Posted on 11/18/2014 7:02:46 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
They'd be better off with "less scope for choosing the wrong plan."
In a 2009 paper, “Choice Inconsistencies Among the Elderly: Evidence from Plan Choice in the Medicare Part D Program,” Obamacare advisor Jonathan Gruber argued that there were too many Medicare Part D plans for seniors to choose from, which led them to make bad decisions when enrolling in a plan.
In the paper, written for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Gruber wrote with Jason T. Abaluck that the privatization of the public Medicare program had resulted in dozens of private insurers offering a wide variety of insurance products for seniors to choose from. The result of so many choices, Gruber wrote, is that seniors are not making decisions that are in their best interest. ”First, elders place much more weight on plan premiums than they do on the expected out of pocket costs that they will incur under the plan. Second, they substantially under-value variance reducing aspects of alternative plans. Finally, consumers appear to value plan financial characteristics far beyond any impacts on their own financial expenses or risk.”
The paper noted that while standard economic theory would suggest that expanded choice is a beneficial plan feature, “There are reasons to believe that the standard model is insufficient, particularly for a population of elders. There is growing interest in behavioral economics in models where agents are better off with a more restricted choice set,” Gruber wrote.
One of the reasons that choices should be restricted for seniors is their inability to understand the choices available to them. According to Gruber, “These issues may be paramount within the context of the elderly, given that the potential for cognitive failures rises at older ages.” He continued, “There is substantial scope for increases in utility if consumers made better choices, and some of these gains could be realized by restricting to the three lowest cost plans.”
Gruber admits that his models did not distinguish between the case of rational consumers choosing plans they trust and consumers making poor choices due to a lack of cognitive ability. “In either case,” he concluded, “our estimates imply that consumers would be better off if there were less scope for choosing the wrong plan.”
Gruber reiterated his assertion that seniors would be better off with fewer choices in a follow-up paper in 2013, “Evolving Choice Inconsistencies in Choice of Prescription Drug Insurance.”
“The bold experiment with consumer choice across health insurance plans embodied in the Medicare Part D program provides an excellent opportunity to assess how consumers perform in choosing insurance plans,” Gruber wrote. “We find that, using the best available data, consumers are very inconsistent in their choices, overweighting premiums relative to out of pocket costs, weighting plan characteristics above and beyond the effect on that consumer, and ignoring variance in coverage across plans.”
Gruber again acknowledged that standard economic theory would suggest that Medicare beneficiaries are better off choosing from a wide variety of plans that meet their needs, rather than constraining them to a limited set of choices being made by the government. But perhaps giving insight into what Obamacare masterminds envision, not only for the Medicare Part D program, but also for the future of the Obamacare exchanges, Gruber concluded, “There are a large number of behavioral economics models which suggest that in fact agents may be better off with more restrictive choice sets.”
sending to my socialist Uncle....
Let’s cut to the chase. Obamacare is really a tax (and a personal, medical history, and financial information gathering tool to collect data on citizen for much more nefarious uses later). It was never really designed to pay any real medical benefits. The high deductibles and high premiums ensure that the Feds get to keep the majority of the dough if they can keep from paying out where it really hurts ‘em - senior citizens whose bodies break down after working 60 some odd years paying in taxes. The Feds know that if they can death panel them or force them to get coverage that pays less benefits they get to keep much more. And then you have someone like Gruber who comes along and just makes their intent that much more obvious because of his Asbergerish type comments that reveal the truth. The Feds will never come out and admit it but we all know its the truth.
Why? Reading the first few lines makes my eyes hurt. I suspect most will not get that far.
Seniors are super stupid.
Obama said that if an elderly person needs a hip replacement it would be more cost effective to give that person a pain pill.
Notice Leftists never say medical treatment for all but emphasize on the insurance for all.. Two different things.
I take it you’re not a senior?
Correct. Obambicare has made our medical system so complicated that many just sign up thinking it's more free stuff without reading the fine print. And Medicare is a joke and I blame that somewhat on W Bush and his free medicine, which often times turns out not be so free. Ever wonder why you see all those insurance commercials to cover Plan D or whatever?
Orwell covers this in Animal Farm. After promising the stocky horse that he will be able to retire to leisure and pasture after he has worked hard, Napoleon the communist pig sells him to the dog food processor as soon as the horse’s usefulness is over. And the sheep said nothing....
God willing getting there in a very few years. But for now I pay my own way. But looking forward to collecting all those great gov benefits as a senior.
“. ”First, elders place much more weight on plan premiums than they do on the expected out of pocket costs that they will incur under the plan.”
Here we go again——those dumb old seniors can’t figure anything out.
I’m one of them.
Shut the hell up,Gruber.
.
Suppose Pajama boy had only 3 restaurants to choose from or only 3 suits to purchase. His rhetoric might change...
Well, with $5,000,000 of FU money in the bank, and opposed to living from one SS check to the next, your purchasing decisions change.
My neighbour is retired. I am working. We both need a new furnace. My neighbour buys on a monthly payment plan, as my neighbour has no other option. For me, I can pay cash
Gruber/Hitler, you decide! No wonder ACA has “death commissions,” this little bastard (and his soulmate, George Soros) are hard-core Marxists.
Answer : CONTROL !
jsanders2001:"The high deductibles and high premiums ensure that the Feds get to keep the majority of the dough if they can keep from paying out where it really hurts ‘em "
ANSWER : CORRECT !
If seniors pay the higher premium , then there is less that the FED Govt., and their agent(Social Security/Medicare) can "claw back" in medical expenses,fees and estate taxes .
Der Fuhrer vants all he can get back ! No squawking allowed.
Do you want to be Grubered again ?
Ya got that right.
Hitler Finds Out Field Marshal Gruber Spilled the Beans:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKhkQqA53v0
“lowest cost” = lowest level of care
“senior” = older and in need of more care
greater care deficit = earlier death
earlier death = lower costs
Much like they view abortion, just at the other end of the age spectrum.
Exactly. And yes, that's why AARP supported Obamacare. So they could sell more "medigap" insurance.
death panels were his idea?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.