Limits on supplemental Medicare plans eyed

[hue]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON | Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:11am EDT

(Reuters) - Medicare supplemental health plans, popular among politically powerful retirees, could come under the budget knife being wielded by the special deficit-reduction panel of Congress, according to sources keeping close watch on its work.

The so-called "Medigap" insurance plans shield the elderly -- many living on fixed incomes -- from costly deductibles and other expenses not covered by the traditional fee-for-service Medicare healthcare program.

"This one is clearly on the table," said a lobbyist who has been following "super committee" deliberations on ways to trim federal budget deficits by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/10/us-usa-debt-medicare-idUSTRE7990R420111010

---

For those seniors who think they have themselves covered if they had to be hospitalized here is another way Repubs could and would cut their careful planning & security.
Soo frickin' disgusting.

[spartan61]

1. I don't understand why the super committee would even

consider this. My husband and I purchase a supplemental insurance tohelp pay the charges that Medicare doesn't pay. We pay about an additional $350 per month for this and it is purchased from a private insurance company. It also has deductables. How is this costing the gov't anything? BTW, it is not a Medicare Advantage program.

[DURHAM D]

2. Simple. They want us seniors to have some skin in the game -

they figure if we are required to pay "something" then we won't go to the doctor.

Quote- "While the elderly buy the private plans, studies suggest they boost government Medicare costs as the extra coverage for deductibles and co-pays encourages greater use of medical services."
"...Obama proposed a 30 percent surcharge on premiums for new Medicare beneficiaries who buy low deductible Medigap plans starting in 2017."

My Comment - I have already received notice that my Medigap is going up 15% next year.


Quote - "Obama's bipartisan fiscal commission last year suggested requiring a $550 deductible on Medigap plans and limiting coverage on the next $5,000 of costs to 50 percent."

"The health insurance industry and healthcare advocates oppose moves to restrict Medigap plans. They argue that limiting coverage would not just discourage unnecessary doctor visits, it would discourage necessary care."


My Comment - Why does Obama hate old people? They are looking for savings in the wrong place. Beef up the fraud division and go after the crooks (some of which are big donors to the party) and shut them down.

[customerserviceguy]

6. Bingo

You've hit the nail on the head, they want to cut back on utilization of medical services.

[area51]

90. +1

One of the things Bush Jr. liked to say is that "we use too much of medical services". And of course his idiot followers like freepers ignored that. How can you "use too many medical services" when you have 273 people dying per day due to lack of health care?

[No Elephants]

93. By seniors, paying for their own supplemental insurance. But, Congress and the wealthy can use all

the medical services they want, in one case paid for by taxpayers

[awoke_in_2003]

33. bipartisanship....

is a fancy word meaning "getting screwed by both parties"

[Raschel]

47. Thanks. I couldn't understand that either. It's time for OCCUPY CONGRESS.

[defendandprotect]

64. Keep on tellin' it -- !!! :)

[JDPriestly]

71. Why does Obama hate older people?

I have seriously been wondering about that for a very long time. Of course, he does not see older people as his "base."

But more puzzling is why Republicans hate older people, especially wealthy older people?

Many of them are most definitely the Republican base. Yet Republicans want to cut their benefits. That is downright nutty.

[RKP5637]

87. I think, anymore, the republicans' pure base is nothing but hatred. Hatred for

anything, just tell them the target and they will hate, even their own. This might sound silly at first, but it one thinks of all of the republican positions, at the core it's pure hatred for hatred's sake. IMO it attracts the haters and they are told it's OK, go for it, you're a real American.

[JDPriestly]

91. True.

[karynnj]

30. Self delete

[jwirr]

43. IF this is the medicare advantage program then there are some who

should not be getting it - for instance I am eligible for both medicare and medicaid because I am poor. At this time those insurance companies that insure us through Medicare etc. talk seniors like me into joining their advantage program when we do not need it because we are already covered under the other two programs.

IF this is what they are talking about they should just make it illegal for the insurance companies to enroll us. They do it because they are making a huge profit from it.

[No Elephants]

94. It is not about Medicare advantage. It is about private insurance that seniors pay for

entirely out of their own pockets to cover things garden variety Medicare does not cover.

Congress has no legitimate business limiting what this insurance can cover.

[Maineman]

3. Misinformation from a lobbyist?

I strongly suspect what is on the table is money that helps offset the cost of Medicare Advantage plans. Mine only costs $39 a month -- but it is with a nonprofit medical group. Nonprofit except for big executive salaries, I presume.

[DURHAM D]

5. The article indicates it is not about Medicare Advantage -

it is just about Medigap coverage.

[JDPriestly]

72. Mine costs just a little over $100 per month, but it is with a nonprofit

HMO. I could not get my care for anything less than that. It won't save the government money to get rid of those programs. Why? Because people will just go on Medicaid. And even those who appear to have assets, say a house that they paid for over their lives or 401(K) savings, will go broke and take Medicaid in time. That won't save any money in the long run.

[Downwinder]

4. Another attempt to kill off Seniors.

[highplainsdem]

7. Another attempt to make the poor and middle class subsidize healthcare for the rich,

since the rich won't be discouraged from seeking medical care by those higher deductibles, but the poor and middle class will be, all the while continuing to pay their Medicare and Medigap premiums.

The same is true, of course, of any health insurance plan with lower premiums for plans with reduced coverage and higher deductibles. The goal is to have people with limited incomes continue to pay into the system, while not being able to take advantage of it.

[cbayer]

8. I think this is a non-story.

FWIW, medigap plans don't impact hospitalization costs to patients at all, unless you are in there for a very, very long time.

The point of this is to get a better handle on over-utilization of out-patient services - not necessarily a bad idea.

Medigap plans are sold by private insurers, but regulated to some degree by the feds. I would guess this is part of a bigger plan to start looking more closely at what Medicare does cover and what it should cover.

[enlightenment]

11. Explain 'over-utilization of out-patient services', please.

Particularly amongst the elderly.

If you have sources for this information, I would like to see the studies that have concluded that elderly patients over-utilize out-patient services to the point that they are a burden on the Medicare system.

Thank you.

[cbayer]

15. Let's start here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/costly-surgery-medicare-claims-end-life-patients/story?id=14676582

The fact is that the complete lack of utilization review (as opposed to the gross over-use of it by private insurers), the medical liability atmosphere and the strongly held beliefs by patients and families that everyone should get everything has led to gross over-utilization of services and procedures that have no evidence of improving patient outcomes.

"Last year, Medicare paid $55 billion just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patients' lives. That's more than the budget for the Department of Homeland Security, or the Department of Education. And it has been estimated that 20 to 30 percent of these medical expenses may have had no meaningful impact. Most of the bills are paid for by the federal government with few or no questions asked."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/05/60minutes/main6747002.shtml

The bottom line is this - if we want Medicare to be the single payer, universal provider for this country (and I do), then it has to be managed better. The waste in the system must be addressed.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Both of your links are about inpatient services mostly at the end

of life. Your post speaks about 'over-utilization of out-patient services'. Not the same subject matter at all. When asked to support the point you wrote, you offered information about hospitalization and surgery, not about 'over-utilization of out-patient services'.
It is up to you to address that which you entered into the discussion. If it is a 'non issue' you must have lots of information to support that, information about out patient services being over used.

[cbayer]

25. There are many, many studies and data - easy to find. Medicare is one

of the most inefficient programs we have, which is why the private insurance companies have such a big piece of the pie.

People at CMS know this and pretty much anyone working in healthcare knows this. It must be reformed and costs must be controlled if we want to make it our single payer system.

http://www.medpac.gov/documents/Jun09_SecondaryInsurance_CONTRACTOR_RS_REVISED.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/health/18radiation.html?pagewanted=all

[enlightenment]

49. While I appreciate your viewpoint, you really

should appreciate that links to news sites are not what I was looking for - and your veiled allusion that I should find the studies on my own (which I certainly could do) is a rather weak response to a request to offer some back-up for your assertions.

Addressing the one study you did link: it is interesting, particularly in the amount of time spent discussing unknowable variables and the appeal to the Occam's Razor explanation. I do not dismiss the findings - clearly, after eliminating the military retirees, there does seem to be an increase in spending for those with 'first dollar' secondary coverage. What was most interesting, however - and relevant to my question - was the concluding paragraph of the opening summary.

This analysis does not address whether the increased spending is desirable or undesirable,
or whether reduced spending leads to poorer outcomes. That question -- whether the
value of additional care exceeds its cost – cannot be answered from the analysis of
spending data alone, if it can be answered at all. Instead, this analysis merely shows that
beneficiaries in fee-for-service Medicare will tend to use much more health care when
each additional service is free (to them) than they would if they had to pay a significant
portion of the cost of each additional service.

No one denies that the system is inefficient - but the word itself begs the question of how to define that term. The study suggests that beneficiaries with 'first dollar' coverage are more likely to use out-patient services for preventative care and elective procedures. It does not address the efficacy of such care.

If preventative care or an 'elective' procedure nips a problem in the bud, is it inefficient? How do you measure the dollar value of something like that?

[cbayer]

63. I did not mean to insult you by linking to news sites. Those links

did make reference to original research and I added that in my second post here.

Clearly there are no definitive conclusions in this area and your points about preventative care and elective procedures are quite valid.

On the other hand, after having been deeply imbedded in the system for many, many years, I can assure you that those who have a payer are much more likely to receive tests and treatments which have no evidence of improving health than those that don't.

Let me ask you this - Do you think there is a need to control health care spending in this country?

If you do, then do you think Medicare will have to undergo some major reforms?

Dr. Donald Berwick, the current administrator of CMS, is the country's expert in the field of improving healthcare quality, value and efficiency, imo. His conclusions and decisions are data driven. I believe the super committee will rely on his input in regards to any decisions about Medicare -- well, at least the Democratic members will. He is dedicated to reining in Medicare costs by improving the system, and I believe he is doing this in a way that will make Medicare the vehicle for a single payer, universal program.

For this reason, I tend to look at these stories from the perspective of how they might be being played to increase fear, uncertainty and doubt among the populace. Just look at the responses in this thread. And all to a story that is completely lacking in details and coming from nebulous sources.

By the way, Dr. Berwick was appointed in a brilliant move by the Obama administration during a Congressional recess, so he was never confirmed. The Republicans hate him because he is going after the profiteers in the medical system. No confirmation hearings have been scheduled and he will be forced out at the end of the year.

[Mojorabbit]

78. I dispute that people with insurance are over treated

I am a retired nurse married to a family practice doc. My experience has been the opposite of yours. While there may be a subset in the field that abuse the system I believe they are a very small subset of providers.

[cbayer]

80. It's not abuse that I am claiming here - it's overuse without the

the science to back it up.

It's a combination of family/patient expectations, fear of liability issues, old habits and patients being completely shielded from decisions based on cost.

Your husband surely knows that whether a patient has insurance coverage or not has an impact on the course of treatment and ability to refer to other providers.

[eridani]

84. The way to control health care costs is to have the government dictate them

Just like they do in all other developed countries, even the ones with private insurance. That's why my husband was able to get an emergency root canal in the Netherlands in 1996 for $25.00 American. The reason that the dentist did not object to that was that the government exercised similar controls on the prices of all his inputs, not to mention paying for his education from kindergarten through dental school.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. So you found a bit about CT scans! Goody!

Still your first two links are about out patient care, which is not the topic at all. Are you saying you work in healthcare? Or just implying that? If you don't, what is your standing to say such a thing?

[cbayer]

83. Why the snark? What is it exactly you are looking for here?

You can accept that I have extensive experience and knowledge in the area of healthcare and the current systems in this country... or not.

You can accept that I am deeply invested in Medicare reforms that will make it the system that can provide the universal, single payer system that we all want... or not.

My position is that the system, including Medicare and Medicaid, is deeply flawed and must be aggressively addressed at all levels. Waste, fraud, abuse, old habits, the medical liability system, for profit insurance companies, practices not based on evidence, incentives to provide too much or too little or the wrong care are just a handful of the problems we face.

Every idea should be on the table to make this the most efficient system to provide high quality, patient focused, universally accessible care.

If we jump all over every proposed tweak without looking at it critically for possible benefits to the overall system, we will never get there.

[Kolesar]

69. Dr. Byock...says modern medicine has become so good at keeping the terminally ill alive by treating

... the complications of underlying disease that the inevitable process of dying has become much harder and is often prolonged unnecessarily.

"Families cannot imagine there could be anything worse than their loved one dying. But in fact, there are things worse. Most generally, it's having someone you love die badly," Byock said.

Asked what he means by "die badly," Byock told Kroft, "Dying suffering. Dying connected to machines. I mean, denial of death at some point becomes a delusion, and we start acting in ways that make no sense whatsoever. And I think that's collectively what we're doing."

A vast majority of Americans say they want to die at home, but 75 percent die in a hospital or a nursing home.
____________________________
That describes exactly what happened to my father.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. I'd also like to see some stats and cites on that theory of yours

nt

[totodeinhere]

18. No this is a big story. Many of our most vulnerable seniors can only get by because after they

pay their Medigap premium, which on average is going to cost most more than $200 monthly next year, they have little out of pocket expenses left for their medical care. This proposal would cost them an additional $2,000 per year on top of the $2,400 a year they are already paying in Medigap premiums.

Many seniors get Social Security checks of less than $1,000 per month. Out of that they have to pay a hefty Medigap premium. Then on top of that they want them to pay deductibles and copays that would come out to an additional $2,000 yearly. Many seniors on fixed incomes simply would not have that kind of money. So what are they supposed to do, just roll over and die?

[DURHAM D]

23. You totally nailed it.

9 Million responsible seniors pay Medigap premiums so they can manage/budget their fixed expenses for the year.

This proposal will erase their peace of mind and slap them in the face for acting rationally.

This suggested policy change is hateful.

[cbayer]

35. Let me be clear about a couple of things I have said.

I think this is a non-story because it is an unconfirmed *proposal*, grossly lacking in details, reported by some unnamed lobbyist (working for who, I wonder) and a congressional aide who doesn't want to be named. To say that it is lacking in any substance whatsoever would be a gross understatement.

Also, those with the most to lose in this *proposal* are the insurance companies and medical providers. If it does come to the table, you just watch who fights it the hardest.

Lastly, keep in mind who makes the real decisions about what and how much care individual patients receive. I am not suggesting that patients choose to over-utilize services, but I can promise you that they are much more likely to receive excessive or unnecessary care if that care is covered by insurance.

It's all part of the deeply broken system in this country.

[Downwinder]

38. No,.those who have the most to lose are the policy holders!

The Insurance Companies would lose premiums.

The providers would sue for fees.

The patients would lose homes and assets.

[Raschel]

51. Don't forget prescription drug plan costs.

[Mojorabbit]

75. dupe

.

[Mojorabbit]

76. I don't understand

I am looking for a medigap plan so that if I end up in the hospital we won't get socked with a huge bill representing the 20 percent we will be responsible for. I have several forms here for them specifically for hospitalization. I think people ought to go to the doc when they need to and to not have to worry that it will break them to do so. I have to be in very bad shape to want to spend any time in a doc's office.
What is happening now is peope are waiting till they are terribly ill before coming in to see the doctor so treating the problem ends up being much more expensive.

[cbayer]

79. There is no 20% copay for in-patient (Part A) costs, just a deductible,

unless you are hospitalized for more than 60 days (highly unlikely). The deductible is currently $1,132.

There is a small deductible ($162) and co-pay for outpatient (Part B) services. Many providers waive this if the patient can not afford it.

The question is this - are the premiums for a Medigap policy going to exceed what you would probably pay, even if hospitalized?

I agree that those without coverage are more likely to put off care. The Affordable Care Act now covers a yearly exam at no charge to Medicare patients. This should help a great deal in providing earlier and preventive care.

[tropicanarose]

9. Disgraceful. I believe that those who support such measures will pay the price at the polls though.

[defendandprotect]

13. Yes -- politicians may be out of office -- but the programs will be gone ....

that's why the corporations have sent in these destroyers --

to knock out what's left of the New Deal and safety nets!

[plumbob]

10. Why don't they just come out and say what they really want to do?

"File a claim on Medicare, and we will send armed men out to kill you and all your family members."

They need to admit it and say it, own it, show who they really are, instead of pissing around with a lot of doubletalk. They hate the idea that anyone might outlive them, and that they might get a nickle back out of the thousands in taxes paid.

Universal single payer still the best way.

[defendandprotect]

16. RW can only rise on political violence, stolen elections and lies ---

If you had known that the Koch Bros. were funding the DLC for more than 20 years ....

would it have changed your thinking on the party?

That's the kind of stuff that has to be kept very quiet -- and it was!


Other than Koch Bros., DLC was also funded by the criminal Pfizer and Chevron corps!


We need two new candidates who are strongly anti-war

and strongly for MEDICARE FOR ALL --

Those two issues alone would begin to put America back on her feet and begin to help

the many suffering Americans being ignored for the sake of this corporate/fascist agenda!

[Maineman]

21. Is it time for a potent 3rd party? It looks like a perfect storm to me.

Progressive Party of America perhaps.

[RKP5637]

34. It's also time to cleanup the democratic party and dump the DLC. n/t

[defendandprotect]

53. OPPS! Successor to DLC is THIRD WAY which now controls the party ....

and I happened to catch Jonathan Cowan, Pres. Third Way on C-span one morning

last week --

Cowan was reporting to C-span viewers that Third way stand/policy is that

"the base of the party is to be ignored" ---


and that "populism and populist discussions/debates are the equivalent of Karl Rove

propaganda of extremism" -- !!


How's that for insanity governing the Dem Party?



Here's some more info on Third Way --

And make no mistake about the role of Third Way. Third Way runs the policy apparatus of the Democratic Party. In Congress, staffers attend regular Third Way policy briefings, where the group hands out pre-packaged legislative amendments in legal form, generic press releases, polling around those policy ideas, and talking points. It’s a soup-to-nuts policy apparatus. Most of these ideas are harmless – like increased volunteerism – but some are not, like various tax proposals.

The group has enormous juice. On the Congressional side, it has six honorary Senate co-Chairs, and seven House-side co-Chairs. Jim Clyburn, a co-Chair, is in the House Democratic leadership. Two current cabinet members are former co-Chairs. Steny Hoyer, the House minority whip, held regular briefings for the freshmen member staff in the last Congress.

On the administration side, former Third Way board member Bill Daley is now White House chief of staff. Ron Klain, who was Biden’s Chief of Staff, is now with Third Way. The White House is pretty much full of Third Way-style apparatchiks.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/07/third-way-document-proves-democratic-party-supports-institutionalized-looting-by-banks.html

[RKP5637]

58. Yep, and one can clearly see why they would like to co-opt OWS and call it

theirs to drag it into the fold and suppress the OWS movement ... just looking at the first paragraph of your link.

"It is one thing to suspect that something is rotten in Denmark, quite another to have proof. Ever since Obama appointed his Rubinite economics team, it was blindingly obvious that he was aligning himself with Wall Street. The strength of the connection became even more evident in March 2009, when Team Obama embarked on its “stress test” charade and bank stock cheerleading. Rather than bring vested banking interests to heel, the administration instead chose to reconstitute, as much as possible, the very same industry whose reckless pursuit of profit had thrown the world economy off the cliff."

[defendandprotect]

66. Won't happen -- LEFT knows Obama is Wall St -- and betrayed them on single-payer ....

not to mention the many other pro-corporate decisions by Obama --

and the many betrayals -- such as putting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid

on the table --


Obama has already done great damage to families in inssufficient stimulus vs the

meltdown which was certainly a depression and still is --

On unemployment which is a threat to every family which in turn needs to try to

shore up and support any family member who is unemployed -- a huge effort now with

COBRA and health care insurance which are impossibly high.

On cancelling of COLA's for seniors -- into third year now in 2012!!

And the undermining of Social Security by changing the funding structure -- !!

The LEFT know this -- and made that clear in 2010 -- !!


:hi:

[RKP5637]

68. It's been an amazing ride since 2008. n/t

[No Elephants]

95. Not since 2008. Since formation of the Democratic Leadership Council

was a gleam in the eye of the Southern conservative wing of the Democratic Party, plus a couple of anomalies, like Joe Lieberman (Connecticut) and Al From (Indiana-as red as any modern Southern state).

[defendandprotect]

52. Certainly the LEFT in streets are crying out 4 independent candidates .... free from corporate $$$ -

and corporate control ---

candidates who aren't pre-bribed and pre-owned by corporations/elites --



Whether there is anything left of the party after 20 years and more of Koch Bros.

DLC control over it -- and now Third Way controlling the party -- can't say?

We have to find out!!


Sen. Bernie Sanders could do it if he can run on a split ticket with Dems/Socialists --

he's enough of a "white hat" to be able to run against the corporate/elite machine

and gete elected on basis of implicit trust and a "word of mouth" campaign!!

[RKP5637]

24. First step IMO is to dump all DLC'ers at the polls and cleanup the dem party. n/t

[defendandprotect]

54. DLC is gone, Third Way now controls the party ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=5021667&mesg_id=5021916


and here's some info on Third Way control over party and Congress --

And make no mistake about the role of Third Way. Third Way runs the policy apparatus of the Democratic Party. In Congress, staffers attend regular Third Way policy briefings, where the group hands out pre-packaged legislative amendments in legal form, generic press releases, polling around those policy ideas, and talking points. It’s a soup-to-nuts policy apparatus. Most of these ideas are harmless – like increased volunteerism – but some are not, like various tax proposals.

The group has enormous juice. On the Congressional side, it has six honorary Senate co-Chairs, and seven House-side co-Chairs. Jim Clyburn, a co-Chair, is in the House Democratic leadership. Two current cabinet members are former co-Chairs. Steny Hoyer, the House minority whip, held regular briefings for the freshmen member staff in the last Congress.

On the administration side, former Third Way board member Bill Daley is now White House chief of staff. Ron Klain, who was Biden’s Chief of Staff, is now with Third Way. The White House is pretty much full of Third Way-style apparatchiks.


http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/07/third-way-document-proves-democratic-party-supports-institutionalized-looting-by-banks.html


YIKES!

[RKP5637]

59. And the general populace is so out of touch on this. It's akin to having some

rogue corporation running the party. The populace is led to believe they are voting for the public party operations, but then behind the curtain you have the Third Way. And exactly what we've seen since 2008. And again why OWS and the democratic party need to be kept separate.

[defendandprotect]

60. Many here trying to get info on THIRD WAY out to DU'ers ....

:hi:

Keep on tellin' it -- !!!

[Mimosa]

92. DefendandProtect, thanks for the great links

There are many false paradigms being proffered by Third Way types.

NOBODY likes having to use medical services, going to doctors, taking medicines. But it's preferable to dying. There are obviously a few Dems who agree with the Rethug 'final solution' for the ailments of the aged: 'die and get out of the way ASAP'.

[Le Taz Hot]

88. Here's the problem with that scenario.

Any challenger will be locked out by the party itself. The Democratic Party will starve any challenger's campaign and actually put up ads AGAINST him/er (any questions, see with they did to Dean in New Hampshire). It ensures "their" hand-picked candidate will get all the support leaving the challenger with nothing. THAT'S the problem with the current "two-party" system.

[RKP5637]

89. Sadly, the Democratic party has wandered so far astray from what it once was ... n/t

[defendandprotect]

12. Voters know that Obama put Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security on the table --

and it is clearly one of the reasons why the LEFT is out in the streets -- !!

[hue]

17. Lawmakers push super committee to make major Medicare pay reforms

Here is another article from American Medical News on this subject:It doesn't clearly answer the above questions but it gives more info.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/10/10/gvsc1010.htm

...Other proposed changes, such as restructuring patient cost-sharing in the Medicare program to reflect fees paid by beneficiaries in the private insurance market, should go before the committee, she said. This could be accompanied by other policies that she said make sense for the program. For instance, the committee could partially balance any increase in Medicare deductibles by establishing an out-of-pocket limit, which does not exist.

Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I, Conn.) and Tom Coburn, MD (R, Okla.), also have asked the committee to make major reforms to entitlement programs. In June, the senators proposed Medicare reform legislation that would save the program an estimated $500 billion over 10 years. The bill would require wealthier Americans to pay more for Medicare, increase the minimum premium to cover 35% of the total bill, cap out-of-pocket spending and raise the eligibility age to 67 from 65.

Rep. Michael Burgess, MD (R, Texas), has asked the committee to put the health system reform law on the negotiating table. Government mandates under the statute will cost nearly $1.5 trillion by expanding Medicaid rolls and subsidizing coverage for the uninsured, Dr. Burgess said in an opinion piece appearing in the Oct. 3 Washington Times. "We can't afford this new spending. So why not start there?"...

[defendandprotect]

61. "Super Committees/Panels" deliver "Immaculate Conception" decisions ....

Like the FED making our political economic decisions vs the Congress doing it!!

Why bother with a Congress?

[still_one]

20. This has NOTHING to do with the deficit. It is private insurance that medicare doesn't cover. The

only purpose for this is to benefit the supplemental insurance companies by limiting their costs

If Democrats do not stop this, it is time to throw them all out

[RKP5637]

22. Anymore the easiest way to live in the US is to die! Christ, this place is becoming a pit. n/t

[Downwinder]

27. Think that's why the suicide rates are going up?

Wonder how many takers there would be if they sent out euthanasia pills?

[RKP5637]

32. Probably quite a few. I really can't imagine too many people really looking forward

to aging in the "new" America. Anymore, most of what one does to prepare is getting torn apart. Even COLA has been suspended as prices soar. If one thinks they have it bad in their youth, getting a job and all, wait 'till one is in their 80's with some health problems, no prospect of a job, short and cash and living in some shit hole because the financial world around them shattered through no fault of their own.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

26. Many seniors like my Mom DEPEND on such coverage --

She has such insurance to pay whatever Medicare does not -- without it, she would have been bankrupted with extra costs a dozen times over due to health issues. :mad:

[Downwinder]

29. Medigap brings Medicare up to the level of Medicaid.

edited to correct the spell checker

[defendandprotect]

55. Exactly -- and that was the purpose of Medicare ... to prevent bankrupting of elderly ...

of course now they're also bankrupting people of every age using medical costs!

[UnrepentantLiberal]

28. Barack Obama strikes again. Ronald Reagan would be pleased.

[PSPS]

31. "popular among politically powerful retirees"

Medicare supplemental health plans, popular among politically powerful retirees, could come under the budget knife being wielded by the special deficit-reduction panel of Congress, according to sources keeping close watch on its work.

Many seniors have this coverage, including my mother. And she's far from what anyone would call "politically powerful."

[RKP5637]

36. I have no idea what that statement is supposed to mean either ...

I know many people with gap policies and they are far from politically powerful. That part was absolute BS IMO. In fact, they would be in absolute poverty now without that coverage.

[bemildred]

37. Yes, I caught that one too, I think it is one of the hidden messages in that piece.

I have Medicare Parts A & B, and a cheap drug plan, and I would NEVER invite those HMO assholes to get involved in my health care.

[highplainsdem]

41. It's clumsy writing, but I believe it just means there are a lot of senior voters,

who won't be happy about these proposed changes.

[bemildred]

46. The point is that the medigap plans EXIST because seniors are not, in fact, politically powerful.

If seniors were politically powerful, we would have free health care for seniors, like the genuinely politically powerful legislative bodies that give themselves free health care. You can diagnose where power really resides in the country on the basis of who still has free health care.

Banks and corporations are politically powerful, money is politically powerful, but seniors are on the chopping block.

[defendandprotect]

56. Seniors aren't united -- except thru AARP which is an insurance company -- !!

[Raschel]

45. When I saw that, I thought the article was about congress getting their medigap cut. Of course,

that'll never happen, they most likely don't even need it.

[SoapBox]

39. Fuck these RepubliCON Thugs!!!!!

I am SO sick and tired of these creeps.

If it were not for Medicare, my 90 year old Mom would have died long ago...but, she lives!

Sorry Thugsters, she is NOT going to just DIE QUICKLY because you want her to.

I HATE these fucking bastards.

[jwirr]

40. Is this the medicare advantage programs?

[highplainsdem]

42. No, it's Medigap programs, the private insurance bought to cover deductibles and copays.

[Raschel]

50. What are the advantage programs?

[Downwinder]

65. Company Doctors on retainer.

[Maineman]

70. Medicare Advantage programs are insurance programs offered

by private insurance companies who have a contract with Medicare to provide medical coverage to persons who are eligible for Medicare. They are subsidized with federal money and usually cost less that the Medicare Supplement plans - because of the subsidies that go to the private insurance companies. They are simpler because there is only one insurance entity to deal with. Even though I like the plan I have, I presume these plans are eating up additional federal money, and likely to get cut again in the near future.

[DURHAM D]

73. I have a question.

I am on SS. Before I get my monthly distribution the IRS takes out $110 to pay my Medicare Part B premium. That money stays in the federal coffers.

Is it true that if I switch to Medicare Advantage (currently I have a Medigap policy) that $110 that is taken from my SS check will be transferred to the private insurance company that I switch to like AARP - United Health?

Note: I don't plan to change but am just trying to figure out how is works as regards who gets the SS funds.

[Raschel]

86. Thank you for the explanation!

:hi:

[DURHAM D]

44. No - Just Medigap programs.

Reading between the lines, however, it almost seems like the Medicare Advantage lobbyists are in the room and trying to get changes enacted that will make Advantage programs the preferred choice our government has for us seniors re: large annual deductibles for seniors so they won't go to the doctor.

[jwirr]

48. That figures. That group is a waste of our taxes.

[workinclasszero]

57. Ah republican death panels

No more money seniors? Death to you! So sorry.

And the three wars continue forever, billions and billions a month, no problems!

I await the democratic party and the Presidents response to this outrage.

We will see whose side they are on then, eh?

[cstanleytech]

74. Thats slander, they would never ever say

"sorry" for anything they do wrong.

[defendandprotect]

62. Keep in mind, all of this can only be done now because of Obama's betrayal on single-payer !!!

And the "Cat Food Commission" which Obama put in place and which preceded the

new Super Congress!!

[Downwinder]

67. Noted!

[DURHAM D]

77. I would suggest you cross post this in GD with a link

to this thread so that others can join the conversation.

[alp227]

81. And Paul Ryan would approve!

maybe socialized medicine IS really a good thing, contrary to what Fox News/JPANDS/Heritage have been howling recently. And Alan Grayson was right - too bad the tea party had to retaliate in November 2010.

[Downwinder]

85. Take Congressional retirees health insurance away and put

them on Medicare and let them buy their own Supplement.

[No Elephants]

96. "Death panels" sounds less and less hyperbolic all the time.

Cuts to fuel subsidies for the poor, in a budget proposed by President Obama in January.

Cuts to Medicare and Social Security, put on the table, according to Conyers, by President Obama.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/29/1000282/-Conyers-spills-the-beans-on-Obama-call-for-WH-protests

Cat Food Commission, created by President Obama. Patterned on a sunset commission, suggested by the Democratic Leadership Council. http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254871&kaid=85&subid=65

And, where the Cat Food Commission failed, the Super Committee may succeed, including with this abominable plan to limit the private health insurance seniors can acquire with their own money.

DAMN!