Remember Richard Foster?
He’s the CMS official whose report on Part D costs were “suppressed” during the debate over the MMA. That was in 2003 – when he was a “whistle-blowing darling of Congressional Democrats.
That was then. This is now. Robert Pear reports that:
In signing the measure last month, President Obama said it would “bring down health care costs for families and businesses and governments.” But Mr. Foster said, “Overall national health expenditures under the health reform act would increase by a total of $311 billion,” or nine-tenths of 1 percent, compared with the amounts that would otherwise be spent from 2010 to 2019.
In his report, sent to Congress Thursday night, Mr. Foster said that some provisions of the law, including cutbacks in Medicare payments to health care providers and a tax on high-cost employer-sponsored coverage, would slow the growth of health costs. But he said the savings “would be more than offset through 2019 by the higher health expenditures resulting from the coverage expansions.”
Mr. Foster says the law will save Medicare more than $500 billion in the coming decade and will postpone exhaustion of the Medicare trust fund by 12 years, so it would run out of money in 2029, rather than 2017. In addition, he said, the reduction in the growth of Medicare will lead to lower premiums and co-payments for Medicare beneficiaries.
But, Mr. Foster said, these savings assume that the law will be carried out as written, and that may be an unrealistic assumption. The cuts, he said, “could become unsustainable” because they may drive some hospitals and nursing homes into the red, “possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries.”
Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said that fear was unfounded.
“Unfounded.” That’s the counter-argument? Seems so. The White House is going to have to do better – a lot better. And remember – this story is from the pages of the New York Times – not the Washington Times.
The complete New York Times Story can be found here.
This will certainly add fuel to the fire of those calling for repeal.
But rather than repeal we should be talking “appeal” – like in appealing to the better angels of our nature. In other words -- being for something. And that something is called "the truth."
Let’s start a movement – and let’s call it “Appealism.” Here’s how it works: Rather than calling for “repeal” (which is a negative thing) let’s be for “appeal.” That means appealing to common sense and un-fuzzy math. It means calling a spade a spade and (most importantly) being honest.
I know – how naïve. But …
Even if the GOP realizes its most optimistic November projections, the likelihood for legislative repeal is still, well, a highly optimistic projection. And, even all the stars and planets align in an elephant-friendly fashion, there’s no scenario that provides for a two-thirds majority over-ride of a 100% predictable Presidential veto.
Hence, the need for “appeal.” The Foster analysis is a good place to start because the finish line isn’t repeal; it’s controlling the rule-making process. And that’s where “appeal” comes in.
Appealing to reality. Appealing to facts and figures rather than rhetoric and double-sided political coin of bribes and threats.
Appealism. Yes we can.
