A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
Seriously, what will it take for our lawmakers to READ the bill before they vote yes or no? I don't about you, but I'm pretty sick and tired of these "glitches" and "surprises" they keep finding.
March 2010, Nancy Pelosi: "We need to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it."
http://blogs.forbes.com/aroy/2011/06/21/the-450-billion-glitch-3-million-extra-middle-class-americans-eligible-for-medicaid-benefits/
Wow. Philip Klein points us to this AP story, in which Richard Foster, Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, says that, due to a glitch in
Obamacare, married couples of early retirees making around $64,000 a year will become eligible for Medicaid. According to Foster, as many as 3 million Americans will qualify for the benefit. It’s “a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.”
If we do a back-of-the-envelope calculation, in which the average annual Medicaid expenditure per early retiree is $15,000 per year, the ten-year cost of this glitch is $450 billion. “It’s almost like allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps, [Foster] suggested”:
“I don’t generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn’t make sense,” Foster said during a question-and-answer session at a recent professional society meeting…”This is a situation that got no attention at all,” added Foster. “And even now, as I raise the issue with various policymakers, people are not rushing to say … we need to do something about this.”
Indeed, administration officials and senior Democratic lawmakers say it’s not a loophole but the result of a well-meaning effort to simplify rules for deciding who will get help with insurance costs under the new health care law.
The reason for the glitch, if you can call it that, is that prior to Obamacare, retirees’ Social Security benefits were counted as income in order to determine eligibility for Medicaid. Post-PPACA, Social Security benefits are no longer counted as income for this purpose, allowing millions of additional Americans to qualify for taxpayer subsidies.
I’ve been talking a lot recently about the problem of employer dumping under Obamacare, which could cost taxpayers trillions of dollars. This new early-retiree problem is a serious one as well. Obamacare’s defenders argue that the law is fiscally responsible—but they fail to remember that government spending almost always exceeds official projections. I’ll be interested to see what they have to say about this latest development.
The AP story:
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.
The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.
Up to 3 million more people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That's because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility. It might be compared to allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps.
Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster says the situation keeps him up at night.
"I don't generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense," Foster said during a question-and-answer session at a recent professional society meeting.
"This is a situation that got no attention at all," added Foster. "And even now, as I raise the issue with various policymakers, people are not rushing to say ... we need to do something about this."
Indeed, administration officials and senior Democratic lawmakers say it's not a loophole but the result of a well-meaning effort to simplify rules for deciding who will get help with insurance costs under the new health care law. Instead of a hodgepodge of rules, there will be one national policy.
"This simplification will stop people from falling into coverage gaps and may cause some to be newly eligible for Medicaid and others to no longer qualify," said Brian Cook, spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
But states have been clamoring for relief from Medicaid costs, complaining that just these sorts of federal rules drive up spending and limit state options. The program is now one of the top issues in budget negotiations between the White House and Congress. Republicans are pushing for a rollback of federal requirements that block states from limiting eligibility.
Medicaid is a safety net program that serves more than 50 million vulnerable Americans, from low-income children and pregnant women to Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes. It's designed as a federal-state partnership, with Washington paying close to 60 percent of the total cost.
Early retirees would be a new group for Medicaid. While retirees can now start collecting Social Security at age 62, they must wait another three years to get Medicare, unless they're disabled.
Some early retirees who worked all their lives may not want to be associated with a health care program for the poor, but others might see it as a relatively painless way to satisfy the new law's requirement that all Americans carry medical insurance starting in 2014. It would help tide them over until they turn 65 and qualify for Medicare.
The actuary's office said the 3 million early retirees who would become eligible for Medicaid are on top of an estimated 16 million to 20 million people that Obama's law would already bring into the program, by opening it to childless adults with incomes near the poverty level. Federal taxpayers will cover all of the initial cost of the expansion.
A spokeswoman for the Senate Finance Committee, which wrote much of the health care law, said if the situation does become a problem there's plenty of time to fix it later.
"These changes don't take effect until 2014, so we have time to review all possible cases to ensure Medicaid meets its mission of serving only the neediest Americans," said Erin Shields.
But Republicans already see a problem.
Former Utah governor Mike Leavitt said adding early retirees will "just add fuel to the fire," bolstering the argument from Republican governors that some of Washington's rules don't make sense.
"The fact that this is being discovered now tells you, what else is baked into this law?" said Leavitt, who served as Health and Human Services secretary under President George H.W. Bush. "It clearly begins to reveal that the nature of the law was to put more and more people under eligibility for government insurance."
The Medicare actuary's office roughed out some examples to illustrate how the provision would work. A married couple retiring at 62 in 2014 and receiving the maximum Social Security benefit of $23,500 apiece could get $17,000 from other sources and still qualify for Medicaid with a total income of $64,000.
That $64,000 would put them at about four times the federal poverty level, which for a two-person household is $14,710 this year. The Medicaid expansion in the health care law was supposed to benefit childless adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level. A fudge factor built into the law bumps that up to 138 percent.
The actuary's office acknowledged its $64,000 example would represent an unusual case, but nonetheless the hypothetical couple would still qualify for Medicaid.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110621/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_health_overhaul_glitch
;Comparing Finland to the US? Here are some fun facts:
Population
Findland: 5,244,750
United States: 303,825,000
Life Expectancy
78.82 years
78.14 years
Largest city
Helsinki (population: 558,457)
New York City (population: 8,008,280)
GDP per capita
$38,400 US
$48,000 US
Wealthiest Citizens
NA
William Gates III ($40.0bn US)
Unemployment Rate
6.5%
7.2% (higher at this date)
Political System
Republic
Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition
Military Budget as percentage of GDP
2%
4.06%
Beijing Olympics Medal Count
4
110
Area
304,473 km sq
9,161,920 km sq
Coastline
1,250 km
19,924 km
Indexes Difference
Consumer Prices in Finland are 28.83% higher than in United States
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Finland are 22.77% higher than in United States
Rent Prices in Finland are 1.89% higher than in United States
Restaurant Prices in Finland are 52.99% higher than in United States
Groceries Prices in Finland are 28.76% higher than in United States
Local Purchasing Power in Finland is 14.16% lower than in United States
External Debt:
United States
$14,392,451,000,000 as of 09/30/2010
Per capita $46,577
Percent of GDP 97%
Findland
$370,800,000,000 as of 06/30/2010
Per capita $68,180
Percent of GDP 200%
The "everyone in the world has better health care than the US" was beaten like a dead horse during the debate.
BARACK OBAMA and many in the Democratic Party look to Europe for inspiration for reforming America’s healthcare. Back in 2003, Mr. Obama said, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health-care program,” thereby endorsing the state-controlled health systems of countries such as Norway and Britain — and endorsing ideology over quality. According to the World Health Organization, Mr. Obama was correct: In its highly influential World Health Report, America scores well below the vast majority of Western European countries — and even below the likes of Morocco and Costa Rica in one index. This report is frequently cited by Democratic reformers wanting to replace the U.S. market system with something a little more Continental. But an examination of the two indices in the WHO report tells us more about the ideology of the authors than the quality of American health care. Michael Moore made great sport in his movie Sicko of pointing out that the WHO ranked the United States a lowly 37th in the world, considerably below top-10 France and Canada (although the United States is 15th in the other index). But, much like Mr. Moore himself, the rankings are far from impartial. The most obvious bias is that 62.5 percent of their weighting concerns not quality of service but equality. In other words, the rankings are less concerned with the ability of a health system to make sick people better than with the political consideration of achieving equal access and state-controlled funding. One of the five factors in the calculations is “Financial Fairness.” This favors systems that charge richer people a higher rate of health tax, irrespective of how much, or little, health service they use. Colombia comes out on top. This measure has nothing to do with the quality of health care, yet it counts for a quarter of the weighting. The WHO claims that its rankings are a tool for comparing different means of financing health-care systems, yet this tool inherently favors taxpayer-funded systems and gives the rankings a bias that renders comparison pointless. As a result of this bias, the United States languishes in lowly 54th place on “Financial Fairness,” largely explaining its poor overall position. The rankings include measures for “health level” and “responsiveness.” “Health level” is their way of saying life expectancy, while “responsiveness” refers to a survey based on “respect for persons” and elements such as speed of service, convenience and choice — yet even in these cases half the overall weighting is determined by considerations of equality. Thus, a country with a poor level of “responsiveness” throughout the population will score higher than a country with a good level in some parts and an excellent level in others. The “health level” reliance on life expectancy is also dubious, as it is influenced by factors unrelated to health care, such as tobacco consumption, diet and so on. That some Americans are obese and smoke surely affects their health but has little to do with the health-care system per se — yet these factors again drag the U.S. down in the ranking. Americans generally believe that whatever the other problems with the U.S. health-care system, its standards of care are high. In the details of the rankings there is evidence to support this: The “responsiveness” measurement, without the equality weighting, shows the United States as number one in the world — but this performance measure only makes up one-eighth of the ranking, dwarfed by the measures of equality and state funding. Also left off are typical measures of health-care standards such as disease-specific five-year survival rates. With these, U.S. health care comes off somewhat better. In 2007, British medical journal The Lancet published research showing the United States to be the best in the world for cancer-survival rates, with Britain’s state-controlled “single-payer” National Health Service disturbingly far behind. It showed that a man under the United Kingdom’s tottering 60-year-old NHS has an 18 percent lower chance of surviving cancer than a man under the U.S. system. Of course, this does not mean the U.S. health system is perfect. There is near-consensus on the need to address increasing costs, waste and the fact that too many Americans still lack insurance. But decision-makers and voters must beware ideological arguments and rankings that falsely depict idyllic socialist health systems. They do not exist.