Office of the Medicare Actuary and ObamaCare Lies

[CrusaderFrank]

This can fall under many topics: Health care, media

Listening to Rush while driving around today. He mentioned that the Medicare Actuary took the extraordinary step of contradicting the opinions of the Trustees in the recent Report on Medicare.

Who are the Trustees?

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue and Medicare Administrator Donald Berwick

They reported that thanks to ObamaCare, the Medicare hospital insurance fund will be solvent until 2029.

The Office of the Medicare Actuary lambasted them for their "implausible" predictions.

Can you imagine reading a Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report only to have the auditor conclude, "He's Lying to you! Don't believe a word of it!!"?

Not that I watch TV, but I listen to the radio, and of course, the only person to mention it today was Rush.

Medicare?s hazy outlook - International Business Times

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama appointed Berwick without any Senate oversight. Now do you see why?

 

[cad]

remember, the health care mandate is definitely not a tax. obama told us so.

unless of course, his lawyers need it to be considered a tax in order to be legal.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I can't wait for David Ploffe's guy Greenbeard to tell us why Berwick is correct

 

[Greenbeard]

From your article:

But the Office of the Medicare Actuary, an agency under the Health and Human Services Department, issued an alternative report on the program's outlook, noting that "the projections shown in the report do not represent the 'best estimate' of actual future Medicare expenditures."

The trustees knew this to be the case and said so in their report.

"The effects of some of the new law's provisions on Medicare are not known at this time, with the result that the projections are much more uncertain than normal," the trustees said.

And the actuary's office knew that the trustees knew.

"The trustees report is necessarily based on current law," the actuary said.

Oh no! The Medicare Actuary is in on it! Look at him, aiding and abetting those lying liars by agreeing that their conclusions are exactly what they should be under the Trustees' charge. And the audacity of them coming out and admitting the uncertainty in their estimates right in the report ("We recommend that the projections be interpreted as an illustration of the very favorable financial outcomes that would be experienced if the productivity adjustments can be sustained in the long range-and we caution readers to recognize the great uncertainty associated with achieving this outcome," the trustees' said.).

Sickening!

 

[Charles_Main]

Why anyone believes any Estimate anyone in our government puts out. Is beyond me.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

From your article:

But the Office of the Medicare Actuary, an agency under the Health and Human Services Department, issued an alternative report on the program's outlook, noting that "the projections shown in the report do not represent the 'best estimate' of actual future Medicare expenditures."

The trustees knew this to be the case and said so in their report.

"The effects of some of the new law's provisions on Medicare are not known at this time, with the result that the projections are much more uncertain than normal," the trustees said.

And the actuary's office knew that the trustees knew.

"The trustees report is necessarily based on current law," the actuary said.

Oh no! The Medicare Actuary is in on it! Look at him, aiding and abetting those lying liars by agreeing that their conclusions are exactly what they should be under the Trustees' charge. And the audacity of them coming out and admitting the uncertainty in their estimates right in the report ("We recommend that the projections be interpreted as an illustration of the very favorable financial outcomes that would be experienced if the productivity adjustments can be sustained in the long range-and we caution readers to recognize the great uncertainty associated with achieving this outcome," the trustees' said.).

Sickening!

If the Trustees projection come to pass, sickening will be the least of it.

The budgeted a 30% REDUCTION in what Medicare will pay doctors and Medicare's Chief Actuary, Richard Foster, called "implausible."

"Congress is very likely to legislatively override or otherwise modify the reductions in the future to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to health care services"

"The actuary's office noted that Congress has overridden reductions in pay for Medicare physicians every year for the last seven and will probably do so again, or face the prospect of hundreds of doctors dropping out of the program and hundreds of thousands of constituents being upset."

So the "Trustees" gave us a plan that if we were buying an apartment building, would project great cash flows because we would no longer pay the utilities or the maintenance contracts.

That's borderline fraud.

 

[Charles_Main]

From your article:

But the Office of the Medicare Actuary, an agency under the Health and Human Services Department, issued an alternative report on the program's outlook, noting that "the projections shown in the report do not represent the 'best estimate' of actual future Medicare expenditures."

The trustees knew this to be the case and said so in their report.

"The effects of some of the new law's provisions on Medicare are not known at this time, with the result that the projections are much more uncertain than normal," the trustees said.

And the actuary's office knew that the trustees knew.

"The trustees report is necessarily based on current law," the actuary said.

Oh no! The Medicare Actuary is in on it! Look at him, aiding and abetting those lying liars by agreeing that their conclusions are exactly what they should be under the Trustees' charge. And the audacity of them coming out and admitting the uncertainty in their estimates right in the report ("We recommend that the projections be interpreted as an illustration of the very favorable financial outcomes that would be experienced if the productivity adjustments can be sustained in the long range-and we caution readers to recognize the great uncertainty associated with achieving this outcome," the trustees' said.).

Sickening!

If the Trustees projection come to pass, sickening will be the least of it.

The budgeted a 30% REDUCTION in what Medicare will pay doctors and Medicare's Chief Actuary, Richard Foster, called "implausible."

"Congress is very likely to legislatively override or otherwise modify the reductions in the future to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to health care services"

"The actuary's office noted that Congress has overridden reductions in pay for Medicare physicians every year for the last seven and will probably do so again, or face the prospect of hundreds of doctors dropping out of the program and hundreds of thousands of constituents being upset."

So the "Trustees" gave us a plan that if we were buying an apartment building, would project great cash flows because we would no longer pay the utilitieas or the maintenance contracts.

That's borderline fraud.

It is simple, They put stuff in, like a 30% reduction to lower the cost, knowing they will never actually do the 30% reduction. It is a straight up lie. They know they can't cut the doctors payout by 30%, the doctors bearly make shit already when servicing medicare patients. That is part of the reason for the sky rocketing costs of health Care. Doctors and hospitals and Drug Companies jack the prices up on the rest of us, to pay for all the Medicare work they Have to do at reduced rates. Cutting their Pay outs by 30% would only increase costs for the rest of us. that is why it is not plausible.

Just like they supposedly paid for this last 26 Billion dollar State Bail out in part by taking 12 Billion from food Stamps in 2014. You damn well know Between now and then they will reinstate that 12 Billion for Food Stamps in 2014. Another lie meant to make us think they are not spending money we do not have, when they have NO INTENTIONS of living up to the cut in 2014.

Democrats are the party of Deception. Period.

 

[Greenbeard]

The budgeted a 30% REDUCTION in what Medicare will pay doctors and Medicare's Chief Actuary, Richard Foster, called "implausible."

It is simple, They put stuff in, like a 30% reduction to lower the cost, knowing they will never actually do the 30% reduction. It is a straight up lie.

Let's try again: 1) the Trustees' report must be based on current law, and 2) the SGR formula remains current law (despite attempts to change that).

Whose idea was the SGR formula, one wonders? Who passed it into law? Here's a hint: it wasn't the Democrats.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The budgeted a 30% REDUCTION in what Medicare will pay doctors and Medicare's Chief Actuary, Richard Foster, called "implausible."

It is simple, They put stuff in, like a 30% reduction to lower the cost, knowing they will never actually do the 30% reduction. It is a straight up lie.

Let's try again: 1) the Trustees' report must be based on current law, and 2) the SGR formula remains current law (despite attempts to change that).

Whose idea was the SGR formula, one wonders? Who passed it into law? Here's a hint: it wasn't the Democrats.

"Congress is very likely to legislatively override or otherwise modify the reductions in the future to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to health care services" -- or maybe not?!!

Wait a second, maybe I've got it all wrong!! Maybe they are they projecting a robust Eugenics Program, where the Elderly, Veterans and Immigrants who got here legally and remember what the process was get dispatched?

That fits the 30% reduction and it activate the Obama Eugenicists

 

[Greenbeard]

Why is a payment reduction to Medicare physicians scheduled Frank? Why does it need to be continually overridden? Who created the SGR and where did it come from?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why is a payment reduction to Medicare physicians scheduled Frank? Why does it need to be continually overridden? Who created the SGR and where did it come from?

Topic: here
Greenbeard's non-answer: way out there

Do you see the problem?

So are the trustees outright lying about the reductions or does rationing begin after the record losses this november?

 

[Oddball]

From your article:

But the Office of the Medicare Actuary, an agency under the Health and Human Services Department, issued an alternative report on the program's outlook, noting that "the projections shown in the report do not represent the 'best estimate' of actual future Medicare expenditures."

The trustees knew this to be the case and said so in their report.

"The effects of some of the new law's provisions on Medicare are not known at this time, with the result that the projections are much more uncertain than normal," the trustees said.

And the actuary's office knew that the trustees knew.

"The trustees report is necessarily based on current law," the actuary said.

Oh no! The Medicare Actuary is in on it! Look at him, aiding and abetting those lying liars by agreeing that their conclusions are exactly what they should be under the Trustees' charge. And the audacity of them coming out and admitting the uncertainty in their estimates right in the report ("We recommend that the projections be interpreted as an illustration of the very favorable financial outcomes that would be experienced if the productivity adjustments can be sustained in the long range-and we caution readers to recognize the great uncertainty associated with achieving this outcome," the trustees' said.).

Sickening!

If the Trustees projection come to pass, sickening will be the least of it.

The budgeted a 30% REDUCTION in what Medicare will pay doctors and Medicare's Chief Actuary, Richard Foster, called "implausible."

"Congress is very likely to legislatively override or otherwise modify the reductions in the future to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to health care services"

"The actuary's office noted that Congress has overridden reductions in pay for Medicare physicians every year for the last seven and will probably do so again, or face the prospect of hundreds of doctors dropping out of the program and hundreds of thousands of constituents being upset."

So the "Trustees" gave us a plan that if we were buying an apartment building, would project great cash flows because we would no longer pay the utilities or the maintenance contracts.

That's borderline fraud.

Nothing borderline about it.

The outright fraud is why Fabian socialist progressives resort to misdirection with walls of text, rife with duplicitous semantics (i.e. "access" and "public option"), and bookkeeping tricks that make Bernie Madoff look like a piker, to claim that they're "controlling costs".

 

[Greenbeard]

So are the trustees outright lying about the reductions or does rationing begin after the record losses this november?

I'm going to tell you things now and I want you to try and absorb them. I know you hate context and knowing things but still, try.

Thirteen years ago, Congress passed the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. The sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula for calculating Medicare physician reimbursements was contained in there. This formula was meant to result in very slight reductions in physicians reimbursements. However, it was designed based on the conditions of the 1990s, i.e. relatively slow growth in health care costs that was historically abnormal (due to flirtation with managed care during that decade). As it turned out, that was a very poor design for a formula.

When medical inflation started picking up again this past decade, the cuts called for by the SGR grew and Congress had to start manually overriding the formula because the cuts to physician payments were deemed too large to be allowed. However, the SGR formula--an artifact of poor planning on the part of the Republicans who inserted it into the 1997 Balanced Budget Act--remains current law (as I already pointed out, attempts to permanently fix it have so far failed).

Current law for Medicare physician reimbursements--written and passed by a Republican Congress--calls for large pay cuts for Medicare physicians every year. The analysis done by the Trustees requires that they take current law into account. They did this and they noted that they did it. No one's lying to you and if you think the SGR formula is aimed at rationing care, perhaps you should ask the Republicans who designed and passed it why they'd want to do something like that.

 

[Oddball]

Lemmie guess...It's also the fault of republicans that Medicare costs in excess of ten times what it was projected to when enacted.

 

[jeffrockit]

Lemmie guess...It's also the fault of republicans that Medicare costs in excess of ten times what it was projected to when enacted.

Yeah it boggles the mind that some put this in a partisan context when the ones to suffer will be Americans that are both Repubs and Dems. The American people are getting screwed and the response by some on this board is "the Republicans did it".

 

[The T]

This can fall under many topics: Health care, media

Listening to Rush while driving around today. He mentioned that the Medicare Actuary took the extraordinary step of contradicting the opinions of the Trustees in the recent Report on Medicare.

Who are the Trustees?

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue and Medicare Administrator Donald Berwick

They reported that thanks to ObamaCare, the Medicare hospital insurance fund will be solvent until 2029.

The Office of the Medicare Actuary lambasted them for their "implausible" predictions.

Can you imagine reading a Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report only to have the auditor conclude, "He's Lying to you! Don't believe a word of it!!"?

Not that I watch TV, but I listen to the radio, and of course, the only person to mention it today was Rush.

Medicare?s hazy outlook - International Business Times

So in other words? They've hijacked another industry to keep another Big-Gubmint failure running.