I believe your staff-report is incorrect; if anything, the brief-ad is understated.

“The ad misleadingly claims that insurance premiums will rise by an average of $2,100 under the new health care law, but the government report cited says increases will come because more family members will have access to insurance under the law.”

REGARDLESS of the reason(s) that may be spun-out, the premiums will indeed rise dramatically!

“The ad also misleadingly claims that 850,000 seniors in the Keystone State could ‘lose their Medicare plan,’ lumping the privately administered Medicare Advantage plans that some seniors could eventually exit in favor of traditional Medicare.”

REGARDLESS of the characteristic(s) of the Medicare-recipient’s current plan, it will indeed be lost/more-expensive/whatever (but not unchanged) due to ObamaCare.

There is absolutely NOTHING that is conceptually/objectively misleading about this ad; ObamaCare has already caused premium upticks (for benefits that are necessarily bloated by new/myriad mandates that individuals may not need/want) and ObamaCare has already caused Seniors to have to reassess their fundamental insurance coverage plans.

Documentation abounds, for example:

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2010/08/more-than-3m-seniors-may-have-to-switch-drug-plans.php

More than 3M seniors may have to switch drug plans
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar August 25, 2010 7:46 AM

Bookmark and Share

WASHINGTON (AP) – A plan by Medicare to try to make it simpler for consumers to pick drug coverage could force 3 million seniors to switch plans next year whether they like it or not, says an independent analysis.

That risks undercutting President Barack Obama’s promise that people can keep their health plans if they like them.

And it could be an unwelcome surprise for many seniors who hadn’t intended to make a change during Medicare’s open enrollment season this fall.

The analysis by Avalere Health, a leading private research firm, estimated that more than 3 million beneficiaries will see their prescription plan eliminated as part of a new effort by Medicare to winnow down duplicative coverage and offer consumers more meaningful choices.

Seniors would not lose coverage, but they could see changes in their premiums and copayments.

Medicare officials dismissed the Avalere estimate without offering their own number. “Anybody who is producing that kind of analysis is simply guessing,” said Jonathan Blum, deputy administrator for Medicare.

But Bonnie Washington, a senior analyst with Avalere, said the company’s analysis used Medicare’s specifications.

For example, Medicare has already notified insurers they will no longer be able to offer more than one “basic” drug plan in any given location. Several major prescription plans, including CVS-Caremark and AARP, offered two basic options throughout the country this year, Washington said. Eliminating that particular form of duplication among the top plans would force 2.75 million beneficiaries to find new coverage, according to Avalere’s estimate.

When other changes are taken into account, as many as 3.7 million Medicare recipients may have to switch, the analysis concluded. That amounts to about 20 percent of the 17.5 million enrolled in stand-alone drug plans.

Avalere serves industry and government clients with in-depth research on Medicare and Medicaid. The company’s president was a health care budget analyst in the Clinton White House.

Former Medicare administrator Leslie Norwalk said the change might make things easier for people signing up for Medicare but harder for those already in the program.

“If you’re in a plan that you like and you have to change it, it will be disruptive,” said Norwalk, acting administrator under President George W. Bush. “It depends on how (Medicare) handles it to try to make it as seamless as possible.”

Reducing the number of Medicare drug plans has long been a goal for consumer advocates. This year, nearly 1,600 plans offered a dizzying range of options, many of which were not significantly different.

But Medicare is going ahead with the consolidation in a hard-fought election year. Republicans have barraged seniors with charges that Obama and the Democrats raided the program to expand coverage for younger generations under the health care overhaul. Obama’s promise that people can keep health plans they like was made in the context of that broader debate, but the president has repeatedly assured seniors their Medicare benefits are safe.

“Some opponents of the (health care) law may say that this is taking away choices, but we have heard from our members for years that the (drug coverage) options can be confusing,” said Nora Super, AARP’s top health care lobbyist. The seniors lobby supports the change. AARP’s public policy branch is separate from its business side, which sponsors Medicare and other insurance plans.

Medicare official Blum said the agency is working with insurers to keep disruptions to a minimum. For example, seniors could be automatically reassigned to a comparable plan offered by their insurance company. Premiums may not necessarily be any higher, Medicare officials said.

“We are not reducing the number of (insurers). We are not reducing the number of quality plans,” said Blum, adding that having fewer, more distinct choices will benefit seniors. “That puts beneficiaries in a stronger, rather than weaker position.”

Besides eliminating duplicative basic coverage, insurers that offer more than one enhanced coverage plan will have to show they are clearly different.

Medicare is expected to release its list of drug plans for 2011 late next month. Instead of 40 or more choices in each state, seniors may have around 30 plans to pick from.

Read more: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2010/08/more-than-3m-seniors-may-have-to-switch-drug-plans.php#ixzz0xd0wQgKh

Fear & smear…it’s all they’ve got.

Oh, right – fear, smear & the endless prose of Dr. Robert B. Skarloff, MD.

…plus the unrefuted FACTS!

Dr. Sklaroff,

The new health care law will phase in a provision requiring health insurance companies to spend at least 85% of their income on patient care, as opposed to profit, administrative costs, $10 Million CEO salaries, etc. That should help keep premiums down.

Also, how did you write the “ObamaCare has already caused premium upticks” without writing “lol” after it? Insurance premiums were going up every year before this law passed. Now all the sudden you’re going to blame the law? Don’t treat this blog’s readers like we’re idiots. If you’re going to carry water for those poor poor insurance companies that “must” raise premiums despite the millions of new customers this law will give them when it’s fully in effect, you could at least be honest about the fact that those premiums were going to go up REGARDLESS.

As for seniors, the Medicare trustees recently reported that as a result of the new law the Medicare Trust Fund’s solvency has been exteded by 12 years. This is true at the same time that the law closes the “doughnut hole” in drug coverage, eliminated co-pays for preventative services and improves traditional Medicare in lots of other ways. From where I sit, that’s a pretty good trade off if a few seniors have to give up their silver sneakers.

The ad talks about $500 billion in cuts. Is that $50 billion a year, for 10 years? And wasn’t that due to some restructuring to get rid of waste and abuse?

I think all ads should be required to identify budget numbers in a standard “per year” unit.

The use of the word “lose” is improper as it’s really about “changing” their Medicare plan.

However, the overall theme of the government spending lots of money is what the GOP is pushing this year. The specifics are irrelevant. The GOP touts the big deficit, but not the trillions they are responsible for. These ads (and this election) is geared to stir up the uninformed and easily misled (AKA the GOP base).

BTW, what’s with the chairs with cloths over them?

NEWS UPDATE:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

The FiveThirtyEight site (which is now hosted by the NY Times) has just updated it’s Senate predictions.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate/pennsylvania

Previously, they had PA with a 62% chance of switching to REP. The NEW update has the chance at 88% for the party switch. Their projection is 53% Toomey 45% Sestak.
That’s not a POLL, that’s their mathematical projection based on recent polls and trends.
They do tend to rely more heavily on Rasmussen (because it’s most recent).

Toomey and the GOP must be worried…calling out Rove and his goons to battle the Dems here in PA…what a bunch of classless, fear-mongering clowns the GOP has become…

To: Adam
Re: Ad

First of all, the LARGE increases [reported throughout the media, for months] are far greater than the norm, and trying to suppress salaries won’t forestall them; ObamaCare is but an intro to single-payer, if any Insurer protests (as is occurring in Massachusetts).

And, while you’re at it, note the nexus between the “Death Committees” and the Avastin denial.

Second of all, Obama forced CHANGES that REDUCE benefits and INCREASE costs on Medicare recipients, violating repeated-promises; spin it any way you wish to introduce “discretion” and adjudge the trade-off any way you wish to cover-up the “Three Card Monte” game…and you still cannot deny the gross, premeditated mendacity.

And, while you’re at it, note the ObamaCare government-written auditor’s report which, in an unprecedented addendum, asks that the reader discount the entire body of work because the assumptions mandated therein are viewed (in a disinterested fashion) as being “unsustainable.”

Robert-
I defy you to find a report from the government’s auditor that contains the word “ObamaCare”.

The bottom line is that the insurance companies have been shafting consumers by going out of their way to deny coverage to people who paid premiums in good faith. Dropping them once they got sick was wrong. The companies were also spending over 10% of their revenue on claims-denial activities.

The idea that it was working, or inexpensive before, is ridiculous. Also, a lot of bankruptcies and foreclosures have been the results of medical bills not covered (or dropping) by insurance carriers. Those are the REAL death panels.

I’m with Bruce Bailey on this one. Sestak is clearly the better candidate and, if anything, too conservative for PA…but that might help him this year. He will win easily, by at least 10%. There is no way a rightwing racist homophobe like Toomey can win in a liberal state like PA. This isn’t some hillbilly neocon state like West Virginia. Democrats always win here.

As a Health Insurance porfessional I can tell you that most health insurance companies will be forced to pass on increases of 30-50% in premiums just to survive as a result of Obamacare. Highmark – one fo the largest in the state only made 1.8% year before last and 3.4% this year (due primarily to investement income). Additionally, they just announced a layoff of over 100 IT professionals to further reduce costs in order to account for smaller profit margins. (By the way…They will be sending the work off shore), UPMC Health plan which has one of the best administrative ratios in the country squeaked by this year with a 1.7% profit margin. It is amazingly obvious to anyone who understands the insurance industry that Pelosi and her minion Dahlkemeper as well as the rest of them, grossly missed the mark with this legislation. And now we have one of the authors, Max Bucus saying “I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill. You know why? It’s statutory language.” Sheesh. Why do you keep defending these people?

Jim – are you serious? Too Conservative? Are you sure you even understand what that means??

Sestak is quoted as saying

“Sestak: “I absolutely do say I’m a progressive.” (RJ Harris, WHP 580 AM, 05/14/10)

Sestak: “I want to be Obama’s strongest ally.” (The Valley-News Dispatch, 03/01/10)

You don’t get a whole lot farther left than that unless you want to start quoting “The Communist Manifesto” or “Mein Kampf” – Sheesh!!

And do you really believe anyone is going to believe that Pat Toomey is a racist homophobe?

It’s ok though…The aliens will be back soon. Just hang on a little bit longer.

Gee Pete what does the HC insurance industry add to the product? Seems like they just skim the money that comes through them while denying care that people have paid for, we would be better off if we had single payer and the parasites who run the HC insurance companies found an honest way to earn a living.

Petrolia Pete-
Agree that Joe painting himself as a liberal for the primary.

However, what Jim might be referring to is the suspicion among many liberals that Sestak is a closet conservative Dem (future Lieberman or Nelson). The concern is that he’s voted with the Dems to advance himself within the party and move up, but that once he feels secure, he’ll move to the Right.

It is instructive that no one has disputed my initial pair of observations and, thus, it would be desirable were the PA2010 Staff to update its posting accordingly…or update its explanation as to why it would continue to adhere to its initial posture.

With Rove`s group and the Kock brothers group, seems there are a awful lot of billionaires worried about us people in PA. Getting endless Toomey ads.

Robert-
Your “observation” was already disputed by the PA2010 article, including the part you yourself quoted, which proved you were not only wrong, but failed to understand what you quoted:

Let’s try it another way…

The average was for FAMILIES.
“Rising by an average of $2,100.. ” includes cases like a husband and wife, were one or both of them previously paid ZERO dollars for ZERO coverage.

So, if they are now eligible for coverage, they might pay an additional $4,200 per year (beyond the ZERO payment/coverage).
Now, average them with their neighbor’s family, who has NO increase.

Then you can get “an average increase per family of $2,100″.

This is what PA2010 meant by “because more family members will have access to insurance”.

Your “REGARDLESS of the reason(s)” complaint is fallacious, because the REASON does matter. More people are getting coverage which is a value for their dollar. The “per family” is misleading, because it hides the number of people in the family gaining access to coverage.

For your second “observation”, I already DID address it:
The use of the word “lose” is improper as it’s really about “changing” their Medicare plan.
The point is that PA2010 made (and you failed to comprehend) was the ad incorrectly referred to people who would “lose” their current plan, when the reality was that they might “change” their plan by migrating to another form of Medicare.

Anyway, PA2010 has no cause to update it’s report to conform to your allergy to reality.

The FUNNY thing here is that the GOP is trying to scare seniors that they might lose their Medicare under the Dems, when it’s the GOP that’s opposed Medicare for the past 50 years and has been trying to ELIMINATE it.

DD, whose credibility was appropriately flawed when he failed to refute the Imam’s claim that American policy was an “accessory” to 9-11, again shows why his input should not be weighed.

The goal of the PA2010 commentary was to fact-check what was in the ad, not to amend what was said/written and then critique the modification.

The strained calculations conjured herein support the ad’s simple assertion regarding skyrocketing costs ascribed solely to ObamaCare [for "benefits" people are forced to purchase], and recognizing ObamaCare caused “change” includes forced-”migration” to another plan [for "benefits" that are less than what is currently obtained].

PA2010 must either document its critique or cease/desist from engaging in this process; it cannot establish itself as a “neutral avatar” if it is going to provide fresh input that confounds the analysis it purports to provide.

THEREFORE, PA2010 has an obligation to address these points, notwithstanding DD’s misleading rhetorical effort to run-interference on its behalf.

Illustrating DD’s disdain for the views of others who are sensitive to essential truths/feelings is this self-characterization:

“I’m an Atheist and I find all religions equally stupid, hypocritical and intolerant of each other. Jerusalem is no more special to me than the McDonald’s restaurant down the street. Certainly not worth killing anyone over “in the name of God”. Recognizing that Jews and Muslims are no better or worse but equal, is not anti-Semitic (though to some idiots, it is).”

He is to be ignored.

Who in their right mind would listen to a word coming out of Sklaroff, MD’s mouth. He may be a real Doctor but it is clear who is paying him for all his mis-truths. I am a senior and have asked everyone of my Doctor’s what they thought. Three are specialists and not one of them are concerned about what will happen other than so many more will be able to have help care and to now be able to see a doctor.
One even said that two things were very important:
1- Get rid of all pharmacuicals
2- Get rid of all Insurance companies

If Sklaroff is really a doctor he should be thrown out of the profession as he is dishonest and does not tell the truth but is nothing but a mouthpiece for Carl Rove etc.

I will spend the rest of the day finding this guy since I have MS and am home-bound. How dare they try to scare and LIE to the people. We are not all stupid as the greedy sell out doctor thinks we are. This man is telling untruths and just trying to scare you.
Sklaroff MD is a flat out liar and that is a fact. One needs to only do some research and look at his financials to know the truth.

Sklaroff MD is to be ignored

[...] (and Senate nominee) Joe Sestak. In so doing, Rove’s team might have had some issues with the facts: The ad misleadingly claims that insurance premiums will rise by an average of $2,100 under the new [...]

The reality is that no matter what happened, insurance companies end up raising rates for their own benefit….they have the biggest lobbying efforts.

But, stating a rise of a flat amount of $2,100 is silly. They should have said health care premiums are being raised 30%. So for some it will be more than $2,100!

Frankly, people would be better without health care coverage than with the extortion we are dealing with now. Health insurance simply raises the cost of health care. When are people going to wake up!?

As far as misinformation goes, the GOP eforts indicate they are desperate. While negative ads and fear have historically worked, people are beginning to get immune to BS. Enough is enough.

Joe Sestak will win this election. You know why? simply because the GOP’s efforts are lame, desperate, juvenile and fearmongering. people have had enough of that.

Back in the 80s, when I first became involved in Health Care, the Rule of Thumb, and the Medical Standard, was QUALITY PATIENT CARE.

Unfortunately, over the years, because of Medical Insurance Companies, Health Care has now become, degenerated to, and is all about: MEDICAL NECESSITY CRITERIA, which is a buzz-phrase used by the Insurance Companies for how not to have pay.

For as long as Dr. Sklaroff, and others like him, support groups and organizations hell-bent to discredit Pres. Obama, continue to be lap-dogs for Insurance Companies, continue to adhere to the “sky is falling” tactic, and allow their Title to be used to promote misinformation, it will result in taking longer for the positive aspects of the new Health Care Law to be realized by we the public.

PJ McGill,
Past President,
PA Paramedic Assoc.
[also past Leg Dir PAPA]

[...] PA2010.com, [...]

Robert-
Why would I “refute” the statement about the US being an “accessory” when I AGREE with the point that 9/11 was an unintended result of decades of bad US policy. Actions YOU are doing, like opposing the Mosque, play right into the hands of terrorists. So, YOU are becoming an accessory for future attacks.
Shame on you.

Are you sure the MD doesn’t stand for Mentally Defective?

You seem to think that the views of Muslims are to be ignored as well. You fail to distinguish between the peaceful practices of a religion and the violent extremists, for fictional religious philosophies you don’t like. For the ones you do like, you ignore the existence/actions of the violent extremists.

Concerning opposing the Mosque, the following is offered.

Smut, yes, mosque, no, at ‘hallowed’ ground…, By Gene Lyons, columnist [http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2010/08/26/opinion/srv0000009136670.txt],
and

Here is a related topic, from VoteVets.org, that most should find interesting> JOIN US IN PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION AND AMERICA – Take Action, [http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6676/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=3992]

There are a few sentences which really stand out:
1) First and foremost, when we signed up for service, we swore to uphold the Constitution.
2) For all the talk these days from some quarters about the importance of protecting the Constitution and allowing the free market to work unfettered, those same people are fighting against a person’s right to buy property and worship freely.
3) Our duty to protect the Constitution doesn’t end when our service does.

I thought Karl Rove was in jail for treason?

Then again Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin jsut hijacked the MLK “I Have a Dream” event in DC today.

Having just spent four days in D.C. as a pro-Beck volunteer/medic, I note a few items-of-interest have emerged during recent days; my prior posting is thereby updated.

Regarding the Mosque, the focus must be trained on those who would lead it…assuming it is desirable to divine the religious theology that is to be espoused thereat. In this instance, therefore, those who are in favor of THIS Imam are burdened with the need to defend his quotes (for example, that America is responsible for more loss-of-life of innocent muslims than al-Qaeda is responsible for the deaths of non-muslims) and the personal-histories of its organizers (unpaid taxes by the Imam and a long rap-sheet by its real-estabe agent).

Thus, those who cannot defend THIS Imam for wanting to construct THIS Mosque @ THIS site, they are the ones who are arguably promoting the promotion of Sharia Law by leadership that (along with DD) refuses to renounce Hamas/Hezbollah terrorism.

Regarding my Internet-based C.V., now that nothing damning has been unearthed (judging by subsequent silence following issuance of a pledge to dredge-up a problem or two), it may be noted that, while I was President of the PA Society of Internal Medicine, I SUED against the consolidation of PA Blue Shield and Blue Cross of Western PA (using six-digits of personal funds during the dozen-years this personal-battle was fought). So, puhleeze, do not delude yourselves into categorizing my political motives as reflexly pro-insurer; I’ve literally/figuratively paid my dues.

Regarding Beck, even Sharpton now admits that the MLK-legacy was not hijacked on 8/28; his revised charge is that Beck didn’t do what he said he would do (and that this omission will yield an anti-Beck reaction from his followers)…which is also untrue, because he did exactly what he said he would do (tout the Black Robed Regiment), to the great-praise and grudging-acceptance of those who have assessed what transpired before 600K Americans (1/500 of the entire American population).

Obama is, himself, discrediting ObamaCare, as is now being recognized by increasingly burgeoning numbers of Americans; for example, his misepresentations about its basic-finances (no, it won’t cut the deficit) and immediate-impact (no, it won’t forstall immediate increases in premiums to cover newly-mandated unnecessary services) have yielded, for example, an increase of 7% of detractors (per Rasmussen) during the month of August, alone!

Those who would defend Sestak are also invited to ponder whether this has been NOT a “recovery summer” but, rather, a “summer bummer”!