Time flies, but it seems like just a few weeks ago that Rep. Mike Rogers was giving speeches decrying the "uncertainty" that small business owners must deal with due to something or other President Obama's administration has done. Was it too many federal regulations, the traditional boogey-man of the Republican Party? Or maybe it was uncertainty of whether taxes would go up, which they haven't under Obama.
Whatever it was that was causing the "uncertainty," Rogers was certain that "uncertainty" was what is holding the economy back from recovery. And he was certain that Obama was behind the "uncertainty."
Thanks to Rogers and his fellow Tea Party Republicans in the U.S. House, business owners big and small, working people, people on unemployment, and bealth care providers who treat Medicare patients are all facing a whole lot of real uncertainty, as opposed to the kind dreamed up by Rogers.
The source of the uncertainty now is the Republican House's refusal to go along with a tax cut for working people that was already passed by the Senate. The two-month extension of the payroll tax cut was included in a bill that also includes an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed and heads off a big cut in reimbursement rates for health care providers under the Medicare program. Although 39 Republicans in the Senate voted for it, the Tea Party Republicans in the House are refusing to even bring it up for a vote. Instead, they pulled a parliamentary maneuver designed to put the measure into conference committee. And now they've gone home.
Did Rogers and the Tea Party Republicans create more uncertainty for business owners who don't know how much to withhold in their employees' wages? Did they create more uncertainty for health care providers, for people on unemployment, for workers who don't know whether they will lose $1,000 out of their paychecks next year?
I'm certain they did.
Showing posts with label medicare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label medicare. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Rogers Standing Up for Medicare? Hardly
Is Mike Rogers having second thoughts about that vote for the Paul Ryan budget? That would be the budget that killed Medicare as we know it.
Judging from the volume of mail being sent to Livingston County voters regarding Medicare, you have to wonder. In the last few weeks, a group called the Partnership to Protect Medicare, based in Washington, D.C., has been filling mailboxes with expensive direct mail pieces claiming that the 8th District Republican has been "standing up for our seniors by preserving Medicare Part B" and other such nonsense.
Of course, Rogers did exactly the opposite when he voted for the Ryan budget earlier this year. He voted to turn Medicare into a voucher program that would drive up the cost of medical care for seniors by taking away their guaranteed coverage under the Medicare program and forcing them to buy coverage on the open market.
It's unclear what vote Rogers may have cast to protect Medicare, but the saturation mailings are helping to disguise his vote for the Ryan budget. By insisting over and over again that Rogers somehow stood up for Medicare, his supporters, whoever they actually are, are muddying the issue in voters minds so that they won't realize he voted exactly the opposite way.
Judging from the volume of mail being sent to Livingston County voters regarding Medicare, you have to wonder. In the last few weeks, a group called the Partnership to Protect Medicare, based in Washington, D.C., has been filling mailboxes with expensive direct mail pieces claiming that the 8th District Republican has been "standing up for our seniors by preserving Medicare Part B" and other such nonsense.
Of course, Rogers did exactly the opposite when he voted for the Ryan budget earlier this year. He voted to turn Medicare into a voucher program that would drive up the cost of medical care for seniors by taking away their guaranteed coverage under the Medicare program and forcing them to buy coverage on the open market.
It's unclear what vote Rogers may have cast to protect Medicare, but the saturation mailings are helping to disguise his vote for the Ryan budget. By insisting over and over again that Rogers somehow stood up for Medicare, his supporters, whoever they actually are, are muddying the issue in voters minds so that they won't realize he voted exactly the opposite way.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Social Security, Medicare Under Attack
Republicans in Washington are out to gut Social Security and Medicare, but Michigan residents aren't about to stand by and let it happen.
The Michigan Alliance to Strengthen Social Security and Medicare will shine a light on Republican plans with a special forum on Sept. 16 in Detroit. Called "Are You Really Covered?" the event will feature Janet E. Witt, Grassroots Manager of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
The forum will examine how safe Social Security and Medeicare benefits are in the face of Republican attacks on the program. It will look into options of the "Super Committee" created by the debt-ceiling compromise and how those might threaten Social Security and Medicare. The central question of the forum is "Will Congress balance the budget on the backs of retirees and workers and give more tax breaks to the wealthy?"
Invited speakers include Sen. Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Reps. John Conyers and Hansen Clarke of Michigan, U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, and Max Richtman, executive director of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
The event, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., will be at the Sacred Heart Church activities building, 3451 Rivard St., in Detroit, located at the Mack Avenue exit of I-75, across from McDonalds.
Suggested donation to cover expenses is $5.
The Michigan Alliance to Strengthen Social Security and Medicare will shine a light on Republican plans with a special forum on Sept. 16 in Detroit. Called "Are You Really Covered?" the event will feature Janet E. Witt, Grassroots Manager of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
The forum will examine how safe Social Security and Medeicare benefits are in the face of Republican attacks on the program. It will look into options of the "Super Committee" created by the debt-ceiling compromise and how those might threaten Social Security and Medicare. The central question of the forum is "Will Congress balance the budget on the backs of retirees and workers and give more tax breaks to the wealthy?"
Invited speakers include Sen. Debbie Stabenow, U.S. Reps. John Conyers and Hansen Clarke of Michigan, U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, and Max Richtman, executive director of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
The event, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., will be at the Sacred Heart Church activities building, 3451 Rivard St., in Detroit, located at the Mack Avenue exit of I-75, across from McDonalds.
Suggested donation to cover expenses is $5.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Republicans Playing an Old Hand on Medicare
Ending Medicare by turning it into a voucher program for senior citizens that wouldn't begin to cover the cost of their health care is turning into a huge political liability for Republicans who followed Paul Ryan off a cliff.
But why is it anyone is surprised that Republicans hate Medicare?
I was reminded of how old Republican attacks on Medicare are when I was sorting through a box of old newspaper clippings, stories written during a long career as a newspaper reporter.
From one dated Oct. 25, 1995 and headlined "Stabenow to Run for Congress," come these two paragraphes:
"And she (Stabenow) said GOP-backed Medicare cuts totaling $270 billion would pay for $245 billion in tax cuts for wealthy Americans while earned income tax credits for the working poor were being eliminated.
"'Those are not my priorities and I don't think they're your priorities,' she said.'"
Stabenow was right then, as she went on to defeat Republican Rep. Dick Chrysler of Brighton for the 8th Congressional District.
Stabenow's defense of Medicare clicked with Michigan voters in 1996. Can it work again in 2012 for Stabenow against whomever the Republicans find to run against her?
Yes it can.
But why is it anyone is surprised that Republicans hate Medicare?
I was reminded of how old Republican attacks on Medicare are when I was sorting through a box of old newspaper clippings, stories written during a long career as a newspaper reporter.
From one dated Oct. 25, 1995 and headlined "Stabenow to Run for Congress," come these two paragraphes:
"And she (Stabenow) said GOP-backed Medicare cuts totaling $270 billion would pay for $245 billion in tax cuts for wealthy Americans while earned income tax credits for the working poor were being eliminated.
"'Those are not my priorities and I don't think they're your priorities,' she said.'"
Stabenow was right then, as she went on to defeat Republican Rep. Dick Chrysler of Brighton for the 8th Congressional District.
Stabenow's defense of Medicare clicked with Michigan voters in 1996. Can it work again in 2012 for Stabenow against whomever the Republicans find to run against her?
Yes it can.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
This Works for Mike Rogers, Too
The Republican plan to end Medicare and replace it with vouchers that won't nearly cover the actual cost of insurance for senior citizens is not being forgotten. Republican Mike Rogers voted for the plan, of course, which was included in the Paul Ryan budget approved by the GOP-led House.
Now a progressive group called Americans United for Change is running ads reminding voters exactly what the Ryan-Rogers budget plan means for the future of Medicare. They're not running it in Mike Rogers' 8th Congressional District in Michigan, but it works for him, too. The ad gives Ryan's office phone number, but Rogers' is (517) 702-8000.
Now a progressive group called Americans United for Change is running ads reminding voters exactly what the Ryan-Rogers budget plan means for the future of Medicare. They're not running it in Mike Rogers' 8th Congressional District in Michigan, but it works for him, too. The ad gives Ryan's office phone number, but Rogers' is (517) 702-8000.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
How to Talk About the Budget
Budgets are not just about numbers. They are a numerical reflection of a state or a nation's priorities, its choices about what is important, what is right and what is wrong. They are a moral statement. They show the world what a state or nation believes in.
That's why George Lakoff, a University of California linguist known for his work on the differences between liberals and conservatives, says President Obama's April 13, 2011, budget speech was such a landmark address.
Lakoff, in a post on Huffington Post, says Obama expertly laid out America's moral vision. Lakoff's post does an excellent job of explaining, in simple terms, how Obama supporters should start talking about budget issues.
"The basic idea is this: Democracy is based on empathy, that is, on citizens caring about each other and acting on that care, taking responsibility not just for themselves but for their families, communities, and their nation. The role of government is to carry out this principle in two ways: protection and empowerment."
Obama quoted Lincoln's belief that government was a way "to do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves." Everyone, Obama said, eventually needs some help, and a great country provides that help to each and every citizens through programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Lakoff also praised Obama for speaking in terms of "systems" and not simple direct cause and effect. "Under the Republican budget plan, the president would get a $200,000 a year tax break, which would be paid for by cutting programs for seniors, with the result that 33 seniors would be paying $6,000 more a year for health care to pay for his tax break. To see this, you have to look outside of the federal budget to the economic system at large, in which you can see what budget cuts will be balanced by increased in costs to others. A cut here in the budget is balanced by an increase outside the federal budget for real human beings."
Lakoff urged Democrats to start talking about the budget as Obama did, in terms of Democratic moral values and systems, how tax cuts for the wealthy affect real human beings.
The reason goes back to Lakoff's basic argument -- that independent voters have two sets of frames for looking at the world, one that is mostly progressive and one that is mostly conservative. Each of those frames can be actitvated with the correct language and the more it is activated, the less active the other one begins. Democrats' goal should be to activate the progressive frames in independents.
Lakoff, therefore, says progressives should talk about the progressive moral view whenever possible when talking about the budget rather than merely refuting conservative arguments point by point.
Lakoff's post is easy to read and understand, but it is crucial for progressives to start thinking and talking this way. Read his post and start practicing.
That's why George Lakoff, a University of California linguist known for his work on the differences between liberals and conservatives, says President Obama's April 13, 2011, budget speech was such a landmark address.
Lakoff, in a post on Huffington Post, says Obama expertly laid out America's moral vision. Lakoff's post does an excellent job of explaining, in simple terms, how Obama supporters should start talking about budget issues.
"The basic idea is this: Democracy is based on empathy, that is, on citizens caring about each other and acting on that care, taking responsibility not just for themselves but for their families, communities, and their nation. The role of government is to carry out this principle in two ways: protection and empowerment."
Obama quoted Lincoln's belief that government was a way "to do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves." Everyone, Obama said, eventually needs some help, and a great country provides that help to each and every citizens through programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Lakoff also praised Obama for speaking in terms of "systems" and not simple direct cause and effect. "Under the Republican budget plan, the president would get a $200,000 a year tax break, which would be paid for by cutting programs for seniors, with the result that 33 seniors would be paying $6,000 more a year for health care to pay for his tax break. To see this, you have to look outside of the federal budget to the economic system at large, in which you can see what budget cuts will be balanced by increased in costs to others. A cut here in the budget is balanced by an increase outside the federal budget for real human beings."
Lakoff urged Democrats to start talking about the budget as Obama did, in terms of Democratic moral values and systems, how tax cuts for the wealthy affect real human beings.
The reason goes back to Lakoff's basic argument -- that independent voters have two sets of frames for looking at the world, one that is mostly progressive and one that is mostly conservative. Each of those frames can be actitvated with the correct language and the more it is activated, the less active the other one begins. Democrats' goal should be to activate the progressive frames in independents.
Lakoff, therefore, says progressives should talk about the progressive moral view whenever possible when talking about the budget rather than merely refuting conservative arguments point by point.
Lakoff's post is easy to read and understand, but it is crucial for progressives to start thinking and talking this way. Read his post and start practicing.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Rogers Lying About His Vote to End Medicare
Lying is second nature to Republican Mike Rogers, but even for him, his recent email to voters in Michigan's 8th Congressional Dsitrict regarding his vote to end Medicare stuns anyone who understands what he actually voted for.
Rogers, of course, voted for the Paul Ryan budget in the U.S. House which ends Medicare and gives senior citizens a voucher that will cover about a third of the cost of their insurance and forces them to try to find a private insurance company that is foolish enough to want to pay the health care costs of old, sick people with multiple pre-existing conditions.
But Rogers doesn't want anybody to know that he voted to end Medicare because that will upset vast numbers of his constituents. So instead of admitting what he has done, Rogers told them he had voted to "protect Medicare."
Then, he had the audacity to claim:
"The budget proposal would make all Medicare services operate more like Medicare Part D, the successful prescription drug program. This would provide retirees with a comprehensive health insurance plan, paid for by the federal government, where doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies are all forced to compete for your business. This is the same type of plan that members of Congress and all federal employees have today."
Actually, it is not the same type of plan that members of Congress and all federal employees have today. Not at all. The premiums paid by the federal government for Rogers' own health plan go up according to the average increase in health insurance premiums, which track increases in health care costs. Under the Medicare-ending bill Rogers voted for, what the federal government would pay for seniors' health care coverage would go up only as fast as the consumers' price index, which is much lower than health care inflation. So the federal government would be paying less and less for seniors' health care, and seniors would be paying more and more, if they can afford it. This is not at all the plan Rogers has for himself.
Then Rogers says:
"This proposal has the potential to inject competition into Medicare to reduce prices and improve the quality of care." Actually, no it won't. Congress already tried to get private companies to insure the elderly and it didn't work. In the Clinton administration, Republicans were so sure that private companies wanted into the market insuring the old and the sick that they insisted that Medicare be changed to allow people to buy policies from private companies instead of Medicare. But it didn't happen. Not until the Bush administration, when Congress gave private insures subsidies that amounted to 14 percent more than what the federal government pays per Medicare recipient. Even an insurance industry source says companies will compete for only the younger and healthier senior citizens. Even then, the costs will be higher because private insurance companies won't have the advantage of the lower, negotiated rates that Medicare limits providers to.
Rogers caps his lies about ending Medicare with an admission that part of the program is all about sparing him and fellow Republicans any immediate political pain for what they have done.
"It would be implemented beginning in 2022, saving Medicare for future retirees. Most importantly, it would not impact Medicare benefits for anyone over 55 years old today – period."
In other words, today's senior citizens are being told not to worry, don't vote against me for this, while Rogers and his fellow Republicans are counting on younger people not understanding what was stolen from them until it's too late.
Rogers also fails to point out that some senior citizens will be totally uncovered starting in 2022. Those who are between the ages of 65 and 67 will get absolutely nothing -- not even the reduced voucher and certainly not Medicare as we know it. Nothing. Although full Social Security benefits for younger Americans will not be available until age 67, they can still get reduced benefits, but for health care, under Ryan's plan, they get zilch. But of course they won't find this out until Ryan -- and Rogers -- are hopefully long gone from the political scene.
Rogers then has the audacity to claim: "You have spent your working life planning for retirement and the federal government must keep the promises it has made to you."
If he believes that, why did he vote for this plan?
Rogers, of course, voted for the Paul Ryan budget in the U.S. House which ends Medicare and gives senior citizens a voucher that will cover about a third of the cost of their insurance and forces them to try to find a private insurance company that is foolish enough to want to pay the health care costs of old, sick people with multiple pre-existing conditions.
But Rogers doesn't want anybody to know that he voted to end Medicare because that will upset vast numbers of his constituents. So instead of admitting what he has done, Rogers told them he had voted to "protect Medicare."
Then, he had the audacity to claim:
"The budget proposal would make all Medicare services operate more like Medicare Part D, the successful prescription drug program. This would provide retirees with a comprehensive health insurance plan, paid for by the federal government, where doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies are all forced to compete for your business. This is the same type of plan that members of Congress and all federal employees have today."
Actually, it is not the same type of plan that members of Congress and all federal employees have today. Not at all. The premiums paid by the federal government for Rogers' own health plan go up according to the average increase in health insurance premiums, which track increases in health care costs. Under the Medicare-ending bill Rogers voted for, what the federal government would pay for seniors' health care coverage would go up only as fast as the consumers' price index, which is much lower than health care inflation. So the federal government would be paying less and less for seniors' health care, and seniors would be paying more and more, if they can afford it. This is not at all the plan Rogers has for himself.
Then Rogers says:
"This proposal has the potential to inject competition into Medicare to reduce prices and improve the quality of care." Actually, no it won't. Congress already tried to get private companies to insure the elderly and it didn't work. In the Clinton administration, Republicans were so sure that private companies wanted into the market insuring the old and the sick that they insisted that Medicare be changed to allow people to buy policies from private companies instead of Medicare. But it didn't happen. Not until the Bush administration, when Congress gave private insures subsidies that amounted to 14 percent more than what the federal government pays per Medicare recipient. Even an insurance industry source says companies will compete for only the younger and healthier senior citizens. Even then, the costs will be higher because private insurance companies won't have the advantage of the lower, negotiated rates that Medicare limits providers to.
Rogers caps his lies about ending Medicare with an admission that part of the program is all about sparing him and fellow Republicans any immediate political pain for what they have done.
"It would be implemented beginning in 2022, saving Medicare for future retirees. Most importantly, it would not impact Medicare benefits for anyone over 55 years old today – period."
In other words, today's senior citizens are being told not to worry, don't vote against me for this, while Rogers and his fellow Republicans are counting on younger people not understanding what was stolen from them until it's too late.
Rogers also fails to point out that some senior citizens will be totally uncovered starting in 2022. Those who are between the ages of 65 and 67 will get absolutely nothing -- not even the reduced voucher and certainly not Medicare as we know it. Nothing. Although full Social Security benefits for younger Americans will not be available until age 67, they can still get reduced benefits, but for health care, under Ryan's plan, they get zilch. But of course they won't find this out until Ryan -- and Rogers -- are hopefully long gone from the political scene.
Rogers then has the audacity to claim: "You have spent your working life planning for retirement and the federal government must keep the promises it has made to you."
If he believes that, why did he vote for this plan?
Monday, April 11, 2011
Mother of All Death Panels
The mainstream media can't say enough about how courageous Republican Rep. Paul Ryan is for proposing killing Medicare.
Make no mistake, that's what his plan would do. It's not cutting Medicare. It's getting rid of it altogether. Senior citizens would get a voucher to go buy private insurance, except the voucher wouldn't cover the cost of the coverage they now get through Medicare and it wouldn't keep up with cost increases.
Seniors, who are in big need of medical care as they age, will have to either go without medical care or try to find the money to pay for it themselves -- even as the state of Michigan plans to heap more taxes onto them, by the way.
A few months ago, any tinkering with health care was seen as rationing care, creating government "death panels" that would decide who would live or die.
Ryan's plan is the mother of all death panels. There will not be dramatic decisions, like Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer cutting off coverage for transplants and leaving 100 people to die who had been promised life-saving treatment.
Instead, there will be millions of individual decisions made each day. People will go without needed procedures because they can't afford them. As a result, they will die one, two, or three years earlier than they would have otherwise. Nobody but their families will notice.
Rich people, of course, will do just fine. Which is kind of the whole point of Republican policies.
Make no mistake, that's what his plan would do. It's not cutting Medicare. It's getting rid of it altogether. Senior citizens would get a voucher to go buy private insurance, except the voucher wouldn't cover the cost of the coverage they now get through Medicare and it wouldn't keep up with cost increases.
Seniors, who are in big need of medical care as they age, will have to either go without medical care or try to find the money to pay for it themselves -- even as the state of Michigan plans to heap more taxes onto them, by the way.
A few months ago, any tinkering with health care was seen as rationing care, creating government "death panels" that would decide who would live or die.
Ryan's plan is the mother of all death panels. There will not be dramatic decisions, like Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer cutting off coverage for transplants and leaving 100 people to die who had been promised life-saving treatment.
Instead, there will be millions of individual decisions made each day. People will go without needed procedures because they can't afford them. As a result, they will die one, two, or three years earlier than they would have otherwise. Nobody but their families will notice.
Rich people, of course, will do just fine. Which is kind of the whole point of Republican policies.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
There He Goes Again! Rogers Votes Against Children
Rep. Mike Rogers has voted once again against SCHIP, which guarantees that 10 million children of working parents who can’t afford health insurance will receive the medical care they need. What is Rogers’ excuse for such a heartless vote? He claims that SCHIP would pit children against seniors and that the Democrats didn’t give time for a full debate. Even his peer in the 11th District, Thaddeus McCotter, knew better and voted for SCHIP this time.
This bill passed twice and was vetoed by Bush. Rogers voted against it each time. How much more debate did he need? This is the third round and when passed by the Senate, the SCHIP bill will be sent to President Obama who WILL sign it.
Criticism about full and open debate coming from one of Tom Delay’s henchmen is laughable. Remember Medicare Part D and the tactics used then to assure passage of a bill that didn’t give seniors as much help as it gave health insurance companies and pharmaceuticals? Remember Billy Tauzin, who chaired the committee (Commerce and Energy) which has authority over the pharmaceutical companies? He pushed Part D, resigned from Congress and went to work for big PhRMA for $2 million a year, lobbying Congress for the pharmaceutical industry. Our Mike was in the middle of it all. He didn’t have much concern for seniors then.
Rogers is considering a run for Michigan Governor. A recent article in the Livingston Press & Argus damns Rogers with faint praise stating that Mike “is as qualified as anyone else considering a run” forgetting that he needs to prove he will make a better governor than anyone else running. The article claims that “Rogers has served us well in Congress” but provides no proof to back up that claim. The main argument to support Rogers for governor is that he comes from Livingston County, which is worth a bucket of warm spit in the rest of the state.
Rogers brings a lot of baggage to a run for Governor. As a statewide candidate, he will need to reach out to many groups and he will have to be more bipartisan than his Congressional record shows. He has not voted for what is best for the people in the 8th District (rich people aside) nor for the people of Michigan. As a party hack, he has followed the Republican leadership over the cliff into the minority. Mike followed his congressional leaders, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, Denny Hastert and Billy Tauzin and approved their outrageous conduct. There is little future for him in the House now. No wonder he wants to run for Governor.
This bill passed twice and was vetoed by Bush. Rogers voted against it each time. How much more debate did he need? This is the third round and when passed by the Senate, the SCHIP bill will be sent to President Obama who WILL sign it.
Criticism about full and open debate coming from one of Tom Delay’s henchmen is laughable. Remember Medicare Part D and the tactics used then to assure passage of a bill that didn’t give seniors as much help as it gave health insurance companies and pharmaceuticals? Remember Billy Tauzin, who chaired the committee (Commerce and Energy) which has authority over the pharmaceutical companies? He pushed Part D, resigned from Congress and went to work for big PhRMA for $2 million a year, lobbying Congress for the pharmaceutical industry. Our Mike was in the middle of it all. He didn’t have much concern for seniors then.
Rogers is considering a run for Michigan Governor. A recent article in the Livingston Press & Argus damns Rogers with faint praise stating that Mike “is as qualified as anyone else considering a run” forgetting that he needs to prove he will make a better governor than anyone else running. The article claims that “Rogers has served us well in Congress” but provides no proof to back up that claim. The main argument to support Rogers for governor is that he comes from Livingston County, which is worth a bucket of warm spit in the rest of the state.
Rogers brings a lot of baggage to a run for Governor. As a statewide candidate, he will need to reach out to many groups and he will have to be more bipartisan than his Congressional record shows. He has not voted for what is best for the people in the 8th District (rich people aside) nor for the people of Michigan. As a party hack, he has followed the Republican leadership over the cliff into the minority. Mike followed his congressional leaders, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, Denny Hastert and Billy Tauzin and approved their outrageous conduct. There is little future for him in the House now. No wonder he wants to run for Governor.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Too Many Health Care Outrages To Cover
Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko” is serving as a wake up call to Americans. Michael did a very comprehensive job with impeccable research into this mess that is sometimes called health care (or health careless).
In one part, he portrayed the scandal of how Medicare Part D passed the House and Senate. He covered the ridiculous fact that Medicare is forbidden to negotiate with the drug companies for better prices. He covered, too, the blatant and disgusting contributions and pay backs made to our congressional representatives, including the king of the crooks, Billy Tauzin, who took a million dollars a year job with PhRMA right after Part D passed Congress with his and Tom DeLay’s strongarm tactics..
Michael may not have had enough time to cover the outrage of Medicare Advantage among all the other outrages. What’s Medicare Advantage? It’s a complicated scheme to bamboozle senior citizens, destroy Medicare, and use seniors Medicare premiums to accomplish the whole nefarious business. These "privatization" advocates in Congress and the White House are no better than street thugs snatching purses but they are a helluva lot sneakier.
The federal government PAYS insurance companies to offer Medicare Advantage plans to Medicare recipients. Yes, all Medicare recipients, even if they don’t have Medicare Advantage, pay a monthly premium ($88.50 in 2007) for their Medicare insurance. In turn, the federal government gives part of this premium to insurance companies as subsidies so they will offer Medicare Advantage programs to Medicare recipients. (Note: there is no bleating by conservatives about the free market being violated here.)
The result? Medicare Advantage programs cost a $1,000. MORE per recipient annually than traditional Medicare. Even worse, it’s been discovered that these MA plans are being sold aggressively and dishonestly to seniors. Eventually, the plan is for MA and Medicare to disappear and seniors will be left to the mercy of the kind-hearted and loving insurance executives. These are the same companies who offered HMOs and Managed Care plans to seniors and then abandoned them when they couldn’t make enough money.
Keep your eye on Congress. The Democrats are trying to eliminate this subsidy and use the funds to help support SCHIP. Let’s hope they succeed.
Michael Moore has it right. Health care should never be provided with a profit motive. It's a human right.
In one part, he portrayed the scandal of how Medicare Part D passed the House and Senate. He covered the ridiculous fact that Medicare is forbidden to negotiate with the drug companies for better prices. He covered, too, the blatant and disgusting contributions and pay backs made to our congressional representatives, including the king of the crooks, Billy Tauzin, who took a million dollars a year job with PhRMA right after Part D passed Congress with his and Tom DeLay’s strongarm tactics..
Michael may not have had enough time to cover the outrage of Medicare Advantage among all the other outrages. What’s Medicare Advantage? It’s a complicated scheme to bamboozle senior citizens, destroy Medicare, and use seniors Medicare premiums to accomplish the whole nefarious business. These "privatization" advocates in Congress and the White House are no better than street thugs snatching purses but they are a helluva lot sneakier.
The federal government PAYS insurance companies to offer Medicare Advantage plans to Medicare recipients. Yes, all Medicare recipients, even if they don’t have Medicare Advantage, pay a monthly premium ($88.50 in 2007) for their Medicare insurance. In turn, the federal government gives part of this premium to insurance companies as subsidies so they will offer Medicare Advantage programs to Medicare recipients. (Note: there is no bleating by conservatives about the free market being violated here.)
The result? Medicare Advantage programs cost a $1,000. MORE per recipient annually than traditional Medicare. Even worse, it’s been discovered that these MA plans are being sold aggressively and dishonestly to seniors. Eventually, the plan is for MA and Medicare to disappear and seniors will be left to the mercy of the kind-hearted and loving insurance executives. These are the same companies who offered HMOs and Managed Care plans to seniors and then abandoned them when they couldn’t make enough money.
Keep your eye on Congress. The Democrats are trying to eliminate this subsidy and use the funds to help support SCHIP. Let’s hope they succeed.
Michael Moore has it right. Health care should never be provided with a profit motive. It's a human right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)