Three Ways To Save Medicare Paul Ryan Doesn’t Want You To Know About

By Zaid Jilani

ACROSS the country, Main Street Americans are speaking out against a GOP budget plan that would effectively end Medicare.

In taking aim at Medicare, these conservative members of Congress are claiming that they are actually “saving Medicare” from financial ruin and that there is no possible choice other than to privatize the program and throw seniors to the insurance industry. They say this to justify a plan that the Congressional Budget Office says would have the elderly spending the majority of their income on health care.

Yet what Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) — the architect of the plan to end Medicare — and other right-wingers don’t want you to know is that there are actually numerous way to shore up the fiscal solvency of Medicare that wouldn’t involve such a dangerous privatization scheme.

ThinkProgress has assembled three different policy options that, if enacted, could help Medicare’s future financial issues and save the taxpayer billions of dollars:

1. Empower Medicare To Negotiate For Lower Drug Prices: One policy option that would be very simple to enact and would not require any sort of increased spending or expansion of government would be to simply allow Medicare to use its bulk purchasing power to negotiate with drugmakers for lower prices. The program is currently banned from doing so, thanks to the clout of the drug industry. Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) estimates that doing this could save as much as $156 billion over 10 years. {Editor’s Note: Obama, as usual, sold us down the river on this own, behind the legendary closed doors, but the truth eventually seeped out. The mainstream media barely touched the story.}

2. Allow Drug Reimportation From Canada: One of the major costs in the U.S. health care system that drives up the costs not only in the private sector but also among Medicare are the costs of prescription drugs. One very easy was to greatly relieve this cost is to eliminate protectionist barriers and allow the free importation of prescription drugs from our neighbors like Canada. A failed measure proposed by Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and John McCain (R-AZ) to do exactly that in 2009 estimated that doing so would save consumers $80 billion over ten years.

3. Globalize Medicare: Another protectionist barrier and detriment to free trade in the U.S. health care system is that seniors currently aren’t allowed to use their Medicare insurance system outside of the United States. An alternative to this would be to drop these trade barriers and allow seniors on Medicare to seek care abroad, where services are much cheaper. Economist Dean Baker estimates that if fifty percent of Medicare beneficiaries opted for this globalized option, then taxpayers would save more than $40 billion a year by 2020. President Obama dismissed this option when asked about it at a recent town hall meeting.

The primary reason these three common sense initiatives have not been enacted in the United States is because of deep opposition from the drug industry, for-profit hospitals, and other medical-industrial complex interest groups. Yet they all present simple and effective ways to lower costs and help shore up the finances of the Medicare program. If Ryan and other so-called reform advocates were serious about ensuring the fiscal solvency of the Medicare program and lowering health care costs for Americans, they would not remove these options from the debate.

ZAID JILANI writes on medical issue for Thinkprogress.org

To breathe the true air of freedom and democracy you need independent media lungs. Staffed with journalists and political observers not beholden to the status quo.
SUPPORT THE GREANVILLE POST AND CYRANOS JOURNAL TODAY.
DONATE WHAT YOU CAN!

____________________________________________

Make creeps like Kissinger and Palin miserable.

Read The Greanville Post by RSS Syndication (updates delivered every 4 days to your emailbox) and fortify your ability to fight back! Just click anywhere on Lady Liberty below and enter your email address.




How Big Pharma’s Deceptive Advertising Helps Addict Patients, Screw Over Doctors and Jack Up Insurance Rates

By Martha Rosenberg, AlterNet

Posted on April 18, 2011, Printed on April 25, 2011

Can anyone remember life before Ask Your Doctor ads on TV?

article, How Does the Drug Industry Get Away with Broadcasting Those Deceptive Ads?

© 2011 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

To breathe the true air of freedom and democracy you need independent media lungs. Staffed with journalists and political observers not beholden to the status quo.
SUPPORT THE GREANVILLE POST AND CYRANOS JOURNAL TODAY.
DONATE WHAT YOU CAN!

____________________________________________

Make creeps like Kissinger and Palin miserable.

Read The Greanville Post by RSS Syndication (updates delivered every 4 days to your emailbox) and fortify your ability to fight back! Just click anywhere on Lady Liberty below and enter your email address.




Democrats and Republicans escalate campaign against health care programs

By Joseph Kishore 25 April 2011

The GOP front brigade. Criminals and prostitutes all, but the Democrats are hardly better. It's a systemic problem.

Democrats and Republicans are escalating their attack on government programs that benefit the working class, centering their focus on Medicare and Medicaid, the principal health care programs for the poor, disabled and elderly.

The Republican Party proposal, presented by Congressman Paul Ryan and approved by the House of Representatives earlier this month, would effectively demolish the two programs. For his part, Obama has just returned from a tour of the West Coast in which he trumpeted his own plan to cut $2 trillion, primarily from the health care programs, over the next decade. The proposal, still vaguely elaborated, would expand measures already passed as part of the administration’s cost-cutting health care overhaul last year.

The unanimity of the ruling class in the demand for cuts in health care was underscored by the New York Times editorial Sunday, “A Real Choice on Medicare.” Speaking for the liberal establishment, the Times claimed that there were “stark differences” between the proposals advanced by the Republicans and the Democrats. In fact, the editorial demonstrated the opposite.

The Times noted that while Republicans proclaimed their opposition to Obama’s health care reform during the 2010 elections, their current proposal incorporates several of its key parts. This includes reductions in payments for Medicare Advantage, currently an option within Medicare that is administered by private insurers. The reduction is presented as an attack on subsidies to private companies, but its main effect will be to prompt these companies to reduce benefits offered to recipients.

The Times also wrote, “The Republicans have embraced health care reform’s necessary plan to slow the growth rate of payments to health care providers, which was expected to save hundreds of billions over the next decade.” This measure will also lead to deep cuts in benefits, as providers scale back services in response to reduced federal reimbursements.

After criticizing in mild terms the Republican program to end Medicare as a government program with guaranteed benefits and transform it into a federally-subsidized program for the purchase of private insurance, theTimes insisted, “The country cannot wrestle the deficit under control unless a way is found to slow the rise in medical costs—and Medicare’s demands on the federal budget.”

Whereas Obama was “clearly dedicated to reforming the health care system,” the Times questioned whether Ryan’s reliance on private insurance would actually succeed in containing costs.

“What is clear is that House Republicans are determined to repeal reform’s strongest cost-control measure: an independent board that would monitor whether Medicare is on track to meet spending targets and, if not, propose further reductions that Congress would have to accept or replace with comparable savings,” the newspaper wrote.

The main content of the newspaper’s critique of the Republicans is that their plan will not seriously reduce government spending.

The Times has carried out a systematic campaign against supposedly unnecessary tests and procedures. The aim has been to prepare the way for drastically reducing the level of care available to most individuals, which would be the central purpose of the “independent” board. The ruling class as a whole is implementing a conscious policy aimed at reducing the life expectancy of large sections of the population.

Sunday’s editorial complained, “Republicans charge that [the independent board] would allow ‘unelected bureaucrats’ to ‘ration’ health care.” This charge, which the Times does not attempt to refute, is in fact true. It helped the Republicans in their cynical efforts to posture as defenders of Medicare during the 2010 elections.

The Times went on to bemoan foot-dragging in Congress over health care cuts, listing “patients” as one of the “special interest groups” blocking change.

The newspaper concluded by criticizing Republicans for advocating the repeal of the health care overhaul legislation, as such action will “make it even harder to wrestle down health care costs, the best way to deal with the country’s long-term fiscal crisis.”

It is notable that neither the Times in its editorial nor Obama during his West Coast trip said anything about Medicaid, the program for the poor. Both parties are united in their determination to sharply cut Medicaid funding. State governments throughout the country, under both Democratic and Republican leadership, are pushing through billions in cuts even as meager federal aid to the states dries up.

The bipartisan consensus for attacking health care was evident on the network talk shows Sunday. On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” anchor David Gregory interviewed Democratic Senator Kent Conrad from North Dakota, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Republican Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma. The two are part of the “gang of six,” a group of senators working on a bipartisan compromise to cut social programs.

After rejecting any increase in taxes, Coburn insisted, “We ought to be honest with the American people. Medicare cannot continue the way it is if we’re going to survive. Medicaid cannot continue the way it is if we’re going to survive.”

Gregory pointed to the “difficulty” with this proposal, namely that the population overwhelmingly opposes it. He cited polls showing that 78 percent of the population opposes cutting Medicare, and 69 percent opposes cutting Medicaid.

Gregory briefly noted, but quickly sidestepped, the fact that the vast majority of the population supports increased taxes for the wealthy. The problem is, he concluded, “The American people want more government than they’re willing to pay for.”

The senators both stressed that mass popular opposition could not be a deterrent to implementing cuts.

A similar consensus was expressed on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS program on CNN, which featured former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill.

Zakaria worried that this might not be enough to prompt quick action. “Washington isn’t acting as if it is facing a crisis, whatever the rhetoric,” he said.

Rubin, a former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs and senior executive at Citigroup, suggested that a recent poll showing mass unease—with 70 percent of the population reporting that the country is on the wrong track—was the result of concern over government inaction on the deficit.

After insisting that raising the US government debt ceiling should not be tied to budgetary discussions, Rubin stressed that cuts were required. Responding to criticism from Zakaria that the Democrats were not going far enough, he emphasized that Obama’s proposal calls for significant cuts in Medicare, and that the president had left open the possibility for an agreement to reduce Social Security benefits as well.

Rubin also made clear that these would be only initial steps, saying that further “entitlement reform” measures would follow.

Many of Rubin’s protégés have top positions in the Obama administration, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Both Rubin and O’Neill supported calls for increasing regressive taxes, with O’Neill proposing that all income and corporate taxes be eliminated, to be replaced with a value added consumption tax that would disproportionately target workers.

As for what passes for the “left” of the US political and media establishment,Nation columnist John Nichols posted a blog entry Saturday praising Republican Senator Susan Collins for opposing the Ryan plan. Echoing concerns expressed by both the Times and Rubin that the proposal would not succeed in cutting government spending, Nichols wrote that “honest conservatives should have just as much trouble with the fiscal folly that Ryan proposes.”

He went on to say that no one who is “serious about reducing deficits” and “responsible budgeting” could back Ryan’s plan.

JOSEPH KISHORE is a prominent member of the World Socialist Web Site group, and Socialist Equality Party.

To breathe the true air of freedom and democracy you need independent media lungs. Staffed with journalists and political observers not beholden to the status quo.
SUPPORT THE GREANVILLE POST AND CYRANOS JOURNAL TODAY.
DONATE WHAT YOU CAN!

____________________________________________

Make creeps like Kissinger and Palin miserable.

Read The Greanville Post by RSS Syndication (updates delivered every 4 days to your emailbox) and fortify your ability to fight back! Just click anywhere on Lady Liberty below and enter your email address.




Medicare for All Is the Solution

Mr. President: Why Medicare Isn’t the Problem, It’s the Solution

Editor’s Note:  We’re happy to reproduce here Prof. Reich’s arguments in favor of “Medicare for All”, the “Duh!” option for any civilized nation, that is, universal, publicly administrated and guaranteed health care.  Articles like these can serve to give good ammo to those who are trying to fight the good fight, convince the confused, and counter the constant pro-business propaganda that envelops all social discourse in the United States. Liberals, however, and the public in general, should not forget that the President and his advisers hardly lack the intelligence, ideas, or facts to know damn well what the correct option is.  Their wrong-headed, often criminal, choices in public policy are not dictated by ignorance but by lack of political will, or, as is the case with Obama, was the case with George Bush 2, and was true for practically every individual who got elected to the top job in the nation for generations, by simply serving the interests of a puny constituency that owns them: the nation’s plutocracy. —P. Greanville

13 April 11

Medical costs are soaring because our health-care system is totally screwed up. Doctors and hospitals have every incentive to spend on unnecessary tests, drugs, and procedures.

Estimates of how much would be saved by extending Medicare to cover the entire population range from $58 billion to $400 billion a year. More Americans would get quality health care, and the long-term budget crisis would be sharply reduced.

AFTERSHOCK: The Next Economy and America’s Future.” His ‘Marketplace’ commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.

Comments (from original thread).  See if you can spot the capitalist troll.

# NCMike 2011-04-13 08:13

# LiberalLibertarian 2011-04-13 09:43

Did you gag when the Insurance Companies stuffed that pant load down your throat?
None of your bilge made any sense nor did it actually address the critical point brought up by Prof. Reich.

# NCMike 2011-04-13 13:27

# soularddave 2011-04-13 19:12

You need to go back and read the article again, sir. The point made over and over, is that many of the costs are ELIMINATED. The billing is direct, and there is none for the unnecessary profit generators like unnecessary MRIs. Medicine just coats less. Medicare payments from workers and taxes on the population are LESS than insurance premiums that are no longer due. When you see a specialist or leave the hospital, there is NO PAY WINDOW.

# Paul 2011-04-13 10:08

NCMike, you make some assumptions here that are ludicrous. Other countries have regulatory systems, maybe not quite as GOOD as ours but they are there. As for rationed services, services are rationed here much more than in countries with universal coverage. You ignore the fact that in order to even be able to get treated in the US, you have to have cash or insurance coverage up front. I know this for a fact because I have had to watch as 3 different family members died due to lack of treatment because the hospitals refused to treat them without a deposit of $75,000, which they did not have.

# NCMike 2011-04-13 12:54

# Paul 2011-04-13 10:08

This is a continuation of my comments. The system said it was too long.

# NCMike 2011-04-13 13:31

Look deeper into the numbers. Look at who has the the better numbers for success at treating the truly deadly diseases. Compare apples to apples. The US has more costly medical treatment because it has better results.

# Observer 47 2011-04-13 11:16

# maddave 2011-04-13 13:03

Basic dental health care is a low-pay option, too, and my wait to see top-rated physicians is no different from that experienced by Mr. or Mrs. Got-rocks, the self-insured plutocrats.

FURTHER COMMENTS MAY BE POSTED BELOW

To breathe the true air of freedom and democracy you need independent media lungs. Staffed with journalists and political observers not beholden to the status quo.
SUPPORT THE GREANVILLE POST AND CYRANOS JOURNAL TODAY.
DONATE WHAT YOU CAN!

____________________________________________

Make creeps like Kissinger and Palin miserable.

Read The Greanville Post and fortify your ability to fight back!

SUBSCRIBE ME TO THE GREANVILLE POST BY EMAIL

 




Radiation and Everyday Life

<!--

The FDA is Asleep at the Switch

By ROBERT ALVAREZ  |  April 4, 2011

Recently, a senior scientist with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made this comment to the news media about radioactive fallout being detected in milk in the United States from the nuclear catastrophe in Japan:

“Radiation is all around us in our daily lives, and these findings are a miniscule amount compared Fukushima-Daiichi to what people experience every day. For example, a person would be exposed to low levels of radiation on a round trip cross country flight, watching television, and even from construction materials.”

No matter how small the dose might be, it is disingenuous to compare an exposure to a specific radioisotope that is released by a major nuclear accident, with radiation exposures in every-day life. The FDA spokesperson should have informed the public that radioactive iodine provides a unique form of exposure in that it concentrates rapidly in dairy products and in the human thyroid. The dose received, based on official measurements, may be quite small, and pose an equally small risk. However, making a conclusion on the basis of one measurement is fragmentary at best and unscientific at worst. As the accident in Fukushima continues to unfold, the public should be provided with all measurements made of radioactive fallout from the Fukushima reactors to allow for independent analyses.

Moreover, the FDA has been asleep at the switch when it comes to protecting public health from medical radiation exposures. According to the National Council on Radiation Protection, radiation exposures to the American public from medical devices, which the FDA regulates, have soared by nearly 600 percent since 1982. In 2002, the NCRP estimated that the public received an extra 53 millirem (0.53 mSv) per person per year from medical radiation sources. In 2006, the NCRP estimates that this dose has jumped to 300 millirem (3mSv)–nearly three times the annual dose allowed by the U.S. EPA from nuclear facilities.

The single largest contributor responsible for half of this dose to the American public is from Computed Tomography or CT Scans, whose use has skyrocketed over the past several years. According to a study in the Archives of Internal Medicine, as many as 29,000 future cancers could be related to CT scans performed in 2007 alone.

According to several articles in the New York Times, an alarming number of people have been severely overexposed to CT scans. FDA has yet to comment on how this may be affecting the health of the Americans in every-day life.

Robert Alvarez, an Institute for Policy Studies senior scholar, served as senior policy adviser to the Energy Department’s secretary from 1993 to 1999. www.ips-dc.org

 

Make creeps like Kissinger and Palin miserable.

Read The Greanville Post every day and stay clear of the tsunami of caca their kind is constantly creating.

SUBSCRIBE ME TO THE GREANVILLE POST BY EMAIL