Romney says he's going to restore Medicare cuts

[jognlope]

He said it. "I'm going to restore the $716 billion in cuts if president." Those are the same cuts that both Ryan's and Obama's budget contain. Health care providers' income will not suffer because of all the new patients from ACA. But no, he's going to restore the cuts. How? They are technically rates that grow slower than before, not actual cuts.

[Tom]

No, they are real cuts - and Ryans' budget did not do what they are lying about.

Trust me, the dems are lying through their teeth on every single issue.
There is not one of them that you can believe.

[jognlope]

So CBS and NBC are lying about the "cuts" being slower rate of growth in Medicare payments to providers?

[elysiantraveller]

So CBS and NBC are lying about the "cuts" being slower rate of growth in Medicare payments to providers?

The cuts are the scheduled increased payments to providers. Basically the government is not going to be paying more for the cost of care going forward. They are "cuts" because they are scheduled increases in payments for services.

Mitt Romney is not planning on making those cuts.

That right now... is the difference.

[sammy the sage]

No, they are real cuts - and Ryans' budget did not do what they are lying about.

Trust me, the dems are lying through their teeth on every single issue.
There is not one of them that you can believe.

I would DARE venture to say...that GOES FOR both sides :bang:

[Tom]

So CBS and NBC are lying about the "cuts" being slower rate of growth in Medicare payments to providers?

Never listen to anything you hear on NBC of CBS of ABC.
They work for Obama....or might as well.
NEWS is not on their menu.

Tape all three some night and then listen for the exact same phrases being used by all three. CNN is the worst - they caught Soledud O'brien asking questions, on air, directly fro a left wing blog on her computer, and insisting that something was true when it was not. What a waste of air that broad is!

[mostpost]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/

Here is where the $716B is coming from. It is not coming from benefits paid to Seniors.

1. About one/third of the cuts come from the Medicare Advantage program. As you all of course know, Medicare Advantage allows seniors to join a private health insurance, with the federal government footing the bill. This was supposed to reduce costs because private insurance companies would be competing for the seniors business. You know, the good old free market. :rolleyes:

Surprise!! That did not happen. By 2010, the average Medicare Advantage per-patient cost was 117 percent of regular fee-for-service. The Affordable Care Act gives those private plans a haircut and tethers reimbursement levels to the quality of care administered, and patient satisfaction.

So, cuts to elderly beneficiaries? NO.
Elimination of fraud, waste and abuse? Yes.

2. Payments to hospitals.
The health law changed how Medicare calculates what they get reimbursed for various services, slightly lowering their rates over time. Hospitals agreed to these cuts because they knew, at the same time, they would likely see an influx of paying patients with the Affordable Care Act’s insurance expansion.
Cuts to elderly beneficiaries? Not this time.
Reduction of payments to hospitals over time? Reductions that the hospitals agreed to. Yes.

3. Various other savings.
The rest of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicare cuts are a lot smaller. Reductions to Medicare’s Disproportionate Share Payments — extra funds doled out the hospitals that see more uninsured patients — account for 5 percent in savings. Lower payments to home health providers make up another 8.8 percent. About a dozen cuts of this magnitude make up the green section above.
Again these are all cuts to providers not beneficiaries. Not to the elderly.

In plain words, the ACA did not steal Medicare benefits from seniors. It reformed Medicare Advantage and other programs to create economies and used that to help pay for a law which will eventually add thirty million to the ranks of the insured. :ThmbUp:

[Greyfox]

Again these are all cuts to providers not beneficiaries. Not to the elderly.



Riddle me this Mostie.

If I am running a service for Seniors, say maybe a nursing home or assisted living center, and my funding is cut, how do I provide the same level of service to the population that I am serving??

[mostpost]

So CBS and NBC are lying about the "cuts" being slower rate of growth in Medicare payments to providers?
They are not lying, but rather than a slower rate I think it is a new way of figuring the payments. Previously payments were based on cost of care. The hospitals determined that. Now quality of care administered, and patient satisfaction will also be considered.

[elysiantraveller]

In plain words, the ACA did not steal Medicare benefits from seniors. It reformed Medicare Advantage and other programs to create economies and used that to help pay for a law which will eventually add thirty million to the ranks of the insured. :ThmbUp:

Medicare Advantage programs. The ones being targeted are more sought after by lower income/minority seniors... They will now have to enter FFS medicare where they are subject to a $1296 Deductible and an uncapped 20% Coinsurance.

http://www.ahipcoverage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Low-Income-Minority-Beneficiaries-with-Medicare-Advantage-2010.pdf

Mike asked about the breakdown as well. There it is.

The President, mosty, is cutting funding from a service that is preferred by lower income seniors forcing them to either A) pay more in premiums or B) enroll in FFS medicare with its deductible and coinsurance.

Edit)

Actually its probably C) they wind up on medicaid; where they aren't contributing at all to the system but I digress...

[JustRalph]

Riddle me this Mostie.

If I am running a service for Seniors, say maybe a nursing home or assisted living center, and my funding is cut, how do I provide the same level of service to the population that I am serving??

You can't. Good point.

Btw, the larger problem is that there will be no doctors participating. No matter who pays, if docs are losing money treating medicare patients ( they already lose 25% on every office visit) the program won't be worth anything because you won't be able to find a doctor.

Reform is the only answer.

[mostpost]

Riddle me this Mostie.

If I am running a service for Seniors, say maybe a nursing home or assisted living center, and my funding is cut, how do I provide the same level of service to the population that I am serving??
Maybe you could forego your trip to the Seychelles this year.

[Tom]

Let me add to my list....NBC, CBS, ABC, and mostie.

[jognlope]

So I guess Medicare part C was overpaying insurers and that'll stop.

[mostpost]

Medicare Advantage programs. The ones being targeted are more sought after by lower income/minority seniors... They will now have to enter FFS medicare where they are subject to a $1296 Deductible and an uncapped 20% Coinsurance.

http://www.ahipcoverage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Low-Income-Minority-Beneficiaries-with-Medicare-Advantage-2010.pdf

Mike asked about the breakdown as well. There it is.

The President, mosty, is cutting funding from a service that is preferred by lower income seniors forcing them to either A) pay more in premiums or B) enroll in FFS medicare with its deductible and coinsurance.

Edit)

Actually its probably C) they wind up on medicaid; where they aren't contributing at all to the system but I digress...
They are not eliminating Medicare Advantage so no one is being thrown into a plan they don't want

They are changing the way payments are determined.

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/2052-15.pdf
The second page explains how payments to providers were determined originally and how that process evolved over the years. Then it shows how the payments will be determined under the new law.

As mentioned in my previous post, the cost for services under Medicare Advantage are now 117% of what they are under Fee for service Medicare.
How much of that 17% is extra profit; not profit, extra profit?

[mostpost]

So I guess Medicare part C was overpaying insurers and that'll stop.
That's the plan, but as Robert Burns wrote:
"The best-laid schemes o' mice an 'men
Gang aft agley"

[elysiantraveller]

They are not eliminating Medicare Advantage so no one is being thrown into a plan they don't want

They are changing the way payments are determined.

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/2052-15.pdf
The second page explains how payments to providers were determined originally and how that process evolved over the years. Then it shows how the payments will be determined under the new law.

As mentioned in my previous post, the cost for services under Medicare Advantage are now 117% of what they are under Fee for service Medicare.
How much of that 17% is extra profit; not profit, extra profit?

The number you are quoting, the 117%, is for PFFS medicare advantage plans... Those plans do not exist anymore as a result of the ACA. Where I live Humana, Today's Options, and BC/BS offered PFFS plans. They were taken away in 2011 and people had to go out and select another insurer like a HMO or PPO.

The PFFS plans went away with the passing of ACA. If you had a PFFS you received a letter explaining your loss of coverage and your eligibility to go out and select another plan during a special election period that began in September and ran thru the Annual Enrollment Period which used to be November 15 thru December 31st in 2010.

As far as your extra profit question... I guess I don't know. If there was money in it I am sure insurers would continue to offer the plans. In any case your statement that people didn't lose their coverage is false, many already have...

[Actor]

Trust me, the G.O.P. are lying through their teeth on every single issue.
There is not one of them that you can believe.

[mostpost]

The number you are quoting, the 117%, is for PFFS medicare advantage plans... Those plans do not exist anymore as a result of the ACA. Where I live Humana, Today's Options, and BC/BS offered PFFS plans. They were taken away in 2011 and people had to go out and select another insurer like a HMO or PPO.

The PFFS plans went away with the passing of ACA. If you had a PFFS you received a letter explaining your loss of coverage and your eligibility to go out and select another plan during a special election period that began in September and ran thru the Annual Enrollment Period which used to be November 15 thru December 31st in 2010.

As far as your extra profit question... I guess I don't know. If there was money in it I am sure insurers would continue to offer the plans. In any case your statement that people didn't lose their coverage is false, many already have...

It would appear that you are correct that the 117% does indeed refer to the Medicare Advantage PFFS plans, or at least those plans make up a vast portion of the extra 17%. I concede you are correct.

That still effects the savings under ACA. If you eliminate the higher cost plans and replace them with something that costs less, you are saving money.

Furthermore, my statement that people didn't lose their coverage is not false.
In your own words above:
If you had a PFFS you received a letter explaining your loss of coverage and your eligibility to go out and select another plan during a special election period that began in September and ran thru the Annual Enrollment Period which used to be November 15 thru December 31st in 2010.

No one lost their coverage, unless they were careless and did not select another plan. Even then I would think they could go out and get another MA plan. Of course they would be without coverage while they do so. But, give me a break, four months is a long time to do something.

In a previous post, you said,
They will now have to enter FFS medicare where they are subject to a $1296 Deductible and an uncapped 20% Coinsurance.

The Medicare Advantage plans don't have Deductibles and don't have coinsurance???? Where is the incredulous icon when you need it? :bang:

[mostpost]

Trust me, the G.O.P. are lying through their teeth on every single issue.
There is not one of them that you can believe.
Not true! Not True! Not true! Christine O'Donnell said she was a witch.

[rastajenk]

Trust mePardon me, but I don't think I will.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The cuts are the scheduled increased payments to providers. Basically the government is not going to be paying more for the cost of care going forward. They are "cuts" because they are scheduled increases in payments for services.

Mitt Romney is not planning on making those cuts.

That right now... is the difference.

Wow, you've been captured by someone inside the Beltway! They aren't cuts; they slow the rate of growth.

[Greyfox]

Maybe you could forego your trip to the Seychelles this year.

The above was your response to my question re:
how would levels of service to Seniors be maintained by providers who were receiving less funding?

The question was asked after your insistence that "Again these are all cuts to providers not beneficiaries. Not to the elderly."



Your flippant response, which fails to recognize that seniors will be impacted by the cuts along with front line staff who are offering services, tells me that you sir are shilling for Obama.

You are a shill.

[elysiantraveller]

Wow, you've been captured by someone inside the Beltway! They aren't cuts; they slow the rate of growth.

These word games are the type of idiocy that we shouldn't be playing. We were going to spend $716 and now we aren't. Call it what you want. If we decided to stop making cost of living adjustments and inflation adjustments to SSI would that be a "cut" or just "slowing growth?" :rolleyes:

Mosty just said if your insurance was cancelled you didn't lose it because you could go get a different one... :faint:

[elysiantraveller]

No one lost their coverage, unless they were careless and did not select another plan. Even then I would think they could go out and get another MA plan. Of course they would be without coverage while they do so. But, give me a break, four months is a long time to do something.

The Medicare Advantage plans don't have Deductibles and don't have coinsurance???? Where is the incredulous icon when you need it? :bang:

Yes people did lose their coverage. These, again, are the types of word games people are playing. If you got let go from your job at the post office and then went to work at UPS you still lost your job right?!? I'm trying hard to be nice to you but come on man...

Secondly, the costs between traditional Medicare and MA are quite large hence why so many lower class and minority seniors flock to them. I don't have time right now to get in the weeds on this but where I live we have a MA with the Blues that is $0 premium and a $250 deductible versus the $1296 of traditional Medicare. If interested I can get you more data this evening.

[mostpost]

Yes people did lose their coverage. These, again, are the types of word games people are playing. If you got let go from your job at the post office and then went to work at UPS you still lost your job right?!? I'm trying hard to be nice to you but come on man...

Secondly, the costs between traditional Medicare and MA are quite large hence why so many lower class and minority seniors flock to them. I don't have time right now to get in the weeds on this but where I live we have a MA with the Blues that is $0 premium and a $250 deductible versus the $1296 of traditional Medicare. If interested I can get you more data this evening.

You're right, we are getting into word games here. I was looking at it from my perspective as a postal employee. We were covered by FEHB. That was a smorgasbord of plans from which you would pick the one that fit you the best. Each year during open season you could change.

Sometimes new companies would be added to the list. Sometimes old ones would drop off. When this happened you had the opportunity to select a new provider. You could say you lost that particular coverage, yet there were no gaps in your coverage. Why wouldn't MA work the same?

where I live we have a MA with the Blues that is $0 premium and a $250 deductible versus the $1296 of traditional Medicare.
There must be differences in coverage to account for that difference.

[mostpost]

The above was your response to my question re:
how would levels of service to Seniors be maintained by providers who were receiving less funding?

The question was asked after your insistence that "Again these are all cuts to providers not beneficiaries. Not to the elderly."



Your flippant response, which fails to recognize that seniors will be impacted by the cuts along with front line staff who are offering services, tells me that you sir are shilling for Obama.

You are a shill.
It was not flippant at all. You conservatives are always talking about fraud and waste in government. Now us liberals are trying to do something about fraud and waste in the Medicare Advantage program and you are complaining about it.

Payments now will be based on outcomes and quality of care. If your facility is providing quality care at a reasonable price you should have nothing to worry about.

For the last several years medicare advantage has been overpaying providers as incentive to participate in the program. The ACA ended that and payments are now based on costs and outcomes. If you have been taking the extra cash and using it to build a bungalow in Bermuda, you're going to have to stop.

Seniors will be impacted by this only if providers continue to take that extra profit.

[Greyfox]

Seniors will be impacted by this only if providers continue to take that extra profit.

Therein lies the fallacy of your spoutings.

Your concern here is to prove that Obama is doing the right thing.
I have no problems with costs of service being cut per se as long as safeguards are implemented to insure quality control with respect to standards of care for seniors.
Those are not part of the package.

You know full well that seniors will be impacted yet you continue to beat the drum for Obama. For the last few years you have been supposedly fighting for the "little guy" who does an honest days work and goes home.
You also know that reduction in payments to providers will result in job losses for the little guys that you have supposedly been arguing for over the years.
Costs of Senior Care facilities are 80% staff. Food, heating, sundry, medications and so on make up 20%.
Reductions will effectively have to come from staff cuts.
They will not come from the "providers" part of the pie.
I'm sure that you know that.
Hence I can only conclude that your main concern here is defending Obama.
The front line workers who you have previously been trumpeting for are being shoved under the bus by your argument.
There is nothing in your defense of these cuts indicating that you really do, or ever had, worker concerns in mind.
That fact shows you to be a hypocrite, hiding behind Union garb, when in reality your main interest is Obama.
That is why I think that you are an Obama shill.

[dartman51]

The above was your response to my question re:
how would levels of service to Seniors be maintained by providers who were receiving less funding?

The question was asked after your insistence that "Again these are all cuts to providers not beneficiaries. Not to the elderly."



Your flippant response, which fails to recognize that seniors will be impacted by the cuts along with front line staff who are offering services, tells me that you sir are shilling for Obama.

You are a shill.

:lol: And you just figured that out?? It's not like he's been trying to hide it. :D

[elysiantraveller]

There must be differences in coverage to account for that difference.

No... there isn't any measureable metric where Medicare is a better program than that Blue MA..