Published: November 26, 2009 11:45 pm      

GUEST COLUMN: Rep. Hill’s misleading argument

In a Nov. 17 article appearing on these pages, Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind., who recently voted in favor of the House health care reform bill, attacked those who have criticized him for that vote on the grounds that the bill’s provisions would seriously curtail the Medicare benefits upon which many of his constituents rely.

Hill once more denied that the bill posed any threat to Medicare beneficiaries. He cited the oft-heard Pollyanna-ish promise that $500 billion could be saved from Medicare expenses by ridding the program of “fraud, waste and abuse.” How many times has Congress promised to reduce or eliminate fraud, waste and abuse? How many times has it delivered on that promise? How dense does Rep. Hill, viewing us from the mountaintop inside “the Beltway,” believe us to be?

Those promised savings will inevitably evaporate into thin air, as they have countless times in the past. And we Medicare beneficiaries will be stuck with the $500 billion reduction in benefits. Which, common sense informs us, will bring about a decline in the number of doctors, less access to certain procedures and expensive life-saving drugs, long waiting lines and rationing of care. Is this argument of mine dishonest scare-mongering, a right-wing inspired attempt to drive people away from a wonderfully beneficent government program that will cure all the ills of our present health care system? If it is, then why did the London Times recently report (as noted by the Wall Street Journal on Oct. 19) that the National Health Service, the British government agency that administers its socialized health care program, has spent some 1.5 million pounds (roughly $2.5 million) to secure private health care services (at taxpayers‚ expense) for more than 3,000 of its staff, including doctors and nurses, to allow them to avoid the long queues at the clinics and hospitals where they work?

While ignoring the effect that this $500 billion cut will have on many of his constituents, Hill attempts to cite the endorsements of the AARP and the American Medical Association as persuasive evidence that the bill will actually benefit Medicare beneficiaries. In truth, however, both organizations have endorsed the bill in return for direct financial benefits.

In the case of the AMA, the benefits will accrue to its members, for the AMA has extracted a promise that providers will be insulated from cumulative automatic annual reductions in the Medicare payment schedules for 10 years. If not specifically deferred by Congressional action, this provision, enacted in 1997, would slash doctors’ fees by 21.5 percent beginning in January, and by additional amounts in each succeeding year.

In the case of the AARP, however, the organization itself stands to profit hugely under the health care reform bill, if it should become law. Although originally an advocacy group speaking for seniors, the AARP in recent years has become primarily a marketer of insurance through its subsidiary insurance company. As such, it has sold and profited greatly from its Medicare Supplement insurance policies, which are high cost, private policies that supplement

the basic Medicare coverage. But the Medicare Advantage policies, enabled by a Bush Administration enactment, offer better coverage, less expensive

premiums and additional benefits, and have attracted more than 10 million seniors, thus significantly reducing the demand for its more profitable

Medicare Supplement policies. While the AARP currently markets both types of policies, it derives far more profit from its Medicare Supplement policies than from the Medicare Advantage market.

The Administration proposes to fund the reform in part by cutting funding to the Medicare Advantage program by $177 billion. That would mean a 20 percent reduction in government funding, which would effectively kill each and every Medicare Advantage policy in existence. An estimated 10.2 million seniors would suddenly lose their entire health insurance coverage, and have to re-enroll in Medicare and then select and purchase some sort of Medicare Supplement coverage.

The financial windfall that AARP would thereby enjoy is potentially huge, and provides the incentive behind the AARP endorsement of the bill. It has nothing to do with potential benefits seniors might enjoy from the bill. In fact, the bill’s enactment would be quite detrimental to those seniors currently covered by Medicare Advantage plans. AARP is guilty of extreme cynicism and hypocrisy by endorsing this bill that will enrich it further at the direct expense of those seniors whose interests it purports to serve.

In my view, Rep. Hill is equally guilty in attempting to justify his vote in favor of the bill by relying on this endorsement which he has to know is a hypocritical facade.

— Thomas W. Sinex is a Sellersburg resident