MEDICARE: Do-over

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-27-2004
MEDICARE: Do-over
3
Tue, 07-27-2004 - 11:45am
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Editorial+%2F+Commentary/BB5BEEC765D1D26386256EDB00382735?OpenDocument&Headline=MEDICARE%3A+Do-over&tetl=1

MEDICARE: Do-over

Monday, Jul. 26 2004

IT'S TOO LATE to hope the Congress that delivered last year's disastrous

Medicare prescription drug bill will fix the mess it created. But it's not too

early for voters to start demanding rapid changes from those now running for

office.

Since the Medicare bill was approved, a half-dozen serious shortcomings have

become apparent. Any one of those shortcomings would be grounds for a do-over.

Together, they make it crucial to rework the law.

The first and most serious shortcoming is the wrongheaded idea that most

seniors are looking for lots of choices in health care. That's one of the ideas

behind both the permanent drug benefit, which will go into effect in 2006, and

the temporary drug discount cards seniors are being told to use until then. In

the case of the discount cards, seniors are expected to select the plan that's

best for them from among more than 70 being offered around the country.

That's absurd. More choices create more confusion. The people who could benefit

the most from the cards - the sickest and poorest elderly patients - are least

equipped to make sense out of the thicket of details and disclaimers. As a

result, fewer than one in seven low-income seniors has signed up for them, and

many of those folks were enrolled automatically. And they're the only group for

whom the decision to enroll is clear cut.

Despite promises to the contrary, the poorest Medicare recipients aren't likely

to get much relief when the full benefit kicks in. Before the bill passed, they

often got drugs for free under Medicaid. Having aged onto the Medicare rolls,

they'll face premiums and co-pays.

We reluctantly opposed the Medicare bill when it was rushed through Congress in

the dead of night. But we believed, apparently naively, the pledge made by

President George W. Bush not to sign a drug plan that cost more than $400

billion over 10 years. It turns out there was a 35 percent fudge factor built

into that promise. Oops.

At the time of the vote, the administration knew the bill's cost would actually

be around $540 billion. Yet Thomas Scully, a senior Medicare/Medicaid

administrator, refused to allow that figure to be shared with Congress. Mr.

Scully resigned immediately after the bill was passed and went to work as a

consultant for a lobbying firm and an investment company that represent

Medicare providers.

Mr. Scully's refusal becomes even more outrageous when you consider that the

Medicare bill specifically prohibits the federal government from using its

enormous purchasing power to negotiate the lowest possible drug prices for

millions of Americans. That's a huge boon for drug companies - which already

have increased prices for popular drugs by more than three times the rate of

inflation so far this year - and a slap in taxpayers' faces.

Add to that the 3.8 million retirees expected to lose drug coverage from their

former employers when the new benefits kick in. That's despite $71 billion in

subsidies the government will pay between 2006 and 2013 to employers who

continue providing retiree drug coverage.

The bill contains other serious flaws, too many to thoroughly detail here.

Perhaps the most alarming, in light of the $540 billion cost estimate, is a

provision that could threaten Medicare's future. When projections show that

general revenue will account for more than 45 percent of the program's funding,

the president and Congress would be required to cut its funding. When the

benefit's estimated cost was $400 billion, experts thought that 45-percent

threshold would be reached within a decade. Newer estimates mean it will come

sooner.

Revising this poorly considered bill is not a partisan issue. Plenty of

Republicans, especially fiscal conservatives, are outraged at the lack of cost

controls and outright deceptions in cost projections. The time to demand action

is now, before the inevitable train wreck occurs.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Tue, 07-27-2004 - 12:47pm

Welcome just_tired!

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2004
Tue, 07-27-2004 - 1:51pm

Hello just_tired_of_cons!


Welcome to the board!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

Visit My Website!

Email me!

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2003
Tue, 07-27-2004 - 1:57pm
While it's not a PERFECT solution, it was better than doing nothing IMNSHO. Yes,the administration is a fiscal wrecking ball, but the legislation was largely bi-partisan and is one of the things I feel the Bush Administration at least tried to do well.

Remember, when you have a problem it's always better to PROPOSE than OPPOSE.