Alert and Article: Alliance for Retired Americans
Rally/Demonstration Against Medicare Privatization and Rep Bill Thomas

Alliance for Retired Americans (ARA) is having a national day of
action against Medicare Privatization on Friday, October 10th.

There will be demonstrations at some legislator's offices, Members
will mobilize among constituents of other legislators, and ARA is
asking people to phone in against Medicare Privatization on that day.

ARA is composed of retired unionists and other retired workers.  It
was founded nationally two years ago, and will have a founding
convention of its California affiliate in early November in Los
Angeles. See http://www.retiredamericans.org/index.htm



DON'T LET CONGRESS PRIVATIZE MEDICARE!

* The prescription drug bills being debated by House and Senate
conferees privatize Medicare.

* There are wide gaps in coverage.

* Millions of seniors will be at the mercy of private insurers.

* There are no provisions to bring down the skyrocketing costs of
prescription drugs.

* There are no guaranteed premiums.

* Employers can drop existing retiree prescription drug coverage.

Call your U.S. Senators and Representative at this toll-free number

1-877-331-2000

Tell them Not to Privatize Medicare!

The bills being debated by Congress will not help seniors or disabled.

Alliance for Retired Americans
888 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 974-8222
www.retiredamericans.org

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =



Excerpt from Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, Oct 06, 2003

"Medicare conferees are "no closer to a final deal" than when they
began work three months ago."

Progress

Medicare conferees are "no closer to a final deal" than when they
began work three months ago, Long Island Newsday reports. Several
lawmakers involved in negotiations have said there is "much to be
done" to reach compromise on a final Medicare bill that can overcome
"partisan bickering," satisfy beneficiaries and pass both chambers,
Newsday reports (Barfield Barry, Long Island Newsday, 10/5). There is
"diminishing political will" for creating a Medicare prescription drug
benefit, according to the Boston Globe. Although such a move once
appeared to be something that "both parties could embrace," it now
seems as if "plans for drug coverage are nearly doomed," the Globe
reports (Milligan, Boston Globe, 10/6). Leighton Ku, a senior health
policy fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said,
"[Negotiators] are kind of stuck. The bottom line remains -- they have
moved very slowly. They know there's heavy pressure to complete some
kind of bill, but the details on the key issues are still as
mysterious as they were months ago." Many Democrats said that reaching
a final compromise by Oct. 17 -- the deadline set in a timeline
proposed by lawmakers last month -- is impossible, Newsday reports.
"Even if [negotiators] work 24/7 it would be hard to imagine that
happening. [Negotiations are] a mess," an unnamed Democratic aide
said. "It's not easy. ... It's complex stuff," Sen. Orrin Hatch
(R-Utah) said. But he added, "By the 17th, we ought to have something
pretty well put together." Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.) said, "These
are very big bills. It takes time." David Certner, director of federal
affairs for AARP, said, "If the White House wants a bill, and by all
accounts it does, they'll have to play a role to make it happen" (Long
Island Newsday, 10/5).

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

(Long Island NY) Newsday, October 5, 2003



Medicare Drug Bill Stalled

Deborah Barfield Berry WASHINGTON BUREAU

Washington - With only two weeks left to the Republican goal of
offering up a compromised Medicare prescription drug bill, lawmakers
are no closer to a final deal than when they began negotiating three
months ago.

Lawmakers assigned the task of ironing out differences in two Medicare
drug bills initially expected to have a plan by the end of the summer.
But many of those involved say they are just beginning to tackle the
more controversial and contentious issues.

"It's not easy. ... It's complex stuff," said Sen. Orrin Hatch
(R-Utah), a member of the negotiating committee. Still, Hatch held
firm to the Oct. 17 goal. "By the 17th we ought to have something
pretty well put together," he said.

With elections looming, pressure is mounting for Congress to act on
Medicare drug coverage, which is expected to be a key campaign issue.

Last week, a select group of lawmakers met almost daily trying to iron
out differences in House and Senate bills passed in June. Late last
month, President George W. Bush, who has promised to get a drug bill
passed, met lawmakers at the White House and urged them to work out a
compromise. And in recent weeks, top administration health officials,
including Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, have
joined in the talks.

Still, several lawmakers and staffers involved in the negotiations
admit there is much to be done to craft a bill that can overcome
partisan bickering, appease seniors and generate bipartisan support.

"They're kind of stuck," said Leighton Ku, a senior health policy
fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington
think tank. "The bottom line remains - they have moved very slowly.
They know there's heavy pressure to complete some kind of bill, but
the details on the key issues are still as mysterious as they were
months ago."

With only a few months until the session ends and competing budget
items such as the cost for the Iraqi war, some health experts,
lawmakers and consumer advocates hold out little hope that Congress
will adopt a comprehensive program that would provide drug benefits
for all seniors.

The situation is so strained that several Democrats, such as Rep.
Charles Rangel (D-Harlem), a critic of the Republican approach to
overhaul Medicare, are left out of some negotiating sessions.
Republicans also are fighting among themselves over some key
provisions. Some Republican senators have held meetings apart from
fellow Republicans.

The House and the Senate bills set aside $400 billion over 10 years
and add the drug benefit to Medicare, the federal health insurance
plan for the elderly and disabled. The bills boost payments to some
Medicare health care providers and offer government help to seniors
with high drug costs. Both allow private plans to offer drug coverage
to Medicare recipients and offer subsidies to low-income seniors.

The versions, however, have significant differences. The House
Republican measure relies more on the private sector to provide the
drug benefit and eventually compete with Medicare. It also requires
wealthier seniors to pay more out-of-pocket expenses before government
aid kicks in.

The Senate bill aims to preserve traditional Medicare and ensure there
are several health plans available for seniors in more rural areas.

New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer and other senators urged the
committee last week to include a House provision that increases rates
for managed care plans. They hope the plans, which offer drug
benefits, will return to places like Long Island.

On Thursday, lawmakers met for several hours discussing just a handful
of key issues, including whether Medicare should provide the costly
drug coverage for seniors also enrolled in Medicaid, the federal
health insurance program for the poor.

Republicans defend the pace and say talks are progressing. "These are
very big bills," said Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.). "It takes time."

Democrats argue the Republicans' Oct. 17 goal is a reach. "Even if
they work 24/7 it would be hard to imagine that happening," said a
Democratic aide close to talks. "It's a mess."

Health experts and others say the White House should step up its
involvement in the talks.

"If the White House wants a bill, and by all accounts it does, they'll
have to play a role to make it happen," said David Certner, director
of federal affairs for the AARP, a senior group calling for a bill.

Jill Gerber, a spokeswoman for Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), a
conferee and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said that as
the end of the session approaches "pressure will encourage key
decisions in key areas."

Both parties have much at stake. "There's a political risk of
disappointing seniors. There's a policy risk in the long run of
undermining Medicare," said Judy Feder, dean of Georgetown
University's Public Policy Institute. "In truth, we know these bills
fall short of what seniors are expecting."

 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Political will wanes on drug coverage

By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff, 10/6/2003

WASHINGTON -- Prescription drug coverage for the elderly, a Medicare
benefit long sought by retirees facing escalating prescription costs,
once looked like that rare piece of major legislation that members of
both parties could embrace in this politically polarized climate.

But now, just four months after deals were reached amid fanfare in the
House and Senate, plans for drug coverage are nearly doomed. And while
lawmakers say they still hope to reach a compromise, they acknowledge
that the grand plans of last spring ran into trouble in a classic
Washington fashion -- a combination of overreaching, clashing
priorities, diminishing political will, and intervention by an array
of interest groups.

"It's not dead yet, but it's on life support," said Robert Moffit, a
health policy analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Plans to add prescription drug coverage to Medicare drew bipartisan
support because of the appeal to seniors, an influential voting bloc.
But members of Congress returned to their districts over the summer to
find that senior citizens weren't happy with the benefits and
uncertain premiums in the competing House and Senate proposals.

Meanwhile, labor unions worried that employers would abandon more
generous drug benefits negotiated during collective bargaining
sessions. Conservatives protested that the program would create a
massive and expensive new government entitlement.

Looming over all was a new era of swelling deficits -- and a
realization by lawmakers of the difficulties and price of engineering
the largest expansion of Medicare since its creation in 1965, costing
$400 billion over the next decade.

Lawmakers are now deeply divided over how much the private sector
should be involved, and the two parties have taken to holding separate
meetings on what is supposed to be a bipartisan, bicameral negotiating
session.

Neither bill would win majority support in the other chamber,
lawmakers in both parties say, and the House bill -- which was
approved by just one vote this summer -- probably wouldn't get a
majority now in the House.

As disparate interest groups, including seniors' organizations, pick
away at the details, some lawmakers are concluding that approving no
bill would be better than one that didn't provide the benefits or
reform they want.

"I'm one who believes in quality legislation as opposed to rushing
through something that doesn't meet my standards," said Representative
John Dingell, Democrat of Michigan and one of the conference committee
negotiators.

But other supporters want to get the bill done this year, fearful that
new demands for spending in Iraq and Afghanistan -- combined with
existing budget shortfalls -- will make the task impossible in later
years. "If we miss this opportunity, it's going to take another seven
to 10 years" to get a Medicare prescription drug benefit, said Senator
Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and a key architect of
the Senate bill.

Lawmakers say the biggest obstacle is the tepid response from senior
citizens. Representative John Tierney, Democrat of Salem, held several
meetings with seniors in his district during the August recess, and
learned that they were unhappy with the proposals on the table.
"People very quickly understood that unless you were extremely poor or
had extremely high catastrophic drug costs, there isn't a lot in there
for you," Tierney said.

While Congress once felt a strong political imperative to get a
prescription drug bill, members and lobbyists are now worried that
seniors might stage a reprise of their behavior in 1989, when Congress
was considering changing Medicare to include catastrophic coverage.
Retirees unhappy with the costs the changes would impose on them
chased Dan Rostenkowski, who was chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee, in his home district, calling the Illinois Democrat a
"liar" and a "chicken" for refusing to face their questions. The
change was quickly reversed.

This year, House conservatives want to use the prescription drug bill
as a way of overhauling Medicare, alarming Democrats and seniors who
worry that the plan would move toward privatizing a program that has
always been a guaranteed government benefit.

The House package would require Medicare to compete with private plans
after 2010. But since private insurers could tailor their plans to
attract younger and healthier seniors, those stuck in Medicare could
find their premiums soaring to fund the higher-risk group of
beneficiaries, said JoAnn Volk of the AFL-CIO.

Both conservatives and labor unions are concerned about independent
estimates that about one-third of employers who now provide drug
coverage to retirees would drop it, sending those people into the
government plan.

That might mean worse benefits for retired union members, who may have
given up pay increases in exchange for prescription drug coverage,
Volk said. Moffit, the health policy analyst, cautioned that the
expected shift would throw more people into a government program,
further increasing costs.

Critics in both parties say President Bush is not taking a strong
enough leadership role in the talks, an intervention both Democrats
and Republicans say would be necessary to get a deal.

Tom Scully, administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services, said Bush is closely involved in the negotiations.
But lawmakers and lobbyists alike say Bush needs to expand his role,
detailing what kind of bill he could sign and then personally
appealing to Republican members of Congress to give him a needed
legislative win.

While Bush appeared poised to take the prescription drug issue away
from the Democrats this year, he may suffer if no bill is approved.
"One thing we learned when we were in power is that when you're in
power, everything's your fault -- whether it's your fault or not,"
said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Newton.

Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, said the bill might
be scrapped in favor of one small but popular provision to allow
Americans to buy lower-cost drugs in Canada and perhaps other foreign
nations. "I don't see how Ted Kennedy and [House majority leader] Tom
DeLay agree on a bill," Emanuel said.

The New York Times reported today that Senate and House negotiators
were considering means testing, whereby wealthier Medicare patients
would pay higher premiums. Critics say such a plan would undermine the
basic tenet of Medicare -- that it provides the same benefits to all
retirees.

Some lawmakers are also floating the idea of a drastically scaled-back
bill to serve two categories of people: those with low incomes and
those with catastrophic prescription drug costs. Senator Max Baucus,
Democrat of North Dakota and a conferee on the bill, rejected the idea
as expensive and too narrow. But other lawmakers believe it's the only
proposal that could win.

"It's my feeling now that we don't have a bill that could pass both
houses," said Representative Dan Burton, Republican of Indiana. "We
need to come up with a plan to help the people who need help."