Report: Bill would reduce senior care

[unaffiliated liberal]

Source: Washington Post

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.

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

---

Is this what our leadership has the audacity to refer to as "health care reform"?

[tsuki]

1. Do you believe the article? eoq

[jemsan]

2. yes I do

as I perused the medicare sites in California today I realized that next year I will certainly be paying less but for WAY fewer benefits. Just leave it alon and I will be fine. this new bill is HORRIBLE for seniors

[unaffiliated liberal]

4. The article states that the study was done by:

Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

From the article:

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.

And the article further states:

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.

Why wouldn't anyone believe it?

[mac56]

5. "similar to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office"

But NOT the CBO.

[unaffiliated liberal]

12. The second quote I posted is from the CBO

[Sgent]

61. Not the CBO

but the Obama appointed ppl in CMS...

[fasttense]

36. Is that the same Richard S. Foster who failed to release the actual cost of medicare part D?

Seems Mr. Foster's office has not always been so nonpartisan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/13/opinion/the-foster-affair.html

He claims his boss threatened to fire him if he released the real numbers to medicare part D. How do we know he's not being threatened again? This administration is NOT noted for ridding itself of Republicon bushies.

[tsuki]

59. Bingo.

:thumbsup:

[Alhena]

48. You don't take away $500 billion without some serious effects

doesn't mean it's still not the right move, but I don't doubt it will have significant effects.

[SharonAnn]

56. That's the extra "profit" to pay private companies to provide Medicare Advantage.

So, since when, if people want a private option do we taxpayers have to pay "extra" so that they can have it instead of Medicare?

And, these private plans sometimes provide some extras like vision coverage, but they don't cover treatment outside their area or their facility or their pool of doctors. That can sometimes mean that the government pays more for coverage that under some conditions, covers less.

Ah, privatization! Isn't it wonderful? Pay more and get less.

[quiller4]

58. No. The article misstates the cuts which were aren't really cuts but

negotiated changes in rates of increase of reimbursement rates to vendors of service to seniors. That is different in cuts in services to seniors.

[joeglow3]

63. I do, as friends of ours have their own medical practice

They lose money for all medicare and medicaid patients they accept (not even taking into account their salaries). They accept a small number of the patients as they are infill for their schedule and they can recoup the variable costs. Further cuts in reimbursement rates will lead to 2 things:

1. Reduction in places accepting it, and
2. Increase in health care costs to everyone else to offset these cuts.

This is the one thing I am disappointed about not being addressed.

[Deja Q]

3. No, but I remember Obama ads targeting McCain, saying McCain would cut medicare...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWFmE4CyJHo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C6PzLBr_zg

The audacity? of hope.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aR3Gpsn4v4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsoRyfj52yk

[Psephos]

20. wow, those youtube clips are devastating

I found this one linked to the first one you posted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcVvNF3g1l4&NR=1 Forget the title, just watch the vid. Jaw-dropping.

These cynical pols really think we're going to believe they can chop a half-trillion out of Medicare and not affect service? After they lined up by the dozen before the election and said the EXACT OPPOSITE?


:rofl:

[unaffiliated liberal]

6. And let's not forget this is just ONE of the unacceptable points in this bill

Along with reduced Medicare and Medicaid funding there is the Stupak amendment, limiting reproductive rights, a public option that is little more than window dressing and would be, according to reports I've read, be administered by one of the very same insurance companies that is has created the health care fiasco our nation currently faces, a give-away to the drug industry in the tens of billions of dollars because our legislators are so indebted to the true drug cartels that they cut a deal to allow drug companies to determine prices instead of forcing them to negotiate prices with the federal government, and the entire bill is a failure before it even starts because it keeps the same insurance and drug cartels that have been bleeding the American health care system for decades in place with only an almost non-existent public option as their so-called competition to reduce rates. LOL

Kill this bill, then start over and write a REAL health care reform bill that lets the insurance and drug cartels know that their long and obscenely profitable run is over and is being replaced with single payer or Medicare for all or whatever you want to call it.

This bill makes things worse, not better. Because it was paid for and written by the same insurance and drug cartels that created this mess of a health care system in the first place.

If this bill passes in its current form THEY WIN. WE LOSE.

[TacticalPeek]

7. Single payer is the best choice for a reason.

It controls costs.

[Deja Q]

8. And given 1900 pages of stuff that John Boner is too lazy to read, a fresh new system is

cheaper outright.

People want costs to be controlled but despite what surely is obvious, nobody wants to do it. That's fine for republicans, who want to ruin the world anyway, but not for everybody else.

[SpankMe]

9. The story is believable.

The bill gets worse all the time. But, why would AARP endorse it, then?

[Deja Q]

10. Worse is this, particularly what people responding to it say:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-to-cut-medicare-despite-promises
(note the month in which that article was posted.)

[Deja Q]

11. Oh, the AARP supported Bush's plan-D garbage. AARP is just another lobby...

[Psephos]

21. AARP licenses its name to insurance companies to sell AARP-branded medical insurance.

Then collects handsome royalties for every policy sold.

AARP's especially big in the Medigap insurance segment, where it's partnered with UnitedHealth Group, the #1 Medigap policy writer. AARP is also big in the Medicare Advantage segment.

So, with a bill that will cut a half-trillion dollars out of Medicare, do you think the "gap" that Medigap insurance covers will grow smaller or larger?

Public records show that in 2008, AARP it earned $652.7 million from insurance royalities. (Not all of this is from Medigap and Medicare Advantage royalties alone; AARP also is active in other segments.) The royalties account for 57 percent of AARP's total revenues $1.14 billion.

Connect the dots. It's a racket.

[napi21]

30. Yep! They license to United Health Care! Watch their

TV commercials. The small print at the botton says just that!

[Psephos]

32. It's not a secret - but it is a strong financial reason for them to back the plan.

As the old saying goes, follow the money to find the reasons.

[Turbineguy]

44. That explains the low membership costs.

So the AARP is just another pimp house.

[bvar22]

49. AARP is a very BIG "For Profit " Health Insurance Corporation.

Nuff said.

[napi21]

13. As I understand it, most of the savings is coming from cuts

to the Advandage Plans. That may be what they're talking about when they said reduction in coverage.

[Deja Q]

14. I hope so.

it's easy to get confused or jumping to the wrong conclusions...

[napi21]

15. Yes very easy! I've also heard there is a bill to increase reimbursements to

Dr's & hosp's, but I don't recall if it's part of the HC bill or if it's a separate one.

The OP argument doesn't make sense to me. Nothing I've heard corresponds to what they say.

[Deja Q]

17. Way-cool

thx!

:)

[CANDO]

18. Right you are!

This program is a sneaky off-shoot from traditional Medicare that allowed for medicare to pay for private plan premiums which actually operated as a private insurance subsidy. And wouldn't you know it, the overhead costs were higher due to private insurance participation and allowed for a profit of around 6.6% for the insurance provider. And of course the media never discusses what part of Medicare is being cut when they point this out. It is only right that this pork for the private insurers gets cut.

[YvonneCa]

22. EXACTLY. The Democratic effort...

...has been to cut waste and abuse in the system. My understanding is that Medicare Advantage was a big part of the problem in keeping Medicare sustainable.

[Psephos]

23. You make it sound like a bad thing.

My mother, who is currently in remission from Stage 4 lymphoma due to treatment covered under Medicare Advantage, begs to differ.

So do tens million of her pals.

[napi21]

26. Medicare Advantage Plans are much cheaper to the participant.

I know, we knae one. However, the way they operate is wrong! We pay $39.00/mp for the Advantage program plus the $97.00 is also deducted from our SS payment. The Ins cos are making out like bandits on this program because most insured don't use anywhere near the amount of $$ that is paid to the ins, co's for these prograns.

As I said, I know this "advantage" to the ins. co's is going to be cut, as well it should be!

Obama said he was going to make the Advantage Programs operate on a level playing field.

I'm sure my premiums will go up sto some degree, but I doubt the will increase to the level of the std. supplemental or there will be no reason to keep them alive!

[Psephos]

28. Umm, are trying to say that raising Advantage premiums to my mom is a good thing?

Cuz it sure sounds that way.

Meanwhile, I'm no fan of insurance cos., but are you really so gullible as to believe the financial malpractice clowns who run our government - and who have us in hock up to our eyeballs with lousy services and crumbling infrastructure and interest payments soon to be the largest single budget item - are going to be miracle workers bringing savings and efficiency on this?

Oh. My. God.

[napi21]

29. I'm willing to pay more to get the rest of you HC! I honestly think $39/mo

us GREAT but ridiculously cheap! UT;s obviously not a great thing because we have to change plans for 2010 because the one we have couldn't reach an agreement and are no longer participants in our only hospital system. It's a high hosp syst. and obviously had some major problem if they couldn't reach something equitable to both.

I don't know your nother or her financial circumstances. We are both living on SS and I'm willing to pay somewhat more to benefit the rest of our Country.

[Psephos]

31. Yes, that's a cool sentiment, but you sidestepped the main question.

Here it is again:

Do you honestly believe the financial malpractice clowns who run our government - and who have us in hock up to our eyeballs with lousy services and crumbling infrastructure and interest payments soon to be the largest single budget item - are going to be miracle workers bringing savings and efficiency on this?

If you do, can you cite some evidence why anyone might believe this? I can cite page after page of reasons one shouldn't.

Unless the government undergoes a magical transformation and suddenly acquires political backbone and financial acumen (it shows no evidence of either and hasn't for as long as I've been alive), the numbers you're betting on are pure fantasy.

(BTW, text can look harsher than intended. You're a nice person and clearly generous, and I mean no disrespect.) :)

[napi21]

33. I believe since the gov't will only be funding this program, it

wull be every bit as god as medicare. If you add a lot more prople into the Jcdicare system, it would be fully funded and work perfectly fine.

The advantage to having a Gov't funded program is that they will not be making a profit. Sice the PO is not to make a profit, their costs to the consumer has to be cheaper!

[CANDO]

50. Why is your mother not using traditional Medicare?

My point about the creation of Medicare Adv. was that it starts the ball rolling to privatize Medicare. It's always for the benefit of private insurers.

[unaffiliated liberal]

53. I had cancer treatmant last year under government run Medicare

The final bill was WELL over $100,000. I paid a couple of thousand bucks total in co-pays for drugs, to doctors, and the hospital, and the insurance giants didn't have a chance to stick their noses into my treatment options or take a dime in profits and administrative fees. My treatment was between me and my doctor and the government didn't get between us like the Republican drones always whine about.

Insurance companies selling Medicare Advantage cost the health care system almost THREE TIMES the cost of government run Medicare in profits and administrative fees. That is a bad thing, IMO.

President Obama and the Democrats keep repeating that the president promises not to cut "guaranteed" Medicare benefits but I've never heard any of them explain exactly what they mean by "guaranteed" Medicare benefits. And I'm afraid Medicare recipients will not be very happy when we find out.

I'm for health care reform more than most people I know but I want it done right from the start. Not some half-assed plan that allows the greedy bastards that have been pillaging the health care system for fun and profit, denying coverage, getting between patients and their doctors, running defacto death panels, to increase their premiums and profits while finding new ways to deny coverage.

Single payer is the only answer and if the Democrats can't get it done they are going to pay for it at the polls. I guarantee that. We didn't give them a majority and the White House to get lame excuses and the rest of this bullshit.

[Psephos]

57. I'm with you all the way on single-payer. n/t

[pattmarty]

39. That is my understanding also. Those "Advantage" plans are............

.....heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. That was Bush's way to start the privatization of Medicare. There are a lot of similarities in the Bush "reform" and the Obama "reform", except the Obama "reform" costs more than double the Bush "Medicare reform".

[slipslidingaway]

47. Not when you look at the CBO report...

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.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4147072&mesg_id=4147693

[Mz Pip]

16. Wake me up

when there is a bill on Obama's desk. The Senate part of this hasn't even begun.

I'm surprised that the Republicans aren't thrilled about any potential cuts to Medicare. They are always looking for ways to cut entitlements. Duplication of services might be a good place to start.

[pattmarty]

42. The Republicans aren't "thrilled" because the cuts will be coming........

...........from the Advantage part of Medicare. That's the part that is paid to PRIVATE insurance companies. I am against the Advantage program, the only thing I would be for is the so called part D section EXCEPT that making sure the "donut hole" is done away with and Medicare can negotiate prices with the drug companies.

[TomCADem]

19. So, Reform Is Too Successful? That's A Good Reason For Opposing Single Payer, Too.

Let me get this straight. Because reform would successfully reduce the number of uninsured, health care reform will be detrimental to seniors, due to the added demand? Shoot, it is a good thing we don't have single payer then.

###

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.

###

Page 16 of the report specifically states: “The additional demand for health services could be difficult to meet initially with existing health provider resources and could lead to price increases, cost-shifting, changes in providers’ willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage.” Translation: A crush of newly insured patients could be a shock to the system."

[TacticalPeek]

24. Link to the report:

http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2009/november/weekend111309/cmsactuarynumbers.pdf

[smiley_glad_hands]

25. Cuts to Medicare Advantage program. Nice try though. eom

[creeksneakers2]

27. Medicare was out of balance before all of this

How can they cut all this money from Medicare and still balance it?

[slipslidingaway]

46. My question as well, especially with enrollment going from 46 milion to 79 million...

over the next two decades.

I just do not see how it all adds up.

:shrug:

FWIW posted some additional links starting here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4147072&mesg_id=4147539

[winyanstaz]

34. another reason this bill sucks

[hayu_lol]

35. This public circus has gone on long enough...

we need/require a SINGLE-PAYER NATIONAL HEALTH PLAN without any 'stupid amendment' affecting reproductive rights in any way.

If our reps/senators cannot give us this, then we need to make them unemployed--permanently.

Time for us to just say ENOUGH!

[winyanstaz]

45. exactly!!

[FlaGranny]

37. This kind of "study" always

neglects to factor in the savings from cutting catastropic care costs when the uninsured become sick enough to qualify for government aid, don't they? They also fail to factor in the electronic record system (a major part of Obama's plan) that controls the budget of the VA and increases the overall efficiency of medical care there. In addition, they are devaluing human life by putting a monetary limit on its value.

It boggles the mind when you add up the loss of human life and the suffering that Americans have been too greedy to even consider - probably 400,000 or more Americans dead in the past 10 years because of it.

Single payer, though, is the only good option.

Edit: As to the "cuts" in Medicare, Obama has tied these "cuts" to the figures for actual waste in the system.

[Vinca]

38. Of course, Congress could pass a law that says providers

who accept private insurance MUST also accept Medicare and Medicaid patients without discriminating. Providers say they don't get enough money from government programs, but anyone with health insurance who gets a copy of the bill will see a $15,000 procedure for $1,000. Big insurance either has providers under their thumb, or the big shots who make all the money are in cahoots.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

40. If BO is making decisions to be re-elected, he can forget it, ain't gonna happen.

I just hope he doesn't try again in 2016 and later. One term and go away and enjoy his cushy Corporate America payoff that he earned with this sell out.

[underpants]

41. Another way to say the same thing-revenue will decrease for hospitals

we are going to have hospitals it is just that with what hasn't been finalized (remember that) the hospital INDUSTRY will be LESS profitable.

[slipslidingaway]

43. Exactly how much can be saved from the Medicare Advantage Plans and...

what should it fund?


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.

Links here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4147072&mesg_id=4147539

"...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..."

[Honeycombe8]

51. So which is it? Either Medicare has a lot of fraud and waste, or it doesn't. The pubes say it does

So.....we surely sure be able to pull some $$$ from it by focusing on fraud and efficiency and abuse.

Can't have it both ways. Either Medicare has no fraud to speak of, and is extremely efficient, with few ways to cut costs while ensuring same level of care...or it doesn't. If the latter, there's the money.

[unaffiliated liberal]

55. Here's an article from the AP I read this morning on Mediare fraud

Govt: Medicare paid $47 billion in suspect claims

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j1-e3AW6RglZGaSK98EdgH97WgKQD9BVQ8Q00

See what you make of it. Or doesn't the AP qualify as one of your acceptable news sources either?

Hmmmm

[Honeycombe8]

52. What a surprise! The WaPo runs a critical article! Now THAT'S news! And a newbie...

bursts through the gates with a critical post!

Hmmmmmm.

[unaffiliated liberal]

54. You sound like my Republican acquaintances

They ignore the information and attack the source just like you.

As for a "newbie", I've been in this battle longer than you and given up more, I'm sure. Just because I haven't posted here doesn't mean I just came from the delivery room.

Debate the facts, not your biases.

[FrenchieCat]

60. hmmmmmm....is right

Newbie and a couple of his pals posts, and the usual suspects jump in.

[Marthe48]

62. It would be terrific if we got our military out of Iraq/Afghanistan

and stopped wasting money killing people and destroying things. If Bush/Cheney hadn't gone there in the first place, the US wouldn't have to be looking at cutting humanitarian programs like Medicare. We just got a letter today that our retirement benefits costs are going up $120.00/month starting in Jan. When my husband retired, we weren't supposed to pay for the benefits, then got socked for at least $6000.00/yr when ORMET declared bankruptcy and was allowed to open the contract and change their responsibility. The employees took promised future benefits in lieu of higher wages at the time the contracts were agreed to, so the company basically screwed us twice, then and now, and they get to keep on ruining our lives as long as there is no regulation, no enforcement, and irresponsible action by outlaw politicians.

[Winterblues]

64. Democrats fought for a decade to get Medicare and you believe they now want to destroy it?

I ask any Republican why they would be upset over this? Republicans fought long and hard to stop Medicare and they hate it as socialized medicine. Why would they be even the slightest bit upset if it were to be stripped of it's income? This is just more BS on all fronts..

[No Elephants]

65. The Democrats who fought for a decade to get Medicare in the 1960's are not the Democrats of today

And I don't mean only that individual faces and names have change. The Party is different, the political situation is different. You cannot discuss the two eras as though they were equivalent.