PDA

View Full Version : MEDICARE confirms Obama lied.



LWW
01-26-2011, 01:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.

The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.

Foster's assessment came a day after Obama in his State of the Union message told lawmakers that he's open to improvements in the law, but unwilling to rehash the health care debate of the past two years. Republicans want to repeal the landmark legislation that provides coverage to more than 30 million people now uninsured, but lack the votes.

Foster was asked by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., for a simple true or false response on two of the main assertions made by supporters of the law: that it will bring down unsustainable medical costs and will let people keep their current health insurance if they like it.

On the costs issue, "I would say false, more so than true," Foster responded.
As for people getting to keep their coverage, "not true in all cases."

Foster was a thorn in the side to the administration throughout the health care debate, doubting that Medicare cuts would prove to be politically sustainable and raising other questions. An equal opportunity skeptic, he was also a bane to the George W. Bush administration during the debate that led to creation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003. Obama White House officials dispute his analysis and predict that he will be proven wrong about the health care law. Republicans hang on his every word.

The comments Wednesday were unusually direct because Foster generally delivers his analysis in complicated technical memos.

Foster says analysis by his office shows that the health care law will raise the nation's health care tab modestly because newly insured people will be getting medical services they would have otherwise gone without.

Costs could also increase if Medicare cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies turn out to be politically unsustainable over the years. The actuary's office has projected those cuts would eventually force about 15 percent of providers into the red. The health care law funnels savings from the Medicare cuts to provide coverage to uninsured workers and their families.
As for people getting to keep their health insurance plan, Foster's office is projecting that more than 7 million Medicare recipients in private Medicare Advantage plans will eventually have to find other coverage, cutting enrollment in the plans by about half.

The health care law gradually cuts generous government payments to the plans, so insurers are expected to raise premiums or even drop out. And the main reason seniors have flocked to the private plans is that they offer lower out-of-pocket costs.

Medicare recipients who lose private coverage would still be guaranteed coverage in the traditional program, but they would likely have to take out a supplementary insurance plan for gaps in their coverage. </div></div>

More news you won't find on the spoon. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110126/ap_on_re_us/us_health_care_overhaul_costs_2)

LWW

pooltchr
01-26-2011, 02:46 PM
Surprise!





NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Steve

Soflasnapper
01-26-2011, 03:57 PM
I hardly think this qualifies as news.

It was the subject of many actual news reports when he first said it. In April, 2010, almost a year ago.

The New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E1DD1430F937A15757C0A9669D8B 63&ref=richardsfoster) covered his analysis and claims in detail.

To be more clear, what he said was that the overall increase in spending over the next 10 year baseline compared to not having this bill in place will be... 9/10ths of one percent more. Apparently he did not analyze or discuss the cost savings or purported increases for the second ten year period, which is fairly standard for government projections-- they tend to score things over the next ten year period.

pooltchr
01-26-2011, 04:18 PM
Did you miss this part, or just choose to ignore it?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.</span> </div></div>

Steve

Soflasnapper
01-26-2011, 05:43 PM
No, didn't miss it.

I read WHICH parties might not be able to keep 'their insurance.' He says maybe those holders of medi-gap policies (i.e., the retired).

But given that the bill had already planned ceasing the Medicare Advantage Plus (whatever that name is) subsidies, and that clearly THOSE plans were not ones that people could keep if they wanted, it's not clear that these versions of add-ons to Medicare were not already included as exceptions to people being able to keep 'their insurance.' Or, that since their REAL insurance was mainly and still would be Medicare itself, that they were in the discussion at all.

Qtec
01-26-2011, 05:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I hardly think this qualifies as news.</div></div>

Wrong or right, at least this time he is allowed to speak.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Foster Affair
Published: July 13, 2004

If subverting informed decision-making were illegal, Thomas Scully, the Bush administration's former top Medicare official, would be in trouble. The Health and Human Services Department reported last week that before the vote on the huge Medicare reform bill last November, Mr. Scully threatened to fire the agency's chief actuary, Richard Foster, if he released estimates to Congress<u> <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #990000">showing that the bill could cost as much as 50 percent more than the White House had let on.</span></span></u> </div></div>

Q

LWW
01-27-2011, 03:02 AM
Have you ever had anything to add other than some derivative of <span style='font-size: 11pt'>B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span>

LWW

Soflasnapper
01-28-2011, 12:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did you miss this part, or just choose to ignore it?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.</span> </div></div>

Steve </div></div>

Actually, now that I think of it, OF COURSE this proves fairly strong health care cost reduction. (It's a question of semantics.)

Consider the obvious point that one cannot cover an additional 30 million persons without additional cost. Said cost will be ruinously costly, we have been told, and that's believable, given the ridiculous gouging the American public gets from our health care system, double the cost of any other country per capita.

Given such huge built in cost structures as the American people are burdened with in this rigged monopolistic health care system, putting an additional 30 million people into it HAD to cost a ton.

So, how much extra did it cost? Less than 1%, 0.9%, extra, over a 10 year scoring window (which started last year for some inexplicable reason, I don't know, ask the actuary)

WTF? That's IMPOSSIBLE.

Yes, I know.

The ONLY way that is possible is that the new costs are in fact considerably more than an additional 1%, but that the legacy costs for everyone already in the system have been drastically cut. QED.

That is, the disproof is actually proof of concept.

LWW
01-28-2011, 03:55 AM
Talk about a war on logic.

LWW

Soflasnapper
01-28-2011, 02:14 PM
Heh! I do not think your courses in propagandistic rhetoric ever covered logic, based on evidence here.

Gayle in MD
01-28-2011, 03:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Heh! I do not think your courses in propagandistic rhetoric ever covered logic, based on evidence here. </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Tap- Tap Tap!