“I just want to be clear, again: Seniors who are listening here, this does not affect your benefits. This is not money going to you to pay for your benefits; this is money that is subsidizing folks who don’t need it.” Or so President Barack Obama promised our nation’s seniors earlier this year. Problem is, as we have pointed out many times, this is simply not true: Obamacare will absolutely cause reduced Medicare benefits for Seniors. Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf told Congress that and even the New York Times has grudgingly admitted as much.

Specifically, every version of Obamacare waiting to be merged into one bill on Capitol Hill cuts billions of dollars from the Medicare Advantage program. One of the dirty little secrets about Medicare is that it actually only covers slightly more than half of all health care costs for seniors and disabled citizens. Medicare recipients buy the balance of their health care coverage through private supplemental insurance or Medigap coverage. Most seniors, therefore, actually have at least two health insurance providers, the federal government through Medicare, and a private supplemental insurer. Medicare Advantage allows seniors to pay a single premium and receive a much broader range of health care services than just government-run Medicare provides, including prescription drug coverage, preventive-care services, routine physical examinations, and coor­dinated care for chronic conditions.

The Baucus bill, which will be voted on in the Senate Finance Committee later this week, is the least offensive Medicare reform plan currently being included in Obamacare. However, the Baucus bill fails to achieve true reform in two ways: First, it takes all ’savings’ from Medicare reform and immediately plows them into a new deficit exploding entitlement. Second, and more importantly, it preserves the old fee-for-service Medicare program which is based on central planning and price controls.

The better option would be to move Medicare towards a true “premium support” system where the government would make direct contributions to all beneficiaries who could then control how to spend their own health care dollars. This would be the same model as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) which provides health insurance to Members of Congress. Heritage fellow Bob Moffit explains:

With modifications, Congress could adopt a premium support system broadly similar to the FEHBP and secure the same positive results in intense competition, patient choice, high quality care, and patient satisfaction. Without such modifications, there is no real reform but just more of the same.

Instead of breaking the President’s promises, and raising health care costs for America’s seniors, Congress should hit the reset button and start over with real competition and state based reform that lowers costs and improves care.

Quick Hits:

The White House is losing the health care debate. Polls from National Public Radio, Wall Street Journal/NBC News, The Washington Post, Gallup, and Pew all show that the American people do not support President Barack Obama’s health care plan. The White House wants people to believe they are losing the health care debate because “scary … videos are starting to percolate on the internet” that are spreading “disinformation” about Obama’s health care plan. The White House is even encouraging Obama supporters to help them identify people spreading this “disinformation.” The official White House blog now asks Americans: “If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

In the interest of honest debate, we would like to flag the White House about some prominent people that are directly contradicting the President about what his health care plan would do to the American people. As White House Health Reform Office communications director Linda Douglass points out in a video released by the White House yesterday, President Obama has repeatedly assured Americans that under his plan “if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them.”

The problem the White House faces, however, is that much of President Obama’s base does not want the American people to keep their current insurance plan or doctor. Activists on the left prefer a single-payer system where private health insurance companies have been eliminated. So how can the White House both appease its leftist base, which wants single-payer/government-run health care, and mollify the vast majority of Americans, who want to keep their current health insurance providers? By creating a government-run “public option” designed to slowly eliminate private insurance over time.

The President has explicitly said that the public option will not eliminate private insurance. He told the American Medical Association on June 15th: “What are not legitimate concerns are those being put forward claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system…So, when you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this - they are not telling the truth.” So the President SAYS the public option will not lead to single payer health care … but a number of prominent people are saying the exact opposite:

  • Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) at a Health Care for America Now rally: “And next to me was a guy from the insurance company who argued against the public health insurance option, saying it wouldn’t let private insurance compete. That a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer. My single-payer friends, he was right. The man was right.”
  • Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) told Single Payer Action: “I think that if we get a good public option it could lead to single-payer and that is the best way to reach single-payer. Saying you’ll do nothing till you get single-payer is a sure way never to get it. … I think the best way we’re going to get single-payer, the only way, is to have a public option and demonstrate the strength of its power.”
  • Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein at the Democratic National Convention last year: “They have a sneaky strategy, the point of which is to put in place something that over time the natural incentives within its own market will move it to single-payer.”
  • Noble Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: “[T]he only reason not to do [single-payer] is that politically it’s hard to do in one step…You’d have to convince people completely give up the insurance they have, whereas something that lets people keep the insurance they have but then offers the option of a public plan, that may evolve into single-payer.”

Americans deserve an honest debate about health care. President Obama, Barney Frank, and Jan Schakowsky cannot all be right. Either the President is wrong when he says his plan will not lead to government-run health care, or Frank and Schakowsky are spreading disinformation when they tell their single payer advocate base that it will. So let’s help the White House out. Do email flag@whitehouse.gov and let the White House know you’ve seen something “fishy” on the web about health care reform.

Quick Hits:

  • Asked Tuesday if the White House recognized Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the country’s legitimate president White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, “He’s the elected leader.”
  • Just 9% of eligible homeowners who are delinquent have gotten a trial mortgage modification under the Obama administration $75 billion housing recovery plan.
  • According to USA Today, the Obama administration’s efforts to pay for Obamacare by cutting the Medicare Advantage program that benefits 10.2 million seniors helps explain why Americans over 65 are the demographic least supportive of Obama’s health reforms.
  • According to U.S. military officials, two Russian attack submarines were detected patrolling the waters off the East Coast of the U.S.
  • A new report by the Energy Information Administration finds that the Obama administration’s cap and trade energy tax would mean fewer jobs and increased electricity costs for consumers.