Your list of fraud enforcements are pre-existing ones for the most part.
No, they're not. They're a combination of expanded powers/tools for fraud investigators, additional penalties and barriers that make it more difficult to commit fraud, and additional resources ($350 million over the next decade) for combating fraud. But if you're dissatisfied, I'll ask again the question I posed in that post: What are the additional provisions you want to implement when you get the keys back?
Congress thought they could cut $500 billion from these programs, primarily in the fraud area.
It's getting hard to take your posts seriously. The reductions to Medicare over the next decade are primarily reductions in market basket updates to non-physician reimbursements, reductions in Medicare Advantage payments to standard Medicare FFS payment levels, and reductions in DSH payments to hospitals. It has nothing to do with eliminating anti-fraud resources.
I noticed you conveniently left out that opting out by states in many of theses areas means you still pay into the system, but your state is excluded from the benefits.
I must've forgotten it because it's patently false. What happens to the funding a state would've gotten when the state receives an innovation waiver to try something else? Well, you look up that section of the law and find your answer:
(3) PASS THROUGH OF FUNDING- With respect to a State waiver under paragraph (1), under which, due to the structure of the State plan, individuals and small employers in the State would not qualify for the premium tax credits, cost-sharing reductions, or small business credits under sections 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or under part I of subtitle E for which they would otherwise be eligible, the Secretary shall provide for an alternative means by which the aggregate amount of such credits or reductions that would have been paid on behalf of participants in the Exchanges established under this title had the State not received such waiver, shall be paid to the State for purposes of implementing the State plan under the waiver. Such amount shall be determined annually by the Secretary, taking into consideration the experience of other States with respect to participation in an Exchange and credits and reductions provided under such provisions to residents of the other States.
It is a bad plan and needs to be killed off early in 2011.
Forgive me if I prefer not to take your word for it.