Letters: Romney-Ryan Medicare plan

Recently, this paper printed an article alleging that the Romney-Ryan Medicare plan would be a gamble. What’s an even bigger gamble is to do nothing to rein in the out-of-control spending growth in Medicare. What’s an even bigger gamble is Obamacare, which cuts $716 billion from the Medicare program to create a new unsustainable entitlement when we’re nearly $16 trillion in debt. With so much misinformation being reported about Medicare and the Romney-Ryan plan, it is important to set the record straight.

If we don’t modernize and stabilize the Medicare program now, it will not be available for future generations. According to Medicare’s own chief actuary, if we do nothing, Medicare will run out of money in 2024. This is probably an optimistic number. One of Medicare’s trustees, Charles Blahouse, recently issued a report that shows how the 2024 projection relies on the budget gimmick of double counting in Obamacare. This means that the actual date when Medicare runs out of money is more likely to be around 2016.

Both sides acknowledge that current spending rates in Medicare are unsustainable. The president’s plan to solve the problem is to create an unelected board of bureaucrats who will decide, from Washington, which benefits, services and physician payments to cut from Medicare. Republicans believe it is unacceptable to allow Washington bureaucrats to make the critical health-care decisions that only patients and their doctors should make.

The Romney-Ryan plan is premium support, which honors the patient-doctor relationship and empowers seniors to make their own health-care decisions. The proposal would not change anything about the current Medicare program for anyone over the age of 55 today. Anyone under 55 today would enroll in a premium support model when they turn 65. The model would set up a framework in which insurance plans would compete for the business of seniors. This dynamic, which is lacking in the current Medicare program, will incentivize plans to provide better quality health care at a lower cost. The current Medicare fee-for-service program would still be available as one of the plan options. Competition has already proven to increase quality and bring down costs for seniors by the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit plan. The program, which relies on market competition similar to that of premium support, spends 30 percent less today than it was projected to when enacted. Seniors consistently report high levels of satisfaction with the program.

If we want to keep the Medicare promise to current and future generations of seniors, it is vital we institute the right reforms. Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan have the right vision. Only with their plan is the future of a quality and affordable Medicare program assured.

U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy Louisiana 6th Congressional District

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by CountryAttorney - 12/09/2012

I know my comment is a little late, but I want to go back to the comments of those who thing doctors and lawyers shouldn't serve in Congress. Are you freaking kidding me?! First of all, the Constitution sets out the qualifications for Congress, so no law can change them...unless you either don't care about the Constitution or amend it. Secondly, what makes sense about disqualifying those who have shown the ability for higher cognitive thought from Congress? Thirdly, while we're excluding people from Congress, let's go ahead and exclude those welders, and pipe fitters, and teachers, and insurance salesman, and plumbers, and psychologists, and architects, and carpenters...get the point? Any person in any profession who has the ability to create laws can find a way to benefit from his position as a legislator. So don't blame doctors and lawyers, after all, you voted them in there or at least failed to vote them out.

2) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 12/09/2012

phil, your post " If the Obamacare bill is going to work, it has to stand on its own,and not take money from other programs that people are already paying into." You do realize what you call Obamacare is in actuality called the Afordable Care Act, right? So you did post it. The plan does work, is working for the American people, just not the insurance ecompanies and the doctors, like Cassity, who got into medicine just for the ridiculous payoff.

3) Comment by phil - 12/09/2012

If we cannot really afford Medicare right now, which is a federal system that has been around for years and is apparently going broke, what makes anyone think we can afford Obamacare? I guess that "free" money is just going to start dropping down from the heavens?

4) Comment by phil - 12/09/2012

Just for another comment I will say that I think the Obamacare plan is a wonderful plan that nobody in the USA can afford. I suppose that as long as those federal money-printing machines can continue to print out new money to increase OUR debt and nobody notices, then all will be well. Also the fact that Obamacare now forces people with money to buy health insurance and also gives the same service to the poor for free opens up a can of worms that I think most people will end up regretting later. There will be no reason to work in the USA anymore. Just let the government furnish everything to you for free. Trouble its it isn't really free for those who pay, and those who do pay will be unable to support the system in the long- term..

5) Comment by phil - 12/09/2012

Tea-Slayer: Not sure how I posted lies about the ACA taking money out of other programs when I never even mentioned the ACA in my comments. Try again. I am not taking a position that I have all of the answers here, but apparently you are. DMJ: this is complicated I admit. However, I personally think that other countries that have taken over healthcare (and done a good job) have done it by taking over the entire system and limiting how much EVERYONE in the entire system can make. Right now we have a combination of part government and part private system where the government still will maintain Medicaid health insurance for the poor. Perhaps the government should either get total control or should just let private companies have control of ALL health insurance instead of running two systems - one for the poor and one for people who can afford private insurance. Also I never mentioned a voucher system in my previous comments so I was actually saying NOTHING about that here. I think the entire Obama plan needs to be either scrapped or revised page by page and someone needs to start all over with an entirely new plan - one that will actually work. I am not sure exactly what that should be right now.

6) Comment by twinkie1cat - 12/09/2012

DMJ, I have a Medicare Advantage Plan, Peoples Health. Because of my low income Medicaid pays my premium and most of the services I receive are without a co-payment. I recently had several surgeries for which I paid nothing but would have cost hundreds of dollars with traditional Medicare. I pay between $2.50 and $6.50 for each prescription, some of which would run over $200 per month. And, I get a gym membership at my local YMCA so that I can become more physically fit. Shots, health screenings, and other necessities are also covered. Next month I will get a flu vaccine and a shingles vaccine free. The Peoples Health nurse recently encouraged me to get a screening colonoscopy because I have never had one and my annual mammogram is also without cost. They will cost me nothing. If I had more income my primary care visits would cost $5 and specialists $25. If I need mental health assistance I can get that as well as glasses. Dental work has a co-pay, but they cover $2000 per year. Medicare advantage programs, especially the one I am on are excellent and are what everyone should be able to receive for medical care. We need to keep Obama in office so that they will continue. Finally I am not having to go to Earl K. Long, sit all day and then spend 10 minutes with a doctor who does not know me from Adam's housecat and talks to me like I have a third grade reading level. Praise Jesus for Medicare Advantage!

7) Comment by twinkie1cat - 12/09/2012

In his clear demonstration why Dr. Cassidy does not deserve another term in Congress, we see more lies and rhetorical repetition of why we must not elect Romney-Ryan. Obamacare is already doing great things for sick people. The Republicans would take that away and replace it with more expensive and less available care. The money will be there for medical care if we have Obamacare. Plus there will be none of the death panels the Republicans want in order to kill off the elderly and disabled. What needs to happen with Obamacare is that everyone contributes and the wealthy pay their share. Dr. Cassidy is only being true to his chosen political party instead of to his calling as a physician. "First, do no harm" says the Hippocratic Oath. He cannot both support the Republican platform and follow that mandate.

8) Comment by nimby? - 12/09/2012

not all doctors are wealthy . this will put a further burden on doctors , clinics in isolated areas where they are direly needed . they will be unable to maintain and close their doors . a win win scenario would be for returning military medical units be deployed in these isolated , rural areas

9) Comment by DMJ - 12/09/2012

Ok, so would you favor turning it into a voucher system then? Sightly unrelated, I think all doctors and hospitals should have to accept Medicare and Medicaid. Doctors say they're in it to help people and not just for the money..... Let 'em put their money where their mouth is.

10) Comment by Bighug - 12/09/2012

You are incorrect,dmj, when you state that Medicare Advantage plans provide the same care as regular Medicare. The Advantage plans provide much more than regular Medicare, and with less co-pay where needed. I know, since I've been on Advantage plans for several years. Just check out the comparisons in cost for services from regular Medicare with the Advantage plans of Humana or Peoples Health. My regular doctor's office is 17 miles from my home. It costs me more to drive there for an appointment than my Advantage plan co-pay.

11) Comment by ScotB - 12/09/2012

Did no one read the article about pharmacies no longer able to accept Medicare/Medicaid? You cannot keep reducing the amount paid to health care providers for care below their costs of doing business. If this trend continues, doctors and pharmacies will refuse to accept it as payment. What good is an insurance coverage that health care providers will not accept?

12) Comment by krl777 - 12/09/2012

jdk944 quotes the CBO to the effect that without Obamacare, "Spending for Medicare would increase by an estimated $716 billion over that 2013–2022 period." YES, let me repeat, without Obamacare, we will spend MORE on Medicare. And by the way, the CBO report makes it clear that these are savings for the same quality of care. jdk thinks this is a bad idea. So clearly, jdk is against cutting Medicare costs.

13) Comment by DMJ - 11/09/2012

Asking a person a question isn't putting words into their mouth. In fact, it's the exact opposite of that. Let's try again.... The Ryan plan calls for turning Medicare into a voucher (excuse me...."premium support") system. No attacks...no putting words into your mouth... Do you support this plan?

14) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/09/2012

Phil, if you actual had any idea what you were talking about instead of posting lies about the ACA taking money out of other programs or the false claim about reduction in benefits, then you can talk about my comments about our lack of reading comprehension.

15) Comment by phil - 11/09/2012

DMJ - you are putting words into my mouth. No I am not saying that. I wish you would not do that. Tea_slayer, do you always have to get personal and attack me when you run out of ideas?

16) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/09/2012

phil, what part of "there will be not reduction in benefits to medicare recipeints due to the ACA" do you not comprehend? It's like talking to an obstinate child.

17) Comment by DMJ - 11/09/2012

So phil, are you saying you'd rather Medicare be turned into a voucher system?

18) Comment by phil - 11/09/2012

I will add that there is no doubt that something needs to be done about the rising costs of health care and health insurance in the USA. Obamacare just is not the answer.

19) Comment by phil - 11/09/2012

The money to pay for those huge increases in Medicaid have to come from somewhere. If any of the money is coming from Medicare to pay for Obamacare, that is not right. People who have payed into Medicare all of their lives will get the shaft on this deal. If the Obamacare bill is going to work, it has to stand on its own,and not take money from other programs that people are already paying into. The short of it is that the federal government is already $16 TRILLION! in debt, and I have no faith that this Obamacare package will be handled any better than the way the federal government is already handling OUR money!

20) Comment by DMJ - 11/09/2012

The ACA doesn't cut Medicare; it cuts Medicare Advantage, which basically funnels public dollars to hospitals and insurance companies while providing the same care as regular Medicare. The Ryan-Romney plan, however, turns Medicare into a voucher system, the value of which, over time, increases slower than the actual cost of services. The idea is that this will reign in costs. Democrats argue that it will not control costs of the actual medical care; it will just pay for less services, so it will be cheaper for the government. Notice how Republicans started calling this convoluted voucher system "premium support" instead of vouchers, which is what their plan truly amounts to. This Mickey-Mouse rebranding will only fool those planning to vote for Romney not matter what anyway. Sorry, Bill. Not buying it.

21) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/09/2012

The salient point of my previous post is that through streamlining, the ACA saves $716M and there will be no reduction in services for beneficiaries. jdk buys into everything his masters spoon feed him. And apologies for the double post. Not sure how that happened.

22) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/09/2012

For those that refuse to read or comprehend: The ACA does NOT cut Medicare : "The claim that Obama cut $700 billion out of Medicare is relatively new. Not long ago, the oft-cited number was $500 billion. How did he manage to cut another $200 billion when no one was looking?   First things first: Neither Obama nor his health care law literally cut a dollar amount from the Medicare program’s budget.   Rather, the health care law instituted a number of changes to try to bring down future health care costs in the program. At the time the law was passed, those reductions amounted to $500 billion over the next 10 years.   What kind of spending reductions are we talking about? They were mainly aimed at insurance companies and hospitals, not beneficiaries. The law makes significant reductions to Medicare Advantage, a subset of Medicare plans run by private insurers. Medicare Advantage was started under President George W. Bush, and the idea was that competition among the private insurers would reduce costs. But in recent years the plans have actually cost more than traditional Medicare. So the health care law scales back the payments to private insurers.   Hospitals, too, will be paid less if they have too many re-admissions, or if they fail to meet other new benchmarks for patient care.   Obama and fellow Democrats say the intention is to protect beneficiaries' coverage while forcing health care providers to become more efficient.   Under the new law, the overall Medicare budget is projected to go up for the foreseeable future. The health care law tries to limit that growth, making it less than it would have been without the law, but not reducing its overall budget. So claims that Obama would "cut" Medicare need more explanation to be fully accurate. In the past, we’ve rated similar statements Half True or Mostly False, depending on the wording and context.   Because Medicare spending gets bigger every year, the cost-saving mechanisms in the health care law also get bigger. Also, it takes a few years for the health care law’s savings mechanisms to kick in. In fact, the effects of time are the main reason the $500 billion number has turned into $700 billion.   The CBO determined in 2011 that the federal health care law would reduce Medicare outlays by $507 billion between 2012 and 2021. In a more recent estimate released this year, the CBO looked at the years 2013 to 2022 and determined the health care law affected Medicare outlays by $716 billion.   So it’s timing that’s making the cuts bigger, not changes to Medicare." -- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/15/mitt-romney/mitt- romney-said-barack-obama-first-history-rob-me/

23) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/09/2012

For those that refuse to read or comprehend: The ACA does NOT cut Medicare : "The claim that Obama cut $700 billion out of Medicare is relatively new. Not long ago, the oft-cited number was $500 billion. How did he manage to cut another $200 billion when no one was looking?   First things first: Neither Obama nor his health care law literally cut a dollar amount from the Medicare program’s budget.   Rather, the health care law instituted a number of changes to try to bring down future health care costs in the program. At the time the law was passed, those reductions amounted to $500 billion over the next 10 years.   What kind of spending reductions are we talking about? They were mainly aimed at insurance companies and hospitals, not beneficiaries. The law makes significant reductions to Medicare Advantage, a subset of Medicare plans run by private insurers. Medicare Advantage was started under President George W. Bush, and the idea was that competition among the private insurers would reduce costs. But in recent years the plans have actually cost more than traditional Medicare. So the health care law scales back the payments to private insurers.   Hospitals, too, will be paid less if they have too many re-admissions, or if they fail to meet other new benchmarks for patient care.   Obama and fellow Democrats say the intention is to protect beneficiaries' coverage while forcing health care providers to become more efficient.   Under the new law, the overall Medicare budget is projected to go up for the foreseeable future. The health care law tries to limit that growth, making it less than it would have been without the law, but not reducing its overall budget. So claims that Obama would "cut" Medicare need more explanation to be fully accurate. In the past, we’ve rated similar statements Half True or Mostly False, depending on the wording and context.   Because Medicare spending gets bigger every year, the cost-saving mechanisms in the health care law also get bigger. Also, it takes a few years for the health care law’s savings mechanisms to kick in. In fact, the effects of time are the main reason the $500 billion number has turned into $700 billion.   The CBO determined in 2011 that the federal health care law would reduce Medicare outlays by $507 billion between 2012 and 2021. In a more recent estimate released this year, the CBO looked at the years 2013 to 2022 and determined the health care law affected Medicare outlays by $716 billion.   So it’s timing that’s making the cuts bigger, not changes to Medicare." -- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/15/mitt-romney/mitt- romney-said-barack-obama-first-history-rob-me/

24) Comment by jdk944 - 11/09/2012

For those that insist that Obamacare wouldn't cut Medicare by $716 billion from 2013-2022, read the Congressional Budget Office's (CB0) letter of 7/24/12 to Speaker of the House John Boehner. This 22 page letter discusses the affect HR 6079, passed by the House of Representatives on 7/11/12, would have - this bill "repealed' Obamacare!! On page 13 of that 22 page report, they say that with the repeal of the Obamacare Act, "Spending for Medicare would increase by an estimated $716 billion over that 2013–2022 period."!!!!

25) Comment by dday198 - 11/09/2012

party line voting slug with no slug to run against him.

26) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 11/09/2012

Cassidy is a big fat liar... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o- meter/article/2012/aug/15/checking-facts-700-billion-medicare-cut/

27) Comment by RALLEN - 11/09/2012

If there is a group with a conflict of interest that should be barred from public office, it is lawyers.

28) Comment by gvm - 11/09/2012

Cassidy is not simply being disingenuous - I think he's lying.

29) Comment by Loki - 11/09/2012

Seniors, you'll be on your own to make your own health care decisions. Go shop those vouchers around and be sure to save some time for waiting on the phone with your insurance company. Is noone challenging this cynical and useless shill?

30) Comment by dday198 - 11/09/2012

The Romney-Ryan plan is premium support = voucher

31) Comment by Bighug - 11/09/2012

While we're barring people from serving in congress to prevent conflicts of interest, Mr. T, there are a few other than physicians who should be barred. They include business owners, lawyers, professors, company execs, engineers, farmers, parents, nurses, car dealers, funeral directors, and pilots. I may have missed a few thousand.

32) Comment by chem - 11/09/2012

Cassidy, not surprisingly, is being disingenuous, to state it politely. The $716 billion "cut" from medicare is a cut in payments to providers and hospitals. No -- repeat no -- benefits have been cut. And the Ryan budget has exactly the same $716 billion in medicare cuts in his so-called budget. The republicans want to gut medicare/medicaid and give everyone vouchers to buy insurance. They say that the market will allow affordable insurance for seniors. Does any body but a republican believe that nonsense? Look where the "market" got us with health insurance. Seniors, on a fixed budget will not be able to afford anything close to what they receive through medicare/medicaid. People who have worked hard all their life should not have to worry about getting healthcare in their retirement years. Leaving it to insurance companies is cruel and heartless. The repbublicans should be ashamed.

33) Comment by Mr. T - 11/09/2012

I think we should have a law that prohibits physicians like Cassidy from serving in Congress. Those people have a huge conflict of interest, and are generally more interested in lining their pockets than making Medicare sustainable. Cut out the huge profit margins for drug companies and other health providers, and balancing the Medicare budget isn't that hard. It works almost verywhere else in the world, and it can work here too.