Politics or Poppycock

A Look From the Left At Politics, Politicians, Policies and Issues of National Concern

Archive for August 16th, 2009

The Brutal Truth About America’s Healthcare

Posted by James O'Rourke on August 16, 2009

logo.gif

SUNDAY 16 AUGUST 2009

The Brutal Truth About America’s Healthcare

Saturday 15 August 2009

by: Guy Adams  |  Visit article original @ The Independent UK

081609a1.jpg

On the first day of the clinic, Remote Area Medical founder Stan Brock, left, announces the ground rules for participants. (Photo: Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

They came in their thousands, queuing through the night to secure one of the coveted wristbands offering entry into a strange parallel universe where medical care is a free and basic right and not an expensive luxury. Some of these Americans had walked miles simply to have their blood pressure checked, some had slept in their cars in the hope of getting an eye-test or a mammogram, others had brought their children for immunisations that could end up saving their life.

In the week that Britain’s National Health Service was held aloft by Republicans as an “evil and Orwellian” example of everything that is wrong with free healthcare, these extraordinary scenes in Inglewood, California yesterday provided a sobering reminder of exactly why President Barack Obama is trying to reform the US system.

The LA Forum, the arena that once hosted sell-out Madonna concerts, has been transformed – for eight days only – into a vast field hospital. In America, the offer of free healthcare is so rare, that news of the magical medical kingdom spread rapidly and long lines of prospective patients snaked around the venue for the chance of getting everyday treatments that many British people take for granted.

In the first two days, more than 1,500 men, women and children received free treatments worth $503,000 (£304,000). Thirty dentists pulled 471 teeth; 320 people were given standard issue spectacles; 80 had mammograms; dozens more had acupuncture, or saw kidney specialists. By the time the makeshift medical centre leaves town on Tuesday, staff expect to have dispensed $2m worth of treatments to 10,000 patients.

The gritty district of Inglewood lies just a few miles from the palm-lined streets of Beverly Hills and the bright lights of Hollywood, but is a world away. And the residents who had flocked for the free medical care, courtesy of mobile charity Remote Area Medical, bore testament to the human cost of the healthcare mess that President Obama is attempting to fix.

Christine Smith arrived at 3am in the hope of seeing a dentist for the first time since she turned 18. That was almost eight years ago. Her need is obvious and pressing: 17 of her teeth are rotten; some have large visible holes in them. She is living in constant pain and has been unable to eat solid food for several years.

“I had a gastric bypass in 2002, but it went wrong, and stomach acid began rotting my teeth. I’ve had several jobs since, but none with medical insurance, so I’ve not been able to see a dentist to get it fixed,” she told The Independent. “I’ve not been able to chew food for as long as I can remember. I’ve been living on soup, and noodles, and blending meals in a food mixer. I’m in constant pain. Normally, it would cost $5,000 to fix it. So if I have to wait a week to get treated for free, I’ll do it. This will change my life.”

Along the hall, Liz Cruise was one of scores of people waiting for a free eye exam. She works for a major supermarket chain but can’t afford the $200 a month that would be deducted from her salary for insurance. “It’s a simple choice: pay my rent, or pay my healthcare. What am I supposed to do?” she asked. “I’m one of the working poor: people who do work but can’t afford healthcare and are ineligible for any free healthcare or assistance. I can’t remember the last time I saw a doctor.”

Although the Americans spend more on medicine than any nation on earth, there are an estimated 50 million with no health insurance at all. Many of those who have jobs can’t afford coverage, and even those with standard policies often find it doesn’t cover commonplace procedures. California’s unemployed – who rely on Medicaid – had their dental care axed last month.

Julie Shay was one of the many, waiting to slide into a dentist’s chair where teeth were being drilled in full view of passers-by. For years, she has been crossing over the Mexican border to get her teeth done on the cheap in Tijuana. But recently, the US started requiring citizens returning home from Mexico to produce a passport (previously all you needed was a driver’s license), and so that route is now closed. Today she has two abscesses and is in so much pain she can barely sleep. “I don’t have a passport, and I can’t afford one. So my husband and I slept in the car to make sure we got seen by a dentist. It sounds pathetic, but I really am that desperate.”

“You’d think, with the money in this country, that we’d be able to look after people’s health properly,” she said. “But the truth is that the rich, and the insurance firms, just don’t realise what we are going through, or simply don’t care. Look around this room and tell me that America’s healthcare don’t need fixing.”

President Obama’s healthcare plans had been a central plank of his first-term programme, but his reform package has taken a battering at the hands of Republican opponents in recent weeks. As the Democrats have failed to coalesce around a single, straightforward proposal, their rivals have seized on public hesitancy over “socialised medicine” and now the chance of far-reaching reform is in doubt.

Most damaging of all has been the tide of vociferous right-wing opponents whipping up scepticism at town hall meetings that were supposed to soothe doubts. In Pennsylvania this week, Senator Arlen Specter was greeted by a crowd of 1,000 at a venue designed to accommodate only 250, and of the 30 selected speakers at the event, almost all were hostile.

The packed bleachers in the LA Forum tell a different story. The mobile clinic has been organised by the remarkable Remote Area Medical. The charity usually focuses on the rural poor, although they worked in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Now they are moving into more urban venues, this week’s event in Los Angeles is believed to be the largest free healthcare operation in the country.

Doctors, dentists and therapists volunteer their time, and resources to the organisation. To many US medical professionals, it offers a rare opportunity to plug into the public service ethos on which their trade was supposedly founded. “People come here who haven’t seen a doctor for years. And we’re able to say ‘Hey, you have this, you have this, you have this’,” said Dr Vincent Anthony, a kidney specialist volunteering five days of his team’s time. “It’s hard work, but incredibly rewarding. Healthcare needs reform, obviously. There are so many people falling through the cracks, who don’t get care. That’s why so many are here.”

Ironically, given this week’s transatlantic spat over the NHS, Remote Area Medical was founded by an Englishman: Stan Brock. The 72-year-old former public schoolboy, Taekwondo black belt, and one-time presenter of Wild Kingdom, one of America’s most popular animal TV shows, left the celebrity gravy train in 1985 to, as he puts it, “make people better”.

Today, Brock has no money, no income, and no bank account. He spends 365 days a year at the charity events, sleeping on a small rolled-up mat on the floor and living on a diet made up entirely of porridge and fresh fruit. In some quarters, he has been described, without too much exaggeration, as a living saint.

Though anxious not to interfere in the potent healthcare debate, Mr Brock said yesterday that he, and many other professionals, believes the NHS should provide a benchmark for the future of US healthcare.

“Back in 1944, the UK government knew there was a serious problem with lack of healthcare for 49.7 million British citizens, of which I was one, so they said ‘Hey Mr Nye Bevan, you’re the Minister for Health… go fix it’. And so came the NHS. Well, fast forward now 66 years, and we’ve got about the same number of people, about 49 million people, here in the US, who don’t have access to healthcare.”

“I’ve been very conservative in my outlook for the whole of my life. I’ve been described as being about 90,000 miles to the right of Attila the Hun. But I think one reaches the reality that something doesn’t work… In this country something has to be done. And as a proud member of the US community but a loyal British subject to the core, I would say that if Britain could fix it in 1944, surely we could fix it here in America.

Healthcare compared

Health spending as a share of GDP

US 16%

UK 8.4%

Public spending on healthcare (% of total spending on healthcare)

US 45%

UK 82%

Health spending per head

US $7,290

UK $2,992

Practising physicians (per 1,000 people)

US 2.4

UK 2.5

Nurses (per 1,000 people)

US 10.6

UK 10.0

Acute care hospital beds (per 1,000 people)

US 2.7

UK 2.6

Life expectancy:

US 78

UK 80

Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)

US 6.7

UK 4.8

Source: WHO/OECD Health Data 2009

Posted in *Healthcare Issues | Leave a Comment »

Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma

Posted by James O'Rourke on August 16, 2009

by Ryan Grim

Global Research, August 16, 2009
huffingtonpost.com

A memo obtained by the Huffington Post confirms that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly agreed to precisely the sort of wide-ranging deal that both parties have been denying over the past week.

The memo, which according to a knowledgeable health care lobbyist was prepared by a person directly involved in the negotiations, lists exactly what the White House gave up, and what it got in return.

It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government’s leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada — and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.

In exchange, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years. Or, as the memo says: “Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion.”

pharmaemail.jpg Representatives from both the White House and PhRMA, shown the outline, adamantly denied that it reflected reality. PhRMA senior vice president Ken Johnson said that the outline “is simply not accurate.” “This memo isn’t accurate and does not reflect the agreement with the drug companies,” said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin.

Stories in the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times last week indicated that the administration was confirming that such a deal had been made.

Critics on Capitol Hill and online responded with outrage at the reports that Obama had gone behind their backs and sold the reform movement short. Furthermore, the deal seemed to be a betrayal of several promises made by then-Sen. Obama during the presidential campaign, among them that he would use the power of government to drive down the costs of drugs to Medicare and that negotiations would be conducted in the open.

And over the past several days, both the White House and PhRMA have offered a series of sometimes conflicting accounts of what happened in an attempt to walk back the story.

The White House meeting took place on July 7th, as first reported that evening in the Wall Street Journal. Also on the same day, a health care lobbyist following the talks was provided the outline of the deal by a person inside the negotiations. That outline had been floating around K Street before being obtained by the Huffington Post. In order to learn more about its origin, HuffPost agreed not to reveal the name of the lobbyist who originally received it.

“That is the PhRMA deal,” said the lobbyist of the outline. He then clarified, “It was the PhRMA deal.”

The deal, as outlined in the memo:

Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion.

1. Agree to increase of Medicaid rebate from 15.1 – 23.1% ($34 billion)

2. Agree to get FOBs done (but no agreement on details — express disagreement on data exclusivity which both sides say does not affect the score of the legislation.) ($9 billion)

3. Sell drugs to patients in the donut hole at 50% discount ($25 billion)
This totals $68 billion

4. Companies will be assessed a tax or fee that will score at $12 billion. There was no agreement as to how or on what this tax/fee will be based.

Total: $80 billion

In exchange for these items, the White House agreed to:

1. Oppose importation

2. Oppose rebates in Medicare Part D

3. Oppose repeal of non-interference

4. Oppose opening Medicare Part B

“Non-interference” is the industry term for the status quo, in which government-driven price negotiations are barred. In other words, the government is “interfering” in the market if it negotiates lower prices. The ban on negotiating was led through Congress in 2003 by then-Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.), who is now the head of PhRMA.

The rebates reference is to Medicare overpayments Big Pharma managed to wrangle from the Republican Congress that Democrats are trying to recoup. The House bill would require Big Pharma to return some of that money. The rebate proposal would save $63 billion over ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The White House, given the chance, declined to tell the Wall Street Journal for a July 17th article that it supported the effort to pursue the rebates.

The Medicare Part B item refers to “infusion drugs,” which can be administered at home. If they fall under Part B, Big Pharma gets paid more than under Part D. The agreement would leave infusion drugs in Part B.

In the section on Big Pharma’s concessions, “FOBs” refers to follow-on biological drugs. Democrats have pushed to make it easier to allow generic drug makers to produce cheaper versions of such drugs, an effort Big Pharma has resisted. The Senate health committee bill gives drug makers 12 years of market exclusivity, five more than the White House proposed.

PhRMA’s Johnson cast doubts on the provenance of the outline. “The memo, as described, is simply not accurate,” he said in a statement. “Anyone could have written it. Unless it comes from our board of directors, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. Clearly, someone is trying to short circuit our efforts to try and make health care reform a reality this year. That’s not going to happen. Too much is at stake for both patients and the U.S. economy. Our new ads supporting health care reform are starting this week, and we are redoubling our efforts to drive awareness of why this issue is so important to America’s future.”

Johnson added that “no outside lobbyists — not a single one — were ever involved in our discussions with the Senate Finance Committee or the White House so someone is blowing smoke.”

But the lobbyist who was given the outline defended its authenticity. And although the White House now says that drug price negotiations and reimportation were not actually discussed in the talks with PhRMA, the lobbyist said: “Well, that’s bull — that’s baloney. That was part of the deal, for them not to push that.”

The new uncertainty surrounding the deal comes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has repeatedly said that her chamber is not bound by any agreement it is not a party to. On July 8th, the day after the Journal reported some elements of the deal, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said in a public speech that his committee would not be tied down by the agreement.

Before recess, he followed through. His committee passed a bill that allowed for re-importation and drug-price negotiations.

In the Senate, Democrats Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Byron Dorgan (N.D.) pressed White House officials at a closed-door meeting last week, asking whether the White House had tied the Senate’s hands.

The health care lobbyist said that what deal still exists is uncertain, as a result of House pressure. “Now the White House is backing away from it, as you know, because of pressure from the House, because the House was not a party to the deal,” he said. “The Speaker put enormous pressure on the White House, [saying], ‘We weren’t a party to it and we reserve the right to do whatever we want.’ And which they did in the House Energy and Commerce Committee bill, which led the White House to say, ‘Well, maybe it’s not cast in concrete.’”

Obama is walking a tightrope here. He wants to keep PhRMA from opposing the bill, and benefits by having its support, which now includes a $150 million advertising campaign. That’s a fortune in politics — more than Republican presidential candidate John McCain spent on advertising during his entire campaign — but it’s loose change in the pharmaceutical business.

Opponents of the deal with PhRMA hope that Obama is playing a multilayered game, making a deal in order to keep the drug makers in his camp for now, but planning to double-cross them in the end if he needs to in order to pass his signature initiative.

Big Pharma, however, is still comfortable. “As far as the pharmaceutical industry, PhRMA and its member companies, yes, they say a deal is a deal. We’ll see what happens,” said the health care lobbyist.
Global Research Articles by Ryan Grim

Posted in *Obama Administration | Leave a Comment »

White House Appears Ready to Drop ‘Public Option’

Posted by James O'Rourke on August 16, 2009

The article below would indicate that perhaps the current administration does not have the courage of its’ convictions. I, and many like me, voted for this president because we believed that he had not only the foresight to lead us out of the proverbial wilderness, but that he also had the intestinal fortitude to do so. I so hope that I did not underestimate him. Can he relate be ready to through in the towel because the road is narrowing and is uphill?

Those of us who believed in him when we voted for him should email or call the White House and let them know how we feel about this abandonment of principles.

Jim O’

Published on Sunday, August 16, 2009 by the Associated Press

White House Appears Ready to Drop ‘Public Option’

by Phillip Elliott

WASHINGTON – Bowing to Republican pressure, President Barack Obama’s administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new U.S. health care system.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession would likely enrage his liberal supporters but could deliver Obama a much-needed win on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

Officials from both political parties reached across the aisle in an effort to find compromises on proposals they left behind when they returned to their districts for an August recess. Obama had sought the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation’s almost 50 million uninsured, but he never made it a deal breaker in a broad set of ideas that has Republicans unified in opposition.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is “not the essential element” of the administration’s health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.

“I think there will be a competitor to private insurers,” Sebelius said. “That’s really the essential part, is you don’t turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing.”

Obama’s top spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice for the administration.

“What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

On Saturday, Obama himself appeared to hedge his bets. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in *Healthcare Issues, *Obama Administration, Civic Responsibilities | 2 Comments »

The Single Payer, Enhanced Medicare for All Alternative

Posted by James O'Rourke on August 16, 2009

Advantages of HR 676 & S 703 – The Single Payer, Enhanced Medicare for All Alternative

  • Submitted by Chip on Sat, 2009-08-15 20:51. Healthcare

singlepayernetrootsnation08152009.jpg Dale Larson, KatyAnn, and jLong over at Huffington Post compiled a list of advantages of the single-payer, enhanced Medicare for All alternative to the legislation being proposed now. What would you add?

  1. Slashes at least 30% of costs off the top by removing private insurance overhead.
  2. Companies take health care expenses off their books. Stock value increases. Better able to compete internationally.
  3. Small companies could have access to higher skilled workers because previously they couldn’t compete in the labor market by offering similar benefits.
  4. More entrepreneurial ventures will launch since they have more money and less unrelated risk.
  5. Dramatic drop in bankruptcies.
  6. Dramatic drop in lawsuits. Most of these lawsuits are simply to obtain money to cover health care if something interrupts their coverage.
  7. Reduced system complexity. Greater efficiency due to fewer regulations.
  8. Savings from employees not having to fight with their insurers during work hours.
  9. HSA and MSA dollars redirected back into the economy for goods and services.
  10. Additional money to spend from not having to carry “uninsured motorist coverage” on your auto policy.
  11. Contract employment is more viable for workers since they are guaranteed access to health care.
  12. People are covered when unemployed. No chance of being wiped out financially if you lose your job.
  13. Health care providers (doctors, hospitals, therapists…) see increase in business with much less administrative expense.
  14. Fewer mortgage defaults as medical bills do not force families to choose between health and house;
  15. Personal, municipal, and state budgets can become sustainable;
  16. Money will stop flowing out of school and town safety budgets to the profiteers.
  17. Co-workers will not resent a group member who causes the group premiums to rise because of illness or injury since there will be no premiums.
  18. Employers will not be privy to the health care concerns of their employees and their families.
  19. Doctors and patients will not be in the position of begging pharmaceutical gatekeepers to pretty please lower the price of prescriptions;
  20. No more nauseating self-congratulatory ads from Pharma and HMOs telling us how good and kind they are while they daily reject “pre-existing condition” applicants and overcharge others;
  21. No more need for Remote Area Medical to put on free health care fairs in low income areas so sick people can get some semblance of health care in the U.S.;
  22. No more wasted individual and business time spent shopping around for affordable health insurance;
  23. No more skeletal coverage with surprises like the maternity coverage that does not include delivery;
  24. No more yearly rises in co-pays and deductibles, and even disruptions in services as doctors change as businesses move to new HMOs;
  25. More people will seek care when their health issues are small and easier to treat, before they become larger and more expensive.

Posted in *Healthcare Issues | Leave a Comment »

Mad as Hell Doctors” Embark on Cross Country Care-A-Van to Demand Single-Payer from Congress

Posted by James O'Rourke on August 16, 2009

“Mad as Hell Doctors” Embark on Cross Country Care-A-Van to Demand Single-Payer from Congress – Join The Movement!

Hear practicing physicians tell why they support single-payer health care reform. Runs 40 minutes: consider it your workout time.

Where’s the Care-A-Van? Follow the Docs – Where Would You Like To Meet Up?

madashelldoctors08162009.jpg

“Mad as Hell Doctors” Embark on Cross Country Care-A-Van to Demand Single-Payer from Congress | Press Release

singlepayernowlogribbon08162009.jpg

Frustrated with the health care ‘options’ coming out of Washington, D.C., six “Mad as Hell” Oregon physicians are taking an unprecedented road trip across America to lobby Congress for a single-payer health care system.

Called a “Care-A-Van,” these road-tripping Oregon physicians will leave in a used motor home from Portland, Oregon on September 8th, inviting doctors and ordinary citizens from other states to join them on their twenty-city tour across the country. Join the Care-A-Van. Their journey will culminate in a D.C.-based event on September 30th, scheduled to take place on the steps of Congress. Demonstrating with the doctors will be thousands of fellow ‘Mad as Hell’ single-payer advocates, all adorned with the movement’s new symbol – the white ribbon. Their demand: Single-Payer Now!

“We’re mad as hell because our health care system is run by people who profit from illness” says Dr. Paul Hochfeld, lead Mad As Hell Doctor and producer of the documentary ‘Health, Money and Fear.’ “The rest of the civilized world has test driven single payer and it works. But elected officials in America won’t even allow a discussion.” Join the Care-A-Van

“The public option is a trap.” Hochfeld continues. “It sounds very reasonable, but the problem with it, no matter what the final bill looks like, is that it will continue to allow private medical insurance companies to dictate America’s public health policies. And that’s just plain wrong.”

Several national, single-payer advocacy organizations including Physicians for a National Health Program, Health Care Now, Single Payer Action, and even groups like Progressive Democrats of America and Jobs with Justice are supporting the Oregon physicians by setting up Mad as Hell Town Halls across the country in anticipation of their arrival. Join the Care-A-Van

“People need to understand what single-payer is–and isn’t,” says Dr. Mike Huntington, a radiologist from Corvallis, Oregon and fellow Mad As Hell Doctor. “It isn’t Socialism, any more than police and fire are Socialism. And it doesn’t require any more money. Simply put, single-payer is a way to take current premium payments that go to a thousand different private insurance companies, and redirect them into a single, public fund that insures everyone. That’s all it is. But when we do this, lots of wonderful things happen, not the least of which is to save Americans 500 billion dollars a year starting day one. That’s billion – with a ‘b.’ America needs this information. That’s why we’re taking the tour.”

Reality Television meets Political Activism

Every move the Mad as Hell Doctors make will be recorded on camera and then edited and uploaded to the Internet that same day. The uploaded segments will appear on social networking web sites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace, et al, making the Mad As Hell Doctors Tour the first of its kind: an unprecedented hybrid of reality television and political activism.

“We’re doing this because we care,” declares Dr. Gene Uphoff, a family physician from Portland, Oregon and fellow Mad As Hell Doctor. “The time to demand that a Single Payer Plan be put on the table is now. We may not get another opportunity for real change like this in our lifetime. Washington needs to hear all of us right now.”

Hochfeld agrees. “This isn’t a campaign. It’s a movement. Join us.”

For more information log on @ http://www.MadAsHellDoctors.com

CONTACT: 
Adam Klugman
503.706.2006
adam@MadAsHellDoctors.com adam (at) MadAsHellDoctors (dot) com

Posted in *Healthcare Issues | Leave a Comment »

GRAY MATTERS: DON’T FEAR HEALTH CARE REFORM

Posted by James O'Rourke on August 16, 2009

August 13, 2009 by SAUL FRIEDMAN

The good news for older Americans out of the health care tumult is President Barack Obama’s pledge that there will be no cuts in Medicare benefits. Indeed, indications are that Medicare will survive stronger if and when the proposed new health care program becomes law.

That’s one reason the American Medical Association changed its position and endorsed the bill (HR 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009″), moving slowly through Congress, which includes, among the insurance choices, a public, government-run plan. The primary reason for the AMA’s support: It assures doctors there will be no cuts in their Medicare fees and that future reimbursement will become more stable and predictable.

So here’s the irony: The AMA, which originally opposed Medicare and, until a few weeks ago, opposed a Medicare-like public health care plan, now endorses both and will help make Medicare stronger. More than 90 percent of the nation’s non-pediatric physicians participate in Medicare.

Other endorsers of HR 3200 include AARP and the more liberal National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Center for Medicare Advocacy and the Medicare Rights Center. (For an analysis of the bill, visit centerforpolicy analysis.org/id41.html.)

Their endorsements were only tepid, for, aside from AARP, which would not say specifically what it favored, most of the advocacy groups, labor unions and a majority of Americans supported a single-payer plan, like Medicare or the Veterans Affairs health service. So did Obama before he ran for president. But the advocacy groups figure that HR 3200, if it survives the summer, is the best compromise this Congress is capable of. It will provide a standard set of benefits and prohibit refusing coverage for pre-existing conditions.

More conservative Democrats were troubled by the trillion-dollar price of the health care legislation. Obama compromised his own views by promising deep cuts in Medicare’s future costs to save money for the health plan.

How can he do that without benefit cuts? He plans to save $176 billion over 10 years by cutting subsides to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage plans.

He has pledges from hospitals to cut billions in their costs, and the drug companies have promised to save money by holding down prices and gradually eliminating the Part D “coverage gap” known as the doughnut hole. I can’t say what these pledges are worth. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in *Healthcare Issues, Seniors | Leave a Comment »