ad44203 said:

"MA must by law cover at least what Medicare covers. So if MA doesn't cover it neither will Medicare."

That's what I thought. But apparently there are some constraints, depending on what type of MA plan you get. Here are some examples:

from "CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY CALLS ON PRESIDENT OBAMA TO EMBRACE MEDICARE" (In particular, see section with title: "Private Medicare Advantage is Too Expensive and Too Often Inadequate"), a repeat of the link in post #19
www.medicareadvocacy.org/Reform_08_11.06.CalltoPresElectObama.htm

      "Mrs. P is a 67 year old woman who was diagnosed with ALS three years ago. She contacted the Center for help because her private Medicare plan cut off all her home care, saying she was "stable" and no longer needed home health services. CMS said the coverage decision was up to the plan and would not intervene. The Center for Medicare Advocacy filed a case in federal court seeking continued coverage for Mrs. P.  The Court ordered Medicare to cover Mrs. P's home care.  She was therefore able to stay at home with the health care she needs. Without Medicare coverage and this necessary home care, Mrs. P. would have been forced to enter a nursing home.

      A Congressman called the Center to obtain help for a constituent whom he met at a local town hall meeting.  Mr. B and his wife were members of a Medicare Advantage plan in Connecticut.  They went to Florida for vacation where Mrs. B fell and was sent to the hospital to treat her injuries. Tests at the hospital showed that, unbeknownst to Mrs. B, she had a brain tumor. Doctors determined she needed treatment immediately.  Because Mr. B is frail himself and the couple's daughter in Utah is a nurse, they decided to go there for Mrs. B's chemotherapy.  Upon receiving the chemotherapy, however, Mrs. B had a life threatening reaction that resulted in her being in the Intensive Care Unit for days. She ultimately died. The hospital bill came to $100,000 and was completely denied by the Medicare Advantage plan because Mrs. B was "out of network".  The Center appealed. Finally, after an administrative hearing most of the bill was paid in recognition that the care received after Mrs. B's reaction to treatment consisted of emergency services."

from "Medicare Private Health Plan Stories"
www.medicarerights.org/issues-actions/medicare_private.php

"I bill Medicare claims for a Home Health Agency in Ohio. I am seeing MANY patients being hoodwinked into HMOs which prohibits them from access to regular Medicare coverage. In many cases I believe hey are enrolled under false pretense and then call the HMO to cancel. At this point the HMO drags their feet. This is a SERIOUS problem due to the fact that Medicare will not pay for ANY Home Care services as long as the HMO is listed as "primary" in the Medicare data bank. This does not happen until the HMO and patient submit dis-enrollment forms to Medicare. This can take some time and we find the HMOs most un-helpful and slow to update the info. The same applies for patients who enroll in Medicare D for prescription coverage. The HMO basically states they're a Prescription plan only and the patient loses their Medicare coverage."

Also, a little time with Google turned up:

"GAO Report: Medicare Advantage Exposes Seniors To Serious Financial Risks"
wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/12/16/gao-ma-financial

ad44203 said (continued): "I agree it [health care] is a basic human right, so anyone that believes that can't logically be against illegal aliens being included in the heath reform, cost should be irrelevant."

One could also make the argument that covering illegals could also be cost effective: Subsidized basic coverage could reduce the traffic to emergency rooms. Also, would you like standing near an illegal (e.g., in a hardware store) who has tuberculosis? Would you like to consume food handled by a diseased illegal? Regardless of any moral or other argument, I'm sure there will never be any coverage for illegals due to the current political enviroment and maybe there shouldn't be (the illegal immigration problem would have to be solved first).

I'm not sure how to respond to your remarks about cost projections. I assume there would substantial start up costs for new programs including cost control research. But why would take until 2013 before the main program starts? Would it really take that long? Like you, I'm suspicious.

I strongly believe the reform legislation costs a lot more than it should due to intense pressure from the health lobby which is spending $1.4 million a day:
"Wasted premium dollars.....1.4 million a day on lobbying":
allnurses.com/social-health-care/wasted-premium-dollars-405717.html
Considering that there are six health care lobbyists for each congressperson, I think it's remarkable, for example, that "drug price negotiation" made it into Medicare Part D (in the House bill anyway). I hope someday "We the People" can take back control of our government, but as long as politicians depend on special interests to get elected and $3 billion a year is spent on lobbyists, there may not be much hope:
"Lobbying Database"
www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists
If, BTW, you think the Republicans could do better than the Democrats, remember that they're subject to the same lobbying.

BTW, here is a correction for a broken link in my post #19:
"STATEMENT ON MEDICARE ADVANTAGE"
www.medicareadvocacy.org/Archives/ArchivedPages/Reform_MAStatementByJoeCourtney.htm

I didn't understand your point about the MA horror stories. The same would have to apply to Medicare. MA must by law cover at least what Medicare covers. So if MA doesn't cover it neither will Medicare.

I agree it is a basic human right, so anyone that believes that can't logically be against illegal aliens being included in the heath reform, cost should be irrelevant.

I agree that each side would deceive on the true costs. So it safe to use the democrats own figures. 6 years of cost with 10 years of revenue. Not hard to figure the second ten year cost. You can find most info in the CBO reports. Another example of hiding the costs is by transferring 10 to 15 million people onto Medicaid so the insurance costs won't show up in the health reform bill. My real point is that I would never support something if I didn't trust those doing it, democrat or republican. I don't want to believe that it is not possible that a panel made up of an equal number of democrats and republican and they are charged with coming up with a health reform bill. Remember they must writea bill. And it takes a majority of the democrats and majority of the republicans on the panel to agree on a bill that is passed on to  the Senate. It would pass

ad44203 said:

"I know nothing about The Medicare Rights Center, so will make no judgments about them until I can find out more information. I am curious why they are against Medicare Advantage though. I found this statement on their web site “If costs of the private plans were brought to the same level as that of Original Medicare, taxpayers would save $65 billion over the next five years!” This made no sense to me.  If this is done, there is no purpose to Medicare Advantage (MA) at all. MA gives added benefits to seniors so it would have to cost more."

Does it make sense to divert funds from the general Medicare fund to subsidize the 20% who use Medicare Advantage? Here are some responses to that question:

"Reform the Medicare Private Health Plan Marketplace"
www.medicarerights.org/issues-actions/reform.php

There is another non-partison organization, the Center for Medicare Advocacy, which offers similar observations:
 
"STATEMENT ON MEDICARE ADVANTAGE"
www.medicareadvocacy.org/Archives/ArchivedPage/Reform_MAStatementByJoeCourtney.htm

"CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY CALLS ON PRESIDENT OBAMA TO EMBRACE MEDICARE" (In particular, see section with title: "Private Medicare Advantage is Too Expensive and Too Often Inadequate")
www.medicareadvocacy.org/Reform_08_11.06.CalltoPresElectObama.htm
 
ad44203 said (continued): "Another statement on The Medicare Rights Center is that “We seek recognition of health care as a basic human right.”, I also agree with that."

A bit of trivia: article 32 of the Italian constitution describes health care as a "fundamental human right":
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19048562
 
ad44203 said (continued): "MA does give seniors some piece of mind knowing they have a level of protection that Traditional Medicare doesn’t provide."

That would seem like a logical assumption. After reading some of the comments on this forum, I was motivated to do a little research about MA. After reading some the "horror stories" about MA, I'm now worried that some of the medical expenses that I'm anticipating may not be covered by MA even though they would be covered by original Medicare. For this reason, I'm seriously considering dropping my MA plan.

ad44203 said (continued): "Whether you are for or against health reform, democrat or republican, liberal or conservation, everyone should be against any Congress that tries to intentionally deceive the American public."

I believe that congress, both Democratic and Republican, routinely tries to obscure the "real" cost of legislation. The most flagrant example that I'm aware of is Medicare Part D:
  "Medicare Part D — The Product of a Broken Process"
  content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/22/2314

I'm optimistic that some the reforms (such as substituting "pay for value" for "fee for service") could eventually result in major cost savings although that's speculative and (I believe) not included in the CBO cost estimates. I'm not a bit surprised that the Democrats would do everything they can to minimize the health care reform cost estimates and that the Republicans would do the opposite.

I certainly hope that whatever happens it won't effect the care your husband now receives. Hopefully your husband will have a complete remission. You have enough to deal with without worrying about insurance. Best Wishes

"I AM TRYING TO BE CIVIL AS AARP HAS BEEN BOOTING OFF POSTERS

WHO POST NEGATIVE/VULGAR RESPONSES TO OTHER POSTS."

Well, I don't know about this forum, but over on the Politics- Current Events forum there are three of four infamous liberal posters who do all they can to get conservatives banned over the slightest hint of making a personal attack posts even though these same liberals do it constantly (even attacks as vile as accusing conservative posters on that forum of posing physical threat to the President), yet they are never booted nor are heir many attack posts removed.  So your statement is correct, but only applies to conservative posters if you’re posting in the P-CE forum.

Very well stated! 

We have Medicare Advantage with AARP United Health Care and have been very pleased so far.  My husband's Multiple Myeloma was a "kick in the gut" by itself, had we also had the worry of fighting with insurance companies, it would have been really tough! 

I don't know what the future holds as our new leadership is so clearly against all things American (freedom of choice, voting rights, Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution etc.)

We have good Doctors taking care of us and I only hope they can continue the great care if Obamacare cuts their fees any more.

There is no excuse for this. Congress set the guidelines for Medicare Advantage, they can regulate it however they want. Just like they are goiing to do in the new reform bill. All they have to do is say you can't charge more than the approved Medicare charge for a procedure.  That would lower the cost. They use that as an excuse now, while never explaining why they have been so negligent to allow it in the first place. The same applies to pre-existing conditions--