The Lieberman/Coburn Proposal

[Conan71]

Let's have a civil discussion on the merits of this proposal without resorting to personal attacks or assaults on the character of either U.S. Senator.

"   The Lieberman/Coburn proposal would save more than $600 billion over 10 years, based on past reviews of Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, proposals from the President's Bipartisan Fiscal Commission and internal Senate estimates.

   Extends the solvency of Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund by allocating some of the savings from the proposal to the trust fund.

   Reduces Medicare's 75-year unfunded liabilities by an estimated $10 trillion and significantly reduces the fiscal impact of Medicare on the federal budget. The proposal strengthens Medicare and makes it more sustainable for taxpayers.

   For the first time in the history of the Medicare program, seniors will have an annual out-of-pocket-maximum within the Medicare program to protect them from bankruptcy in the event of a major illness or long term health condition.

   Contains a three year fix to the Medicare physician reimbursement formula that is paid for and will bring stability and payments to Medicare's providers, ensuring access for seniors.

   Preserves Medicare as a government program for current and future enrollees."

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=36cddfe6-ec32-41b1-a0d2-b3ad7f6675bf


""Kinda thing that we've waited for Medicare and Social Security so we can have these benefits that we've paid into for so, so long," she said.

But some say Medicare may not be there for Rubey or millions of others.

"Let's say the trustees are right and in 2016 part A goes belly up. What's going to happen?" Coburn said.

The Coburn/Lieberman plan would raise the eligibility age from 65 to 67 by 2025, but it would also slash deductibles.

Right now, if you were admitted to the hospital and went to your annual checkups, you'd pay almost $1,300 for your deductible. Under the Coburn/Lieberman plan, you would pay less than half that, $550 a year.

"That I think will be very attractive to Medicare recipients," Cindy Loftin said.

Cindy Loftin, with Life Senior Services gives monthly seminars on Medicare. She said the plan's cap on out of pocket expenses could also be a plus for seniors.

"Medicare beneficiaries today don't have that. There is no cap on out of pocket. So this could be a lifesaver," she said.

While out of pocket costs would likely go down, premiums would balloon.

Right now, taxpayers pick up most of the bill for seniors Medicare Part B or coverage of physician's visits.  The Coburn/Lieberman plan would require seniors to pay 35 percent of the costs, reducing the taxpayer burden and saving more than $240 billion."

http://www.newson6.com/story/14992345/oklahoma-senator-unveils-plan-to-save-medicare

"1) Top Dems are dismissing Joe Lieberman and Tom Coburn's Medicare plan, report Rosalind Helderman and Paul Kane: "Leading Congressional Democrats immediately recoiled Tuesday from a new proposal to cut $600 billion in Medicare spending over the next decade -- in part by raising the eligibility age. Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) unveiled the proposal as part of a bipartisan effort to produce the kind of savings necessary to achieve the $2 trillion in debt reduction both parties say is needed to convince reticent lawmakers to vote to raise the debt ceiling. It would raise Medicare's eligibility age from 65 to 67 and assess higher premiums on wealthier seniors...Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) termed it 'a bad idea.' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called it 'unacceptable.'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-lieberman-coburn-enters-the-fray/2011/06/29/AGFSKTqH_blog.html

Honestly, I don't see where that's a bad deal if it caps out of pocket expenses, even with a premium increase.  The eligibility age I don't see as so much an issue either considering Social Security full benefit retirement age is 67 as well, nor do I see a problem with sliding scale premiums on wealthier seniors.

[guido911]

Let's have a civil discussion on the merits of this proposal without resorting to personal attacks...

Eff off conman. Seriously, thanks for that information. We do not see a lot of bipartisan stuff on Medicare.

[TulsaMoon]

The only issue I have is targeting a certain portion of people ( wealthy ). BUT... this problem has to be fixed and I see no other way other than to force more out of those that really can afford to do so.

Reed and Pelosi hate it... what have they come up with? ( thats a question NOT a dig at them )

[carltonplace]

Democrats should agree to raise the age at least...a change to 67 is not that onerous especially if people will have alternate coverage from other means (HCR).

[Conan71]

The only issue I have is targeting a certain portion of people ( wealthy ). BUT... this problem has to be fixed and I see no other way other than to force more out of those that really can afford to do so.

Reed and Pelosi hate it... what have they come up with? ( thats a question NOT a dig at them )

I agree with your point and really don't see this as a blatant example of wealth redistribution.  We are all going to have to kick in something and expect a little less in return to get back to fiscal sanity.

To be perfectly honest, IMO, if someone could easily afford to pay for an expensive joint replacement why should the rest of the taxpayers be on the hook for it.  There's no shortage of services and benefits people are taking from the government who really don't need the assistance.


Carlton- good point.  Considering the SS retirement age is 67 now, it would make sense for Medicare to kick in at the same time.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Couldn't we save a ton by making Medicare secondary insurance?

[guido911]

The only issue I have is targeting a certain portion of people ( wealthy ). BUT... this problem has to be fixed and I see no other way other than to force more out of those that really can afford to do so.

Reed and Pelosi hate it... what have they come up with? ( thats a question NOT a dig at them )

I agree with not covering those that have the means to take care of themselves, just don't force them to pay into the pot.

[Teatownclown]

Means testing would help.

I just hope they make the cut age effective for those currently 53 and below.

Sheen is right. Make Medicare secondary insurance for those that can afford primary with an offsetting tax credit for their out of pocket. It seems there'd be several ways to reduce the governments exposure.

[we vs us]

I support raising the eligibility age and I also support means testing.  Also doc fix = good. That said:

Doubling the monthly premium over a ten year span is really difficult stuff.  I'm not saying a small increase isn't warranted, but that's a big one, and it will indeed make a huge difference to those on a budget, which is who Medicare is most important to in these days.

Also, they really aren't addressing the underlying issue, which is that healthcare expenses themselves are going up far faster than the rate of inflation, and certainly outpacing incoming tax receipts.  If costs continue to rise, we will have to re-examine Medicare again in the next ten years because it will be "unsustainable" again.  But it will only be because the cost of service went up, not because we've mismanaged the money. 

Not that it's within the scope of this to actually address the underlying issue, but I really do get the feeling that reforming only a portion of the HCR world is like using a bucket to bail out a sinking ship. Much bigger fixes need to me made, IMO, and this will not fix the problem by a longshot. 

[we vs us]

I'm also gonna bet you that Reid's hesitance to talk about raising the age range is a bluff.  He knows he's going to have to give that up eventually, but won't until he gets something from the GOP.  I think it's a negotiation chip and nothing more. 

You know, kinda like the debt ceiling. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

None of this will help or amount to a hill of beans until we the people find a way to REQUIRE, mandate, demand, and enforce one simple thing; that none in Congress, the Executive, or Judicial branches, shall have a better plan than the least of us!

Until that day, this is just an exercise in mental mast*****ion!

There will be no viable solution.

[Conan71]

I support raising the eligibility age and I also support means testing.  Also doc fix = good. That said:

Doubling the monthly premium over a ten year span is really difficult stuff.  I'm not saying a small increase isn't warranted, but that's a big one, and it will indeed make a huge difference to those on a budget, which is who Medicare is most important to in these days.

Also, they really aren't addressing the underlying issue, which is that healthcare expenses themselves are going up far faster than the rate of inflation, and certainly outpacing incoming tax receipts.  If costs continue to rise, we will have to re-examine Medicare again in the next ten years because it will be "unsustainable" again.  But it will only be because the cost of service went up, not because we've mismanaged the money. 

Not that it's within the scope of this to actually address the underlying issue, but I really do get the feeling that reforming only a portion of the HCR world is like using a bucket to bail out a sinking ship. Much bigger fixes need to me made, IMO, and this will not fix the problem by a longshot. 

Actually the premium increase is in line with private insurance and possibly even less of an increase.  Medicare can have a tendency to lead the industry on reimbursement amounts, good bad or otherwise.

IMO, my belief is that specialty hospitals plus the need to pay for expensive diagnostic equipment probably over-uses (and over-bills) insurance.  Injuries that 20 years ago were completely and properly diagnosed with a simple X-ray now wind up getting an accompanying MRI which is in the range of $500 to $1000.

[RecycleMichael]

The premium increase will be fought by seniors. We are talking about raising the premiums over a hundred dollars a month. Thats a lot of cat food.

The out-of-pocket max is the jewel of this proposal IMO.

[nathanm]

I'm also gonna bet you that Reid's hesitance to talk about raising the age range is a bluff.  He knows he's going to have to give that up eventually, but won't until he gets something from the GOP.  I think it's a negotiation chip and nothing more. 

You know, kinda like the debt ceiling. 

The irony is that increasing the age for Medicare eligibility will only cause their per-insured costs to go up. The older a person gets, the more expensive they are to care for (on average). This is why a lot of people support Medicare-for-all. Throw the money currently being spent on private health insurance into Medicare and you get the better loss ratio and the lower rate of growth in cost, plus you get the benefit of getting the young people's money without having to spend so much on medical care for them. And you also save doctors a ton by eliminating much of their paperwork burden.

It flies in the face of some people's ideology, though, so such savings will never be recognized in today's political climate.

[Conan71]

The premium increase will be fought by seniors. We are talking about raising the premiums over a hundred dollars a month. Thats a lot of cat food.

The out-of-pocket max is the jewel of this proposal IMO.

AARP is already dissing it, yet they are the largest marketer of Medicare supplemental insurance. 

But the increase is only $10 per year, or 2 cents per day.

Please send your $100 to
PO Box BR-549
Tulsa, 74101

Thank you.