Conrad's Medicare Cuts Hurt Seniors

[bonnie]

VIEWPOINT: Conrad's Medicare cuts hurt seniors

Sen. Kent Conrad’s great betrayal of North Dakota seniors on Medicare would leave even father of the thesaurus Peter Roget at a loss for words. The major source of funding for President Barack Obama’s health care plan, senior health care is slashed nearly one-half a trillion dollars.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Kent Conrad’s great betrayal of North Dakota seniors on Medicare would leave even father of the thesaurus Peter Roget at a loss for words. The major source of funding for President Barack Obama’s health care plan, senior health care is slashed nearly one-half a trillion dollars.

A staggering blow to a program Medicare trustees say will be bankrupt by 2017, common sense alone says the $470.7 billion in Medicare cuts approved by Senate Democrats will inevitably impact seniors’ access to quality care.

What’s more, none of the cuts will be used to save Medicare, reports the Congressional Budget Office.

To put the magnitude of these Medicare cuts into perspective, the Senate cuts represent the financial equivalent of completely eliminating an entire year’s worth of health care funding for seniors and disabled Americans, but spread out over 10 years.

The cuts are shocking in their audacity, breathtaking in their scope.

In a recent report, Rick Foster, the federal government’s chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, warned the Senate proposal to cut payments to hospitals, nursing homes and other providers might lead to “jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries.” In fact, many institutions may stop taking Medicare patients.

Conrad, understandably, prefers not to use such divisive words as “cut,” “slash” or “reduction” to describe what is being done to Medicare by Senate Democrats, but rather a more noble word like “savings.”

After all, who could possibly be opposed to savings?

But when was the last time government “saved” anything, and

hasn’t government itself become the very definition of “waste, fraud and abuse”?

According to the independent Congressional Budget Office, “adjusted for inflation, Medicare spending per beneficiary under the legislation would increase at an average annual rate of less than 2 percent during the next two decades — about half of the roughly 4 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades.”

But the CBO continues: “It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.”

One item that might catch “the apple of the eye” for seniors is a plan to create new government insurance for home and community-based long-term care, known as The CLASS Act, short for Community Living Services and Support.

But the program is being used as little more than an accounting gimmick to create a $60 billion balance sheet asset to fund the president’s overall health plan. People would pay a premium in exchange for the opportunity to receive program benefits after being enrolled for at least five years.

The design of the program has been roundly criticized by many, including the Congressional Budget Office, the American Academy of Actuaries and several Democratic senators. In fact, Conrad himself called The CLASS Act “a ‘Ponzi Scheme’ of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.”

Yet, every Democratic senator, including a clearly outraged Conrad, still voted for The CLASS Act as part of the overall Senate health care bill.

Moreover, Conrad’s vote for health care reform includes a $149 billion tax increase on private health insurance plans, $43 billion in new taxes and fines on individuals and businesses, $87 billion Medicare payroll tax increase and $101 billion tax increase on branded drugs, health insurance providers and certain medical devices (such as pacemakers and motorized wheelchairs).

While some may feel big tax hikes are the “just deserts” for an insurance industry whose standard protocol for sick patients so often begins with “no,” insurers will pass these taxes on to their customers with higher premiums and fewer benefits, as they always do.

An old saying goes that you can determine the compassion of a society by its compassion for elderly citizens. Americans have that compassion. It’s just the politicians who are out to lunch.

Maybe JFK was right after all: “Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.” But Conrad, you’re no Jack Kennedy.

[karl]

Every health care law passed on Capital Hill since the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1986 has diminished health care to the elderly. The only exception has been the drug bill. The primary purpose of the drug bill was to line the pockets of big pharma. Seniors have help paying their drug bills, but the prices of drugs have skyrocketed since the bill was passed.

When LBJ got Medicare passed in 1965, the average age at death was the age of eligibility - 65. The estimated cost - $12 billion per year. Since then there has been a huge increase in lifespan and in costs to the Medicare program. Medical technology, fueled by doctors having their hands in the pockets of taxpayers, has exploded. Rather than do the sensible, but unpopular thing and increase the age of eligibility, lawmakers have been trying to ration care since about twenty years after Medicare started.

This is yet another example of why voters should keep lawmakers on a very tight rein and be very suspicious of them. Lawmakers are notoriously unable or unwilling to accurately predict costs of the bills they pass, and they essentially have no financial accountability because everyone knows that the cost of government is a dead loss to the populace.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Every health care law passed on Capital Hill since the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1986 has diminished health care to the elderly. The only exception has been the drug bill. The primary purpose of the drug bill was to line the pockets of big pharma. Seniors have help paying their drug bills, but the prices of drugs have skyrocketed since the bill was passed.

I disagree as to the primary purpose of Prescription D drug plan.

When you have to go on medicare which is almost mandatory you would lose your prescription drug coverage. Once the government started micromanaging health care for seniors that lost all prescription drug coverage. Medigap insurance is not allowed to provide drug coverage.

When my mother was battling cancer there was no way she could have paid 100.00 a pop for a prescription. My brothers and I were able to take care of all of her needs not covered but all don't have that.

Drug companies are quite good at providing drugs at a much reduced or free cost for those not able to pay.But it still requires some help for those that cannot.

Quote:

When LBJ got Medicare passed in 1965, the average age at death was the age of eligibility - 65. The estimated cost - $12 billion per year. Since then there has been a huge increase in lifespan and in costs to the Medicare program. Medical technology, fueled by doctors having their hands in the pockets of taxpayers, has exploded. Rather than do the sensible, but unpopular thing and increase the age of eligibility, lawmakers have been trying to ration care since about twenty years after Medicare started.

I don't think we have seen rationing as we are about to if this goes thru.

Most Dr's I know do not have their hands in the pockets of seniors. Medical technology is responsible for my husband being alive today.

Quote:

This is yet another example of why voters should keep lawmakers on a very tight rein and be very suspicious of them. Lawmakers are notoriously unable or unwilling to accurately predict costs of the bills they pass, and they essentially have no financial accountability because everyone knows that the cost of government is a dead loss to the populace.

This is why when Pelosi,Reid and Obama keep talking of the single payer providing competition it is a lie stamped on their foreheads. Anyone that has an IQ above 10 knows you cannot compete with a company that has endless amounts of other peoples money and is not required to show a profit

[karl]

Originally Posted By: karl

The primary purpose of the drug bill was to line the pockets of big pharma. Seniors have help paying their drug bills, but the prices of drugs have skyrocketed since the bill was passed.

I disagree as to the primary purpose of Prescription D drug plan.

"Six years ago, a group of lawmakers and aides crafted Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program for seniors that has produced billions of dollars of profits for pharmaceutical companies."

"Today, at least 25 of those key players are back, but this time they’re lobbyists, trying to persuade their former colleagues to protect the lucrative system during the health care reform negotiations."

--------------------

Read the rest of the article about the revolving door between pharma-sponsored legislation and pharma employees here:

http://www.propublica.org/ion/health-car...s-at-stake-1020

[bonnie]

Quote:

"Six years ago, a group of lawmakers and aides crafted Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program for seniors that has produced billions of dollars of profits for pharmaceutical companies."

"Today, at least 25 of those key players are back, but this time they’re lobbyists, trying to persuade their former colleagues to protect the lucrative system during the health care reform negotiations."

--------------------

Read the rest of the article about the revolving door between pharma-sponsored legislation and pharma employees here:

http://www.propublica.org/ion/health-car...s-at-stake-1020

When my husband first went on medicare and we signed up for Prescription D we had a very expensive prescription to fill.

At the time I did not know how expensive it was so I thought to go ahead and fill it before the paperwork was complete for prescriptions.

When they handed me the bill I about choked.It was 326.00 I refused to take it and told them I would wait till covered.

The pharmacist offered to sell it to me at their cost one time.Their cost was 150.00 They were receiving 176.00 markup.

When our prescription coverage was in force I had it refilled.

I think this one my co-pay was 7.00. I didn't check till I got home what the government paid. I think it was something like 7.14 or so.

I went back to the pharmacy wondering if I was going to get hit later for a big bill as this made the 326.00 prescription

suddenly 14.00??

I also checked with my insurance agent and was told the same thing. Those on medicare prescription D or government provided insurance/welfare pays no more than third world countries pay us for the drugs we sell to them. This includes all socialists countries. Those with private insurance or pay out of pocket pick up the cost.

I am sure any company that can get in bed with the government does so.

But to say that Prescription D was all about the drug companies I don't believe it is true.

Some young family with insurance picks up the tab or the difference between cost and what medicare pays our DR for my husband and myself.

I am not losing sleep over the poor pay scale for drug company CEO's,but many things have to be taken into account.

Take a look at other countries and the medical advancements coming from other area's and what comes from the US.The years it takes to bring a new drug or procedure to market,the financial risk they face thru lawsuits.

I for one, am grateful for the medical technology developed in the US that is responsible for my husband being alive today.

Regardless of the varying motives of all involved,once they messed around with private insurance and made it so prescriptions for seniors had to be out of pocket they were faced with having to do something.

The last I heard this is the one and only government regulations that has stayed within budget

[karl]

Quote:

"Six years ago, a group of lawmakers and aides crafted Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program for seniors that has produced billions of dollars of profits for pharmaceutical companies."

"Today, at least 25 of those key players are back, but this time they’re lobbyists, trying to persuade their former colleagues to protect the lucrative system during the health care reform negotiations."

--------------------

Read the rest of the article about the revolving door between pharma-sponsored legislation and pharma employees here:

http://www.propublica.org/ion/health-car...s-at-stake-1020

When my husband first went on medicare and we signed up for Prescription D we had a very expensive prescription to fill.

At the time I did not know how expensive it was so I thought to go ahead and fill it before the paperwork was complete for prescriptions.

When they handed me the bill I about choked.It was 326.00 I refused to take it and told them I would wait till covered.

I'm surprised, Bonnie. You sound so libertarian in your other posts.

I'm OK with the drug companies giving people assistance privately, since they are the only ones profiting from the sale of their products, but I am not OK with tapping taxpayers to pick up the tab. This is socialism. Is that what we want in the Land of the Free?

Are we libertarian until it costs us something?

He who would sacrifice liberty in exchange for security deserves neither, and will find the latter increasingly difficult to obtain.

[bonnie]

Quote:

I'm surprised, Bonnie. You sound so libertarian in your other posts.

I think you have misunderstood

Quote:

I'm OK with the drug companies giving people assistance privately, since they are the only ones profiting from the sale of their products, but I am not OK with tapping taxpayers to pick up the tab. This is socialism. Is that what we want in the Land of the Free?

Of course it is socialism,or at least a pretty good step up the ladder.

The government in taking care of my husband and myself has made it so we have little choice and at the same time costing more money.

Before the government wanted to "save me" I paid less for our insurance. Medicare is around a 100.00,medigap for each of us is 196.00 per month. Took a big hike from last year.Prescription D is another almost 50.00.

We are paying 692.00 a month for something we used to get for under 400.00 a month. In addition we have to pay co-pays on prescriptions for each one.Once we reach the magic dollar amount we pay all until we reach the next level. Something we did not have with private pay insurance.

We cannot opt out of medicare without being penalized with higher premiums if that would change. Nor can we get private coverage any longer. We each pay them 196.00 a month for them to cover 20% instead of full coverage.They are not stupid enough to cover 100% as they used to less co-pays when they can get by with 20% and no prescriptions

To receive help from the drug companies is the only way some seniors can afford their prescriptions. Thanks to the ever increasing interference of government

Quote:

Are we libertarian until it costs us something?

No.It isn't the question of costing us something,it is when the cost becomes prohibitive.Their meddling when they stopped medigap providers from covering prescriptions has caused much of this.

If they would get out of my insurance,it would cost them nothing and be cheaper for me.

Quote:

He who would sacrifice liberty in exchange for security deserves neither, and will find the latter increasingly difficult to obtain.

That is exactly what will happen with the health care bill. Something is going to break if they cut services half a trillon dollars from medicare. But for those that need coverage. In addition, to adding more to the medicare rolls it should be interesting.

My husband is a stroke victim. We are caught between the devil and the deep. His prescriptons change and increas every year.The federal government has made it so I cannot pay for private drug coverage.