Medicare premiums DROP, ENROLLMENT RISES under new health care law

[Bill USA]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-09-15/Medicare-health-care-law-premiums/50420430/1


By Jacquelyn Martin, AP


WASHINGTON – Medicare Advantage premiums fell while enrollment rose this year, despite predictions from opponents of last year's federal health care law that it would drive down enrollment and force up premiums.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) officials said Thursday that enrollment will rise another 10% more in 2012 and that premiums will fall 4%. Extra benefits in some Medicare Advantage plans, such as for vision or hearing, also are expected to remain the same.

The new statistics disprove the doom-and-gloom predictions of last year and show that because of the 2010 law, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, "Medicare is stronger than ever."

"On average, Medicare Advantage premiums will go down next year and seniors will enjoy more free benefits and cheaper prescription drugs," she said.

(more)

[elleng]

1. Caption should say Medicare Advantage . . .; otherwise, confusing/misleading.

thanks

[DURHAM D]

3. I found the entire article confusing.

Perhaps its because the whole Medicare Advantage private insurance thingie is so confusing.

I thought they were going to do away with Medicare Advantage in X number of years. Guess not - we can't take away the private insurance industry profits.

[elleng]

4. I agree its confusing.

I think they were making some changes/downsizing, or hoped to do so; don't know what was the 'final' decision on that. 'Wealthy' seniors w Advantage, and their congresscritters, were the loud complainers, as I recall.

[Bill USA]

7. did you see these two paragraphs from the article?...

"Medicare Advantage allows seniors to leave traditional Medicare and choose private health insurance plans, including health maintenance organizations or preferred provider organizations. However, the Office of Management and Budget found in 2009 that the program cost about 10% more than regular Medicare."

...and:


"The health care law includes $145 billion in reduced payments to Medicare Advantage providers over 10 years. Critics said lower payments would force insurance companies to increase premiums, and that fewer people would enroll. The CBO predicted that by 2019, Medicare Advantage enrollment would decline by 35% because of a continued reduction in payments to providers."

[Bill USA]

5. Maybe, if all you read was the title. The first two words of the article are "Medicare Advantage".

It's too much to expect people to read the article? ...or the first paragraph of the article?

Of course, I can't really speak for whoever wrote the title of the article at USA Today, but they could say that since the term "Medicare" is inclusive of "Medicare - Basic plan" and "Medicare Advantage", and since they might contend any person of minimal intelligence and curiousity would read more than the just the title, they might call your criticism captious and trivial.

.....Some might say you must have very very little to do with your time. ;-)

[elleng]

8. And some might say that your comment is unnecessary, peevish, and unpleasant.

In fact, I would say that.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DURHAM D]

12. Bill ain't right. nt

[elleng]

13. Thanks, DURHAM.

[Bill USA]

14. Well, this is a really 'compelling' argument. ROFL

[Bill USA]

15. if they did 'they' would be wrong. My comment was "Unnecessary"?..... your statement

(as I said in my comment no. 5) which criticized the USA Today article title was lacking in merit.

As i said before, the term "Medicare", by definition (and by general understanding), includes Medicare - standard plan and "Medicare Advantage". Since I made a valid point - that makes your statement that my comment was "unnecessary" - how else do I say this: incorrect. Further, the obvious silliness of your comment (no.1) itself, makes your criticism of my response, as I said, captious and trivial.

That's not being 'peevish' it's being clinical. (the term 'peevish' does not address the correctness of my comment. It is an attempt at denigration - the old ad hominem argument - rather than criticising my statement for errors in logic. My, now that does sound rather 'peevish' to me. Did it make you feel any better?) The same, obviously applies to your use of the term "unpleasant". It does not address the logical correctness of my appraisal of your criticism, but rather is a comment directed at the writer of the comment.

The prescription for avoiding critical response to your comments is to make sure they really add something to the discussion of the issue at hand.

The important thing which should not be lost in all this is that Medicare advantage premiums which the GOPers predicted would go UP as people DROPPED OUT of the plan - actually are going DOWN while enrollment is going UP.

That is the take-away from the OP.

[pinto]

2. While I'm not a fan of many of the Medicare Advantage plans, this is good news...

:thumbsup:

[donco]

6. That would be cool

if Medicare advantage were available everywhere.

[shraby]

10. What is the cost of the premiums??? It doesn't say it any

place in the article.

[JohnWxy]

16. Great stuff. Always nice to see GOP Bull disproven - unless of course you're a shill for the GOP!