Government Insurance and the Taxpayer Wallet

[WhiskeyGirl]

I keep reading about the government insurance plans being promoted by the Obama administration.  For some reason, some think the government can do it better.  Can they? 

What advantage does government have?  Are they more efficient?  Offer better, faster service?

During the past year or so, the Obama campaign/administration has really beaten up the the Medicare Advantage plans, also known as "Part C".

I've never been a fan of them because they remind me of really old HMOs with lots of limitations.  The advantage to Part C?  It's what many seniors can afford and offers a 'low cost' option to regular Medicare Part A, B, and a Medigap policy.  

Note:  How often have you seen Medicare offered as a plan for Obama's 'workers' or 'families'?  It has high coinsurance (20% or more) and high deductibles for admission to the hospital (over $1,000 this year).  It does offer coverage and flexibility.

What is the difference between the two from the perspective of the senior pocket book? 

A Part C plan (Medicare Advantage) may have a low ($35 a month) or zero premium for the participant.  They may still pay the Part B premium (currently $96.40 month).  It's the cheapest option and the only thing that many can afford. 

Traditional Medicare Part A (free for most folks), Part B ($96.40 / month), and Medigap / supplement policy (may start at $150 and escalate to well over $300 based on age). 

The Obama administration confuses the issue by talking about what 'Medicare' pays, and doesn't address total cost.  What is the cost of service?  How much does it cost for that heart bypass?  That doctor visit? 

What I read and hear is that MEDICARE pays about $1,000 more to the Part C MA plans.  How much is the consumer paying on top of that? 

If you have traditional or original Medicare, you still have to pay for co-insurance and high deductibles.  You may have to choose a supplement to help you with those expenses,  and pay hundreds of additional dollars a month, thousands of dollars a year.

If you have a Part C MA plan, you may have lower or no co-pays and deductibles (remember, the government is chipping in about $1,000 per year).

What is the incentive to bargain aggressively for better prices?  Economy?

In my mind, the 'profit' and 'administration fees' of the Part C plan (MA) the Obama administration complains about are what is good about private enterprise. 

Why isn't the government, the Obama administration working to save the folks on the traditional plan the 'profit'.  The 'profit' in my mind, seems to be a savings that is passed on to consumers, and investers.

The 'profit' is what is lost when government runs your services.  Everyone pays more.  People motivated by 'profit' may drive harder bargains and have an incentive to be effective if everything they do. 

What motivation does the government have to spend less?

Can anyone offer another explanation?

just my humble and arrogant opinions

[WhiskeyGirl]

I've never seen anything from the Obama administration that suggests they've ever done a satisfaction survey of Medicare Advantage participants.

Are you happy with your service?  Would you be willing to pay more?  How much more?

Would you be able to continue to get medical treatment if you had to return to original Medicare and the copays and deductibles? 

If some had experience with both - Which did you prefer and why?

Would you give up your low cost MA plan for a Medigap policy?  $35 / month or $150 / month?

What is the real cost of service for procedures under traditional Medicare? 

How much do MA plans save (the profit) by bargaining?