The Senate Committee on Finance voted down an amendment from Sen. Ben Nelson (D-FL) Thursday that would have slashed prescription drug prices for low-income seniors.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the measure would have allowed for these low-income seniors to purchase their medication at the Medicaid rate charged by impoverished Americans of all income levels. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has assessed a profit loss of $106 billion during the next decade for pharmaceutical companies if the amendment were implemented in a passed bill.
Florida Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson wanted to use the money to close the Medicare prescription coverage gap. But it would have been on top of $80 billion in reduced fees that the industry already had agreed to.
Committee chairman Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) cited the agreement in voting against the amendment. The amendment was rejected by a 13-10 vote. All of the panel’s Republicans voted against it, as did three Democrats.
It is reasonable to presume why Sen. Baucus would vote against any legislation that would impede the profits of PhRMA. After all, the group has spent millions of dollars endorsing Obamacare, as they would quite enjoy a monopoly on the pharmaceuticals market if a government overhaul of health care occurred. In fact, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) admitted to a backroom PhRMA deal earlier this week, as reported on healthcarehorserace.com. This $106 billion in profit loss for PhRMA would be only a 3 percent revenue drop out of the $3.6 trillion in new profits they stand to gain in the next decade if Obamacare passes.
But, why would the Republicans oppose such a measure if PhRMA has run millions of dollars worth of media buys attacking the GOP’s stance on health care reform? It appears they have provided their own mechanisms for improving seniors’ care.
Republicans sought to bring proposed cuts to privately run Medicare plans, known as Medicare Advantage plans, to the forefront.
The committee voted along party lines to reject an amendment by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) that would have delayed coverage for the uninsured if a million or more people who now have insurance wound up having to pay higher premiums as a result of the legislation.
Mr. Hatch said his amendment was intended to protect seniors who signed up for private insurance plans through Medicare and could lose some benefits as a result of cuts to the commercial plans. About 10 million seniors are now signed up through the private plans, about one-fourth of Medicare recipients. The “Medicare Advantage” plans can offer enhanced benefits because the government pays them more than it costs to care for seniors in traditional Medicare.
Seniors remain a vital voting bloc for both political parties, and as such, many have united to vocalize their opposition to the cuts proposed by the Obama Administration to pay for a sweeping government overhaul of the health care industry. They are known as some of the most “chronic voters,” a term political consultants use to describe the frequency and reliability of a demographic participating in an election.
The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) has previously stood with President Obama, despite the billions in proposed cuts to Medicare, and even sponsored a town hall for him and ran commercials like this one, on the health care issue. After the cancellation of memberships by thousands upon thousands of retirees, the AARP has been forced to backstep and take a “no vote” stance on the matter. They have recently begun running ads that attempt to portray the senior group as being open to bipartisanship, arguing that one side wants the “status quo” and the other wants a “government takeover.”
The conservative seniors group 60 Plus, led by Jim Martin, has long stood for the kind of reforms that make health care cheaper and more accessible to seniors, and thus, have been under-fire by lefitst groups like Media Matters. 60 Plus argues that under Obamacare, seniors would be subject to desires of special interests of groups like PhRMA, which would ultimately compromise their right to choose their physician and the kind of care and coverage they receive.
Hurt most in this charade will be low-income seniors, particularly and ironically, African-American and Hispanic retirees. Cutting Medicare payments will take a dangerous toll on these retirees. You see, 1 in 5 retirees are now enrolled in a Medicare Advantage private plan, including 40% of African-American and 50% of Hispanic seniors.
This government engineered healthcare plan leads to price controls which in turn leads to reduction in services and produces long lines waiting for these reduced services. Rationing then results and with government provided care private coverage will plummet as more and more seek the so call ‘free lunch.’
The government needs to shore up Medicare, not slash payments. Seniors deserve better.
