Medicare is better than healthcare reform
To the editor:
I dislike the Democratic controlled healthcare reform bill HR3200. Medicare Advantage was created to give all seniors more private choices of high-quality health care. It currently provides almost 11 million Americans coverage through private insurance plans. Recent data shows that we seniors have better outcomes than those in traditional Medicare.
My primary source of information for this letter is from Newt Gingrich.
Current legislation in the Democratic controlled congress will gut the program: HR3200 in the House will cut Medicare Advantage by $172,000,000,000, yes that's billions. In the Democratic-controlled Senate, Max Baucus, Dem.-Montana, will cut the popular program by $123,000,000,000.
The reason why we are just hearing about this now is when HUMANA tried to inform its Medical Advantage members that the Democratic health-care reform could lower their benefits, our Democratic controlled government ordered this private group to Cease and Desist and opened up an investigation of this private company.
Republican Senator Jon Kyl (Ariz.) introduced legislation in the Senate Finance Committee to protect the 1st Amendment Rights of Private insurance companies to speak out in criticism of this healthcare reform proposals.
Democratic controlled committee members unanimously defeated the bill. So much for upholding our 1st amendment rights.
While a private insurance company gets censored by our executive branch of government from talking to Medicare Advantage enrollees about proposed
Democratic cuts, another Medicare Advantage provider - AARP - has been left free to lobby its members.
The Washington leadership of AARP is working very closely with Democrats on healthcare reform as you probably are just beginning to realize as it is being sold to AARP members as a non-political party position.
Incredibly, the self-appointed voice of America's seniors AARP support "reforms" that will cut the benefits - if not the entire Medicare Advantage coverage - of millions of seniors. How can this be? It's simple according to Newt Gingrich.
The AARP is a liberal interest group like any other (makes you believe it's all for your best interests, they know best the union) it knows how to cut a deal with the party in control in Washington. In exchange for selling out the seniors it claims to represent, AARP will get potentially millions in lucrative insurance contracts, and quite possibly much more. No plan that is advanced through dishonesty, intimidation, and hypocrisy has the support of the American people.
All that is required for these tactics to continue is for good people to sit back and do nothing. What you can do to stop this ask AARP why it is supporting this kind of change.
Talk to Minnesota senators and our Minnesota representatives and ask them why they would be supporting this kind of change.
George Korver
Marshall
Facebook
MySpace
Digg
Stumble
Mixx
Fark
del.icio.us
LiveSpaces
|
igorvitch
|
|
|---|---|
|
10-12-09 2:18 PM
|
Why should Newt Gingrich be considered an expert on health care? HIs credibility is questionable, at best. He pontificates about the sacredness of marriage after abandoning his first wife on her deathbed with incurable cancer. He would do better to expound the virtues of convenient divorce. Republicans could do an excellent panel discussion on the subject of divorce: Guiliani, Ensign, Sanford, McCain, etc. Of course, there are Democrats such as Specter and Edwards who could also contribute, but they don't self-righteously preach about the so-called "sanctity of marriage." The essence of marriage is a solemn, dedicated commitment to making a relationship endure through the worst and best of times, which would include grave illnesses and even disfiguring auto accidents.
|
|
igorvitch
|
|
|
10-12-09 2:09 PM
|
And the only ones the Republic Party is looking out for are the huge insurance conglomerates. Businesses whose Ceos make anywhere from +23 million a year. The truth is Medicare is a government program and, thus, in the eyes of people who don't have a clear definition of the word in their heads, a "socialistic" program. If anything should remind us that private enterprise doesn't always or even, in some cases, rarely has the public's benefit in mind. 18,000 Americans die from lack of insurance and health care a year. Thousands and thousands lose their insurance consistently because they become a deficit rather than an asset to the insurance companies. The healthcare insurance is dominated by two giants and DOES NOT compete for the outrageous premiums it charges. A greater percentage of Americans are dying from lack of health care than in at least 32 other countries with public programs. We are 24th in life expectancy and #1 in hard-earned money spend on health care.
|
|
Grumpyoldman
|
|
|
10-09-09 9:52 AM
|
Route - If indeed a public option is approved - it would only cover roughly 10% of the population - those people that cannot get health insurance through their employer. We already have this public option today - it's called welfare (medical assistance). This would not change. It would be run at a federal level rather than a state level. YOU would not be forced into this public option. YOU could shop around and choose the best coverage at the best value to you.
|
|
ruralroute
|
|
|
10-09-09 8:22 AM
|
grumpy, the liberals in the Senate and House are the ones who are going to push for the public option. To them, a health care reform bill without a public option is worthless. Obama has talked like a moderate on this issue, but his history says otherwise: he was a huge proponent of a government-run, single-payer system. That's what those of us who oppose the public option fear -- that we are headed for a totally government run system, and that a public option is the first step. We need reform, and I agree with the other aspects of the bill you pointed out -- but the public option part of the bill is a big deal at this point.
|
|
Grumpyoldman
|
|
|
10-08-09 3:05 PM
|
Obama himself has said that the public option should not hold up passing other portions of the bill.
|
|
ruralroute
|
|
|
10-08-09 3:02 PM
|
grumpy, I actually agree with that part of the reform -- however, many on the left say that the bill has to have a public option, which seems to be the major centerpiece of this legislation.
|
|
Grumpyoldman
|
|
|
10-08-09 11:32 AM
|
Route - what if, in your current job, you were not "required" to purchase your health insurance from your employers provider of choice. What if you were able to carry your old plan (and per your own words "better") with you to your new job. The health care reform that is being discussed would allow you to do that - your employer would pay you the subsidy they currently pay the insurance provider. You in turn would then use your bargaining power as capitalist consumer to purchase the plan from any insurance company that would best meet your needs. You need to look at all aspects of health care reform - not just the public option.
|
|
ruralroute
|
|
|
10-08-09 12:53 AM
|
As I've said previously, health insurance companies need to be regulated. Tax their profits, turn those into vouchers for all of the uninsured -- and then regulate these industries. Let the people choose their own insurance, and require these companies and HMOs to cover ALL treatments. Fine those companies who refuse treatment to patients (hit them where it hurts). And then, pass meaningful tort reform. All are big steps, but it works better than a public option which turns all of the power to the government.
|
|
ruralroute
|
|
|
10-08-09 12:48 AM
|
I switched jobs in the past 15 months and went from private insurance to a public plan. My deductibles went up, my co-pays went up and my coverage network decreased. Not exactly what I would call a better system. And who is going to make the call on what treatments are covered and which ones aren't under the public option, Hartman? Another question which hasn't been answered. No matter what the party in control is -- do we want a bunch of bureaucrats deciding who gets treated or who doesn't? Because somebody will have to make the call. I will also argue the government has as much corruption and greed as corporate America, and that we're switching one mess for the other. Until there is tort reform, health care will never be affordable in this country: ask California. After tort reform, I believe regulating health insurance companies, taxing their profits and providing vouchers to those without insurance would be going in the right direction.
|
|
hartman75
|
|
|
10-07-09 3:36 PM
|
George, you have turned over a new leaf! A conservative who is DEFENDING a government backed health care program? Mmmmm. Labeling AARP a “liberal interest group” is a stretch, howerver, I agree their involvement in this specific issue has more to do with their own self interests than improved health care. Medicare Advantage has become very expensive and critics, including major physician organizations, say the Medicare Advantage plans are greatly overpaid, which provides an unfair advantage to the plans in the program. Cuts in reimbursement rates would result in tax savings and bring it closer in line to Medicare rates. Actually, Medicare Advantage primarily serves minorities and low income, not seniors. I don’t know George, you may want to get more information from sources other than Newt. I assume that with your interest in saving Medicare Advantage we can count on your support for a public option in the health care debate.
|
|
rangeral
|
|
|
10-07-09 11:32 AM
|
Neither AARP nor any of my legislators can tell me what the savings from Medicare will be or why none of them have been pursued before. This information coupled with things like the stated 11% cut for cardiologist fees, cuts for CT and MRI - all are things that I need to stay as healthy as I can be. What cuts are coming for federal employees - absolutely none! I don't know what is worse - the lack of understanding by our legislators or the poor legislation that they won't even post on the internet so we can view it for 72 hours (would prefer a full week) so we can register our approval or point out concerns. No one in the Democratic party is watching out for those on Medicare, let alone the rest of the population.
|