The Conservative Principles Inherent in the Medicare Reform Legislation

Various sources, including Sen. Bill Frist's site, Sen. Rep. Policy Comm., and the White House ^ | 2/6/04 | My2Cents, and various sources

[My2Cents]

The cost estimates of the Medicare bill are of great concern, but are only part of the picture. What most people ingore are the built-in cost-containmnet aspects of the Medicare bill, elements which will greatly improve the efficiency of the program, and will likely put the entire program on a path toward privatization -- decidedly CONSERVATIVE principles. This is another one of those "Big Picture" perspectives that conservatives need to be taking in regard to President Bush and the Congressional Republicans.

[My2Cents]

***Pragmatic Conservatism Ping***

[PhiKapMom]

That is the best article I have seen yet on the "Conservative" aspects of the Medicare bill. Thanks for gathering all this information together.

When my Senator Inhofe voted for the bill, I knew then that it contained "Conservative" parts or he would not have voted for the bill. This bill is going to keep rural hospitals in Oklahoma up and running!

If anyone wants on the Bush-Cheney '04 ping list, please freep mail me.

[My2Cents]

Those who are concerned about the cost of the Medicare drug benefit are really expressing the position that the federal government shouldn't be providing any health care coverage to seniors at all. That's a fair position. But let's be honest: no responsible conservative politician or office holder is going to make that case. Medicare is a reality. The debate was lost 40 years ago. Now the question is how to institute real cost-containment measures into the program, and how to move more beneficiaries into the commercial health care coverage market. The Medicare reform bill includes steps in this direction.

[PhiKapMom]

The debate was lost 40 years ago.

Exactly. It is not going to go away so you get the best bill you can get to reform the program. This gives seniors a choice -- if they don't want a choice, they are free not to choose another plan. Never could figure out what seniors were so upset about having a choice since they could keep their old plan.

My Mom, who is a senior, thinks the reason seniors didn't like it is because they wanted it all for nothing.

[goodnesswins]

THANK YOU for pinging me to this.....this is great...here's one interesting excerpt:

"Additionally, the very inclusion of a drug benefit to Medicare will reduce the cost of the program. For example, prior to this reform, Medicare paid for extended hospital stays for ulcer surgery at a cost of about $28,000 per patient. Yet Medicare would not pay for the drugs which eliminate the cause of most ulcers, drugs that cost about $500 a year. Now, drug coverage under Medicare will allow seniors to replace more expensive surgeries and hospitalizations with less expensive prescription medicine to treat their conditions."

[hobson]

Excellent! Thank you for taking the time to compile this info.

[TruthNtegrity]

Add me to your Ping list, please?

This is valuable information. I've copied it to my HD for future use, which will probably occur on this thread!

[Miss Marple]

Thank you so much for taking the time to do a detailed explanation of this program. Having dealt with Medicare for my parents, I am well aware of the costs to the government involved by the bureaucracy and paperwork, and also the way in whicih the government pays for certain things (like cataract surgery) but neglects paying for things like preventative screening.

Your articile is much appreciated. Thanks!

[WhiteGuy]

The cost estimates of the Medicare bill are of great concern..........

$500 Thousand Million over 10 years in NEW spending (wealth transfers)...........

For many, this is the only issue, new spending.

[Wolfstar]

Outstanding research and analysis of an hugely important subject. Thanks for helping to inform us.

The following bona fide CONSERVATIVE aspects of Medicare reform cannot be emphasized enough:

• enhancing the ability of Americans to pay for their own health needs through expanding the availability of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs);
  
  
• new accounting measures which will enhance accuracy in monitoring the solvency of the overall Medicare program;
  
  
• expanding lower-cost choices in medical coverage for senior Americans rather than placing all into the traditional (and more expensive) fee-for-service side of Medicare;
  
  
• reducing the rising cost of prescription drugs across the board; and
  
  
• cost-containment provisions including income thresholds for Medicare Part B premiums starting in 2007 (the higher the income of an individual or a couple, the less the federal subsidy, and the higher the premium paid for Medicare coverage), and an increase in the Medicare Part B deductible with future raises in the deductible indexed to inflation.

[hoosiermama]

Good point! Think the same may apply to diabetic care? Thanks for the ping 2c

[My2Cents]

Here's the difference between Democrats and Republicans: Democrats talk about "health care reform," but never do anything because if they actually *solved* problems, they'd lose an issue they can bring up every two years. Republicans actually make the effort to institute real reforms. They are not going to sponsor a bill to eliminate Medicare. What they have done is passed a bill which includes reforms that are conservative in principle, including cost-containment measures, encouraging greater efficiencies, including more of the private sector into providing coverage for beneficiaries, and putting the program on a path toward privatization.

To simply argue that the price of the drug benefit is too high is, frankly, a lazy argument. The entire bill should be considered, and the provisions that are conservative in principle should be supported.

[My2Cents]

I've acknowledged the cost concern in the article. But I'm also appealing to people to show some integrity and consider other aspects of the bill which will begin to reign-in the overall costs of the program.

To bang on the price tag and say "this is the only issue that matters" is short-sighted. The price tag is a concern, but consider the other issues which may mitigate that price tag.

[My2Cents]

Think the same may apply to diabetic care?

To reiterate from the post:

"Enhanced benefits: In addition to prescription drugs, many plans will be able to provide benefits not found in the traditional Medicare design, such as preventive screenings (e.g., for prostate or breast cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) which will enable diseases to be found earlier enhancing the likelihood of cure and lowering the long-term costs of treatment, and disease management programs."

[afraidfortherepublic]

This is excellent. You will never hear me complaining about George Bush's Medicare Bill. As an employer, I was hit with the excessive cost for insurance coverage for employees over 50. It is really easy to see why older workers are let go -- their health premiums raise the cost of the whole pool. I know that it is illegal to let people go because of their age, but in reality it happens all of the time.

Because of the recession, I made the choice to kick my husband and myself off of our own company insurance and move to Medicare. We each purchased a Medicare supplement, so we are 100% covered. Since even a minor illness with one or two days treatment as an outpatient can cost $12,000 and up these days, this was an absolute necessity.

The only problem is that we cannot purchase drug coverage. Since both of us are on Lipitor and blood pressure meds (as are all of our friends our age) we are finding the cost expensive. The idea of ever needing any additional medicine is truly frightening as our income declines. Blood pressure meds and meds to lower cholesterol are truly helping the aging population. Use of these drugs is preventative and saves the Government money in the long run because they prevent strokes, etc, that would cost a whole lot more money to treat. It is foolish to risk the more expensive treatment by not helping with the less expensive solution.

[hchutch]

Add me to the Pragmatic Conservatism ping list, please.

[WhiteGuy]

I appreciate your position.

Do you REALLY believe in your heart that the federal government will ever reduce the amount spent on MEDICARE?

I don't. Now not only will medicare spending continue to increase every year, the entitlement has been augmented.

All of those items you mentioned are terrific, could they have been done without adding a bunch more spending?

I suspect that it's very possible.

My apologies for swiping your screen name but,

That's my 2 cents......

[BigSkyFreeper]

I applaud you for going through the tireless work of putting this all together, backed with your keen awareness of this issue!

For that, I am going to retrieve my pinger/paperweight from my computer desk and ping fellow FReepers toward this thread!

*ping*

[Ol' Sparky]

The bill also contains provisions, unrelated to Medicare, which will lower the cost of all drugs -- benefiting not only Medicare beneficiaries and the program, but every consumer. The law injects competition into the Medicare marketplace, which will drive down the price of drugs. Private health plans have largely been successful in negotiating discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers. Beneficiaries enrolled in a Medicare prescription drug program or a Medicare Advantage program will reap additional savings, since these plans will likely combine the attributes of a private insurance company and a pharmacy benefit manager (PBM).

The only thing that will drive down the cost of healthcare, including prescription drugs, will if the consumer directly pays for more of the services or products directly.

Having the government pay for the cost of prescription drugs is the surest way to increase the cost of prescription drugs. A third-party paying for products and services is the problen, a problem that gets worse thanks to this socialist plan.

If there was a true interest in reducing the cost of prescription drugs, seniors would be given greater access to buy drugs on the free market from countries like Canada and Mexico.