deeper. You don't know shit about any of it. You read an article written by lawyers with whom you agree. You don't know shit about the Gov's law and I can prove it. Say when.
You are dismissed.

Hey, I admitted I don't know that much. I posted a couple of articles that, frankly, surprised me. I was looking for something to contradict them. But no one's been able to come up with anything, other than disbelief and denial. Is it that surprising that corporations are profiting from government programs?

You say you can prove it. Please do!

 

[Ambivalent1]

Well, since I've worked for several years with one of the primary Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage providers in the country, (1) putting together plans piece by piece, benefit by benefit, cost by cost, (2) seeing how networks are put together, face to face, provider by provider, group by group, hospital by hospital, contract by contract, (3) working with those plans as they were priced county by county, capitation rate by capitation rate, (4) being in the room a few dozen times as one of my advisory clients sat through a full Medicare presentation by the insurance people to whom I refer business, (5) leveraging my training and experience to help people choose plans based on their particular situation as we plan ahead for their medical costs while in retirement, and (6) sitting and talking with many clients who provide their opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of the plans....

...I'd say I know one helluva lot more about this topic than people who are far more worried about belching out shallow, worthless, ignorant political rhetoric and hoping for political advantage than they are in "public policy", or "health care in general".

But I appreciate your attention.

Your expertise is insurance, not government. On the latter, you have no more standing than any of the rest of us.

Um, no. This demonstrates how little you know about the system. There is a very close and symbiotic relationship between CMS and insurance companies in these plans. Do you know that CMS is "the government"?

Just stop, please. This is brutal.

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to pick on you. But listening to insurance experts is what saddled us with ACA in the first place. Knowledge of the insurance industry doesn't make you an expert on federal health care policy. In fact, it means you likely have conflicting interests and motivations that make your opinions suspect.

You just keep digging the hole deeper. You don't know shit about any of it. You read an article written by lawyers with whom you agree. You don't know shit about the Gov's law and I can prove it. Say when.
You are dismissed.

Hey, I admitted I don't know that much. I posted a couple of articles that, frankly, surprised me. I was looking for something to contradict them. But no one's been able to come up with anything, other than disbelief and denial. Is it that surprising that corporations are profiting from government programs?

You've been shown again and again but when you don't get shown what you already agree with you retreat into "Nuh-Uh" Hell kid, you still believe that the Gov has contracted with BCBS to "administrate" Medicare. I worked for BCBS they are nothing but a supplemental company.

 

[Silhouette]

You appear to be trying to directly compare RomneyCare with MA plans.

Have you not yet realized that you're completely out of your depth here?

There are three people in this conversation who know more about this than you ever will. Talk radio does not cover this, because it doesn't want to. You might actually be able to "learn" something "new" here, although I'm not sure if that is allowed.

Ignorance and arrogance are not a good combination.

Argument from authority doesn't make much sense here. You may be well-versed on the inner workings of insurance companies (I'm willing to take your word for it), but that doesn't mean you know much about public policy or health care in general. Your insight is valuable, but not authoritative. And not even necessarily complete or accurate.

Well, since I've worked for several years with one of the primary Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage providers in the country, (1) putting together plans piece by piece, benefit by benefit, cost by cost, (2) seeing how networks are put together, face to face, provider by provider, group by group, hospital by hospital, contract by contract, (3) working with those plans as they were priced county by county, capitation rate by capitation rate, (4) being in the room a few dozen times as one of my advisory clients sat through a full Medicare presentation by the insurance people to whom I refer business, (5) leveraging my training and experience to help people choose plans based on their particular situation as we plan ahead for their medical costs while in retirement, and (6) sitting and talking with many clients who provide their opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of the plans....

...I'd say I know one helluva lot more about this topic than people who are far more worried about belching out shallow, worthless, ignorant political rhetoric and hoping for political advantage than they are in "public policy", or "health care in general".

But I appreciate your attention.

Your expertise is insurance, not government. On the latter, you have no more standing than any of the rest of us.

Um, no. This demonstrates how little you know about the system. There is a very close and symbiotic relationship between CMS and insurance companies in these plans. Do you know that CMS is "the government"?

Just stop, please. This is brutal.

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to pick on you. But listening to insurance experts is what saddled us with ACA in the first place. Knowledge of the insurance industry doesn't make you an expert on federal health care policy. In fact, it means you likely have conflicting interests and motivations that make your opinions suspect.

ACA just reflected that Obama caved to a farcical “solution” that was worse than the problem. And from the insurance racket’s POV that was mission accomplished.

There can’t be another botch. It has to be re-thought from the ground up. Without insurance input preferably.

 

[dblack]

Your expertise is insurance, not government. On the latter, you have no more standing than any of the rest of us.

Um, no. This demonstrates how little you know about the system. There is a very close and symbiotic relationship between CMS and insurance companies in these plans. Do you know that CMS is "the government"?

Just stop, please. This is brutal.

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to pick on you. But listening to insurance experts is what saddled us with ACA in the first place. Knowledge of the insurance industry doesn't make you an expert on federal health care policy. In fact, it means you likely have conflicting interests and motivations that make your opinions suspect.

You just keep digging the hole deeper. You don't know shit about any of it. You read an article written by lawyers with whom you agree. You don't know shit about the Gov's law and I can prove it. Say when.
You are dismissed.

Hey, I admitted I don't know that much. I posted a couple of articles that, frankly, surprised me. I was looking for something to contradict them. But no one's been able to come up with anything, other than disbelief and denial. Is it that surprising that corporations are profiting from government programs?

You've been shown again and again but when you don't get shown what you already agree with you retreat into "Nuh-Uh" Hell kid, you still believe that the Gov has contracted with BCBS to "administrate" Medicare. I worked for BCBS they are nothing but a supplemental company.

Hmm... nothing? I found this, on Wikipedia. I suppose you'll deny it as well, but I'm seeing nothing holding up your side of the story:

Since the Medicare program began, the CMS (that was not always the name of the responsible bureaucracy) has contracted with private insurance companies to operate as intermediaries between the government and medical providers to administer Part A and Part B benefits. Contracted processes include claims and payment processing, call center services, clinician enrollment, and fraud investigation. Beginning in 1997 and 2005, respectively, these Part A and B administrators (whose contracts are bid out periodically), along with other insurance companies and other companies or organizations (such as integrated health delivery systems, unions and pharmacies), also began administering Part C and Part D plans.

This seems to back up the other articles I've posted. Is it possible you don't know everything BCBS is up to? It is a big company.

 

[dblack]

It has to be re-thought from the ground up. Without insurance input preferably.

I hate agreeing with you but, on this matter, I do. The last thing we need is Liz Fowler writing more bad laws.

 

[Rambunctious]

Watching the liberal news talking heads begin to realize that medicare for all and the end to private healthcare insurance means the end to their Cadillac plans they get from CNN etc etc is cracking me up.....

 

[Rambunctious]

Wait till the state and federal workers realize their plans will go away too...lol...medicare for all baby!!!!!

 

[dblack]

Um, no. This demonstrates how little you know about the system. There is a very close and symbiotic relationship between CMS and insurance companies in these plans. Do you know that CMS is "the government"?

Just stop, please. This is brutal.

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to pick on you. But listening to insurance experts is what saddled us with ACA in the first place. Knowledge of the insurance industry doesn't make you an expert on federal health care policy. In fact, it means you likely have conflicting interests and motivations that make your opinions suspect.

You just keep digging the hole deeper. You don't know shit about any of it. You read an article written by lawyers with whom you agree. You don't know shit about the Gov's law and I can prove it. Say when.
You are dismissed.

Hey, I admitted I don't know that much. I posted a couple of articles that, frankly, surprised me. I was looking for something to contradict them. But no one's been able to come up with anything, other than disbelief and denial. Is it that surprising that corporations are profiting from government programs?

You've been shown again and again but when you don't get shown what you already agree with you retreat into "Nuh-Uh" Hell kid, you still believe that the Gov has contracted with BCBS to "administrate" Medicare. I worked for BCBS they are nothing but a supplemental company.

Hmm... nothing? I found this, on Wikipedia. I suppose you'll deny it as well, but I'm seeing nothing holding up your side of the story:

Since the Medicare program began, the CMS (that was not always the name of the responsible bureaucracy) has contracted with private insurance companies to operate as intermediaries between the government and medical providers to administer Part A and Part B benefits. Contracted processes include claims and payment processing, call center services, clinician enrollment, and fraud investigation. Beginning in 1997 and 2005, respectively, these Part A and B administrators (whose contracts are bid out periodically), along with other insurance companies and other companies or organizations (such as integrated health delivery systems, unions and pharmacies), also began administering Part C and Part D plans.

This seems to back up the other articles I've posted. Is it possible you don't know everything BCBS is up to? It is a big company.

More fake news: Review of Current Medicare Administrative Contractors - Healthcare Blog

Since Medicare’s inception in 1966, private health care insurers have processed medical claims for Medicare beneficiaries. Originally these entities were known as Part A Fiscal Intermediaries (FI) and Part B carriers.

In 2003 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) was directed via Section 911 of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003 to replace the Part A FIs and Part B carriers with A/B Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

A Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) is a private health care insurer that has been awarded a geographic jurisdiction to process Medicare Part A and Part B (A/B) medical claims or Durable Medical Equipment (DME) claims for Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) beneficiaries.

CMS relies on a network of MACs to serve as the primary operational contact between the Medicare FFS program and the health care providers enrolled in the program.

 

[dblack]

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to pick on you. But listening to insurance experts is what saddled us with ACA in the first place. Knowledge of the insurance industry doesn't make you an expert on federal health care policy. In fact, it means you likely have conflicting interests and motivations that make your opinions suspect.

You just keep digging the hole deeper. You don't know shit about any of it. You read an article written by lawyers with whom you agree. You don't know shit about the Gov's law and I can prove it. Say when.
You are dismissed.

Hey, I admitted I don't know that much. I posted a couple of articles that, frankly, surprised me. I was looking for something to contradict them. But no one's been able to come up with anything, other than disbelief and denial. Is it that surprising that corporations are profiting from government programs?

You've been shown again and again but when you don't get shown what you already agree with you retreat into "Nuh-Uh" Hell kid, you still believe that the Gov has contracted with BCBS to "administrate" Medicare. I worked for BCBS they are nothing but a supplemental company.

Hmm... nothing? I found this, on Wikipedia. I suppose you'll deny it as well, but I'm seeing nothing holding up your side of the story:

Since the Medicare program began, the CMS (that was not always the name of the responsible bureaucracy) has contracted with private insurance companies to operate as intermediaries between the government and medical providers to administer Part A and Part B benefits. Contracted processes include claims and payment processing, call center services, clinician enrollment, and fraud investigation. Beginning in 1997 and 2005, respectively, these Part A and B administrators (whose contracts are bid out periodically), along with other insurance companies and other companies or organizations (such as integrated health delivery systems, unions and pharmacies), also began administering Part C and Part D plans.

This seems to back up the other articles I've posted. Is it possible you don't know everything BCBS is up to? It is a big company.

More fake news: Review of Current Medicare Administrative Contractors - Healthcare Blog

Since Medicare’s inception in 1966, private health care insurers have processed medical claims for Medicare beneficiaries. Originally these entities were known as Part A Fiscal Intermediaries (FI) and Part B carriers.

In 2003 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) was directed via Section 911 of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003 to replace the Part A FIs and Part B carriers with A/B Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

A Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) is a private health care insurer that has been awarded a geographic jurisdiction to process Medicare Part A and Part B (A/B) medical claims or Durable Medical Equipment (DME) claims for Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) beneficiaries.

CMS relies on a network of MACs to serve as the primary operational contact between the Medicare FFS program and the health care providers enrolled in the program.

Apparently it's pretty profitable for them too: Big 5 insurers depend on Medicare, Medicaid for growth in enrollment, profits

Medicare and Medicaid accounted for at least two-thirds of Anthem and Humana's growth since 2010.

Surely this is wrong. Maybe our resident health insurance experts can shed some light on this.

 

[dblack]

Surely this is wrong. Maybe our resident health insurance experts can shed some light on this.

Or not.

 

[Mac1958]

Medicare and Medicaid accounted for at least two-thirds of Anthem and Humana's growth since 2010.

Surely this is wrong. Maybe our resident health insurance experts can shed some light on this.

No, I'm sure that's right. A few of the big insurers jumped into this after the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, the market expanded (especially as the Baby Boomers were aging into the system), and the (considerable) risk paid off handsomely. Aetna, United, Humana and even Kaiser (regionally) have really nailed it.

No doubt other insurers now wish they had, too. And no doubt that opening up this system to all Americans would also create an explosion of new companies entering the industry, further increasing competition, choice and innovation. That would be outstanding! Single Payer would just be a bad memory.

The thread is about Single Payer and alternatives. Coming up with the best possible health care system for America. This is the obvious way to avoid Single Payer and maintain a strong and dynamic free market component. Perhaps you could explain to us why this conversation has instead gone down this road.
.

 

[debbiedowner]

You just keep digging the hole deeper. You don't know shit about any of it. You read an article written by lawyers with whom you agree. You don't know shit about the Gov's law and I can prove it. Say when.
You are dismissed.

Hey, I admitted I don't know that much. I posted a couple of articles that, frankly, surprised me. I was looking for something to contradict them. But no one's been able to come up with anything, other than disbelief and denial. Is it that surprising that corporations are profiting from government programs?

You've been shown again and again but when you don't get shown what you already agree with you retreat into "Nuh-Uh" Hell kid, you still believe that the Gov has contracted with BCBS to "administrate" Medicare. I worked for BCBS they are nothing but a supplemental company.

Hmm... nothing? I found this, on Wikipedia. I suppose you'll deny it as well, but I'm seeing nothing holding up your side of the story:

Since the Medicare program began, the CMS (that was not always the name of the responsible bureaucracy) has contracted with private insurance companies to operate as intermediaries between the government and medical providers to administer Part A and Part B benefits. Contracted processes include claims and payment processing, call center services, clinician enrollment, and fraud investigation. Beginning in 1997 and 2005, respectively, these Part A and B administrators (whose contracts are bid out periodically), along with other insurance companies and other companies or organizations (such as integrated health delivery systems, unions and pharmacies), also began administering Part C and Part D plans.

This seems to back up the other articles I've posted. Is it possible you don't know everything BCBS is up to? It is a big company.

More fake news: Review of Current Medicare Administrative Contractors - Healthcare Blog

Since Medicare’s inception in 1966, private health care insurers have processed medical claims for Medicare beneficiaries. Originally these entities were known as Part A Fiscal Intermediaries (FI) and Part B carriers.

In 2003 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) was directed via Section 911 of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003 to replace the Part A FIs and Part B carriers with A/B Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

A Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) is a private health care insurer that has been awarded a geographic jurisdiction to process Medicare Part A and Part B (A/B) medical claims or Durable Medical Equipment (DME) claims for Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) beneficiaries.

CMS relies on a network of MACs to serve as the primary operational contact between the Medicare FFS program and the health care providers enrolled in the program.

Apparently it's pretty profitable for them too: Big 5 insurers depend on Medicare, Medicaid for growth in enrollment, profits

Medicare and Medicaid accounted for at least two-thirds of Anthem and Humana's growth since 2010.

Surely this is wrong. Maybe our resident health insurance experts can shed some light on this.

Yes, it is right Humana I believe has the largest portion followed by UHC.

Hell, this will frost your balls, the higher the star ratings the bigger the bonus to MAPD plans or more per person enrolled. 5 Stars receive the most