Obama Spends $8.3 Billion to Hide Medicare Cuts

[Mac]

Full Article http://news.newsmax.com/?ZKIRYspavUT...tG6M-kQlftJvAZ
This is an actual news post webpage (I found it there). It appears to also have
been sent as an email but I did not get it there.

4. Obama Spends $8.3 Billion to Hide Medicare Cuts

The Obama administration is spending $8.3 billion to hide a key provision of
Obamacare — deep cuts in Medicare Advantage — until after the November election.

Medicare Advantage offers seniors the option of choosing private insurance
companies as an alternative to the government-run Medicare insurance program. So
far 12 million seniors have enrolled in the program.

But President Obama has attacked the program, stating in a 2009 speech that
it offers “unwarranted subsidies” that “do everything to pad [insurance
companies’] profits and nothing to improve your care.”

So it came as no surprise when Obama’s healthcare reform plan sliced $145
billion from Medicare Advantage over the next 10 years. Medicare’s own actuary
reported that Obamacare would force more than 7 million seniors off their
private plans and back into traditional Medicare as insurers flee the market,
according to Investor’s Business Daily (IBD).

To hide the cuts from seniors who would face losing Medicare Advantage just
before the November election, the administration pumped $8.3 billion back into
the program through “bonuses” to Medicare Advantage plans.

Those “bonuses” will make up for more than 70 percent of Obamacare’s
scheduled Medicare Advantage cuts, and keep the program running through the
election.

The plan is so “transparently political” that the Government Accountability
Office has urged the Health and Human Services Department to cancel it
altogether, IBD reported, adding: “Canceling is just the beginning.

“The bigger question lawmakers must answer is this: Can it really be legal
for a Cabinet agency to spend $8.3 billion in taxpayer money simply to help
Obama get re-elected?”

Editor's Note:

• ALERT:
  Is This the Video That Will Get Obama Fired? Watch it Now
  

[tugon]

Wow that does not look like an alarmist site at all.

[moi621]

A story can be confirmed by doing a Google search.

Seems like this story is picking up steam.
He is a Chicago politician after all.

ABO Moi

[bobover3]

From the April 22, New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/he...gewanted=print

G.A.O. Calls Test Project by Medicare Costly Waste
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — Medicare is wasting more than $8 billion on an experimental program that rewards providers of mediocre health care and is unlikely to produce useful results, federal investigators say in a new report.

The report, to be issued Monday by the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, urges the Obama administration to cancel the program, which pays bonuses to health insurance companies caring for millions of Medicare beneficiaries.

Administration officials, however, defended the project and said they would not cancel it because it could improve the quality of care for older Americans.

In the 2010 health care law, Congress cut Medicare payments to managed care plans, known as Medicare Advantage, and authorized bonus payments to those that provide high-quality care. Investigators found that most of the money paid under the demonstration program went to “average-performing plans” rated lower than the benchmarks set by Congress.

The report said the project would cost $8.3 billion over 10 years, with 80 percent of the cost occurring in the first three years.

Federal investigators are trying to determine whether Medicare officials had the legal authority to make the changes.

Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, and Representative Dave Camp, Republican of Michigan and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said the report suggested that Medicare officials had abused their authority.

In a statement, Mr. Hatch and Mr. Camp said they were concerned that the government might be “using taxpayer dollars for political purposes, to mask the impact on beneficiaries of cuts in the Medicare Advantage program.” Administration officials denied that.

A separate federal panel, the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, also criticized the project, saying it increases “spending at a time when Medicare already faces serious problems with cost control and long-term financing.”

The panel denounced Medicare’s “overly broad use of demonstration authority” and said “limited Medicare dollars should go to truly high-performing plans.” It said “the extension of quality bonuses to the vast majority of plans is likely to result in far greater program costs than the reward system enacted” by Congress, and that by spreading the rewards so broadly, “the demonstration lessens the incentive to achieve the highest level of performance.”

The G.A.O. said the project “dwarfs all other Medicare demonstrations” in its impact on the budget, but is so poorly designed that researchers could not tell whether the bonus payments led to improved care. As a result, it said, it is unlikely to “produce meaningful results.” Insurers can use the bonuses to offer extra benefits, like vision and dental care, or to lower premiums.

More than 12 million people are in Medicare Advantage plans. About one-third of them are in plans that would receive bonuses under the 2010 law. By contrast, under the demonstration program, 90 percent are in plans eligible for bonuses, the report said.

The administration said that by offering bigger bonuses to more health plans, it hoped to encourage larger, more rapid improvements in care. “All Medicare Advantage plans will be part of the demonstration,” a federal health official told James C. Cosgrove, the accountability office’s director of health care studies.

The Medicare commission said “demonstration authority is intended for smaller-scale projects” that test innovations in the way health care is financed and delivered.

The health care law cut payments to private Medicare Advantage plans after many studies found that they were being overpaid. President Obama said the private plans were getting “unwarranted subsidies” that “pad their profits but don’t improve the care of seniors.”

The commission said payments to private plans, including the bonuses, were still about 7 percent higher than what the government would pay for similar beneficiaries in the traditional Medicare program.

[tugon]

A story can be confirmed by doing a Google search.

Seems like this story is picking up steam.
He is a Chicago politician after all.

ABO Moi

Now that I am home in front of the computer I will check it out. I sometimes wish people would use more mainstream sources and that might create a little credibility. Even bobover uses the New York Times.

[Riverwind]

Bush spent more then that on his private military force call Blackwater, remember them, that group that did not need to answer to anybody?

I am not to concerned if that's all you can drum up I am sure you will find more, its an election year.

BFD.....


River

[bobover3]

"Even bobover"?

And River contributes a But-Bush. Talk about going off-topic. Were you one of the 12,000,000 seniors whose benefits Obama will reduce after the election, you might feel differently. The importance of this last minute band-aid for Medicare Advantage is that Obama acknowledges he's hurting seniors.

[Sweetpickle]

It should surprize no one here that "Medicare Advantage" is a scam designed by
republicans to siphon money out of Medicare and into the pockets of insurance companies.

Under standard Medicare people go to any doctor they want and Medicare pays the doctor
based on the "average" charge for that type of service in that area. As a result, a medical
service that an insurance company might pay $500 for might be paid $80 by medicare and
$20 by the patient. (and that is not a big exageration)

Using a "Medicare Advantage" plan Medicare gives an insurance company a certain pool of
money. The insurance company skims off part of the money as it's fee.
The patient goes to a doctor selected by the insurance company and the doctor
and the insurance company divide the money that the insurance company gets from medicare.
"Advantage" plans always cost Medicare more. Most "Advantage" plans cost the patient more.
A portion of the money the insurance company collects goes to corrupt politicians like
Orrin Hatch and Dave Camp.
If Obama could get congress to kill "Medicare Advantage" tomorrow the cost of medicare would
go down and the quality of care would go up.

[Riverwind]

I brought it up because you seem to forget why the debt is 14 trillion.

River

[moi621]

I brought it up because you seem to forget why the debt is 14 trillion.

River

( )0( ) what does that have to do with a 8.5 billion
And how many zeros difference is that because, seriously
We count to 9, then 10, to 99 then 100, to 999 to 1,000, then 999,999 to 1,000,000
What happened to nine thousand hundred million before a billion and similarly.

And River
You did do a Butt Bush!
When you might have noted the Medicare Advantage was passed 1n 1997 (by who)
as part of the balance budget scheme of the day.
But then I may wonder WHY Obama and his bicamerally Democratic
Party Congress did not repeal Medicare Advantage?

Eh?

[bobover3]

Most Medicare Advantage users join HMOs. Medicare Advantage pays the HMO fee.

Doctors are not required to accept reimbursement from Medicare, and many choose not to, precisely because of the low payments Sweetpickle mentions. Far from providing choice, standard Medicare routes patients either to doctors who are charitable or who have to take what they can get. My 97 year old mom has called of plenty of doctors over the years who refused to see her because they didn't take Medicare.

Clearly, millions of people feel they get more of what they want through Medicare Advantage. 12,000,000 people don't use it because they get inferior care and limited choice. And denying them that choice was the point of the cutbacks. Remember that the liberals wanted (and still want) a "single payer" system. Only a great public outcry stopped them. What they dislike about Medicare Advantage is precisely that it gives seniors an alternative to the single payer system. What an embarrassment to bureaucrats who dream of saving billions by forcing the non-rich elderly to accept whatever the state chooses to give them. So long as Medicare Advantage thrives, liberal bureaucrats can't pretend people really like the low levels of care the bureaucrats want to offer.

[Riverwind]

( )0( ) what does that have to do with a 8.5 billion
And how many zeros difference is that because, seriously
We count to 9, then 10, to 99 then 100, to 999 to 1,000, then 999,999 to 1,000,000
What happened to nine thousand hundred million before a billion and similarly.

And River
You did do a Butt Bush!
When you might have noted the Medicare Advantage was passed 1n 1997 (by who)
as part of the balance budget scheme of the day.
But then I may wonder WHY Obama and his bicamerally Democratic
Party Congress did not repeal Medicare Advantage?

Eh?

Without looking it up I will guess it has a time limit on it like the Bush tax cuts, you can't do anything about it. Now think about this for a minute, what would happen if every time we had a leader change we threw out all the old laws we did not like and started over? Think about it and you will come to the same conclusion I did, even without looking it up.

River

[hazbalz]

Most Medicare Advantage users join HMOs. Medicare Advantage pays the HMO fee. Doctors are not required to accept reimbursement from Medicare, and many choose not to, precisely because of the low payments Sweetpickle mentions. Far from providing choice, standard Medicare routes patients either to doctors who are charitable or who have to take what they can get. My 97 year old mom has called of plenty of doctors over the years who refused to see her because they didn't take Medicare.

Don't confuse Medicare with Medicaid. Over 90% of doctors accept Medicare. http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2...take-medicare/ My 80 year old mother, who lives near you, Bob, not only loves traditional Medicare but has never had a problem finding a physician who takes it.

Clearly, millions of people feel they get more of what they want through Medicare Advantage. 12,000,000 people don't use it because they get inferior care and limited choice. And denying them that choice was the point of the cutbacks.

Ask folks who get traditional Medicare if they think their care is inferior and limited. Yes, some Medicare Advantage plans offer more and that is why they cost more than traditional Medicare. But the additional cost is subsidized by the American taxpayer. Medicare Advantage recipients do not pay any additional premiums than those in traditional Medicare. The problem isn't offering choice, its who pays for it? Eliminating the subsidy to health insurance companies isn't denying choice.

Remember that the liberals wanted (and still want) a "single payer" system. Only a great public outcry stopped them.

Great public outcry? Bob, please support that assertion. Seeing how a single payer system was never even brought to the floor of either the Senate or the House, I doubt you will be able to.

What they dislike about Medicare Advantage is precisely that it gives seniors an alternative to the single payer system. What an embarrassment to bureaucrats who dream of saving billions by forcing the non-rich elderly to accept whatever the state chooses to give them. So long as Medicare Advantage thrives, liberal bureaucrats can't pretend people really like the low levels of care the bureaucrats want to offer.

Bob, what "they dislike" is that the only way Medicare Advantage thrives is with taxpayer subsidies to the health insurance companies. What is happening now is the subsidy is being slowly eliminated, not the Medicare Advantage plans. Choice will remain, just not with subsidies to the health insurers. (Which I thought you would support.) To learn some salient facts, see what the AMA says. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upl...ac_mafacts.pdf

[Riverwind]

Nice post and avatar.

River

[Mac]

I brought it up because you seem to forget why the debt is 14 trillion.

River

I realize this is off topic to my originsl post. However it is in response to your post.
Everybody, please keep future posts on the topic. Thank you.

We all know that the national debt has increased almost as much in the first 3 years of Obama as
it did in all 8 years of Bush. Certainly some of the programs were started during the Bush terms.
However, changes could have been made to those programs and new programs could have been
modified or never created.

Bush.................... 5.662t to 10.699t = 5.037t increase in 8 years
Obama................. 10.699t to 15.125t = 4.424t increase in 3 years

You might be able to hold a prior president partly liable during the first year of a sucessor's term
but certainly not after three years.

I wonder how large the national debt will be at the end of this year or even after another 4 year
term of Obama.

You can find the complete summary of the national debt by presidential term and year at this site.
Since it is in table form it is impossible to post here.

http://www.skymachines.com/US-Nation...ental-Term.htm