How did the ins. co's bribe the NAACP and League of United Latin American Citizens to dis Medicare?

[papau]

Does anyone believe friendly phone calls from your HMO is worth either a 12% reduction in overall coverage - or paying 12% more premium - even if they call the telephone service "co-ordinated care and disease management"?

Does anyone believe the doctors currently servicing the elderly do not co-ordinated their and try to manage the patients disease?

So how much of a "contribution" do you think The director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's Washington bureau Hilary O. Shelton is having the companies make - or is it going directly to her - or is she what we used to call an "easy date"? And for the Rosa Rosales, national president of the League of Latin American Citizens, is she also an "easy date", or is money coming their way, because folks, we, the insurance industry, used to laugh as we put out how our policies if compared to the single payer Medicare would provide lower out of pocket costs to the patient - and I can't believe these ladies are so stupid as to actually bought that con job.

But we have the AP reporting that the insurance companies are so sure they have locked up the Democratic Party votes to keep profit making/benefit cutting HMO's in the Medicare business that they have announced they have won - the usual "Democratic lawmakers and aides say the early move to trim up to $50 billion is all but dead" - and that usually good guys like Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.,are kissing insurance company ass with a statement that "But whatever Congress decides ...(no harm should come to)..the good guys who provide better care than traditional Medicare."

The AP then reports the 12% overcharge/benefit reduction required when Medicare is replaced - not supplemented - by HMOs, and we a few lines of real Democratic Party truth from folks like Pete Stark.

But I am still trying to decide if the MAACP's Hilary Shelton and the League of United Latin American Citizens Rosa Rosales are just insurance company whores, or if they are really cheap dates, or they are really stupid. That seems to be the only 3 choices.


http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070415/D8OH61VO0.html

Democrats Slowed in Efforts on Medicare

Apr 15, 1:28 PM (ET)

By DAVID ESPO


WASHINGTON (AP) - Deep cuts in Medicare's managed care programs seemed a sure bet last winter when Democrats, not exactly fans of health maintenance organizations, began to seek money to expand health coverage for poor children.

Then the NAACP and the League of United Latin American Citizens warned of the consequences for blacks and Hispanics, core constituencies for the new congressional majority.

Some Senate Democrats also expressed concern, the politics of which was summed up by Iowa's GOP Sen. Charles Grassley: "There are a lot of blue states ... that have a lot of HMOs."

Suddenly the drive to carve as much as $50 billion over five years from the Medicare Advantage program became more of a challenge than a certainty for Democrats as they advance their own agenda after more than a decade out of power.<snip>

[whatelseisnew]

1. 4th option: blackmail/ under duress. 5th option: Pat Robertsonites/Moonies

[papau]

2. True - but I expected better from both organizations - and from "Democratic staff" n/t

n/t

[antigop]

3. All you have to do is look at Wyden's health plan to see where his allegiance is n/t

[papau]

4. Thanks for the comment - I had forgotten about the Wyden Ins co based Health plan n/t

n/t

[shimmergal]

5. No. There's a fourth possible reason, which puts

these two organizations in a better light.

I belong to one of those Medicare Advantage plans. In theory I dislike them, but in practice, it's by far my most practical choice.

Aside from the amount deducted from my social security, I pay NO extra monthly premium for coverage. I have co-pays of $10 for office visits to a primary care provider--internist or gyn, $20 to a specialist, and low co-pays on most prescriptions, without having to lay out extra for buy-in under the Medicare Part D program. These costs, I can afford.

So, for most medical needs, I can be assured of treatment without it completely wrecking my budget. I probably have close to an average income for retirees -- SS plus a small pension. I'm sure many or most of the seniors that NAACP and the Latin American Citizens represent have a smaller income.

The thing is, with regular Medicare, the physician or other provider is free to charge you 25% of the total cost. The way they figure it, that can easily run $50 - $100, or more, for even minor things. Yes, there's "Gap Insurance" you can buy to cover these charges , but the only fairly comprehensive ones cost almost $200 a month (maybe more now; last time I checked was 5 years ago). Now, I realize that compared to younger people who have to pay much more for health insurance, this sounds reasonable. OTOH, if you're living on a fixed income of $700 a month, or $1000, or even $1500, with no hope of earning more, it's a BIG chunk to pay out. I could manage it--barely--but there'd be no money for extras at all: for other than staples at the grocery store, for an occasional book purchase which is food for the soul, for an occasional treat or present for my grandchildren. And heaven help me if I need to replace my 11-year-old falling-apart car!

Either way you look at it, insurance companies are going to gobble up too much money. If we had a single-payer health system, and took the profit motive out of this aspect of medicine at least, the costs would go down. How to bring this about? I don't know. Progressives (and some not so progressive) have been trying to get it since Truman's administration, and it hasn't happened yet. I AM thankful that Lyndon Johnson was able to get Medicare passed, and hate the idea of subsidizing the insurance co's profits. (Imagine my shock when I went in their headquarters bldg. and saw the marble walls and floor!)

But don't bad-mouth those organizations. They're just trying to insure affordable health care for the older blacks and Hispanics that they represent.