Monday, September 28, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Seniors....this is a must read
If a good Health Care Reform gets voted in, Seniors have more to win than lose. That won't be what happens if we don't get a good Health Care Bill.
Why seniors would be health reform winners, not losers
HOWARD GLECKMAN
Last updated: September 3rd, 2009 12:26 AM (PDT)
Opponents of health reform have targeted seniors with a blunt message: You will be big losers if “Obama-care” is enacted. In the words of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele: “Senior citizens will pay a steeper price and will have their treatment options reduced or rationed.”
Scary words. But, in truth, seniors are likely to be big winners if responsible health reform passes and prime victims if it fails. The casualties will not only be today’s elders, but the Baby Boomers, who are the next generation of seniors. They will all pay the price if the existing health system is allowed to fester.
It is true that, today, seniors have a pretty good deal. Nearly all those over 65 already have insurance through Medicare — a government program. Seniors and younger people with disabilities who are both very poor and unable to care for themselves are also eligible for long-term care benefits through Medicaid, which is run jointly by the federal government and the states.
So if seniors already have coverage, don’t they have everything to lose from change? Isn’t cost control just a fancy euphemism for cutting benefits? And what about those bureaucrats deciding who gets care and who doesn’t?
These claims are both irresponsible and wrong. But their biggest flaw is that they ignore the real problem: Without fundamental changes, Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable. Like a poorly built house that has gone too long without repairs, they will soon collapse without major renovations. And seniors will face both massive tax hikes and huge increases in their monthly insurance premiums.
To understand why, remember that Medicaid and Medicare Part A hospital insurance are funded with tax revenues. Medicare Part B coverage for doctor visits and Part D drug coverage are financed through a combination of taxes and premiums. Many seniors also pay extra for Medicare Supplement (Medigap) insurance.
In just 10 years, according to the Medicare trustees, Part B premiums are expected to increase from about $96 a month to more than $130, while Part D premiums will rise to $50. Add a few hundred dollars more each month for Medigap coverage and many seniors will be spending $5,000 annually on Medicare. Higher-income seniors will pay far more — as much as $420 a month for Part B alone.
That is the future seniors face if we do nothing.
The pressure on taxes will be even greater. In a decade, nearly 30 cents of every federal tax dollar will go to Medicare and Medicaid. By 2035, these two programs will spend more than 40 percent of our taxes. That means we’ll need huge tax hikes to pay for these programs and keep the rest of the government running,
As for rationing, Medicare already decides what to cover. Nobody seriously expects it to pay for any treatment patients want. It also rations by deciding how it pays physicians and hospitals. For instance, doctors are paid more for tests than office visits, so patients get more MRIs and less face time with physicians.
Health reform is not about choosing between rationing or not. Rather, it is about whether we will continue to spend health dollars in the crazy way we do now or find a better way. Done right, it can mean less treatment but better health.
One example: Critics of reform call “comparative effectiveness research” a backdoor trick to deny care for the frail elderly. They are wrong. Done well, it can improve care at less cost.
Today we know very little about how medications affect seniors. So they often get too many drugs that can make them ill, or even kill them. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a research program to tell us what drugs work best for the elderly?
How about Medicaid? Today, because the program is required to pay only for nursing home care, beneficiaries are more likely to get their assistance in a facility than at home.
Health reform could give consumers more choice. Instead of a government bureaucrat saying you must move into a nursing home to get benefits, seniors would have more opportunity to decide where they want to live. It is hard to see how that makes them worse off.
Critics are right to say that poorly designed could put seniors’ health at risk. But with well-structured reforms, seniors would get better medical and long-term term care, and get it in a way they and the nation can afford. That’s why they, as much as anyone, should be supporting health reform.
Howard Gleckman, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute, is author of “Caring for Our Parents” and a frequent writer and speaker on long-term care issues. He wrote this for the McClatchy-Tribune News Service.
So before you believe what one party or the other tells you, check for yourselves. Do the work of research! Don't just believe what you hear. Your life and health depends on it!
Why seniors would be health reform winners, not losers
HOWARD GLECKMAN
Last updated: September 3rd, 2009 12:26 AM (PDT)
Opponents of health reform have targeted seniors with a blunt message: You will be big losers if “Obama-care” is enacted. In the words of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele: “Senior citizens will pay a steeper price and will have their treatment options reduced or rationed.”
Scary words. But, in truth, seniors are likely to be big winners if responsible health reform passes and prime victims if it fails. The casualties will not only be today’s elders, but the Baby Boomers, who are the next generation of seniors. They will all pay the price if the existing health system is allowed to fester.
It is true that, today, seniors have a pretty good deal. Nearly all those over 65 already have insurance through Medicare — a government program. Seniors and younger people with disabilities who are both very poor and unable to care for themselves are also eligible for long-term care benefits through Medicaid, which is run jointly by the federal government and the states.
So if seniors already have coverage, don’t they have everything to lose from change? Isn’t cost control just a fancy euphemism for cutting benefits? And what about those bureaucrats deciding who gets care and who doesn’t?
These claims are both irresponsible and wrong. But their biggest flaw is that they ignore the real problem: Without fundamental changes, Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable. Like a poorly built house that has gone too long without repairs, they will soon collapse without major renovations. And seniors will face both massive tax hikes and huge increases in their monthly insurance premiums.
To understand why, remember that Medicaid and Medicare Part A hospital insurance are funded with tax revenues. Medicare Part B coverage for doctor visits and Part D drug coverage are financed through a combination of taxes and premiums. Many seniors also pay extra for Medicare Supplement (Medigap) insurance.
In just 10 years, according to the Medicare trustees, Part B premiums are expected to increase from about $96 a month to more than $130, while Part D premiums will rise to $50. Add a few hundred dollars more each month for Medigap coverage and many seniors will be spending $5,000 annually on Medicare. Higher-income seniors will pay far more — as much as $420 a month for Part B alone.
That is the future seniors face if we do nothing.
The pressure on taxes will be even greater. In a decade, nearly 30 cents of every federal tax dollar will go to Medicare and Medicaid. By 2035, these two programs will spend more than 40 percent of our taxes. That means we’ll need huge tax hikes to pay for these programs and keep the rest of the government running,
As for rationing, Medicare already decides what to cover. Nobody seriously expects it to pay for any treatment patients want. It also rations by deciding how it pays physicians and hospitals. For instance, doctors are paid more for tests than office visits, so patients get more MRIs and less face time with physicians.
Health reform is not about choosing between rationing or not. Rather, it is about whether we will continue to spend health dollars in the crazy way we do now or find a better way. Done right, it can mean less treatment but better health.
One example: Critics of reform call “comparative effectiveness research” a backdoor trick to deny care for the frail elderly. They are wrong. Done well, it can improve care at less cost.
Today we know very little about how medications affect seniors. So they often get too many drugs that can make them ill, or even kill them. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a research program to tell us what drugs work best for the elderly?
How about Medicaid? Today, because the program is required to pay only for nursing home care, beneficiaries are more likely to get their assistance in a facility than at home.
Health reform could give consumers more choice. Instead of a government bureaucrat saying you must move into a nursing home to get benefits, seniors would have more opportunity to decide where they want to live. It is hard to see how that makes them worse off.
Critics are right to say that poorly designed could put seniors’ health at risk. But with well-structured reforms, seniors would get better medical and long-term term care, and get it in a way they and the nation can afford. That’s why they, as much as anyone, should be supporting health reform.
Howard Gleckman, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute, is author of “Caring for Our Parents” and a frequent writer and speaker on long-term care issues. He wrote this for the McClatchy-Tribune News Service.
So before you believe what one party or the other tells you, check for yourselves. Do the work of research! Don't just believe what you hear. Your life and health depends on it!
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Robert Reich On The Public Option
h/t to 60th Street from the Sam Seder Show Blog
Robert Reich explains the Public Option in easy to understand terms and explains why we need it as an option.
I only hope that Pres. Obama can explain it as well in his speech to Congress tomorrow night!
Robert Reich explains the Public Option in easy to understand terms and explains why we need it as an option.
I only hope that Pres. Obama can explain it as well in his speech to Congress tomorrow night!
Sunday, September 06, 2009
GOP make it sound like they're all for Medicare
They are whipping up the simple people and the politically disengaged people to think that Obama and the Congress will take away or at the least weaken Medicare when they are putting together Health Care Reform.
But, like me, I bet you didn't know that as recently as this past April the GOP in the House tried to weaken Medicare by allowing private insurance companies to take it over. It was part of the GOP Health Care Reform bill they proposed.
From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
And from the Washington Monthly:
So as much as the GOP say they won't touch Medicare, they already tried to. So far it was a dirty secret that the Media hasn't put out there. But I'm passing this along and hope that others will too. Hypocrisy, they name is GOP!
The more Republicans press Dems on Medicare, the more we're likely to hear about the fact that a majority of the House Republican Caucus voted this year to kill Medicare as we know it, privatizing it out of existence.
But, like me, I bet you didn't know that as recently as this past April the GOP in the House tried to weaken Medicare by allowing private insurance companies to take it over. It was part of the GOP Health Care Reform bill they proposed.
From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
House, Senate budget plans boost Obama agenda but expose vulnerabilities
At the same time, the debate also exposed
political weaknesses in his House GOP rivals.
Republicans in the House had even more
defections on their alternative budget, losing
37 of the chamber's more moderate members
in a 293-137 tally that rejected cuts to
Medicare and the Medicaid health care
program for the poor and disabled.
What is more, GOP leaders are clearly
nervous that votes in favor of the GOP
alternative have exposed their members to
political danger.
The plan, drafted by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, top Republican on the House Budget Committee, called for eventually replacing the traditional Medicare program with subsidies to help retirees enroll in private health care plans. Current beneficiaries would keep their coverage and those 55 and older also would go into the current system.
Critics of the plan said the Medicare subsidies would inevitably not keep pace with inflation and that people in poor health might end up uninsured, while many needy people on Medicaid could lose coverage.
And from the Washington Monthly:
But did Republicans vote to "end," "abolish," and "kill" Medicare? It's provocative, but it's a supportable claim. In April, 137 Republicans voted in support of a GOP alternative budget. It didn't generate a lot of attention, but the plan, drafted by the House Budget Committee's Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) called for "replacing the traditional Medicare program with subsidies to help retirees enroll in private health care plans."
The AP noted at the time that Republican leaders were "clearly nervous that votes in favor of the GOP alternative have exposed their members to political danger."
So as much as the GOP say they won't touch Medicare, they already tried to. So far it was a dirty secret that the Media hasn't put out there. But I'm passing this along and hope that others will too. Hypocrisy, they name is GOP!
The more Republicans press Dems on Medicare, the more we're likely to hear about the fact that a majority of the House Republican Caucus voted this year to kill Medicare as we know it, privatizing it out of existence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)