Don't get me wrong, I'm good with "war savings" as long as it's not in the form of vet benefits.

I am looking toward the earliest possible time we can run a Democrat who isn't embarassed to call him/herself one and have a chance at winning.  

There is a difference between being a Dem and being a liberal.  For some, change can only be done by being a team member and hoping to get on a conference call (a place at the table is too much in this day and age) and for others, it's a focus on policy.  

And if some of you choose not to participate in those elections, for whatever your reasons, then you've made a decision to accept whatever outcome which comes to pass.

As I also concede that my automatic D vote has helped to bring our current straits into existence.  This country has yet to see it's darkest days.  And they are coming no matter who wins the presidency next year.

"The hope is that exposing seniors to higher out-of-pocket costs would make them a little more wary of getting the actual care that they have paid to get."

Also, seniors please be aware that you will sacrifice first dollar coverage so that corporations and the mega rich can have lower marginal tax rates.

Changes to Medicaid

The administration would also modify the scheme for financing Medicaid, calling upon states to kick in a bit more money. The danger of the "blended rate," as it's known, is that states would react by weakening the program. It's the reason Medicaid advocates (like yours truly) were none too happy when this appeared in a previous administration proposals. But this latest version is much smaller, accounting for just $15 billion in savings - an amount that seems unlikely to do much damage.

When a physician says you need an MRI because they need more information, does one say....too expensive. Why can't people have the imaging they need? If it is 1500 dollars, and you can't afford it and Medicare has to approve it, well...

I have seen this system abused but not by patients, by physicians.  Someone should do a research study to determine how many physicians have a financial investment in Imaging centers and how many of the patients are referred there.

Yes--Lieberman said the elderly were using too many services. He wanted to make everyone pay far more up front before ANY Medicare payments would kick in. He wants the elderly to pay more for care so they will use less of it.

And hurry up and die...?

Trudy Lieberman wrote about this in the Columbia Journalism Review in July:  Joe Lieberman and his Medicare Gift.

The plan is deceptively referred to as "Medicare benefit simplification," says Joe Baker, who heads the Medicare Rights Center, a New York City advocacy group. "What they are proposing is not simplifying the benefit to help consumers but to save the federal government money, and they do that by increasing costs to consumers and providing a disincentive to use medical services." Lieberman et al want to create a single deductible of $550 for all Medicare services, replacing the separate hospital deductible--this year $1132--and the separate medical deductible of $162. They also want to cap out-of-pocket spending for people with low to middling incomes at $7500.

Those with higher incomes would have to pay more out-of-pocket in a further effort to means-test the program. There's already some means testing in Medicare, but Lieberman's proposal would add more. For example, under his plan, people with an income of $85,000 would have to pay $12,500 out-of-pocket, or about 15 percent of their income before collecting benefits. Experts have long feared that as those with higher incomes pay more, they will lose their support for the program and opt out for private market coverage--thus weakening Medicare's risk pool, which makes it possible to insure sick people in their old age.

Baker says a lower, combined deductible is not a good idea. It would raise out-of-pocket costs for millions of beneficiaries who don't use hospital services during the year. But nearly all seniors go to the doctor, often several times a year, and Lieberman's plan would require them to pay a $550 deductible instead of the $162 deductible they pay now for physician services. Under current law, they also pay 20 percent of the bills for doctor services, but Medigap policies, the popular ones at least, cover that amount.

That brings up another goal of Lieberman's plan--to reduce the amount of coverage Medigap insurance can provide. His plan would forbid Medigap policies, which are owned by some ten million seniors, from paying that deductible. All Medigap policies now cover the hospital deductible, and two of them--Plans F and C--cover the medical deductible. Two-thirds of seniors who have Medigaps buy these plans because they want to reduce their risk of out-of-pocket expenses. Over the last few years, under the guise of consumer choice, Congress has authorized insurers to sell new Medigap plans that cost less but don't cover as many of the holes. Guess what? Older people don't seem to buy them. "Seniors are very risk averse," says Bonnie Burns, a policy specialist with California Health Advocates.

It's worth noting that Congress also pulled a fast one during the health reform debate. It slipped into the law a provision that will make seniors who buy Plans C and F assume more costs for their medical services. The law calls on the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to draft rules that would make seniors who choose Plans C and F pay a greater percentage of the Part B coinsurance. So, for example, instead of policies paying the entire 20 percent coinsurance as they now do, they may cover only a fraction of it. Campaign Desk has repeatedly noted that the pols haven't been eager to promote this, but there has been little press interest, too.

Under Lieberman's bill, Medigap policies could cover only half of a senior's out-of-pocket costs up to the $7500. In other words, they would have to pay $3750 right off the bat before any insurance would be allowed to kick in. And if they have an existing Medigap plan that does pay those costs, the government would slap them with an excise tax. One couple I know now pays $3720 for two Medigap policies that covers each of them and pays for everything. They would have to pay the tax, drop their policies, and each cough up the first $3750 to pay expenses, plus a premium for the new policy and a higher Medicare premium for Part B, which covers doctor services and hospital outpatient care. Lieberman's plan would raise that, too.

Making people pay a lot more is precisely what Lieberman and other pols want. He cites studies showing that when people have to pay more for their care, they will use less of it [D'uh!!!], and claims his proposal will reduce the debt and "save more than $600 billion over 10 years." In his press release he says: "We can only save Medicare if we change it. Our plan contains some strong medicine but that's what it will take to keep Medicare alive."

The devil is in the details....

Do not trust anything Obama says which leaves wiggle room or has weasel terms.