Kanjorski Voted Against Medicare Part D

On June 27, 2003 at 2:33A.M. Congressman Paul Kanjorski casted a NO vote for the Medicare Part D benefit to SENIORS. In fact 195 Democrats voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization Act on that day. The bill passed by a 216-215 vote. If one more Democrat thought like Paul Kanjorski that day seniors would not have a Medicare Part D benefit paying for their prescriptions.

I heard Kanjorski on Steve Corbett's show this afternoon and couldn't believe he called Lou Barletta a liar on the facts about Social Security.

Kanjorski said the Republicans voted against Social Security. Here a link to the facts from the Social Security Administration that Paul Kanjorski lied. Out of 100 Republicans in the House only 15 voted against Social Security Act of 1935. In fact the Democrats had the same amount vote against it. Twenty Democrats and only four Repbulicans did not vote.

Paul Kanjorski has made a concerted effort to mischaracterize Barletta's position with respect to Social Security. His scare tactics are not holding water or passing the smell test.

How Eachus and Rendell Failed Seniors In Pennsylvania

Here's a link to an article where Representative Eachus makes the claim that he is introducing legislation in 2005 to add 500,000 seniors to the PACE and PACENET programs. In that article Eachus massages the seniors and makes them believe he is going to add 500,000 seniors to PACE/PACENET through the inclusion of Medicare Part D legislation.

In 2006 the House passes legislation and Rendell makes the claim Pennsylvania will add 120,000 seniors to the program. Here is a sounbite from the House Democratic Caucus website touting the 120,000 additional seniors claim.

In 2009 Eachus and Rendell proffer to the seniors they wants to add 30,000 more.

In the end the mass inclusion of seniors into the PACE/PACENET progam never happened. According to this chart from the 2008 PACE annual report you will see that enrollment remained steady through 2008.

Three times seniors were promised a benefit that never materialized. While House Majority Leader Eachus and Governor Rendell were enjoying a robust prescription program seniors were forced to pay for their medications in the Medicare Part D donut hole when inclusion in the PACE/PACENET program would have prevented that added expense.

Is this political gamesmanship and should we allow this practice to be politics as usual? Why should we allow politicians to decieve the public?

Something has to change in Harrisburg. We know the legislature is not going to change unless the public is educated and forces them to. If the voters remove the incumbents who are abusing the system it will send a clear message that it is not politics as usual.

Rendell is laughing as Eachus looks on. Maybe the joke will be on them come November. Enough of their "crying wolf".

More Distortions From AARP

While watching the Steelers vs. Tennessee I watched a commercial by AARP. There was a line in it that stated "it will eliminate billions of dollars in waste by lowering drug prices." AARP I want to dispell your myth. Look at this report from the Kaiser Family Foundation dated November 2008.

Medicare Part D premiums for seniors have climbed an average of 43.8%( $25.93 vs. $37.29) since only 2006. AARP plans have increased between 41% and 99%.. I thought Obama was against special interest groups and lobbyists. I guess not when it comes to promoting mistruths.

AARP MedicareRx Preferred 2,745,26616.6% $26.31 $32.07 $37.03 16% 41%

AARP MedicareRx Saver 829,5855.0% $14.43** $26.57 $28.69 8% 99%

Overall, from 2006 to 2009, about half of those PDP enrollees who have not switched plans since first enrolling in 2006 will end up facing a premium increase of at least 50 percent across the four-year period.

Obama, you are going to keep a $900 billion dollar cost to your program. Prove it. I just proved the government can't control costs. Four years a 50% increase. Hold your head in shame.

BTW, if you read the Exhibit 4 on that report Humana Standard increased by 329% in four years. Seniors, buyer beware.

Look at Community CCRX Basic on that chart. It actually decreased premiums over 4 years by 3%. Want to know why? CCRX was started by pharmacists, not insurance companies. Obama, are you listening? Why are the professionals left out of the central plan to take care of America? Is it because you really aren't committed to eliminating lobbyists dollars from reaching your cronies like Kanjorski???

Seniors, what has been the average increase in our Social Security check since 2006?

A Democrat With A Sensible Republican Approach To Healthcare

In a perfect world there would be perfect solutions. Coming from the healthcare world it is known that 40 different healthcare systems exist on this planet. Not one of them is perfect.

In a very interesting piece appearing in the Wall Street Journal today Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee writes a great article about a solution he orchestrated in his state in an attempt to address the problem of the uninsured.

He pens the following: What I realized was this: Everyone proposing solutions or criticizing unfairness was doing so from the comfortable vantage point of having good health insurance. While we work to build a better system, wouldn't it also be responsible to find a way to get something -- not a perfect solution, not even a long-term solution -- into the hands of the more than 46 million uninsured Americans who don't share our good fortune?

We need a national health-insurance solution, but isn't it sensible in the meantime to make sure everyone has a basic health plan before we give a few more people a perfect but expensive one?

CoverTN, which began in 2006, is a health-insurance plan for those who are self-employed, or who work for small businesses that can't afford a traditional policy.

It is not free health care. Rather it is a limited plan with shared costs. In devising this plan, we didn't start out the usual way -- by defining what benefits we wanted -- but instead set how much we wanted to pay. And then we began a competitive-bidding process to see how much health care we could buy. We initially set the amount we would pay at an average of $150 a month, and split the responsibility for that premium three ways. The company would be responsible for $50, the individual for $50, and the state for the final $50.

The bidding was vigorous. It was ultimately won by BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee with a benefit package that meets a great many -- not all -- of the real needs of the uninsured at a cost far below conventional plans.

At these premium levels -- less than half of what a conventional plan might cost -- the benefits are limited. But the benefit structure is also different than in a conventional plan. Most limited plans achieve their savings with high front-end deductibles, requiring a person to spend often thousands of dollars out-of-pocket before benefits kick in. But when we asked our customers -- uninsured Tennesseans -- what they actually wanted, we found that they were most interested in some help with the more common things; a doctor's visit, prescriptions, a short hospital stay.

CoverTN emphasizes covering these front-end costs. It features free checkups, free mammograms and $15 doctor visits without deductibles, for example. And it achieves its savings on the back end, with relatively low limits on hospital stays and an overall $25,000 benefit limit in any one year. It does not cover truly catastrophic events.

This makes medical sense. Good access to a doctor and a drugstore when you first have a problem can avoid a lot of cost and heartache later.

Tom Daschel's writings so far are not in this direction. He wants to create the same type of bureaucracy known as Medicare and Medicare Part D. Ask any senior who navigated the Medicare Part D maze about the experience. Each and every year seniors have to search for a plan. It is an exercise in futility.

Obama would do himself a favor if he took a good look at this Tennessee plan. So would the Democrats in Pennsylvania. One last quote from Bredesen, "This fall we added some benefits: The number of primary care visits doubled from six to 12, for example. Best of all, we added them without increasing rates. When did you last hear of a health-insurance plan whose annual update was a benefit improvement but no rate increase?"

Another fair and balanced piece.

Kanjorski Voted Against Medicare Part D For Seniors

If you listen to the "Affordable Medicine" commmercial aired by Paul Kanjorski he states that a Bush law prevented the government from negotiating the price(rebate) of prescription medications from drug manufacturers for Medicare Part D plans.



First Truth: Yes the law did that.

First Part Left Out: Prices are negotiated. The companies that are marketing the Medicare Part D plans like BlueRX, AARP, Community Care RX, Amerihealth, etc. negotiate rebates from the drug manufacturers on those medications. If the government negotiated the price(rebate) not all medications would be covered by the program. Manufacturers give rebates because a plan choses one medication over another. For example, Prilosec, Prevacid, Protonix, Nexium, and Aciphex all work the same way. The makers of Prevacid would give a rebate if the plan chooses their medication over the rest. That would mean patients who get relief from Aciphex or Nexium would have to pay a higher or full price if they wanted the medication because of the rebate agreement on Prevacid.

Second False Statement: The ad goes on to state that "Kanjorski voted so seniors could buy affordable medicine."

Second Truth: Folks, Paul Kanjorski VOTED AGAINST Medicare Part D for seniors. You see, the same law that Kanjorski says prevented negotiation is the law that created Medicare Part D for seniors. It was called the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003(MMA). The MMA passed by a vote of 216 to 215. If one other Congressman voted like Paul Kanjorski seniors probably would not have a benefit today.

If you read this press release from his office he admits voting against Medicare Part D. " Congressman Kanjorski voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug bill in 2003."

His vote against Medicare Part D also meant that the PACE program in Pennsylvania would not be saving money because the PACE + Medicare Part D legislation would be a non-event.

Now I understand why the person did the Dueling Kanjo commercial. Paul Kanjorski, why would you mislead seniors about your vote against their prescription benefit?