Fri 22 Apr, 2011 03:37 pm
Broken Contract
For decades, Americans have counted on a basic promise: A secure retirement is the reward for a lifetime of labor. Yet last Friday, House Republicans voted almost unanimously to break one of America's most sacred promises that the cost of health care will not bankrupt seniors and their families once they enter retirement. Less than one year after Republicans hurled misleading claims that the Affordable Care Act's provisions to make Medicare more efficient would somehow deprive seniors of care, the House GOP passed a budget that will phase out Medicare and leave seniors entirely at the mercy of the large health insuran ce companies (ironically, while still keeping many of the Medicare cuts they once criticized). And just one year after Republicans peppered the airwaves with claims that Democrats were ramming major changes to the health system through Congress by spending just one year debating health reform, the GOP-controlled House took only two weeks to debate and pass their plan to eliminate Medicare. If the Republican budget ever becomes law, it will shred America's contract with seniors who worked every day of their lives knowing that Medicare would be there for them in their retirement.
THE END OF MEDICARE, PERIOD: The GOP budget does not "reform" Medicare. It does not provide seniors with the same coverage Members of Congress receive. And it does not end Medicare "as we know it." The GOP budget ends Medicare, period. The centerpiece of the House Republicans’ plan is a proposal that repeals traditional Medicare and replaces it with a health insurance voucher that loses its value over time. Because the value of the Republicans’ privatized Medicare replacement does not keep up with the cost of health care , their plan will gradually phase out Medicare as its increasingly worthless vouchers will eventually only cover a very tiny fraction of the cost of a health insurance plan. Worse, as President Obama told the nation last week, the GOP budget immediately fritters away much of the savings from eliminating Medicare with hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans. The rich get richer, and America's seniors are tossed out into the cold.
THE PATH TO MEDICARE REPEAL: Although the GOP budget phases out Medicare gradually over many years, it will deal a body blow to America's seniors the minute it goes into effect. The GOP plan eliminates traditional Medicare and forces seniors into the private insurance market. But health insurers have substantially higher administrative costs than traditional Medicare, and they lack Medicare's ability to negotiate lower rates from doctors and hospitals. As a result, seniors will pay more for less as soon as the GOP plan becomes a reality. According to the CBO, total health care expenditures for a typical 65-year-old "would be almost 4 0 percen t higher with private coverage under the GOP plan than they would be with a continuation of traditional Medicare" in the very first year that the GOP plan goes into effect. As a clear sign that the GOP understands that seniors will not stand for losing their access to traditional Medicare, Republicans claim that Americans over age 55 will not lose their access to the nation's most successful health care program, but this claim is also misleading. The GOP's plan will shunt younger, healthier seniors into privatized plans, leaving traditional Medicare with an ever diminishing pool of the very oldest beneficiaries, and stealing away Medicare's power to drive a hard bargain with health providers. Moreover, it's not even clear that many health ins urance c ompanies will even be willing to offer private plans to seniors, who represent the "oldest, sickest, and least profitable demographic."
THE GOP'S WAR ON HEALTH CARE: Lest there be any doubt, the GOP plan to end Medicare is just one part of a full-scale assault on America's health care safety net. The GOP budget does not simply kill Medicare, it guts Medicaid, forcing states to either cap enrollment, cut eligibility, slash benefits, lower payments to doctors or somehow dig up additional funds to pay for their newly starved health care system. This assault on Medicaid deals another body blow to seniors, as Medicaid pays for nearly half of all long term care costs in the United States. Nor is the GOP's war on the health care safety net anything new. The GOP lined up in near-unanimous opposition to the landmark Affordable Care Act, and they just as resoundingly embraced the utterly meritless notion that health reform violates the Constitution. Many GOP lawmakers go even further, claiming that Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and any other federal health care programs are unconstitutional. And the GOP's last campaign for the White House was built upon a plan to gut state laws protecting health insurance consumers and leave them to the mercy of the insurance industry. In other words, it's clear that the Republican Party has wanted to dismantle the nation's health care contract with all Americans for many years -- they just finally got the votes to pass this radical agenda through the House.
--americanprogressaction.org
@Advocate,
I think America can survive with a more streamlined Medicare, but I'm sure American can not survive
the liberal progressive democrat attack on our constitution, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
@H2O MAN,
The overhead for Medicare, run by the government, is one-tenth of the overhead of the private insurance companies. Moreover, it covers most ailments, and makes payments to doctors, et al., relatively quickly. Increasingly, doctors prefer dealing with Medicare.
Before Obamacare, our system was a disgrace to the human race. There were 45,000 people dying every year due to lack of coverage, over 30 million uninsured, people kicked of, or excluded from, plans because they got sick, runs on the bankruptcy courts, etc. Somehow, the Reps in congress, who have all the benefits of Obamacare, want to deny these benefits to their constituents.
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
The overhead for Medicare, run by the government, is one-tenth of the overhead of the private insurance companies. Moreover, it covers most ailments, and makes payments to doctors, et al., relatively quickly. Increasingly, doctors prefer dealing with Medicare.
If you knew the first thing about accounting and the financial operations of a corporation you would know this to be a false statement. The government doesn't account for it's costs in the same way as does a business. The Medicare administration doesn't (in its budget) pay for the health, life insurance or pension costs of its enployees. It doesn't pay for investigations of the widespread fraud to which Medicare is increasingly subject - these costs are paid by the Justice Department. It doesn't pay any cost for liability insurance as does a private system - the government insures itself with our money. In short it doesn't pay, in its budget, for most of the real, inescapable costs associated with running a health insurance program - these costs exist and they are generally far higher than those in the private sector, however they are buried in the vast, wasteful bureaucracy that is our government.
@Advocate,
Obamacare is a disgrace and a disaster.
Advo, you are a clueless fool and a tool of the left.
Leave the liberal plantation while you still can... be free!
If Medicare goes down, it will be a loss based on ideology and greed for money, not a budgetary necessity.
@edgarblythe,
That's an interesting assertion. Do you have any data to back it up? The Medicare/medicaid contribution to our projected deficit is enormous and would not even be dented by the "tax increases on the rich" that Obama proposes.
Indeed Obama has already significantly reduced Medicare by cancelling the Medicare Advantage program. His new appointed board is now empowered to establish medicare rates for services, further complicating an already deficient funding scheme that too often rewards non productive procedures and fraudulent billings. No death panels they say but their very existence is designed to contain costs and limit the services available.
@georgeob1,
Your ignorance is palpable. In your answer to me, you mostly talk about things other than overhead, to which I referred. However, you mention fraud investigation. It is false that this is wholly paid for by Justice. Medicare pays for this, but is paying far too little, thanks to the Republicans. For instance, it has only two fraud investigators covering Southern Florida, a hotbed of fraud.
@georgeob1,
You are ignorant about Advantage. While it should be eliminated, the administration decided to keep it for political reasons. E. g., it is particularly popular in TX, where the Dems hope to garner a lot of votes.
Advantage costs the taxpayer up to 50 % more than does traditional Medicare, but its health results trail the latter. For instance, under Advantage, Humana will require, say, an optician to see 55 patients each day. Another unconnected optician will see only 30 a day, because that is the maximum number of patients who can be given decent care in a day.
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want
to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
Your ignorance is palpable. In your answer to me, you mostly talk about things other than overhead, to which I referred. However, you mention fraud investigation. It is false that this is wholly paid for by Justice. Medicare pays for this, but is paying far too little, thanks to the Republicans. For instance, it has only two fraud investigators covering Southern Florida, a hotbed of fraud.
WEFT as usual ( = Wrong Every ******* Time). Everything I listed above is included in the overhead expenses of any businerss and particularly in the overhead expenses of a private medical insurer. The Madicare administration may have a few inspectors, but they use the FBI for criminal investigations and the Justice department for lawyering and prosecution. These are alll real overhead expenses for a private insurer. Same goers for allt he other stuff I mentioned including the huge liabilities for enployee pensiona and health care costs- and many other services that are budgeted distinctly from government operating departments.
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
You are ignorant about Advantage. While it should be eliminated, the administration decided to keep it for political reasons. E. g., it is particularly popular in TX, where the Dems hope to garner a lot of votes.
Advantage costs the taxpayer up to 50 % more than does traditional Medicare, but its health results trail the latter. For instance, under Advantage, Humana will require, say, an optician to see 55 patients each day. Another unconnected optician will see only 30 a day, because that is the maximum number of patients who can be given decent care in a day.
The difference with Advantage is that you actually get to see a doctor. It's not easy to find a physician in this area who will accept medicare only patients at all.
@georgeob1,
Not only that, but I'm pretty sure that Advantage is about 16% more, not 50%.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Thanks. I was pretty sure the 50% was a gross exaggeration, but I didn't know the number.
I have much more confidence in the ability of competing Advantage insurers or HMOs to contain costs in a way that takes care of the needs of their clients than I do of the remore Medicare board that will make (by decree) autonomous, one-size-fits-all decisions about what services will be funded and at what specific fee will be paid - for the whole damn country, from Manhatten to Valdosta Georgia.
The only way for the country to realistically limit Medicare financial liabilitires is to convert it to a voucher prograsm of fixed value and let the market compete for the vouchers. The vouchers can be set at levels enabling basic insurance coverage and individuals should be free to use it for high decuctable high coverage or low deductable low coverage, low cost insurance as they choose and to supplement it with their own funds as they are able and wish to do so.
@georgeob1,
Quote:I have much more confidence in the ability of competing Advantage insurers or HMOs to contain costs in a way that takes care of the needs of their clients than I do of the remore Medicare board that will make (by decree) autonomous, one-size-fits-all decisions about what services will be funded and at what specific fee will be paid - for the whole damn country, from Manhatten to Valdosta Georgia.
Well, this part I'm not so sure about, largely because HMO's have done nothing at all to contain costs over the last 20 years.
Quote:The only way for the country to realistically limit Medicare financial liabilitires is to convert it to a voucher prograsm of fixed value and let the market compete for the vouchers.
I also don't get this part. What market is going to compete for an 80-year old man who has several pre-existing conditions and a voucher which declines in value every single year? The Ryan plan specifically relies upon this declining value as a money-saving mechanism.
Cycloptichorn
Each time I hear about this voucher bullshit, I recall my 401K program. No matter how I checked preferences for the investing of my money, only a fraction of the returns were pluses. Once they get your money in their pocket on an ongoing basis they no longer care if you thrive or go broke.
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
It's not easy to find a physician in this area who will accept medicare only patients at all.
In my area, you can count them on the fingers of your left foot.
A big change was requiring Part D (prescription drug) carriers to pay 50% of the cost of prescription drugs when the insured entered the "donut hole" -
if the drugs were on their particular formulary. My plan deleted the only drug I had prescribed, and raised the rates by 103%. Thanks a lot!
Since the insurance companies get to write their own formularies, we're approaching the point that coverage applies to the $4.00/month generics at Walmart. If I'm grateful to anyone, it's Walmart.
@edgarblythe,
Perhaps you chose badly. Mine have delivered an average 11% annual return since 1990 - in a fairly balanced portfolio with about 35% invested in bonds or income stocks and the rest in a variety of growth oriented investments. Things looked a bit grim in 2008 but they are back on track now. Over the same period I would have done much better investing my FICA taxes in the same portfolio.
@edgarblythe,
I got out at a very, very good time. If it were skill instead of luck, I would have also gotten back in at the right time. No regrets.
The poorest among us don't have great portfolios and are largely at the mercy of the company handling our money.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace