http://www.maniacsolutions.com/hospice-marketing-solutions-offers/
Medicare Health Plan Section of the half-trillion grandmother
Senator Lamar Alexander today made the following comments on the U.S. Senate floor:
· "What Senator McCain is basically saying his amendment, the grandmother does not cut Medicare to pay for someone else for sure."
· "If you find the savings by reducing waste, fraud and abuse of Medicare's grandmother, pass those savings on to the grandmother. Medicare trustees have told us there is $ 38 trillion in unfunded liabilities for Medicare, and the program starts for bankruptcy between 2015 and 2017. According to the trustees Medicare, "We need timely and effective action to address the challenges of Medicare." I do not think Medicare trustees were thinking that timely action effective and we can take to keep Medicare to go broke would have 465 billion U.S. dollars and spend it in a new program. "
Click to learn more …
· "Instead of taking my word for it, let's go to a headline in the Wall Street Journal:" Some health premiums to rise. That means that the cost of insurance is increasing. So my question is, why spend 2.5 trillion U.S. dollars in ten years, cut Medicare, raise taxes and accumulate debt to increase premiums for some of the U.S. health care? I thought the whole exercise to lower the cost of health premiums. "
· "This action is historic in the thought that we could have a system that affects nearly all Americans and change everything at once. Why not Instead of going step by step to regain the confidence of the American people? The Republicans are making these proposals in the Senate this month and next month and time it takes to get a real health care reform. Grandma Medicare cut half a billion dollars and spend it on a new program at a time when Medicare is going bankrupt not a true health care reform. "
Full Alexander comments:
Mr. Kyl. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the 30 minutes controlled by Republicans, we are allowed to participate in a symposium.
The Acting President pro tempore. Without objection, it is ordered.
Mr. Kyl. Mr. President, I will begin by making some comments on the amendment of Senator McCain, my colleague from Arizona, has been presented. This is an amendment which, as the leader of the minority has just said, will protect the elderly in the United States. Denial of Medicare reductions included in this bill.
The economist Milton Friedman famously said: "There is no such thing as a free lunch" and that applies to health care. There is no such thing as free medical care. Someone has to pay. Since this bill is a bill 2.5 trillion U.S. dollars, the first question is, Who pays? The first answer is who pay, the U.S. is over, since half the cost of the bill allegedly paid by Medicare cuts.
Let me break a little more specifically the Republican leader did exactly what that means. This is about $ 500 billion in Medicare cuts as follows: 137.5 billion U.S. dollars from hospitals who treat the elderly, $ 120 million from Medicare Advantage, which is the insurance program that provides benefits to the elderly to be cut more than half as result of this reduction of 120 billion U.S. dollars, 14.6 billion U.S. dollars of nursing homes that treat the elderly, $ 42,100,000,000 of care home care for seniors, and $ 7,700,000,000 of hospice care, one of the cruelest cut of all. Obviously, this dramatic cut that there is no way to avoid compromising the care of older people now enjoy, and older people know it. That's why I've been writing our office and attend meetings City Council to let us know who disapprove of this. I have quoted from two letters of the components of the Arizona mines sent asking you to please not cut its Medicare Advantage Program. This has been called the jewel in the crown of the Medicare system, and many of them rely on Medicare Advantage for dental or eye care or assistance they have heard come to depend. They are not buying the claims that somehow or other we can make $ 1 / 2000000000000 cuts in Medicare without any way that affects their care. They know better than that, and rightly so. The attention that has been promised will be jeopardized to pay for this new government law bill.
Finally, many wonder what happened to the promise that they can stay with the care they have. We've all heard the President say many times: If you like the attention it has, you get to maintain it. That is simply not true. There are 337 000 Arizona citizens who are Medicare Advantage patients. They like what they have. However, we know, according to the Congressional Budget Office that the benefits they have under Medicare Advantage will be cut by more than half. They are saying: What happened to politics I like? I will not be able to keep it if this bill passes.
Why is the McCain amendment must pass. If our Democratic colleagues are not willing to protect Medicare, I can not imagine how the bill might be acceptable, since it begins with the commitments that Congress and the President have made our seniors.
Perhaps one reason why there are different numbers on one side of the aisle to the other is that sometimes we are not talking apples to apples. We are talking about apples and oranges, and perhaps both numbers are correct in their context. The Tennessee senator uses the number 2500000000000 dollars when the program takes out. This is a very important statement. The other side will say it is only $ 1 1 / 2 billion dollars for the first 10 years of the program. This is a statement correct. But it is 2.5 trillion U.S. dollars during the first 10 years of full implementation of the program. What is the reason for the difference? During the first four years, the money is being collected, but very few benefits are extinguished. The benefits of years start after No. 4. So if we take the first 10 years of the program, we raising money to pay for this entire period of 10 years, but almost all of the benefits occur only during the last six years. Naturally, we have obtained more money we paid. But when we take the first 10 years of full implementation, is like my colleague from Tennessee pointed out, at a cost of $ 2.5 billion. This is how sometimes we get the numbers for something different.
While we are clear about what we are talking, one thing is clear: if it is $ 1 1 / 2 billion dollars or $ 2.5 billion, we're talking about real money. Someone has to pay for it. If the United States over are asked to pay for half of it, it's not just for major U.S., given the commitment they made to them. That is the point of the McCain amendment. Protect Medicare, protect seniors from the United States. We can do it with a simple amendment of Senator McCain has to send the bill to the committee – would require only one day – and return without these Medicare cuts in the bill.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I see the senator from Idaho here. I want to hear your comments. If there is any question in this debate care health that symbolizes all that is why the Republicans want to change the debate a step by step approach to reduce the cost of premiums, which would be the Medicare issue. As the Arizona senator said, what we have to do about Medicare is that it is solvent as fast as we can, as effectively as possible. The senator from Kansas, said the other day that the proposal to take $ 465,000,000,000 grandmother's Medicare and pass a new program it is like writing a check in an account found a bank to buy a big car, again. There is much truth to that.
The President said earlier this year, something I disagree. He said that this debate on health is not just about health care. It is the Federal Government's role in the everyday life of Americans. He is exactly right. This debate over health, we are beginning this week, is not just about health care. This is the stimulus package on the takeover of General Motors. This debt billion dollars. These are shots of Washington. It is spending too much, taxes too much, too much debt. The provisions of this bill Medicare are a perfect symbol of this. That's why Senator McCain is right. What he is saying is, do not cut Medicare grandmother and spend it on a new program. If you can find some savings in the waste, fraud, and abuse of Medicare's grandmother, to spend a grandmother. Make sure that those of us who are older and those of us who are younger and eager to Medicare can have their solvency.
Later this week we will talk more about rising premiums. There was much discussion yesterday because, according to the Wall Street Journal, some health insurance premiums rise. For people who get their insurance from large employers, this bill will not make much difference. And for small employers, if you get your insurance from a small company, it will not make much difference. If you go to the individual market to buy insurance yourself, your premiums will rise, unless we get some money from somewhere to help pay part of their premiums, at least about half of Americans are in the individual market. Where can we get this money? Since the grandmother. Let's get it from Medicare. So that is what is wrong with this bill. And what is right about McCain's amendment says, simply do not cut Medicare. If we find savings, we hope to Medicare, to be spent on make Medicare solvent.
I wonder if the senator from Idaho is to listen to the elders in his State of the proposed 465 billion U.S. dollars in Medicare cuts and how they feel about to take that money and spend it to create a new program?
Mr. Crapo. I thank the Senator from Tennessee. Most definitely we are hearing from people over Idaho to do with it. It is very clear to the people of Idaho that what we are seeing is a massive growth of the Federal Government's proposed more than $ 2.5 billion, when fully implemented, to be financed at the expense of American taxpayers and seniors through Medicare cuts. In fact, in addition to those who have been contact me to see their health benefits lost, I've also been contacted by several of the suppliers. We are talking about those in health care home health or hospice care, provide nursing services and hospitals and the like.
They make a very interesting point. His point is that not only persons elderly – Medicare Advantage, in particular – literally lose their benefits dramatically, but other senior citizens who are in traditional Medicare also you lose access and quality of care. How is this the case? We know from the details of this bill we will see significant cuts in palliative care home health care, skilled nursing facilities and hospitals.
The points that have been made to vendors who have already undergone a series of very deep cuts, cuts to the point that in Idaho health care at home, we lost something like 30 percent of our facilities. The only way they I explained that I was that reducing the compensation we are receiving, then we have to cut something in our budget. He said: "We can not start taking the bricks outside our buildings. What we'll end up having to do is reduce the staff. That would be the nurses and doctors and other care providers who are there to support these people. We'll have to reduce the number of rooms we operate or in the facilities we offer. In the end, we will cut services and access available to older people, including a reduction in the quality of care are able to be provided.
Mr. ALEXANDER. When discussing Medicare cuts, another provision of the bill that we will be talking about this month and next month as we go through the debate on health care is about the problem of paying doctors and hospitals serving Medicare patients. We pay about 83 percent of the fee to be paid attention if they were watching private patient. Each year, Congress must make an adjustment to something we did a few years ago, which automatically reduces the amount of money to pay doctors who see Medicare patients.
That is a big problem for Medicare patients. Because if doctors can not pay, will not see patients and Medicare patients can be found increasingly on the condition that patients are Medicaid, low-income Americans who are covered by the State program – which is our main government's program – if they are paid 60 percent of what doctors they see private patients and are paid about half of the doctors will not see Medicaid new patients. I ask the Senator, do you see anywhere in this bill a provision for 01.04 U.S. dollars billion that will be needed to pay doctors 10 years from now what they are doing today? If not in the bill, where is that $ 1 / 4000000000000 going to come? Are you going to come from cuts in Medicare, or will come from adding to the deficit?
Mr. Crapo. Obviously, it will come from cuts in Medicare or increased taxes or simply more debt on the level federal.
Senator raises a very interesting point. The issue of fixing the rate of compensation for Medicare physicians is a great question, one that we been fighting for a number of years to try to find a solution, since each year is delayed pending cuts will happen. I have discussed this factor in the context to be a trick of the budget in this bill. What do I mean by that? Those who say that this bill reduces the deficit are able to say what only because it has about $ 500 billion of new taxes, some $ 500 billion Medicare cuts, and a series of budget gimmicks to delay the implementation side spending bill, or in this case, not even include all major expenses that have to be accommodated, and that is the fix for physician compensation. If none of these things were not in this bill, this bill would greatly increase the deficit.
What we are seeing, in addition to these fiscal impacts Treasury of the Federation in terms of huge increases in debt or huge increases in tax, we are talking further with this bill is that let's see the real potential that access to health care for the elderly will be reduced due to this factor.
Let me give a few statistics. In its June 2008 report, the Medicare payment Advisory Commission, or MedPAC, said 29 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who were surveyed were seeking a doctor primary care and had trouble finding one to treat them. In other words, about 30 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are having problems today to find a doctor who will take a Medicare patient. That is, before the $ 465,000,000,000 from the courts and before that simply not including medical at all in this legislation.
A 2008 survey by the Texas Medical Association found that only 58 percent of doctors in the state took new Medicare patients, and only 38 primary care physicians accepting new patients. Again, this is an example of MedPAC and the rule that states what we know is happening across the country, namely, that physicians in increasing numbers are no longer taking new Medicare patients, as they have been doing with Medicaid patients for years. Yet we see these massive cuts to Medicare that it intends to have the same impact on hospice care and health service at home and nursing facilities and hospitals, and we see that doctors are not even included at all, which means that project now to receive major reductions. I think it's more than 20 percent reduction in their remuneration for taking Medicare patients.
The solution here for establishing a program massive new Federal rights is not to cut Medicare. I want to repeat something that both senators from Arizona and Tennessee have already said that is critical. Reducing the Medicare budget by 464 billion U.S. dollars, for any number, is something that has been encouraged in terms of cuts in Medicare growth path. That is something that this Congress has been studied in the past. But never was intended by those who made those projections on the need to control rising Medicare costs that address Medicare's fiscal position in order to create a new, massive federal law that will grow the federal government more than $ 2 trillion – we speak of numbers, the full period 10-years is $ 2.5 billion – and let these dramatic cuts to Medicare, this loss of service and loss of benefits to beneficiaries, while viewing this growth new government with a new government program. That was not in anyone's mind that we are asked to address the problems of Medicare solvency, and I do not has been in the mind of anyone who asked that we have some kind of health reform to address the rising cost of premiums.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr President, How much time remains on the Republican side?
The Acting President pro tempore. The senator has 8 1 / 2 minutes.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Could President let me know when they are 4 minutes.
Idaho Sen. conclude our comments at that time.
The senator from Idaho, has made an important point foresight of our Democrat friends have the next 30 minutes and some other things that may be telling the rest of the day. There was a lot of talk yesterday on the CBO report on the effect of the proposed 2.5 trillion U.S. dollars in premiums. Rather than take my word for it, let's go to the News of Wall Street Journal of today has the headline: "Some health premiums to rise."
That means going up. That means the cost of your insurance going for some Americans.
So my question is, why spend 2.5 trillion U.S. dollars in 10 years, cut Medicare, raise taxes, and run the debt to raise some health premiums? I thought the whole exercise to lower the cost of health premiums.
The article says: The analysis is published on Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation – We are supposed to pay attention to these teams as nonpartisan – painted a picture more complicated and uncertain. It said people who pay their own insurance will be a higher fee, although more generous benefits – that is insurance approved government will be forced to buy. Unless they are less employees who qualify for a new tax credit of the government.
Where is the money will come from these subsidies? It will come from a grandmother. It will come from Medicare. Going to come from taxes. And going to come from increased debt.
Those are the facts.
Employees of small businesses – says the Wall Street Journal – in fact an increase in their insurance premiums without changing – both for small businesses, we to spend 2.5 trillion U.S. dollars in 10 years, cut Medicare, cut taxes, and collect premiums for millions of Americans, so their insurance will continue to rise at a rate that it was. Why should we be doing that?
while workers in large companies to see something between unchanged and slightly lower premiums under the bill – compared with what was going to happen – according to the analysis.
We must change the debate. We have to start again. Instead of This comprehensive bill of 2,000 pages that is full of taxes, mandates, and general effect, bonuses and raises taxes and cuts in Medicare, we to define a clear goal, reducing costs, and begin to go step by step towards that goal – the reduction of frivolous lawsuits from doctors, to plan health care to be purchased through the state lines to increase competition by allowing small businesses to combine health plans to enable offer more insurance to employees at a lower cost.
These three bills I have mentioned have been offered and rejected so far by the Democratic majority. Should have more flexibility in savings accounts for health, efforts of waste, fraud and abuse, which are, in fact, Medicaid – the largest government program – and Medicare – the second bigger – and more aggressive measures to promote wellness and prevention.
One approach, the comprehensive bill of 2,000 pages, the focus of Washington's acquisition Americans are very wary of. In my respectful opinion, this bill is historic in its arrogance to think we could have a system that affects almost all 300 million Americans, 16 percent of the economy, and change everything at once.
Instead, why do not we go step by step to regaining the trust the American people? The Republicans are making these proposals on the floor this month and next month and whenever necessary to try to see we have a real health care reform. Grandmother cut Medicare $ 1 / 2 trillion dollars and spend them in a new program at a time when Medicare is going bankrupt is not a true health care reform.
Mr. Crapo. Mr. President, how much time is left?
Acting President pro tempore. There are 4 1 / 2 minutes left, Senator.
The senator from Idaho.
Mr. Crapo. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to finish our time this morning, focusing on the picture a bit bigger, as my colleague Tennessee has made in its concluding observations.
When you ask Americans if they want to reform health care, the vast majority would say yes. When asked what they mean by that, the vast majority in the polls and in my personal experience is saying: We want the rising costs of health care and our health insurance under control and reduced, and want to see greater access to quality health care for those without access today and for those who have limited access today.
This bill fails on two central points. What this legislation does not, however, is to increase the size of government by 2.5 trillion dollars of new federal spending, the establishment of new Federal massive controls on the economy, and even the creation of a government insurance company federal. Raise taxes by about $ 500 million dollars, not just the rich call. The vast majority of these taxes are going to hit squarely on the president Obama said he would not be affected: those who earn less than $ 200,000 a year and, frankly, until the end of the revenue chain.
464 Medicare Cuts one billion U.S. dollars. It makes a major new unfunded mandate on our states, already struggling in their budgets. As my colleague indicated, makes the price insurance premiums to go up to the individual market to go up in the market for small group insurance, and basically no change in the insurance market large according to the CBO study.
Indeed, one of the things not mentioned in the CBO study is much in this huge market, said to be the only part of the market he does not see insurance rates rise, one reason is because your doctor will go down. In other words, it is a tax on larger, high-cost premiums certainly going to be gone through and cause your insurance to go up or avoided by reducing the cost of your insurance and reduce coverage of services in these policies. So one way or another, all Americans will see their premiums for health care or, if large groups, seeing their health insurance premiums be held the same by reducing the quality of insurance they have.
If Americans wanted to return to two reasons reform health care saw lower premiums? No. Do we see greater access to or greater than the quality of care? Well, some people are going to get a grant from this program for this new program Federal mass. But at what price? Mr. President, $ 2.5 billion, 464 billion U.S. dollars in Medicare cuts, the establishment of a major new government program to be funded primarily on the backs of big new tax increases, massive federal tax increases and Medicare cuts, and finally we will be in a system in which we see a spiral of rising costs of medical care. For me, that's not the kind of reform we need. My colleague from Tennessee indicated that there a series of reforms on which we can find common ground to reduce healthcare costs. There are a number of reforms on which we can find common ground that will help us to increase access to quality care. That's where we should focus. That's why I'm here today in support of my colleague John McCain amendment, which is a motion to the committee of this legislation to the Finance Committee. As indicated, could be done in one day, to simply remove the Medicare cuts that are contained within. Let's fix Part of this bill, then we will work forward.
I see my time has expired. I urge the Senate to focus closely on the legislation and to work together in a bipartisan way rather than speeding ahead and try to pass a law that has not had the opportunity of this kind of bipartisan effort to develop a product of good work for the American people.
About the Author
Quoting & Saving just got easier…EasyToInsureME Health Insurance Quotes… Quote all carriers in seconds
Health insurance
Health insurance quotes
Use Capture Page Marketing Strategies to better Aid your LifePath Unlimited