Full Version: Medicare changes
Okay folks, give me your opinion of the proposed medicare changes.
Let me see last, I saw this afternoon at about 4 PM, a 1200 page report had been given out to Congress on Thursday.
No one has had time to analise it yet. (Like my spelling?)
So what you have is anybooby's guess.
But with all certainty no one knows, who needs to know.
Sounds like the same BS under which the Patriot Act was passed.
Bozos
No one has had time to analise it yet. (Like my spelling?)
So what you have is anybooby's guess.
But with all certainty no one knows, who needs to know.
Sounds like the same BS under which the Patriot Act was passed.
Bozos
Well, I can tell you this. It won't be good for doctors.
Like marcus says there is really no way to really know much about it yet, but from what I gather so far it sounds like an awful lot of spending, more bureaucracy, and ultimately a little less freedom for those on Medicare. Doesn't sound good to me.
Good for the older people. Bad for the country, higher taxes
Good for the Drug companies. higher profits.
Higher Taxes to support Medicare. Bad on employment, loss of jobs overseas.
I worked the last 25 years to secure medical care for my wife and I. I retired at 56 in 2002. My company has filed bankruptcy twice in two years and are now trying to stop payment of earned medical and drug insurance, lets hear it for big business....
Law hearing due 12/02/2003. We get to see if they had enought money to buy the Judges. I'm sure they do.
Good for the Drug companies. higher profits.
Higher Taxes to support Medicare. Bad on employment, loss of jobs overseas.
I worked the last 25 years to secure medical care for my wife and I. I retired at 56 in 2002. My company has filed bankruptcy twice in two years and are now trying to stop payment of earned medical and drug insurance, lets hear it for big business....
Law hearing due 12/02/2003. We get to see if they had enought money to buy the Judges. I'm sure they do.
Medicare already sucks balls for the providers. They pay like shit. We are lucky to get 60 cents on the dollor most the time. They have nothing but restrictions.
Good for old people, kinda. Not like a hospital can turn anybody away anyways.
Medicare doesn't pay, the state doesn't pay and the insurance companies try to pay as little as possible. It is a wonder we still have hospitals that are viable.
Good for old people, kinda. Not like a hospital can turn anybody away anyways.
Medicare doesn't pay, the state doesn't pay and the insurance companies try to pay as little as possible. It is a wonder we still have hospitals that are viable.
Today's Washington Post article put on-line just an hour ago
Below is the jist of many opinions.
You can't see it but it is heavely (if that's a word) linked in the online version. But you may have to register. I say may because i can't tell. I have cookies.
LINKY
The Medicine Conservatives Can't Swallow
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 25, 2003; 9:04 AM
I've never seen anything quite like it.
One party -- the Republicans -- pushing through a bill that its core constituency can't stand.
Sure, the opportunity to brag about giving seniors a big fat prescription drug benefit is awfully tempting. But the Medicare measure that is expected to pass the Senate today is such a budget-buster that it has all but wiped out the GOP's claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility.
Many conservatives are appalled, and making their disgust clear.
Bill Clinton's signing of the '96 welfare reform bill might come close, in that many Democratic liberals saw it as a sellout but were glad to steal a hot-button issue from the opposition. A prescription drug benefit could do that for the Republicans -- with the caveat that it doesn't take effect until 2006 and many recipients may find the benefit inadequate.
If the bill breaks the fragile program's bank, as many believe it will, the Republicans will have no one to blame, since they control both houses of Congress as well as the White House. But rarely has a political party rammed through a measure -- which took a three-hour, middle-of-the-night House roll call on Saturday -- that was so at odds with its vision of itself (as the champions of smaller government). And all of it blessed by George W. Bush. (He fared less well on the pork-laden energy bill, which is now toast.) The Democratic candidates had a fine old time blasting the bill at yesterday's Tom Brokaw debate as the end of Medicare As We Know It. But more interesting to me, from a media point of view, is all the commentators on the right who are holding their nose about the bill.
Such as Rush Limbaugh, who called prescription drugs "a manufactured Washington-politician problem to advance the expansion of government." Only this time, he said, those whipping up the bogus issue are "our buddies, the Republicans." (I'll skip the cheap joke about how a prescription drug benefit would help him.)
On National Review, Doug Bandow slams "the budget-busting Medicare bill. In the midst of all the sound and fury generated by conservatives battling over the Medicare bill, one fact stands out: It is the largest expansion of the welfare state in 40 years.
"GOP support demonstrates beyond any question (not that there really was any question) that the Republicans are merely Democrats-lite when it comes to using taxpayer monies to buy votes.
"The measure being pushed by the White House and congressional leadership expands the sense of entitlement among the elderly, further mortgages the future of young workers, and, if approved, will cost far, far more than the $395 billion estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.
"Any legislator who takes fiscal responsibility seriously should be particularly concerned about the latter. Pegged at a ten-year cost of $395 billion, the real increase in the government's presently unfunded liability will be several trillion dollars."
The Wall Street Journal editorial page is embarrassed as well:
"Republicans and their friends are busy congratulating themselves that their new Medicare prescription drug benefit is going to be a huge political windfall. We hate to be spoilsports, but perhaps they need some subsidized medication. . . .
"Democrats want to tarnish any GOP victory, to be sure.
"But they are also preparing the ground to spend the next year -- no, 20 years -- demagoguing the drug benefit as inadequate. And trust us, the GOP's rent-a-friends in the AARP will soon return to lobbying alongside their more natural big-government allies on the left."
Andrew Sullivan groans about both parties, starting with the Democrats:
"Their paleo response to the Medicare bill is truly depressing. There are many reasons to oppose this bill -- most importantly that it will destroy the remaining threads of fiscal hope. But to oppose even experimentation with cost-cutting reforms reveals a party completely bankrupt of new ideas. Then to watch the Dems rake in the pork on the Hooters bill reminds you again of all the reasons you don't trust Democrats with the national government.
"But . . . and it's a big but . . . the Republicans' victories are at the price of something else, as Joe Klein points out. The GOP has now no credibility as a party of fiscal discipline or small government. It's just another tool of special interests -- as beholden to them as the Dems are to theirs. Its pork barrel excesses may now be worse than the Dems, and the president seems completely unable or unwilling to restrain them."
Robert Samuelson has the killer statistic in his Newsweek/WP column: "Given all the excitement, you'd think that passing a Medicare drug benefit would solve one of the nation's pressing social problems.
"It won't. But you wouldn't know that from politicians or the news media. They treat the elderly's problems in getting drugs as a major social crisis. You would know it if you'd read a government survey of Medicare recipients in 2002. It asked this question: 'In the last six months, how much of a problem, if any, was it to get the prescription medicine you needed?' The answers were: 86.4 percent, not a problem; 9.4 percent, a small problem; 4.2 percent, a big problem."
The New Republic is disgusted with the Dem opposition:
"The other thing that strikes us is how utterly pathetic a Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi will have proven herself to be if the administration ends up passing what is by all accounts a contemptible Medicare bill thanks to the votes of a handful of Democrats. If Pelosi can't keep her caucus together on one of the most obvious no-brainers of her tenure -- a bill that would deprive Democrats of one of their most potent campaign issues, that Republicans don't even have the votes to pass on their own, and that, for good measure, is offensive on policy grounds -- she's unworthy of a congressional seat, much less the title of House Democratic leader."
Now that the bill is on the verge of passage after a threatened Democratic filibuster fizzled, the press coverage may be turning sharper, a la USA Today:
"Congress' expected overhaul of Medicare will be a bonanza for health care providers, a modest benefit for most seniors and, critics warn, a boondoggle that could cost taxpayers billions more than forecast."
Here, USA Today goes way, way out on a prediction limb:
"Republicans stand to gain, Democrats to lose; that could change, of course, if the legislation backfires."
Or not.
American Prospect's Robert Kuttner dissects the bill:
"The administration's real goal is to shift Medicare from a public program to a private one, with the government's contribution capped. For the right, it's a threefer: contain government's costs, shift risks to consumers and let private industry cash in. Healthier and wealthier people could supplement the voucher with their own resources. Poorer and sicker ones would get diminished coverage. . . .
"The bill subjects poorer seniors to an assets test and raises Medicare premiums for middle- and upper-income seniors. . . . It's dismal policy. Viewed as a bill for special interests, however, the Medicare legislation is sheer genius."
And for good measure, I just got this email from the Center for Responsive Politics:
"House members who helped to pass sweeping Medicare legislation in an early morning vote Saturday have been among the biggest beneficiaries of contributions from health insurers, HMOs and pharmaceutical manufacturers, three industries that stand to benefit financially if the bill becomes law. . . .
"Pharmaceutical manufacturers, for example, have averaged $28,504 to the 204 Republicans who supported the bill, but just $8,112 to the 25 Republicans who opposed it. Pharmaceutical contributions to Democrats on both sides of the debate are less varied.
"The 16 Democrats who voted 'yes' on the bill have raised an average of $16,296 from pharmaceutical manufacturers, while the 189 Democrats who voted 'no' have raised an average of $11,791.
"If pharmaceutical manufacturers have been less consistent in their giving to Republicans than to Democrats, the opposite is true for health insurers. Their giving reflects a greater disparity among Democrats than among Republicans.
"Democrats who supported the bill have raised far more, on average, from health insurers ($22,376) than have Democrats who opposed the measure ($9,692). Republicans who supported the industry position have raised an average of $19,286 from health insurers, while Republicans who voted against the industry have raised an average of $13,828."
Just in case you had any doubt about how Washington works.
The issue was also a hot one at the MSNBC debate in Iowa, as the New York Times reports:
"On a day when Congress moved toward final approval of a Medicare reform bill sought by President Bush, Howard Dean came under attack at a Democratic presidential debate here on Monday for suggesting he would reduce the growth of Medicare spending, and for social service cuts he made as governor of Vermont.
"Dr. Dean was pressed first by Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and later by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts in the course of a two-hour debate that lent ample evidence to the intensity -- and complexity -- of the fight unfolding here with the approach of the Jan. 19 Iowa caucus. . . .
"Dr. Dean defended his actions, saying he had been struggling to balance a budget in difficult fiscal times, and asserting that he had accomplished that while preserving services in his state."
There's a theme to the emerging Democratic rhetoric, says the Wall Street Journal:
"President Bush sees the Medicare drug bill as a way to score points on the Democrats' traditional social-welfare turf. But Democrats see new political opportunities in the legislation as well: a target for ramping up attacks on Republicans as beholden to big business.
" 'This is a continuation of this administration selling our government,' said Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt at the outset of Monday's candidate debate in Iowa. His rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination quickly matched his oratory. 'This government has sold itself to the special interests,' said former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. 'It's like an auction on eBay, except the only people who get to bid are corporate lobbyists,' added North Carolina Sen. John Edwards."LINKY
Below is the jist of many opinions.
You can't see it but it is heavely (if that's a word) linked in the online version. But you may have to register. I say may because i can't tell. I have cookies.
LINKY
The Medicine Conservatives Can't Swallow
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 25, 2003; 9:04 AM
I've never seen anything quite like it.
One party -- the Republicans -- pushing through a bill that its core constituency can't stand.
Sure, the opportunity to brag about giving seniors a big fat prescription drug benefit is awfully tempting. But the Medicare measure that is expected to pass the Senate today is such a budget-buster that it has all but wiped out the GOP's claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility.
Many conservatives are appalled, and making their disgust clear.
Bill Clinton's signing of the '96 welfare reform bill might come close, in that many Democratic liberals saw it as a sellout but were glad to steal a hot-button issue from the opposition. A prescription drug benefit could do that for the Republicans -- with the caveat that it doesn't take effect until 2006 and many recipients may find the benefit inadequate.
If the bill breaks the fragile program's bank, as many believe it will, the Republicans will have no one to blame, since they control both houses of Congress as well as the White House. But rarely has a political party rammed through a measure -- which took a three-hour, middle-of-the-night House roll call on Saturday -- that was so at odds with its vision of itself (as the champions of smaller government). And all of it blessed by George W. Bush. (He fared less well on the pork-laden energy bill, which is now toast.) The Democratic candidates had a fine old time blasting the bill at yesterday's Tom Brokaw debate as the end of Medicare As We Know It. But more interesting to me, from a media point of view, is all the commentators on the right who are holding their nose about the bill.
Such as Rush Limbaugh, who called prescription drugs "a manufactured Washington-politician problem to advance the expansion of government." Only this time, he said, those whipping up the bogus issue are "our buddies, the Republicans." (I'll skip the cheap joke about how a prescription drug benefit would help him.)
On National Review, Doug Bandow slams "the budget-busting Medicare bill. In the midst of all the sound and fury generated by conservatives battling over the Medicare bill, one fact stands out: It is the largest expansion of the welfare state in 40 years.
"GOP support demonstrates beyond any question (not that there really was any question) that the Republicans are merely Democrats-lite when it comes to using taxpayer monies to buy votes.
"The measure being pushed by the White House and congressional leadership expands the sense of entitlement among the elderly, further mortgages the future of young workers, and, if approved, will cost far, far more than the $395 billion estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.
"Any legislator who takes fiscal responsibility seriously should be particularly concerned about the latter. Pegged at a ten-year cost of $395 billion, the real increase in the government's presently unfunded liability will be several trillion dollars."
The Wall Street Journal editorial page is embarrassed as well:
"Republicans and their friends are busy congratulating themselves that their new Medicare prescription drug benefit is going to be a huge political windfall. We hate to be spoilsports, but perhaps they need some subsidized medication. . . .
"Democrats want to tarnish any GOP victory, to be sure.
"But they are also preparing the ground to spend the next year -- no, 20 years -- demagoguing the drug benefit as inadequate. And trust us, the GOP's rent-a-friends in the AARP will soon return to lobbying alongside their more natural big-government allies on the left."
Andrew Sullivan groans about both parties, starting with the Democrats:
"Their paleo response to the Medicare bill is truly depressing. There are many reasons to oppose this bill -- most importantly that it will destroy the remaining threads of fiscal hope. But to oppose even experimentation with cost-cutting reforms reveals a party completely bankrupt of new ideas. Then to watch the Dems rake in the pork on the Hooters bill reminds you again of all the reasons you don't trust Democrats with the national government.
"But . . . and it's a big but . . . the Republicans' victories are at the price of something else, as Joe Klein points out. The GOP has now no credibility as a party of fiscal discipline or small government. It's just another tool of special interests -- as beholden to them as the Dems are to theirs. Its pork barrel excesses may now be worse than the Dems, and the president seems completely unable or unwilling to restrain them."
Robert Samuelson has the killer statistic in his Newsweek/WP column: "Given all the excitement, you'd think that passing a Medicare drug benefit would solve one of the nation's pressing social problems.
"It won't. But you wouldn't know that from politicians or the news media. They treat the elderly's problems in getting drugs as a major social crisis. You would know it if you'd read a government survey of Medicare recipients in 2002. It asked this question: 'In the last six months, how much of a problem, if any, was it to get the prescription medicine you needed?' The answers were: 86.4 percent, not a problem; 9.4 percent, a small problem; 4.2 percent, a big problem."
The New Republic is disgusted with the Dem opposition:
"The other thing that strikes us is how utterly pathetic a Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi will have proven herself to be if the administration ends up passing what is by all accounts a contemptible Medicare bill thanks to the votes of a handful of Democrats. If Pelosi can't keep her caucus together on one of the most obvious no-brainers of her tenure -- a bill that would deprive Democrats of one of their most potent campaign issues, that Republicans don't even have the votes to pass on their own, and that, for good measure, is offensive on policy grounds -- she's unworthy of a congressional seat, much less the title of House Democratic leader."
Now that the bill is on the verge of passage after a threatened Democratic filibuster fizzled, the press coverage may be turning sharper, a la USA Today:
"Congress' expected overhaul of Medicare will be a bonanza for health care providers, a modest benefit for most seniors and, critics warn, a boondoggle that could cost taxpayers billions more than forecast."
Here, USA Today goes way, way out on a prediction limb:
"Republicans stand to gain, Democrats to lose; that could change, of course, if the legislation backfires."
Or not.
American Prospect's Robert Kuttner dissects the bill:
"The administration's real goal is to shift Medicare from a public program to a private one, with the government's contribution capped. For the right, it's a threefer: contain government's costs, shift risks to consumers and let private industry cash in. Healthier and wealthier people could supplement the voucher with their own resources. Poorer and sicker ones would get diminished coverage. . . .
"The bill subjects poorer seniors to an assets test and raises Medicare premiums for middle- and upper-income seniors. . . . It's dismal policy. Viewed as a bill for special interests, however, the Medicare legislation is sheer genius."
And for good measure, I just got this email from the Center for Responsive Politics:
"House members who helped to pass sweeping Medicare legislation in an early morning vote Saturday have been among the biggest beneficiaries of contributions from health insurers, HMOs and pharmaceutical manufacturers, three industries that stand to benefit financially if the bill becomes law. . . .
"Pharmaceutical manufacturers, for example, have averaged $28,504 to the 204 Republicans who supported the bill, but just $8,112 to the 25 Republicans who opposed it. Pharmaceutical contributions to Democrats on both sides of the debate are less varied.
"The 16 Democrats who voted 'yes' on the bill have raised an average of $16,296 from pharmaceutical manufacturers, while the 189 Democrats who voted 'no' have raised an average of $11,791.
"If pharmaceutical manufacturers have been less consistent in their giving to Republicans than to Democrats, the opposite is true for health insurers. Their giving reflects a greater disparity among Democrats than among Republicans.
"Democrats who supported the bill have raised far more, on average, from health insurers ($22,376) than have Democrats who opposed the measure ($9,692). Republicans who supported the industry position have raised an average of $19,286 from health insurers, while Republicans who voted against the industry have raised an average of $13,828."
Just in case you had any doubt about how Washington works.
The issue was also a hot one at the MSNBC debate in Iowa, as the New York Times reports:
"On a day when Congress moved toward final approval of a Medicare reform bill sought by President Bush, Howard Dean came under attack at a Democratic presidential debate here on Monday for suggesting he would reduce the growth of Medicare spending, and for social service cuts he made as governor of Vermont.
"Dr. Dean was pressed first by Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and later by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts in the course of a two-hour debate that lent ample evidence to the intensity -- and complexity -- of the fight unfolding here with the approach of the Jan. 19 Iowa caucus. . . .
"Dr. Dean defended his actions, saying he had been struggling to balance a budget in difficult fiscal times, and asserting that he had accomplished that while preserving services in his state."
There's a theme to the emerging Democratic rhetoric, says the Wall Street Journal:
"President Bush sees the Medicare drug bill as a way to score points on the Democrats' traditional social-welfare turf. But Democrats see new political opportunities in the legislation as well: a target for ramping up attacks on Republicans as beholden to big business.
" 'This is a continuation of this administration selling our government,' said Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt at the outset of Monday's candidate debate in Iowa. His rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination quickly matched his oratory. 'This government has sold itself to the special interests,' said former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. 'It's like an auction on eBay, except the only people who get to bid are corporate lobbyists,' added North Carolina Sen. John Edwards."LINKY
Excellent article marcus, with plenty of opinions from both sides of the aisle.
Is there anybody saying anything positive about this bill?
Is there anybody saying anything positive about this bill?
QUOTE(bull @ Nov 25 2003, 03:02 AM)
Medicare already sucks balls for the providers. They pay like shit. We are lucky to get 60 cents on the dollor most the time. They have nothing but restrictions.
Good for old people, kinda. Not like a hospital can turn anybody away anyways.
Medicare doesn't pay, the state doesn't pay and the insurance companies try to pay as little as possible. It is a wonder we still have hospitals that are viable.
Good for old people, kinda. Not like a hospital can turn anybody away anyways.
Medicare doesn't pay, the state doesn't pay and the insurance companies try to pay as little as possible. It is a wonder we still have hospitals that are viable.
The people that do pay, with no insurance but still paying bills treading water to live, have to pay for all the above.
QUOTE(JTancsi1 @ Nov 25 2003, 12:34 PM)
Excellent article marcus, with plenty of opinions from both sides of the aisle.
Is there anybody saying anything positive about this bill?
Is there anybody saying anything positive about this bill?
Let's put it this way, stocks for Pharma, and HMO's went up considerably.
Draw your own conclusions.
Personally, what I see overall, is that Social security receipants and the tax payer just got screwed.
As for Doctors, I don't know that it makes much difference.
What say ye, Monty?
I don't like , but i get free med care and meds at the VA so it doesent affect me much.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.