"Republicans often pick the wrong friends, don't they?"
I think the entire problem with these people is that don't have any real friends. Just people they use, or who use them. I think that might explain a lot...

It's hard to imagine that anyone could still believe that the for-profit health insurance industry cares more about patients than a government of, by and for the people does.

America: the best democracy money can buy.

Oooohh... an angry letter. Ouch... lets hope that's as effective (sigh) as the angry letters those sent by the Democrats when in minority - to the ShrubII Administration.

This could be a good opening for Dems to paint Republicans as in league with an established, money-grabbing, inefficient healthcare entity that is benefiting from the status quo. But then, there have been many such opportunities and connections that haven't been pursued.

I have Humana through my employer. I had never made a claim except my twice a year dental visits. Then one night I dropped a weight at the gym and broke my foot and had to go to the emergancy room. Afterwards the bills began coming in and it was clear that very little was being covered. I called and questioned it and was told by the representative, "We've already spent alot of money on you."

In hindsight, I think the townhall nonsense that happened in August was a good thing and happened at the right time. That bile left a bad taste in alot of people's mouths, Obama was able to recapture the subject and the Republicans were pretty much exposed as frauds. No in the final stretch we have Cantor's jaw-dropping response to a constituent, and leading Republicans cravenly kissing the ass of insurance companies out to mislead the public. Personally, I think the tide has turned and we may see a decent bill sent to the President in the end.

Obama signs that "ACORN" law into force and then CMS stops giving Humana any money whatsoever and the Republicans can't say a thing (they are shameless so they will). Case over.

Wait till the Roberts Supreme Court allows much more political expression by corporations because they are "persons" and entitled to free speech, etc.

"Republicans often pick the wrong friends, don't they?"

Are you nuts? They pick friends with money.

What's this country come to when you can't use taxpayer dollars to lobby against the taxpayers?

Another step towards nazi socialism.
Will Ferrell is right, enough is enough!

Corporations are people too, y'know.

If that ACORN legislation becomes law, it will be the gift that keeps on giving. And to think, without all the hard work by our friend Glenn Beck, it wouldn't have been possible. Thank-you, Mr. Beck, your proving to be quite a valuable member of the team.

Republicans make politics too easy. If they're for it, it's probably really, really fucked; and if they're agin it, it's probably a good idea. This rule of thumb is so reliable I've developed a lazy, knee-jerk habit of mind toward what they say.

The only real intellectual challenge anymore is within Dem politics. If Dems were reliably good or bad, I might stop thinking altogether.

Cut off Humana! De-fund the right!

Hmm, Republicans had no problems with the government's condition of the receipt of federal funds on the requirement that clinics give up their free speech right to provide abortion counseling or referrals, which the Supreme Court upheld in Rust v. Sullivan (.

Raenelle at9:34 the fact that your post is 100% correct is a sorry statement on the condition of USA politics.

I received a Medicare Advantage scare tactic robocall about a month or so ago, and I was suspicious right away. The voice didn't really identify who was behind the call, but it urged me to follow the call's menu to contact my legislators to support continuation of Medicare Advantage. I'm not eligible for Medicare, but I listened to the call anyway because I was suspicious. It was a scare tactic designed to frighten seniors into thinking Medicare itself was in jeopardy. These people are shameless. After reading this post, I suspect now that the call may have been generated by Humana.

If Dems were reliably good or bad, I might stop thinking altogether.

You won't have that problem as long as we're stuck with Conrad and Baucus.

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg asked the right question recently -- she asked who believes anyone has endowed these corporations with inalienable rights?

The Republicans think they're as good as God.
They think they can give corporations the same rights human beings are born with.

It's just wrong.

What? You mean Humana doesn't have the right to lie to people with tax dollars??? How un-American!

The frustration I feel for both major parties is at a boiling point. Both are rife with corrupt politicans that are there for personal gain, they go into office having a modest income and come out 40 years later as multi-millionaires. Terms limits should be enacted for every political position in the country. Then maybe they won't have time to make their under-the-table deals that rake in millions.

However, the frustration I feel for the parties is nothing compared to what I feel for all of you that believe either party is above the fray and all you care about is your turn at the public teat of "free" stuff.

A bunch of whiney babies that believe the government is supposed to take care of you. Remember if the government can give, it can also take away, and they have to take from someone to give to you.

Something the liberal government run schools may not have told you is that the government is "we the people" and when we the people find that we can vote in people that will "bring home the bacon" we are no longer a republic. As Benjamin Franklin, "you have a republic, if you can keep it".

Capitalism is the driving force that has given us a strong economy and when the government gets involved it weakens that force. There should never be more than just enough regulation to keep the companies honest. Sounds to me like most of you prefer a "socialist" government.

You can't see the forest for the trees.The only way we are going to survive as the greatest nation on the earth is to demand that our leaders start following the constitution, you know that little piece of paper that is suppose to limit the power of the federal government.

Grow up, accept responsibility for yourself, get a job take care of your family and stop depending on the forced "charity" of the government. If you don't you are going to lose the freedoms that our forefathers gave their lives and fortunes to preserve.

CMS should do what they should have done in the first place -- pull Humana's contract. Then they can lie about health care reform to their hearts' content.

According to the OMB:

- Omaba lied

- Humana was correct

- Benen is wrong.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gJK9ly3ovzfflxGjV-dxk2sLILKgD9ASKCQG2

That's the Baucus bill, you moron, you know, the *conservative* bill.

Someone has to...
Re: Janice Ball post @ 1:43 PM.
Para 1) "...Both are rife with corrupt..." Start naming names, please; otherwise you are simply concern-trolling. Nor expect me to "defend" anyone against shotgun charges.
Para 2) "All you care about is your turn at the public teat..." Must be the old Jedi-mind flip: pretend to insult people to get them on your side.
Para 3) More insults and then the give-away: "...they have to take it from someone to give it to you." You mean, (whispers) taxes?
Para 4) "...the government is 'we, the people'...". Yes, and just what part of "WE" don't YOU understand? The democratic part where the majority, while respecting the rights of the minority, governs? Or the part where you now are no longer, if you ever were, the majority?
Para 5) "Captialism is the driving force..." You betcha! You might want to look into how the following were/are funded: canals, railroads, shipping, the aircraft industry, high tariff policies, interstate highways, farm subsidies, and inustry-favoring tax policies, just to name some from memory. Oh, and minus 10 points for using the "s" word where it obviously doesn't apply.
Para 6) "...demand our leaders start following the constitution(sic)...". And where were you in 2001? 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005? 2006? 2007? 2008? I thought so...
Para 7) I have, I do, I do, and I don't. Name those "freedoms" and I might believe you are at least sincere in your ravings and not another one of those poor, frightened misplaced children of the nineteenth century, unable to cope with the economic and political challenges facing our democracy in the 21st century (ie: a troll).
Have a nice day!

It's not clear to me whether the bills being considered will eliminate Medicare Advantage or will just equalize the payments the government makes between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. If it's the latter, I'm unconditionally in favor. If it's the former, I'm ambivalent.

As someone on Medicare and who has been enrolled in a couple of different Medicare Advantage plans, my feelings and experiences are mixed. There are problems with finding providers who accept the private insurer and I've had problems with deducting my premiums from my social security benefits. And of course there's the very unethical sales practices of some insurers that have been reported.

On the other hand, there are various deductibles in traditional Medicare that can leave you with large unpaid bills, depending upon the circumstances. And for doctor visits themselves, Medicare only pays 80%. Before Medicare Advantage, people who consume a lot of health care and needed insurance coverage for what Medicare doesn't cover/pay would get so-called "Medi-Gap" plans. Those are still offered. But with a Medicare Advantage plan, it replaces regular Medicare and usually offers this additional kind of coverage—also prescription drugs and sometimes dental and vision. All on one plan with an additional premium (that is, additional to the regular Medicare premiums). This is very convenient.

I consume a lot of health care because I'm disabled with a congenital illness. I need this additional coverage.

I've seen MA plans characterized on the web as "unnecessary" and "not offering much more than Medicare" and that's not really true. Of course, different insurers offer different plans and there's certainly some out there which don't, in fact, offer much (or anything) Medicare doesn't cover, so this is probably true in some cases. But in many other cases, it's worth having.

I don't think that the government should be reimbursing Medicare Advantage insurers more for each rated treatment than it schedules in regular Medicare. That's the part that was the giveaway to the insurance companies when the program was created. It's also why there are some MA insurers who provide it with no premiums at all—they're making their money off the differential.

But assuming the payments are equalized between Medicare and MA, then I think the program should continue. Maybe there should be a second-tier of Medicare coverage available directly from the government to those who wish to pay an additional premium. Well, ideally, Medicare should reduce its deductibles, but that would increase its already massive costs.

The article fails to mention anything about what set this off. The non-partisan CBO has stated that those under MA will, indeed, have services cut.

The argument is is Baucus trying to shut them up because they are saying something against the health bill or is what they are saying false.

Please report the whole story.