Sun editorial:

Lowering Medicare costs

Bill would allow seniors, government to save money under prescription drug program

Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2009 | 2:07 a.m.

Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, is the latest in a long line of congressmen from his party to make bogus arguments against proposed health care reform.

Last week Camp received a four-page letter from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office detailing its preliminary analysis of the proposed America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, a House bill backed by Democrats that would make major changes to the prescription drug benefit under Part D of Medicare. One of the biggest changes would be the elimination of costly “doughnut hole” gaps in Medicare drug plans.

The CBO concluded that the legislation would, on average, reduce Medicare beneficiaries’ overall prescription drug spending. The CBO also estimated that the bill would save the federal government $30 billion over the next 10 years under the Part D program for seniors.

Camp, in full misinformation mode, responded with a statement quoting the CBO as saying the bill would increase premiums for Part D recipients. What he failed to acknowledge was the next sentence of the CBO letter stating that overall prescription drug spending would decline, even with the increase in premiums.

The CBO went on to explain that the overall decrease in drug spending would result from seniors receiving “greater protection against incurring high drug costs.”

Unlike Camp, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., obviously took the time to digest the complete findings. Miller, chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said: “This CBO score confirms that our reforms will make prescription drug costs more affordable for seniors — and that drug companies can no longer reap enormous profits at their expense.”

Camp said he is interested in saving seniors money, but he has a funny way of showing it. He ignores the CBO’s objective analysis that the bill not only would help seniors, but also would save the government billions of dollars.

Who in their right mind would be opposed to that?

Discussion: 8 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.

By Birdiedreamin

Sept. 2, 2009

3:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

what the hell has happened to the retarded republican party...
they have morphed into bold faced liars...
willing to do or say anything to get their way...
it is sad...
truly sad!!!
By SgtRock

Sept. 2, 2009

4:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Obama and the drug companies made a deal.

The drug companies now are spending over $150 in ads to support ObamaCare.

Hmmmmm.....curious....indeed.....
By neiman1

Sept. 2, 2009

5:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Take your lead from the Chairman of the Ways and Means committee that just found a couple of million dollars he forgot to disclose. The people writing our health bills are as dishonest as any crook on wall street.

How can these people keep telling us what's good for us while they hide income and assets and the democratic leadership does nothing.
By LarryVegas

Sept. 2, 2009

8:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

The LV SUN must have a direct line to the White House to receive their daily talking points.
By GordonShumway

Sept. 2, 2009

9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

LarryVegas: "The LV SUN must have a direct line to the White House to receive their daily talking points."
This rumor could be true since it is part of a public record that FOX News DID get talking points from the Bush White House every morning. Keep working on your LV SUN theory Larry and remember, if you repeat it often enough it will become true to some, "tea baggers" & "birthers" for sure.
By LarryVegas

Sept. 2, 2009

9:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Gordon my friend... Please give me the location of the public record where FOX News received talking points from the White House.

Inquiring Minds Want to Know...
By NLV-Indep13

Sept. 2, 2009

11:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

From AARP web site: "In any one year, the Part D drug benefit gives you initial coverage up to a certain level. But then in most cases there's a gap in coverage when you pay 100 percent of your costs before coverage kicks in again. It works like this: Once your total drug costs (what your plan has paid plus your deductible and copays) exceed a certain amount ($2,510 in 2008; $2,700 in 2009), Medicare will cover no more in the year until you've spent a certain amount out of your own pocket ($4,050 in 2008; $4,350 in 2009). If you reach this limit, catastrophic drug coverage kicks in automatically and your plan will pay 95 percent of your remaining costs until the end of the year."

I can understand how increasing coverage to cover "the doughnut hole" would save participants money, what I don't see is how that will save Medicare (a.k.a. the Govt) money or take money away from the evil drug companies. All it seems to be doing is expanding coverage & transfering the additional cost to Medicare contributors, which most people are probably okay with. The rest of it just seems to be partisan spin by Camp, Miller & the Sun.
By rewdog24

Sept. 2, 2009

12:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

lower medicare costs ok

What about the rest of the Bill which the CBO says will come in way over cost?

The health bill is a sham