Medicare Part D sign-ups surpass all expectations

Providence Business News ^ | 05/13/2006 | Marion Davis

[syriacus]

I enrolled my mother last week. The medicare.gov website helped greatly in determining which plan she should join. If we are unhappy with the plan we can switch in about 6 months. It looks like she will be saving about $3000 a year.

I only wish I had not tried comparing plans on my own, but had gone directly to medicare.gov and entered her prescriptions there to see which plan in our area was best for her. If I had done that last January she would be $1000 richer

[Daus]

This is turning out to be a disaster for the Dem's. The seniors are happy with the program, the cost actuals are coming in lower than anticipated, and AARP is making a ton of money on it, so they are increasingly in the GOP pocket.

Unfortunately, just recently, Bush has been making some rumblings of screwing the whole thing up and moving to price controls.

[fatnotlazy]

This is turning out to be a disaster for the Dem's.....

***

Not according to the mainstream media. All weekend I heard how there were x number of seniors still not signed up.

[marblehead17]

ping

[cinives]

And why wouldn't they sign up for welfare for seniors ? Payments courtesy of a taxpayer near you.

[sine_nomine]

We need wide open, pedal to the metal competition. That alone will reduce prices.

[cinives]

right - the AARP is in the GOP's pocket just as long as the GOP provides more handouts to seniors.

[sine_nomine]

Would you give me the exact link you used to compare plans and save money. I am not finding it at the moment. My wife is in the $53 a month Humana plan.

[Protagoras]

Medicare Part D sign-ups surpass all expectations

I certainly expected it to be a hit.

When you steal from one person and give the loot to someone else, the person receiving the stolen booty can be expected to sign up for it.

[syriacus]

All weekend I heard how there were x number of seniors still not signed up.

Me, too. This article says that, by last Wednesday, 37 million seniors were enrolled. Leavitt says he expects 90% of eligible seniors to be enrolled by the deadline.

From the bit of news I have heard today, I would have thought that only 10% of eligible seniors had enrolled and 90% were unenrolled.

[Protagoras]

Unfortunately, just recently, Bush has been making some rumblings of screwing the whole thing up and moving to price controls.

How can you screw up a screw up?

All wealth transfer schemes are screwed up by definition.

LBJ would be a Republican if he were still alive.

[Protagoras]

And why wouldn't they sign up for welfare for seniors ?

"Welfare" is usually for poor people. This is a generational wealth transfer scheme.

It's government theft, courtesy of GWB and his Republican and Democratic cronies.

[Daus]

How can you screw up a screw up?

Well, you can screw it up more.

I work in this industry and see what's going on first hand. I'm not a fan of this legislation, but there has been a delicate dance going on trying to find a way to avoid HillaryCare and complete price controls. Part-D was effective at staving that off, and then to hear Bush himself put it back on the table was disheartening.

[butternut_squash_bisque]

"...AARP is making a ton of money on it, so they are increasingly in the GOP pocket."

Not a snowball's chance in hell. They're lib-dem trash, through and through. The GOPers have no place at their table.

[Daus]

Some more background on this...

Rx proposal ascending

[unixfox]

"If you’re an senior,ILLEGAL don’t worry,” he said. “There will be plenty of people to help you.”

There, it's fixed!

[Protagoras]

I'm not a fan of this legislation,

I hope not. What would you be in favor of, if anything?

but there has been a delicate dance going on trying to find a way to avoid HillaryCare and complete price controls.

Two groups of socialists/fascists negotiating the sell out of Indivdual liberty and personal responsibility.

Part-D was effective at staving that off,

No it wasn't, it was a stepping stone.

and then to hear Bush himself put it back on the table was disheartening.

Only if you expected a different path.

[fatnotlazy]

Thanks!

I believe this program will be a success, despite all the negative commentary from the liberal press. The trouble is that with the liberal machine constantly hammering seniors with the propaganda that George Bush and the Republicans are not their friends, I doubt this will translate into seniors voting Republican. Republicans will need to do a better job of reminding seniors (and the voters in general) of the good that has come from this administration, since voters will not get that information from the liberal press.

[Daus]

I hope not. What would you be in favor of, if anything?

The entire problem with the prescription drug business is the concept of 'rebates' and price controls. Large insurers or Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) negotiate 'rebates' (there are various other words for this type of arrangement, let your imagination run) and the government has the benefit of both Rebates (to the states) and 'Best Price' to the feds.

The rebates do nothing but pad the wallets of the PBMs and float the state agencies. This, in combination, with the price controls caused the 'cash' prices for drugs to be inflated. Previously, Medicare receiptients were the predominant cash customer taking the hit for all of the above. This made for glorious, "Poor Aunt Edna has to buy drugs from Canada" media stories to bash the GOP. Part-D got them in under the third party payor umbrella and they all now enjoy the benefit of the rebates.

So, given that short lecture, a vast majority of the problem would have been addressed by pushing off the medicare receipients into competitive third party coverage, but there was no real need for the government to pick up as much benefit as they did. Market rate insurance coverage, with some guaruntee of coverability would have been fine. But would have had a hard time getting past the Dems would wanted to give it all away.

[Protagoras]

I believe this program will be a success, despite all the negative commentary from the liberal press.

Sucess at what?