Night Strike wrote:Another government official says the law won't decrease costs and can't guarantee people can keep the plans they like, both of which were direct promises during the debate for passage.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.
The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.
Foster's assessment came a day after Obama in his State of the Union message told lawmakers that he's open to improvements in the law, but unwilling to rehash the health care debate of the past two years. Republicans want to repeal the landmark legislation that provides coverage to more than 30 million people now uninsured, but lack the votes.
Foster was asked by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., for a simple true or false response on two of the main assertions made by supporters of the law: that it will bring down unsustainable medical costs and will let people keep their current health insurance if they like it.
On the costs issue, "I would say false, more so than true," Foster responded.
As for people getting to keep their coverage, "not true in all cases."
Foster was a thorn in the side to the administration throughout the health care debate, doubting that Medicare cuts would prove to be politically sustainable and raising other questions. An equal opportunity skeptic, he was also a bane to the George W. Bush administration during the debate that led to creation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003. Obama White House officials dispute his analysis and predict that he will be proven wrong about the health care law. Republicans hang on his every word.
The comments Wednesday were unusually direct because Foster generally delivers his analysis in complicated technical memos.
Foster says analysis by his office shows that the health care law will raise the nation's health care tab modestly because newly insured people will be getting medical services they would have otherwise gone without.
Costs could also increase if Medicare cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies turn out to be politically unsustainable over the years. The actuary's office has projected those cuts would eventually force about 15 percent of providers into the red. The health care law funnels savings from the Medicare cuts to provide coverage to uninsured workers and their families.
As for people getting to keep their health insurance plan, Foster's office is projecting that more than 7 million Medicare recipients in private Medicare Advantage plans will eventually have to find other coverage, cutting enrollment in the plans by about half.
The health care law gradually cuts generous government payments to the plans, so insurers are expected to raise premiums or even drop out. And the main reason seniors have flocked to the private plans is that they offer lower out-of-pocket costs.
Medicare recipients who lose private coverage would still be guaranteed coverage in the traditional program, but they would likely have to take out a supplementary insurance plan for gaps in their coverage.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hCT4GhKaleCpy570YTLr9p7nq54Q?docId=7a1abd4a6937454f90aa34acf72c9870
Oh, the irony.
Let's defeat "socialized healthcare" by showing how it will cost people who are already ON "socialized healthcare."
Can anyone honestly say a senior citizen DESERVES socialized healthcare more than anyone of any other age? No!
Arguments that they "paid in all their lives" are b.s. since they've long since used up the parts they paid for, especially since costs have gone up.
I'd rather a few more people be able to get a checkup when needed than pay for anyone's prescriptions. I live in Florida, I've worked inputting medical stuff, I know that some seniors are on 20 or more 'scripts, sometimes for a freakin' vitamin supplement that isn't going to be that much better than they could get over the counter, but because it's "paid for by Medicare" and requires a doc to do blood tests now and again, the doc prescribes it.
I'm not saying senior citizens shouldn't have health care. I'm saying, arguing that socially ensuring a 27, 38, or 55 year old will hurt the social insurance for an 85 year old is a bit crappy. It's better to insure a 70 year old's pacemaker or heart transplant than let a 45 year old get some gall bladder surgery, huh??? Really????
If we should repeal "Socialized Healthcare" then we should repeal it ALL: No medicare, no medicaid, and limits on VA care where they cannot get any treatment or checkups UNLESS it's directly related to a WAR WOUND.
But, as was pointed out, Congress of either party wouldn't do that, noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo because seniors would be outraged and vote them out. The very same seniors who're outraged now at the audacity of those of us who wouldn't mind an occasional doctor visit without losing our house to DARE to request a little of that insurance money to benefit us now that many Americans don't have jobs that come with medical benefits (Congress allowed those jobs to get shipped overseas, often to areas where people don't expect to get medical treatment anyway).
That is
Congress - of both parties - protecting themselves and their friends, not "the administration." Meanwhile, they (Congress) get a platinum plan paid for by whom? The taxpayer. Ultra Socialized healthcare - but in a fascist way.
So.. if congress is going to "repeal" socialized healthcare, let them repeal it ALL...or none.
