Carol Shea-Porter and the Medicare Donut Hole

GOT MEDICARE? (4.00 / 1)

THANK DEMOCRATS
http://www.actblue.com/page/th...

---

by: Caroline French @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 09:50:40 AM CDT

Donut Hole Political Fakery (0.00 / 0)

1. The "donut hole" is about $4500
2. $250 covers about 5%
3. For full coverage, one must wait until 2014
4. Many of the beneficiaries are seniors, a substantial percentage of whom will be dead by 2014
5. Some number of those will be dead before then because they can't afford their medication due to the "donut hole".
6. Between now and 2014, there will be 2 more Congresses. There is no assurance that either of those might not downwardly modify or eliminate altogether this benefit.
7. It's unseemly to be taking full credit for a token benefit that may never fully materialize.
8. Who's actually paying for this? The money has to come from somewhere. Deficit reducing = higher taxes (on somebody), doesn't it?

---

by: IrregardlessNH @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 14:11:19 PM CDT

No, on every count. (0.00 / 0)

1) The donut hole is not "about $4500". It is generally around $1800:

You've heard this "donut hole" nickname out there, and probably have wondered what it actually means. It doesn't sound good, right? Well, it's really not good. Medicare Part D covers prescriptions up to a certain dollar amount, while the beneficiary pays a small co-pay (a dollar or so per prescription).

Generally it's around $2,700 per person, and that number varies from plan to plan. Medicare Part D also has a provision for what's called "catastrophic coverage", in which Medicare Part D will pay 100% of prescription costs. Usually that kicks in around $4,500 per person.

Which makes #2 wrong. The initial $250 this year will cover almost three times the percentage you say.  Which beats the the Bush era previous coverage of zero percent.

3) You left out that next year, the bill mandates a 50% reduction in generic prescriptions for beneficiaries.  that will have an enormous reduction of costs for seniors.

4) If you want a bill that never would have passed in the senate and would have added to the deficit, you could cover them all now. Except it never would have made it past the Judd Gregg wing of Congress, so really we are back at zero help for the donut hole here, helping no seniors at all in 2010 and 2014 and every other year.

5) See #4. And how Sarah "Death Panel" Palin of you.

6) It is a political impossibility that the donut hole closing can be repealed before inauguration day, January 2013.   That leaves 11 months and a few days for a Republican President and Congress to pass a repeal of the donut hole closing.  But here in July 2010, we have already heard statement after statement from GOP leaderhsip that they don't want to repeal the popular stuff.  and if you think they're going to take away what's coming to seniors in 11 months, especially after the hole has already started closing, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

7) See #6.  

8) Ezra

The OMB has dug into the CBO's projections for the Affordable Care Act, and they're pretty pleased with what they see. I'm going to quote the analysis, but if you just want to read one line, the ACA wipes out about a quarter to a third of our long-term deficit -- and that's in the nasty scenario, where we continue things like the Bush tax cuts and the Medicare doc fixes.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 16:51:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Forgot one more thing on #7. (4.00 / 1)

If Jeb Bradley were NH's CD1 Congressman right now, you now he would have done everything he could have to block the health care bill.  And we can doubtless count on the same from Ashooh, Mahoney, and Guinta.

So if I were part of the Shea-Porter campaign, I would absolutely be making Carol's leadership on the Med Part D closure a central pillar of what to highlight.  If I had one shot to make a quality TeeVee ad and show it at the optimum times, it would be on this.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 18:14:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Facts & Relevance (0.00 / 0)

1. I'll see your Examiner article and raise you with the real-world factual experience of a member of my immediate family who has a monthly non-generic prescription expense of $1500 and the best Medicare Part D plan available which resulted in a $4500 donut hole after 3-4 months of 80% coverage, then 95% after the $4500 was spent.

2. Ooops. And just because Bush & the R's could care less about the bottom 99% is no justification for see #4.

3. You avoided addressing my point with the unrelated benefit of a generic pricing program. The donut hole is based upon total prescription cost; a reduction in drug pricing more often than not just postpones the arrival of the donut hole until later in the year.
How about a straight answer: Does this bill cover the full donut hole before 2014 or not?

4. Right. "We wouldn't want the perfect to be the enemy of good". Unless of course the good is a trillion $$ transfer of wealth to an already bloated monopoly corrupt insurance industry on the backs of taxpayers and health care providers for a few trinkets of benefits.

5. Tell that BS to the survivors. If this wasn't a real and genuinely deadly problem, then why take frontline bows for steadfastly addressing it? You can't have it both ways.

6. How politically naive of you! Extra stuff like that is added to all kinds of large and small legislation, and passed because on balance the overall multi-faceted bill is supported by majorities.

7. See #4.

8. Sure. Except see #4.

It is a good and worthwhile achievement to close the wrong-headed, burdensome and sometimes deadly donut hole, however:
- As a politically practical matter, it may not actually happen,
- Taking a victory lap and credit for something that hasn't happened and may not is patronizing, disingenuous and unseemly.

---

by: IrregardlessNH @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 18:59:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Leaving aside your bizarre dismissal (4.00 / 1)

of the 50% reduction in drug costs in 2011, which will have a dramatic effect on seniors' not falling into the (closing) hole in the first place, your argument basically boils down to: Because we didn't get single payer or a public option immediately, CSP should not get credit for taking the lead on closing the donut hole, and then not backing down when a weak-kneed senate threatened to water it down.

Out of over 400 congresscritters, our own Carol had a non-trivial, positive impact on the lives of seniors.

But because the legislation did not turn out to your specifications, it is "political fakery."

Wow.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 20:08:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It is political fakery (0.00 / 0)

because you and CSP are misrepresenting it. Learn to tell the truth, warts and all, and don't patronage people with half truths and conveniently omitted facts.

Honestly describe the pros and cons, and stop drinking the partisan 'kool-aide'; and your (and more importantly CSP's) credibilty & integrity will be taken seriously.

---

by: IrregardlessNH @ Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 06:05:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Learn to read. (0.00 / 0)

Nowhere in the post do I make the claim that the donut hole is closed yesterday and that everyone gets a magic pony.

The new deficit-reducing health care reform bill slowly fills that hole

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 07:10:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lose the Right-Wing Tactic (0.00 / 0)

of 're-stating' what I said, and then arguing against it. My argument, plain & simple is that you are rosily misrepresenting the donut hole provision.

In promoting Carol's achievement, are you or are you not ignoring its shortcomings? What's wrong with telling the whole truth? Why is it necessary to exaggerate?

Separately, one might have a spirited debate on whether the HCR 'cure' is worse than the disease, but to gloss over inconvenient facts undermines your credibility and is disrespectful to your readers.

---

by: IrregardlessNH @ Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 06:48:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Repsonding with links and quotes (0.00 / 0)

to your arguments is a right-wing tactic?

OK then.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 07:11:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Going to be dependent on Medicare D (4.00 / 2)

for prescription coverage starting in January.  I am extremely grateful to Carol for working so hard to start fixing this, since my husband will fall into the that hole.  This is a very personal issue for me, and I am just more glad I have Carol for my representative, because she represents the rest of us.  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 17:15:10 PM CDT