“A Window Into The Future”: Mitt Romney Won’t Enroll In Medicare And Doesn’t Want Anybody Else To Either
Mitt Romney hasn’t explained his announcement yesterday that he won’t be enrolling in Medicare despite turning 65, but as Jonathan Cohn points out, Romney is at least practicing what he preaches. Romney supports Paul Ryan’s plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program, a plan that would effectively end Medicare as we know it, and Romney is putting his money where his mouth is by deciding against enrolling.
Romney’s decision is a window into the future that he promises to deliver. Instead of a Medicare program that directly provides coverage, Romney wants seniors to obtain coverage from private insurers. Depending on their income and personal wealth, a portion of that coverage would be subsidized, but the guaranteed coverage of Medicare would be eliminated.
The fact that Romney was able to forego the Medicare system without penalty or punishment puts the lie to the notion that government health care programs are tyrannical. That’s an important fact to point out, because even though any senior who doesn’t want Medicare coverage could walk away from the system, just like Mitt Romney did, the overwhelming majority of them don’t—and that’s a testament to the effectiveness of Medicare.
But even though Medicare works, Mitt Romney wants to end the program as we know it. He wants Medicare to be transformed into a voucher provider, subsidizing private insurance plans instead of directly covering medical care. For 99 percent of Americans, it would be a radical overhaul, raising costs and making it difficult if not impossible to find insurance. Given his means, Romney would do fine in such a system. That’s basically the system he’s living in now, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize most people can’t afford what he can afford. And if Medicare were privatized as he proposes, that’s exactly what he would force every American senior to do.
If you’re only concerned about personal benefit, Medicare might not turn out to be the best deal in the world for someone like Mitt Romney, who is fabulously wealthy and doesn’t need the coverage. But even the Mitt Romneys of the world are better off living in a society where senior citizens have the security of health care coverage that Medicare provides. If we were to adopt Mitt Romney’s proposal to turn it into a voucher system, Medicare would no longer provide it’s greatest benefit of all: the peace of mind that comes with knowing that every single senior citizen has the health care coverage they need.
By: Jed Lewison, Daily Kos, March 13, 2012
GOP Introduces Legislation To Allow Any Employer To Deny Any Preventive Health Service
Earlier today, in response to criticism from Catholic groups, the White House altered its regulation requiring employers and insurers to provide no-cost contraception coverage as part of their health care plans. Churches and religious nonprofits that primarily employ people of the same faith are still exempt from the requirement, but now religiously affiliated colleges, universities, and hospitals that wish to avoid providing birth control can do so. Their employees will still receive contraception coverage at no additional cost sharing directly from the insurer. But Republicans and some conservative Catholic groups are not satisfied with the accommodation and hope to use their false claim of “religious persecution” to deny women access to preventive health services. Despite Obama’s decision to shield nonprofit religious institutions from offering birth control benefits, next week Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) is expected to offer an amendment that would permit any employer or insurance plan to exclude any health service, no matter how essential, from coverage if they morally object to it:
(6) RESPECTING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES — “(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS. — A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Services Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this title on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because — “(i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or “(ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.
Under the measure, an insurer or an employer would be able to claim a moral or religious objection to covering HIV/AIDS screenings, Type 2 Diabetes treatments, cancer tests or anything else they deem inappropriate or the result of an “unhealthy” or “immoral” lifestyle. Similarly, a health plan could refuse to cover mental health care on the grounds that the plan believes that psychiatric problems should be treated with prayer.
Individuals too can opt out of coverage if it is contrary to their religious or moral beliefs, radically undermining “the basic principle of insurance, which involves pooling the risks for all possible medical needs of all enrollees.” As the National Women’s Law Center explains, Blunt’s language is vague enough that “insurers may be able to sell plans that do not cover services required by the new health care law to an entire market because one individual objects, so all consumers in a market lose their right to coverage of the full range of critical health services.” As a result, a man “purchasing an insurance plan offered to women and men could object to maternity coverage, so the plan would not have to cover it, even though such coverage is required as part of the essential health benefits.”
Read the full amendment here.
By: Igor Volsky, Think Progress, February 10, 2012
“The Rising”: Return Of The Big GOP Medicare Lie
The participant’s in last night’s GOP presidential debate once again took the opportunity to pretend that the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) put a massive dent in Medicare by cutting $500 billion from the program.
Michele Bachmann told us that “We know that President Obama stole over $500 billion out of Medicare to switch it over to Obamacare.” Mitt Romney intoned “He cut Medicare by $500 billion. This is a Democratic president the liberal, so to speak, cut Medicare.”
Yeah…except that nobody stole anything and Medicare was not cut by $500 billion.
Here are the facts:
For starters, nobody cut anything from the Medicare budget in the health care reform bill. The actions taken in the legislation are designed to slow the growth of Medicare spending without cutting benefits. Further, not one cent that would have gone to Medicare is somehow being shifted over to a program created by Obamacare (for first time readers, I readily use the term Obamacare because I believe that this name will ultimately stand as an honor to the President who made it happen.)
With respect to the infamous $500 billion, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has made it clear that the bulk of the projected savings will come from two primary sources—ending the subsidies to health insurance companies who offer Medicare Advantage programs and reining in the growth of payments to physicians. The remainder will, hopefully, come from cutting back on the waste and fraud that have long been rampant in the Medicare system.
Let’s begin with the Medicare Advantage program. Established via the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. the program—a Bush/GOP creation—was ostensibly invented to encourage Medicare beneficiaries to gravitate towards privately operated insurance programs pursuant to the theory that the private sector could do a better job of delivering care to our seniors than the government.
I say ‘ostensibly’ because the true purpose was to create a windfall for the private insurance companies who have done so much for so long for so many Republican elected officials.
The way the script played out, the private insurance companies said that they would only be able to paricipate in the program if, and only if, the government gave them a head start by agreeing to subsidize their “start up costs” until the year 2010.
As a result of the deal, Medicare found itself paying, on average, an 11% surcharge on medical services and procedures provided by Medicare Advantage plans. This was enough to guarantee the insurance providers a tidy profit fully comprised of the government subsidies, creating one of the greatest examples of corporate welfare in the history of the nation.
Not surprisingly, the health insurers took advantage of the windfall to attract customers by offering very low premium charges, not to mention free gym memberships, one pair of eyeglasses per year, spa treatments, zero co-pays and assorted other benefits not available to those who opted to take their Medicare directly from the government. And why not? The insurers don’t need to make a penny from those who were insured as each customer guarantees them an 11 percent return on any medical benefit receieved courtesy of the Medicare program. Thus, they are more than happy to offer a free toaster to anyone who agrees to sign up.
What Obamacare did was put an end to the subsidies, thereby reducing future costs to the program by billions while continuing to provide Medicare beneficiaries with the benefits promised.
By any standards, this was a no-brainer in terms of reigning in the growing costs of Medicare and creating a system that is fair to all beneficiaries.
Now, the doctors.
This gets a bit tricky and, to be honest, I don’t really believe that these savings will ever materialize.
At the heart of the discussion is a formula that was designed during the Clinton Administration called the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate, or SGR. The approach was created in an attempt to control Medicare spending for physician services with the idea being that the yearly increase in the expense per Medicare beneficiary should be tied to the growth in GDP. Thus, when actual Medicare spending exceeds the annual target in a given year, the SGR requires that physicians, and other system providers, must take a cut in order to bring the spending back in line with the annual spending targets.
The docs, understandably, do not like the idea of taking less in their Medicare payments. As a result, Congress has been delaying the cuts for years, constantly rolling them over into the next year at which time they roll them over again and again. Were Congress to ever stop delaying the SGR cuts, the physicians would find themselves feeling the cumulative pain of the delays with a one time Medicare rate reduction in excess of 20 percent.
These cuts are factored into the Medicare savings projections, along with hoped for savings to come by encouraging physicians to try some different approaches to practicing medicine.
Will this ever happen? Probably not.
So, while a skeptic can argue that these projected savings may never materialize, one cannot argue that this is, somehow, a cut to the Medicare program.
The bottom line is that there is nothing in the ACA that takes anything away from Medicare beneficiaries, now or in the future. Yet, the GOP continues to do its best to scare the hell out of seniors, the most reliable voter block in the nation.
We need to take this very seriously.
If the 2010 elections taught us anything, it is that a frightened voter population will do some crazy things. So, it’s on us to make sure that our grandparents and parents understand that Repubican fear peddlers are selling nothing but lies and that falling for the lies could result in the end of Medicare as we know it if the Republicans are permitted to gain full control of the government.
If you would like more information on this to share with family and friends, just let me know. The effort to mislead our senior citizens worked well in 2010. We simply cannot permit it to work again in 2012.
By: Rick Ungar, Mother Jones, September 13, 2011
Do Republicans Really Oppose Making Health Care Insurance Cheaper?
The health-care debate has a cyclical nature, and I don’t want to keep writing the same posts over and over again. So rather than write a whole new piece on the GOP’s rediscovery of the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that the health-care law will reduce the labor supply (which they recast as “destroying jobs”), I’ll just link to the long post I did on the subject in January.
In case you don’t want to click over, though, the short version is this: If you make health-care insurance cheaper and make it harder for insurance companies to deny people coverage, then a certain number of people who would like to leave the labor force but can’t afford or access health-care insurance without their job will stop working.
To understand why, imagine a 62-year-old woman who works for IBM and beat breast cancer 10 years ago. She wants to retire. She has the money to retire. But no one will sell her health care under the status quo. Under the health-reform law, she can buy health care in an exchange because insurers can’t turn her away due to her history of breast cancer. So she’ll retire. Or imagine a 50-year-old single mother who wants to home-school her developmentally disabled child but can’t quit her job because they’ll lose health care. The subsidies and the protections in the Affordable Care Act will give her the option to stop working for awhile, while under the old system she’d need to stick with her job to keep her family’s health-care coverage. That’s how health-care reform can reduce the labor supply. If either case counts as a destroyed job, then so does my winning the lottery and moving to Scotland in search of the perfect glass of whiskey.
Moreover, this would happen for any health-care reform that reduced costs and improved access. So when Republicans say that they want a better health-care reform bill that does even more to reduce costs, they’re calling for legislation that, according to them, would “destroy” even more jobs than the Affordable Care Act. If they’re against all legislation that might destroy jobs in this way, then they’re against making health care cheaper. In fact, by that logic, we could just jack the price of health-care insurance up and make it easier for insurers to turn individuals away. Then even more people would have to stick with their employers. Job creation!
By: Ezra Klein-The Washington Post, February 11, 2011
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 
GOP And Media Alert: Vouchercare Is Not Medicare
What’s in a name? A lot, the National Republican Congressional Committee obviously believes. Last week, the committee sent a letter demanding that a TV station stop running an ad declaring that the House Republican budget plan would “end Medicare.” This, the letter insisted, was a false claim: the plan would simply install a “new, sustainable version of Medicare.”
But Comcast, the station’s owner, rejected the demand — and rightly so. For Republicans are indeed seeking to dismantle Medicare as we know it, replacing it with a much worse program.
I’m seeing many attempts to shout down anyone making this obvious point, and not just from Republican politicians. For some reason, many commentators seem to believe that accurately describing what the G.O.P. is actually proposing amounts to demagoguery. But there’s nothing demagogic about telling the truth.
Start with the claim that the G.O.P. plan simply reforms Medicare rather than ending it. I’ll just quote the blogger Duncan Black, who summarizes this as saying that “when we replace the Marines with a pizza, we’ll call the pizza the Marines.” The point is that you can name the new program Medicare, but it’s an entirely different program — call it Vouchercare — that would offer nothing like the coverage that the elderly now receive. (Republicans get huffy when you call their plan a voucher scheme, but that’s exactly what it is.)
Medicare is a government-run insurance system that directly pays health-care providers. Vouchercare would cut checks to insurance companies instead. Specifically, the program would pay a fixed amount toward private health insurance — higher for the poor, lower for the rich, but not varying at all with the actual level of premiums. If you couldn’t afford a policy adequate for your needs, even with the voucher, that would be your problem.
And most seniors wouldn’t be able to afford adequate coverage. A Congressional Budget Office analysis found that to get coverage equivalent to what they have now, older Americans would have to pay vastly more out of pocket under the Paul Ryan plan than they would if Medicare as we know it was preserved. Based on the budget office estimates, the typical senior would end up paying around $6,000 more out of pocket in the plan’s first year of operation.
By the way, defenders of the G.O.P. plan often assert that it resembles other, less unpopular programs. For a while they claimed, falsely, that Vouchercare would be just like the coverage federal employees get. More recently, I’ve been seeing claims that Vouchercare would be just like the system created for Americans under 65 by last year’s health care reform — a fairly remarkable defense from a party that has denounced that reform as evil incarnate.
So let me make two points. First, Obamacare was very much a second-best plan, conditioned by perceived political realities. Most of the health reformers I know would have greatly preferred simply expanding Medicare to cover all Americans. Second, the Affordable Care Act is all about making health care, well, affordable, offering subsidies whose size is determined by the need to limit the share of their income that families spend on medical costs. Vouchercare, by contrast, would simply hand out vouchers of a fixed size, regardless of the actual cost of insurance. And these vouchers would be grossly inadequate.
But what about the claim that none of this matters, because Medicare as we know it is unsustainable? Nonsense.
Yes, Medicare has to get serious about cost control; it has to start saying no to expensive procedures with little or no medical benefits, it has to change the way it pays doctors and hospitals, and so on. And a number of reforms of that kind are, in fact, included in the Affordable Care Act. But with these changes it should be entirely possible to maintain a system that provides all older Americans with guaranteed essential health care.
Consider Canada, which has a national health insurance program, actually called Medicare, that is similar to the program we have for the elderly, but less open-ended and more cost-conscious. In 1970, Canada and the United States both spent about 7 percent of their G.D.P. on health care. Since then, as United States health spending has soared to 16 percent of G.D.P., Canadian spending has risen much more modestly, to only 10.5 percent of G.D.P. And while Canadian health care isn’t perfect, it’s not bad.
Canadian Medicare, then, looks sustainable; why can’t we do the same thing here? Well, you know the answer in the case of the Republicans: They don’t want to make Medicare sustainable, they want to destroy it under the guise of saving it.
So in voting for the House budget plan, Republicans voted to end Medicare. Saying that isn’t demagoguery, it’s just pointing out the truth.
By: Paul Krugman, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times, June 5, 2011
Share this:
June 6, 2011 Posted by raemd95 | Affordable Care Act, Budget, Conservatives, Consumers, Elections, GOP, Government, Health Care Costs, Health Reform, Ideologues, Ideology, Journalists, Lawmakers, Media, Medicare, Politics, Pundits, Republicans, Right Wing, Seniors, Under Insured, Uninsured, Voters | Canada, Canadian Health Care, Canadian Medicare, CBO, Comcast, Commentators, Demagoguery, Elderly, Government Health Insurance, House Republicans, Insurance Companies, Low Income, Medicare Vouchers, Out of Pocket xpenses, Politicians, Poor, Private Health Insurance, VoucherCare | Leave a comment