Talk:Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act

Passive Voice not as cool as Sourced Facts

First paragraph: "It was reported"? How about "X Newspaper reported", with a link?--Zaorish 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that this was written a while ago and needs refreshing. The Kaiser Family Foundation has some great references on this reform. [1] is a great place to start on this. There are also at least a dozen bloggers who write extensively on this. --Chrispounds 23:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Off-Tone language: Other Provisions

The "Other provisions" section contains some language that doesn't really fit with the tone of an encyclopedic article.

Specifically, the following, especially the part about "[working] the numbers," is something I am used to seeing in blog posts or in casual conversation: "All well and good, but the Bush Administration refused to index the brackets used in the means testing to inflation. This generation of Medicare recipients will see their Medicare B premiums increase dramatically before they die (retire at 65, live until 95, 3% inflation, work the numbers)."

(It is also unsourced...) --75.108.151.149 05:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Cost of Medicare prescription drug insurance has risen 756% in 3 years!! It is a major bait-and-switch scam.

I am an 86 year old WWII veteran (100th Infantry Division). In January 2006, my wife and I signed up for the basic Medicare Prescription Drug Insurance from Humana (one of the providers of that insurance) at a cost of $5.41 per month per person.

By January 2009, the monthly cost has risen to $41.90 per person. That is a 756 percent increase in 3 years!! That is not "free market capitalism" ... it is outright "highway robbery" !! We seniors are being abused by such despicable bait-and-switch tactics.

I believe it would be appropriate to include mention of the price increase in the "Aftermath" section of this article. Not to do so would be a sad omission. mbeychok (talk) 04:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

intro section fails to define the subject!

Hello! The intro section rambles right into the politics surrounding the subject of this article while failing to even define/describe the subject! What's up with this? Rtdrury (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Intro page is biased and unfactual

As mentioned in section above, about 3/4 of the intro page is devoted to politics and has no relevance to any factual/encyclopedic knowledge of the MMA Act.

Please fix! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoskos23 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've revised the introduction to present a more fact-based discussion of the bill. If someone thinks that we need a separate section discussing criticisms of the bill, they can feel free to add it.Leuchars (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary?

Pharma gives free meds thru PAPs. Letters went out that all participants who qualified for part D must enroll. Now manufacturers may offer assistance to Medicare patients; initially banned by law (okay since 2009?). GSK-Access is an example. If you wanted to continue receiving free meds - NA, no meds or part D?Romanfall (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Cost section subject unclear

The cost section never mentions which costs are included in the costs given. The act changed a number of costs unrelated to Part D, which were intended to reduce cost growth rates in Part A and B, but increased costs for Part C. However, most think of this as only the drug benefit where the cost is in the "special assistance" for Medicare and Medicaid, because the drug plans are normally self funded in the private sector with government enforcing mandates and acting as broker. Medicare is funded by taxes and premiums which are means tested for both low income/low assets and high income(/no asset test). All that said, the Act costs are for the cost delta, and could be for part or all the law, for Medicare, or Medicare and Medicaid. The cost section needs to specify. My guess is the costs cited are the selection that makes the case for "competition" being cheaper than forecast by opponents of the specific Part D design. Mulp (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)