The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.
More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the government’s largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family clinic in Glendale, northwest of Phoenix, said Michael Yardley, a Mayo spokesman. The decision, which Yardley called a two-year pilot project, won’t affect other Mayo facilities in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota.
Obama in June cited the nonprofit Rochester, Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio for offering “the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm.” Mayo’s move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.
“Many physicians have said, ‘I simply cannot afford to keep taking care of Medicare patients,’” said Heim, a family doctor who practices in Laurinburg, North Carolina. “If you truly know your business costs and you are losing money, it doesn’t make sense to do more of it.”
The newest bargain being proposed on health care in the Senate would give liberals a major expansion of Medicare by making more than 30 million Americans between the ages of 55 and 65 eligible for the financially exhausted program, previously just for senior citizens.
But by expanding an existing government-run insurance program (while cutting it by $500 billion?) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hopes to avoid defeat of his bill because of moderate member’s concerns over his plan to create a whole new health entitlement.
Writers Greg Hitt and Janet Adamy tell us that what’s being offered as the alternative to the government plan approved in the House is a non-profit, national private plan regulated by the federal government.
Liberals in the Senate are trying hard not to look too happy. The bill would ultimately make the government responsible for the new health plan and would create a genuine public option if the non-profit/private/public lash-up goes bust.
Reid was crowing again last night, but as Examiner colleague Susan Ferrechio points out, there is still no certainty that a bill will pass.
Meet the unelected body that will dictate future medical decisions.
As usual, the most dangerous parts of ObamaCare aren’t receiving the scrutiny they deserve—and one of the least examined is a new commission to tell Congress how to control health spending. Democrats are quietly attempting to impose a “global budget” on Medicare, with radical implications for U.S. medicine.
Like most of Europe, the various health bills stipulate that Congress will arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year—and then invest an unelected board with extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered and how it will be paid for. White House budget director Peter Orszag calls this Medicare commission “critical to our fiscal future” and “one of the most potent reforms.”
On that last score, he’s right. Prominent health economist Alain Enthoven has likened a global budget to “bombing from 35,000 feet, where you don’t see the faces of the people you kill.”
As envisioned by the Senate Finance Committee, the commission—all 15 members appointed by the President—would have to meet certain budget targets each year. Starting in 2015, Medicare could not grow more rapidly on a per capita basis than by a measure of inflation. After 2019, it could only grow at the same rate as GDP, plus one percentage point.
The theory is to let technocrats set Medicare payments free from political pressure, as with the military base closing commissions. But that process presented recommendations to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Here, the commission’s decisions would go into effect automatically if Congress couldn’t agree within six months on different cuts that met the same target. The board’s decisions would not be subject to ordinary notice-and-comment rule-making, or even judicial review.
Yet if the goal really is political insulation, then the Medicare Commission is off to a bad start. To avoid a senior revolt, Finance Chairman Max Baucus decided to bar his creation from reducing benefits or raising the eligibility age, which meant that it could only cut costs by tightening Medicare price controls on doctors and hospitals. Doctors and hospitals, naturally, were furious.
On Monday, October 19, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona shared with his colleagues in the Senate what he has been hearing from his constituents on Health Care Reform. Senator Kyl gave a 20-minute presentation in which he aptly articulated the concerns most Americans are expressing about the Health Care Reform bill. Although it is a bit long, this is a “must-see” speech for everyone who cares about the future of health care in America.
According to AMA’s National Health Insurance Report Card, Medicare denies 6.85 percent of its claims, higher than any private insurer (Aetna was second, denying 6.80 percent of its claims), and more than double any private insurer’s average.
The Obama administration repeats ad nauseum that we need a government option to “keep insurance companies honest” and to make sure they don’t deny anyone coverage. Well what does one say about the fact that Medicare denies more claims than private insurers?
President Obama has promised that if we like our health insurance we can keep it. But will those who are forced into the public option–which has been estimated to be minimum of tens of millions of currently insured Americans in addition to those “46 million” currently uninsured–be satisfied with their care given that the government program Medicare’s denial of claims outranks any private insurer’s?
AMA is effectively endorsing a public plan that is the largest denier of claims. How the public option would provide health care to patients is hard to understand.
As the health-reform bills move through Congress, the prognosis for Medicare pa tients gets worse and worse.
The Senate Finance Committee bill (generally called the Baucus bill, after Chairman Max Baucus) robs the elderly to cover the uninsured — like snatching purses from little old ladies. The House bills already cut future funding for Medicare by $500 billion over the next decade. The Baucus bill would slash a similar amount, just when 30 percent more people enter the program as baby boomers turn 65.
The Baucus bill also puts new limits on what doctors can do for patients in Medicare:
* A “race to the bottom” provision (p. 102 of the revised chairman’s mark) would take effect each year for the next five years. The provision penalizes doctors who end up in the 90th percentile or above on the cost of what they use to treat their patients, compared with national averages. The intent is to force down the cost of care, year by year. Yet this blunt instrument can’t determine which care is actually wasteful – it will punish doctors for treating high cost patients with complex conditions. Inevitably, it will lower the quality of care.
* Even more devastating is the amendment Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) got inserted into the bill (revised chairman’s mark, pp. 102-3). It gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to define quality, cost-effective care for each medical condition and penalize doctors who spend more on their patients.
The law establishing Medicare in 1965 barred the federal government from interfering in doctors’ treatment decisions. Slowly, Medicare regulations have begun unraveling that protection. Now the Cantwell amendment finishes the job.
This is the most extreme change to Medicare ever. Dr. David McKalip, a Florida neurosurgeon and a board member of the Florida Medical Association, predicts: “The only doctors left in Medicare will be those willing to ration care and practice cookbook medicine.”
Administration Silences Medicare Advantage Critics—So AARP Can Collect More “Kickbacks”
“There’s an inherent conflict of interest….They’re ending up becoming very dependent on sources of income.”
- Former AARP Executive Marilyn Moon, quoted in Bloomberg article
This week the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced it was investigating Humana for providing “misleading” information regarding the Administration’s proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage policies-and prohibited other Medicare Advantage plans from providing similar information on how Democrat health “reform” could take away their current coverage.
Yet the Administration’s edict prohibiting plans from communicating with their beneficiaries failed to include AARP, which sponsors a Medicare Advantage plan but has been a prime advocate of Democrats’ government takeover of health care-quite possibly because AARP has been supporting a health care overhaul from which it stands to gain overall handsomely. Even as AARP advocates for cutting Medicare Advantage plans by more than $150 billion, an analysis of the organization’s operations reveals that it stands to receive tens of millions of dollars at the expense of seniors’ medical care-with Democrats’ full approval:
The Congressional Budget Office has previously estimated that the cuts to Medicare Advantage plans proposed in Democrats’ government takeover of health care (H.R. 3200) would cause millions of seniors to lose their current plan and enroll in government-run Medicare.
Because the government-run Medicare benefit is less generous than most private health plans, the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission found in June that more than nine in ten seniors not in nursing home settings utilize some form of Medicare supplemental insurance. While many of these individuals currently rely on Medicare Advantage plans for the extra benefits they provide to seniors, many would be forced to purchase supplemental Medigap policies should their existing Medicare Advantage plans be taken away from them due to Democrats’ government takeover of health care.
A review of its financial statements finds that in 2008, AARP received more than half a billion dollars in revenue from selling products like Medigap supplemental insurance policies-$652.7 million in direct “royalties and fees,” and an increase of more than 31 percent from the $497.6 million in similar revenue AARP generated in 2007.
Royalty revenues now comprise more than half-60.3 percent-of all AARP revenues; a Bloomberg news analysis published in December found that in 1999, royalties comprised only 11 percent of the organization’s total revenues.
The Bloomberg article-which highlighted what one observer called AARP’s “dirty little secret”-profiled seniors who felt betrayed after paying hundreds of dollars above market price for AARP-branded coverage. One noted that “AARP has great buying power, and people should be able to get the best deal….This is unconscionable, what AARP has allowed to happen.” Another disillusioned senior wrote to the organization’s leadership asking whether AARP had a “‘special relationship’ with [insurance carriers] by which it receives commissions, incentives, rebates, or dare I say ‘kickbacks?’”-and when he arrived at AARP headquarters for a tour, was promptly escorted out of the marble-covered atrium.
While H.R. 3200 would place strict price controls on Medicare Advantage plans-requiring them to pay out 85 percent of premium revenues in medical claims-Medigap policies face a far less strict 65 percent requirement. In other words, under the Democrat bill, seniors could pay as much as 20 cents more out of every premium dollar to fund “kickbacks” to AARP-sponsored Medigap plans than Medicare Advantage plans.
The higher prices charged by AARP plans, and the organization’s increasing dependence upon revenue from “royalties,” provide tangible evidence why AARP would support cuts to Medicare Advantage that would likely increase their “kickbacks” from Medigap plans. However, it does not answer several key questions:
Given the myriad new layers of insurance regulation included in Democrats’ government takeover of health care, why does the legislation not include a single provision attempting to impose any new restrictions on Medigap policies?
Did Democrats “forget” to protect seniors-or were they informed that AARP could not support legislation that would limit its lucrative revenue source?
Similarly, did CMS “forget” to include AARP among the organizations whose First Amendment rights to inform seniors of harmful Medicare provisions were restricted-or did the Administration only wish to silence its critics, and not outside organizations using “kickbacks” to fund advertising in support of the Democrat agenda?
These questions hint at a more fundamental query: With seniors believing that AARP is “making money on the backs of old people,” who should believe that the organization is looking out for seniors’ interests and not its own?
Across the country, amid the heat swell of the ongoing health care debate, many of the nation’s gray panthers have a new fire growing in their bellies, attending town halls, writing letters, and shifting the balance of political power as polls show them moving to the GOP.
They are not just making themselves heard on their key issues of Medicare and insurance, but giving their legislators a piece of their mind that a way of life is slipping away.
“They” are seniors like Jerry Johnson, a 75-year-old retired yacht salesman from Tallahassee, Fla. He says he’s spending his days delving into issues like a seasoned Washington pundit.
“I’m doing this for my kids,” he says of his activism, which includes talking with voters, attending town-hall meetings and listening to political radio “12 hours a day.”
“They all have lives and are busy working but I’m really concerned about the debt and the world they’ll have to face,” he said. “I see myself as their warrior because I see our country slipping away. It’s going to go a lot more quickly unless someone like me gets active. I’ve got the time.”
Mr. Johnson said it’s the most politically engaged he’s been in his life, and there’s a reason for that. The Michigan native said that since the last presidential election, the stakes have never been so high, which is why he’s out of his easy chair and moving into the fray.
The thing about the bully pulpit is that Presidents can make the most fantastic claims and it takes days to sort the reality from the myths. So as a public service, let’s try to navigate the, er, remarkable Medicare discussion that President Obama delivered on Wednesday. It isn’t easy.
Mr. Obama began by depicting a crisis in the entitlement state, noting that “our health-care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers,” especially Medicare. Unless we find a way to cauterize this fiscal hemorrhage, “we will eventually be spending more on Medicare than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health-care program is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.”
On this score he’s right. Medicare’s unfunded liability—the gap between revenues and promised benefits—is currently some $37 trillion over the next 75 years. Yet the President uses this insolvency as an argument to justify the creation of another health-care entitlement, this time for most everyone under age 65. It’s like a variation on the old Marx Brothers routine: “The soup is terrible and the portions are too small.”
As astonishing, Mr. Obama claimed he can finance universal health care without adding “one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period,” in large part by pumping money out of Medicare. The $880 billion Senate plan he all but blessed this week would cut Medicare by as much as $500 billion, mainly by cutting what Mr. Obama called “waste and abuse.” Perhaps this is related to the “waste and abuse” that Congresses of both parties have targeted dozens of times without ever cutting it.
Democratic leaders at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue continue to battle over whether a new government-run health plan, modeled after the popular Medicare program for seniors, must be included in health-reform legislation.
President Barack Obama told a New Hampshire town-hall meeting last month that “if we’re able to get something right like Medicare, then there should be a little more confidence that maybe the government can have a role.” Did the government really get Medicare right? Here are the top 10 reasons this program should not be a model for reform, and why it would be dangerous for the federal government to be put in charge of any more of our health sector:
1) Medicare is going bankrupt. The Medicare Trustees estimate that the program will run short of money starting in 2017. Medicare will drown in a sea of red ink, with spending over the next 75 years outpacing dedicated revenues by nearly $38 trillion.
2) Private payers are bailing out Medicare. According to Milliman, an independent actuarial firm, Medicare—and to an even greater extent, Medicaid—underpays doctors and hospitals, shifting costs to private insurers. Milliman estimates that the average family in a private PPO health plan pays an additional $1,788 a year to compensate for underpayments by Medicare and Medicaid, representing a “hidden tax” on commercial payers totaling $89 billion a year.
Providers could not keep their doors open without the higher payments from private insurers. A recent letter to Congress from 13 leading health-care delivery organizations, including the Mayo Clinic, said “many providers suffer great financial losses associated with treating Medicare patients.” They said that if these rates were expanded to patients who currently have private insurance, the result “will be unsustainable for even the nation’s most efficient, high quality providers, eventually driving them out of the market.” That means we would say goodbye to some of the best health-care systems in the country.
3) Expansion of entitlement programs threatens our economic security. Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf broke the bad news in July. Reform legislation before Congress would worsen the federal government’s already bleak budget outlook, increase the deficit, and drive the nation more deeply into debt. Instead of bending the cost curve down, Mr. Elmendorf told senators their reform proposal would “significantly increase” costs.
President Obama and Speaker Pelosi deny the existence of so-called “death panels” in the health care reform package now underway in Congress, but provisions in the bill call for physician-directed end of life planning, similar to what’s been enacted in England. England’s National Health Service calls the program an “End of Life Scheme.” This article from the UK Telegraph demonstrates the potential pitfalls of such a plan.
The daughter of a stroke victim claims that her father is to be wrongly placed on an NHS scheme for the terminally ill which experts say is causing some patients to die too soon.
By Chris Irvine and Kate Devlin
Rosemary Munkenbeck says her father Eric Troake, who entered hospital after suffering a stroke, had fluid and drugs withdrawn and she claims doctors wanted to put him on morphine until he passed away under a scheme for dying patients called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP).
Mrs Munkenbeck, 56, from Bracknell, said her father, who previously said he wanted to live until he was 100, has now said he wants to die after being deprived of fluids for five days.
Along with her sister Jocelyn Troake, 60, who lived in Bermuda until recently moving to Frimley, Surrey, to care full time for her father and her mother Edna, 93, they are convinced their father is a victim of the system.
Last week The Daily Telegraph reported a warning from experts that some patients with terminal illnesses were being wrongly put on the NHS scheme and allowed to die prematurely if they ticked “the right boxes”.
The pathway scheme was developed to improve the care of patients in their dying hours and ensure that they were not being “overmedicalised”.
The scheme encourages doctors and other health care staff to consider removing medication, fluids and other treatments that no longer benefit the patient.
It also recommends discussing the situation with relatives, and if possible, with the patient themselves.
Mrs Munkenbeck said that her father was taken off an intravenous drip last week but she argues that he has as much of a right to life as anyone else. Although a spokesman for Frimley Park Hospital in Surrey says Mr Troake is not on the scheme “at the moment”, it is likely he will be offered a plan of care for dying patients.
“We believe that he has been forced down this route. By withdrawing fluids he is now very weak and there’s no going back from it,” she told The Daily Telegraph yesterday.
The American Seniors Association bills itself as a conservative alternative to the AARP. The American Seniors Association, while dwarfed by its larger, more liberal rival, now seems to be benefiting from the health care debate at the expense of the AARP.
The American Seniors Association has traditionally been unable to compete with the AARP, due to the AARP/s media clout and its ability to provide its members with benefits, such as insurance and discounts for travel and other services. Now, though, the American Seniors Association is making a bid for AARP members.
“The American Seniors Association (ASA) invites any American Association of Retired Persons member to mail us your torn AARP card and receive a 2 year- for- 1 year membership with ASA. Our organization representing hundreds of thousands of members believes we need health care reform, but we want what is best for seniors. ASA wants to cut wasteful spending in Medicare. ASA wants to see the Congress work to curb frivolous lawsuits that drive up the costs of doctor’s malpractice insurance. Our system needs an overhaul, but we do not need expensive Obamacare or anything resembling it.”
So far sixty thousand AARP members have quit that organization citing what they believe is that organization’s stance on the Obama health care reform proposal. It is unclear how many of these former AARP members have taken up the American Seniors Association on its two for one offer.
The American Seniors Association claims a membership “in the hundreds of thousands.” The AARP claims a member ship of about forty million. The AARP claims that while three hundred thousand seniors leave the AARP in a typical month, four hundred thousand join and a million and a half members renew their membership.
The irony is that the AARP has yet to actually articulate an official position on Obamacare. Still, the American Seniors Association has a point. While the AARP has not officially supported Obamacare, it has not actually opposed it either. The prospect of health care rationing, especially for senior citizens, has disturbed a great many people, especially seniors who, naturally, feel vulnerable. The AARP has not been shy about opposing efforts to reform social security or to cut the growth of spending in Medicare. Obamacare has, as a feature, a plan to cut five hundred billion dollars from Medicare. The AARP, which usually erupts at such a proposal, has been strangely silent.
The AARP is one of the most powerful political organizations in the country, second perhaps only to the National Rifle Association. It has achieved that power by amassing a huge membership and using it to wield political clout in Washington.
But if the AARP is perceived as working against the interests of its members, the trickle of people leaving it may become a flood. That would bring with it a weakening of political power, perhaps with other organizations such as the American Seniors Associations gaining it. That might be an unintended consequence of the drive for socialized medicine.
About 60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 due to the group’s support for a health care overhaul, a spokesman for the organization said Monday.The membership loss suggests dissatisfaction on the part of AARP members at a time when many senior citizens are concerned about proposed cuts to Medicare providers to help pay for making health care available for all. But spokesman Drew Nannis said it wasn’t unusual for the powerful, 40 million-strong senior citizens’ lobby to shed members in droves when it’s advocating on a controversial issue.
AARP is strongly backing a health care overhaul, running ads to support it and hosting President Obama at an online forum recently to promote his agenda to AARP members. However, the group has not endorsed a specific bill and says it won’t support a plan that reduces Medicare benefits.
“We take stands on issues that are contentious, it’s part of what we do,” Nannis said. “And because we have so many members we’ll always have a small percentage that disagree with us so strongly they feel they need to cancel membership.”
The approximately 60,000 number represents members who specifically cited AARP’s stance on the health overhaul debate in canceling their membership between July 1 and mid-August, Nannis said. He said that on average AARP loses some 300,000 members a month, but he couldn’t say how many more members had quit for other reasons in that time period.
He said AARP gained some 400,000 new members during the same period and that 1.5 million members renewed their membership.
When famed bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he said: “Because that’s where the money is.”
For the same reason, it is as predictable as the sunrise that medical care for the elderly will be cut back under a government-controlled medical system. Because that’s where the money is.
My experience is probably not very different from that of many other people in their seventies. My medical expenses in the past year have been more than in the first 40 years of my life — and I did not spend one night in a hospital all last year or go to an emergency room even once.
Just the ordinary medical expenses of keeping an old geezer going along in good health are high. Throw in a medical emergency or two, and the costs go through the roof.
So long as my insurance company and I are paying for it, it is nobody else’s business what my medical expenses are. But once the government is involved, everything is its business.
It is not just a question of what the government will pay for. The logic of collectivist thinking — and the actual practice in some countries with government-controlled health care — is that you cannot pay for any medical treatments with your own money if the powers that be decide that “society” cannot let its resources be used that way, or that it would not be “social justice” for some people to have medical treatments that others cannot get, just because some people “happen to have money.”
The medical-care stampede is about much more than medical care, important as that is. It is part of a whole mindset of many on the left who have never reconciled themselves to an economic system in which how much people can draw from the resources of the nation depends on how much they have contributed to those resources.
Despite the cleverness of phrases about people who “happen to have money,” very few people just happen to have money. Most people earned their money by supplying other people with goods or services that those people were willing to pay for.
Since it is their own money that they have earned, these people feel free to spend it to give their 80-year-old grandmother another year or two of life, or to pay for a hip-replacement operation for their mom or dad, even if some medical “ethicist” might say that the resources of “society” would be better used to allow some 20-year-old to talk over his angst with a shrink.
Barack Obama has talked about the high costs of taking care of elderly or chronically ill patients in terms of “society making those decisions.” But a world in which individuals make their own trade-offs with their own money is fundamentally different from a world where third parties take those decisions out of their hands and impose their own notions of what is best for “society.”
Calling these arbitrary notions “ethics” doesn’t change anything, however effective it may be as political spin.
More is at stake than the outcomes of medical decisions, extremely important as those are. What is also at stake is freedom and the dignity of individuals who do not live their lives as supplicants of puffed-up power holders who are spending the money taken from them in taxes.
One of the many phony arguments for government-controlled medical care is that Americans do not have any longer life expectancy than people in many other countries, despite much higher medical expenditures.
This argument is phony because longevity depends on health — and “health care” and “medical care” are not the same, no matter how many times the two are confused in the media or in politics. Health care includes things that doctors cannot do much about.
Homicide affects your longevity, but there is not much that doctors can do about it when they arrive on the scene after you have been shot through the heart, except fill out the paperwork. Rates of homicide, obesity, and narcotics usage are higher here than in many other countries, reducing our longevity.
But in the things that medical care can do something about — like cancer survival rates — the United States ranks at or near the top in the world. But that can change if we give up the real benefits of a top-flight medical system for the visions and rhetoric of politicians.
By Betsy McCaughey — Since Medicare was established in 1965, access to care has enabled older Americans to avoid becoming disabled and to travel and live independently instead of languishing in nursing homes. But legislation now being rushed through Congress—H.R. 3200 and the Senate Health Committee Bill—will reduce access to care, pressure the elderly to end their lives prematurely, and doom baby boomers to painful later years.
The Congressional majority wants to pay for its $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion health bills with new taxes and a $500 billion cut to Medicare. This cut will come just as baby boomers turn 65 and increase Medicare enrollment by 30%. Less money and more patients will necessitate rationing. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 1% of Medicare cuts will come from eliminating fraud, waste and abuse.
The assault against seniors began with the stimulus package in February. Slipped into the bill was substantial funding for comparative effectiveness research, which is generally code for limiting care based on the patient’s age. Economists are familiar with the formula, where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYs, or quality-adjusted life years) that the patient is likely to benefit. In Britain, the formula leads to denying treatments for older patients who have fewer years to benefit from care than younger patients.
When comparative effectiveness research appeared in the stimulus bill, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., (R., La.) a heart surgeon, warned that it would lead to “denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care.” He and Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) proposed amendments to no avail that would have barred the federal government from using the research to eliminate treatments for the elderly or deny care based on age.
The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.
The newest bargain being proposed on health care in the Senate would give liberals a major expansion of Medicare by making more than 30 million Americans between the ages of 55 and 65 eligible for the financially exhausted program, previously just for senior citizens.
As usual, the most dangerous parts of ObamaCare aren’t receiving the scrutiny they deserve—and one of the least examined is a new commission to tell Congress how to control health spending. Democrats are quietly attempting to impose a “global budget” on Medicare, with radical implications for U.S. medicine.
According to AMA’s National Health Insurance 
As the health-reform bills move through Congress, the prognosis for Medicare pa tients gets worse and worse.
Administration Silences Medicare Advantage Critics—So AARP Can Collect More “Kickbacks”
Across the country, amid the heat swell of the ongoing health care debate, many of the nation’s gray panthers have a new fire growing in their bellies, attending town halls, writing letters, and shifting the balance of political power as polls show them moving to the GOP.
Posted from the 
From the 
President Obama and Speaker Pelosi deny the existence of so-called “death panels” in the health care reform package now underway in Congress, but provisions in the bill call for physician-directed end of life planning, similar to what’s been enacted in England. England’s National Health Service calls the program an “End of Life Scheme.” This article from the UK Telegraph demonstrates the potential pitfalls of such a plan.
The 
About 60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 due to the group’s support for a health care overhaul, a spokesman for the organization said Monday.The membership loss suggests dissatisfaction on the part of AARP members at a time when many senior citizens are concerned about proposed cuts to Medicare providers to help pay for making health care available for all. But spokesman Drew Nannis said it wasn’t unusual for the powerful, 40 million-strong senior citizens’ lobby to shed members in droves when it’s advocating on a controversial issue.
W
Posted from the 
Entries (RSS)