The Medicare bill: Now we begin to get the real numbers

[Snellius]

The worst aspect of the new Medicare bill is not just its waste and giveaways but the dishonest way it was rushed and rammed past public scrutiny before anyone noticed, let alone understood, what was really going down. Now the real numbers start to appear. Before passage, news reports, even the NY Times, stated the annual premiums at about $35 a month, deductible at $250, and with a "donut hole", the coverage gap where expenses are not reimbursed, of $1350 (from $2250 to $3600). Look now at the same figures after 7 years, in 2013, just when the onslaught of baby boomers begins to hit. (The most important change is the upper catastropic limit of the hole from $3600 to $5100. This seems to have been blatantly misreported but I'm still not sure by whom or how.)

These are the real estimates of the Congressional Budget Office:

..........................2006..........2013
Annual Premium:.....$420.........$696
Deductible:...........$250.........$445
"Donut Hole":.........$2850..... $5066

Source: Congressional Budget Office

And these figures do not include inflation and the inevitable increase in prices of an unregulated monopoly of a vital necessity like drugs.

[dfitzsim]

1. But here are some numbers that might cheer you up

Overall, the split was a statistical dead heat. But it seems the Medicare
bill was unpopular with seniors:

"But among respondents 65 and older, only 33 percent wanted the bill
passed and 49 percent said it should not be passed."

And what if you like the AARP?

"The dramatic support given the bill by AARP, formerly known as the
American Association of Retired Persons, does not appear to have had much
impact on the public yet. A striking 71 percent of those polled had a
favorable opinion of AARP, compared to 6 percent with an unfavorable view.
But having a favorable view of the group did not translate into support.
In fact, those with a favorable opinion of AARP opposed the measure 45 to
38 percent. The organization is open to people over 50 years old, and that
age group was opposed, 49 to 36 percent."

http://www.appcpenn.org/03_political_communication/naes/2003_03_support-medicare_pr.pdf


Hey, it might be enough to cost the Repukes Florida. ;-)

[madfloridian]

5. AARP poll was not legit.

When they polled, the members did not know what was in it. It was rigged.

[Imalittleteapot]

2. My beef exactly.

If you didn't watch c-span you would not have know what the bill was all about. The media, once again, failed the American public by not offering information about or analysis of the bill prior to the vote. Now, the bill is getting some bad press — a little late.

[Snellius]

3. Kick

.

[realFedUp]

4. My Congressman's explanation for his no vote

Adam Schiff voted no, thankfully...although this just
saves his butt with his voters...knowing it would passed
anyway.

SCHIFF VOTES AGAINST PRIVATIZING MEDICARE

Since 1965, when Medicare was enacted, extending health coverage to almost every American aged 65 or older, our nation's seniors have benefited from a reasonably comprehensive health benefits plan, covering inpatient hospital services, post-hospital skilled nursing facility services, home health care, hospice care, physicians services, outpatient hospital services and laboratory services, with one glaring exception – the lack of a prescription drug benefit. As Medicare braces for a dramatic increase in beneficiaries and as medicine and science continue to evolve, it is apparent that Medicare must be reformed to better meet the needs of current and future beneficiaries.

This week, the House considered the final version of the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003 (H.R. 1). This bill, supported by the Republican Leadership in Congress, fails to adequately and appropriately address the challenges facing Medicare and in fact, jeopardizes the future of the Medicare program.

H.R. 1 forces Medicare beneficiaries to go outside the current Medicare program to private health plans in order to obtain a prescription drug benefit and eventually will force Medicare beneficiaries out of traditional Medicare and into Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO) or Preferred Provider Organizations (PPO). H.R. 1, in effect, will privatize Medicare.

Under this bill, 2 to 3 million seniors could lose their current retiree prescription drug coverage; 6 million of the poorest Medicare beneficiaries could end up with less drug coverage than they have now; and up to 10 million seniors could see their Medicare premiums rise if they refuse to join an HMO.

Specifically, this legislation:

Coerces seniors into HMOs. The proposed plan would grossly overpay private HMOs and PPOs and includes a $12 billion slush fund to bribe plans to participate, creating a two-tiered Medicare system. Better benefits and lower premiums would only be available through private plans – not an option for a lot of seniors. Worse, it asks all seniors to pay for this private system, even though some won’t have access to it.

Contains a Large Coverage Gap. The proposed drug benefit contains a $2800 gap in coverage that will leave half of seniors without drug coverage for part of the year.

Undermines retiree coverage for millions of seniors. Millions of seniors who have good drug coverage now through their retiree health plan could lose it under the proposed plan. By discriminating against seniors with retiree health coverage, the plan provides incentives for employers to drop existing coverage.

Forces 6 million seniors to pay more for medicine. The plan prohibits Medicaid from filling in the gaps in the new Medicare drug benefit, as Medicaid does now. Given the ongoing state budget crises, up to 6 million low-income seniors and people with disabilities could receive less help with their prescription drug costs than they do now.

Provides a Weak Prescription Drug Benefit and Keeps Prices High. The proposed plan bows to drug industry pressure and specifically prohibits Medicare from negotiating better prices. It also includes watered down policies on access to generic drugs and prescription drug re-importation, allowing drug company profits to skyrocket at the expense of patients.

This plan is unacceptable and I voted against both the House draft and final version of H.R. 1. The alternative which I supported, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and Discount Act of 2003 (H.R. 1199), would have added a new "Part D" to the Medicare program with voluntary prescription drug coverage for all Medicare beneficiaries. Participating seniors would pay a set $25 per month premium and a $100 per year deductible for Medicare to cover 80% of all drug costs up to $2,000 a year. Once a senior reached the $2,000 out-of-pocket limit, Medicare would then cover 100% of all drug costs after that point. A senior with $4,000 in annual drug costs would pay $1,180 -- a savings of 71%. Every drug would be covered under this proposal. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would also have the authority to use the cumulative bargaining power of Medicare's 40 million beneficiaries to negotiate with pharmaceutical
companies for lower drug prices.

When we began debate on this bill in the summer, we were working to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Now we are fighting to save the entire Medicare system as we know it. Many organizations oppose this bill, including: The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the AFL-CIO, American Federation of Teachers, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Alliance for Retired Americans, Medicare Rights Center and Center for Medicare Advocacy.

This Medicare prescription drug legislation is designed to help the drug industry, HMOs, and the insurance industry – not seniors and people with disabilities. For these reasons, I could not support the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003 in its current form. I will continue to work in Congress to save Medicare and for a prescription drug benefit that is affordable; with guaranteed benefits; within Medicare; and available to all seniors.