The Raid on Medicare
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 09-20-2004 - 10:56am |
By Kelly Hearn, AlterNet. Posted September 20, 2004.
Earlier this month, the Bush administration announced a 17 percent increase in Medicare premiums, saying the hike was necessary to pay for added services and general increases in expenses. But the news rekindled criticism of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, a.k.a. the "Medicare prescription drug bill." That massive bill – estimated to cost the federal government $534 billion over the next 10 years – essentially means windfall profits for the pharmaceutical industry and substandard benefits for the average senior citizen. What's more, it ties up the government's hands, barring it from negotiating lower drug prices with manufacturers, the way other agencies like Medicaid and Veterans' Affairs do.
The biggest expansion of coverage since Medicare was established in 1965, the bill - signed into law by President Bush last December – was supposed to provide coverage for drugs that senior citizens consume at home (the regular Medicare program just pays for drugs given in hospitals and doctors offices). But after being chewed on by nearly 1,000 drug industry lobbyists and washed down with millions of dollars in campaign contributions, the measure stumbled embarrassingly short of its mark. It became a symbol of the grip that the pharmaceutical industry – Big Pharma – has on Washington.
In essence, passage of the law was akin to a major heist. And what taxpayers and seniors lost – and what big pharma gained – is only beginning to emerge. So is the issue of how they pulled it off. Given the differing record and positions of Bush and John Kerry, the outcome of Nov. 2 could have a significant impact on the health and pocketbooks of millions of Americans.
"The bill is tragic," says Alan Sager, a Boston University professor who has closely studied the new law with his colleague, Deborah Socolar. "While this law will help some seniors get drugs they need, my colleague and I predict drug-makers will garner $139 billion dollars in increased profits over eight years, thanks to this new benefit, as inadequate as it is to patients and as expensive as it is to the federal government."
The Congressional Budget Office projected the law will cost taxpayers $400 billion over 10 years, but after it was enacted, the Bush administration revealed that the costs could reach $534 billion (that potentially illegal withholding of data is the subject of a federal investigation).
Sager and Socolar calculated in October of 2003 that 61 percent of Medicare dollars spent to buy more medicine will become profit for drug-makers.

Yep.
Medicare drug plan may cost even more.
>"Early last week, Democrats excoriated the administration for not revealing the massive increase in Medicare costs projected for 2006. Government actuaries estimate that the typical 65-year-old would see Medicare costs jump from 20 percent of the average Social Security benefit in 2005 to 37 percent in 2006."<
>"In 2015, for example, 44 percent of the typical 65-year-old's benefit check would be devoted to Medicare premiums, deductibles and co-payments, according to the actuaries' projections. By 2020, it would be half. The typical 85-year-old would lose 50 percent of his or her Social Security check to Medicare in 2015 and 58 percent in 2020.
"That does not count some of the most substantial expenses people have for health care, such as long-term care, vision, dental and preventive services not covered by Medicare," Hayes added. "The debacle facing consumers is even greater than this chart would suggest.""<
Quotes from................
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002040767_medicare20.html
Medicare major issue for both campaigns
>"Meanwhile, the Medicare administration has reported that on average, medical costs will consume 37 percent of seniors' Social Security benefits by 2006.
The latest controversy is over a 17.4 percent increase in Medicare premiums set to go into effect in January. That is 56 percent more than the premium charged in 2001."<
Quote from......
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0919election-medicare.html
Op-ed: Midnight Express.
When you know your legislation is unpopular, you sneak it in while America is sleeping.
Hi Porterw. Yes it's very important especially when the "baby boomers" reach retirement age.
I've heard it would cost up to 3 trillion to privatize the SS
You would think the American public would be outraged! This Congress has no shame, do whatever it takes to get the Republican way. There isn't even a pretense of looking after the public need.
"There isn't even a pretense of looking after the public need."
It's bloody pathetic.
I couldn't agree more. With the expanding baby boomer population approaching retirement age, it seems to me that everyone should be educated on Social Security and the implications of it. No one is exempt from this issue - we are all affected.