Due to more efficient Obamacare - Medicare is solvent through 2024. Without Obamacare - Medicare goes bankrupt in 2016

[웃 910]

Health Reform Strengthens Medicare, Doesn’t “Rob” It

The 2010 health reform law (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) has significantly improved Medicare’s long-term financial outlook, as we have previously pointed out. Recent claims that health reform “robs Medicare” and does not “shore up Medicare’s finances” are flatly false, as the recent report of the program’s trustees shows.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the ACA will reduce Medicare’s projected spending by $716 billion over the 2013-2023 period. As John McDonough of Harvard’s School of Public Health explains: “None of these reductions were financed by cuts to Medicare enrollees’ eligibility or benefits; benefits were improved in the ACA. Cuts were focused on hospitals, health insurers, home health, and other providers.”

Medicare’s trustees confirm that health reform has improved the program’s finances: “The financial status of the HI [Hospital Insurance] trust fund was substantially improved by the lower expenditures and additional tax revenues instituted by the Affordable Care Act.” (See page 4 here.)

In their annual report issued this spring, the trustees estimate that the Medicare hospital insurance program now faces a shortfall over the next 75 years equal to 1.35 percent of taxable payroll — that is, 1.35 percent of the total amount of earnings that will be subject to the Medicare payroll tax over this period. This is much less than the size of the shortfall that the trustees estimated before the enactment of health reform: 3.88 percent of taxable payroll (see chart).

The trustees also find that the HI trust fund will remain solvent — that is, able to pay 100 percent of the costs of the hospital insurance coverage that Medicare provides — through 2024. If health reform were fully repealed, however, as the House of Representatives has voted to do, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services estimates that the Medicare hospital insurance program would become insolvent eight years earlier, in 2016.

These projections underscore the importance of successfully implementing the cost-control provisions in the Affordable Care Act. While history shows that most major Medicare savings measures have been implemented as scheduled, Medicare’s chief actuary has expressed concern that some of the ACA’s savings provisions may not be sustainable. The actuary urges reliance instead on an “illustrative alternative” projection, which assumes that only 60 percent of the ACA’s Medicare savings will actually be achieved in the long run. Even under this alternative projection, the projected insolvency date of the Hospital Insurance trust fund remains at 2024. To be sure, the 75-year shortfall in the Medicare trust fund would rise to 2.43 percent of payroll under the alternative projection, but this still is a dramatic improvement over the outlook without the Affordable Care Act.

Claims that the health reform law weakens Medicare’s finances are far off base. The truth is that the ACA strengthens the program.

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/health-reform-strengthens-medicare-doesnt-rob-it/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the ACA will reduce Medicare’s projected spending by $716 billion over the 2013-2023 period.

Only because the ACA steals $716 billion from the account. :rofl:

Edited August 18, 2012 by The Patriot

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Only because the ACA steals $716 billion from the account. :rofl:

Lemme guess - a Republican that's unable to read?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Lemme guess - a Republican that's unable to read?

I would think you would know how CBO reports and baseline accounting work by now.

“None of these reductions were financed by cuts to Medicare enrollees’ eligibility or benefits; benefits were improved in the ACA. Cuts were focused on hospitals, health insurers, home health, and other providers.”

No we are not going to reduce your benefits, we will just reduce the amount we pay in reimbursement for those benefits. In other words, you are still entitled to what you have now, and more, only good luck finding a provider that will offer them to you at a bigger loss than that what they are losing right now.

Edited August 18, 2012 by The Patriot

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I would think you would know how CBO reports and baseline accounting work by now.

No we are not going to reduce your benefits, we will just reduce the amount we pay in reimbursement for those benefits. In other words, you are still entitled to what you have now, and more, only good luck finding a provider that will offer them to you at a bigger loss than that what they are losing right now.

that's a BIG bingo!

More and more providers keep dropping medicare (and medicaid as well).

[mawilson 2,133]

Obamacare cuts Medicare by more than $700 billion over the coming decade, so yeah - keep it solvent a bit longer.

If we make more cuts, we can make it solvent through 2050 or 2100.

[웃 910]

Obamacare cuts Medicare by more than $700 billion over the coming decade, so yeah - keep it solvent a bit longer.

If we make more cuts, we can make it solvent through 2050 or 2100.

From my understanding (which is probably off, maybe you can check?) what the Republicans are doing is deceptively interchanging the words "cuts" and "savings".

For example:

John finds a way to run his business more efficiently, and instead of spending $1000 a month he only spends $300.

So you can either say he made $700 in "cuts" or due to his new methods he has $700 in "savings".

Republicans saw that the program was so effective that it found a way to do the exact same thing but the cost goes down $700 billion over a decade.

So they went ahead and started repeatedly saying "$700 billion in cuts to Medicare"....Over and over again to make them look good and Obama look like a Granny-killer.

Maybe they were told to repeat a lie. Maybe it is the truth. I do not know. Is it savings or is it cuts?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

From my understanding (which is probably off, maybe you can check?) what the Republicans are doing is deceptively interchanging the words "cuts" and "savings".

For example:

John finds a way to run his business more efficiently, and instead of spending $1000 a month he only spends $300.

So you can either say he made $700 in "cuts" or due to his new methods he has $700 in "savings".

Republicans saw that the program was so effective that it found a way to do the exact same thing but the cost goes down $700 billion over a decade.

So they went ahead and started repeatedly saying "$700 billion in cuts to Medicare"....Over and over again to make them look good and Obama look like a Granny-killer.

Maybe they were told to repeat a lie. Maybe it is the truth. I do not know. Is it savings or is it cuts?

It reduces future growth technically, but at the end of the day with all the boomers jumping onto the SS/Medicare rolls it can be easily construed as a cut. Especially when you heard Obama himself saying we can give granny a pain pill instead of a pacemaker. Like it or not, the "death panels" might be extreme but the figurative speech does fit at the end of the day. Some people's lives will be saved on a "determined" basis. Others will just be made "comfortable" which might cause their lives to end earlier than they could otherwise.

[mawilson 2,133]

From my understanding (which is probably off, maybe you can check?) what the Republicans are doing is deceptively interchanging the words "cuts" and "savings".

For example:

John finds a way to run his business more efficiently, and instead of spending $1000 a month he only spends $300.

So you can either say he made $700 in "cuts" or due to his new methods he has $700 in "savings".

Republicans saw that the program was so effective that it found a way to do the exact same thing but the cost goes down $700 billion over a decade.

So they went ahead and started repeatedly saying "$700 billion in cuts to Medicare"....Over and over again to make them look good and Obama look like a Granny-killer.

Maybe they were told to repeat a lie. Maybe it is the truth. I do not know. Is it savings or is it cuts?

I'm pretty sure those are actual "cuts", not "savings".

- It closes the so-called "Doughnut Hole" - the Medicare drug benefit enacted in 2003 which provides insurance coverage above a deductible but below $2,700 and above $6,154 (the gap between $2,700 and $6,154 is the "doughnut hole".) Obamacare phases out this gap by gradually increasing the $2,700 limit.

- It reduces payments to MA (Medical Advantage) plans by $150 billion over 10 years

- Other across the board cuts

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I would think you would know how CBO reports and baseline accounting work by now.

No we are not going to reduce your benefits, we will just reduce the amount we pay in reimbursement for those benefits. In other words, you are still entitled to what you have now, and more, only good luck finding a provider that will offer them to you at a bigger loss than that what they are losing right now.

So you mean to tell me that there isn't any efficiencies to be had in the Medicare program? That system is working as efficiently as it can already? That's your statement? We cannot shave 10% - 18% off the reimbursement to Medicare Advantage insurers so the private insurers receive no more than what traditional Medicare pays per beneficiary? We need to continue to subsidize those private insurers? When PPACA kicks in, hospitals benefit from treating less uninsured people. They'll get paid. The taxpayer - via insurance plan subsidies - pays for a good bit of that. The taxpayer is looking for lower rates on Medicare patients in return. This is the deal that was struck with the hospitals. They're going to be okay. And then there's a start to move away from fee-for-service which will save money w/o adverse impact.

Besides, isn't Ryan's budget, dollar for dollar, built on the same Medicare reductions that they are now criticizing? And does the Ryan budget not cut further from Medicare on top of that? Of course it does. And the GOP stands behind that budget. Only Mitt is getting wimpy again and now so he promises to "restore" the funding to Medicare that Obama has taken away? That's laughable. Romney is turning out to be the biggest spender in history.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm pretty sure those are actual "cuts", not "savings".

- It closes the so-called "Doughnut Hole" - the Medicare drug benefit enacted in 2003 which provides insurance coverage above a deductible but below $2,700 and above $6,154 (the gap between $2,700 and $6,154 is the "doughnut hole".) Obamacare phases out this gap by gradually increasing the $2,700 limit.

- It reduces payments to MA (Medical Advantage) plans by $150 billion over 10 years

- Other across the board cuts

Closing the doughnut hole is not a cut to the program - it's actually an expansion. Romney and Ryan want to re-instate the doughnut hole to it's original design, of course. Which is understandable since Ryan helped to create it in the first place. How dare the President mess with Ryan's benefit design?

Beginning this year [2010], any Medicare beneficiary who crosses into the doughnut hole will receive a $250 check to help pay for the drugs.

Then, starting in January, patients in the coverage gap will get a 50% discount on brand-name drugs. The price reduction will be financed by the drug companies as part of a deal with the White House under which the industry made tens of billions of dollars in price concessions.

The federal government will play a big role too in closing the doughnut hole. Beginning in 2013, the government will begin providing subsidies for brand-name drugs bought by seniors who hit the coverage gap. The government's share will start off small, at 2.5%, but will increase to 25% by 2020. At that point, the combined industry discounts and government subsidies will add up to 75% of brand-name drug costs.

Generic drugs, which cost far less than brand-name drugs, will be dealt with separately. Beginning in 2011, government subsidies will cover 7% of generic drug costs. Washington will pick up additional portions each year until 2020, when federal dollars will cover 75% of generic drug costs.

At that point, the doughnut hole will effectively be closed.

MA will be cut, hospital reimbursements will be cut, reimbursement models will be changed and effective cost growth controls are being implemented (your death panels, if you will).

Edited August 19, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[mawilson 2,133]

Closing the doughnut hole is not a cut to the program - it's actually an expansion. Romney and Ryan want to re-instate the doughnut hole to it's original design, of course. Which is understandable since Ryan helped to create it in the first place. How dare the President mess with Ryan's benefit design?

Hey, I'm not against the cuts, I'm for them. Medicare needs to be cut. If it's not cut, it will consume the entirety of the country's discretionary budget. No more education, energy, homeland security, commerce, justice, state, FAA, CDC, FCC. No more roads and bridges. Just Medicare.

The only thing I'm against is Obama implying that Ryan is some kind of a granny killing monster when Obamacare includes Medicare cuts just like Ryan's plan did.

[james&olya 1,121]

No we are not going to reduce your benefits, we will just reduce the amount we pay in reimbursement for those benefits. In other words, you are still entitled to what you have now, and more, only good luck finding a provider that will offer them to you at a bigger loss than that what they are losing right now.

Few providers could stay in business without dealing with medicare. They may do some bitching and moaning but they are not about to stop sucking on that government teat! Medicaid is a whole lot different. Some states reimburse so poorly that it costs the provider to provide services to medicaid recipients.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Hey, I'm not against the cuts, I'm for them. Medicare needs to be cut. If it's not cut, it will consume the entirety of the country's discretionary budget. No more education, energy, homeland security, commerce, justice, state, FAA, CDC, FCC. No more roads and bridges. Just Medicare.

The only thing I'm against is Obama implying that Ryan is some kind of a granny killing monster when Obamacare includes Medicare cuts just like Ryan's plan did.

Then tell me, why is Ryan stumping in Florida pretending that his budget doesn't take all the cuts - all $700 billion - that are part of the PPACA and then cuts even further? Contrary to what Romney and Ryan would have you believe, the debate is not over whether the cost curve of the program needs to be brought down - everyone knows that and agrees on that - but over whether Medicare can be reformed or whether it needs to be handed over to private insurers to bring down the cost. Those that want to reform Medicare do not believe that private insurers are able to control the cost of the program - they're not able to do that managing the the young and healthy population. Nor have they brought down any cost with the Medicare Advantage experiment which is one huge failure. In MA, they even get to pick and chose the population of the old they will cover - i.e. they structure plans in ways that those with certain conditions that are very expensive to treat have no incentive signing up. So, they can't bring down cost for the less costly elderly. How would they be able to do with the old and truly sick? They wouldn't. They'd bring home some goodies for their shareholders but there's no reason to believe that they would effectively control the cost of Medicare. They simply would not. Yet that is precisely the snake oil Romney and Ryan are selling. And I, for one, ain't buying it.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[mawilson 2,133]

Then tell me, why is Ryan stumping in Florida pretending that his budget doesn't take all the cuts - all $700 billion - that are part of the PPACA and then cuts even further?

Because Medicare is the third rail of American politics - touch it and you die.

Paul Ryan is no longer willing to be a martyr; unfortunately, martyrdom is the only viable alternative to the massive insolvency that looms on the horizon.