just an fyi, if I post something one minute after you post something, it means I was probably typing as you posted. anyhoo, lets review what you think you've proven.
first off, you posted an editorial with no comment. You should post what your point was. but jack, just like Obamacare, medicare part D has a cost. Unlike Obamacare, it was just dumped into the general fund. 60 billion was spent in the first year. Do you see anything resembling a 60 billion drop in medicare costs in 2006 or 2007. So the paper is making a point about some small part of medicare or its lying. Here’s the paper.
“Overall, a $1 increase in prescription drug spending is associated with a $2.06 reduction in Medicare spending. “
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13358.pdf
So to be clear jack, we spent 60 billion on prescription drugs in 2006 then medicare spending should have gone down 60 billion. Medicare + 60 – 2x60 = Medicare -60. There was no drastic drop or change in medicare spending in 2006 or 2007. this explains it quite well.
“After reviewing recent research, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that a 1 percent increase in the number of prescriptions filled by beneficiaries would cause Medicare’s spending on medical services to fall by roughly one-fifth of 1 percent”
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43741-MedicalOffsets-11-29-12.pdf
But jack this is good, its actual debate. I'm sure there was a savings but the fact is, Medicare part d was an unfunded benefit with a reinsurance program.
