An Achievement?

The Obama campaign has recently been pushing a false narrative that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to cut Medicare. But there are two key problems with this narrative. The first is that it isn’t true. The second is that President Obama has already cut Medicare. 

In passing his expensive healthcare overhaul known as Obamacare, President Obama cut more than $700 billion from Medicare. Perhaps he thought no one would notice, or that no one would care. He couldn’t have been more wrong. 

Seniors, for one, don’t agree with his actions. For people who worked all their lives and paid, as President Obama likes to call it, “their fair share” in taxes, these cuts are devastating. They made an investment in their retirement, and looked on as President Obama pillaged that investment. 

Even worse is the fact that the President’s campaign has characterized these cuts as an achievement.  I suspect seniors don’t agree with that assessment. I also doubt that the next generation does, either. They’re watching as Medicare speeds down a path to bankruptcy, and President Obama has no plan to bring solvency to the program. 

We need leadership that will offer solutions, not more of the same passing the buck to future generations. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will reform Medicare by strengthening it. Under their plan, current retirees and those approaching retirement won’t see any changes. In fact, a Romney-Ryan administration would restore the funding that President Obama raided to pay for Obamacare. They would also ensure that the program our children and grandchildren inherit is one that can keep its promises. 

We don’t need another four more years of President Obama saying one thing and doing another.

Seniors to Be Closed out of HealthCare by Doctors..Let's Fix It!

...thanks to Obama and Pelosi/Reid. They were so busy worrying about ObamaCare they played what they are playing with every other policy: KICK THE CAN. So, here is the lowdown:

Doctors in the U.S. are bracing for large cuts in Medicare payments set to kick in Dec. 1 if the lame duck Congress fails to act.

Reports Monday said an initial 23 percent reduction in those payments is due to the failure of a system established years ago to control costs. Right now, it appears as though Democrats and Republicans, the latter the new majority in the House, want to stave off those cuts, but with budget deficits looming large, there's no real consensus on how to get it done.

A temporary fix could emerge in the next few weeks, analysts say, but that might not calm doctors' fears much. Any temporary solution could always be reversed at a later date, when lawmakers struggling to control the amount of red ink and runaway budget deficits agree on a permanent fix that reduces doctor payments.

The looming cuts are part of a 1990s law aimed at balancing the budget. The cuts have been regularly postponed but under the provisions of the law they don't go away, they just get bigger.

Doctors have been struggling to deal with the uncertainties of the law for years, but reports Monday say as many as two-thirds of them may stop taking new Medicare patients if the cuts go through, which would affect some 46 million elderly and disabled patients.

This has been going on for quite a while, though, in all honesty. Repubs and Dems have kicked the can down the way. However, the time may be nigh where we can, should, and must stop this continued kicking of the can as it relates to medicare:

The AMA is warning of a "catastrophic" cut in physician payments. Relax. The world isn't about to end. But costs will keep soaring unless the new Congress comes up with real reform.

If you want to know why Washington can't control entitlement spending, there's no better example than the regular ritual surrounding Medicare payments to physicians.

It has been going on for more than a decade, and it follows a consistent script. Congress faces a deadline to adjust Medicare reimbursements to a sustainable growth rate (SGR) established in a 1997 law. But Congress has never trimmed payments to anything near the levels demanded by the SGR formula, and it's too late to play catch-up.

The looming cut is alarmingly large — so large that there's no way it can stick. The American Medical Association then makes a fuss, raises the specter of doctors fleeing Medicare en masse, scares the seniors and forces Congress to come up with a short-term patch that holds the line on pay for a year or so and maybe even raises it a bit.

So the can gets kicked down the road, and Medicare keeps eating up a larger share of gross domestic product.

This time around, the scheduled cuts are 23% on Dec. 1 and 1.9% on Jan. 1. AMA President Cecil Wilson has been warning of dire, even deadly, consequences if the lame-duck Congress doesn't delay these until the end of 2011 — time enough to come up with a formula to replace the SGR with something more doctor-friendly. (Wilson wants a 1% raise to boot).

He told a press conference on Monday that Congress would be "putting the health care and the lives of senior citizens and military families at grave risk" if it did not block the cuts.

Congress and the doctors went through a similar bit of theater in June. A face-off between Republicans and Democrats went down to the wire, with the GOP trying to force the cuts into effect and make the majority Democrats take the political heat.

But the Republicans blinked, and the cuts didn't happen. There's no reason to think this time will be different. Expect a lot of noise, but nothing like the end of the world.

Even if Dr. Wilson is an over-the-top alarmist, he does have a point about the need to change Medicare. Lurching from crisis to crisis, with the taxpayers losing every time to the doctors, is no way to run things. Congress should take up the AMA's challenge to fix the reimbursement formula in the coming year.

There is a solution. And Paul Ryan has it. However, it takes something no politician seems to show lately--Courage:

One alternative to this logrolling, which no one served by Medicare really seems to want, is rationing of care. It's not the only possible course. Medicare could also become a consumer-driven system, in which public money goes directly to beneficiaries to buy coverage and care in a competitive market of private health plans and providers.

Taxpayers would be protected by a formula controlling the annual growth of the grants (which could be tax credits or vouchers). Otherwise, physician pay, hospital bills and other items in the health care tab would be determined by patients, insurers and other private players.

This plan is essentially what the Republicans' one-man brain trust, Paul Ryan, has set forth in his road map for tax and spending reform. Now that the GOP has won the House and the Wisconsin congressman will soon take the reins of the Budget Committee, he has some power to get his ideas — for Medicare and much else — enacted into law.

His own party has been slow to embrace his plan, but the voters have asked for serious action on spending and the deficit, and more than others he has risen to that challenge.

This month's doc-fix crisis presents Congress with a choice that it will face often in the coming year.

It can come up with a short-term patch just makes the problem more intractable the next time it arises.

Or, with a little more work and political risk taking, it can enact real reform for the good of future taxpayers.

Let's hope that Speaker Boehner stays true to his welcoming speech and lets the debate commence and gives our seniors and disabled a real fix, and not continue to kick the can toward being Greece.

ObamaCare Negative Effects on States--Passing on the Expenses to YOU!

Obamacare supporters keep talking about how they will manage costs and money spent by the federal government. One way to do that will be to place HUGE AND UNSUSTAINABLE burdens on states regarding medicaid eligibility. Check out this info from dickmorris.com:

The “health-care reform” bills in Congress would hit 39 states hard with new expenses, by raising Medicaid eligibility above the current income cutoffs.

The only states that won’t have to raise eligibility because of the Senate bill are Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont and Wisconsin (plus the District of Columbia). And the House bill would force even Massachusetts and Vermont to pay more.


Hardest hit would be Texas ($2,750 million a year in extra state spending under the Senate bill), Pennsylvania ($1,450 million), California ($1,428 million) and Florida ($909 million). Who knows if Florida could avoid imposing an income tax if it has to meet so high an unfunded mandate?

Landreiu: May vote to impose massive Medicaid costs on her state.

Landreiu: May vote to impose massive Medicaid costs on her state.

The required increases in state spending are likely to be quite high in some states whose senators are swing votes on ObamaCare:

* In Arkansas, home to swing Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, the annual increased state spending would come to $402 million (not counting the federal share) — about a 10 percent increase in the state budget, which is now $4 billion a year.

* In Louisiana, whose Sen. Marie Landrieu sold her vote on a key procedural motion in return for more Medicaid funding, the increase would come to $432 million (a 5 percent hike in state spending) — more than wiping out the extra funds she got in return for her vote.

* In Sen. Evan Bayh’s Indiana, spending would go up by $586 million a year, a rise of 4 percent.

* In Sen. Ben Nelson’s Nebraska, the added state spending would be $81 million a year, a 2 percent increase.

The Sebate ObamaCare bill would cost North Dakota, home of Sens. Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan, $14 million. South Dakota, represented by Sen. Tim Johnson, would have to boost Medicaid spending by $33 million.

The Medicaid-expansion provisions of the Senate bill are complex. In the first year of the program (2013), states must enroll anyone who earns less than 133 percent of the poverty level in their programs. For a family of four, the national average poverty level in 2009 is $22,000 a year. So any family that size that makes less than $29,000 would be eligible for Medicaid.

Many states, particularly in the South, actually have Medicaid cutoffs below the poverty level. Arkansas, for example, cuts off its Medicaid eligibility at only 17 percent of poverty level, and in Louisiana it goes up to only 26 percent. For these states, the spending increase required by the new bill is huge.

For the first three years of the program (2013-15) the federal government would pay for all of the costs of the Medicaid expansion. But, starting in the fourth year of operation — 2016 — the average state would be obliged to pay 10 percent of the extra cost.

For Democratic governors, this provision means sudden death. Particularly in states with limited Medicaid coverage, it would require huge tax increases.

Yes, the federal government will be passing on the debt to the states, who will pass it along to you in the form of more fees and taxes. Woohoo!

So, the question is, how much will state taxes go up? Again, I turn to Dick Morris:

The Obama health care initiative will be the biggest unfunded federal mandate on the states in history. It will force dozens of states, particularly in the South, to abandon their low tax ways and to move toward dramatically higher rates of taxation. It may even force Florida and Texas to impose an income tax!

In the Senate version of the bill, states must expand their Medicaid eligibility to cover everyone with an income that is 133% of the poverty level. The House bill brings it up to 150%. But a host of states have kept their state taxes low precisely by so limiting eligibility for Medicaid that it essentially is only for seniors needing long term care and not for poor younger people who require acute care.
For the first three years of the program (2013-2015) the federal government would pay for all of the costs of the Medicaid expansion. But, starting in the fourth year of operation — 2016 – states would be obliged to pay 10% of the extra cost.

While Obama has often spoken about how he won’t raise taxes on the middle class, his health care legislation will require the governors to do so. Particularly in those states with Democratic governors, it is easy to see how the backlash against these new taxes could fundamentally alter state politics.
STATE SPENDING INCREASES IN MEDICAID REQUIRED BY SENATE HEALTH BILL

Alabama = 394 million

Alaska = 39 million

Arizona = 217 million

Arkansas = 402 million

California = 1,428 million
Indiana = 586 million

Kentucky = 199 million

Michigan = 570 million

Ohio = 399 million

Think it sucks to live and work and run a business in Ohio now? Imagine when these tax hikes take effect!!!!

Spaces’ Health Care Vote Raises Taxes and Slashes Benefits for Seniors

Release:

Lakeville, OH – Senator Bob Gibbs, candidate for Ohio’s 18th Congressional District, reacted today to Rep. Zack Space’s vote to favor the Nancy Pelosi government run health care program.

“It is unacceptable that Zack Space just voted to slash benefits from the Medicare program, raise taxes, and add 118 new government bureaucracies” said Senator Gibbs. “Zack has been dodging his constituents’ views on the issue of healthcare because he knows that this district is against the Pelosi plan.”

“Not only does this bill implement a $729.5 billion dollar new tax on our families, it also does not address skyrocketing health care costs and criminalizes non-compliance which increasingly erodes our freedoms and individual liberties,” Gibbs added.

Zack Space has been publicly criticized in recent months for refusing to meet with his constituents on the issues of health care reform and cap-and-trade. Space voted to support both cap-and-trade and now health care, two bills which are strongly opposed by his districts workers, families and seniors. “Once again, Zack chose Nancy Pelosi’s agenda over the good of his constituents,” commented Gibbs on the recent health care vote. “Never before have I seen a congressman so neglect his constituents and their wishes.”

For three decades Bob Gibbs has served as a small business owner and community leader, operating a farm and rental property business. He served on the Ohio Farm Bureau Board of Trustees for fifteen years and is a past president of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation.

Healthcare Two Face: Obama Vs. Obama on Medicare Cuts.

There are only a few explanations. This guy is has mulitiple personality disorder. He has an evil twin. Or, he is simply a megalomaniacal statist fascist communist who will say anything and expect you to believe it because he is the chosen one. Check out this short vid which underscores again why you shouldn't trust this one:

Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Deadline is Dec. 31

This came in the latest Boehner Bulletin and I wanted to make sure that it got some attention:

The open enrollment period for seniors to participate in the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit will end on Monday, Dec. 31, 2007. Please don't miss this opportunity to participate in a program that will help save money on prescription medicine. Seniors already participating in the program can use the open enrollment period to change plans.

Medicare Part D is a voluntary program that helps pay the cost of prescription drugs for seniors and those with disabilities. The competition between private companies offering drug plans has already driven down costs for taxpayers and beneficiaries. The average monthly costs are $25 per month, down from prior estimates of $37 per month. Of the 58 plans available in Ohio, there are 34 with a zero-dollar deductible and two with premiums under $20. Seniors living on a foxed-income may qualify for extra help through Social Security.

Click here for more information about the program and to enroll online.

For help choosing a plan, seniors may contact Ohio Senior Health Insurance Information toll-free, 800-686-1578 or they may call the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, 800-MEDICAID (800-633-4227). Low income seniors should contact the Social Security Administration to apply for extra help, 800-772-1213.

SCHIP With Tax Hike and Medicare Cuts Passes House

AP News Alert:

WASHINGTON (AP) The House has passed legislation to cover an additional 6 million lower-income children under the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) issued the following statement opposing legislation from House Democrats to drastically slash Medicare benefits for seniors, increase taxes on working families, and expand government-run health care:

“Republicans support renewing SCHIP to provide health care to children in low-income families, but we oppose the Democrats’ poorly-crafted, partisan proposal that works against the interests of seniors, working families, and taxpayers. This bill cuts some $193 billion in Medicare benefits for American seniors. In my congressional district alone, 14,267 seniors currently benefit from Medicare Advantage and 73 percent of them will lose their benefits if the Medicare cuts in the House bill become law. Moreover, this bill raises taxes on low-income families, opens the door to using taxpayer funds to benefit illegal immigrants, and imposes government-dictated ‘Hillary-care’ when we should be focusing on free market solutions that provide every American with access to better health care.

“When Republicans established SCHIP to help low-income children 10 years ago, we worked together in a bipartisan fashion with our Democratic colleagues. Our ranking Republicans – Mr. Barton and Mr. McCrery – made great efforts to work with their majority counterparts in hopes of forging a bipartisan consensus this year. Unfortunately the majority’s bill needlessly asks millions of American seniors to sacrifice their health care security in favor of expanding government-subsidized health care.”

President Bush is expected to veto the bill if/when it makes it to his desk.

Backgrounder on SCHIP/Medicare Advantage and other programs

This ill-named bill expands the popular State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) while, one can only assume from the name, “protect” Medicare. This It does nothing of the sort. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, House Democrats are proposing $193 billion in cuts to Medicare programs that provide flexible, affordable and modern healthcare solutions to more than 8 million American seniors. They include:

$157 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage for seniors.

$15.3 billion in cuts to Medicare Part A for seniors, including skilled nursing facilities, rehabilitation facilities, and long term care hospitals.

$9.6 billion in cuts to Medicare Part B for seniors, including payments for oxygen and brachytherapy.

$3.6 billion in cuts to the end stage renal disease program for seniors.

$7.5 billion in cuts to home health and more cuts to end-stage renal care for seniors.

The proposed SCHIP expansion currently costs $76 billion more than it will raise, again, according to the Congressional Budget Office. To pay for this expansion, the Democrats’ bill raises money in three ways:

It raises tobacco taxes (NOTE: Ironically, the Heritage Foundation finds that 20 million new smokers will be needed by 2017 to pay for the expansion of this health program);

It effectively eliminates Medicare Advantage in 22 states, freeing up whatever money would be put into the program;
Makes other cuts to Medicare service providers.

SCHIP Background

SCHIP was established in 1997 to help insure children from low-income families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. Since its inception, SCHIP has reduced the rate of uninsured children nationwide by about 25 percent. However, the program has expanded to include middle-class children and adults – groups that SCHIP was not created to assist. SCHIP funding is delivered to states as a block grant, and states have the option of running SCHIP through a separate state agency, through the Medicaid program or a combination of both. Ohio administers the program through the Medicaid-based Healthy Start program.

Ohio’s recent budget provides for an increase in SCHIP for children up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level – that would take the income level up to $51,510 for a family of three and $61,950 for a family of four. In much of Ohio , families earning those income levels are considered middle class, which is not the demographic SCHIP was created to assist.

The Democrats’ proposal would render the current income eligibility requirement meaningless and create and open-ended government entitlement for families, many of whom already have private insurance coverage.

There are anywhere from 236,000 to 245,000 children in Ohio who currently have no health coverage. But nearly 165,000 of those childrens’ parents have not signed them up for SCHIP, despite already qualifying for the program.

Medicare Advantage Background

The Medicare Advantage (MA) program provides seniors the option of receiving their Medicare benefits through a private health plan, including PPOs, HMOs, private fee-for-service plans, and special needs plans. Many beneficiaries choose MA over traditional Medicare because it often is less expensive and because these plans offer benefits that traditional Medicare does not, like disease management programs and preventive care. In recent years, payments to plans were increased to stabilize the program and expand participation. In 2006, Medicare began to pay plans under a bidding process.

The chart below provides numbers of Medicare beneficiaries and Medicare Advantage program participants by Congressional District in Ohio (Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services)

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES
MEDICARE ADVANTAGE

OH01 - Chabot
92,520
21,160

OH02 - Schmidt
96,871
16,075

OH03 - Turner
104,930
19,329

OH04 - Jordan
99,104
5,148

OH05 - Gillmor
92,531
6,152

OH06 - Wilson
113,495
16,100

OH07 - Hobson
96,651
17,734

OH08 - Boehner
95,046
14,627

OH09 - Kaptur
100,106
15,345

OH10 - Kucinich
105,767
23,675

OH11 - Jones
98,978
20,374

OH12 - Tiberi
82,703
13,985

OH13 - Sutton
104,020
19,843

OH14 - LaTourette
104,361
15,782

OH15 - Pryce
74,606
13,519

OH16 - Regula
106,165
25,122

OH17 - Ryan
107,506
25,938

OH18 - Space
106,745
11,508

OH - Ohio
1,782,109
301,416

The Democrats’ Plan to Cut Medicare Advantage Would Hurt Minorities Most

At a March 21 Committee on Ways and Means, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones expressed strong reservations about the effect of Medicare Advantage cuts in minority communities:

“If you take out Medicare Advantage programs, or you address or deal with the funding problem, you are targeting a group of folks who have nowhere else to go. … Experience says to you that if you close down the Medicare Advantage programs, there is a population of people who are without healthcare coverage and they are a population of people who have chronic health problems and they are not covered by other health plans. …Before we go down the road of changing what we have right now, let us make sure we aren’t changing it on the backs of low-income and minority people who already receive disparate health service and access to health care.”

From the NAACP letter:

“MA plans – private health plan options that provide coverage to 8.3 million Medicare beneficiaries – disproportionately provide coverage to low-income and racial and ethnic minority beneficiaries. Specifically, 40 percent of African Americans without Medicaid or employer coverage rely on comprehensive health insurance coverage provided by MA plans. By providing more comprehensive benefits and lower cost-sharing than traditional Medicare, MA plans help racial and ethnic minority populations gain access to health care services that are critical to their long-term health and well-being.”

“Reduced funding for the MA program would have a negative impact on the health and health care of millions of Medicare beneficiaries – particularly for low-income and minority beneficiaries.”

“We urge you not to backtrack on these priorities by cutting funding for the MA program. This program is vitally important to the health and well-being of racial and ethnic minorities who rely on MA to provide them with the comprehensive, affordable, and coordinated care they need.”

From the League of United Latin American Citizens letter:

“Ensuring access to high quality, affordable health care is one of our top priorities, and one that is especially critical in the Hispanic community. We firmly believe Medicare Advantage is helping meet this challenge for Hispanic seniors.”

Making It Easier for Illegal Immigrants to Get SCHIP or Medicaid

In 1996, Congress passed legislation blocking illegal immigrants from receiving federal benefits and the 1997 creating of SCHIP required states to verify a claimant’s citizenship.

The Democrats’ proposal eliminates the requirement that persons applying for Medicaid or SCHIP services show proof of citizenship or nationality.

A Temporary Reprieve - No Solution for Medicare or Social Security

AP News Alert:

WASHINGTON (AP) The government says the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare will last one year longer than previously expected.

Doesn't matter...I'll not see a dime of what I've paid in to either program...

UPDATE: Via email:

Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) issued the following statement today after the trustees of Social Security and Medicare released their annual report:

“Today’s report reinforces the need for Congress to address runaway entitlement spending that will bankrupt future generations of Americans. It’s troubling that the Democrats’ budget proposal abdicated any responsibility on this issue and completely ignored the rising cost of entitlements. In contrast, the Republican budget included critical protections for Social Security and significant reforms aimed at stemming the coming fiscal tsunami driven by the explosive growth in entitlement spending. The American people want solutions, and I would urge my Democratic colleagues to join Republicans in a serious effort to preserve these programs for future generations.”

NOTE: House Republicans recently released a report on Democrats’ failures during their “first 100 days” as a majority in Congress. The report exposed Democrats’ record of failure on retirement security and notes “House Democrats have failed to bring forward any legislation that would strengthen Americans’ retirement security and pointedly refused to address much-needed reforms to strengthen Social Security in their budget proposal.”

Medicare is Doomed

AP NewsAlert:

WASHINGTON (AP) The House has passed a bill requiring the government to negotiate drug prices under Medicare.

That giant sucking sound is going to be Medicare...

Veterans and Patient Groups Speak Out Against Medicare Price Controls

Via email:

While Republicans will offer a proposal to ensure seniors can continue to choose the prescription drugs they need and meet with their neighborhood pharmacist, veterans and patient groups across the country are speaking out against H.R. 4, the Democrat majority's plan to impose government price controls on the Medicare prescription drug program.

The American Legion, a veterans service organization with nearly three million members, yesterday released a letter opposing H.R. 4, saying it "is not in the best interest of America 's veterans and their families." It goes on to say the following:

"Every time the federal government has enacted pharmaceutical price control legislation, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) experienced significant increases in its pharmaceutical costs as an unintended consequence."

A letter from the ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease) Association voiced "strong opposition" to H.R. 4, saying:

"Legislation that authorizes the federal government to negotiate Medicare prescription drug prices will significantly limit the ability of people with ALS to access the drugs they need and will seriously jeopardize the future development of treatments for the disease."

The Arthritis Foundation has raised serious concerns about the bill:

"The response to drug therapies for people with arthritis is highly individualized and dependent on the form of arthritis being treated, drug treatment history, and the person's risk tolerance for drug side effects. The drug treatment for persons with arthritis who depend on Medicare coverage must not be compromised by limiting the choices of available drugs or by forcing consumers to select from the least effective treatments due to Part D program design."

The Epilepsy Foundation has raised concerns about losing access to life-saving medicines:

"Access to the right medications for epilepsy can make the difference between living in the community, being employed and leading a healthy and productive life. The consequences of denying the appropriate medication for an individual with epilepsy can be life-threatening and can include injury, emergency room visits, hospitalization or other types of costly medical interventions."

The National Alliance for Mental Illness expressed significant reservations about concerns about losing access to life-saving medicines:

"NAMI is extremely concerned that placing this new legal mandate on the Secretary would directly result in loss of the "all or substantially all" guidance in the 6 protected classes, and therefore poses a significant risk to Medicare beneficiaries with mental illness."

The marketplace is working for America 's seniors and taxpayers. America 's seniors deserve the best health care possible -- they won't get it if Washington is calling the shots.

GOP Proposal Protects Seniors' Access to Life-Saving Drugs and Their Neighborhood Pharmacist

Via email:

Today, Republicans will offer a proposal to ensure that seniors can continue to choose the prescription drugs they need and continue to meet with their local pharmacist. Specifically, the GOP proposal will:

Guarantee that Medicare beneficiaries still have access to drugs that treat: oral cancer, HIV/AIDS, mental illness, Alzheimer's, ALS (Lou Gherig's disease), and drugs to safeguard organ transplants; and

Ensure that seniors retain access to their local pharmacies so they can continue to receive advice and counsel from their neighborhood pharmacist.

PROTECTING SENIORS' ACCESS TO LIFE-SAVING PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

The Democrat proposal does NOT protect seniors' access to the equivalent number of drugs provided currently through their prescription drug plan of choice. An analysis of the VA national formulary (list of available drugs) demonstrated 110 instances where appropriate drug types or drug classes did not satisfy current Medicare Part D minimum formulary requirements. In fact, 31 drug types widely recognized by physician groups as the best drugs to treat certain conditions are not included on the VA's formulary. The GOP plan will protect seniors' access to these life-saving drugs.

PROTECTING SENIORS' CHOICE OF THEIR LOCAL PHARMACISTS

The competition rooted in today's Medicare Part D program provides another benefit to seniors: choice. Seniors can choose a plan that meets their needs. They can choose the drugs they need. And importantly they can go to their own pharmacy and meet with their own pharmacist. But the Democrat bill - modeled on the VA system where some 80 percent of drugs are dispensed through mail order - would significantly curtail seniors' access to their own local pharmacists. The GOP plan would ensure that seniors retain access to their local pharmacies so they can continue to receive advice and counsel from their pharmacist.

It is unfortunate that House Democrats have chosen to move forward with this bill without the benefit of committee hearings to weigh its impact. The marketplace is working for America 's seniors and taxpayers. Any Medicare reforms considered by Congress should be rooted in free market principles that empower consumers with less costly, higher quality health care. America's seniors deserve the best health care possible -- they won't get it if Washington is calling the shots.

UPDATE - Boehner's Speech (as prepared):

"Madame Speaker, I rise today in opposition to HR 4, a bill that would limit seniors' choices by bringing government price controls to the popular Medicare prescription drug program.

"Medicare Part D is succeeding because it's rooted in free market principles. The cost of the drug program has plummeted by 30 percent because of competition. The competition between dozens of plan providers is driving down costs for seniors and taxpayers alike. In fact, a recent Congressional Budget Office report says the current model is working so well that the proposal on the floor today will not save any money. Not one penny.

"This competition provides another benefit to seniors: choice. Seniors can choose a plan that meets their needs. They can choose the drugs they need. They can go to their own pharmacy and meet with their own pharmacist. But the bill before us today could change all of that. As experts have pointed out, the only way this bill might accomplish any savings is to limit seniors' choices and do what the VA does: require the drugs to be delivered on a mail-order basis. I don't think that's what seniors want.

"This bill would also have to limit seniors' choices in medicine. There are currently more than 4,300 prescription drugs available to seniors through Medicare drug plans. Supporters of this bill compare it to the Department of Veterans Affairs plan. But that plan offers less than one-third of the drugs available through Part D. USA Today has called on Congress to 'put the brakes' on this price control plan because 'more than one-third of retired veterans... enroll in Medicare drug plans' because the Department of Veterans Affairs plan offers far fewer choices.

"In fact, the American Legion, a Veterans organization with 3 million members, opposes the measure before us. The American Legion commander said this bill 'is not in the best interest of America 's veterans and their families.' That's why President Bush has vowed to veto this measure.

"Today, House Republicans will offer an alternate proposal that ensures seniors continue to enjoy the low prices and range of choices offered by the Medicare prescription drug program. Seniors are happy with the Medicare Prescription Drug program. They're saving money. And they have ample choices.

"Today in the Republican motion to recommit, we'll attempt to ensure seniors have the same choices they do today: choices in prescription drugs and access to the pharmacies of their choice. We believe seniors have a right to choose a plan that meets their needs. Seniors have a right to go to their pharmacy and talk to their pharmacists about their drugs. The measure before us will lead to higher prices and, frankly, fewer choices for American seniors.

"I urge my colleagues to vote against HR 4."