The way they are being handled not the actual objectives.

Oh Man...this opinionated writer used all the buzz word except "death panels" -- we have ObamaCare, government run, health care rationing, making your medical decisions for you.....blah blah blah.

Come on, Merc.....give us something new and original, that pretends, at least to some degree, to actually cite facts.

Which parts do you think are not factual.

The Independent Medicare Commission proposed in the Senate bill is charged with developing cost-containment recommendations for Medicare to curb the anticipated exploding growth with the baby boomers so that it remains sustainable.

That might include more comprehensive and coordinated research on the cost-effectiveness of various treatments as well as specific cost cutting measures to providers.

It will not establish clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment. It will not adversely impact essential medical services to seniors.

There is specific language in the bill:

The proposals (of the Commission) shall not include any recommendation to ration health care....or Medicare beneficiary premiums....or increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria....

Another scare tactic...like the death panels.

But Medicare already does this. Why do you think it is going to change. None of that language prevents them from doing what they already do. They do establish payments by procedure, which they low ball, and they dictate coverage by only paying for certain procedures in certain enviroments but not in others. And they dictate what is covered and what is not. Nothing will really change in that matter. They do it every single day. Only now thay are going to add more to the rolls. I don't think you are familiar with how billing works. What they hell do you think "developing cost-containment recommendations for Medicare" means?

I agree. For the most part, it is nothing new...so why the new scare?

Why didnt the WSJ writer acknowledge that it is "nothing new" rather than characterize it as "ObamaCare rationing...government making health care decisions...."?

The biggest change will drastically cut payments to MA providers, who had agreed to hold costs to 5% of Medicare schedules and are now at 15+%.

IT might mean that Medicare wont continue to pay MA private providers to subsidize grandma's membership in a health club.

I agree that neither bill "fixes" the Medicare problem.....but they do address some of the waste and fraud...particularly to MA providers that have been overcharging for years.

On an entirely different level, we need long-term entitlement reform.....Social Security and Medicare and it wont be easy....but IMO, those issues should be handled separately.

Oh I never read it as a "scare". If it is nothing new why are you trying to say it is not happening and will not happen in the future. It is rationing. We have had rationing of healthcare since the insurance industry was invented. So why are you saying it is not? As go Medicare payments so go many private insurance companies. And now the government will add millions of people the rolls.

Why choose one tiny aspect of Medicare Advantage? That is right out of the liberal talking points. Why don't you want to support preventive care and activities that keep seniors healthy?

I support preventive care...I dont support lining the pockets of MA providers with excessive profits. The savings is not tiny and other providers will fill the niche at lower costs.

I also support equity. Why should wealthier retirees get free or discounted gym memberships through MA while those might need it more are excluded because of more limited income.

Who says they are wealthier? Where is the data that shows that seniors who use Medicare Advanatge to support health maintenance at a gym are all wealthy?

BOHICA! Taxes are going to go up and the pass through of fees will be felt by the consumer.

Additional 0.5% hospital insurance tax on wages
in excess of $200,000 ($250,000 joint)

40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of
$8,500/$23,000 indexed for inflation by CPI-U
plus 1% and increased thresholds for over age 55
retirees or certain high-risk professions; levied at
insurer level; employer aggregates and issues
information return for insurers indicating amount
subject to the excise tax; nondeductible; high 17
state transition relief

http://www.jct.gov/publications.html...rtdown&id=3635

Reid has decided to raise the Medicare payroll tax on individuals making more than $106,800

And this whole tax on cosmetic surgery. Does this not bother anyone? Talk about a attacking a narrow group of people. Do they think that only rich people get cosmetic surgery? Anybody here ever have their teeth whitened? Is it a value statement about people who get cosmetic surgery? The effective date is 1 Jan 2010.

Statistics concerning cosmetic surgery:

http://www.cosmeticplasticsurgerysta...tatistics.html

The Full Report from the CBO November 18, 2009 about the impact and details of the Senate Bill

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog...r_11_18_09.pdf

Nope, doesn't bother me. In-office teeth whitening cost: $650 per visit (on average) nationwide. 5% tax on that amount = $32.50.

It's just another luxury tax. It's true that it's not only rich people who get cosmetic surgery--which ought to make you happy, since you're always upset about the idea that rich people would be unfairly taxed more than others. You can't seem to reconcile whether you want everything to be fair for everyone, or for government to stop targeting us average middle-class folks. If you think there should be no taxes for anything, just come out and say it.