Discussion for article #235304
Let us hope that that this is the exception that leads to new rules, and Congress can begin to address many of the issues being faced by people who can only afford to send their local politician $5 for their campaign.
I think a unicorn just flew by my window when I wrote thatâŚ
8 Likes
Briliant. We pay too much for health care, but lets continue to overpay docs. (well, they were going to do it anyway, this just ends the stupidity of doing piecemeal what you could do as standard practice.)
But cutting benefits? This is why you donât means test, first the amount you save is probably not that large, second, the bar for where you cut keeps going down and down.
2 Likes
ââŚa new Republican Congress thatâs back to workâŚâ
Borrowing and spending.
6 Likes
âSecond, it cuts billions of dollars from Medicare. It requires seniors who earn between $133,500 and $214,000 a year (and couples making twice that amount) to pay more for insurance and prescription drug coverage, and cuts spending on supplemental Medigap plans in order to discourage over-utilization of services on the taxpayer dime. It also modestly reduces long-term spending on providers of hospice care, home health services and nursing homes.â
These points were made in the last story TPM posted on this issue, and we still do not have details on the increased co-pays and the spending reductions contained in the bill. It would be nice to know these specifics.
19 Likes
And the one âentitlementâ that seems perpetually off the table is the âentitlementâ that gives Pharma the right to charge whatever they want for Medicare Part D. I suspect that if the American public were entitled to negotiate the price of prescription drugs, much, if not all, of the impact of increased costs for the Doc Fix would be eliminated.
24 Likes
Isnât the principle that health insurance premiums should vary with income inherent in the ACA? So why not in Medicare as well?
The problem with doctor pay under the current system is not âhow much?â but âfor what?â Doctors should be paid well, given the extensive training they must go through, but they shouldnât get more for doing more procedures. They should get paid based on providing the necessary care, no more and no less. This bill moves in that direction, so itâs good overall.
6 Likes
Until Citizens United is reversed, PhRMA is going to continue being a parasite on the taxpayers.
4 Likes
I have to applaud the high-end cuts. Years ago, when my father was dying, he had gold-plated coverage through his employer and a comfortable salary, but medicare still covered everything.
4 Likes
âItâs another reminder of a new Republican Congress thatâs back to work,â said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
What a dick.
12 Likes
Agree, this bill, in conjunction with the ACAâs focus on transforming the delivery of healthcare service from quantity of services rendered to quality of outcome delivered, seems necessary and legit.
3 Likes
Both sides were equally tired of the political cost of voting every year to uphold the larger charade that some day those cuts in provider payments would ever happen. Itâs a big deal for the subject matter, but as to the larger political climate, pfft. Itâs not as if Republicans are ready to give up the biannual ritual of being humiliated when their claim theyâll take us over the debt ceiling cliff if they arenât allowed to kill a hostage falls apart.
5 Likes
OK, I see the Medicare cuts, so where are the new revenues? Did Obama just cave on that âgrand bargainâ?
More proof that âMONEY TALKSâ in Congress.
Yep, now that weâve established that Medicare is now means-tested and not really universal, we can start pushing down the ceiling and finish cutting off the top end. Then weâll get to that golden day when Medicare can be demonized as welfare and finished off appropriately. Brilliant!
7 Likes
Back in the 1960âs, Medicare came along just in time for my parents and parents in law. Theyâve been gone some time now, but their quality of life was improved markedly with Medicare. Donât know how we would have managed without it because we were new to the job mkt,did not make all that much.
These âfiscal hawksâ are just sadists. They can burn in hell â and will.
8 Likes
The difference between this and ACA is significant. The rationale for ACA is that if you donât subsidize the less wealthy to buy health insurance, they wonât be able to buy it. It is an essential leg of the âthree legged stoolâ.
The Medicare cuts have no such rationale.Itâs not like they are making wealthier senior pay more to help less wealth seniors pay less. This is part of the conservatives long term strategy to erode public benefits, by cutting benefits for the wealthy, they are less likely to support the system, and though small in numbers their influence is outsized. Also, once you establish the principle of cutting you can walk it down the income ladder.
12 Likes
And it makes cuts to home health care, hospice, and nursing homes: 3 things that are already poorly funded and upon which more and more people (aging boomers) will depend.
8 Likes
So, physicians are getting paid, âcuts billions of dollars from Medicareâ (notable that this seems to mainly affect the well off, that is, a class that often is the beneficiary of government largesse) and some benefits to children. I can see how this sort of compromise could pass. But, to the degree it shows the government working, good job.
1 Like
Iâd like to see some legislation concerning the high costs of drugs in this countryâŚall my medications are generic, and the cost has TRIPLED in the last year and a half. The reason I use generic drugs is to save money, not be required to pay more. I live on $18,000 a year. I canât afford to spend that much on medication.
9 Likes