Prescription for Disaster

Boston Globe Adds Voice to Obama Medicare Scandal

Friday, April 27, 2012
For the last two days, AHEC has shared information with you about how the President called for cuts to Medicare Advantage (MA) as part of ObamaCare. MA is a patient-centered program within the traditional Medicare program that Democrats have long despised because of its free-market aspects. 

ObamaCare's cuts to MA threaten the program and Seniors' access to care. AHEC has shared other articles and editorials that suggested that the President was using $8 billion in taxpayer funds to conceal the devastating cutes until after his election, thus forcing taxpayers to hide the further negative implications of the President's policies on America's health care system.

Now, the Boston Herald has added its voice to this rising scandal. The Herald states:

"And there was more evidence yesterday of administration malfeasance on Medicare with the release of a report by the Government Accountability Office on an $8.3 billion “experimental” program run out of Health and Human Services.

"Remember how under Obama- care about 12 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage programs — popular for their extra benefits like vision and dental care — were going to be kicked off those programs? Well, that change would become apparent to seniors next October (the start of the open enrollment period for the following year), just weeks before the presidential election.

"Enter the $8.3 billion “demonstration project” which HHS is using to temporarily keep those programs alive — at least until after the next election. The GAO report said the project “dwarfs all other Medicare demonstrations” and is so poorly designed that there was no way of knowing whether the bonuses paid to insurers netted “meaningful results.” It’s what happens when you throw money at plans just to cover your political backside until after Nov. 6.

Read the full commentary from the Boston Herald here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

More on the Medicare Slush Fund to Aide Obama's Reelect

Thursday, April 26, 2012
The Wall Street Journal has more on the Obama Administration's use of federal funds to hide the impact of ObamaCare's cuts to Medicare Advantage through his re-elect.  From the Journal:

"Re-electing President Obama is really important to President Obama, which isn't news. What is news are the out-of-liberal-character acts that his Administration is committing to serve this political goal. Recall how last year the White House rudely overruled the EPA on its ozone rule, postponing it past November. Then there were those temporary tax cuts that go poof on December 31. Most remarkable is Mr. Obama's decision to flout his own health-care law to temporarily protect private insurance inside Medicare. ObamaCare slashes about $145 billion from Medicare Advantage, the program that allows one of four seniors to escape the traditional..."

Read the full Journal article here (subscription required).

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Obama Administration Uses Medicare Slush Fund to Aide Obama's Reelection

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

President Obama and Democrats in Congress pushed for cuts to Medicare Advantage to "pay for" ObamaCare. These cuts will have a devastating impact on Senior's ability to access care under the Medicare program. It has recently been discovered that the Administration is now using a slush fund to temporarily stave off the impact of these devastating Medicare Advantage cuts - at least until the election.

According to the Washington Examiner:

"According to a Government Accountability Office report published yesterday, the administration has been doling out cash from an $8 billion slush fund to temporarily cushion the blow from these cuts. The pain will come later, presumably after his re-election."

You can read the full commentary from the Examiner here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC



Bookmark and Share

The Looming Threat Facing Medicare Threatens Seniors Access to Care

Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Four Members of Congress - who also happen to be medical doctors - issued a report today that calls into question the future of Medicare. According to their report, the Medicare Trustees have said the Medicare trust fund will become insolvent in 2016, at which time it will be unable to pay for many costs. The report was issued by Sens. Tom Coburn and John Barrasso and Reps. Phil Roe and Phil Gingrey.

Sen. John Barrasso stated the following about the report: 

“It’s clear now that the President’s health care reform was not the entitlement reform that the White House promised. Instead, it raided over $500 billion from Medicare in order to create a brand new entitlement program for people who aren’t seniors. This bad law put Medicare one step closer to bankruptcy under President Obama’s watch,” said Barrasso. “If Washington doesn’t act, seniors will have a much harder time finding a doctor. It’s time for President Obama and Congress to put politics aside and work with us on a solution to save Medicare.”

Read the Doctor/Members of Congress full report here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Bills Introduced to Allow People to Opt-Out of Medicare

Thursday, February 23, 2012
Earlier this week, AHEC wrote about a federal appeals court decision that denied people the right/ability to opt-out of Medicare. Instead, the court's decision traps people into a health care system they may not want. New legislation has been introduced on Capitol Hill to give Americans the option to forego Medicare if they chose.

Read more about this bill at FreedomWorks website, here.  This is not just common sense, it is good government.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 

Bookmark and Share

Burr-Coburn: The Best Medicare Reform Plan to Date

Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Avik Roy of Forbes Apothecary has commented on the Burr-Coburn Medicare reform plan calling it the best reform plan introduced to date.  According to his column, their plan achieves each of six important principles for reform: "(1) preserving benefits for people aged 55 and older; (2) making sure that retirees share more of the costs of their care, and thereby a stake in prudent consumption; (3) means-testing; (4) indexing the Medicare retirement age to life expectancy; (5) aggressive fraud prevention; (6) allowing seniors to shop for value in insurance plans."

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 


Bookmark and Share

Court Rules Citizens Cannot Opt-Out of Medicare

Tuesday, February 21, 2012
A federal court ruled recently that citizens who are eligible for Medicare cannot voluntarily give them up. Read a brief summary of the case here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 

Bookmark and Share

Idaho Misleads Citizens in Effort to Push ObamaCare Exchange

Monday, January 16, 2012
According to John Goodman's blog post from January 6, 2012, Idaho Governor Butch Otter is claiming Idaho will loose 20% of the federal government's share of Medicaid funding for his state unless the state creates a state insurance exchange (or $300 million.  Goodman and AHEC agree states should NOT create the exchanges.

As to Otter's claims of losing funds, Graham writes: "Look folks, the whole notion is bunk. There is no connection whatsoever between a state's federal matching funds and whether it establishes a Health Benefits Exchange. No state should establish a Health Benefits Exchange - period, full stop."

Otter has since backed of his claims but this begs the question, "Why lie about it?"  


Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

The Left is Wrong: Medicare is Not "More Efficient" Than the Private Sector

Saturday, January 07, 2012
Greg Scandlin has a wonderful new article that covers two critical aspects of federal health care costs. The first explains why Medicare Part B has had its growth rate cut in half in 2010.  The second explains how the Left uses an apples to oranges comparison when claiming that Medicare costs are growing more slowly than private insurance costs.

The article thoroughly rebuts a Washington Post article that included a meme of the left used to justify government price controls of healthcare generally and ObamaCare specifically. Namely, that federal health programs are more efficient than the private sector (therefore justifying ObamaCare) and that they are so efficient that programs like Medicare and Medicaid need no reform.

As to Part B, Scandlin discusses the fact that the growth rate for Medicare Part B (which covers hospitalization) had been reduced in half (from 4% to 2%) in 2010. The reason for this is the implementation of Medicare's prescription drug program (Part D, which was enacted in 2003). Private-sector pharmaceutical innovation has produced drugs that have proven to help prevent and treat disease as an alternative to costly medical care. But lest anyone think Part D pays for itself, Scandlin cautions, "These savings on core services may not equal the costs of covering the drugs, but they help offset those new costs and result in better health for the covered population. So it is considered a net gain even if the total cost may be higher." While the Medicare bean-counters may look at Part B and Part D as separate programs, an honest assessment of spending for these programs requires looking at all of Medicare (in total) to asses the program's true costs (otherwise one would see "savings" in Part B (as the WaPo did) while ignoring the costs to produce those savings which are found in Part D and elsewhere).

As to the false statement that Medicare costs less than private sector insurance, he writes: "Medicare places the entire cost of covering drugs in a separate program while keeping the savings in the core program. Employer coverage retains those costs in their core program. So employer costs go up while Medicare costs stay the same." The same is true for Medicare's administrative costs compared to private sector insurance costs where federal budgeting divides funding for the Medicare bureaucracy into one pot of money (discretionary) and the programatic funding into another (mandatory). When discussing Medicare's costs, the left routinely ignores the cost of bureaucracy for Medicare but not for private insurance. This is where the left uses an apples to oranges comparison. So if personnel costs rise for both Medicare and private insurance, that increase is only attributed to private insurance while ignored in Medicare. 

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Bookmark and Share

CMS Uses Flawed Process in Bidding Process for Medicare Services

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Sally Pipes writes for Forbes about the deeply flawed system used by CMS to gain bids for Medicare service providers (including for medical equipment, supplies and devices). The failed process is one that could only be conceived by government. For example, Pipes explains how bidders are allowed to bid to gain a contract but are not held to their bid. This has the perverse effect of driving legitimate (and honest) suppliers out of the marketplace and the low-ball bidders, once the win, can jack their prices up later.

Read Pipes full article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.


Bookmark and Share

1 2 3 4 5 .. 8 Next

 
AHEC on Facebook AHEC on Twitter AHEC on Twitter

Recent Posts

Tags

Archive