More Health Care Scare-Mongering

Some of our readers, I am sure, read the New York Times. Some—perhaps many—do not. They don’t know what they are missing.

Some love the New York Times. Some don’t. They have quite different feelings towards the venerable publication—too graphic to describe here. But we’ll forgive them for that.

I, for one, read, like and—most of the time—agree with the New York Times. So, sue me!

Many of the New York Times’ editorials and opinion pieces often accurately reflect my thoughts and opinions.

While there is no way the Times’ editors and columnists can express such thoughts and opinions as eloquently and lucidly as I can, I do periodically quote them.

And so it is this morning. But, before proceeding and before a thousand angry fingers start pounding those keyboards, let me say that most of the above is satire—none of what follows is. (Except perhaps for the last sentence).

Over the weekend the Times had an excellent Editorial on the “Medicare scare-mongering” that is going on, above and beyond the health care plan scare mongering.

The Times says:

It has been frustrating to watch Republican leaders posture as the vigilant protectors of Medicare against health care reforms designed to make the system better and more equitable. This is the same party that in the past tried to pare back Medicare and has repeatedly denounced the kind of single-payer system that is at the heart of Medicare and its popularity.

Sadly, according to the Times, such scare-mongering seems to be working—is scaring the bejeezus (my words) out of older Americans into believing “that their medical treatment will suffer under pending reform bills.”

As proof, the Times cites a recent New York Times/CBS News poll of 1,042 adults that “found that only 15 percent believe changes under consideration would make the Medicare program better, while 30 percent think they would make it worse.”

The Times admits that Medicare will not go untouched under the Democrats’ plans. Yes, “the Obama administration and Congressional leaders are hoping to save hundreds of billions of dollars by slowing the growth of spending in the vast and inefficient Medicare system that serves 45 million older and disabled Americans. The savings would be used to help offset the costs of covering tens of millions of uninsured people.”

But,

Far from harming elderly Americans, the various reform bills now pending should actually make Medicare better for most beneficiaries — by enhancing their drug coverage, reducing the premiums they pay for drugs and medical care, eliminating co-payments for preventive services and helping keep Medicare solvent, among other benefits.

The Times does cite one exception, a “justified one,” where some of the approximately 10 million people “enrolled in private plans that participate in Medicare — the Medicare Advantage program — might suffer a dilution or elimination of the extra benefits they get that other beneficiaries do not.”

But, there is another “but” here, the fact that Congress “granted these plans large overpayments, essentially subsidies. Most are required to use part of the subsidy to reduce charges to their beneficiaries or to add extra benefits, such as vision and dental benefits, or even gym memberships,” and that “it is unfair to force those enrolled in traditional Medicare to help foot the bill — currently $43 a year extra for each participant — to help subsidize the private plans. Federal taxpayers have contributed heavily as well.”

After providing some history on these “private plans,” the Times says, “Today Medicare pays the private plans, on average, 14 percent more than the same services would cost in traditional Medicare.” And, while “the value of an enrollee’s added benefits would shrink by more than half from current levels [they] would not disappear; they would still be worth about $500 a year in 2019.”

But back to the traditional Medicare:

What the Republicans aren’t saying…is that in important ways, coverage for a vast majority of Medicare recipients… should actually improve under health care reform.

The House legislation…would reduce and ultimately eliminate a gap — the so-called doughnut hole — in Medicare drug coverage that currently forces more than three million beneficiaries to pay for drugs entirely out of their own pockets once they hit specified spending levels.

The House bills would also waive deductibles and co-insurance for preventive care that can head off serious illness, expand eligibility for programs that assist low-income beneficiaries and provide incentives for doctors and hospitals to coordinate care, improve quality, and lower costs.

The Times does give Republicans credit for “warning that planned cuts in payments to hospitals and other health care providers might make them less willing or able to serve Medicare patients.”

“If true, that is a problem that Congress will have to address in the future.”

The Times concludes:

But the Republicans have done far too good a job at obscuring and twisting the facts and spreading unwarranted fear. It is time to call them to account. President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have to make the case forcefully that health care reform will overwhelmingly benefit Americans — including the millions of older Americans who participate in Medicare.

Well done, New York Times, you took the words right out of my mouth and put them in print, albeit not as silver-tongued as I would have.