|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Health |
|
Take Action To Prevent Congress From Dismantling Medicare |
Current rating: 0 |
by Brooke Anderson
Email: brooke (nospam) shout.net (verified)
Phone: (217) 352-6533 |
24 Nov 2003
|
|
|
Dear Friends,
This message is to alert you to an obscene process now taking place in the United States Congress -- and to ask you to take IMMEDIATE ACTION to try to put a stop to the process.
As you read this, there is a bill before the United States Senate that would fundamentally undermine and threaten the very existence of Medicare -- the health program that has well-served seniors and people with disabilities for the past 40 years. Disguised as a "prescription drug benefit," the bill would provide very meager (if any) relief to Medicare beneficiaries in their drug expenses. What it WOULD do is funnel billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry and HMOs, while also enacting provisions that would ultimately result in a reduction of benefits -- and perhaps even the utter destruction of Medicare.
[NOTE: For more information on this bill and this issue, see the end of this message, where we have pasted in the text of a letter CCHCC sent to both Senator Richard Durbin and Senator Peter Fitzgerald.]
The bill has passed the House of Representatives (through underhanded tactics) and is now in the Senate. The next few days will be essential. Please email or call Senator Richard Durbin and Senator Peter Fitzgerald IMMEDIATELY and tell them to do whatever they can to defeat the Medicare bill. Tell them that Congress should start over from scratch on a new bill after the New Year.
Here is the contact information:
Sen. Richard Durbin
email: dick (at) durbin.senate.gov
Washington, DC telephone: 202/224-2152
Springfield telephone: 217/492-4062
Sen. Peter Fitzgerald
email: senator_fitzgerald (at) fitzgerald.senate.gov
Washington, DC telephone: 202/224-2854
Springfield telephone: 217/492-5089
When you contact your Senators, please copy (or blind carbon copy) brooke (at) shout.net to any emails you send (or email us to let us know you called or faxed them) so that we can keep track of how many CCHCC supporters take action on this issue.
Thank you for your work and your commitment to health care justice. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Bill Mueller at 352-6533, ext. 13, or at wwmuelle (at) shout.net.
Thanks!
Champaign County Health Care Consumers
p.s. -- here's the text of the letter that CCHCC sent to Sen. Fitzgerald and Sen. Durbin:
*********************************************************
November 20, 2003
The Honorable Peter G. Fitzgerald
555 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Fitzgerald:
I am writing on behalf of the Board, staff, and constituents of Champaign
County Health Care Consumers to express strong opposition to the
"compromise" Medicare legislation now being pushed by some Congressional
leaders. This is a classic case of "no bill is better than a bad bill."
The "compromise" version is most definitely a "bad bill." We urge you to
work to defeat the bill - including supporting a Senate filibuster if that
becomes necessary.
There are a number of things unacceptable about the bill. Let me mention a
handful of them:
· The much-ballyhooed prescription drug benefit for seniors falls far short
of meeting the need. Consumers Union (press release, 11/17/03) has said
that the money set aside for the benefit would cover only 22% of
"anticipated drug costs, leaving consumers to foot the rest of the bill."
Moreover, according to Jeanne Lambrew of the Center for American Progress
(Medicare Legislation: Think Twice, 11/14/03), the bill "would allow
private plans administering the drug benefit to dictate which drugs are
covered and how much seniors must pay for them - in effect, permitting
insurers to ration access for chronically ill seniors and people with
disabilities who need prescription drug coverage the most."
· So to whom would the real "benefit" go? Apparently, the pharmaceutical
industry. In a report issued by Boston University's Alan Sager and Deborah
Socolar at the end of October, analysis shows that 61.1% of the Medicare
funds dedicated to the new prescription drug benefit "will remain in the
hands of drug makers as added profits. This windfall means an estimated
$139 billion in increased profits over eight years for the world's most
profitable industry." Sager and Socolar also point out that the proposed
legislation would do nothing to restrain high drug prices - and would
actually prohibit Medicare from "acting to negotiate or contain the drug
prices paid under the new program."
· In an editorial on November 13, The Washington Post criticizes the
Medicare bill for the inclusion of a measure to create "health savings
accounts." The way the measure is worded, The Post says, the accounts will
be "attractive only to those in good health and those with spare cash to
stash away" - effectively making "what was already a dubious proposition
even worse." The ultimate consequence of this is likely to be "removing a
small pool of what will be relatively wealthy and healthy people from the
employer-based insurance groups," which "will serve only to increase the
price of health insurance for everyone else."
· Most damning of all, perhaps, is the November 14 analysis by New York
Times economics columnist Paul Krugman. Calling the bill a "Trojan Horse,"
Krugman says that the proposed legislation limits Medicare's use of general
revenue, which would force the program into financial crisis. The
legislation also limits the possible responses when the crisis develops,
allowing only an increase in payroll taxes or a cut in Medicare benefits.
Krugman goes on to describe plans to make Medicare compete with private
insurers as seemingly "intended to undermine the whole system." Krugman's
summary is worth quoting at length:
What's going on? Why bait and switch, of course. Few politicians want to
be seen opposing a bill that finally provides retirees with prescription
drug coverage. That makes a prescription drug bill a perfect vehicle for
smuggling in provisions that sound as if they have something to do with
improving Medicare, yet are actually designed to undermine it.
All in all, the Medicare Rights Center says (press release, 11/14/04),
"[t]he bill under consideration does more harm than good."
Please fight to defeat this bill. If you have questions or if CCHCC may be of assistance, feel free to call us at 217/352-6533, fax us at 217/352-9745, or email us at cchcc (at) prairienet.org.
Sincerely,
Claudia Lennhoff, Executive Director
Champaign County Health Care Consumers
|
Comments
|
Lawmakers Fear Another Senior Citizens' Revolt Against Medicare Bill |
by James Kuhnhenn
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Nov 2003
|
WASHINGTON - As they weigh their votes on a massive Medicare prescription drug bill, a lot of nervous lawmakers keep seeing the ghosts of a senior citizens' revolt 14 years ago.
Then as now, Congress was on the verge of expanding Medicare coverage. Critics were warning seniors they were getting a raw deal. And lawmakers back in 1989 were equally eager to convince Americans that their new Medicare benefits were a wonderful idea.
For Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill., then powerful chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, it all boiled over on a hot day in August when he failed to sell the new coverage to elderly activists at a seniors' center on Chicago's North Side. Brandishing canes, some waving signs saying "Rottenkowski," they chased the sweating, panicked lawmaker to his car. When they surrounded his car, he got out and ran down the street.
Within months, Congress had repealed the law.
"The backlash will be bigger," this time, Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, a consumer health advocacy group, predicted last week. For one thing, the current Medicare changes are bigger than 1989's. They're also hard to explain, passed by a partisan vote, and will adversely affect some seniors.
Democrats last week taunted Republican backers of the new Medicare prescription drug bill with videotapes of Rostenkowski's misadventure.
"You better get your running shoes!" Rep. Janice Schakowsky, D-Ill., jeered.
Senate passage of the Medicare bill is almost certain Monday. President Bush is expected to sign it eagerly.
Supporters argue that this bill isn't like the debacle of the 80s. This time, the benefit will be voluntary, low-income seniors will pay little or nothing for their coverage, and cheaper medicines will be impossible to oppose.
But the legislation also has its pitfalls. The benefit itself won't begin until 2006 and is not comprehensive. For seniors with lower drug costs, the premiums, deductibles and cost-sharing requirements can cost more than the drugs themselves. The plan also has a gap in coverage for seniors whose total drug costs fall between $2,250 and $5,044. When elderly Americans learn the details of the plan, the reality may not meet expectations that politicians have encouraged.
What's more, the legislation is likely to leave some seniors worse off. About 12 million retirees now buy their drugs through employer health plans that are more extensive than the government plan. In recent years, employers have been dropping their retirees from these plans. Private and government analysts predict more companies will do so once Washington offers an alternative.
To reduce that likelihood, the bill would offer employers, many of them large corporations, 28 cents in tax-free government subsidies for every dollar they spend on prescription drug coverage for their retirees. Even with that enticement - worth about $86 billion to employers over 10 years - some experts predict more than 2 million retirees will lose employer-sponsored drug coverage.
Other assumptions policy makers have made about the bill also are untested. It relies, for example, on private health plans to deliver the drug benefit through a system of health coverage regions. Experts are divided on whether private health plans will participate in the numbers needed to provide coverage nationwide. As a fallback, the legislation guarantees that Medicare itself will deliver the benefit if no private plans participate.
For the first time, Medicare would require wealthier Americans to pay higher premiums for Medicare's standard Part B coverage, which pays for doctors' visits. The Congressional Research Service estimates 2 million seniors will pay higher premiums.
The bill also envisions greater private sector involvement in Medicare as a whole. It creates a plan called Medicare Advantage, which would encourage preferred provider organizations to offer alternatives to standard, fee-for-service Medicare. The bill sets aside $12 billion to help private insurers enter markets that might be unprofitable otherwise. The bill also sets up pilot projects beginning in 2010 that will put private plans in direct competition with Medicare.
Those provisions have opened up the bill to charges that Republicans want to privatize Medicare - a loaded accusation that has been a potent political argument for Democrats in the past.
AARP, the seniors' lobby, and moderates in Congress repeatedly called for bipartisanship on the vote, reckoning that a partisan split would turn the drug benefit into a contentious political issue up and down the ticket in 2004.
Right now, that seems inevitable.
On Sunday, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., promised to lead a filibuster against the bill.
"Surely senators cannot roll over now and swallow this turkey without a fight," Kennedy said in a Senate floor speech.
"I make no apology for obstructing the massive benefits for the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry spread throughout this legislation," he added.
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said Sunday that he'd back Kennedy's filibuster.
Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., noted Sunday that he doesn't believe Democrats have the votes to sustain a filibuster. He said he might try other delaying tactics.
Criticism of the bill also comes from conservatives who say it's too expensive, doesn't go far enough to control the growing costs of Medicare and is inadequate in promoting private sector participation in Medicare.
"The most ominous consequence is that it will usher in the beginning of socialized medicine in America," said Rep, Mike Pence, R-Ind.
As Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, who voted for the bill, put it: "I don't want to see the speaker of the House be the next Dan Rostenkowski, with seniors chasing him and canes hitting his car."
Copyright 2003 Knight-Ridder
http://www.realcities.com/ |
|
This Isn't The Old AARP |
by Dale Van Atta
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Nov 2003
|
Leaders Betray Their Members by Lobbying for Medicare Drug Bill
Here's the deal: If you're over 50, for just $12.50 a year, AARP will give you a magazine and newsletter subscription, as well as allow you to "receive discounts on car rentals, lodging, cruises" and a host of other wonderful things. And at the same time, it will argue for your most vital political interests in Washington. You're a Republican? Democrat? Anarchist? It doesn't matter; it knows what you want. At AARP, one lobby fits all.
The character of the group formerly known as the American Assn. of Retired Persons is once again of significant interest after AARP on Oct. 14 strongly endorsed the largely Republican-written $400-billion Medicare prescription drug bill.
Some suspect that its endorsement, and follow-up $7-million advertising campaign over the last several days, may tip the scales in favor of the landmark bill. After all, AARP is the second-largest membership organization in the United States after the Catholic Church, claiming more than 35 million members. Who can stand in the way of that juggernaut? The answer: any self-respecting Congress member who uses common sense and does a little homework.
AARP was founded in 1958 by retired California high school principal Ethel Percy Andrus for the primary purpose of selling health insurance to the elderly. Andrus eventually added popular discounts on hotel and motel stays, car rentals and airlines. The nonprofit AARP amassed $636 million in revenue last year, with travel discounts remaining the biggest draw for soliciting and retaining members. "AARP is a group of people bound together only by a common love of travel discounts," former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) used to say. He wasn't far off.
It was in the 1960s that the organization began taking major positions on legislation. But other than being over 50 and sharing a common desire for AARP discounts, nothing knits together the politically and generationally diverse dues-paying membership of about 24 million. (AARP inflates its total by 11 million or so by giving spouses free memberships.)
Most of the members neither know the positions that AARP's paid Washington lobbyists push nor fully understand that simply paying dues for discounts gives AARP the right to use their names in vain.
AARP's CEO, William Novelli, doesn't let their ignorance of his staff's "representation" of them deter him from using the sheer force of membership numbers to bully Congress.
Even after thousands of members last week phoned, wrote letters and sent angry e-mails about AARP's supporting the Medicare bill to the group's swank $130-million, 10-story headquarters in Washington, Novelli was unrepentant about his claims to speak for them. Appearing on a CNBC "Capital Report" television show Tuesday evening, he acknowledged the first signs of membership rebellion, then added: "I really feel unfazed by it. I think we're doing the right thing."
Novelli knows from AARP's confidential historical records that he can dismiss the membership uprising sure to follow in the coming months because the organization has weathered such storms without apology before.
In 1994, AARP's Washington policy people practically salivated at the prospect of passing Bill and Hillary Clinton's health-care reform, only to see it wither on the congressional vine. When then-House Majority Whip Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) co-sponsored a bill attempting to resurrect the Clinton initiative, AARP's board of directors endorsed it. Within 48 hours, AARP headquarters received 28,000 mostly hostile calls, with another 21,000 members unable to get through the jammed phone lines. An internal AARP study found that of 133,788 people who contacted them about the endorsement, only 318 specifically supported AARP's position.
No matter, the study's conclusion implied, a million or more members might be lost but old folks had a tendency to forget, which would work in AARP's favor.
The relevance of this issue may diminish with time. That is, for members coming up for renewal at a future date, their recall and importance of the issue may not be as high," the study said.
A few years later, George H.W. Bush practically sneered when the subject of Washington AARP leadership came up in a talk with me. When he opposed their positions, the former president recalled, "they'd be all over me like ugly on an ape. They were formidable."
But what most infuriated the elder Bush was that they were illegitimate "self-appointed" representatives who became "the voice of whatever the hell they wanted" whether the membership wanted it or not.
The first President Bush had reasons for some harsh feelings because, despite claims of "nonpartisanship," most of AARP's positions after legislative policy director John Rother was hired in 1984 were of a largely liberal Democrat bent.
When the Democratic leadership and most of the Democratic presidential candidates last week heatedly denounced AARP's support of the Republican Medicare bill, it was with the shock and bitterness of friends betrayed.
Why would AARP, traditionally aligned with the Democrats, jump ship on this bill? AARP probably supported the measure because Rother still in charge of AARP's legislative brain trust couldn't pass up the $400 billion on the table for seniors. (Some critics say AARP has a conflict of interest in that it receives millions for insurance sold under its name and arguably could profit under a new Medicare drug bill.)
After criticism of its endorsement of the drug bill surfaced, AARP did a quick poll Wednesday and Thursday among "a nationally representative sample of 494" of its 35 million members and found 75% supported the proposed Medicare legislation. There was a catch, however: Only 10 of those polled 2% "were very familiar with the specifics of the plan." How could they be? Or how could the AARP board be, for that matter? AARP is endorsing a bill that isn't even finished. And the incomplete House-Senate conference bill is already more than 1,000 pages of arcane language long.
Certainly no one can yet accurately predict all the future ramifications (or true taxpayer costs) of this complex Medicare prescription drug expansion legislation, if a version is passed by Congress.
Regardless of where you stand on this proposed act, AARP has no business doing unauthorized lobbying for its membership. Its chimerical lobby wholeheartedly represents only what a few paid staff leaders decide is best for all older Americans.
If anything, those heartened by the endorsement of the moderate Republican-oriented bill should be aware that in the last two decades AARP has never once had a clear victory on any major controversial health-care legislation. Though it has often been described as the fearsome "800-pound gorilla" of lobbies, it has proved adept at slipping on its own big banana peel.
Dale Van Atta, author of "Trust Betrayed: Inside the AARP" (Regnery Publishing, 1998), is working with former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird on his autobiography.
Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com |
|
