Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

neverforget

(9,436 posts)
Sat Mar 3, 2012, 01:16 PM Mar 2012

Sen Wyden responds to me regarding Ryan-Wyden Medicare Reform

This is the email response I received from Sen Wyden in response to an email I sent him. You can find that thread here. This is the kind of crap you get when you negotiate with extremists aka right wing Republicans. Competition will magically drive down costs.....

Dear Mr. **********:

Thank you for contacting me about Medicare. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue, and I apologize for the delay in my response.

Established in 1965, Medicare is a federal health insurance program that provides coverage of certain health care services for qualified beneficiaries. The program has been a lifeline to millions of seniors since enactment, with forty-eight million Americans currently relying on Medicare for their health security. However, with more than 10,000 baby boomers turning 65 everyday for the next two decades, and health costs continuing to rise, structural reform is essential to ensure this critical safety net is available to seniors for decades to come.

As a lifelong advocate for the elderly, I believe in the viability of the Medicare program and its commitment to providing necessary health security to millions of Americans. However, even with positive delivery system reforms enacted under the Affordable Care Act, the 2011 Medicare Trustees Report found that the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund, which pays for Medicare Part A services, is projected to run out of money in 2024. In light of this projection, and in an effort to start a real conversation about how to ensure the long-term viability of the Medicare program, I coauthored a proposal titled, “Guaranteed Choices to Strengthen Medicare and Health Security for All: Bipartisan Options for the Future.”

This proposal outlines a way to preserve the Medicare guarantee in the following ways: First and foremost, traditional Medicare will always exist and I commit to ensuring that it remains a competitive, quality, and affordable option for any senior that wants it. Under the proposal, folks currently enrolled in Medicare - and those over the age of 55 - would see no change to the Medicare system. Starting in 2022, those currently 54 and under would have the option to enroll in a traditional Medicare plan or a Medicare-approved private plan.

Approved private plans will be able to compete directly with traditional Medicare for the first time on a federally regulated Medicare exchange. Creating a Medicare exchange and allowing private plans to compete directly with Medicare will spur innovation and place pressure on plans to provide higher-quality health care at lower costs. The dollar amount of the coverage support payment would be determined annually by a competitive bidding process in which all plans, including fee-for-service Medicare, participate. After the competitive bidding process is completed, the second-least expensive approved plan or fee-for-service Medicare, whichever is least expensive, would establish the coverage support amount. Seniors would then have the option of choosing a plan that requires no additional premium costs, or electing to purchase a more expensive plan and pay the additional difference. Low-income seniors would continue to access Medicare with no out-of-pocket costs, and all plans would include catastrophic coverage, an important benefit that is lacking from the current Medicare system.

Finally, this proposal ensures the continued integrity of the Medicare program by including the strongest consumer protections of any Medicare reform plan to date. Among these is a requirement that private plans show that the coverage they offer is at least as comprehensive and high quality as traditional Medicare before they are allowed to compete for Medicare customers. On top of that, participating plans would be forbidden to charge discriminatory premiums and would be required to cover everyone regardless of age, gender or health status. To make sure private plans do not enroll only the healthiest seniors, payments to plans will be “risk adjusted.” Plans that enroll sicker patients will receive higher payments to care for their needs, while plans that only enroll the healthy will receive less financial support. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will also audit participating plans to ensure that they are complying with coverage and quality standards. Plans that are found to be in violation of their contracts will be kicked out of the program. I will not tolerate any plan ‘gaming’ the system to take advantage of the elderly.

I strongly believe that the same benefits of choice and competition I am advocating for for America’s seniors can also be accomplished and realized in the private insurance marketplace if health care options for working Americans are expanded. In an effort to do so in the private health insurance marketplace, the proposal includes a “free choice option” which would allow employees of certain small businesses to ‘take’ their employer’s contribution and shop for coverage in the marketplace. The “free choice option” removes the barriers to coverage choice by allowing employees to choose whatever plan best suits their needs, without having to give up the preferred tax treatment that comes with purchasing health insurance. Similarly, the participating employer would also get to keep their deduction for contributing to their employees’ health care coverage. Most importantly, the free choice option provides real access to affordable options for people who might otherwise go uninsured. A similar provision was included in the Affordable Care Act but after passage of the legislation, special interests succeeded in stripping it from law.

The proposal I introduced represents a sustainable path forward for the Medicare program, but I recognize that other reform ideas exist. I encourage productive input from interested stakeholders and look forward to working with folks throughout this year to ensure the proposal - and any future reform - will help achieve the goal of maintaining the Medicare program as a viable, affordable, and quality program for as long as it’s needed.

Again, thank you for keeping me apprised of your interest in this issue. If I may be of further of assistance to you in this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.



Sincerely,

Ron Wyden
United States Senator

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sen Wyden responds to me regarding Ryan-Wyden Medicare Reform (Original Post) neverforget Mar 2012 OP
kick. neverforget Mar 2012 #1
Oy. Nt xchrom Mar 2012 #2
Wyden ProSense Mar 2012 #3
thanks to these tools... madrchsod Mar 2012 #5
drive down costs?.... madrchsod Mar 2012 #4
I hope we get a primary challenger from the left for this tool. He drives me nuts as he's been neverforget Mar 2012 #6
The advocates of this blow my mind Telly Savalas Mar 2012 #7

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
3. Wyden
Sat Mar 3, 2012, 04:40 PM
Mar 2012

voted for Bush's Medicare scam.

In 2003 Wyden joined with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Trent Lott (R-MS) to help pass the Bush Administration's Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act.[26] The Bush Administration is alleged to have forced officials to hide its true cost, which later was triple its original claim.[27] The bill has been criticized as favoring pharmaceutical companies, as it prohibits the federal government from negotiating prescription drug rates.[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyden#Tenure


Krugman, 2005

A Serious Drug Problem

By PAUL KRUGMAN

There was a brief flurry of outrage when Congress passed the 2003 Medicare bill. The news media reported on the scandalous vote in the House of Representatives: Republican leaders violated parliamentary procedure, twisted arms and perhaps engaged in bribery to persuade skeptical lawmakers to change their votes in a session literally held in the dead of night.

Later, the media reported on another scandal: it turned out that the administration had deceived Congress about the bill's likely cost.

But the real scandal is what's in the legislation. It's an object lesson in how special interests hold America's health care system hostage.

The new Medicare law subsidizes private health plans, which have repeatedly failed to deliver promised cost savings. It creates an unnecessary layer of middlemen by requiring that the drug benefit be administered by private insurers. The biggest giveaway is to Big Pharma: the law specifically prohibits Medicare from using its purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices.

Outside the United States, almost every government bargains over drug prices. And it works: the Congressional Budget Office says that foreign drug prices are 35 to 55 percent below U.S. levels. Even within the United States, Veterans Affairs is able to negotiate discounts of 50 percent or more, far larger than those the Medicare actuary expects the elderly to receive under the new plan.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1


Nancy Pelosi: Ryan-Wyden Medicare plan 'lipstick on a pig'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/02/1070324/-Nancy-Pelosi-Ryan-Wyden-Medicare-plan-lipstick-on-a-pig-



madrchsod

(58,162 posts)
5. thanks to these tools...
Sat Mar 3, 2012, 04:54 PM
Mar 2012

senior citizens can not buy the two most popular anti-depressants on the market. standard insurance policies will cover-8-10 per month. seniors have to pay 50-70 dollars!

let`s not mention the donut hole....

madrchsod

(58,162 posts)
4. drive down costs?....
Sat Mar 3, 2012, 04:48 PM
Mar 2012

the base is medicare so driving down costs would be for the insurance companies costs.. i can go to any hospital in the usa and not worry about my insurance covering me. if i decide for a "no questions asked" sup plan everything is paid for. my medicare costs me 80 a month and a sup plan would be around 30 per month.

i was in the hospital for "symptoms" for an on going problem..i received the same care and diagnostic procedures that i had when i had private insurance.

there`s nothing wrong with medicare ronny.

neverforget

(9,436 posts)
6. I hope we get a primary challenger from the left for this tool. He drives me nuts as he's been
Sat Mar 3, 2012, 08:57 PM
Mar 2012

pretty good but then he does something like this which is totally unacceptable in my book.

Telly Savalas

(9,841 posts)
7. The advocates of this blow my mind
Sat Mar 3, 2012, 11:10 PM
Mar 2012

They talk about this proposal as if Medicare Advantage, which is conceptually very similar, didn't exist.

The merits of this plan (choice, driving down costs through competition, etc.) should in theory be realized through Medicare Advantage, yet I've never seen any yahoo pushing for this even acknowledge the existence of Medicare Advantage, much less what it's deficiencies are that would be corrected by the Ryan-Wyden plan.

When vague arguments in support of a new plan already apply to a plan that's in place, the onus is on the "reformer" to get a little more detailed. This is blind ideology in its purest form.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Sen Wyden responds to me ...