* * *
A report was recently released by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' chief actuary, Richard S. Foster, on the impact of the proposed $500 billion in Medicare cuts (embedded in the healthcare bill).
The proposed Medicare cuts “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”
Also, as pointed out in the Slate article “Foster was the guy whom Medicare administrator Tom Scully threatened to fire in 2003 if Foster made public his report predicting the new Medicare drug benefit then before Congress would cost $156 billion more than advertised by the Bush administration.”
One of the most draconian measures is in the Senate bill – and from I’ve been reading, it was apparently inserted at the behest of the White House. It would set up a permanent, unelected “Fed for Medicare” board to independently institute further Medicare cuts. These cuts could not be blocked – only tinkered with (i.e. reallocating what specific services are targeted for cutting) – by Congress. If a “tinkering” bill is not passed and signed by the President, the cuts mandated by the board go into effect automatically. And after 2020 Congress loses the power to even tinker with the cuts.
See pages 1000-1053 of the bill.
In addition, Senators Lieberman, Whitehouse, Rockefeller, and Bingaman are planning to offer an amendment that would even further “strengthen” the “Fed for Medicare” provisions for future Medicare cuts.
Such an unelected board, to cut Medicare, has been a wet dream on the Right and among Corporatists for decades. And we’re handing it to them on a silver platter (apparently with little awareness on the Left).
7 comments:
Medicare is both a victim and a driver of medical care cost increases.
Double digit annual cost increases compound to a nominally doubled cost in less than 10 years, and indeed, that is what has been happening. It affects Medicare costs, just as the Medicare cost increases factor into such high rates of annual total medical cost increase. Medicare costs have been and will continue to be going up substantially, since the baby-boomers' retirement will approximately double the beneficiary population eligible for the program.
This is a problem that must be addressed, for if you project out to the out-years, eventually Medicare at its current projected rate of increase will require the entirety of all projected tax revenues. It's a fiscal time bomb (and nobody disagrees with that characterization).
Similar to how nudging a life-on-Earth threatening asteroid a smallish amount in its trajectory early enough will cause it to miss the Earth by the time it gets here, smallish declines in the rate of increase of expenditures add up over the years of compounding to make a very big difference in the out-years.
This figure doesn't sound small at all, of course, but it's still probably far smaller in percentage terms than the more than $270 billion Clinton's health care plan projected taking out of a far smaller 10-year total budget back in the day.
http://www.slate.com/id/2082/
One last point. The actuary referred to over-estimated the cost of Medicare D over 10 years by 37% (as discussed in the article linked to in the main post above).
How did THAT happen? (Aren't all government programs UNDER-estimated as to eventually achieved costs?) As he explains, the projections were wrong for several reasons, including less participation by citizens, increased use of generics, fewer block-buster new drugs at exorbitant prices, etc. Now this extremely significant reduction in costs occurred in the least likely of programs-- covering prescription meds for which all cost controls were entirely lacking, on purpose, by the language of the bill. Because of market forces influencing consumer behaviors.
XI
Oh, God.
When will it stop?
According to "538" Nelson has just agreed to support the bill after gaining concessions for his state. Passage of this monstrosity looks assured now.
Obama and the Democrats have undone FDR's social compact and LBJ's Great Society. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year seniors and all other groups are screwed by health deform.
We tried. We tried....
But what do unterbussen know?
This comment from a thread at FDL pretty much sums up the problem:
"Every two years or so, we progressives go to the polls and face a choice between voting for a party of insane homophobic warmongers who want to take our money and give it to corporations, rich people, bombs, and jails, or voting for the Republicans. So we hold our noses and vote for war. jails, discrimination, unaffordable health care, planetary destruction, and massive wealth transfers to the rich, and we think we’ve done just great because at least we didn’t vote for Republicans."
The same thing can be said for Repubs who think they're getting something better/different by not voting for Dems. Until we, the voters, bring a halt to all corporate-run parties, we can expect the same master-serf treatment to continue, regardless of party.
I think we, on the web, bloggers from both parties, need to start to find common ground and pursue a true people's party. After all, big pharma may be able to buy the votes of Congress, but they can't buy your vote or my vote.
grayslady
I was at a dinner with Chairman Greenspan (I was the most junior attendee), and this was the issue that bothered him most of all.
THIS is the big public solvency fight in the US. The question is which side is Obama on. Fascinating that you appear to be telling us the answer.
Who knew? And I thought all blacks were liberals. Silly me.
Harry
The phrase...
"choose the lessor of TWO evils"
...has killed millions, impoverished the world and will eventually destroy this earth.
And yet every A-List blog signs onto this corruption & venality...Josh, Ezra, Digby, Drum, "the Two Matts"...all of them. It's amazing what self serving careerist will do.
Post a Comment