“If part D has a “salutary effect” one would expect total medicare costs to at least slow their increase if not stop. Despite the study, they haven’t. Medicare costs go up and up.”
First of all I am quoting what a well respected economic think tank reported
It makes sense as drugs are cheaper than medical procedures.
Now consider if you can 2 which have nothing to do with part D; medical costs jave risen for every segment of medical care including private, right? you do know that, right?
and do you agree the number of people on medicare has ben rising rapidly and will continue to rise rapidly for the next 20 years
so IF the number of enrolees on medicare had stayed the same AND the overall costs of medical care at stayed the same then one could suggest that part d might have slowed the overall costs of medicare
but sadly we can’t change reality nor should we ignore it .
btw do you know how much people pay a month for part d and how much they co pay, unless they are poor
“First of all I am quoting what a well respected economic think tank reported.”
I don’t disagree that you just mentioned what a “well respected economic think tank reported.” My point is that I don;t find it to be believable. It’s not believable because it has NOT brought down Medicare costs. We are spending an extra $53B per year on part D. If it had a 2:1 effect, one would expect Medicare costs to be $106B less than projected. They aren’t. That is my point.
It costs money and it is adding to the deficit. If it’s a good program (and my father in law loves it) then we should pay for it.