Democrats Close Ranks to Defend Health Bill's Cuts

[intheknow]

These Medicare Cuts.

Democrats Close Ranks to Defend Health Bill's Cuts

By GREG HITT and JANET ADAMY
WASHINGTON -- Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee closed ranks Wednesday in the face of Republican attacks over proposed Medicare cuts at the heart of health-care legislation.

The second day of debate in the influential panel underscored the political difficulties ahead for the health bill, which would wring big savings from Medicare to help finance President Barack Obama's goal of expanding health coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans.

"Medicare shouldn't be the piggy bank," Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) said during a debate that featured frequent partisan sparring between senators. "The reduced costs fund a new entitlement," Mr. Kyl said. "They don't help seniors who rely on Medicare."

In mostly party-line votes, Democrats rejected a series of amendments from Republicans to trim the Medicare cuts, including a proposal by Mr. Kyl to wipe them out entirely.

The sweeping bill would cut federal health spending by more than $400 billion over 10 years, most of it by reducing payments to a range of health providers under Medicare, the health program for the elderly. The money saved would go to expand eligibility for Medicaid, the federal-state heath program for the poor, and create new tax subsidies to help low- and middle-income families purchase insurance.

The backbone of the bill's proposed Medicare cuts is a measure that would squeeze $124 billion over a decade out of Medicare Advantage, a program for seniors getting health benefits through a private insurer rather than directly from the government.

The bill would force the insurers to bid competitively to run the plans, a change from current law. Most Democrats contend that the government overpays private insurers to administer the plans. On a 14-9 vote, the committee rejected an amendment by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) that would have weakened the proposed changes to Medicare Advantage in the bill.

Notably, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R., Maine) sided with Democrats on the issue. She also sided with Democrats to defeat a Republican amendment that would have stripped from the bill a proposal to empower a special commission to recommend, and enforce, certain Medicare cuts. Democrats hold out hope that the Sen. Snowe will eventually support the broader bill.

Democrats said the spending cuts would eliminate Medicare waste and wouldn't erode the benefits that seniors receive. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) said "not one red cent" of the proposed savings would come from benefits. He and other Democrats argued that Medicare is on a path to fiscal insolvency, perhaps as soon as 2017, and that paring spending would strengthen it for the future.

"If you want Medicare to go broke, just don't deal with that reality," Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) told the panel.

The struggle over the issue dramatized the political risks for the president's party a little more than a year from midterm elections in which control of Congress will be up for grabs.

The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll revealed deep skepticism among Americans over the age of 65, a key voting bloc, about the health initiative, which has yet to reach the floor of either the House or the Senate. The poll found that seniors disapproved of the president's handling of the issue, 49% to 45%. The survey also found that 15% of seniors believe the president's plan would result in better health care, while 37% feared it would get worse.

Vice President Joe Biden held a forum with senior citizens Wednesday in Silver Spring, Md., where he highlighted a new report by the Department of Health and Human Services showing that the health overhaul will cut seniors' prescription drug costs and waive fees for preventive services like colonoscopies.

"We will protect seniors -- not burden them with out-of-pocket costs," Mr. Biden said.

The broader legislation, estimated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to cost $774 billion over 10 years, would create a new national "exchange," through which individuals and small businesses could purchase insurance, and would establish a network of nonprofit health cooperatives to provide low-cost competition with private insurers.

The bill would require nearly all individuals to purchase insurance but would create new assistance for the needy to meet the mandate.

Beyond the spending cuts, the bill would raise $348.8 billion in new revenue, including a new levy on insurance companies that sell high-value health policies.

Write to Greg Hitt at greg.hitt@wsj.com and Janet Adamy at janet.adamy@wsj.com

[BC-NanceLee]

Originally Posted by intheknow

The backbone of the bill's proposed Medicare cuts is a measure that would squeeze $124 billion over a decade out of Medicare Advantage, a program for seniors getting health benefits through a private insurer rather than directly from the government.

The bill would force the insurers to bid competitively to run the plans, a change from current law.

Exactly what is cited in the FactCheck link.

Surely you think competition is a good thing, right ITK? It is very possible to buy the same thing at a better price because there is competition.

[robine]

silly, do not confuse the people with FACTS.. we now have change and it is good..now sit down and slug some more of that cool drink there on the table

[intheknow]

Originally Posted by BC-NanceLee

Exactly what is cited in the FactCheck link.

Surely you think competition is a good thing, right ITK? It is very possible to buy the same thing at a better price because there is competition.

So there might be ONE part of a bill that is good, but the rest is bad. Sounds like a bill that needs to be defeated.

Tasty crust on a crap sandwich is still a crap sandwich.