HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Liberal group outlines $3...

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:15 AM

Liberal group outlines $385B in Medicare cuts

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) ó Hoping to head off wider health care cuts in upcoming budget talks, a think tank close to the White House is unveiling a plan for how to save $385 billion, mostly from Medicare.

Medicaid and the new health care law are largely spared from cuts in the blueprint being released Wednesday by the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress. Instead, it targets Medicare service providers, from the pharmaceutical industry to hospitals and nursing homes. And higher-income Medicare recipients would face increased monthly premiums for outpatient and prescription coverage.

After taxes, health care costs are probably the thorniest issue facing policymakers looking for a way to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, an economically toxic combination of tax increases and spending cuts looming Jan. 1 if compromise fails.

Rising health care costs are the most stubborn element of the nationís long-term budget woes. At the same time, a recent report for the government estimated that the U.S. health care system squanders $750 billion a year, about 30 cents of every medical dollar.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2012/11/14/liberal_group_outlines_385b_in_medicare_cuts/

33 replies, 4621 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply Liberal group outlines $385B in Medicare cuts (Original post)
DonViejo Nov 2012 OP
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #1
Blue State Bandit Nov 2012 #11
meow2u3 Nov 2012 #23
JoeyT Nov 2012 #17
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #21
JoeyT Nov 2012 #25
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #28
grantcart Nov 2012 #2
Myrina Nov 2012 #12
grantcart Nov 2012 #24
Myrina Nov 2012 #30
grantcart Nov 2012 #32
INdemo Nov 2012 #3
Liberal_Stalwart71 Nov 2012 #4
JoeyT Nov 2012 #18
Liberal_Stalwart71 Nov 2012 #19
SunSeeker Nov 2012 #5
Hell Hath No Fury Nov 2012 #6
a kennedy Nov 2012 #7
Finishline42 Nov 2012 #9
SutaUvaca Nov 2012 #8
patrice Nov 2012 #10
kansasobama Nov 2012 #13
JoeyT Nov 2012 #16
kansasobama Nov 2012 #20
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #29
JoeyT Nov 2012 #31
LineReply I
John2 Nov 2012 #14
WilliamPitt Nov 2012 #15
GeorgeGist Nov 2012 #22
LarryNM Nov 2012 #26
Enrique Nov 2012 #27
HeiressofBickworth Nov 2012 #33

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:20 AM

1. This will not be met well ...

by those on the left unwilling to look at any changes to medicare ... even before reviewing the proposal. It will be, erroneously in my view, argued that any change makes negative changes all the easier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:46 AM

11. Provided it goes after the wasteful mid-management and lack of negotiation positioning for...

products/services, I wouldn't be opposed to this.

But I would have to read it first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue State Bandit (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:56 PM

23. Another way to save money: pass a law allowing the government to negotiate

with drug companies for bulk rate discounts.

This is the biggest expenditure of Medicare: the Part D program which is little more than corporate welfare for Big Pharma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:57 PM

17. Weird how "those on the left"

are supposed to hear CAP out, but people that don't like "those on the left" don't even wait for them to respond.

I'm pretty sure I'm one of "those on the left" and I'm pretty good with this. It doesn't look like it's cutting benefits, and there are things that really do need changing. I'm pretty sure no one that isn't a Republican is going to object to negotiating drug prices, for example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #17)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:00 PM

21. Perhaps ...

for whatever reason ... You've parsed my phrasing a bit too closely. The proper descriptor would be, "those on the left unwilling to look at any changes to medicare ..."

But I suspect you chose to parse it that way because the entire descriptor would have excluded you and ... well ... you would have had nothing to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #21)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:45 PM

25. I don't think it actually includes anyone, though.

That was kind of what I was trying to communicate (Probably badly.) I can think of very few people that would be unwilling to, just as an example, accept allowing us to bargain for drugs. Or increasing benefits. Or cutting out a bunch of skimming middle-men that don't add any value.

Honestly if someone started demanding no changes at all, not even positive ones that don't alter benefits in any way, because if we move one piece of furniture the house falls in arglebargle! I'd suspect they were joking. Or more likely trolling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #25)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:03 PM

28. I would've agreed with you ...

until I read a couple of the post here in DU. Many of the most vocal DUers are doing exactly that ... they're hearing the words "change", "alterations", "strengthening" and immediately go back to the "arguments" of "He's gonna kill Medicare/Medicaid/S.S.!" And their support for their argument is NOT what President Obama said, not what President Obama wrote; but what someone's opinion of what President Obama MEANT when he said/wrote "change."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:33 AM

2. targets Medicare service providers, from the pharmaceutical industry to hospitals and nursing homes

pls note the key phrase

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:54 AM

12. Oh, and Big Pharma is going to be all FOR this, right?

I can see the Eli Lilly lobbyists making a beeline for DC already, out my office window ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:31 PM

24. No but that's not the point. Reducing money to Medicaid doesn't necessarily mean you

are reducing benefits. You can, as this liberal group points out, cut out waste that is going to the corporate providers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #24)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:33 PM

30. In other words, you totally missed my point

Big Pharma IS one of the 'corporate providers' that would face cuts. And they will never let that happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:27 PM

32. Now I understand your point and will add it to the list of things that "never" can happen


Elect someone with the name Hussein

Pass a federal law that puts the federal government in charge of the health care industry

etc.

Not saying it will, not saying it won't, just saying never say never.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:49 AM

3. The headline is somewhat misleading

..almost like some rightwing rag would begin this article..Just like the 715 billion cut Rmoney kept talking about when it was actually savings..This is another 350B in savings..If you are on medicare I think it would be understood how Doctors bill with the hope of getting the most they can bargin for..What medicare wants to do is set universal fees which Drs dont have now..

"Medicaid and the new health care law are largely spared from cuts in the blueprint being released Wednesday by the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress. Instead, it targets Medicare service providers, from the pharmaceutical industry to hospitals and nursing homes. And higher-income Medicare recipients would face increased monthly premiums for outpatient and prescription coverage".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:51 AM

4. Get ready for the DU meltdown in 3...2...1...

Hopefully most people will bother to READ the entire article rather than whine and jump to conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:58 PM

18. Why would they?

The people that whine about meltdowns certainly didn't wait for one to happen before they started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:16 PM

19. Cute, but really. The meltdowns began the day after the president was reelected. Again,

I will be trashing all these threads.

I hope that we move forward from it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:53 AM

5. Seems like an attempt to cut the fat, not benefits to the vulnerable. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:57 AM

6. Sounds reasonable --

Any changes MUST include negotiating drug prices - Part D as written was a big wet expensive kiss to Pharma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:01 AM

7. D*mn right, I stayed up d*mn near all night to see this "big wet expensive kiss" get passed.....

Ugh.....still pissed off about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hell Hath No Fury (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:16 AM

9. Repubs trying to break Medicare

What's wrong with making it illegal for Medicare to act like Walmart and negotiate drug prices based on volume buying?

Medicare is paying something like 30% more for drugs than either the VA or Medicaid. What the hell, it's just our tax money...

The Repubs passed Medicare Part D in 2006 without funding the first dollar - load it up with costs and hope it breaks...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:03 AM

8. How about a liberal group

outlining a plan to cut war making costs. Seems like it's a stubborn element in increasing budget woes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:35 AM

10. How are they going to prevent reprisals, cutting direct-care givers & against low level staff & such

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:59 AM

13. I hope DU and liberals understand give and take

Hello:

We just cannot be like 2009-2010 prior to the elections. We were crying because Health Care did not go far enough. Then, we did not help Obama in 2010 to the extent we could have.

Result: 2010 Elections followed by 2010 Obama-Axelrod Bush tax cut cave in and the Obama 2011 cave in.

Do you see where this is going?

Obama needs support and "push." That is the reality. He is President of 100% (not 47% or 52%). But, he has to know he has pressure and support from liberals if he is willing to bend and fight for us. Let us push hard but no melt-downs during negotiations as long as it is not 2:1 sweetheart deal (2 Spending cuts ro 1 tax revenue). We are only about 36% and with some left-leaning moderates, we are about 52%. 40-52% need to put constant pressure and be loyal. This is going to be a 12 year battle.

Repugs will play games with "loopholes." Well, so-called loopholes will also hurt middle class. We cannot let that happen. Bush tax cuts need to go!

Note that Obama has also asked for a steeper tax revenue than Repubs want. We are still fighting. It is not over.

Stay the course and do not withdraw if there are negotiations. We need to take whatever success we get and live to fight another day. I am old and I have seen us retreat way too many times and thereby letting right-wingers fill the space. many do not want to see that again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kansasobama (Reply #13)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:53 PM

16. The 100% didn't GOTV for him,

donate to him, or vote for him. If he wanted to be an independent he should have run as one.

I'm still waiting to see how this works out. I just object to the "President of all America" as nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:32 PM

20. Point well taken but

We just cannot throw our guy to the wolves if he has to negotiate. He still has to lead the country that includes idiots (Republicans). I saw the press conference and I think he will do more than the best he can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:08 PM

29. So you were okay with ...

the bush/gop's "President of the gop, screw the Democrats"?

In our system of government, the President IS the President of all of America ... it's called governance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:44 PM

31. So voting for Democrats is absolutely meaningless?

Of course it isn't. They know who elected them.

Is he the president of the part of America that thinks rape is a gift? The part that thinks GLBT people are abominations? The racist part? Yes, he is, but he's not going to make any concessions to them, either.

Edited to add: I also don't expect the Republicans to compromise with us if they ever regain power. I think President Obama's heart is in the right place, I just disagree with him about trying to be friendly to people that would like nothing more than to see him impeached or worse. Reedited to add: That's a compliment, by the way. There aren't a whole lot of politicians I'd say that about. He's seems to genuinely care about people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:35 PM

14. I

 

think you guys are wrong about how you characterize Liberals. The people on the right actually think you guys are probably Liberals. As long as these so called Liberal think tanks are at the table, I'm perfectly OK with them making the decisions. I don't think they will give away the store to the Republicans the same as the Unions. I think we have smart people on our side advising President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:37 PM

15. Someone explain to me how cutting the fat while sparing Medicaid is a bad thing.

This sounds entirely reasonable to me, much like the $716 billion they saved the last time around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:31 PM

22. Save = Cut

Twisted 'journalism'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:52 PM

26. Means Testing Some on Medicare Will Make It Welfare for All

Means Testing Not Good!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:57 PM

27. a liberal group run by a lobbying giant

John Podesta.

edit: that said, what's in this Salon article doesn't sound that bad. It seems premiums and retirement age are unaffected, and Medicaid entirely spared.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 09:20 PM

33. Let's drill down to the actual consumer level

My primary care-giver is a small neighborhood clinic. When I turned 65, I was told that because I was a long-term patient, I would continue to receive care under Medicare but that the clinic is not taking new Medicare patients. Ok, so this worked out for me. But what if I had to move to another location? If ALL doctors refused to take new Medicare patients, I would have no doctor at all just like Medicare patients moving to THIS area will be refused service.

I see the plot developing thusly: Make cuts to providers who then won't see Medicare patients. When the majority of Medicare patients are without doctors or hospitals, complain loudly how Medicare "doesn't work". After proving how Medicare "doesn't work", cancel the entire program. The right-wingers failed to privatize the system and have consistently failed to destroy the system, so they will achieve the same results by cutting the foundation out from under the patients. Rich Republicans will not rest until seniors die and get out of the way. They disgust me to my core.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread