Re: Medicare's Future: Whose Side Is AARP On?

"Russ Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Medicare Drug Benefit Isn't a Nice Bill to Swallow
> Saul Friedman (NY Newsday)
> November 15, 2003
>
> My mail over the past few weeks poses a mystery. Despite the initial
demand
> for a drug benefit among Medicare beneficiaries who struggle to buy the
> drugs they need, not a single senior who has written is looking forward to
> the prescription drug bill being fashioned in secret by the
> Republican-dominated House-Senate conference committee. Rather, leaders of
> senior groups tell me that Medicare beneficiaries fear the outcome.
> So the mystery: Why the rush to pass a bill before next year? Where is the
> pressure coming from? If most Medicare advocates say they would rather
have
> no bill, who wants it? President George Bush and Republican leaders want
> election-year credit for a drug bill, which gives them cover to begin
> privatizing Medicare. Drug companies are happy with the Republican bill
> because it prohibits price controls and they're financing a push for
> passage with the help of right-wing senior groups.
> Most Democrats have been excluded from sessions of the conference
> committee. But some Democrats, notably Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), hope
> that moderate Republicans will force the ideologues to retreat from
efforts
> to kill Medicare. And organizations such as AARP and Families USA, which
> have invested time, money and lobbying energies trying to wring out the
> best deal possible, think even a bad bill that gives some drug coverage
> could be a good beginning.
> These people ought to read my mail.
> Anthony A., of Windemere Ponds, a retired New York cop and World War II
> vet, notes that millions of retirees may lose their present drug coverage:
> "My wife and I receive secondary insurance from NYC as part of our
> retirement. To lose it ... would be devastating. ... It seems lately all
we
> seniors hear is how this administration is going to change Medicare and
> Social Security. ... Our protests are being ignored because we don't have
a
> far-reaching future and God knows the past is forgotten."
> Anita Borow, who moved with her husband to South Carolina last summer from
> Nassau County, which they could no longer afford, has some drug coverage
> from her Medigap policy. But she asks, "Why can't all these experts in
> government and the AARP understand their fixes will only hurt the
> average-income senior? ... If Medicare is ruined or compromised and an
> illness strikes, we could be wiped out in no time."
> Walter S., of New Canaan, Conn., e-mails: "During the last three years I
> had two extended hospital stays which also involved medical providers of
> many specialties, all of which was covered by Medicare Part A and B and my
> own AARP Medigap plan F. As it is, Medicare works. It is ... not in need
of
> any fixing or finagling by the vote buyers in Washington. They should ...
> enact an optional prescription drug program as a supplement to the
existing
> Medicare to provide some relief from the greedy drug companies consistent
> with our society's ability to pay with reasonable deductibles and co-pays.
> We don't need smoke and mirrors."
> Anthony L., of Naples, Fla., writes, "I will be one of those who will opt
> out of Medicare if they start to base premiums on my wealth and earnings.
I
> have paid higher income taxes all my life, FICA and Medicare taxes, and
> still have saved so as not to be a burden on anyone, including the
> government. The message out of Washington seems to be ... 'Tough, Buddy.'"
> Louis Brunelli, the retired associate dean of Juilliard, who has survived
a
> struggle with cancer and heart problems that included implanting a
> pacemaker and defibrillator, wrote, "Medicare paid $49,770.71 for the job.
> No doubt a private carrier would not have sanctioned the procedure since I
> was considered a borderline case."
> And David G., of Manhasset, says, "AARP is so absorbed with having
Congress
> pass any prescription coverage that it is not considering the consequences
> on those of us that presently have coverage."
> Actually, AARP is painfully aware that the prescription drug bill as it
now
> stands is widely unpopular with its members. A top AARP lobbyist told me,
> "It will be a very tough sell. But it has some worthwhile features. It
sets
> aside $400 billion over 10 years for drugs. And it provides benefits for
> poor Medicare beneficiaries."
> But most AARP members are not poor and he acknowledged that the possible
> loss of retiree drug benefits, premium increases for more affluent
> beneficiaries, higher deductibles and new co-payments, plus subsidies for
> private insurance companies that could undermine Medicare would make the
> bill difficult to swallow. "Whether the good outweighs the bad, we don't
> yet know. We will decide when the bill comes out of committee," he said.
> "We're hoping to improve it."
> But if AARP and enough Democrats help pass a bill that includes
> means-tested premiums and benefit cuts, said attorney Judith Stein,
> director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy, it could go the way of the
> 1989 Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act, which was repealed when
> beneficiaries rebelled at the imposition of a surtax.
> The 1989 bill "had far greater benefits than is currently contemplated,"
> she told me. "If history teaches, an income-related payment could again
> lead to a rejection of the new package, particularly if the new benefits
> are questionable."
> And there was this e-mail from George Wechsler of North Bellmore, "If
> memory serves, there was a senior citizens revolt some years ago when
> Congress tried to exact special charges for coverage. Couldn't this be
> repeated? What they are trying to do with Medicare is far worse than the
> catastrophic coverage fiasco."
>
Greetings..........
    In reply to the message above and other positions and opinions of those
"on -both-sides-of-the-political-isle", I would respectfully like to remind
seniors that there are several "axes" being ground on this issue. Actually,
there are just points to be registered with both camps. One might be aware
that any "settlement" arrived at in these most recent times would shine
favorably on the administration now "in power". Therefore, one logically
concludes that the opposition (demos.) would not like to see that happen
with the national elections fast approaching.  And so it goes....on and on
and on. A political football being tossed between the main political parties
at the expense of benefits to seniors. Trust NOT either parties because
quite frankly, I believe both have personal party benefits chiefly in mind
over we "oldsters".
    Just a thought...........
DrFrank