In House Record, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists’

[katkat]

Source: New York Times

In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.

E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

[DJ13]

1. the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

One bird, two wings.

[notesdev]

4. and pooping right on your head

[Trajan]

8. The two parties as 'Triumph the Insult Comic Dog'

He is going to poop on you !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch0vwls1XTA&feature=PlayList&p=1BFE105116FB428C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=5

Classic Triumph .....

[Go2Peace]

2. Too bad all the names were not included. We need to know who is owned

Here are the democrats mentioned in the article

Representative Phil Hare Illinois
Representative Robert A. Brady of Pennsylvania
Representative Yvette D. Clarke, Democrat of New York
Representative Donald M. Payne, Democrat of New Jersey
Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey

[Frank Booth]

3. I think you're safe assuming they're all owned.

Maybe there are some on the "lunatic left" who actually represent the people, but they are few and getting fewer.

[Go2Peace]

5. Well, letting corporations write legislation and write talking points is definitely corrupt practice

[SergeStorms]

43. They write a great deal of our legislation.........

from environmental laws to bankruptcy laws, they have their tainted, greedy hands on much of it. Anyone thinking that we live in a democracy is living in a fool's paradise. It's a corporatocracy, all the way. Our legislators are bought and paid for and any talk that a politician is a "man or woman of the people" is pure hogwash.
This country is a sad caricature of it's once great stature of a beacon of hope and equality. They've turned it into a syphilitic crack whore and I fear there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. :cry:

[timefortherevolution]

48. A syphillitic crack whore. That is perfect!

What has to change is that we start calling "political contributions" what they are—they're BRIBES.

Straight up BRIBES.

From now on, no one uses the word contribution or donation. It's a BRIBE.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

82. Bribing so that we the people don't get healthcare

[sasquuatch55]

55. How true!

nt

[bjobotts]

36. Duh! The money party which has leaders from both paties doing its bidding

[bjobotts]

37. It is the corporaticracy with its army of lobbysits holding financial strings of these puppets cal.

[old mark]

6. Some people really criticize me when I post about how few good people

there are in congress and how really terrible the vast majority of them are.

The fact that these bastards just read the handout they were given by the lobbyists justifies my position. These folks are the bottom of the barrel - their "loyalty" consists of staying bought when they are paid for.

I want to see what the MSM makes of this - probably nothing.
I want to see what the popular reaction to this is - probably nothing.

Canada is looking better every day.

mark

[unaffiliated liberal]

26. No criticism here. I can only think of a very few good people in congress.

And, unfortunately, it's the terrible vast majority that owns the MSM.

And if the current crop of American citizens was around in 1776 we'd still be a British colony.

And if you're not already a Canadian citizen I've read that Canadian immigration takes a long, long time.

[olegramps]

51. Canada is looking better, hell Bangladesh will be in the running the way things are going.

[WCGreen]

52. This is what killed all the empires that came before...

The political leadership paying more attention to the interests of the few over the many.

The US survived two great assaults on the country by the moneyed interest, the 1890's and the 1980's.

The problem with the 1980's threat was that all the "reform" candidates were just as sleazy and corrupt as the weasels they replaced.

[Canuckistanian]

7. Wow. I'm so shocked.

Speechless, in fact. Lobbyists have taken over the House? Do tell.

:sarcasm:

[defendandprotect]

9. Ugh . . .!!! We have to buy back Congress. .. ban corporates/lobbyists

[dotymed]

42. I am getting tired of hearing myself but,

The SCOTUS ruled that corporations could NOT have the right of
"person hood." A "paid for" court recorder
entered just the opposite in the official description of the
hearings outcome. That description does not mean anything. It
has already been decided, now lets enforce the law and demand
charters from corporations that show their benefit to society.
Bribery is not beneficial. Demand that we enforce the true
rule of law in America. Wake up ACLU, Southern Poverty Law
Center, etc...we have work to do...

[No Elephants]

69. Not exactly.

The personhood issue had been raised and decided in a lower court. The SCOTUS decided the case on other grounds, not deciding the personhood issue one way or the other. The summary of the SCOTUS case, however, stated that a corporation was a person, as though the SCOTUS had decided that.

Apparently, the summary was based upon a remark one of the Justices had made before oral argument to the effect that all the Justices thought a corporation was a person and therefore the Court did not wish to hear oral argument on that point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person

The summary is not an official part of the case.

Other courts, however, have treated corporations as persons; and the Supreme Court has done that as well.

This may be an issue of state law in most cases, since most corporations are created by state law.

[defendandprotect]

74. I think there is only barely acknowledgment of that up to now . . .

the clerk's "error" has been revealed but I don't think they've gotten around

yet to admitting the decision was just the reverse.

MUCH work to do on this --

Meanwhile, corporations don't breathe, corporations don't have birth certificiates --

corporations are robbing us blind!!!

:evilgrin:

Keep up the good work!!

:)

[wellst0nev0ter]

10. *Sigh*

Sometimes you wonder what's the point anymore.

[valerief]

66. Yep. Propaganda wins every time. nt

[timefortherevolution]

11. Is anyone as disgusted as I am?

Here it is, in plain sight, for all to see.

Its like everyone standing at a busy intersection and watching crash after crash happen,
and everyone knows that a traffic light needs to be installed. But everyone is afraid
to speak up and demand it.

[unaffiliated liberal]

13. Absolutely.

We have to defeat this bill as it stands. We have to let our legislators know that if this bill comes out of conference the way it stands they must vote no. It must be defeated. The only winners in this are the insurance and drug companies and the legislators they've paid off. They're not just happy with the status quo. They've taken health care reform and twisted it until it's worse than what we have now. Not even a whisper of single payer. A joke of a public option. Cuts in Medicare. Further erosion of reproductive rights. Higher profits for insurance and drug companies. It's a nightmare waiting to happen and it has to be stopped.

They just put former Rep. William Jefferson away for thirteen years for the same thing that's going on right on the floor of congress. Looks like Jefferson's only real mistake was not taking his bribes right on the floor of the house.

[katkat]

16. they are not cutting Medicare

Let's be clear about that. They are cutting costs in Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage is a giveaway to the insurance companies, since it has the same benefits as Medicare + Medigap but costs substantially more. Medicare + Medigap are untouched.

All this howling crap about Medicare being cut is coming from the insurance companies and the people they dupe into believing that.

[unaffiliated liberal]

17. That is NOT what I'm reading

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/14/AR2009111402597.html?hpid=topnews

Report: Bill would reduce senior care

Medicare cuts approved by House may affect access to providers

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 15, 2009

A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending -- one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system -- would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.

Congress could intervene to avoid such an outcome, but "so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" than is currently projected, according to the analysis by the chief actuary for the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. That would wipe out a big chunk of the financing for the health-care reform package, which is projected to cost $1.05 trillion over the next decade.

More generally, the report questions whether the country's network of doctors and hospitals would be able to cope with the effects of a reform package expected to add more than 30 million people to the ranks of the insured, many of them through Medicaid, the public health program for the poor.

In the face of greatly increased demand for services, providers are likely to charge higher fees or take patients with better-paying private insurance over Medicaid recipients, "exacerbating existing access problems" in that program, according to the report from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

[depakid]

20. Citing the Washington Post for actual facts is generally not a wise idea

Their credibility is down somewhere around Fox.

[unaffiliated liberal]

23. That sounds vaguely similar to the "logic" used by Republicans I argue with

The report cited iin the article is from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Click the link and read the article and you'll find these tidbits:

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administers the two health-care programs. Foster's office acts as an independent technical adviser, serving both the administration and Congress. In that sense, it is similar to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which also has questioned the sustainability of proposed Medicare cuts.

In its most recent analysis of the House bill, the CBO noted that Medicare spending per beneficiary would have to grow at roughly half the rate it has over the past two decades to meet the measure's savings targets, a dramatic reduction that many budget and health policy experts consider unrealistic.

Got a problem with that or are you going to allow your media bias to influence your decision like our friends across the aisle?

[Lasher]

32. Would that be the same Richard S. Foster who witheld Medicare Part D cost estimates from Congress?

May 4, 2004

The Congressional Research Service says the Bush administration apparently violated federal law by ordering the chief Medicare actuary to withhold information from Congress indicating that the new Medicare law could cost far more than White House officials had said.

In a report on Monday, the research service said that Congress's "right to receive truthful information from federal agencies to assist in its legislative functions is clear and unassailable." Since 1912, it said, federal laws have protected the rights of federal employees to communicate with Congress, and recent laws have "reaffirmed and strengthened" those protections.

The actuary, Richard S. Foster, has testified that he was ordered to withhold the cost estimates last year, when Congress was considering legislation to add a drug benefit to Medicare. The order, he said, came from Thomas A. Scully, who was then the administrator of Medicare.

Mr. Foster said Mr. Scully threatened to discipline him for insubordination if he gave Congress the data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/04/us/agency-sees-withholding-of-medicare-data-from-congress-as-illegal.html

Clearly Foster's office hasn't always acted "...as an independent technical adviser, serving both the administration and Congress."

Medicare Advantage was initially conceived so that insurance companies could compete on a level playing field with traditional Medicare. The efficiencies of the private sector would drive down costs while providing enhancements to beneficiaries, or so the theory went. The problem was, this ideology was not consistent with reality.

These companies couldn’t compete with traditional Parts A & B. The Bush administration and his GOP lapdog Congress came to their rescue by authorizing a Medicare Advantage per-capita subsidy that is 14% greater than the one going to traditional Medicare. We are left to wonder how much of this additional 14% is being used to fatten insurance company profits, and how much is being used to enhance participants’ benefits.

Medicare Advantage plans have consistently cost the government more per beneficiary than traditional fee-for-service Medicare costs. These overpayments are estimated to total $150 billion over 10 years. The cuts to Medicare Advantage would jeopardize existing coverage only to the extent that seniors might lose extra benefits or have to switch back to regular Medicare.

The only thing being cut is the overpayments, to put Medicare Advantage on the same level playing field that proponents initially said they wanted. Insurance companies will be free to work the magic of the private sector to furnish whatever extra benefits they can.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/16/americas-health-insurance-plans/health-insurers-group-says-medicare-advantage-bene/

[depakid]

35. The Post's a paper where its own editors denied facts that their own reporters published!

They can't even write a simple science article without the spin.

No thanks- I'll wait for analysis from a credible source, rather than one that's become a laughing stock.

[unaffiliated liberal]

54. The NY Times, a paper I read every day, has made its share of "mistakes"

Do you consider the NY Times a credible source?

[ThoughtCriminal]

24. Medicare "Advantage is a huge rip-off

Passed by GOP as a way to funnel big bucks to insurance company CEOs and steal from Medicare.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/medicare-advantage-cuts-once-more-with-feeling/

"So, do higher MA payments produce little value to beneficiaries, as Obama claims, or are the benefits they fund important to maintain, as Republicans would have us believe? The balance of the evidence is on Obama’s side. In fact, it is a landslide: for each dollar spent, 14% of the value reaches beneficiaries and 86% of it goes elsewhere (profit or cost)."

[unaffiliated liberal]

25. And the current "health care reform" bill is too

The current "health care reform" bill is tantamount to extending Medicare Advantage across the entire health care insurance and drug industries. It's another give away to the very same corporations that have been bleeding the health care system for decades. Is that any surprise? It shouldn't be. Their lobbyists and "donations" wrote and paid for this "reform" bill.

[katkat]

46. Medicare Advantage is a huge rip-off - you got that right

I went over possible plans with a fine tooth comb when I went on Medicare. Medicare Advantage gives seniors NOTHING that Medicare + Medigap doesn't. It just fattens the insurance companies' pocketbooks.

If we cut out those unnecessary subsidies (which is what the Repigs and Blue Dogs mean by "cutting Medicare") there would be more money for actual healthcare.

[slipslidingaway]

19. How much do we spend on Medicare Advantage, about 89 billion last time...

I checked.

:shrug:

I've asked this question before all the noise from the right about Medicare.

How do we use any savings from Medicare efficiencies and waste to partially fund HC reform when expected enrollment in Medicare will increase from 46 million to 79 million over the next 20 years, and increased enrollment begins in 2011?

[boppers]

31. Lobbyist talking points make it onto DU, too.

Color me not surprised.

[No Elephants]

72. Medigap refers to private insurance that some people purchase to cover things

that Medicare does not cover. It is not part of the Medicare program.

[No Elephants]

68. I am coming to the conclusion that our legislators don't give a rat's tail what we say.

Realistically, barring something dramatic, incumbents are likely to be re-elected as many times as they want.

Once elected, they really are not answerable to voters in any meaningful way.

In part, this is because the Republicans and Democrats have co-operated to make it hard for a third party candidates.

In part, it is because the DNC backs an incumbent over a primary challenger. The rest of the blame goes to low info voters who vote for the name they recognize most, or simply stay home. (People get elected to national office by a pitifully small percentage of eligible voters.)

So, would anyone pay attention to what voters want, especially when there's money to be made from lobbyists?

[kstewart33]

12. Let's primary every one of those Dems. Send them all home. nt

[unaffiliated liberal]

14. We won't have to.

The way the Democratic majority is handling this they're all going to be sent home and we're going to be left with the same idiots in the majority that got us here in the first place.

I was upset about changing my party affiliation but at times like these I'm glad I did it because I'm not stupid enough to be a Democrat if the party is being led by these fools.

This is just unfucking believable. Isn't there any law against this kind of crap?

[Turborama]

27. I'd like to know the answer to this, too. "Isn't there any law against this kind of crap?"

If there isn't there certainly should be but pigs will fly before we see the "lawmakers" enact a law against themselves.

[pundaint]

40. No law, just a remedy, Vote the Bastards Out. FIRE CONGRESS '10

[No Elephants]

71. Please see Reply #68. And recall the Lieberman-Lamont primary as an example.

Yes, Lieberman lost the primary, despite all the help he got from Democratic heavy hitters. But Lamont got zip.

[Lasher]

91. NY-23 provides a more recent lesson.

One that worked in our favor.

It's fairly often I hear someone say we should throw all the bums out of Congress and start over. Almost all those promoting such an idea are Republicans, who said no such thing while they held the majority.

[unaffiliated liberal]

15. BTW, didn't our new president promise something about cleaning up K Street?

Looks more like K Street is cleaning up.

[AlbertCat]

63. K-street is ALL GOP, y'know.

[No Elephants]

70. Maybe, but they buy and own both Republicans and Democrats.

[Le Taz Hot]

92. LOL!

No it's not! How funny! K-street THRIVED during the Clinton Administration. Are you kidding??? :rofl:

[Bozita]

18. Short of torches and pitchforks, the only meaningful reform is public-funded elections.

Anything less is window dressing.

[Laelth]

21. The best government money can buy. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Blue_Tires]

22. doesn't really surprise me at all -- been going on for years...

but at least END the fuckin' charade of representative democracy...anyone giving their long-winded speeches before congress should automatically start out:

"I'm Congressman Tires, and I'm speaking on this issue not of personal conviction or the desires of my constituents, but on behalf of (insert special interest lobby group) because...

1. They are giving me $$$$ for my re-election campaign

2. They are giving me a SHITLOAD of $$$$ off the books, plus a cushy six-figure job on the board of directors after this term...

3. If I go against the grain, they will fund smear ads in my district having nothing to do with the issue

4. If I go against the grain, they will fully fund my opponent at re-election time

5. I'm too fucking ignorant or indifferent to really learn how this issue will affect average Americans/global policy/the economy/the environment, etc., so I really need someone to get me up to speed and tell me how to vote...Hey! Why not the people from the scumbag lobbyist group? Their office is right down the street and they make their living working in the industry! Who better to ask than them??

6. They already gave cushy, no-work six-figure jobs to my spouse and two sons; voting against them would be like voting against family!

7. They know where my itches are scratched -- hard drugs/deviant sex/cross-dressing/furryism, etc., and they have the video clips to prove it...

[peacetalksforall]

28. Rumsfeld Roche: "Rumsfeld owns Roche stock .........". There are many links that covers

the relationship - I chose this one because it is succinct.

http://able2know.org/topic/131877-1

Democrats who are stil listening to that liar? That man whose plan killed and maimed our children and ended the lives and ruined the bodies of many Iraqis - exiling thousands and thousands. Besied bombing their infrastructure and builing a mammoth embassy for the corporations.

[peacetalksforall]

29. Now add the other one: Roche-Genentech-Merck(Donald Rumsfeldt)

[peacetalksforall]

30. Roche Cheney: "Luckily for us Dick Cheney was CEO of Gilead Sciences that came up with Tamiflu

and licensed it to Roche and Cheney, Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are all Roche stockholders. What else could they do but their patriotic part to help "give us the bird" flu solution and pocket a few million dollars for their troubles?"

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1409467

[bemildred]

33. Tools get used. nt

[ej510]

34. Yet I got hell for saying the Health care bill sucks ass!!!!!!

[grahamhgreen]

38. +1 - This bill sucks people - we should not pass this crapsurance scam!!!

[Sunnyshine]

39. Sure is a quiet thread. What are they... the Beltway Theatrics Company ?

GOPuppets are scoundrels- and their entire "uprising" is also scripted.

Lovely that TWO statements were drafted for both parties. I want to vomit and break bricks all at once.

Problems; too much private money filtering in to pockets of congress and not much justice being served.
Public financing of elections would help rid us of the unelected power that interferes with governing.

No one can keep their story straight anymore over there and they all seem to cover for each other,
as they publicly pretend to be in opposition. D.C. is an enigma that seems impervious to working people.

We have waited decades already and the taxpayers demand smarter domestic/foreign policies. Period.
How are we supposed to fix things if we don't address their root causes immediately and effectively?
Core Democratic values and progressive social policy beats them hands down on every issue- every day.

As citizens, we know what is wrong with this entire picture and it sucks from every way you look at it.
Justice delayed is denied. U.S. politics is very ugly and unproductive. We must stop taking their shit.

[Vidar]

41. Unfortunately, I'm not surprised. Kudos to the Times for catching it.

[annabanana]

44. If dead tree media falls in the forest. . . . . .

Will it become "water cooler talk"? I don't think so.

If something isn't trumpeted (teased) before & after each commercial break, it doesn't sink in.

[western mass]

45. What you get when you vote for "any" Democrat.

Liberals caved into the "any democrat is better than a republican" scare tactics last time.

Are they gonna get fooled again?

[olegramps]

53. Stealth impostor. You don't fool anyone except yourself.

[Enthusiast]

56. But, ANYONE is a fool for

voting for a filthy Republican. Republicans SUCK, all Republicans SUCK.

[Le Taz Hot]

93. Noooooo

"Liberals" were not fooled. Most of us listened closely to what Obama said and realized he was a centrist; however, after 8 years of Bush, we didn't want another Republican administration. He lucked out in 2008. If he doesn't stop throwing us under the bus (and I have no reason to believe he's going to make any left turns) he'll be screwed for 2012.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

47. The Simpsons makes more sense every day.

This is fast becoming the new slogan for American politics.

Kent Brockman: "I've said it before and I'll say it again, democracy just doesn't work."

It's sad that a cartoon so completely nails what is wrong with this country. Too many politicians on both sides of the aisle are owned and whored out by corporations.

Retrieved from "http://simpsons.neoseeker.com/wiki/Kent_Brockman"

[Mari333]

49. They really really should wear corporate logos on their Armani suits

just like Nascar racers. just sew all of the companies brand names who OWN them onto their suits so we can see who they work for, and endorse.

[valleywine]

50. Another slap in the face for the American people.

[fascisthunter]

57. and they want our votes? Lol.... they already have our tax money

what a bunch of disgusting traitors, and yes they are traitors to the people of this nation. NEVER give a politician that sells you out ANY benefit of the doubt... NEVER!

[slipslidingaway]

58. Extra Payments to Medicare Advantage Plans - only a portion of the savings

from Medicare that is to be used to finance HC reform will come from Medicare Advantage.

Medicare will see enrollment grow from 46 million to 79 million in the next two decades when the baby boomers move from private insurance to Medicare.

One would think that most savings from MA plans, fraud and improvement from efficiencies remain in the Medicare plan to help with the expected rise in enrollment.

:shrug:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2009/May/Extra-Payments-to-Medicare-Advantage-Plans-to-Total-11-4-Billion-in-2009.aspx

"...The Congressional Budget Office estimates that bringing MA payments in line with traditional fee-for-service Medicare would save $157 billion over the next 10 years. Recent steps taken by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that reduce the payments made to private MA plans in 2010 do not address the factors responsible for the $11.4 billion in extra payments, the authors say.

The authors note that funds saved by eliminating extra payments to private plans could be used for other purposes, such as offsetting the costs of Medicare policy improvements—including reducing the Part B premiums that Medicare beneficiaries pay or increasing eligibility for low-income subsidies in Medicare Part D—or offsetting part of the cost of expanding health insurance to the 47 million uninsured..."


http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Issue-Briefs/2008/Sep/The-Continuing-Cost-of-Privatization--Extra-Payments-to-Medicare-Advantage.aspx


"Overview


The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 explicitly increased Medicare payments to private Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. As a result, every MA plan in the nation is paid more for its enrollees than they would have been expected to cost in traditional fee-for-service Medicare. The authors calculate that payments to MA plans in 2008 will be 12.4 percent greater than the corresponding costs in traditional Medicare—an average increase of $986 per MA plan enrollee, for a total of more than $8.5 billion. Over the five-year period 2004–2008, extra payments to MA plans are estimated to have totaled nearly $33 billion. Although Congress recently enacted modest reductions in MA plan payments, these changes will not take effect until 2010. Moreover, while the new legislation removes a few factors contributing to the extra payments, a number of other factors remain unaffected."



http://www.medpac.gov/documents/MedPAC_Payment_Basics_08_MA.pdf

"The Medicare Advantage (MA) program
allows Medicare beneficiaries to receive
their Medicare benefits from private
plans rather than from the traditional
fee-for-service (FFS) program. Under
some MA plans, beneficiaries may receive
additional benefits beyond those offered
under traditional Medicare and may pay
additional premiums for them. Medicare
pays plans a capitated rate for the 22
percent of beneficiaries enrolled in MA
plans in 2008. These payments amounted
to $78 billion in 2007, 18 percent of total
Medicare spending..."


http://familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/medicare-private-plans.pdf

"...According to the Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission (MedPAC), Medicare Advantage plans are paid an average of 12 percent more
than traditional Medicare to provide the same care. MedPAC estimates that the resulting
overpayments will add up to $54 billion over five years and $149 billion over 10 years.
The task of correcting these overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans has taken on extra
urgency this year. One reason is that Congress, which must reauthorize the State Children’s
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), is considering extending SCHIP coverage to all eligible but
unenrolled children. This expansion of coverage would require about $50 billion in new funding.
Although there are several options for coming up with this additional funding, reducing overpayments
to Medicare Advantage plans could deliver a substantial share of the funds necessary
to expand SCHIP to eligible children. The funds saved by reducing these overpayments could
also be used to improve Medicare coverage for low-income seniors by strengthening Medicare
Savings Programs and the Part D low-income subsidy..."

[katkat]

61. Plan D - another possibility for giant savings

Let's not forget that the Repigs and Blue Dogs have set things up so that Medicare CANNOT negotiate prescription med prices with BIgPharma but have to pay whatever price BigPharma sets :mad: unlike private insurance companies, which pay hugely less.

That's an obvious place to "cut" Medicare but keep the same benefits.

[slipslidingaway]

73. Another issue, but I go back to my original question...

I've asked this question before all the noise from the right about Medicare.

How do we use any savings from Medicare efficiencies and waste to partially fund HC reform when expected enrollment in Medicare will increase from 46 million to 79 million over the next 20 years, and increased enrollment begins in 2011?


Everyone just says the Medicare cuts come from the Medicare Advantage plans, but that is not even the largest line item on the CBO table.

Table 2 as shown on page 6
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10710/hr3962Dingell_mgr_amendment_update.pdf

Putting that aside for a moment, it would seem that any cuts in Medicare will be needed for the substantial increase in enrollment, I just do not see how the numbers add up.

:shrug:

[slipslidingaway]

75. CBO Elmendorf presentation - The Challenges of Entitlement Growth

Some ideas being discussed???

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10707/11-06-09-CBO_Presenation-AgingAndHealth-TheChallengesOfEntitlementGrowth.pdf

pages 14, 15 and 16

"Some Policy Options to Reduce Projected Spending for Social Security

Increase the Retirement Age
–
Social Security alone or also Medicare?

Decrease Benefits
–
Across-the-board or targeted at higher-income beneficiaries or other subgroups?



Some Policy Options to Reduce Projected Spending for Medicare and Medicaid

Decrease Payment per Health Care Service
–
Reductions relative to current law play a significant role in current reform plans.
–
Will reductions lead to increased efficiency, lower income for providers, or reduced access to care or quality of care?

Decrease Number of Health Care Services Provided
–
Could government policy improve people’s health, and would that reduce demand for services?
–
What is the appropriate role of comparative effectiveness research?
–
Can payments to providers be restructured to reward efficiency and value rather than rewarding the number of services provided?
–
Should beneficiaries pay more in copayments and deductibles?



Some Policy Options to Raise Revenues

Increase Ratesin Current Tax Structure

–Reform current structure to make tax system simpler, more efficient, or more fair?

Institute a New Tax

–Value addedtax? "

[slipslidingaway]

76. Obama Pledges Entitlement Reform - January 2009 ....

this goes back to my original question - how can we use any Medicare savings for other HC reform when we know, as Obama stated, that the big problem is Medicare, especially with the increased enrollment from the baby boom generation.

:shrug:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/16/politics/washingtonpost/main4727711.shtml

"...But the president-elect exuded confidence that his economic team will succeed where others have not.

"Social Security, we can solve," he said, waving his left hand. "The big problem is Medicare, which is unsustainable. . . . We can't solve Medicare in isolation from the broader problems of the health-care system."

Medicare, the government health program for retirees and the disabled, is projected to be insolvent by 2019, according to the most recent report by the Social Security and Medicare trustees. Over the next two decades, Medicare spending is expected to double, consuming nearly one-quarter of the federal budget.

Beginning in 2011, Social Security will take in less revenue than it pays out and will be forced to dip into reserves to pay benefits. It is projected to deplete its reserves by 2041, according to the trustees.

"The longer action is delayed, the greater will be the required adjustments, the larger the burden on future generations, and the more severe the detrimental economic impact on our nation," the trustees wrote last year..."

[clear eye]

95. You're right.

Common sense doesn't seem to be operative in the CBO. Of course if it were, they would have done a cost analysis of single payer.

[mother earth]

59. When do we reform campaign finance laws?

[mrs_p]

60. i just don't understand why roche was

lobbying against health care anyway. (1) they are a european company an (2) i've worked in health care for 16 years now and biotech is much more on the research side of things. all i can think is that roche must have a deal with private insurers to overpay for roche products.

[Overseas]

62. K&R. //nt

[Kermitt Gribble]

64. Can we stop the charade now?

These legislative "battles" between Dems and repubs are all for show - a grand illusion devised to keep us thinking the govt still works for us.

[Raster]

67. EVERYONE in DC feeds at the same trough, fed by the same hand.

When one thinks of Congress, it's best to think "accomplices" and "collaborators," instead of "elected representatives." We may have elected members of our government, but once in place, they serve a higher power other than "the people."

[Kermitt Gribble]

79. Yep.

Their campaigns are full of 'for-the-people' rhetoric, but once in office it's clear who they work for. We seem to fall for it every time.

[Raster]

94. It's not that the people themselves are corrupt, at least not to begin with.

But once you introduce legalized bribery of public officials--and that is what the corporate-controlled lobbying system amounts to--then the corruption sets in. Congress will never be "of the people, for the people and by the people" as long as corporate-controlled money is allowed to call the shots.

[slipslidingaway]

77. That about sums it up, there are very few who speak for the people. :( n/t

[Kermitt Gribble]

78. And those few

are marginalized and made out to be loons, which even some DUers buy in to. I don't see any way to end the corruption - I fear we are past the point of no return.

[Raster]

80. Or they are taken out...and I don't mean to dinner and a movie.

[slipslidingaway]

81. Yes they are and the letter after one's name should not be a determining factor...

of support or rejection of an idea or a person... group think will lead to profits for the rich and crumbs for the poor.

:(

[Lorien]

83. True. Repugs and Dems need to stop treating the "two sides" as if they were

sports teams. The blind allegiance to whomever bears the letter of your "team" needs to stop. Look at their records, watch their votes, withhold votes and contributions from those who work for the corporations and against the American people. Let's all put down the pom poms and get to work on real election reform.

[The Backlash Cometh]

65. ugh

[rmann]

84. lobbyists

Yes their master's voice

[Quantess]

85. Hey! Those lobbyists paid a lot of money to get in on the action.

They paid for their influence, fair and square.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

86. Lawmakers used Genentech statements: report

Source: Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Lobbyists working for biotech company Genentech wrote statements for more than a dozen lawmakers in the official record of the House debate on the health care bill, The New York Times reported on Sunday, citing e-mails.

The lobbyists, working for the U.S. biotech unit of Swiss drugmaker Roche Holding AG, drafted one statement for Democrats and one for Republicans, the Times said the e-mails it obtained show.

The e-mails show the statements were based on information sent from Genentech employees to one of the company's lobbyists, Matthew Berzok, a lawyer at Ryan, MacKinnon, Vasapoli & Berzok, and the statements were sent out by lobbyists at another law firm, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, according to the Times.

Genentech's political action committee and lobbyists for it and Roche have made contributions to House members, including some that have filed statements in the Congressional Record, the Times said.


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5AE1LS20091115

---

Lobbyists wrote the script for congress to read.

[ixion]

87. we need to put an end to corporate lobbying

the sooner the better.

[Angry Dragon]

90. I believe the correct term is .. corporate buying

[Solly Mack]

88. k/r

[boppers]

89. Dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4147072