"Observador" <***@obse.net
but to be honest we
"To be honest" you say, Observador?
So you admit that you have been dishonest
and that THIS time you're claming to be honest.
But the meanest blow is a new
co-payment for home health care,
which is used mostly by the oldest,
sickest and poorest patients who
are too frail to leave their beds.
"They'll have to come up with cash to
pay the fees [around $50] or lose the care,"
said Gottlich.
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-saul3470635sep27,0,401108.column?coll=
GRAY MATTERS: Ideology and Meanness in Medicare Debate
September 27, 2003
Perhaps the best thing
Medicare's friends can hope for,
short of a political miracle,
is that the House-Senate conference
committee,
which is laboring on legislation to
provide a prescription drug benefit,
will come up with nothing.
For as it now stands,
any legislation that is likely to emerge
based on the bills passed in June by
the House and Senate would be
hopelessly inadequate,
too costly and too complicated
for most Medicare beneficiaries.
I doubt that the members of Congress
who are writing it could explain it to their
aging parents.
More important, the legislation is a kind
of pact with the devil, for the price of a
paltry drug benefit is the eventual privatization
and death of Medicare.
"We'd be better off with no bill at all,"
said Vicki Gottlich,
Washington representative for the
Center for Medicare Advocacy.
"As it now stands, the bill would privatize Medicare,
while cutting benefits, and sharply raising premiums
and co-payments."
Lobbyists for AARP,
who have a way of seeing the
glass half full when it's virtually dry,
say they are
"pleased with the progress of the bills,
but they still need improvement."
And AARP has launched a campaign
to urge members of Congress to "fix"
the bill and pass it.
But AARP's own analysis demonstrates that
the bills are unfixable unless hard-right
Republican leaders and Medicare's
opponents quit trying to kill the program,
or Democrats and Medicare advocates
retreat from their determination to save
the nation's only universal health insurance program.
There will be time for a closer
examination of the legislation as
the 17-member Conference Committee
plods on.
But the devils,
as AARP points out,
are not merely in the details.
There are vital issues of principle that
are the foundation of Medicare as a
universal social insurance program
serving 40 million elderly or disabled
Americans.
As polls and studies have found,
Medicare is the most successful and
popular health insurance program
because it's equally,
universally available anywhere in the
country to everyone older than 65 or
disabled, no matter their income.
The "reform" legislation would virtually
shut out benefits for the more affluent
while providing special consideration
for the very poor,
thus requiring means testing,
perhaps for every beneficiary,
for the first time in the program's history.
This would mean the end of universality.
Even so, there would be huge gaps in coverage.
In addition, the legislation would not
only encourage private insurance
companies to sell prescription drug
coverage,
the House version would help beneficiaries
pay the premiums to lure them to sign up
for a better deal with private insurance
and desert Medicare.
The intended result is the demise of Medicare,
which leaves health care for the nation's elderly
in the hands of dozens of private insurance and
drug companies.
While Medicare's opponents may take
cover in ideology in the debate over
these larger issues,
ideology can't explain the myriad
outrages buried in the 800 pages
of the legislation that would cost
the taxpayers unnecessary billions
and pick the pockets of the sickest
and oldest among us.
One extraordinary example is a provision
prohibiting the government from saving
money by using its buying power to
negotiate volume discounts with
drug companies to get the best
prices on drugs for beneficiaries.
Indeed, the legislation would exempt
drug companies from the cost controls
that govern every other Medicare provider -
doctors, hospitals and laboratories.
If you think that the $58 million in drug
company campaign contributions over
the past few years had anything to do
with the provision, shame on you.
Rep. Michael Bilirakis (R-Fla.),
who chairs the House Energy and
Commerce subcommittee on health,
told the New York Times that if
Medicare pooled its purchasing power,
it would amount to "a form of price controls.
That's not America."
Funny, but the VA health care system
routinely uses its buying power to negotiate
the best prices for the drugs it dispenses
to veterans and has saved the government
$100 million over the last two years.
Fact is,
the drug industry would not have
permitted any prescription benefit
to pass if it included cost controls.
And Bilirakis raked in $152,000
in drug company contributions.
Which means the drug industry
is getting what it paid for.
Now that's America.
Currently,
Medicare pays the entire cost of
clinical lab tests and home health
care ordered by a doctor and
approved by Medicare.
But Gottlich says the fine print of the Medicare
bill would require all beneficiaries to pay
20 percent of the often high costs of blood,
urine and other tests.
Beneficiaries without supplemental
coverage may be forced to make a choice -
pay or go without the tests that could save their lives.
The new co-payment,
which would likely drive up
the cost of supplemental policies,
will be on top of new premiums.
But the meanest blow is a new
co-payment for home health care,
which is used mostly by the oldest,
sickest and poorest patients who
are too frail toleave their beds.
"They'll have to come up with cash to
pay the fees [around $50] or lose the care,"
said Gottlich.
To its credit, AARP,
which usually tries to work out a
compromise, has drawn a line in
the sand.
In letters to House and Senate leaders, AARP chief
William Novelli protested the gaps in coverage,
the unfairness toward enrollees in traditional Medicare,
and the measures to privatize or introduce means
testing in Medicare.
And he said, if
"the final conference does more harm than good,
we will not hesitate to oppose it."
But some Medicare advocates worry
that lines in sand disappear as the
political winds
blow.
Write to Saul Friedman, Newsday, 235 Pinelawn Rd., Melville, NY, 11747-4250,
or by e-mail at ***@comcast.net.
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-saul3470635sep27,0,401108.column?coll=
ny-health-headlines
GRAY MATTERS: Ideology and Meanness in Medicare Debate
September 27, 2003
Perhaps the best thing
Medicare's friends can hope for,
short of a political miracle,
is that the House-Senate conference
committee,
which is laboring on legislation to
provide a prescription drug benefit,
will come up with nothing.
For as it now stands,
any legislation that is likely to emerge
based on the bills passed in June by
the House and Senate would be
hopelessly inadequate,
too costly and too complicated
for most Medicare beneficiaries.
I doubt that the members of Congress
who are writing it could explain it to their
aging parents.
More important, the legislation is a kind
of pact with the devil, for the price of a
paltry drug benefit is the eventual privatization
and death of Medicare.
"We'd be better off with no bill at all,"
said Vicki Gottlich,
Washington representative for the
Center for Medicare Advocacy.
"As it now stands, the bill would privatize Medicare,
while cutting benefits, and sharply raising premiums
and co-payments."
Lobbyists for AARP,
who have a way of seeing the
glass half full when it's virtually dry,
say they are
"pleased with the progress of the bills,
but they still need improvement."
And AARP has launched a campaign
to urge members of Congress to "fix"
the bill and pass it.
But AARP's own analysis demonstrates that
the bills are unfixable unless hard-right
Republican leaders and Medicare's
opponents quit trying to kill the program,
or Democrats and Medicare advocates
retreat from their determination to save
the nation's only universal health insurance program.
There will be time for a closer
examination of the legislation as
the 17-member Conference Committee
plods on.
But the devils,
as AARP points out,
are not merely in the details.
There are vital issues of principle that
are the foundation of Medicare as a
universal social insurance program
serving 40 million elderly or disabled
Americans.
As polls and studies have found,
Medicare is the most successful and
popular health insurance program
because it's equally,
universally available anywhere in the
country to everyone older than 65 or
disabled, no matter their income.
The "reform" legislation would virtually
shut out benefits for the more affluent
while providing special consideration
for the very poor,
thus requiring means testing,
perhaps for every beneficiary,
for the first time in the program's history.
This would mean the end of universality.
Even so, there would be huge gaps in coverage.
In addition, the legislation would not
only encourage private insurance
companies to sell prescription drug
coverage,
the House version would help beneficiaries
pay the premiums to lure them to sign up
for a better deal with private insurance
and desert Medicare.
The intended result is the demise of Medicare,
which leaves health care for the nation's elderly
in the hands of dozens of private insurance and
drug companies.
While Medicare's opponents may take
cover in ideology in the debate over
these larger issues,
ideology can't explain the myriad
outrages buried in the 800 pages
of the legislation that would cost
the taxpayers unnecessary billions
and pick the pockets of the sickest
and oldest among us.
One extraordinary example is a provision
prohibiting the government from saving
money by using its buying power to
negotiate volume discounts with
drug companies to get the best
prices on drugs for beneficiaries.
Indeed, the legislation would exempt
drug companies from the cost controls
that govern every other Medicare provider -
doctors, hospitals and laboratories.
If you think that the $58 million in drug
company campaign contributions over
the past few years had anything to do
with the provision, shame on you.
Rep. Michael Bilirakis (R-Fla.),
who chairs the House Energy and
Commerce subcommittee on health,
told the New York Times that if
Medicare pooled its purchasing power,
it would amount to "a form of price controls.
That's not America."
Funny, but the VA health care system
routinely uses its buying power to negotiate
the best prices for the drugs it dispenses
to veterans and has saved the government
$100 million over the last two years.
Fact is, the drug industry would not have permitted any prescription benefit
to pass if it included cost controls. And Bilirakis raked in $152,000 in
drug company contributions.
Which means the drug industry is getting what it paid for. Now that's
America.
Currently, Medicare pays the entire cost of clinical lab tests and home
health care ordered by a doctor and approved by Medicare. But Gottlich says
the fine print of the Medicare bill would require all beneficiaries to pay
20 percent of the often high costs of blood, urine and other tests.
Beneficiaries without supplemental coverage may be forced to make a choice -
pay or go without the tests that could save their lives. The new co-payment,
which would likely drive up the cost of supplemental policies, will be on
top of new premiums.
But the meanest blow is a new co-payment for home health care, which is used
mostly by the oldest, sickest and poorest patients who are too frail to
leave their beds. "They'll have to come up with cash to pay the fees [around
$50] or lose the care," said Gottlich.
To its credit, AARP, which usually tries to work out a compromise, has drawn
a line in the sand. In letters to House and Senate leaders, AARP chief
William Novelli protested the gaps in coverage, the unfairness toward
enrollees in traditional Medicare, and the measures to privatize or
introduce means testing in Medicare. And he said, if "the final conference
does more harm than good, we will not hesitate to oppose it." But some
Medicare advocates worry that lines in sand disappear as the political winds
blow.
Write to Saul Friedman, Newsday, 235 Pinelawn Rd., Melville, NY, 11747-4250,
or by e-mail at ***@comcast.net.
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.
Jobs | Homes | Cars
But the meanest blow is a new
co-payment for home health care,
which is used mostly by the oldest,
sickest and poorest patients who
are too frail to leave their beds.
"They'll have to come up with cash to
pay the fees [around $50] or lose the care,"
said Gottlich.
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-saul3470635sep27,0,401108.column?coll=
GRAY MATTERS: Ideology and Meanness in Medicare Debate
September 27, 2003
Perhaps the best thing
Medicare's friends can hope for,
short of a political miracle,
is that the House-Senate conference
committee,
which is laboring on legislation to
provide a prescription drug benefit,
will come up with nothing.
For as it now stands,
any legislation that is likely to emerge
based on the bills passed in June by
the House and Senate would be
hopelessly inadequate,
too costly and too complicated
for most Medicare beneficiaries.
I doubt that the members of Congress
who are writing it could explain it to their
aging parents.
More important, the legislation is a kind
of pact with the devil, for the price of a
paltry drug benefit is the eventual privatization
and death of Medicare.
"We'd be better off with no bill at all,"
said Vicki Gottlich,
Washington representative for the
Center for Medicare Advocacy.
"As it now stands, the bill would privatize Medicare,
while cutting benefits, and sharply raising premiums
and co-payments."
Lobbyists for AARP,
who have a way of seeing the
glass half full when it's virtually dry,
say they are
"pleased with the progress of the bills,
but they still need improvement."
And AARP has launched a campaign
to urge members of Congress to "fix"
the bill and pass it.
But AARP's own analysis demonstrates that
the bills are unfixable unless hard-right
Republican leaders and Medicare's
opponents quit trying to kill the program,
or Democrats and Medicare advocates
retreat from their determination to save
the nation's only universal health insurance program.
There will be time for a closer
examination of the legislation as
the 17-member Conference Committee
plods on.
But the devils,
as AARP points out,
are not merely in the details.
There are vital issues of principle that
are the foundation of Medicare as a
universal social insurance program
serving 40 million elderly or disabled
Americans.
As polls and studies have found,
Medicare is the most successful and
popular health insurance program
because it's equally,
universally available anywhere in the
country to everyone older than 65 or
disabled, no matter their income.
The "reform" legislation would virtually
shut out benefits for the more affluent
while providing special consideration
for the very poor,
thus requiring means testing,
perhaps for every beneficiary,
for the first time in the program's history.
This would mean the end of universality.
Even so, there would be huge gaps in coverage.
In addition, the legislation would not
only encourage private insurance
companies to sell prescription drug
coverage,
the House version would help beneficiaries
pay the premiums to lure them to sign up
for a better deal with private insurance
and desert Medicare.
The intended result is the demise of Medicare,
which leaves health care for the nation's elderly
in the hands of dozens of private insurance and
drug companies.
While Medicare's opponents may take
cover in ideology in the debate over
these larger issues,
ideology can't explain the myriad
outrages buried in the 800 pages
of the legislation that would cost
the taxpayers unnecessary billions
and pick the pockets of the sickest
and oldest among us.
One extraordinary example is a provision
prohibiting the government from saving
money by using its buying power to
negotiate volume discounts with
drug companies to get the best
prices on drugs for beneficiaries.
Indeed, the legislation would exempt
drug companies from the cost controls
that govern every other Medicare provider -
doctors, hospitals and laboratories.
If you think that the $58 million in drug
company campaign contributions over
the past few years had anything to do
with the provision, shame on you.
Rep. Michael Bilirakis (R-Fla.),
who chairs the House Energy and
Commerce subcommittee on health,
told the New York Times that if
Medicare pooled its purchasing power,
it would amount to "a form of price controls.
That's not America."
Funny, but the VA health care system
routinely uses its buying power to negotiate
the best prices for the drugs it dispenses
to veterans and has saved the government
$100 million over the last two years.
Fact is,
the drug industry would not have
permitted any prescription benefit
to pass if it included cost controls.
And Bilirakis raked in $152,000
in drug company contributions.
Which means the drug industry
is getting what it paid for.
Now that's America.
Currently,
Medicare pays the entire cost of
clinical lab tests and home health
care ordered by a doctor and
approved by Medicare.
But Gottlich says the fine print of the Medicare
bill would require all beneficiaries to pay
20 percent of the often high costs of blood,
urine and other tests.
Beneficiaries without supplemental
coverage may be forced to make a choice -
pay or go without the tests that could save their lives.
The new co-payment,
which would likely drive up
the cost of supplemental policies,
will be on top of new premiums.
But the meanest blow is a new
co-payment for home health care,
which is used mostly by the oldest,
sickest and poorest patients who
are too frail toleave their beds.
"They'll have to come up with cash to
pay the fees [around $50] or lose the care,"
said Gottlich.
To its credit, AARP,
which usually tries to work out a
compromise, has drawn a line in
the sand.
In letters to House and Senate leaders, AARP chief
William Novelli protested the gaps in coverage,
the unfairness toward enrollees in traditional Medicare,
and the measures to privatize or introduce means
testing in Medicare.
And he said, if
"the final conference does more harm than good,
we will not hesitate to oppose it."
But some Medicare advocates worry
that lines in sand disappear as the
political winds
blow.
Write to Saul Friedman, Newsday, 235 Pinelawn Rd., Melville, NY, 11747-4250,
or by e-mail at ***@comcast.net.
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-saul3470635sep27,0,401108.column?coll=
ny-health-headlines
GRAY MATTERS: Ideology and Meanness in Medicare Debate
September 27, 2003
Perhaps the best thing
Medicare's friends can hope for,
short of a political miracle,
is that the House-Senate conference
committee,
which is laboring on legislation to
provide a prescription drug benefit,
will come up with nothing.
For as it now stands,
any legislation that is likely to emerge
based on the bills passed in June by
the House and Senate would be
hopelessly inadequate,
too costly and too complicated
for most Medicare beneficiaries.
I doubt that the members of Congress
who are writing it could explain it to their
aging parents.
More important, the legislation is a kind
of pact with the devil, for the price of a
paltry drug benefit is the eventual privatization
and death of Medicare.
"We'd be better off with no bill at all,"
said Vicki Gottlich,
Washington representative for the
Center for Medicare Advocacy.
"As it now stands, the bill would privatize Medicare,
while cutting benefits, and sharply raising premiums
and co-payments."
Lobbyists for AARP,
who have a way of seeing the
glass half full when it's virtually dry,
say they are
"pleased with the progress of the bills,
but they still need improvement."
And AARP has launched a campaign
to urge members of Congress to "fix"
the bill and pass it.
But AARP's own analysis demonstrates that
the bills are unfixable unless hard-right
Republican leaders and Medicare's
opponents quit trying to kill the program,
or Democrats and Medicare advocates
retreat from their determination to save
the nation's only universal health insurance program.
There will be time for a closer
examination of the legislation as
the 17-member Conference Committee
plods on.
But the devils,
as AARP points out,
are not merely in the details.
There are vital issues of principle that
are the foundation of Medicare as a
universal social insurance program
serving 40 million elderly or disabled
Americans.
As polls and studies have found,
Medicare is the most successful and
popular health insurance program
because it's equally,
universally available anywhere in the
country to everyone older than 65 or
disabled, no matter their income.
The "reform" legislation would virtually
shut out benefits for the more affluent
while providing special consideration
for the very poor,
thus requiring means testing,
perhaps for every beneficiary,
for the first time in the program's history.
This would mean the end of universality.
Even so, there would be huge gaps in coverage.
In addition, the legislation would not
only encourage private insurance
companies to sell prescription drug
coverage,
the House version would help beneficiaries
pay the premiums to lure them to sign up
for a better deal with private insurance
and desert Medicare.
The intended result is the demise of Medicare,
which leaves health care for the nation's elderly
in the hands of dozens of private insurance and
drug companies.
While Medicare's opponents may take
cover in ideology in the debate over
these larger issues,
ideology can't explain the myriad
outrages buried in the 800 pages
of the legislation that would cost
the taxpayers unnecessary billions
and pick the pockets of the sickest
and oldest among us.
One extraordinary example is a provision
prohibiting the government from saving
money by using its buying power to
negotiate volume discounts with
drug companies to get the best
prices on drugs for beneficiaries.
Indeed, the legislation would exempt
drug companies from the cost controls
that govern every other Medicare provider -
doctors, hospitals and laboratories.
If you think that the $58 million in drug
company campaign contributions over
the past few years had anything to do
with the provision, shame on you.
Rep. Michael Bilirakis (R-Fla.),
who chairs the House Energy and
Commerce subcommittee on health,
told the New York Times that if
Medicare pooled its purchasing power,
it would amount to "a form of price controls.
That's not America."
Funny, but the VA health care system
routinely uses its buying power to negotiate
the best prices for the drugs it dispenses
to veterans and has saved the government
$100 million over the last two years.
Fact is, the drug industry would not have permitted any prescription benefit
to pass if it included cost controls. And Bilirakis raked in $152,000 in
drug company contributions.
Which means the drug industry is getting what it paid for. Now that's
America.
Currently, Medicare pays the entire cost of clinical lab tests and home
health care ordered by a doctor and approved by Medicare. But Gottlich says
the fine print of the Medicare bill would require all beneficiaries to pay
20 percent of the often high costs of blood, urine and other tests.
Beneficiaries without supplemental coverage may be forced to make a choice -
pay or go without the tests that could save their lives. The new co-payment,
which would likely drive up the cost of supplemental policies, will be on
top of new premiums.
But the meanest blow is a new co-payment for home health care, which is used
mostly by the oldest, sickest and poorest patients who are too frail to
leave their beds. "They'll have to come up with cash to pay the fees [around
$50] or lose the care," said Gottlich.
To its credit, AARP, which usually tries to work out a compromise, has drawn
a line in the sand. In letters to House and Senate leaders, AARP chief
William Novelli protested the gaps in coverage, the unfairness toward
enrollees in traditional Medicare, and the measures to privatize or
introduce means testing in Medicare. And he said, if "the final conference
does more harm than good, we will not hesitate to oppose it." But some
Medicare advocates worry that lines in sand disappear as the political winds
blow.
Write to Saul Friedman, Newsday, 235 Pinelawn Rd., Melville, NY, 11747-4250,
or by e-mail at ***@comcast.net.
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.
Jobs | Homes | Cars