Tucson Citizen.com
Medicare and More -

More lies about Medicare

by on Apr. 21, 2012, under Health

I was having lunch today with another insurance broker, and she showed me an email she had received that had some frightening information about the future of Medicare….and it had to do with “Obamacare”.  Here is part of the email:

I had one of the most troubling, most disturbing conversations ever with Julie’s sister-in-law, Dr. Suzanne Allen, head of emergency services at the Johnson City Medical Center in Tennessee.

We were discussing the “future” and I asked her had she seen any affects of Obama Care in her work?

“Oh, yes. We are seeing cutbacks throughout the services we provide. For example, we are now having to deal with patients who would normally receive dialysis can no longer be accepted. In the past, there was always automatic approval under Medicare for anyone who needed dialysis — not anymore.” So, what will be their outcome? “They will die soon without dialysis,” she stated.

I assumed this was a bogus story because it sounded a lot like the “death panel” emails that went around in 2010.  So I pulled out my i-pad and googled the subject line of the email. I found plenty of links to stories about this email that is being passed on from uninformed and gullible people to their likewise gullible friends and family.

Factcheck.org had this to say about the story.

The frightening claims in this email about losing control of one’s health care decisions have caused consternation among some of our readership — particularly the fear of losing all health care after age 75. But fear not, this email is bunkum.

The email presents a veneer of authenticity. There is, in fact, a Johnson City Medical Center. It is a not-for-profit center located in Johnson City, Tenn., that serves as “a safety net hospital caring for the uninsured.” And there is a Dr. Suzanne Allen who works in emergency medicine at that center. But that is where any truth to this email ends.

We contacted Ed Herbert, a representative for the Johnson City Medical Center. He confirmed to us that the conversation quoted in the email is fraudulent. According to Herbert, a guest of Dr. Allen’s home created the untrue email to further a political point.

It is sad and pathetic that there are people out there spreading these lies – and frightening seniors. Given that this is the second go-round for these lies, and they have been debunked, it is especially sad that people are still falling for them.  It reminds me of the saying, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me”. Come on, people! Wake up and realize these people are playing you for fools!

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 21st, 2012 at 2:32 pm and is filed under Health. Tags for this post: , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

RSS feed for this post (comments)
  • toughteri

    I do know that Factcheck can’t be trusted completely.  And, I do know that as of this year, Medicare is means-testing recipients; anyone having an income above a certain level (IRS data provided) is now being charged for drug coverage despite coverage of same by their secondary provider.  Translation: those folks (me) are paying for drug coverage TWICE, under this new mean-test reg.

    • Denise_Early

       Means testing for Medicare began under GW Bush. Medicare beneficiaries with incomes above $85,000 for an individual or $170,000 for a couple pay a higher Medicare Part B premium than the $99.90 standard amount. Part D premiums for drug coverage are treated the same way.

      I wrote about how the Part B premium should be $300 last fall. You can find that blog post here: http://tucsoncitizen.com/medicare/2011/11/07/2012-medicare-part-b-premium-99-90-it-should-be-300/

    • tiponeill

      Participation in drug coverage is completely voluntary – no one is required to participate and many don’t.

      You aren’t making sense.

      • toughteri

         Okay Mr. Tip – how’s this for a fact.  Since Jan. 2012, my husband & I are being docked an extra $400 a month for a drug benefit because we exceed the means test according to the SS Adminstrators – this, despite the fact we have a secondary for which we pay booku $$ for the same coverage.  There is no opt-out on this rule.  You pay and shut the f— up.  What boils my oil, is I’m paying for deadbeats who probably never lifted a finger to pay into the system, and for all I know, are gaming it now. For one instance, look at the enormous increase in disability claims lately.  The Obamabot leaches are sucking the system dry. 

        Mr. Smartypants, this is a form of SS Buffeting; an excise tax on our SS payouts that we had no control over.  Is my anger  unreasonable?  Am I making sense to you now?

        • tiponeill

          Not really. It doesn’t make sense to me for you to even subscribe to Medicare Part D at all if you already have another plan that would pay and that you are paying boku $$ for.

  • toughteri

    Denise – I do know about the income brackets you cite, but what is new, is the NEW means-testing for drug benefits.  I do not need a drug benefit from Medicare as I have maintained my own secondary insurance for years.  What I am pointing out is that now, we who fall into that category considered “squeezable” by the government, are being shaken down for even more of our declining income to the benefit of others – lots of others!  Most of them not even in our senior category, the people for whom this entire program was designed in the first place.  Yes, the Obamabots have prevailed in this stealth fashion, and I object!

    • Denise_Early

      The means testing for Part D began in 2011 and was modeled after the Part B means testing which was approved during the GW Bush administration.

      If you have other coverage for your drugs, you do not need to participate in Part D. Part D is voluntary – though they will penalize you if, in the future, you decide to enroll in Part D. Your other coverage must send you a letter each year that states whether or not your plan is “equal to or better than” the standard Part D plan. If your drug plan is “as good as” the standard Part D, you would not be penalized for delaying enrollment in Part D in the future.

      I looked up information on the extra charges for Part D, and the maximum is $70 if a couple is earning over $214,000 per year. You say you are being charged $400, but I think this must be for both Part B and Part D combined.

      I don’t think it is fair to charge different people different prices for
      the same benefits, but Congress decided this was necessary, since the government is paying a huge subsidy to support Medicare Part B and Part D.

      Part D was created under GW Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress, adding over $50 billion to the Medicare budget – and it was not paid for by new taxes or cuts to other programs. I wrote about this last year. Watch the short video that is part of that post: http://tucsoncitizen.com/medicare/2011/07/26/medicares-budget-problems-part-d/

      • toughteri

         Denise, you are correct in pointing out the actual means-test surcharge for part D.  The trouble is, we do NOT subscribe to part D; this is the point I was making.  Because we do not have part D, but are paying for it (means-testing), we are subsidizing the drug program. and god-knows-else. . . see stories on Obama’s $8.3 billion Medicare slush fund.

        As I said, I object!  My household does not fit the profile of Warren Buffet & company – $85,000 annual income does not make one “rich”, but that is the means-test baseline.  With COLA stuck at zero, investment returns stuck at zero, inflation driving living costs through the roof, taxes from every quarter on the increase,etc., etc., I think you can appreciate why those of us who are thought to be “rich”, are so angry.

        • Denise_Early

           How much is being taken out of your Social Security check for Part D, which you say you are not enrolled in?  Are you actually being charged for Part D through your Social Security?  Please give me specifics as I find that hard to believe – and it would be a very good story to write about if you are being charged for something you are not enrolled in, especially since they say that “Part D is voluntary”.

          • toughteri

             Denise – since Jan. 2012, my husband & I are charged $60.00 or $30.00 each for drug benefits. We are not enrolled in Part D. Upon checking into this new charge, we were told that there was no opt-out and the charge will probably rise in future, and IS based on means-tests.

            I realize I was using a $400 figure in other posts: this actually is close to the new monthly Medicare charges, as of 1/2012: our new monthly deduction, with this brand new $60.00 charge, is $460.00 for the two of us.

            Again, we are NOT in part D; we have carried & continue to carry private insurance (secondary) for which we also pay hefty monthly premiums.

            As I said, in my view, we are subsidizing – Buffet style – drug benefits for other Medicare/Medicaide recipients, many who probably NEVER paid a thin-dime into the program. 

            We are already government slaves!!

            • Denise_Early

               That sure doesn’t sound right for you to pay for something you don’t use.  Are you enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan? Or do you have a Medicare supplement? Or is your secondary insurance through a retirement plan? I’m trying to get a thorough picture of your situation so I can ask the right questions to contacts I have.

              • toughteri

                Okay, Denise, I will restate the fact that I do not have a Medicare supplement,  & I do not subscribe to Medicare Part D, the Advantage Drug program.  In total cost, both of us are deducted $460.00 per month from our S.S. payouts for Medicare coverage – insurance (no drug coverage); and we would rather not have or have to pay for this insurance, but are mandated to do. Breaking this cost down it works out to $200.00 apiece for Medicare and $30.00 apiece for drugs, which we do not need or use.

                Remember, we have been “means tested” for the priviledge of this extortion; that is how this entire, convoluted thread got going!

                My secondary insurance is thru my husbands retirement package, and is a plan we have participated in for years.  If Obamacare remains law, I doubt we will be able to maintain this arrangement.  Currently, we are without a physician for the second time in 4-yrs.  One doc cut back his practice to a conseirge model and the other was let go from his health care group and is now a hospitalist.  I have grave doubts that we will find good primary care oversight in this market.  The few physicians I have called, are not taking new patients. Amen

                • Denise_Early

                   I have sent an email about your situation to Medicarerights.org .

                  But you may be paying the income-related premium adjustment because your husband’s employer has been receiving a subsidy from Medicare for its retirees. I think this program has ended or been reduced, so there is a possibility that many employers will discontinue drug coverage for their retirement plans. But remember, they have been getting money from the government (yikes!) to help the company and its retirees.

          • tiponeill

            I don’t believe any money is taken out of Social Security for anything except for Medicare “A”.
            I know I have to contract and pay separately for B and D.

          • tiponeill

            I think I’m beginning to understand the complaint – it looks as if there is a small deduction made for prescription plans due to means testing.

            I’m not really that sympathetic, however, to a couple making more than $400,000 a year being required to pay 60 bucks a month :)

            http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/medicare-is-means-tested/ 

    • Denise_Early

      I found a memo regarding your situation, and here is the pertinent paragraph. You are in a Part D plan, though it is offered through an employer retirement package.

      Part D-IRMAA and Employer Plans

      As we have implemented the Part D-IRMAA requirements, it has come to our attention that there appears to be some confusion regarding the applicability of the Part D-IRMAA to beneficiaries enrolled in employer group health plans (EGHPs) that offer drug coverage. Some employer groups are under the
      mistaken impression that beneficiaries enrolled in EGHPs do not have to pay the Part D-IRMAA and may be discouraging members from paying any assessed amounts.

      We want to clarify that the Part D-IRMAA is assessed to
      all beneficiaries with Part D coverage whose incomes exceed the above stated threshold amount. This includes individuals in stand­alone prescription drug plans, Medicare Advantage plans with prescription drug coverage, as well as EGHPs [employer group health plans] providing Part D coverage.

  • toughteri

    Denise – why don’t you publish the ENTIRE post to me; your creative editing tells only a partial story on this thread.

    And, you have the audacity to call Jesse Kelly a liar?  

    • tiponeill
    • Denise_Early

       The link to the Washington Post story is provided in my post – which is not the post above these comments, but the more recent post with Jesse Kelly in the title.

      I saw a Jesse Kelly add this morning where some old guy pleads with Jesse, “Please don’t let them cut my Medicare”.  The old guy should have been saying, “Jesse, please don’t you cut my Medicare”.  Jesse has changed his tune from 2010.  I guess I could call him a flip flopper on this one.

      Jesse Kelly and Republicans are misrepresenting the “cuts” to Medicare.  These are not benefit cuts but policy changes that will reduce spending. There are many different policies in the Affordable Care Act that will reduce spending while not cutting benefits to seniors.  Republicans include them in the Ryan budget but then turn around and try to fools seniors into believing that Obamacare and Democrats are “cutting their benefits”. That is a lie.

«
»