I understand that nobody wants the programs they're enjoying to be part of austerity measures; But we can't sustain the current levels of spending for long & we can't just tax everyone into oblivion to pay for what others want, either. Beveraly should be less concerned about reasonable revisions to her pet programs & far more concerned about the devestation of ALL citizens as our country continues to spend irresponsibly, mortgage our future to China & continue going broke.

PghGirl,
While I totally support your position, the immediate reaction to the possible closure of the 911th Air Wing demonstrates that folks indeed want reductions--just not here in our backyard. The cost savings and reductions indeed require sharing, but rest assured, the possible loss of votes is a bigger concern to the electorate than fair play.

Recall all the lefty hand-wringing, wailing and gnashing of teeth on this blog about "unfunded wars".

Nary a peep out them about the unfunded liability for all the entitlement programs, the so-called "safety net", they love to tout. Just for Medicare *alone* it's $25,000,000,000,000 or $212,500 per household.

From those rabid, venomous, mean-spirited, racist, bitter, gun-clinging Christian "1%" homophobic misogynists at USA Today:

http://tinyurl.com/6bz5w33

Young partisan conservatives with no real life experiences and hell bent on acquiring personal wealth are quick to criticize tax supported safety net programs.

The sobering thought of advancing age and the always present possibility of being victimized by a life altering illness or injury encourages one to appreciate these programs in a more positive light.

I believe the onset of this process is commonly referred to as maturity.

Didn't Obamacare take 500 million from medicare?

Understood, GBR. But I think Medicare vs the 911th is a little different. Defense = jobs while Medicare costs us jobs & decreases the quality of care to those patients to boot. As high-quality providers become unable to take a loss for treating Medicare patients, they bow out of the system, leaving patients with fewer options & often very low-qaulity ones at that.

Medicare costs jobs??? without Medicare most seniors would not seek medical care. With Medicare they now seek and receive care culminating in health industry jobs. By the way, in the "help wanted" section of the P-G, health care job positions usually far outnumber other categories.

Doctors who say they would no longer accept medicare patients if reimbursement declined are making idle threats. In an increasingly aging population for most specialties excluding pediatricians and obstetricians, Medicare patients make up the bulk of their patient load.

Dedicated health care providers pay no attention to who is paying for the service, they will always give patients their best. It is who they are.

The actual expenditure for Medicare in the U.S. for 2010 is $560 Billion. The expenditure for defense is $683 billion. The defense spending may indeed be a greater amount but once you calculate the amount spent outside this country--combined with the fact that the Medicare expenses support both jobs and benefit citizens here--the choice is easy.
If the Fed would ever get serious about eliminating Medicare fraud, the savings from this could equal $80 to $100 billion. Rather than simply seek bandaid approach cuts--try actually going after the waste in both these programs.

Doctors who say they would no longer accept medicare patients if reimbursement declined are making idle threats.

Some providers have already stopped treating Medicare patients years ago due to under-reimbursement. And some of the best-compensated individual providers in the Medicare network are the lowest-ratest caregivers. Go to any doctor's office or nursing home that's primarily treating Medicare patients & few or none with private insurance. You will see patients in worse shape receiving less care than their likewise counterparts being treated by mainstream providers.

It's an exploitative system & just because some people depend on Medicare does not mean we should turn a blind eye to the lower quality of care they receive or the shrinking provider network. And your casual observation of available jobs in the healthcare field illustrates that you know nothing about healthcare. Many of the want-ads positions are chronically open nursing home & rehab facilities with astronomical turnover rates because employees are grossly overworked & underpaid due since Medicare often doesn't pay enough to cover the cost of services rendered.

Go visit Canterbury Place in Lawrenceville or a similar facility & see for yourself how even enormous corporate outfits like UPMC are unable to absorb the cost of treating Medicare patients. The assisted living component is quite good because the residents require minimal healthcare services but the nursing units are awful. I speak from experience having had to remove a family member from there & having done everything in my power to ensure that other residents were treated better than my loved one.

Talk to any nurse or doctor currently in practice & educate yourself about the issue because if you had any grasp of it, then you would agree that Medicare & Medicaid are horribly broken & need to be fixed.

GBR - I'm not saying we don't need some sensible limits on defense spending, just that people refuse to acknowledge the harm in the Medicare system which is only being compounded when we allow it to fester.

No matter how sensible (or necessary) a change to Medicare may be, the libs want to pretend that any change is always bad & it's simply not true. Medicare is hurting us as much as it's helping us & it needs to be fixed.

On February 15, 2012, the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services (HHS) released an updated annual report showing that, for the second year in a row, anti-fraud efforts have recovered more than $4.1 billion in fraudulent Medicare payments. Compare this to just $2.14 billion recovered in FY 2008.

Prosecutions are way up too: the number of individuals charged with fraud increased from 821 in fiscal year 2008 to 1,430 in fiscal year 2011 – nearly a 75 percent increase.

Thank you President Obama for your leadership.

Didn't Obamacare take 500 million from medicare?

No. It was $500 Billion, not Million.

written by t.s., February 16, 2012 - 01:09 PM

Didn't Obamacare take 500 million from medicare?


No. It was $500 Billion, not Million.

His plan would reduce expenses by that amount over a 10 year period.

If he was white and named Paul Ryan you guys would be singing his praises.

If he was white and named Paul Ryan you guys would be singing his praises.

Really. Someone gave an incorrect amount, I told them the correct amount, and you feel a need to bring race into it. Think that's maybe why the whole "you're a racist" thing isn't really working anymore?

written by Racer, February 16, 2012 - 01:02 PM

On February 15, 2012, the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services (HHS) released an updated annual report showing that, for the second year in a row, anti-fraud efforts have recovered more than $4.1 billion in fraudulent Medicare payments. Compare this to just $2.14 billion recovered in FY 2008.

Prosecutions are way up too: the number of individuals charged with fraud increased from 821 in fiscal year 2008 to 1,430 in fiscal year 2011 – nearly a 75 percent increase.

Thank you President Obama for your leadership.

As impressive as this sounds, when you look at a $100 billion annual fraud cost--this is pitiful.
The complete lack of oversight by this- as well as-previous administrations borders on criminal. When they tout their success by recovering 4% of the theft--they must believe we are all idiots.
When organized crime departs from drugs, gambling and prostitution to get into Medicare fraud because it is more rewarding and less of a chance for conviction--we have a real problem.

Let's get serious about this and it will more than pay for the effort. Quit playing these juvenile politics and start actually saving $$$.

written by ksimm, February 16, 2012 - 01:29 PM If he was white and named Paul Ryan you guys would be singing his praises.

If he were *completely* white, he'd be John Edwards.

Why the race card,it has nothing to do with it.

"As high-quality providers become unable to take a loss for treating Medicare patients, they bow out of the system, leaving patients with fewer options & often very low-qaulity ones at that."

You have steered into that area of this discussion, PghGirl, that liberals and supporters of socialized medicene schemes do not like delve, probably because it is one of the clearest, in your face, depictions of the fate of the healthcare industry if, or should I say, when, because I believe those who want others to pay their bills outnumber those who don't, we jump off the cliff of socialized medicene.

What do you suppose will happen when a sufficient number, or even a majority, of doctors and healthcare providers "bow out of the system" because they are being squeezed by the gov't?

At the risk of overstating the obvious, I will shed light on that. The gov't will then begin "directing" med students' field of study towards those areas lacking sufficient private industry personnel. This was actually part of the "HillaryCare" debacle. This will result in your less than "A" students becoming gov't doctors, nurses, etc., which will send the quality of care provided by gov't programs spiraling downward even faster.

The ultimate goal of this scheme is for the gov't to completely control the healthcare industry. Liberals are smart enough to know that they are unlikely to accomplish this takeover in one big bite, and are happy to wait for the inevitable result of incremental noshing.

As impressive as this sounds, when you look at a $100 billion annual fraud cost--this is pitiful....Let's get serious about this and it will more than pay for the effort. Quit playing these juvenile politics and start actually saving $$$.

Going from $2.14 billion to $4.1 billion in one year with an increase in prosecutions demonstrates progress in the right direction. No where did DoJ, HHS, or me say it was complete.

You must be a real gem to live with not seeing the good in anything.

Conservatives need to park their inane ideology and accept that Medciare is a very successful single payer program. Those 65 and over who are enrolled have few complaints. Most Medicare recipients purchase Medicare Supplemnt coverage through a private carrier like UPMC or Highmark. It all works quite well.

The sometimes poor level of care at the nursing home level can be attributed to the continous turn over of non-professioanl help because of low wages. Chronic GOP opposition to increases in the minimum wage has always had a disasterous impact on nursing home care.

If providers refuesed to take Medicare patients, their offices would be empty. Chronic diseases that require continued care and treatment are pertinent to the elderly.

What is the bread and butter money maker for opthomalogists....cataracts which is a process of aging

Urologists would be a lot poorer if not for enlarged prostates.....a condition that increases with age.

The internist.... lives off of chronic heart failure, atrial fib, pacemakers, type 2 diabetes etc; all chronic diseases associated with age.

Nobody is turnig away Medciare patients.

Conservatives need to park their inane ideology and accept that Medciare is a very successful single payer program.

There's no "ideology" here from me, just factual observations of what's really happening to patients. This has nothing to do with you labeling me as conservative but I don't blame you for making such incorrect assumptions. You seem to be completely blind to the facts of the matter on this, blindly subscribing to the Dem party line.

The reality is that the system is full of problems which drives providers away, hurting Medicare/Medicaid recipients. It needs to be fixed & fast, as our population is aging at a record rate. But for so long, Dems have touted it as a perfect example of how big gov't saves the day, now they're stuck. Acknowledging it's shortcomings means they'd have to admit to their own failures & dishonesty; But towing the party line on this one is a disaster for us all, especially if you have aging loved ones or have any compassion for the infirm & elderly in general.

when you look at a $100 billion annual fraud cost--this is pitiful.

Where do you get $100B annually in Medicare fraud? The OMB estimates $47B for 2010. Every other source I can find ranges between $23B and $60B, and all the $60B sources are from several years ago.

written by boldart, February 16, 2012 - 03:26 PM Conservatives need to park their inane ideology and accept that Medciare is a very successful single payer program.

"Very successful"? Please go back and read my 10:42AM post. That's success to you? (I am 100% correct about my "nary a peep" observation.)

Those 65 and over who are enrolled have few complaints.

That's because Paul favors robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Uh, not-so-boldart, you know, there is an entire field of medicine that deals with the elderly and aging; it's called geriatrics. So please stop babbling about ophthalmologists, urologists internist and cardiologists (plus rheumatologists and pathologists , I gather) catering for the most part to elderly patients in their practices.

Nobody is turnig away Medciare patients.

No, I suppose not. Instead, the physicians are just opting out all together, which is, in a way, "turning away Medicare patients".

http://tinyurl.com/brfkruu

http://tinyurl.com/6rwx25k

http://tinyurl.com/6r78p3g

http://tinyurl.com/pzluoy

written by gorillagogo, February 16, 2012 - 04:02 PM

Where do you get $100B annually in Medicare fraud? The OMB estimates $47B for 2010. Every other source I can find ranges between $23B and $60B, and all the $60B sources are from several years ago.

Gorilla - I've seen similiar numbers on Medicare fraud. Let's be honest about it. It's probably twice their predition, which is around $100 billion.

You must be a real gem to live with not seeing the good in anything.

Coming from you, that's a helluva statement. Tell that to your sister sally along with her and your "beloved facts" in bashing the catholic church.

Thank you President Obama for your leadership.

What did he do?? Did he deport auntie Zeituni Onyango or how about unkie Onyango Obama. This would help reduce fraud. But then, they both vote D-rat.

Gorilla - I've seen similiar numbers on Medicare fraud. Let's be honest about it. It's probably twice their predition, which is around $100 billion.

Why should we believe it's twice that? The $47B figure I found earlier was OMB's estimate, and when they investigated they found less fraud since some of the claims wound up being legal.

Now, $47B is still an unacceptable level of fraud. I just don't see the need to exaggerate. Why isn't $47B enough of an outrage for GBR or others to make their point?

OK, here goes:

http://articles.businessinside...s-medicare

http://libertypenblog.blogspot...d-and.html

http://www.coburn.senate.gov/p...c5fbff139d

http://www.smpresource.org/Con...imates.pdf

While indeed the amount of fraud may be a moving target, it sure seems a lot more than $47B. Regardess, why are the fed's so happy picking up the crumbs from the floor when the entire loaf is still out there??

GBR -- Your first link cites a Financial Times article for the $100B number, but when you click through to the actual Financial Times article it says $60B but guesses it might be $100B. Your second is a video that lumps Medicare and Medicaid together. Your third is to Senator Tom Coburn's website, where he guesses it might be as high as $100B but provides no citations. Your last one is to a PDF that guesses anywhere between $60B and $1.2T, but also lumps together Medicare and Medicaid.

Jeepers--sure seems like alot more than $47B.

*t is if you include Medicaid or just guess without any rigorous study to back up your claims.

Some providers have already stopped treating Medicare patients years ago due to under-reimbursement. And some of the best-compensated individual providers in the Medicare network are the lowest-ratest caregivers. Go to any doctor's office or nursing home that's primarily treating Medicare patients & few or none with private insurance. You will see patients in worse shape receiving less care than their likewise counterparts being treated by mainstream providers.

That simply is not true. I've been on Medicare for just over five years and have received absolutely the best, most attentive care possible, including a heart bypass.

My family doctor's office is filled with Medicare patients and my own doctor has told me he neither feels burdened or under-compensated.

The $500 billion cut under the ACA was from Medicare Advantage, which reimburses doctors at a higher rate. That program is private insurance that supplements Medicare coverage, often with benefits not available under regular Medicare such as normal vision and dental care and health club memberships.

Part of the problem with Medicare costs, aside from the growth in users due to an aging population, is the same problem with medical costs in general.

But those costs are also high due to the age of the recipients, who, as a group, need more health care.

Private insurance companies have much higher administrative costs than does medicare, and that contributes to the high cost of care. They have a profit motive and aim and also pay higher salaries to their executives.

I am not saying that is good or bad, only that it is a factor.

Uninsured persons, particularly those who use hospital emergency rooms for their basic treatment, also increase costs across the board, since costs to providers that are not reimbursed by taxpayers, mean others are charged more to make up the difference.

In sum, there are a myriad of problems with our health delivery system. To attack Medicare as the only source of them and cut costs affecting the most vulnerable, is not wise and in some ways could be considered downright cruel.

Unless these other sources of the problems are also addressed, there will be no solution.

Private insurance companies have much higher administrative costs than does medicare, and that contributes to the high cost of care. They have a profit motive and aim and also pay higher salaries to their executives.

I am not saying that is good or bad, only that it is a factor.

But higher & lower administrative costs aren't all created equal. Lots of insurers offer patient care coordination services by qualified, trained medical personnel (usually RN's but sometimes PA's & retired doctors too). It may be done by the insurer directly or be a covered service from providers. Coordinating care is a significant expense that Medicare lacks which explains much of the discrepancy. Probably not all of the difference in admin costs but a lot of it.

Coordination of care is huge for patients. They get better treatment, have lower instances of drug interactions, fewer medical errors, usually get treatment earlier & avoid bigger problems down the road, etc. It really improves outcomes. People on Medicare alone are not getting anything close to that level of attention thus have worse outcomes.

It's a really important thing & will be the future basis for all care. Right now, it's a huge cost to absorb but down the road, it will reduce costs dramatically by increasing health & decreasing medical errors. As far as having to pay higher salaries & stuff, that's not always a bad thing. You usually get what you pay for. Medicare keeps costs down by using people with administrative backgrounds for their admin work while many private insurers utilize nurses & physicians instead. You have to pay them more than call-center workers but they're providing a much higher level of work than a former telemarketer.

That simply is not true. I've been on Medicare for just over five years and have received absolutely the best, most attentive care possible, including a heart bypass.

My family doctor's office is filled with Medicare patients and my own doctor has told me he neither feels burdened or under-compensated.

It's great to hear that the system is working for some recipients but for a lot of them, it's not working. I appreciate that your personal experience has been positive & hope it continues to be good but everyone is not having the same luck with it.

I'm not bs'ing you here, UMOC. Although I've spoken at length about my many years in construction, a little known fact around here is that I'm also a practicing RN with an advanced degree. I've studied the problems with the healthcare system extensively & this is a professional opinion. It has absolutely nothing to do with my political views.

Our system is broken & a lot of people are getting hurt. You're truly fortunate to not fall through the cracks in the system& are in the minority. I advocate for what is best for all patients & that includes the most sustainable options from both private insurers & gov't programs.