More

Joe Lieberman, Tom Coburn Plan To Slash Medicare Gets Cold Reception

Medicare Cuts

First Posted: 06/28/11 06:28 PM ET Updated: 08/28/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- A new plan unveiled by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Tom Coburn to slash costs in Medicare is getting a cold reception on Capitol Hill.

The new effort aimed at bridging the partisan divide over debt reduction aims to cut more than $640 billion from Medicare over the next 10 years, largely by raising deductibles and other costs for beneficiaries.

It would require wealthier Americans to pay the full cost of their Medicare premiums, raise the eligibility age to from 65 to 67, create a minimum out-of-pocket deductible of $550 and raise premiums, among other changes.

In return for paying more and giving up benefits, seniors would get a cap on out-of-pocket expenses at $7,500 to ensure bankruptcy was less of a threat.

Democrats dismissed the ideas out of hand.

"It is unfair to ask seniors to get less in benefits and wait longer to get onto Medicare -- all while Republicans back tax breaks for Big Oil and corporations that ship American jobs overseas," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) "Just like the Republican plan to end Medicare, this proposal is unacceptable, especially for struggling middle-class Americans."

Republicans did not exactly flock to the idea either. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell merely said the work by the Connecticut independent Lieberman and Oklahoma Republican Coburn underscores "the necessity of doing something serious about entitlement reform."

"We can put our heads in the sand and ignore that, and keep on kicking the can down the road, or we can come together as Sen. Coburn and Sen. Lieberman have with their particular proposal and try to do something about it," McConnell added.

Although the plan met such a chilly reception, reports out of the White House Tuesday suggested President Obama is hunting for a fresh option to trim Medicare costs -- a key part of the debt talks -- and thinking a lot larger than Democrats have been willing talk about so far.

If Republicans agree to revenue hikes President Obama wants, the Lieberman-Coburn plan could offer a bipartisan refuge.

But there are political realities that would make it a hard proposition for either side to embrace.

For one, Democrats likely would have to give up their relentless hammering of the Republican plans to cut Medicare -- which the Democrat-aligned Protect Your Care signled Tuesday it was not about to do.

"A plan that slashes Medicare for vulnerable seniors is a plan that slashes Medicare for vulnerable seniors no matter what co-sponsors you put on it," said Protect Your Care spokesman Eddie Vale. "This so called 'plan' is just as dangerous for seniors as the Republican budget that ends Medicare."

For Republicans, accepting the plan would also be difficult because a huge portion of the savings depend on maintaining the health reform law that they have vowed to repeal.

"It's miraculous in a way, because this legislation gets a Republican to embrace ACA [the Affordable Care Act]," one health care lobbyist told The Huffington Post.

If the heath reform were repealed, the Lieberman-Coburn measure requires keeping the eligibility age at 65 -- costing $124 billion.

The ideas are also not likely to go over well with older Americans, who would have to pay 35 percent of the cost of the premiums, instead of 25 percent. Plus, the plan aims to discourage people from going to doctors by raising deductibles.

While the plan would also raise money by making wealthier Americans pay 100 percent of their premium costs -- and by denying some payments to hospitals -- the vast majority of savings come from the pockets of beneficiaries.

The bill contains few of the popular cost-saving ideas that many advocates for reform have embraced, such as improving efficiency, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices and using generics.

AARP, the influential lobby for older Americans, estimated that 95 percent of the savings come from seniors. And while the group liked capping the maximum out-of-pocket expenses, and an effort to stabilize payments to doctors, they opposed it overall.

"We believe the right way to strengthen Medicare is to improve the quality and lower the cost of care throughout the health care system," said AARP's Nancy LeaMond. "Simply shifting the bill to seniors does nothing to improve health care quality or combat the real problem of rising costs."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- A new plan unveiled by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Tom Coburn to slash costs in Medicare is getting a cold reception on Capitol Hill. The new effort aimed at bridging the partisan divide ...
WASHINGTON -- A new plan unveiled by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Tom Coburn to slash costs in Medicare is getting a cold reception on Capitol Hill. The new effort aimed at bridging the partisan divide ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,289
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (68 total)
  1 of 7  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
Bronxdude 11:44 PM on 06/28/2011
As part of Medicare, seniors will be able to receive free annual preventive wellness check-ups and tests, such as mammograms for women and eye exams for diabetics. Transition services will be provided to help high risk patients make successful transitions home after being hospitalized. The Medicare Part D “donut hole” will be phased out over the next few years, but in the meantime, seniors will see  Read More...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
worker beenumbed
09:40 PM on 07/03/2011
Maybe the US should have a draft lottery for all medical care givers including all docters .Two months minimum service per year for a few years.at captains pay ----no trades or buy outs.We are at war.This would help the budget.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
worker beenumbed
09:33 PM on 07/03/2011
Coburn was just on Charlie Rose.I believe he said wealthly seniors would still be exempted from paying the full cost of part B.I believe Seniors earning more than 200000 should pay the entire premium for all parts .They already pay a small wealthy premium.All doctors should work in veterans facilities for one week per year at captains pay.There are two and one half wars on.The medical care lobby would then work to end the wars.
There is usually a chunk of good luck to the wealthy being that wealthy.The extra premiums would be a bit of bad luck which would help the less lucky.
07:42 AM on 06/30/2011
Someone asked in a comment 'What did you do before Prescription D?'.

Most medicine was affordable then. They doubled the prices more than once after D.
What we pay in premiums would have paid for our medicine a few years ago.

With all the wise governance, it is already costing the elderly on Medicare as much as they paid percentage wise before Medicare.
graciesgra
retired h.s. teacher from NY
06:07 PM on 06/30/2011
Before Part D I had Plan J with AARP that paid half of my prescriptions. Even so, I paid over $300 per month out of pocket. Therefore I went without a lot of things in order to buy prescriptions that only months before I had gotten for almost nothing as a teacher with my health benefits.. Wow, what a difference. And what a way to end up after forty years of teaching. I agree with many of the posters here.....there are so many things that we, as a n ation, seem to be able to "afford", why is it that we can't seem to take care of our own people?
07:28 AM on 06/30/2011
The Judas plan of Lieberman and Coburn is Ryan's plan dressed up.

It will still ruin many people. The health industry should not be allowed to ruin people and take their life savings.

The only way to win with the Judas plan is to never get sick or die at home.

If they figure the single income of each of the elderly, most would be in Medicaid. If they figure an elderly couple's family income, then they may not be.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
edejan
09:58 PM on 06/29/2011
"In return for paying more and giving up benefits, seniors would get a cap on out-of-pocket expenses at $7,500 to ensure bankruptcy was less of a threat."
Do these cretins know that many SS recipients live on approx. $14,000 per year. How do you suppose they can pay more than half of that for medical expenses? I suppose as long as the rich don't have to pay their fair share of taxes, that's OK with Coburn and Lieberman.
07:57 AM on 06/30/2011
Most of the elderly in Medicare are figured as single instead of as a couple.

They didn't make it clear that it could be $7,500 for each person. I am not saying it will be because I don't know, but chances are it will be.

My husband and I have separate policies and meet a separate deductible in Medicare.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:51 PM on 06/29/2011
Of course, they are going to give up their free medical care first. Liberty and justice for all! Under god!
08:28 PM on 06/29/2011
What's Judas doing standing behind him ?
03:47 AM on 06/30/2011
That he is. Can't wait for his term to end.
photo
Cthulhu On Call
As soon as I'm done with my nap, you're all in tro
08:21 PM on 06/29/2011
LOL!!!! Making deals with Joe Lieberman doesn't "bridge a gap" anywhere. He's a conservative Independent.

If the Republican party wants him, they can have him, he already works for them anyway, he just likes taking Democratic Caucus money.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Anne Rutherford
08:14 PM on 06/29/2011
This is another example of the Whig-Federalist argument that has plagued our country since it's inception. It all has to do with the role of government in a citizen's life. First, Medicare, and Social Security are not entitlements - they are programs where taxes are collected and paid by both employer and employee - it isn't a welfare handout. It can be fixed by raising the ceiling and including non-wage income. Doing that, even the percentages don't have to be raised. Don't forget - the boomer generation is a blip (a large one) - after that, successive smaller generations will place less demand on the system. This issue spills over into so many other things - like healthcare reform, etc. Raising the retirement age helps stagnate the job market because there is no turn-over as older workers stay employed longer.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
aztrukin
I'm just here to make you mad.
01:12 AM on 06/30/2011
You have a valid arguement that I would like to look at further. I wish we could look at the hard facts as individuals could comprehend.
graciesgra
retired h.s. teacher from NY
06:13 PM on 06/30/2011
I agree with you. I get tired of hearing those programs get called entitlement programs, too. There are changes that can and should be made. I keep hearing that they should be made. Is anyone doing anything about that?

Raising the age won't work for everyone. There are some occupations where workers just can't keep on working. They are worn out by age 65, either physically or mentally, but especially physically. So, could there be two different age leverls? Hard to see how that would work.
07:55 PM on 06/29/2011
They deserve a good hard kick in the crotch for even thinking this.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sherylynne Klein
07:13 PM on 06/29/2011
Just a question without respect to any political party. If Medicare is cut, would it follow that seniors will work longer to retain health benefits with better coverage and alleviate greater out-of-pocket expenses? Seniors today are much healthier and in better shape than years ago. We are already struggling with high unemployment. Going forward, if seniors work longer, it would seem to follow that fewer jobs would be available, further exacerbating an already existing challenge.
07:31 AM on 06/30/2011
Only the well to do are living longer.

They need to pay in more for Social Security and Medicare out of their paycheck.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ttaz4dqm
RED
07:12 PM on 06/29/2011
Gahhh! Senator Droopy Dawg! Hate that guy!
photo
Summer4Progress
99 and 44/100% Pure Liberal
08:48 PM on 06/29/2011
Jon Stewart's impression of him always makes me burst out laughing, every time he does it lol.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vardi
Hated by the right wing
07:10 PM on 06/29/2011
Yea because that is the right thing to do.............Comon, where are your sense people.....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:07 PM on 06/29/2011
Is it that they don't realize that seniors will be decimated by this, or that they don't care? Coming on the heels of that $700 billion giveaway to the rich, in the history of American politics this is like the dumbest thing that has ever been attempted. Hell, in the history of DUMB it is the dumbest thing ever and it makes Marie Antoinette look like a humanitarian.

I guess they think we all hate our mothers and fathers and aunts and uncles and ourselves. OR they think that as long as they've got Diebold handy, it does not matter what we think.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fwwest
70 year old grandmother
06:49 PM on 06/29/2011
Once again if you want to cut medicare then cut the health insurance for congress.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sherylynne Klein
06:54 PM on 06/29/2011
The voice of reason. It will never sell in Washington.
07:34 PM on 06/29/2011
You'ld be hardpressed to find one member of Congress who couldn't foot the bill for their own healthcare. Considering how much money they pour into their campaigns, they can certainly afford to pay the premiums for private insurance and not have a lifetime government perk.
07:45 AM on 06/30/2011
Meanstest our elected officials for health insurance and for pensions.