The insurance companies who fought hardest over this legislation LOST!

The price per share of several Medicare Advantage provider’s stock DECLINED after passage of this bill.

You are so biased, so partisan, and so ignorant, that you lash out at everyone with stupid, stereotyping remarks.

Those who DEAL with these issues, on a regular basis, understand some of the questions and issues involved a bit better than you.

You should try to learn something. Instead you just attack, attack, attack.

For the record, I have said, repeatedly, that I think the current MA PFFS subsidy, from the government, is too high. I think the cost, to the government, on MA PFFS should be close to the same cost as that paid out to the typical traditional Medicare beneficiary.

I do very LITTLE MA PFFS business. Most of my business is with traditional Medicare beneficiaries who want a Medicare Supplement plan, to cover the gaps.

Those companies, the traditional Medigap companies, tend to like this legislation.

The MA PFFS or Medicare Advantage companies do not like this legislation.

Those companies that offer BOTH MA and traditional Medigap still tend to not like this legislation.

I deal with all of the above.

I have a rather open mind, for someone in the business.

I barely understand it. This link might help:

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/dfec9b31a11b05ba2c3a421a741bf859.htm

Medicare premiums will now INCREASE more than they might have, under Brownback’s plan.

However, CURRENTLY, it is the health care providers that are being squeezed. Brownback is right, we DO have to control costs.

However, Brownback, I think, wanted to make those cost savings measures through across the board limits on “Medicare Assignment” fees, or the amounts that Medicare and Medicaid pay for specific services.

Medicare Advantage Private Fee for Service, “PFFS” plans have probably been eliminated, by this current bill.

That is too bad, I only wanted to put PFFS plans on the same “subsidy” footing as traditional Medicare.

Brownback thought we should do that by controlling payments to providers, and making those payments uniform, pretty much, as far as what Medicare’s portion of the cost would be, in Medicare Advantage plans and Traditional Medicare.

In the calculation of the amounts the government paid to private insurance companies, under the Medicare Advantage PFFS plans, those private plans were, through some quirks, getting payments nearly 20% higher, from the government, than what Medicare was spending on traditional Medicare patients.

Controlling payments to providers, in traditional Medicare, and then making sure that those same figures were used to subsidize the privatized Medicare plans, (I THINK) is what Brownback might have supported.

In an election year, Congress did not want to tick off the health care providers by limiting payments. Besides, they have carried a heavy load already. Typically, the government makes providers operated at a loss for many of their services to Medicare patients. The rest of us pick up those costs through “cost shifting”.

Limiting payments, and making all plans stand on those same payment amounts, is what Brownback wanted, I think.

That was not politically possible.

Therefore, Tiahrt seemed to think that protecting providers, while eliminating the unfair advantage of PFFS plans, was the way to go.

Medicare Advantage will probably survive, but be pushed into PPO plans, or Preffered Provider Organizations.

PFFS plans let you go to any provider that accepted the conditions of the plan. PPO plans don’t work that way.

I think Tiahrt is doing the right thing.

However, this is very, very complicated and many of you should do your homework, before taking shots at Bush, Tiahrt or Brownback.

By the way, Seniors pay roughly $98.00 per month in Part B premiums, Part A is “free” to most seniors.

The Government subsidy, per senior, averages $760.00 per MONTH!

Worst.
President.
Ever.

Worst.
Congressman.
Ever.

Please explain yourself….how is it “monsterous” to provide basic heath care services to American citizens?
If you’re worried about the money…think about what we’ve borrowed to pay for this useless war….more than enough to provide basic health care to every American.
It’s a matter of priorities…I know I’d rather see taxpayer money going to something positive other than an illbegotten, mismanaged, worthless, and needless war.
I also find it interesting that Todd voted against expanding children’s health care but voted in favor of Medicare…maybe his tobacco buddies are approaching retirement age and need the benefits.

He is a politician just like every other politician of every party. And WE THE PEOPLE think we’re being represented. sigh

Abortion: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus). A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that 49 percent of Americans believe that human life begins at conception. Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in their definition of the term “abortion.” Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term “abortion” only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus.

The proposal continues,

Both definitions of pregnancy inform medical practice. Some medical authorities, like the American Medical Association and the British Medical Association, have defined the term “established pregnancy” as occurring after implantation. Other medical authorities present different definitions. Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, for example, defines pregnancy as “[t]he state of a female after conception and until the termination of the gestation.” Dorland’s Medical Dictionary defines pregnancy, in relevant part, as “the condition of having a developing embryo or fetus in the body, after union of an oocyte and spermatozoon.

Up until now, the federal government followed the definition of pregnancy accepted by the American Medical Association and our nation’s pregnancy experts, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is: pregnancy begins at implantation. With this proposal, however, HHS is dismissing medical experts and opting instead to accept a definition of pregnancy based on polling data. It now claims that pregnancy begins at some biologically unknowable moment (there’s no test to determine if a woman’s egg has been fertilized). Under these new standards there would be no way for a woman to prove she’s not pregnant. Thus, any woman could be denied contraception under HHS’ new science.

The other rarely discussed issue here is whether hormonal contraception even does what the religious right claims. There is no scientific evidence that hormonal methods of birth control can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. This argument is the basis upon which the religious right hopes to include the 40 percent of the birth control methods Americans use, such as the pill, the patch, the shot, the ring, the IUD, and emergency contraception, under the classification “abortion.”

http://www.alternet.org/stories/91654/?page=entire&ses=2af7cd7a086ce5a6d4a923b3c7e6f8f5

They are taking from one senior program to give the money to another senior program.

Confusing? No just government at it’s best.