Obama to launder money so seniors don’t lose coverage before Election

[Jroc]

Call it President Obama’s Committee for the Re-Election of the President — a political slush fund at the Health and Human Services Department.

Only this isn’t some little fund from shadowy private sources; this is taxpayer money, redirected to help Obama win another term. A massive amount of it, too — $8.3 billion. Yes, that’s billion, with a B.

Here is how it works.

The most oppressive aspects of the ObamaCare law don’t kick in until after the 2012 election, when the president will no longer be answerable to voters. More “flexibility,” he recently explained to the Russians.


The administration is temporarily restoring funds to Medicare Advantage so seniors don’t lose coverage before the election.
But certain voters would surely notice one highly painful part of the law before then — namely, the way it guts the popular Medicare Advantage program.

For years, 12 million seniors have relied on these policies, a more market-oriented alternative to traditional Medicare, without the aggravating gaps in coverage.

But as part of its hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts, the Obama one-size-fits-all plan slashes reimbursement rates for Medicare Advantage starting next year — herding many seniors back into the government-run program.

Under federal “open-enrollment” guidelines, seniors must pick their Medicare coverage program for next year by the end of this year — which means they should be finding out before Election Day.

Nothing is more politically volatile than monkeying with the health insurance of seniors, who aren’t too keen on confusing upheavals in their health care and are the most diligent voters in the land. This could make the Tea Party look like a tea party.

Making matters even more politically dangerous for Obama is that open enrollment begins Oct. 15, less than three weeks before voters go to the polls.

It’s hard to imagine a bigger electoral disaster for a president than seniors in crucial states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio discovering that he’s taken away their beloved Medicare Advantage just weeks before an election.

This political ticking time bomb could become the biggest “October Surprise” in US political history.

But the administration’s devised a way to postpone the pain one more year, getting Obama past his last election; it plans to spend $8 billion to temporarily restore Medicare Advantage funds so that seniors in key markets don’t lose their trusted insurance program in the middle of Obama’s re-election bid.

The money is to come from funds that Health and Human Services is allowed to use for “demonstration projects.” But to make it legal, HHS has to pretend that it’s doing an “experiment” to study the effect of this money on the insurance market

Read more: President Obama’s Medicare slush fund—Benjamin E. Sasse & Charles Hurt - NYPOST.com

 

[Clementine]

What a cheap trick he is playing on seniors. Well, not cheap to tax payers, but I hope word of this gets out so they know they are still heading toward that cliff after the election.

Is he counting on people being stupid and easy to fool or is he counting on the liberal media to help keep this from the people?

 

[uscitizen]

HUH? tha money is bonus money paid to private providers of Medicare part C.

Medicare advantage costs the govt 14% more than traditional medicare.
This whole thing is corporate welfare for privatized medicare.


Yes it sucks and Obama sucks for doing it but you have the entire story/concept wrong.
Do some googling and reading and find out the truth.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yea. I saw this article. I only didn't post it b/c it was a bit of an equation and I didn't want to have to spend a lot of time explaining it to nimrods who won't accept the truth afterwards anyways.

Basically he's using $8.3 billion of taxpayer dollars to hold their votes and then bam in 2013 they wake up to a kick in the ass.

 

[The Infidel]

Yea. I saw this article. I only didn't post it b/c it was a bit of an equation and I didn't want to have to spend a lot of time explaining it to nimrods who won't accept the truth afterwards anyways.

Basically he's using $8.3 billion of taxpayer dollars to hold their votes and then bam in 2013 they wake up to a kick in the ass.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

HUH? tha money is bonus money paid to private providers of Medicare part C.

Medicare advantage costs the govt 14% more than traditional medicare.
This whole thing is corporate welfare for privatized medicare.


Yes it sucks and Obama sucks for doing it but you have the entire story/concept wrong.
Do some googling and reading and find out the truth.

Good try. Only real problem with that position is the GAO is calling him on it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-slush-fund-to-hide-how-bad-obamacare-is.html

 

[uscitizen]

HUH? tha money is bonus money paid to private providers of Medicare part C.

Medicare advantage costs the govt 14% more than traditional medicare.
This whole thing is corporate welfare for privatized medicare.


Yes it sucks and Obama sucks for doing it but you have the entire story/concept wrong.
Do some googling and reading and find out the truth.

Good try. Only real problem with that position is the GAO is calling him on it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-slush-fund-to-hide-how-bad-obamacare-is.html

Yes the GAO is calling him on it it is corporate welfare.
It IS bonus money for Medicaid Advantage private insurance outfits already funded more than standard medicare providers are.

 

[Jroc]

HUH? tha money is bonus money paid to private providers of Medicare part C.

Medicare advantage costs the govt 14% more than traditional medicare.
This whole thing is corporate welfare for privatized medicare.


Yes it sucks and Obama sucks for doing it but you have the entire story/concept wrong.
Do some googling and reading and find out the truth.

No not really Obama is shifting money to win an election so how many people think Obama care is going to actually save us money without rationing? Republicans have plans to save these programs where are the Democrats plans? Putting off the pain to win an election while using demagoguery on Paul Ryan who wants to reform and save these programs is pathetic

 

[uscitizen]

HUH? tha money is bonus money paid to private providers of Medicare part C.

Medicare advantage costs the govt 14% more than traditional medicare.
This whole thing is corporate welfare for privatized medicare.


Yes it sucks and Obama sucks for doing it but you have the entire story/concept wrong.
Do some googling and reading and find out the truth.

No not really Obama is shifting money to win an election so how many people think Obama care is going to actually save us money without rationing? Republicans have plans to save these programs where are the Democrats plans? Putting off the pain to win an election while using demagoguery on Paul Ryan who wants to reform and save these programs is pathetic

Ok what part of that is untrue?

yes Obama is selling corporate welfare as helping seniors. But that does not in any way make my statement untrue.
It IS bonus money for Medicare Advantage corporations.
And Medicare Advantage DOES cost 14% more on average than traditional Medicare.

T initially get the Medicare Advantage passed in 97 (i think) they made the Advantage companys get 5% less than traditional Medicare.
That has however been changed over the years. As I predicted at the time that it would. The govt now pays 14% more for medicare Advantage customers.

 

[Jroc]

HUH? tha money is bonus money paid to private providers of Medicare part C.

Medicare advantage costs the govt 14% more than traditional medicare.
This whole thing is corporate welfare for privatized medicare.


Yes it sucks and Obama sucks for doing it but you have the entire story/concept wrong.
Do some googling and reading and find out the truth.

No not really Obama is shifting money to win an election so how many people think Obama care is going to actually save us money without rationing? Republicans have plans to save these programs where are the Democrats plans? Putting off the pain to win an election while using demagoguery on Paul Ryan who wants to reform and save these programs is pathetic

Ok what part of that is untrue?

yes Obama is selling corporate welfare as helping seniors. But that does not in any way make my statement untrue.
It IS bonus money for Medicare Advantage corporations.
And Medicare Advantage DOES cost 14% more on average than traditional Medicare.

T initially get the Medicare Advantage passed in 97 (i think) they made the Advantage companys get 5% less than traditional Medicare.
That has however been changed over the years. As I predicted at the time that it would. The govt now pays 14% more for medicare Advantage customers.

Do we need to reform the system or not? Where’s Obama's plan to do so? He's a weak pathetic little man leader? No demagogue yes

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yea. I saw this article. I only didn't post it b/c it was a bit of an equation and I didn't want to have to spend a lot of time explaining it to nimrods who won't accept the truth afterwards anyways.

Basically he's using $8.3 billion of taxpayer dollars to hold their votes and then bam in 2013 they wake up to a kick in the ass.

Yeah, that's it.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yea. I saw this article. I only didn't post it b/c it was a bit of an equation and I didn't want to have to spend a lot of time explaining it to nimrods who won't accept the truth afterwards anyways.

Basically he's using $8.3 billion of taxpayer dollars to hold their votes and then bam in 2013 they wake up to a kick in the ass.

Yeah, that's it.

That was it. If you have a problem with the premise of the article then actually enlighten us. I doubt you even read it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yea. I saw this article. I only didn't post it b/c it was a bit of an equation and I didn't want to have to spend a lot of time explaining it to nimrods who won't accept the truth afterwards anyways.

Basically he's using $8.3 billion of taxpayer dollars to hold their votes and then bam in 2013 they wake up to a kick in the ass.

Yeah, that's it.

That was it. If you have a problem with the premise of the article then actually enlighten us. I doubt you even read it.

That's not sarcasm. I agree with you.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Yeah, that's it.

That was it. If you have a problem with the premise of the article then actually enlighten us. I doubt you even read it.

That's not sarcasm. I agree with you.

LOL.

 

[Greenbeard]

Duplicate threads deserve duplicate responses.

The Medicare Advantage experiment with privatization has been a money pit for the last decade. How many ways is administration after administration going to find to prop up these private insurers to make their service and product look as appealing to seniors as fee-for-service Medicare?

Quality bonuses are a nice idea until they become a tool for papering over the deficiencies of privatization. The GAO is correct, this should be canceled. And if the administration is correct that overpaying private insurers is the only way to ensure quality, then perhaps we ought to re-examine the entire Medicare Advantage program. Before the Ryans of the world double down on it.

Do we need to reform the system or not? Where’s Obama's plan to do so?

The Democratic Party's plans for comprehensive Medicare reforms have already been presented. And debated. And passed. (P.S. Medicare spending growth has now fallen to historic lows).

Indeed, NPR had a story today looking at the mess that would result if those comprehensive reforms were inexplicably voided ("If The Health Care Overhaul Goes Down, Could Medicare Follow?"):

Rosenbaum says there could be an even bigger problem: Medicare might be looking at hundreds, if not thousands, of policies that are suddenly null and void. She says it's not at all clear that the agency has the authority to go back to the policies that were in effect before the law was passed.

"This is a conversation that's happening between the Supreme Court and Congress," she says. Medicare officials would "have to sit there and wait to see what Congress wants to do."

What makes it an even bigger potential mess, says Mendelson, is that the health law has fundamentally changed almost every aspect of the way the Medicare program now does business. And undoing that would be almost unimaginably difficult.

 

[Jroc]

Duplicate threads deserve duplicate responses.

The Medicare Advantage experiment with privatization has been a money pit for the last decade. How many ways is administration after administration going to find to prop up these private insurers to make their service and product look as appealing to seniors as fee-for-service Medicare?

Quality bonuses are a nice idea until they become a tool for papering over the deficiencies of privatization. The GAO is correct, this should be canceled. And if the administration is correct that overpaying private insurers is the only way to ensure quality, then perhaps we ought to re-examine the entire Medicare Advantage program. Before the Ryans of the world double down on it.

Do we need to reform the system or not? Where’s Obama's plan to do so?

The Democratic Party's plans for comprehensive Medicare reforms have already been presented. And debated. And passed. (P.S. Medicare spending growth has now fallen to historic lows).

Indeed, NPR had a story today looking at the mess that would result if those comprehensive reforms were inexplicably voided ("If The Health Care Overhaul Goes Down, Could Medicare Follow?"):

Rosenbaum says there could be an even bigger problem: Medicare might be looking at hundreds, if not thousands, of policies that are suddenly null and void. She says it's not at all clear that the agency has the authority to go back to the policies that were in effect before the law was passed.

"This is a conversation that's happening between the Supreme Court and Congress," she says. Medicare officials would "have to sit there and wait to see what Congress wants to do."

What makes it an even bigger potential mess, says Mendelson, is that the health law has fundamentally changed almost every aspect of the way the Medicare program now does business. And undoing that would be almost unimaginably difficult.

You're a joke any numbers from the original CBO report are wrong and fraudulent and any idiot who believes Obamacare is going to save Medicare is delusional sorry but that includes you

 

[Trajan]

HUH? tha money is bonus money paid to private providers of Medicare part C.

Medicare advantage costs the govt 14% more than traditional medicare.
This whole thing is corporate welfare for privatized medicare.


Yes it sucks and Obama sucks for doing it but you have the entire story/concept wrong.
Do some googling and reading and find out the truth.

Good try. Only real problem with that position is the GAO is calling him on it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-slush-fund-to-hide-how-bad-obamacare-is.html

Yes the GAO is calling him on it it is corporate welfare.
It IS bonus money for Medicaid Advantage private insurance outfits already funded more than standard medicare providers are.

from what I gather, if I have it right they will all get the same bonus, there is no 'control grp.' to render verdicts on whats bad worse very good etc....*shrugs*

 

[bitterlyclingin]

"What you don't know won't hurt you. Wait'll you see what I have in store for you next year."
"Soylent Green"

 

[Greenbeard]

You're a joke any numbers from the original CBO report are wrong and fraudulent

You mean the numbers put out by the CMS Actuary this week? Otherwise I'm not sure what you're referencing in my post.

Anyway, you don't have to go very far to hear the news.


Slower Growth in Medicare Spending — Is This the New Normal? | NEJM

For many years, policymakers have appropriately singled out federal spending on health care — especially Medicare — as the most serious long-term threat to the nation's fiscal health. Over the past four decades, the average growth in Medicare spending per enrollee has exceeded the growth in per capita gross domestic product by 2.6 percentage points per year. This trend is unsustainable: if it continued, Medicare would consume all federal revenues by 2060.

But there are indications that Medicare spending growth has slowed. One highly visible gauge of Medicare spending trends is the standard monthly Part B premium, which is set by the Medicare actuary to cover one quarter of total Part B spending. In August 2011, the actuary projected that the Part B premium for 2012 would be $106.60, but the actual premium was set in November at only $99.90. A much broader indicator of a slowing trend is the fact that growth in Medicare outlays per enrollee in 2010 and 2011 was roughly in line with growth in the economy (see graph). And in January 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) made a $69 billion downward revision to its 10-year Medicare spending projection — a technical correction that reflects emerging data showing surprisingly slow growth in outlays. Similar slowing trends have led to positive earnings surprises for publicly traded insurers.

Medicare spending in surprising slowdown | UPI.com

U.S. Medicare spending growth has slowed even as enrollment rises, and could remain below targets set by Congress for the next 10 years, experts said.

Medicare recorded a sharp drop in the volume of doctor visits and other outpatient services early in 2010, from an annual growth rate of 4 percent growth to less than 2 percent.

"We thought, 'Wow, what's happening?'" chief Medicare actuary Rick Foster told The Washington Post in an interview. "Part B cost growth has slowed down so much, we're seeing virtually the lowest rates ever."

Washington Stuck Fighting Wrong Health-Care Battle | Bloomberg

This brings us back to the progress being made beyond the Beltway toward a better combination of cost and quality in health care. Consistent with other evidence that points to a deceleration in cost pressures is a Congressional Budget Office report earlier this month showing that Medicare spending has risen less than 3 percent over the past year.

Bending The Health Care Cost Curve: More Than Meets The Eye? | Health Affairs Blog

During the past months, a number of important articles have appeared in the healthcare literature on the subject of the recent slowing of health-spending growth in the U.S. In an article in January’s Health Affairs, economists at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services suggest that the recession, even though officially ending in mid-2009, was the major factor in “extraordinarily slow” spending growth of 4.7 percent in 2008 and 3.9 percent in 2010, down from 7.5 percent in 2007 and double-digit growth in the 1980s and 1990s. Also citing recessionary causes, a report from the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform specifies declines in the rate of overall spending growth for eight consecutive years, from 9.2 percent in 2002 to 4.0 percent in 2009.

The purpose of this commentary is to suggest—through observations and data analyses—that independent of the recession, other fundamental and structural changes are likely contributing to the flattening of the cost curve, and further, that these changes have the potential to significantly alter the curve’s path into the future. Two independent analyses support this premise.

 

[rdean]

So Republicans are hoping seniors lose their coverage? Seems cruel.