PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues GOP: Medicare is a disaster! Long live Medicare!


jAZ
08-25-2009, 08:46 AM
ROFL

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/cognitive_dissonance.php?ref=fpblg

08.25.09 -- 9:01AM // RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)

Cognitive Dissonance
Michael Steele is on Fox now going on about how Medicare is a wreck, completely bankrupt, and an example of how the government has already proven it can't run a health care program.

Except didn't the "health care bill of rights" that the GOP unveiled yesterday declare preserving Medicare and protecting it against any cuts an inviolable right?

Shorter Steele: Medicare is a disaster! Long live Medicare!

(It's not the first time Steele has gotten his Medicare demagoging all messed up.)

--David Kurtz

Donger
08-25-2009, 09:48 AM
It's actually a great example of how entrenched these socialist programs become. They NEVER go away.

KC native
08-25-2009, 09:50 AM
It's actually a great example of how entrenched these socialist programs become. They NEVER go away.

So did you give your log in info to BEP or what?

Donger
08-25-2009, 09:51 AM
So did you give your log in info to BEP or what?

Pardon?

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 09:53 AM
ROFL

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/cognitive_dissonance.php?ref=fpblg

08.25.09 -- 9:01AM // RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)

Cognitive Dissonance
Michael Steele is on Fox now going on about how Medicare is a wreck, completely bankrupt, and an example of how the government has already proven it can't run a health care program.

Except didn't the "health care bill of rights" that the GOP unveiled yesterday declare preserving Medicare and protecting it against any cuts an inviolable right?

Shorter Steele: Medicare is a disaster! Long live Medicare!

(It's not the first time Steele has gotten his Medicare demagoging all messed up.)

--David Kurtz


Yeah, it's kind of like Obama saying that Medicare is a well-run program with $500 billion in waste.

jAZ
08-25-2009, 10:14 AM
Yeah, it's kind of like Obama saying that Medicare is a well-run program with $500 billion in waste.

How much "waste" exists in the private insurance industry?

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 10:20 AM
How much "waste" exists in the private insurance industry?deflect, deflect, deflect. That is the problem here - instead of fixing and removing Medicare waste, we argue that "they" have more waste. This is just plain ignorant. If the gov't truly gave a crap about Medicare waste reduction, they would stop pointing their finger and get rid of the waste now since it is a serious contributor to our exploding debt problem. But, we need an 1100+ page bill passed before we rid ourselves of Medicare waste.....

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 10:26 AM
How much "waste" exists in the private insurance industry?

I thought we were talking about Medicare...

But I don't blame you for ignoring Obama's idiotic statements...

jAZ
08-25-2009, 10:32 AM
deflect, deflect, deflect. That is the problem here - instead of fixing and removing Medicare waste, we argue that "they" have more waste. This is just plain ignorant. If the gov't truly gave a crap about Medicare waste reduction, they would stop pointing their finger and get rid of the waste now since it is a serious contributor to our exploding debt problem. But, we need an 1100+ page bill passed before we rid ourselves of Medicare waste.....

It's not "deflection". It's 100% the point. Which system is better? Part of that evaluation is which system has more waste.

RINGLEADER (as is typical of his conversations) presented a one sided argument that the $500B makes the system unacceptably bad.

If the alternative is a private system that has $2T in waste after having already largely having implemented the changes planned for MC, then the Medicare looks very good.

And when the $500B in changes are implemented, it would become an even better, more efficient system.

You have to benchmark the system against something meaningful like the proposed alternative.

jAZ
08-25-2009, 10:33 AM
I thought we were talking about Medicare...

But I don't blame you for ignoring Obama's idiotic statements...

We are talking about which system we should adopt, Medicare-likeish public system or the existing private systems.

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 10:33 AM
deflect, deflect, deflect. That is the problem here - instead of fixing and removing Medicare waste, we argue that "they" have more waste. This is just plain ignorant. If the gov't truly gave a crap about Medicare waste reduction, they would stop pointing their finger and get rid of the waste now since it is a serious contributor to our exploding debt problem. But, we need an 1100+ page bill passed before we rid ourselves of Medicare waste.....

Because most of the "waste" is going to come by way of Obamacare arbitrarily reducing payments to doctors. Which is always a smart thing to do when you're going to ask them to see (by some accounts) 10 times the number of patients. The days of calling your doctor and being able to get in the same/next day will be over. Unless, of course, a new group of doctors who want to work for less magically appears.

Obama's lack of understanding when it comes to free market principles is matched only by the hubris in thinking he can simply force such change without consequences.

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 10:37 AM
It's not "deflection". It's 100% the point. Which system is better? Part of that evaluation is which system has more waste.


And when the $500B in changes are implemented, it would become an even better, more efficient system.
Yes, it is deflection. Please detail (with the exception of digitizing records) the changes that would be made AFTER a bill is signed that will reduce Medicare costs. Because the changes cannot obviously be made BEFORE a bill is signed.

I really would like a detailed list of cost reduction measures. This congress has not provided one and neither has the administration so as far as I am concerned their talk is just that - talk.

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 10:38 AM
RINGLEADER (as is typical of his conversations) presented a one sided argument that the $500B makes the system unacceptably bad.


That wasn't my point at all jAZ. I was making fun of Obama and his stupid comment that Medicare was a great program while simultaneously claiming he would find $500 billion in waste (something the CBO says won't happen, BTW).

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 10:39 AM
I really would like a detailed list of cost reduction measures. This congress has not provided one and neither has the administration so as far as I am concerned their talk is just that - talk.Which is probably why the CBO has stated that HR3200 will not reduce costs but cost $250 billion more.

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 10:47 AM
We are talking about which system we should adopt, Medicare-likeish public system or the existing private systems.

That wasn't the gist of your original post but okay, I'll play:

Obamacare is ridiculously flawed, won't create an environment that leads to better care, isn't deficit-neutral (using Obama's numbers), creates a multi-trillion dollar unfunded mandate after the ten-year budgeting window, and will lead to less care overall, higher taxes, or bigger deficits. There's a host of other problems with Obamacare but I'll stop there for now.

The private insurance system covers the vast majority of Americans who want insurance, is preferred by the vast majority of Americans, and provides personal options that the government could (or "wants to" if you listen to Obama's own words) curtail. Then again, we've heard from Dems in congress who are on the record saying they don't care what the people want so I guess it isn't surprising you would ignore these facts.

And please don't confuse a lack of support for Obamacare with a belief that there aren't ways to make the system better. There are many ideas that could have an immediate impact on curtailing costs. Rather than HOPE that Obama's plans to blow up the current health care industry will CHANGE the system why don't we start on the cost-side of things and see if he can pull that part off?

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 10:50 AM
Which is probably why the CBO has stated that HR3200 will not reduce costs but cost $250 billion more.

To be fair they did say it would reduce costs by $2 billion. But only if you take Obama at his word. There is nothing that requires the savings to be tallied. Unless you believe government will suddenly become a responsible entity that has to answer for its actions (something that's built-in, jAZ, with the private markets that go bankrupt when they don't operate responsibly).

But HR3200 is NOT deficit-neutral and Obama knows it. He can make up any numbers he wants and say that's what will happen. But his admin and/or the Dems were wrong about the stimulus (and those projections are only six months old) and were wrong about cash-for-clunkers (just last month!?!?) so there's a lot of reason to believe his numbers ten years from now are going to be accurate. :rolleyes:

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 10:54 AM
This is the part of the program where Obamacare supporters typically start calling people who have reasonable issues with how Obama can't reconcile his statements with the facts as "Nazis" or "Brown Shirts".....

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 10:57 AM
This is the part of the program where Obamacare supporters typically start calling people who have reasonable issues with how Obama can't reconcile his statements with the facts as "Nazis" or "Brown Shirts".....Don't do that. You have to give those on the other side a chance to respond.

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 11:00 AM
Don't do that. You have to give those on the other side a chance to respond.

OK. Not holding my breath.

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 11:03 AM
I don't think the House bill is anything like Medicare for all. That is too bad because I would support if it was.

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 11:05 AM
That wasn't my point at all jAZ. I was making fun of Obama and his stupid comment that Medicare was a great program while simultaneously claiming he would find $500 billion in waste (something the CBO says won't happen, BTW).

That is silly. I would say the military is a great program but it has double or triple the waste.

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 11:23 AM
That is silly. I would say the military is a great program but it has double or triple the waste.

Not really. Especially when the CBO says the savings that Obama hopes to tally from this "great" program (that has $34 trillion in unfunded mandates, BTW) is closer to $2 billion than $500 billion.

And if you believe that POV why don't we try to find those savings first?

I mean all this waste -- if it is as much as Obama claims -- should be very easy to locate and excise. Unfortunately, the majority of this "waste" is going to come from government dictating reimburseable rates to doctors. But they won't tell you that's in the bill...

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 11:24 AM
I don't think the House bill is anything like Medicare for all. That is too bad because I would support if it was.

So Medicare can go bankrupt even quicker?

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 11:41 AM
Not really. Especially when the CBO says the savings that Obama hopes to tally from this "great" program (that has $34 trillion in unfunded mandates, BTW) is closer to $2 billion than $500 billion.

And if you believe that POV why don't we try to find those savings first?

I mean all this waste -- if it is as much as Obama claims -- should be very easy to locate and excise. Unfortunately, the majority of this "waste" is going to come from government dictating reimburseable rates to doctors. But they won't tell you that's in the bill...

Go look at the military waste it is double or triple. In fact they were missing 2.3 trillion in which they couldn't account for.

pikesome
08-25-2009, 11:47 AM
Go look at the military waste it is double or triple. In fact they were missing 2.3 trillion in which they can't account for.

That doesn't really address the waste in Medicare. "The military is worse" isn't a solution to the issue of Medicare costing far more than every projection says.

If nothing else it only strengthens the idea that the Fed can't be trusted with the money they have now let alone any more.

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 11:51 AM
That doesn't really address the waste in Medicare. "The military is worse" isn't a solution to the issue of Medicare costing far more than every projection says.

If nothing else it only strengthens the idea that the Fed can't be trusted with the money they have now let alone any more.

The argument Ringleader is making is that Medicare isn't good because it has alot of waste. So does that mean the military isn't good either because it has triple the waste that Medicare has?

Of course not because any program is going to have waste especially when dealing with the government. That doesn't mean they aren't good and necessary programs.

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 11:52 AM
That doesn't really address the waste in Medicare. "The military is worse" isn't a solution to the issue of Medicare costing far more than every projection says.

If nothing else it only strengthens the idea that the Fed can't be trusted with the money they have now let alone any more.This is my point. When one cannot intellectually defend a position with truth, they usually deflect by demoaning some other "worse" problem and try to equate the two. We all do it to some extent. This time however, the nation sees right through the crap or at least cares to point it out.

All I want to know and will probably never get a straight answer is - If there is so much waste in Medicare and Medicaid currently, Why isn't it being reduced NOW and what is it and how will it be reduced?

pikesome
08-25-2009, 11:54 AM
The argument Ringleader is making is that Medicare isn't good because it has alot of waste. So does that mean the military isn't good either because it has triple the waste that Medicare has?

Of course not because any program is going to have waste especially when dealing with the government. That doesn't mean they aren't good and necessary programs.

The "good" and "necessary" are very much debatable with the bills being worked on.

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 11:58 AM
This is my point. When one cannot intellectually defend a position with truth, they usually deflect by demoaning some other "worse" problem and try to equate the two. We all do it to some extent. This time however, the nation sees right through the crap or at least cares to point it out.

All I want to know and will probably never get a straight answer is - If there is so much waste in Medicare and Medicaid currently, Why isn't it being reduced NOW and what is it and how will it be reduced?

Both medicare and Medicaid have alot of fraud. In the case of Medicare waste IIRC Obama thinks that Medicare - Advantage packages is considered waste which I and alot of other people disagree with him on. Also the biggest factor to reducing waste is getting to the electronic records system which will save about $25 billion or more per year

Brock
08-25-2009, 11:59 AM
Also the biggest factor to reducing waste is getting to the electronic records system which will save about $25 billion or more per year

ROFL

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 12:04 PM
ROFL

:spock:

1. Make the big, bulky, program more efficient. The U.S. Healthcare Efficiency Index (http://www.ushealthcareindex.com/index.php) estimates that $23 billion could be saved annually just by moving health care billing and payment transactions from paper to electronic format.

Sorry it was $23 not $25 billion

Also it estimates $11 billion could be saved a year through direct deposit of medical payment transactions.

(BTW their website appears to be down)

Brock
08-25-2009, 12:06 PM
:spock:

1. Make the big, bulky, program more efficient. The U.S. Healthcare Efficiency Index (http://www.ushealthcareindex.com/index.php) estimates that $23 billion could be saved annually just by moving health care billing and payment transactions from paper to electronic format.

Sorry it was $23 not $25 billion

Also it estimates $11 billion could be saved a year through direct deposit of medical payment transactions.

(BTW their website appears to be down)

Well, if the "ushealthcareindex" says it, it must be so, even if they can't come up with an operational website. ROFL

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 12:07 PM
Both medicare and Medicaid have alot of fraud. In the case of Medicare waste IIRC Obama thinks that Medicare - Advantage packages is considered waste which I and alot of other people disagree with him on. Also the biggest factor to reducing waste is getting to the electronic records system which will save about $25 billion or more per year equates to about 5% of the waste savings. Where is the other 95% of the $500 Billion savings going to come from? - Just a slash of the Medicare Advantage programs?

Medicare Advantage plans are a method for people to receive Medicare benefits through private health insurance (Medicare Part C), signed by Clinton in the late 90's. There are certainly overhead issues with these plans but isn't getting rid of these programs another cog in the getting rid of private health insurance wheel and heading down the single-payer plan road?

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 12:13 PM
Well, if the "ushealthcareindex" says it, it must be so, even if they can't come up with an operational website. ROFL

Do you have different numbers?

BTW their website is back up. So maybe you can educate yourself

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 12:15 PM
equates to about 5% of the waste savings. Where is the other 95% of the $500 Billion savings going to come from? - Just a slash of the Medicare Advantage programs?

Medicare Advantage plans are a method for people to receive Medicare benefits through private health insurance (Medicare Part C), signed by Clinton in the late 90's. There are certainly overhead issues with these plans but isn't getting rid of these programs another cog in the getting rid of private health insurance wheel and heading down the single-payer plan road?

I don't know. I assume that $500 billion is over a longer time frame than just a year.

Brock
08-25-2009, 12:20 PM
Do you have different numbers?

BTW their website is back up. So maybe you can educate yourself

It wouldn't make any difference, you'll obviously swallow anything that reinforces your pre-existing beliefs.

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 12:22 PM
I don't know. I assume that $500 billion is over a longer time frame than just a year.I really hate to use the Cato Institute for information but the Libertarian think tank had a very good explanation of this when Obama noted his desire in January to dump the Medicare Advantage system signed by Clinton.

Obama Proposes Eliminating Medicare Advantage, Ousting 9 Million Seniors from Their Health Plans (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/01/12/obama-proposes-eliminating-medicare-advantage-ousting-9-million-seniors-from-their-health-plans/)

On This Week with George Stephanopolous (http://media.bulletinnews.com/playclip.aspx?clipid=8cb4275f6a44ad3), president-elect Barack Obama proposed eliminating the ENTIRE Medicare Advantage program:

We’ve got to eliminate programs that don’t work, and I’ll give you an example in the health care area. We are spending a lot of money subsidizing the insurance companies around something called Medicare Advantage, a program that gives them subsidies to accept Medicare recipients but doesn’t necessarily make people on Medicare healthier.
And if we eliminate that and other programs, we can potentially save $200 billion out of the health care system that we’re currently spending, and take that money and use it in ways that are actually going to make people healthier and improve quality. So what our challenge is going to be is identifying what works and putting more money into that, eliminating things that don’t work, and making things that we have more efficient.
Medicare Advantage allows seniors to choose a private health plan rather than get their health coverage from the traditional Medicare (http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&pid=1441322) program. The Left has complained Medicare Advantage costs taxpayers more than if those seniors remained in the traditional Medicare program. (I agree (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/07/14/medicare-reform-just-give-seniors-the-cash/#more-549), though the reason is not because government is more efficient than private insurance.) The Left has long dreamt of eliminating Medicare Advantage, in part because it poses a threat to their plans for a completely government-run, single-payer health care system. Yet the Left has had to settle for attacking and attempting to eliminate the “overpayments” that Medicare Advantage plans receive. Of course, one can eliminate Medicare Advantage stealthily by reducing payments to private plans until none will participate.

For Obama to suggest eliminating Medicare Advantage outright, however, is extraordinary. First, Obama made a campaign promise that he will let Americans keep their current health insurance. Eliminating Medicare Advantage would force 9 million seniors out of their current health plans and back into traditional Medicare. Second, a man who wants to reform America’s health care sector ought not begin the effort by proposing to take something away from seniors, America’s largest and most politically active voting block. Maybe the Obama folks haven’t learned the lessons of the Clinton health care battle.

Eliminating Medicare Advantage would be bad for non-seniors, too, because it would block innovations that make medicine better, cheaper, and safer. The main reason that the U.S. health care sector fails to coordinate care, fails to provide patients with electronic medical records, and fails to prevent medical errors is that whenever providers try to do those things, the traditional Medicare program’s change-resistant payment system punishes them for doing so. (Universal coverage (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/?s=anti+universal+coverage+club) kills (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjA0NTk1MmNhNDEzNzk0YjIyMGQ3Y2I2MTE5OGM2Y2Y=).) Medicare Advantage plans use different financial incentives that actually encourage coordination, EMRs, and error reduction. What a novel thought…

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/01/12/obama-proposes-eliminating-medicare-advantage-ousting-9-million-seniors-from-their-health-plans/

The big, bolded portion is a good example of why townhalls are filled to the brim with Seniors.

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 12:25 PM
It wouldn't make any difference, you'll obviously swallow anything that reinforces your pre-existing beliefs.

The pre-existing belief that technology will save us money? Sure then count me in since I am IT guy in health care who has seen it first hand

and btw Newt Gingrich is on the board of this company so no one can accuse them of being some liberal think tank

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 12:30 PM
I really hate to use the Cato Institute for information but the Libertarian think tank had a very good explanation of this when Obama noted his desire in January to dump the Medicare Advantage system signed by Clinton.

Obama Proposes Eliminating Medicare Advantage, Ousting 9 Million Seniors from Their Health Plans (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/01/12/obama-proposes-eliminating-medicare-advantage-ousting-9-million-seniors-from-their-health-plans/)

On This Week with George Stephanopolous (http://media.bulletinnews.com/playclip.aspx?clipid=8cb4275f6a44ad3), president-elect Barack Obama proposed eliminating the ENTIRE Medicare Advantage program:
We’ve got to eliminate programs that don’t work, and I’ll give you an example in the health care area. We are spending a lot of money subsidizing the insurance companies around something called Medicare Advantage, a program that gives them subsidies to accept Medicare recipients but doesn’t necessarily make people on Medicare healthier.
And if we eliminate that and other programs, we can potentially save $200 billion out of the health care system that we’re currently spending, and take that money and use it in ways that are actually going to make people healthier and improve quality. So what our challenge is going to be is identifying what works and putting more money into that, eliminating things that don’t work, and making things that we have more efficient.
Medicare Advantage allows seniors to choose a private health plan rather than get their health coverage from the traditional Medicare (http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&pid=1441322) program. The Left has complained Medicare Advantage costs taxpayers more than if those seniors remained in the traditional Medicare program. (I agree (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/07/14/medicare-reform-just-give-seniors-the-cash/#more-549), though the reason is not because government is more efficient than private insurance.) The Left has long dreamt of eliminating Medicare Advantage, in part because it poses a threat to their plans for a completely government-run, single-payer health care system. Yet the Left has had to settle for attacking and attempting to eliminate the “overpayments” that Medicare Advantage plans receive. Of course, one can eliminate Medicare Advantage stealthily by reducing payments to private plans until none will participate.

For Obama to suggest eliminating Medicare Advantage outright, however, is extraordinary. First, Obama made a campaign promise that he will let Americans keep their current health insurance. Eliminating Medicare Advantage would force 9 million seniors out of their current health plans and back into traditional Medicare. Second, a man who wants to reform America’s health care sector ought not begin the effort by proposing to take something away from seniors, America’s largest and most politically active voting block. Maybe the Obama folks haven’t learned the lessons of the Clinton health care battle.

Eliminating Medicare Advantage would be bad for non-seniors, too, because it would block innovations that make medicine better, cheaper, and safer. The main reason that the U.S. health care sector fails to coordinate care, fails to provide patients with electronic medical records, and fails to prevent medical errors is that whenever providers try to do those things, the traditional Medicare program’s change-resistant payment system punishes them for doing so. (Universal coverage (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/?s=anti+universal+coverage+club) kills (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjA0NTk1MmNhNDEzNzk0YjIyMGQ3Y2I2MTE5OGM2Y2Y=).) Medicare Advantage plans use different financial incentives that actually encourage coordination, EMRs, and error reduction. What a novel thought…

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/01/12/obama-proposes-eliminating-medicare-advantage-ousting-9-million-seniors-from-their-health-plans/

The big, bolded portion is a good example of why townhalls are filled to the brim with Seniors.

That is why I disagree with him on this. I read the exact same article awhile back.

orange
08-25-2009, 12:32 PM
Where does this "$500 billion" waste number come from? Some email?

Since the ENTIRE cost of Medicare was $330 billion, I find that number more than a little fishy.

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 12:33 PM
That is why I disagree with him on this. I read the exact same article awhile back.I am really sick of the "talking out of both sides of his mouth" crap. One minute "We are not removing choice." The next - "You can keep you current care." It is such crap. The people are finally speaking out because they know the talk is insincere. They want specifics because they don't trust him or the gov't. I can't blame them as I am with them.

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 12:34 PM
Where does this "$500 billion" waste number come from? Some email?

Since the ENTIRE cost of Medicare was $330 billion, I find that number more than a little fishy.Ten years savings based on a $1 Trillion bill in the House if I remember right.

orange
08-25-2009, 12:35 PM
Baltimore Sun Editorial: Medicare Waste

Wednesday, December 3, 2008


Private health insurance plans that serve nearly a fourth of all Medicare beneficiaries, including more than 40,000 in Maryland, were set up under the assumption that the private companies could provide the same services as Medicare at a lower cost. Instead, many have significantly increased costs without improving care, a new analysis of the Medicare Advantage program shows.It's time for the multibillion-dollar waste to end. Congress should act early next year to reduce these payments to private insurance companies to the level of traditional Medicare. That could save $160 billion over the next 10 years, money that would be better spent offsetting the soaring costs of Medicare as a flood of baby boomers join the program. Enrollment in private Medicare fee-for-service plans has exploded to 2.3 million recently from just 26,000 at the end of 2003. That growth has driven up costs because the government pays the private insurers 13 percent on average more than it would spend for the same number of beneficiaries receiving traditional Medicare. In Maryland, the extra money raked in by the insurance companies added an estimated $28.7 million to the cost of Medicare last year - $16 million to private insurers and $12.7 million in increased premiums paid by seniors participating in Medicare Part B, according to the analysis by the USAction Education Fund for Progressive Maryland, a liberal advocacy group here.

http://medicareadvantagecongress.blogspot.com/2008/12/baltimore-sun-editorial-medicare-waste.html

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 12:37 PM
Where does this "$500 billion" waste number come from? Some email?

Since the ENTIRE cost of Medicare was $330 billion, I find that number more than a little fishy.Here's your savings #'s.

http://www.finance.cch.com/columns/taxes/09-168HealthCareReform.asp

Comprehensive Health Care Reform Bill Unveiled by House Leadership

By Jeff Carlson, Stephen K. Cooper and Paula Cruickshank, CCH News StaffDeclaring the end of health insurance insecurity for all Americans, House leaders on July 14 introduced the America's Affordable Health Choices Bill of 2009 (HR 3200), a comprehensive reform bill that would raise approximately $581.1 billion over 10 years, mostly through a progressive tax on upper income individuals. The 1,018-page measure, which will be marked up by the House Ways and Means Committee on July 16, is also expected to cut Medicare spending by at least $500 billion.

Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., told reporters that he is hopeful that the final Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of the cost savings in the bill will be large enough to reduce the amount of revenue increases on wealthy Americans. A preliminary estimate of Medicare savings based on an earlier draft of the health care bill shows gross savings from the Medicare program of $500 billion over 10 years. The CBO estimate, released on July 8, shows that solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund would be extended by the bill.

orange
08-25-2009, 12:39 PM
:spock:

1. Make the big, bulky, program more efficient. The U.S. Healthcare Efficiency Index (http://www.ushealthcareindex.com/index.php) estimates that $23 billion could be saved annually just by moving health care billing and payment transactions from paper to electronic format.

Sorry it was $23 not $25 billion

Also it estimates $11 billion could be saved a year through direct deposit of medical payment transactions.

(BTW their website appears to be down)

equates to about 5% of the waste savings. Where is the other 95% of the $500 Billion savings going to come from? - Just a slash of the Medicare Advantage programs?

Medicare Advantage plans are a method for people to receive Medicare benefits through private health insurance (Medicare Part C), signed by Clinton in the late 90's. There are certainly overhead issues with these plans but isn't getting rid of these programs another cog in the getting rid of private health insurance wheel and heading down the single-payer plan road?

Ten years savings based on a $1 Trillion bill in the House if I remember right.


Well, then, the ANNUAL savings from that electronically formatting ($29 billion actually according to the website) will be over $290 billion over ten years. That's a healthy chunk of the $500 billion, wouldn't you say?

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 12:42 PM
Well, then, the ANNUAL savings from that electronically formatting ($29 billion actually according to the website) will be over $290 billion over ten years. That's a healthy chunk of the $500 billion, wouldn't you say?Why is it NOT done now then? Is it being purposefully being prevented so it can be included in a bill to help it get passed? Why the HELL not NOW? Why must these savings wait?

Yes, I am pissed off about it.

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 12:51 PM
Why is it NOT done now then? Is it being purposefully being prevented so it can be included in a bill to help it get passed? Why the HELL not NOW? Why must these savings wait?

Yes, I am pissed off about it.

Some of it was already put in the stimulus IIRC. It will take a while to get it up and going.

And thanks to orange to pointing out the ten year cost which is over half the savings

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 12:59 PM
Some of it was already put in the stimulus IIRC. It will take a while to get it up and going.

And thanks to orange to pointing out the ten year cost which is over half the savingsThe CBO didn't believe all of the savings could be realized. I need to read up on why... however,

Stimulus needs to be timely, targeted and temporary according to Larry Summers. Obviously, this one has not been timely...

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/17845/why_america_must_have_a_fiscal_stimulus.html (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/17845/why_america_must_have_a_fiscal_stimulus.html)


"Poorly provided fiscal stimulus can have worse side effects than the disease that is to be cured. This suggests close attention to three issues:
First, to be effective, fiscal stimulus must be timely. To be worth undertaking, it must be legislated by the middle of the year and be based on changes in taxes and benefits that can be implemented almost immediately.

Second, fiscal stimulus only works if it is spent so it must be targeted . Targeting should favour those with low incomes and those whose incomes have recently fallen for whom spending is most urgent.

Third, fiscal stimulus, to be maximally effective, must be clearly and credibly temporary – with no significant adverse impact on the deficit for more than a year or so after implementation. Otherwise it risks being counterproductive by raising the spectre of enlarged future deficits pushing up longer-term interest rates and undermining confidence and longer-term growth prospects."

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 01:11 PM
The argument Ringleader is making is that Medicare isn't good because it has alot of waste. So does that mean the military isn't good either because it has triple the waste that Medicare has?

Of course not because any program is going to have waste especially when dealing with the government. That doesn't mean they aren't good and necessary programs.

Actually, again, my original point was that Obama sounds like an idiot when he talks about his own program. The choice you're making is a poor one because a) it infers that there are alternate options available to the military that is currently in place or that Obama is trying to destroy the military to excise that waste; and b) doesn't really have anything to do with the issue that jAZ asked me to speak to beyond reinforcing the POV that the government doesn't administer the spending of tax-payer money all that well.

KC Dan
08-25-2009, 01:12 PM
I think that the CBO's testimony to the Senate in July is very interesting. I need to find the entire transcript.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/cbo-sees-no-federal-cost-savings-in-dem-health-plans.html

Answering questions from Democrat Kent Conrad of North Dakota at a hearing of the Senate Budget Committee today, Elmendorf said CBO does not see health care cost savings in either of the partisan Democratic bills currently in Congress.

Conrad: Dr. Elmendorf, I am going to really put you on the spot because we are in the middle of this health care debate, but it is critically important that we get this right. Everyone has said, virtually everyone, that bending the cost curve over time is critically important and one of the key goals of this entire effort. From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?

Elmendorf: No, Mr. Chairman. In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.

Conrad: So the cost curve in your judgement is being bent, but it is being bent the wrong way. Is that correct?

Elmendorf: The way I would put it is that the curve is being raised, so there is a justifiable focus on growth rates because of course it is the compounding of growth rates faster than the economy that leads to these unsustainable paths. But it is very hard to look out over a very long term and say very accurate things about growth rates. So most health experts that we talk with focus particularly on what is happening over the next 10 or 20 years, still a pretty long time period for projections, but focus on the next 10 or 20 years and look at whether efforts are being made that are bringing costs down or pushing costs up over that period.

As we wrote in our letter to you and Senator Gregg, the creation of a new subsidy for health insurance, which is a critical part of expanding health insurance coverage in our judgement, would by itself increase the federal responsibility for health care that raises federal spending on health care. It raises the amount of activity that is growing at this unsustainable rate and to offset that there has to be very substantial reductions in other parts of the federal commitment to health care, either on the tax revenue side through changes in the tax exclusion or on the spending side through reforms in Medicare and Medicaid. Certainly reforms of that sort are included in some of the packages, and we are still analyzing the reforms in the House package. Legislation was only released as you know two days ago. But changes we have looked at so far do not represent the fundamental change on the order of magnitude that would be necessary to offset the direct increase in federal health costs from the insurance coverage proposals.

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 01:14 PM
:spock:

1. Make the big, bulky, program more efficient. The U.S. Healthcare Efficiency Index (http://www.ushealthcareindex.com/index.php) estimates that $23 billion could be saved annually just by moving health care billing and payment transactions from paper to electronic format.

Sorry it was $23 not $25 billion

Also it estimates $11 billion could be saved a year through direct deposit of medical payment transactions.

(BTW their website appears to be down)

I'd like to see how they arrive at that exact figure but if it saves money then I'm for it. Let's focus on cost savings before blowing up the system to insure people who either don't deserve it or want it.

ON EDIT: After looking at the CBO analysis of the health care IT investment made in the stimulus bill I discovered that, like most things involving the government, the price tag ($18+ billion) dwarfs the savings ($12+ billion over ten years). How shocking. :shake:

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 01:19 PM
Where does this "$500 billion" waste number come from? Some email?

Since the ENTIRE cost of Medicare was $330 billion, I find that number more than a little fishy.

Obama town hall meeting, August 11, 2009.

Actually he pegged the number at $500 to $600 billion in addition to $177 billion from ending subsidies to insurance companies. The exact quote is:

"There's about $500 billion to $600 billion over 10 years that can be saved without cutting benefits for people who are currently receiving Medicare, actually making the system more efficient over time.

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 01:25 PM
Well, then, the ANNUAL savings from that electronically formatting ($29 billion actually according to the website) will be over $290 billion over ten years. That's a healthy chunk of the $500 billion, wouldn't you say?

If the number is true it would be. But it doesn't take into account a variety of hurdles that would ring up a huge tab to even start to implement. It would also require an additional cost that isn't adequately funded in the present plans being bandied about (like so much of Obamacare). You're stepping over the fact that the vast, vast, vast majority of hospitals and doctors wouldn't be properly equipped to "plug in" to a system that would provide savings. And it's doubtful, based on some other analysis, that the savings would approach what those in favor of such a change project.

But, as I said before, if there is easy-to-obtain cost savings then great. I'm all for it. Why not focus on proving you can locate this savings rather than arguing that you have to blow up the system to find it. Doesn't make sense.

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 01:31 PM
And thanks to orange to pointing out the ten year cost which is over half the savings

Ah, you learn something new everyday...

Seems we're spending $18.3 billion from the stimulus on health care IT to save...12.4 billion -- over the 2009 to 2019 period. Though it acknowledges that there would be some savings by private insurers based on having the system in place.

Of course I'm sure your website is accurate and the CBO is wrong... :rolleyes:

orange
08-25-2009, 01:42 PM
ON EDIT: After looking at the CBO analysis of the health care IT investment made in the stimulus bill I discovered that, like most things involving the government, the price tag ($18+ billion) dwarfs the savings ($12+ billion over ten years). How shocking. :shake:

CBO: Increased spending in the near term would be partially offset by Medicare savings in later years; as a result, those provisions would increase deficits by about $30 billion through 2014 but would yield savings in later years, reducing the net 11-year impact to $17 billion total through 2019.

It's worth noting that the CBO report only looks at government savings, not what insurance companies, doctors, hospitals or patients could potentially save from the use of health IT.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/02/stimulus-bill-bravado/

NET savings of $17 billion. I don't have to explain what NET means, do I?

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 01:44 PM
Ah, you learn something new everyday...

Seems we're spending $18.3 billion from the stimulus on health care IT to save...12.4 billion -- over the 2009 to 2019 period. Though it acknowledges that there would be some savings by private insurers based on having the system in place.

Of course I'm sure your website is accurate and the CBO is wrong... :rolleyes:

The same CBO that got the 2003 Medicare bill wrong and had to change it to $1 trillion dollars recently?

LMAO

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 01:51 PM
CBO: Increased spending in the near term would be partially offset by Medicare savings in later years; as a result, those provisions would increase deficits by about $30 billion through 2014 but would yield savings in later years, reducing the net 11-year impact to $17 billion total through 2019.

It's worth noting that the CBO report only looks at government savings, not what insurance companies, doctors, hospitals or patients could potentially save from the use of health IT.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/02/stimulus-bill-bravado/

NET savings of $17 billion. I don't have to explain what NET means, do I?

Thanks for the link. You are correct on the CBO estimate of (fingers crossed) long-term savings. Is it $230 billion over ten years?

As I said in the beginning I'm all for it, let's find the cost-savings first...:

A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimate released in March 2009 detailed that the stimulus plan, officially known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, provides funding for expanded use of health IT—an effort to “reduce on-budget direct spending for health benefits by Medicare, Medicaid, and Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) programs by $12.4 billion” over the 2009-2019 period. While implementation of the health IT provisions in the stimulus plan would account for increases in the “on-budget deficits by a total of $18.3 billion over the 2009-2019 period,” according to the CBO, “it would increase the unified budget deficit over that period by an estimated $17 billion.” The CBO reports that the offset in spending increases will come from the reductions in Medicare spending in later years, resulting in a savings after 2014. The added benefit, says the CBO, is the accelerated use of cost-saving IT bleeding over into the private insurance sector, resulting in lower health insurance premiums for employers.

orange
08-25-2009, 01:51 PM
Health Information Technology. H.R. 1 would establish payment incentives in the
Medicare and Medicaid programs to encourage providers to adopt health information
technology (health IT). Although adoption would be encouraged through financial
incentives administered through those programs, all health care spending—both public
and private—would be affected by the increased use of health IT. CBO expects that its
adoption on a nationwide basis would reduce total spending on health care by
diminishing the number of inappropriate tests and procedures, reducing paperwork and
administrative overhead, and decreasing the number of adverse events resulting from
medical errors.

CBO estimates that the payment incentives would increase spending for the Medicare and
Medicaid programs by $31.0 billion over the 2009-2019 period. The expanded use of
health IT would reduce on-budget direct spending for health benefits by the Medicare,
Medicaid, and Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) programs by $12.4 billion
over the same period. Enacting the health IT provision also would reduce off-budget
spending for FEHB by $0.1 billion (most FEHB spending for retirees of the U.S. Postal
Service is off-budget).

The bill also would accelerate spending from the Medicare Improvement Fund, provide
funding for some costs incurred by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in
administering the payment-incentive provisions, make other changes to the Medicare
program, and provide funding for grants to states to encourage the adoption of health IT
by nursing facilities. CBO estimates that those provisions would increase direct spending
by $1.8 billion over the 2009-2019 period.

Because accelerating the use of health IT would lower health care costs for private
payers, it would result in lower health insurance premiums in the private sector. As a
result, private employers would pay less of their employees’ compensation in the form of
tax-advantaged health insurance premiums and more in the form of taxable wages and
salaries. Therefore, federal tax revenues would increase. CBO estimates that on-budget
revenues (from income taxes and the Hospital Insurance payroll tax—for Medicare Part A)
would increase by $2.1 billion over the 2011-2019 period. Higher receipts from
Social Security payroll taxes, which are off-budget, would add another $1.1 billion,
resulting in an estimated increase in total tax revenues of $3.2 billion over the 2011-2019
period.

As a result of the effects of the health IT provisions on direct spending and revenues,
CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase on-budget deficits by a total of
$18.3 billion over the 2009-2019 period; it would increase the unified budget deficit over
that period by an estimated $17 billion. Increased spending in the near term would be
partially offset by Medicare savings in later years; as a result, those provisions would
increase deficits by about $30 billion through 2014 but would yield savings in later years,
reducing the net 11-year impact to $17 billion total through 2019.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9968/hr1.pdf


So they're actually talking about the COSTS, here, not the benefits. The cost of $31 billion is going to be offset by immediate gains from savings, more taxes, etc. which reduce the Net Cost to $17 billion.

This was stimulus spending. It's intent was never to pay for itself, but to pay for a worthwhile reform in the Health Care industry.

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 01:53 PM
The same CBO that got the 2003 Medicare bill wrong and had to change it to $1 trillion dollars recently?

LMAO

Was it supposed to be more or less? Because if they over-estimated that's good. Knowing government I doubt they did which is part of the problem with Obamacare and its "projections" (putting aside the unfunded portion after the budgeting window)...

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 01:54 PM
Health Information Technology. H.R. 1 would establish payment incentives in the
Medicare and Medicaid programs to encourage providers to adopt health information
technology (health IT). Although adoption would be encouraged through financial
incentives administered through those programs, all health care spending—both public
and private—would be affected by the increased use of health IT. CBO expects that its
adoption on a nationwide basis would reduce total spending on health care by
diminishing the number of inappropriate tests and procedures, reducing paperwork and
administrative overhead, and decreasing the number of adverse events resulting from
medical errors.

CBO estimates that the payment incentives would increase spending for the Medicare and
Medicaid programs by $31.0 billion over the 2009-2019 period. The expanded use of
health IT would reduce on-budget direct spending for health benefits by the Medicare,
Medicaid, and Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) programs by $12.4 billion
over the same period. Enacting the health IT provision also would reduce off-budget
spending for FEHB by $0.1 billion (most FEHB spending for retirees of the U.S. Postal
Service is off-budget).

The bill also would accelerate spending from the Medicare Improvement Fund, provide
funding for some costs incurred by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in
administering the payment-incentive provisions, make other changes to the Medicare
program, and provide funding for grants to states to encourage the adoption of health IT
by nursing facilities. CBO estimates that those provisions would increase direct spending
by $1.8 billion over the 2009-2019 period.

Because accelerating the use of health IT would lower health care costs for private
payers, it would result in lower health insurance premiums in the private sector. As a
result, private employers would pay less of their employees’ compensation in the form of
tax-advantaged health insurance premiums and more in the form of taxable wages and
salaries. Therefore, federal tax revenues would increase. CBO estimates that on-budget
revenues (from income taxes and the Hospital Insurance payroll tax—for Medicare Part A)
would increase by $2.1 billion over the 2011-2019 period. Higher receipts from
Social Security payroll taxes, which are off-budget, would add another $1.1 billion,
resulting in an estimated increase in total tax revenues of $3.2 billion over the 2011-2019
period.

As a result of the effects of the health IT provisions on direct spending and revenues,
CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase on-budget deficits by a total of
$18.3 billion over the 2009-2019 period; it would increase the unified budget deficit over
that period by an estimated $17 billion. Increased spending in the near term would be
partially offset by Medicare savings in later years; as a result, those provisions would
increase deficits by about $30 billion through 2014 but would yield savings in later years,
reducing the net 11-year impact to $17 billion total through 2019.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9968/hr1.pdf


Good stuff. Thanks.

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 02:00 PM
Was it supposed to be more or less? Because if they over-estimated that's good. Knowing government I doubt they did which is part of the problem with Obamacare and its "projections" (putting aside the unfunded portion after the budgeting window)...

Uhh no. They projected way less some where around $400 billion. They had to amend it to $1 trillion. Way to go CBO they know all LMAO

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 02:03 PM
Uhh no. They projected way less some where around $400 billion. They had to amend it to $1 trillion. Way to go CBO they know all LMAO

Yeah, exactly. You prove my point. Even when the government conducts an independent analysis they more often then not project too low. Just like they're likely doing now with Obamacare. If we use the same degree of being wrong the $240 billion deficit created by Obama's deficit-neutral plan is likely to be closer to $600 billion. And that's just the first ten years!

Do you want rationed care, higher taxes, or a bigger deficit?

Also, if you have a different independent body to analyze Obamacare I'd love to read it.

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 02:15 PM
Yeah, exactly. You prove my point. Even when the government conducts an independent analysis they more often then not project too low. Just like they're likely doing now with Obamacare. If we use the same degree of being wrong the $240 billion deficit created by Obama's deficit-neutral plan is likely to be closer to $600 billion. And that's just the first ten years!

Do you want rationed care, higher taxes, or a bigger deficit?

Also, if you have a different independent body to analyze Obamacare I'd love to read it.

You can't have it both ways. Is the CBO the gospel or is it not?

KC native
08-25-2009, 02:25 PM
Uhh no. They projected way less some where around $400 billion. They had to amend it to $1 trillion. Way to go CBO they know all LMAO

With the CBO's work you have to really look at their mandate for the analysis. If they are given narrow parameters that are subject to uncertainty they will disclose that. Unfortunately many partisans leave that part of their analysis out.

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 02:39 PM
You can't have it both ways. Is the CBO the gospel or is it not?

When did I say they were gospel?

Just said they were independent.

Which is more than can be said for the White House.

I agree with you that government is normally wrong in projections -- usually in a bad way. That's part of the problem a lot of us have with Obamacare because they can't explain what happens if/when their projections are wrong.

But the CBO is good enough for FactCheck.org and other news sources so I'll use their numbers in the absence of another independent analysis with different conclusions. Why they're not good enough for you is a bit confusing.

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 02:44 PM
When did I say they were gospel?

Just said they were independent.

Which is more than can be said for the White House.

I agree with you that government is normally wrong in projections -- usually in a bad way. That's part of the problem a lot of us have with Obamacare because they can't explain what happens if/when their projections are wrong.

But the CBO is good enough for FactCheck.org and other news sources so I'll use their numbers in the absence of another independent analysis with different conclusions. Why they're not good enough for you is a bit confusing.

Another independent group that has newt gingrich on their board says the electronic records would save alot more money than the CBO says it will. You want to believe the CBO even though they have been wrong big time. I am willing to listen to an independent group.

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 02:50 PM
Another independent group that has newt gingrich on their board says the electronic records would save alot more money than the CBO says it will. You want to believe the CBO even though they have been wrong big time. I am willing to listen to an independent group.

I'm all for moving towards electronic records, especially since we've a) already paid for it and b) an independent organization (or I guess two if you're right -- though a link would help I'll believe you ;) ) has shown that it will save money long-term (nod to Orange).

I'm for most any plan that a coherent logical person could conclude -- when backed up by independent research -- will save money and curb the rate of health care costs. I don't believe the savings is there -- based partially on what the CBO has written as well as other sources (some of which cite their work) -- and I haven't seen reference to any lanugage in the bill that mandates they be discovered or realized.

I would go out on a limb and guess that you're questioning the CBO because their conclusions don't conform to what Obama purports to advocate but maybe I'm wrong. :shrug:

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 02:52 PM
I'm all for moving towards electronic records, especially since we've a) already paid for it and b) an independent organization (or I guess two if you're right -- though a link would help I'll believe you ;) ) has shown that it will save money long-term (nod to Orange).

I would go out on a limb and guess that you're questioning the CBO because their conclusions don't conform to what Obama purports to advocate but maybe I'm wrong. :shrug:

I posted the link earlier in this thread but just for you I will repost it

The U.S. Healthcare Efficiency Index (http://www.ushealthcareindex.com/index.php)

(BTW they have some problems with their website or service since it is down again)

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 02:57 PM
I posted the link earlier in this thread but just for you I will repost it

The U.S. Healthcare Efficiency Index (http://www.ushealthcareindex.com/index.php)

(BTW they have some problems with their website or service since it is down again)

Is this the company with Newt?

Because I went to their corporate site and couldn't find him.

The operator of the site appears to be a public company so I'll read up later. Thanks for the link.

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 03:01 PM
I posted the link earlier in this thread but just for you I will repost it

The U.S. Healthcare Efficiency Index (http://www.ushealthcareindex.com/index.php)

(BTW they have some problems with their website or service since it is down again)

Not to get all wee-weed up but I'd hardly call a public company that exists to handle electronic billings to be independent. Considering the roster of news link on the front of the Yahoo Finance page it seems they'll directly profit from any success Obama has with Obamacare.

If this is your "independent" source of course.

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 03:22 PM
Not to get all wee-weed up but I'd hardly call a public company that exists to handle electronic billings to be independent. Considering the roster of news link on the front of the Yahoo Finance page it seems they'll directly profit from any success Obama has with Obamacare.

If this is your "independent" source of course.

Newt Gingrich is on their board so I doubt that is the case

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 04:17 PM
Newt Gingrich is on their board so I doubt that is the case

I wouldn't automatically connect the fact that Newt Gingrinch is involved in some way with the independence of their numbers. But I'm not saying they're not good either. Just can't find any readily available links to a third-party source saying they're any good.

RINGLEADER
08-25-2009, 04:19 PM
I also don't see Newt on their board of directors...

http://investors.emdeon.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=230807&p=irol-govboard

dirk digler
08-25-2009, 04:25 PM
I also don't see Newt on their board of directors...

http://investors.emdeon.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=230807&p=irol-govboard

Finally their website is back up. Sorry my bad he is on the Advisory council

<table class="table" border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td class="header_level3">Advisory Council Member </td> <td class="header_level3"> Organization </td> <td class="header_level3"> Industry Sector </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Fritz Scheuren, Ph.D. (javascript:popUpWindow('bios/fritz_scheuren_bio.htm',%20200,%20200,%20500,%20500)) </td> <td>Scheuren - Ruffner</td> <td>Statistician</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Patrick Baier, D. Phil. (javascript:popUpWindow('bios/patrick_baier_bio.htm',%20200,%20200,%20500,%20500)) </td> <td>Scheuren - Ruffner</td> <td>Statistician</td> </tr> <tr> <td>John L. Phelan, Ph.D. (javascript:popUpWindow('bios/john_phlelan_bio.htm',%20200,%20200,%20500,%20500)) </td> <td>Milliman, Inc.</td> <td>Outside Auditor / Peer Review</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Andrew Naugle, MBA (javascript:popUpWindow('bios/andrew_naugle_bio.htm',%20200,%20200,%20500,%20500)) </td> <td>Milliman, Inc.</td> <td>Outside Auditor / Peer Review</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Jane Sarasohn-Kahn (javascript:popUpWindow('bios/jane_sarasohn-kahn_bio.htm',%20200,%20200,%20500,%20500))</td> <td>Healthcare Economist & Author</td> <td>Healthcare Economist</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Dave Garets (javascript:popUpWindow('bios/david_garets.html',%20200,%20200,%20500,%20500))</td> <td>HIMSS Analytics</td> <td>Health Information Technology</td> </tr> <tr> <td> Newt Gingrich (javascript:popUpWindow('bios/Newt_Gingrich_bio.htm',%20200,%20200,%20500,%20500)) </td> <td> Center for Health Transformation </td> <td> Healthcare Reform </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Miriam Paramore (javascript:popUpWindow('bios/miriam_paramore_bio.htm',%20200,%20200,%20500,%20500))</td> <td>Emdeon (Corporate Sponsor)</td> <td>Coordinator</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Erik Swanson (javascript:popUpWindow('bios/erik_swanson_bio.htm',%20200,%20200,%20500,%20500))</td> <td>WellPoint, Inc. </td> <td>Blue Cross Blue Shield Medical Payers</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Stanley Nachimson (javascript:popUpWindow('bios/stanley_nachimson_bio.htm',%20200,%20200,%20500,%20500))</td> <td>Nachimson Advisors, LLC </td> <td>Government Program and National Standards Expert </td></tr></tbody></table>