AARP: Obamacare endorsement remorse?

[DarrinS]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101104/ap_on_bi_ge/us_aarp_health_plan_2


By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press




WASHINGTON – AARP's endorsement helped secure passage of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Now the seniors' lobby is telling its employees their insurance costs will rise partly as a result of the law.

In an e-mail to employees, AARP says health care premiums will increase by 8 percent to 13 percent next year because of rapidly rising medical costs.

And AARP adds that it's changing copayments and deductibles to avoid a 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans that takes effect in 2018 under the law. Aerospace giant Boeing also has cited the tax in asking its workers to pay more. Shifting costs to employees lowers the value of a health care plan and acts like an escape hatch from the tax.

"Most plan co-pays and deductibles have been modified," Jennifer Hodges, AARP's director of compensation and benefits, wrote employees in an Oct. 25 e-mail. "Plan value changes were necessary not only from a cost management standpoint but also to ensure that AARP's plans fall below the threshold for high-cost group plans under health care reform."

AARP officials said medical inflation is the main reason employee costs will be going up. The health care law is "a small part," said David Certner, legislative affairs director.

Although the tax on so-called "Cadillac" health care plans doesn't take effect for years, employers are already beginning to assess their potential exposure because it is hefty: at 40 percent of the value above $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for a family plan. The tax is intended as a savings measure, to prod employers and workers into more cost-efficient plans.

Certner said AARP's plans are currently under the threshold for the tax. "We intend to stay below those thresholds," he said. "It's not in anybody's interest to move above those thresholds, not the employees' nor the employer's."

AARP officials say the organization's public policy recommendations are made independently of other considerations, including its range of business ventures, from travel, to insurance, to publishing.

The 40 million-strong AARP represents people 50 and older, including retirees on Medicare and Social Security. Its endorsement of health care overhaul came at a critical time last year, days before a close vote on the House floor.

"The impact on AARP employees is not a factor at all in our policy making, which is directed at the impact on our membership and on all older Americans," said Certner.

About 4,500 people are covered by AARP's plans, including employees, dependents and retirees.

"We supported the (health care) package because it contained incredibly important protections for our younger members, who often have problems getting access to care," said spokesman Jim Dau. "And because it helps our older members in Medicare with important new benefits."

Starting in 2014, the overhaul law prohibits insurance companies from turning down people with medical problems, and limits what they can charge older customers. It gradually closes the coverage gap in the Medicare prescription benefit, and improves coverage for preventive care.

The Obama administration says changes required by the law so far have only had a minimal, single-digit impact on premiums. Many benefits experts agree with that assessment but point out that the increases come on top of untamed health care inflation.

AARP warned its employees that more cost-shifting could be in store. "AARP intends to make similar changes, as necessary, in the future to avoid the (health plan) tax," said Hodges' e-mail.

Current forecasts are that the overhaul will only have a small impact on job-based coverage, slightly reducing the number of people who would otherwise be covered by employer plans. Those workers would have access to taxpayer-subsidized coverage through new insurance markets.

[boutons_deux]

Good, the more people get fleeced by the health care racket, the more they will demand lower-cost, no-profit alternatives.

And I love Boner's lie that he intends to reduce "health care costs", which are of course his owners' profits.

Grayson's "die early and die soon to reduce health care costs" characterizes Repugs' humanity accurately.

[admiralsnackbar]

Reading helps:

"AARP officials said medical inflation is the main reason employee costs will be going up."

[DarrinS]

Grayson's "die early and die soon to reduce health care costs" characterizes Repugs' humanity accurately.


Sure did wonders for his campaign. :lmao

[admiralsnackbar]

Sure did wonders for his campaign. :lmao

:lol If only he had employed winning rhetoric like Michelle Bachman's...

[ElNono]

Please link AP articles next time. Don't wanna get the higher ups in trouble.

[CosmicCowboy]

AARP is a joke. I know lots of people that have dropped them because of their political activism. There actually a new "conservative" alternative to AARP thats growing like crazy...

http://www.americanseniors.org/index.php/home

[MannyIsGod]

Reading helps:

"AARP officials said medical inflation is the main reason employee costs will be going up."

It really must be sad as fuck to be so intellectually dishonest.

[TeyshaBlue]

Reading helps:

"AARP officials said medical inflation is the main reason employee costs will be going up."

Indeed. Now, go read up on the components of medical inflation. I think you'll find that inelastic demand is a fairly large component. The big sister to inelastic demand is market power. When they have a family reunion, you get a pricing structure that maximizes profit.

Granularity...it's not just for metamucil anymore.

[admiralsnackbar]

Point taken, TB -- but if that was the position of the AARP spokesperson as the thread title implies, it was certainly buried under a silent smirk.

[TeyshaBlue]

True. I tend to disregard the smirks and go for the meat.:lol

AARP has a few salient points, which is about average these days.:depressed

[Blake]

True. I tend to disregard the smirks and go for the meat.:lol

AARP has a few salient points, which is about average these days.:depressed

do you think that AARP has endorsement remorse?

[TeyshaBlue]

do you think that AARP has endorsement remorse?

The tone of the article certainly doesn't support that. I would say, no.

[TeyshaBlue]

The tone of the article certainly doesn't support that. I would say, no.

I'm also of the thought that the spokesman is not entirely certain about what he's trying to say...ie "medical inflation".

[Wild Cobra]

Good, the more people get fleeced by the health care racket, the more they will demand lower-cost, no-profit alternatives.

My God... Your stupid. These prices went up because of Obamacare.

[EVAY]

I think you are right, Teysha. There is a great deal of confusion about the sources of 'medical inflation', and this author seems thoroughly confused.

My insurance premiums have gone up 600% in the last 10 years, BEFORE Obamacare.

They will continue to go up regardless of Obamacare or not.

[admiralsnackbar]

My God... Your stupid. These prices went up because of Obamacare.

Yeah... they were good and stable prior to Obama, wuzzn't they? Why was healthcare reform even on the agenda, dude?

[EVAY]

Does anyone remember when HMOs came into being and corporations and health care providers were encouraging "early testing" and "early diagnosis" to HOLD DOWN health care costs? This was when the belief was that costs were so high because people didn't go to the doctor early enough, so eventual treatment was horribly expensive.

Reult? TONS of tests, which have become the source of lots of unnecessary medical costs, all covered by insurance, which has made premiums go up like crazy.

[EVAY]

^^^Still, the bulk of medical costs occur in the last six months of someone's life in this country, because we cannot seem to accept that death is as natural as birth. We all have to "fight it", "battle it", keep "life at any cost".

I don't believe in that.

[TeyshaBlue]

Does anyone remember when HMOs came into being and corporations and health care providers were encouraging "early testing" and "early diagnosis" to HOLD DOWN health care costs? This was when the belief was that costs were so high because people didn't go to the doctor early enough, so eventual treatment was horribly expensive.

Reult? TONS of tests, which have become the source of lots of unnecessary medical costs, all covered by insurance, which has made premiums go up like crazy.

There's alot of meat there, Evay...and I see you picked out a nice steak already.:toast

I'm one of the nutbar conservatives that actually wants a single payor system in the US. I don't want it for cost reasons either, instead, I want to see effectiveness increased. Really, citing an example I've used before, if we extend mammograms to every woman who meets the criteria for it, we would save loads of money by catching cancer cases earlier, but would ultimately lose more money cause of the sheer number of tests administered. But, effectiveness increases exponentially. That's the metric we need to understand if we are going to truly reform healthcare. Cost is nice, it's not the ultimate factor.

IMO, I think with a single payor model, we could probably get withing 10-15% either direction, of what we are spending on healthcare today. I've explained why many times in the past.

[CosmicCowboy]

AARP is really an insurance company disguised as a seniors organization. Since they principally insure older people it was in their best interest for them to cut medicare by 500 billion so they could sell more supplemental insurance.

[EVAY]

There's alot of meat there, Evay...and I see you picked out a nice steak already.:toast

I'm one of the nutbar conservatives that actually wants a single payor system in the US. I don't want it for cost reasons either, instead, I want to see effectiveness increased. Really, citing an example I've used before, if we extend mammograms to every woman who meets the criteria for it, we would save loads of money by catching cancer cases earlier, but would ultimately lose more money cause of the sheer number of tests administered. But, effectiveness increases exponentially. That's the metric we need to understand if we are going to truly reform healthcare. Cost is nice, it's not the ultimate factor.

IMO, I think with a single payor model, we could probably get withing 10-15% either direction, of what we are spending on healthcare today. I've explained why many times in the past.

Yes, and effectiveness as a metric for our health care system rarely gets debated by our politicians. Most of the debate over healthcare seems to assume something not in evidence, i.e., that the U.S. has the "best health care system in the world".

While some aspects of the American Health care system are far superior to those in most other countries, and while there is always anecdotal "this celebrity or foreigner came to America for this procedure - so we must be the best", the fact is that the U.S. ranks below several other developed nations on a lot of health care measurements.

We have the most expensive health care system in the world. It may or may not be the best.

I am in favor of health care reform.

I also think that law that was passed was horrid in many respects.

I can tolerate it because, hopefully, it can get cleaned up now.

[EVAY]

AARP is really an insurance company disguised as a seniors organization. Since they principally insure older people it was in their best interest for them to cut medicare by 500 billion so they could sell more supplemental insurance.

AARP was opposed to the medicare cuts.

[boutons_deux]

"cut medicare by 500 billion"

You Lie.

[CosmicCowboy]

"cut medicare by 500 billion"

You Lie.

How do you think they kept the cost of Obamacare under one trillion?..With 500 billion of Medicare cuts...

[CosmicCowboy]

he Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has attacked Senate Republican candidates for wanting "to end Medicare as we know it." And in Nevada's hotly contested Senate race, Majority Leader Harry Reid is attacking Republican Sharron Angle, saying she wants to "gut" Medicare. But Mr. Reid has already gutted it. He and his colleagues did so by passing ObamaCare.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703649004575437311393854940.html

In his analysis accompanying the recently released Annual Report of the Medicare Board of Trustees, Richard Foster, Medicare's chief actuary, noted that Medicare payment rates for doctors and hospitals serving seniors will be cut by 30% over the next three years. Under the policies of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, by 2019 Medicare payment rates will be lower than under Medicaid. Mr. Foster notes that by the end of the 75-year projection period in the Annual Medicare Trustees Report, Medicare payment rates will be one-third of what will be paid by private insurance, and only half of what is paid by Medicaid.

Altogether, ObamaCare cuts $818 billion from Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) from 2014-2023, the first 10 years of its full implementation, and $3.2 trillion over the first 20 years, 2014-2033. Adding in ObamaCare cuts for Medicare Part B (physicians fees and other services) brings the total cut to $1.05 trillion over the first 10 years and $4.95 trillion over the first 20 years.

These draconian cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, hospitals and other health-care providers that serve America's seniors were the basis for the Congressional Budget Office's official "score"—repeatedly cited by the president—that the health-reform legislation would actually reduce the federal deficit. But Mr. Obama never disclosed how that deficit reduction would actually be achieved.

There will be additional cuts under ObamaCare to Medicare Advantage, the private option to Medicare that close to one-fourth of all seniors have chosen for their coverage under the program because it gives them a better deal. Mr. Foster estimates that 50% of all seniors with Medicare Advantage will lose their plan because of these cuts. Mr. Obama's pledge that "If you like your health plan, you will be able to keep it" clearly does not apply to America's seniors.

Moreover, there will be additional cuts to Medicare adopted by bureaucrats at the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board. ObamaCare empowers this board to close Medicare financing gaps by adopting further Medicare cuts that would become effective without any congressional action. Mr. Foster reports that "The Secretary of HHS is required to implement the Board's recommendations unless the statutory process is overridden by new legislation."

The drastic reductions in Medicare reimbursements under ObamaCare will create havoc and chaos in health care for seniors. Many doctors, surgeons and specialists providing critical care to the elderly—such as surgery for hip and knee replacements, sophisticated diagnostics through MRIs and CT scans, and even treatment for cancer and heart disease—will cease serving Medicare patients. If the government is not going to pay, then seniors are not going to get the health services, treatment and care they expect.

Mr. Foster reports that two-thirds of hospitals already lose money on Medicare patients. Under ObamaCare it will get much worse. Hospitals also will shut down or stop serving Medicare patients.

The president's concept of spreading the wealth includes sacking the Medicare system, on which America's seniors have come to rely for medical care, in favor of others the president's progressive vision deems more worthy.

Everyone should know by now that Medicare suffers dramatic long-term deficits and unfunded liabilities, and is in need of fundamental, structural reforms. But effectively refusing to pay the doctors and hospitals that provide the medical care the program promises to seniors is no way to solve that problem.

[CosmicCowboy]

"cut medicare by 500 billion"



You Lie.

You are right

It was more than 500 billion.

And you are just fucking stupid.

[ChumpDumper]

So Obama gutted an entitlement program that Bush had expanded when he endorsed and got passed a health care reform law based on the idea of one of America's leading conservative think tanks.

OK.

Sounds like pure Marxism to me....

[Winehole23]

Get your socialist hands off mah Medicare.