In This Week's Edition of E-News…

Seniors Ask About Future of Medicare at AARP Town Hall

White House Announces End to Deportation of Illegal Entrants

New Survey Finds Employers Will Drop Coverage Because of HC Law

 

Seniors Ask About Future of Medicare at AARP Town Hall
When Congress reconvenes next month, members of a new bicameral, bipartisan committee will get to work on finding agreement to cut at least $1.2 trillion in deficits over the next decade. On Thursday night in Oakmont, senior citizens had the opportunity to ask Congressmen Tim Murphy and Jason Altmire whether deficit reduction efforts should impact Medicare and Social Security at a special forum hosted by AARP.

At the town hall, which was carried live on Pennsylvania Cable Network, participants also shared their thoughts on taxes, spending cuts, and what could be done to rein in the spiraling cost of healthcare.

Healthcare spending is one of the largest drivers behind future federal budget deficits. Forty years ago, Medicare and Medicaid made up just

Reps. Altmire and Murphy take questions on the future of Medicare at AARP Townhall

five percent of federal spending. Today, they account for nearly one-quarter of the federal budget ($840 billion). By 2050, if left untouched, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will consume all federal revenues, leaving no money for roads, bridges, defense, justice, or anything else.

Congressman Murphy shared ideas for making quality reforms to Medicare that would save money. For example, if HR 2195, the Medicare Home Infusion Therapy Act, which is cosponsored by Rep. Murphy, were signed into law, Medicare could save $6 billion. That legislation allows patients to receive physician-prescribed drug infusion therapy at home instead of the hospital where it costs thousands of dollars and patients are put at risk for infections and complications.

The legislators are discussed whether competition and choice in health plans would bring down costs in a manner similar to the Part D prescription drug benefit.

Medicare Part D allows seniors to review plans and choose the one that best fits their needs. Part D is not only popular, but is also cost-effective for taxpayers. Actual costs for the drug plan are 40% under budget because insurers are forced to compete with each other for business. When the Part D program was created, the government predicted seniors would pay $53 a month in 2011. This year, seniors are paying $30 per month, on average, for their drug plans.

But could the federal government save more money if Medicare leveraged its purchasing power to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies similar to how the Department of Veterans Affairs does it, asked one participant? Not necessarily, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

In 2007, the House passed the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, introduced by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. The CBO said the bill would “have a negligible effect on federal spending.” Budget analysts said the bill did not have the characteristics associated with cost-cutting legislation: price controls or competition.   

To keep their costs down, the Department of Veterans Affairs uses a “formulary” that restricts a veteran’s access to certain medicines. Some popular prescription drugs like Lipitor and Nexium are not available through the VA while seniors with Part D plans can choose from over 1,100 different national plans. These plans design a formulary then go about negotiating prices with drug companies. The plans must compete with each other for seniors’ business.

Not all the questions came from senior citizens. A political organizer and protester from Pittsburgh affiliated with Moveon.org and Pennsylvania AFL-CIO challenged Congressman Murphy's support for fiscal responsibility, including spending cuts and deficit reduction efforts. He specifically charged that the budget blueprint adopted in the House would “end Medicare” and leave seniors with a voucher to buy expensive insurance on their own. Rep. Murphy explained that the blueprint did not “privatize” Medicare nor in any way even mention vouchers, as the questioner claimed. In fact, the House budget established parameters that Congress would follow when developing appropriations so as not to spend more than what comes in, and would empower seniors to choose their own health insurance much in the same way they choose a Part D prescription drug policy.

One AARP participant and constituent of Congressman Murphy’s referenced his senior newsletter, which hit mailboxes this week. If you are a senior in Congressman Murphy’s district and have not yet received a copy, please contact his office in Mt. Lebanon at (412) 344-5583, or in Greensburg at (724) 850-7312.

To share your thoughts with Congressman Murphy, please click here.

White House Announces End to Deportation of Illegal Entrants
Illegal aliens who were facing deportation will be granted amnesty under a new Department of Homeland Security policy announced last Thursday by Secretary Janet Napolitano.

In declaring that DHS would focus on illegal immigrants with criminal records, Secretary Napolitano directed federal attorneys to begin reviewing 300,000 deportation cases, and when appropriate, inform illegal aliens that they can apply for work permits.

Unable to secure passage of immigration reform known as the DREAM Act that would grant citizenship to illegal aliens, the Administration has sought other avenues to fulfill the same goal. Congressman Murphy responded quickly to the announcement: “The White House again is deciding which laws it will enforce, despite congressional action to the contrary.” The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act failed to secure enough votes for passage in Congress so it could be sent to the President for his signature. Congressman Murphy opposed it when it came before the House.

“Our country is a welcoming nation for those who follow our laws and come to our country legally. Only Congress can write the law. Unfortunately, this amnesty program is another instance when the Administration has chosen to rule by fiat.”

The latest grant of amnesty-by-memorandum comes after the Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced in June that would allow agents to dismiss cases of illegal immigrants who came to the country at a young age and are currently pursuing an education or serving in the military. The ICE directive said agents should show “prosecutorial discretion” such as by granting deferred action, “deciding whom to stop, question, or arrest,” deciding “whom to detain,” and “dismissing” a removal proceeding.

In both instances, the Administration has said the goal is to free up resources so federal agents can focus on people who have committed felonies or are national security risks.

Congressman Murphy is a cosponsor of HR 2497, the Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation Act, or HALT Act. The bill would prevent the Executive Branch from using discretionary authority to grant parole, defer action, cancel a deportation order, or approve a work permit for illegal aliens.

Hearings on the legislation have been conducted by the House Judiciary Committee.

To share your thoughts with Congressman Murphy, please click here.

New Survey Finds Employers Will Drop Coverage Because of HC Law

Since the 1940s, American families have received health insurance from employers because premiums can be paid for with pre-tax dollars. Today, surveys show over 80 percent of the 172 million Americans covered by employers are satisfied with the insurance they receive. But for millions of Americans who like the plans they have now, the system is about to change in a radical way.

According to a new survey by benefits and accounting firm Towers Watson, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act raises costs so dramatically that at least ten percent of midsized and large companies will terminate health insurance for millions of Americans beginning in 2014. The affected employees would then be left with enrolling in the government-run system established under the Affordable Care Act.

Fox News interviews Rep. Murphy, Co-chair of House Doctors Caucus

Congressman Tim Murphy, co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus and a member of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, went on the Fox News Channel Thursday morning to discuss how the dismantling of the current insurance network will impact American families (Click here to watch Rep. Murphy).

“The other big part of this news is there will be reductions in what employees get — either reductions in benefits, increased copayments, or increased premiums,” said Rep. Murphy. “What employers are going to be facing in the next couple of years are hundreds of billions in more taxes, and people are going to see less in their paycheck as they are going to have more taken out for…healthcare related expenses.”

The law will also create massive new liabilities for taxpayers.

“All of this is designed to do exactly what the law planned to do, and that is to make private health insurance so expensive and so intolerable for employers and employees that people will go to the public option and opt for the government plan,” said Rep. Murphy.

Within the “exchanges” consumers will choose from participating private insurance and a new “cooperative” health plan regulated and chartered by the federal government. These new cooperative health plans are eligible for taxpayer loans of $3.8 billion.

Businesses with more than fifty workers that decide to forego offering federally-qualified insurance will have to pay a fine between $2,000 and $3,000 per employee. Many small business owner worry that new mandates in the healthcare law will significantly raise compliance costs, reducing capital that could otherwise be reinvested into the business.  

To prevent this mandate from taking effect and to preserve the current health insurance network for millions of workers who like their coverage, Rep. Murphy has cosponsored HR 1744, the American Job Protection Act, a bill introduced by Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA). That legislation would repeal the PPACA employer mandate.

Companies are pointing to sky-rocketing premium costs and arguing that paying such fines will cost less than continuing to offer coverage to their employees. In 2010, the average annual health insurance premium for employee sponsored coverage was $13,770 per employee, a cost that has more than doubled since 2000. With polls showing that 85 percent of employers expect PPACA to lead to higher premium costs, the actual number of employers who opt to end employer sponsored coverage could be far higher than ten percent.

McKinsey Company, an international business consulting firm, says that fifty percent of workers – between 80 and 90 million Americans – could lose their insurance when businesses decide to pay a fine rather than offer insurance.

Since January, the House has passed over six separate measures to repeal or defund PPACA, or parts of the legislation. However, these bills remain stalled in the Senate.

To share your thoughts with Congressman Murphy, please click here.