Carol Shea-Porter and the Medicare Donut Hole

by: Dean Barker

Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 08:42:44 AM EDT

If you're on Medicare, the federal health program for people 65 and older and the disabled, and you've fallen into the prescription-drug coverage gap known as the doughnut hole this year, the U.S. government is putting a $250 check in the mail for you starting Thursday. You don't have to apply for your check because Medicare tracks your drug costs. The agency will send you your $250 check automatically as soon as you reach the coverage gap this year, experts from AARP said during a conference call Tuesday.

The closing of the Medicare Part D donut hole is a major achievement brought to you by the Democratic party, over unbending opposition from Republicans.

But what you may not know is the the critical role Carol Shea-Porter played in this aspect of the health care bill. Back in December, she was leading the charge:

While we applaud the Senate's efforts to shrink the donut hole in 2010, it would not be completely eliminated. The House language provides for similar immediate relief, but continues to make additional progress in the following years until the coverage gap is fully closed in 2019. Efforts to partially alleviate the financial burden caused by the gap are important, but they must be accompanied by a long-term approach that provides for the complete elimination of the donut hole. The House-passed language achieves precisely that.

Others may disagree, and they are many hands that went into this critical piece of the health reform bill, but I consider Shea-Porter's leadership on this to be her signature achievement in her time in congress so far.  She never backed down, and as a result we have a deficit-reducing bill that makes will significantly improve the lives of seniors.

It's CSP Week on BH. Learn more here about it. Get involved, and give what you can.

Older adults should fear McCain-Palin

by: steve123

Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 20:00:55 PM EST

Take Medicare. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain's health plan would cost $1.3 trillion over ten years. To pay for this, Senator McCain has proposed some minor changes in Medicare; however, no expert believes these can achieve the savings needed to finance the McCain-Palin health plan. The Wall Street Journal has reported that McCain will pay for his plan by making major cuts in Medicare
and Medicaid (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122315505846605217.html).

Although the McCain campaign has denied this story, he has not explained where he will find the money. Senator McCain is also likely to support Republican efforts to undermine fee-for-service Medicare and replace it with HMOs. He revealed his true attitude towards Medicare this past summer, when he skipped critical votes on a bill that benefitted "doctors and patients at the expense of overpaid private health plans" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/opinion/05sat2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin).  

As for Social Security, Senator McCain supports privatization. Although Republicans have said this would not impact current beneficiaries or those near retirement, seniors should worry about how it would affect their children and grandchildren.

Where will we find the trillions of dollars needed to create the private investment accounts? These would need either to be borrowed from general revenues, which of course would explode the deficit, or taken from funds needed for future retirees, requiring deep cuts in benefits.

Republicans believe the private accounts will provide enough to make up the difference. Unfortunately, we have learned the hard way that markets do not go up forever and can crash with little warning. Moreover, recoveries do not always happen quickly. It took more than two decades for stock prices to surpass their peak in 1929. It may be true that stocks pay in the long run, but we live in the short run, on a day-to-day basis. We can ill afford to gamble with Social Security, which, for most of us, is our retirement safety net.

In contrast with John McCain, Barack Obama opposes privatization and any effort to cuts benefits or raise the retirement age. Seniors should reject McCain-Palin and vote for Obama on November 4.

John McCain and Medicare

by: steve123

Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 23:38:52 PM EDT

Like George W. Bush, McCain seeks to undermine our system of employer-based insurance (EBI), under which most people receive coverage.  Many experts have noted that McCain's proposal to remove the tax exemption for EBI would give businesses an incentive to stop covering their employees and force millions into the unregulated, nongroup market, which typically offers fewer benefits than EBI.  Companies continuing to offer coverage would face an exodus of younger and healthier workers attracted by ostensibly lower prices in the nongroup market.  This would concentrate older and less healthy workers in the employer based system and cause premiums there to skyrocket.  Ultimately, this system would collapse, leaving many individuals, particularly those with preexisting conditions, unable to find coverage.    

Independent estimates place the cost of Senator McCain's plan at $1.3 trillion over ten years (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122315505846605217.html).  McCain believes he can pay for this in part through cuts in Medicare that would leave seniors with 'exactly the same benefits'" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/us/politics/19health.html?ref=health).  However, a report by the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF) (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/pdf/mccain_health_strategy.pdf) questions this.  CAPAF estimates that as a result of Senator McCain's reductions, Medicare's expenditures will not "keep pace with inflation and enrollment growth-thereby requiring cuts in benefits, eligibility, or both."  While the McCain campaign has identified some ways they would reduce Medicare spending that would not impact beneficiaires, it is difficult to see how these amount to the vast sum needed to subsidize the Senator's health care plan (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obama-attacks-m.html).  

In the long run, we can only solve Medicare's problems by reining in health care costs generally.  Compared in this regard with Barack Obama, John McCain's proposals fail miserably (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=707948).  Obama and Biden have pledged to protect and strengthen Medicare and have the votes to back it up (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/kennedy-returns-to-the-senate/).  

We all know that actions speak louder than words.  This past summer, Senator McCain had a real opportunity to defend Medicare when the Senate voted on a bill that would have benefitted "doctors and patients at the expense of overpaid private health plans" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/opinion/05sat2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin).  Unfortunately, McCain skipped this critical vote.  When the bill was reconsidered a few days later, even an ailing Senator Kennedy made it to the floor to vote.  The only Senator not to vote on this critical bill was John McCain (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/kennedy-returns-to-the-senate/).  Obama and Biden voted for the bill.

New Hampshire seniors should think twice before trusting Medicare, and their vote, to John McCain.

NH Seniors Can Make a Difference

by: steve123

Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 21:10:38 PM EDT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27...

MR. BROKAW: And, Chuck, as I've been listening to these two campaigns and watching their ads, it seems to me if you're a senior citizen in America, they're probably calling you up and say, "We'll come over and do your
laundry and drive you to the early bird special if that's what it takes to get you to vote for us."

MR. TODD: Well, you know, we talk all about young voters, and we talk about African-Americans, we talk about this, we talk about that. This thing is
about seniors. The difference between Obama fighting for 270 and Obama sailing past 270 is older, white voters. The thing keeping McCain still with a boxer's chance here is older, white voters. Florida,Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana--these are some of the old--have some of the oldest populations in the country. So, when these voters, if they start moving in
one direction, if they move in towards Obama, which we've seen a little bit of evidence that way, that's how this thing becomes from a close electoral college battle to a landslide.

New Obama TV spot in New Hampshire: "Need"

by: cmdrfoley

Fri Nov 02, 2007 at 10:35:59 AM EDT

Tax cuts for seniors? Now?

by: Mike Caulfield

Sat Jan 20, 2007 at 09:40:08 AM EST

During last fall's campaigns, some legislators say they heard a common refrain from older voters: Cut our taxes.

As a result, about a dozen lawmakers have submitted proposals to shrink the taxes seniors pay on their property, their vacation homes and their investments.

Most of the bills would give towns leeway to include wealthier seniors in property tax relief programs, but some plans would have more sweeping effects, exempting elderly residents from education taxes or capping tax bills once a homeowner turns 65.

One in ten kids in poverty, an economy entering a slowdown, and a generational time bomb less than a decade away. We're 49th in the State/Local tax burden, and in the past 35 years the only year taxes were as low as in 2006 was 1985.

I'm fully aware that working-age people hit with increases have some opportunity to restructure their employment to meet those challenges, and that some special consideration has to be given to seniors, who do not have that option.

But to give an unbalanced tax cut to seniors at precisely the time when we are approaching the generational doughnut hole is reckless beyond words.

Taxes need to be more equitable, and they need to be restructured. But tax cuts? Come on, guys. Read a newspaper once in a while. You're embarrassing all of us.