Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Congress' chief budget officer is contradicting President Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn't see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.
The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators Tuesday that seniors in Medicare's managed care plans would see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee."
"Congress' chief budget officer is contradicting President Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn't see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.
The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators Tuesday that seniors in Medicare's managed care plans would see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee."
Didn't the Gov just get done hushing insurance companies up about this?
Ah yes ... here it is;
Quote:
The warning came after Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., launched an investigation of Humana Inc. Humana is one of the largest private insurers participating in a program called Medicare Advantage. Federal subsidies to private Medicare plans average about 14 percent higher than those involved in traditional fee-for-service Medicare coverage. The health care bills pending in Congress would reduce or eliminate the difference.
GOP raps Dems for hushing insurers on Medicare - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090922/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_medicare - broken link)
What Elmendorf apparently refers to is language in the Baucus bill that will act to curtail the current insurance company practice of billing Medicare Advantage up to 150% of what is charged for the same drugs provided to a patient under plain old Medicare. This is simply theft by the insurance companies that contrbutes nothing to anyone'e health. In the sense that payments would fall from $150 back toward $100, seniors may "lose benefits" under Medicare Advantage. But they would still be getting the same drugs for the same or lower out-of-pocket cost.
What Elmendorf apparently refers to is language in the Baucus bill that will act to curtail the current insurance company practice of billing Medicare Advantage up to 150% of what is charged for the same drugs provided to a patient under plain old Medicare. This is simply theft by the insurance companies that contrbutes nothing to anyone'e health. In the sense that payments would fall from $150 back toward $100, seniors may "lose benefits" udner Medicare Advantage. But they would still be getting the same drugs for the same or lower out-of-pocket cost.
They could fix that with a one paragraph long bill. No need for these 1000 page bills with amendments out the ying yang.
What Elmendorf apparently refers to is language in the Baucus bill that will act to curtail the current insurance company practice of billing Medicare Advantage up to 150% of what is charged for the same drugs provided to a patient under plain old Medicare. This is simply theft by the insurance companies that contrbutes nothing to anyone'e health. In the sense that payments would fall from $150 back toward $100, seniors may "lose benefits" under Medicare Advantage. But they would still be getting the same drugs for the same or lower out-of-pocket cost.
If he had meant that he would have said that. He said a reduction in benefits, he didn't say a reduction in reinbursement to insurance companies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.