From day one we have been highly skeptical of Congress’ ability to cut Medicare as necessitated to fund Obamacare’s $2.5 trillion in new spending. The top down cuts-by-committee-of-experts approach is far too susceptible to typical Washington deal making. Now we learn that in order to secure votes in the final days before passage, the House has already proved Obamacare will only increase, not decrease, Medicare spending. Kaiser Health News reports:
A last-minute deal to win votes for the health care overhaul underscores the political dilemma for Congress as it tries to reduce health care costs.
As part of a manager’s amendment to the bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to increase Medicare payments by $800 million over the next two years to hospitals and physicians in Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon and other states that argue they are low-cost, efficient providers of medical care.
…
The Democrats’ health care bill would decrease Medicare spending by more than $400 billion over the decade and establish an independent commission to make recommendations on how to reduce Medicare spending.Some health care analysts questioned whether increasing Medicare reimbursement rates as Congress tries to overhaul the program was the right choice.
Stephen Zuckerman, a senior fellow and health economist at the Urban Institute, said he was surprised to see the additional funding for low-cost hospitals since hospitals in the Midwest do not have “access issues” and the bill was trying to reduce Medicare spending.
We’re not even through the first week and Obamacare’s deficit reduction claims are already being exposed as a complete fraud.
Reminds me of John Kerry a bit. "I voted for it before I voted against it"
I have worked hard all my life and have lost 2 of my 401ks. I hope this organization is not for giving everything to the kids like aarp.
We need decant affordable healthcare and I do not want to give my ss to the kids.
So to be clear, was this deal that was made by Pelosi included in the CBO's final scoring? It appears the answer is "no." If not, where does that leave the claim, in terms of $'s, that the bill will cut the deficit by roughly $138bln over the first 10 years? Should we take the extra $400bln from the previous projections and say the deficit will increase now by $365bln? If this figure is correct it doesn't appear to be getting enough pub.
To edit my comment above, it appears the deficit would go from a $138 savings to a $662bln increase in the deficit.
Why is NOBODY talking about age indexing both Social Security and Medicare? If they would just raise the eligibility age by two months per year FOREVER both systems could be made whole. No change in contributions. No slashing of benefits.