McCaskill's whopper on Medicare
E. Thomas McClanahanDemocrats, for a change, have been put on the defensive when it comes to Medicare, thanks to their fateful decision to yank $716 billion from Medicare to help pay for Obamacare. Naturally, Mitt Romney has been playing this up, especially in Florida.
But Sen. Claire McCaskill, meeting Tuesday with The Star’s Editorial Board, says Romney’s argument is a “whopper.” Echoing President Obama’s line in last week’s debate, she says the Medicare spending reductions simply shaved some of the “fat profits” from insurance providers and cut back hospital payments, since they will be receiving more patients under Obamacare anyway.
But it’s McCaskill who’s telling the whopper here. As former Office of Management and Budget official James Capretta writes, “… these are cuts of the worst kind. They are arbitrary and across the board. They reduce reimbursement rates for all who provide services to Medicare patients, regardless of how well or badly they treat their patients.”
The Heritage Foundation trolled a July CBO report and found that the list of spending reductions includes $260 billion less for hospital services, $39 billion less for skilled nursing services, $17 billion less for hospice services, $66 billion less for home health services and $156 billion less for Medicare Advantage. The Medicare Advantage cuts could be much more when you take “interactions with other provisions” into account, according to the House Ways and Means Committee.
Not sure what “interactions with other provisions” might be, but the list shows that the $716 billion involves more than a few whacks at supposed bad actors like insurance companies.
McCaskill was later asked whether she could live with the Romney-Ryan plan for Medicare reform, which would give future recipients “premium support” to buy approved private policies, or allow them to stay in traditional Medicare.
To her credit, she didn’t reject the idea out of hand. McCaskill said she was uncertain as to how the plan would cut costs in Medicare, and had “serious doubts about the efficacy.”
If the GOP keeps the House, takes the Senate and the presidency, McCaskill could be a key player in working out the details of this proposal. Since her re-election is highly likely given the poor performance of her opponent, Rep. Todd Akin, it’s perhaps encouraging that she at least seems willing to consider the premium support concept — which, after all, has a Democratic pedigree.
Phil Cardarella
7 months, 2 weeks agoOK, it does not take a genius to understand the difference between cutting benefits to recipients and reducing payments to providers. The argument that Obama is “cutting Medicare for seniors” is simply willfully misleading.
Now that Ryan has backed away from his original all-voucher plan and shifted to voucher-plus-Medicare-option, the issue becomes more comples. Ultimately, the problem is not that Medicare cannot compete based on administrative costs (since Medicare operates at @ 6% — or less than half of private insurance) but that a voucher system could only be supported by the private market “cherry picking” — taking only the healthiest seniors and leaving the sickest for Medicare (which would them bankrupt Medicare). Otherwise, the vouchers could not keep up with costs.
It’s like Bill said: MATH.
Mark Hastert
7 months, 2 weeks agoGee, I though $716billion in savings and improving services to seniors was a good thing. (Republicans thought it was when Ryan proposed cutting the same $716billion and spending it on defense)
George Hunsucker
Northland
7 months, 2 weeks agoHere’s another whooper from another lib…
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1826592412001/debbie-wasserman-schultz-caught-in-a-lie/?playlist_id=87262&intcmp=obnetwork
George Hunsucker
Northland
7 months, 2 weeks agoIt’s great to see our 2 resident libs spinning the big 0’s cutting medicare by 716 BILLION. The FACT the big 0 is supplementing Medicare Advantage plans this year so coverage won’t stop tells you all you need to know about how 0’care is going to impact seniors….
You libs just need to be honest….
Tell me phil, how do the insurance cos “cherry pick” under a voucher system if they have to take anyone, similar to today’s system with a Medicare Supplement? You can’t just make this stuff up to suit your innate feelings phil…..
Steven Fetter
66223
7 months, 2 weeks agoRegarding Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Ryan vouchers, I don’t know what is good or bad anymore.
I do know my health insurance premium has risen over $2000 in the past 4 years.
I do know that my son had an appendectomy that was billed as a $30,000 procedure. I have paid a little over $1800 and I still am not certain if I owe anymore.
I do know that unless the cost of health care falls, none of the plans matter.
Steve Alleman
Kansas City
7 months, 2 weeks agoTypical Republican tactic — lie about Medicare by accusing your opponent of lying. The lie about Obama’s $716 billion cut has been fact checked over and over, yet hacks like McClanahan continue to repeat it. And James Capretta is quoted as if he’s an authority, but he was associate director of OMB under George W Bush, hardly an impartial observer. And if the author was interested in being honest he would have cited him as such, instead of a “former Office of Management and Budget official.” But we have learned not to expect honesty from McClanahan.
Richard Melichar
7 months, 1 week agoWhat is not being said here is that if less is paid to providers (as Obama wishes), there will be FEWER doctors et. al. accepting Medicare patients!!! This will REALLY help seniors…
Supply and demand still rules the marketplace…unless someday Sebelius mandates doctors to accept Medicare in order to maintain their medical license?? Currently STATES and not the federal government license doctors now.
Phil Cardarella
7 months, 1 week agoTreating cutting PAYMENTS to providers as cutting BENEFITS to seniors is wilfully disingenuous.
Without Obamacare, there would be nothing to prevent cherry-picking. No private company could compete without it. Private companies are now complaining about being limited to only 20% of premiums for overhead and such. the head administrator of Medicare probably makes @ $200K, not the $100 Million private cmpanies pay their CEOs.
“Fewer doctore will accept Medicare patients!” Horse manure. This has been the cry since 1963! Sure, doctors would like to be paid more. And yet — faced with getting a guarantee of 75-80% fo their fees versus nothing — physician (being rational beings) opt to take the money. And, if you don’t like that, go buy private insurance and see what they pay. Just try.
George Hunsucker
Northland
7 months, 1 week agophil,
Your ignorance of the reimbursement rates is astounding. Maybe George Harris can clue you in on the actual percent he is reimbursed for Medicare payments vs. what is standard fee is. That is if George even takes Medicare or Medicaid patients!!
Maybe the star can start giving daily Pinocchio’s for the most incorrect comment. 80% reimbursement would be near the top of today’s comments…