Billions Of Taxpayer Dollars Spent Improperly This Year
Posted: Wednesday, November 18, 2009
by Joel Hendon
http://hebronics.org/index.html
The director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag announced, the federal government paid out $98 billion in improper payments during 2009 so far. This is up from $72 billion in 2008.We don't yet know (if we ever will) what all is involved in those improper payouts, but it is known that outright fraud was prevalent. Some report, whether or not accurately, that improper Medicare payments accounted for approximately one-third of that amount. Medicare is their favorite whipping target. They may very well be accurate in this. If so, it needs to be corrected, however, not destroyed.
The administration continues to tell us that this gigantic health reform package will not increase the annual federal deficit spending one dime! At a cost of an under-estimate of over one trillion in the first ten years and more thereafter, and it won't raise the deficit one dime? Other programs (primarily Medicare) cut to the bone plus heavy taxation is the only possible way it could be so. With our GDP presently in the sewer, these added taxes and cuts, will only sink it further and further.
Part of the improper payments were from the stimulus package, although Orszag could not say how much, nor could he say how much was strictly fraud. He listed 99 agencies which had received funds during this year totaling almost two trillion dollars, of which approximately 5%, or $98 billion was paid improperly.
Orszag also reported that President Obama will sign an executive order to try and resolve these problems, adding transparency, strengthen accountability, and provide incentives to improve the payment process. The White House has requested $1.9 billion dollars to fund this undertaking!!
One thing which the administration proposes to do with the health care reform program, which has received little attention, but is one of the worst for senior citizens. Two major steps are to be taken concerning Medicare. One is to clean up and monitor the improper paying of "fee per service" both in forms or error and/or fraud. Good idea. The other is not a good idea in the least. They plan to eliminate the Medicare advantage subsidies. This is subsidizing private insurance companies for their supplemental insurance plans. For those who are knowledgeable of the amounts of Social Security many receive, they know that it is, in many cases, absolutely not adequate for an elderly person to survive on. This is especially true after the deduction of $96.40 for the part B monthly premium for Medicare and then the newer programs for PPO's or HMO's to supplement the inadequate coverage of original Medicare.
The private insurance plans are referred to as Medicare advantage plans. My wife and I have chosen a PPO plan with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama known as the "Blue Advantage". It is extremely helpful, a very good program whose additional premium this year is $71.00 per month each. We have already been notified that the premium for 2010 will be exactly double that amount, $142.00 each.
I realize that insurance costs are very high, but for those who depend upon their Social Security for their livelihood, find this kind of deduction from their checks, in some cases, to be completely unattainable. I know, and have known, some elderly people whose total Social Security income was under $500. per month. If you reduce that by $96.40 plus $142.00, they wouldn't have money for utilities, and certainly no food. But to reduce, or remove, access to that insurance for those of us who can barely afford to carry them is unthinkable.
This Article has been viewed 242 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (6 total)I like too article. What is your position on health care?Thanks for reading and commenting Jim. My thought on health care is that there are things about our present system which needs mending, but I am dead set against a trillion+ dollar government managed health care, which is what the present bills provide. And most of all, I don't want to see Medicare butchered as it is about to be.The ill health which comes about with age is burdensome enough without having to forego treatment. I know, beause I am currently facing some of it as it now stands. Two or three measures could be taken which would correct our present system with comparatively little cost.
Sorry for the poor spelling. I was into politics lately but got my butt kicked. He had $163,000 to spend and I had $4000. I am a and proud of it. If they want to fix health care then allow sale of ins policies across state lines, fix tort reform and get the government out of the business. Good article.Right on, Jim. That is indeed what should be done. Sorry about your failure to succeed in the politic business. But if I were you, I would not let that one discourage me too much. The trick is to align some financial assistance ahead of time. It is like building a house, know where you can get the materialls before you start. I'm advising you, and I've never it given a thought to running for office.
Joel, very informative. My parents just enrolled in Medicare this year. I am very concerned about rising premiums and decreasing benefits. I am concerned about my own lack of benefits later in life too.Hi Deana, thanks for commenting. Unfortunately I believe it is time we were all becoming concerned. The pinch is beginning to show even before all this is passed. I have recently had to pay a doctor's bill which had previously been covered. It is going to be bad.
I don't honestly see a solution presented here. Only description of the problems and how they are getting worse. I would presume that Mr. Hendon has some ideas on the solutions, but would appreciate more elucidation to make the article truly relevant.Thanks for commenting Chris. Yes I have a solution, vote the present administration out as fast as they come up for re-election, then choose someone who will tackle our problems, not cause more.But Joel, do you honestly think that the previous administrations did anything about this? So why is voting out the current administration going to do anything except put more and less experienced people into office. The demands and the costs that you refer to are not the responsibility of the administration, but of the insurance, medical supply companies and the medical community. Medical care cannot be treated as a business and be successful. It is not about making money, it is about providing care without regard for money. Social consciousness and accepting responsibility on everyone's part.No I don't think the previous administration did anything about this, however, voting good and strong moral people into office is the only way we will ever get a hold on it. The liberals took over the congress in 2006 remember and things went steadily worse and worse. Bush didn't help matters. There are a few good men left in politics.We need more who are like Jessie Helms was. He was one honest politician and I was fortunae enough to be in his state at the time he served and voted for him each time. He was hated by most of his colleagues because he embarrassed them. He always voted against any congressional pay raises and refused his when they did pass one. He always turned back much of his expense money, at the close of the time period for which it was allotted.I disagree with you that the losses are not the repsonsibility of the administration. When money is allotted to anyone, there should be restrictions on it (and there is in most cases) and should be strictly monitored to see that it is not going into someone's pocket where it doesn't belong.We the people only have two things we can legally do about this sort of stuff, that is our vote and our voices to the people who can do something about it. I appreciate your comments, Chris.I disagree. I believe that if medical services were treated as a free market business, costs would decrease. The first problem is medical licensing boards. Any licensing requirement, whether a medical license, law license, etc, dramatically increases costs because it limits the number of people who would enter the medical field. The Rockefellers pushed for medical licensing because they believed doctors were not making enough money. By raising the cost (both time and money) to enter the profession, medical associations (like bar associations), raised the cost of medicine. The "stamp of approval" required to practice medicine only raises costs. It does little to protect the public from fraud and malpractice than existing laws against fraud. Furthermore, the FDA dramatically drives up costs. The exhorbant cost of receiving FDA approval gets passed on to consumers. The FDA does not protect the public any more than basic tort laws against personal injury and fraud. If a service provider or product provider does not do a good job, it gets a bad reputation and goes out of business.I am a personal trainer. My profession does not require a license, however, the public demands outstanding fitness knowledge, outstanding personal service, and a low cost. Certification programs are intensive and provide theory and practical knowledge. Newly certified trainers typically work with experienced trainers in fitness facilities to gain experience like an apprenticeship program. Clients have a choice of several top notch trainers at all price ranges in many settings (school, home, gyms, on-line). Low quality trainers just do not survive. Trainers may train anywhere in the US. Anyone with a lot of drive, a sincere desire to help people, and about $1000, can enter the profession. This win-win situation between clients and trainers is a product of the free market. The medical profession used to be like this until licensing, FDA, lawsuits, and other regulations limited the availability of service and products.I believe the vast majority of doctors really have a great sense of "social consciousness." However, if you had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for your education, stay in school until you were 30, pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in overhead every year, how can you limit costs? You have to make millions just to recoup your costs. Under these conditions, we need priests to take over medical practice. Someone who takes the vow of poverty might be able to charge less than $100 a visit.Who would enter the medical profession if the costs are way above that of other professions? Why take the risk?It seems that it is fashionable today to associate "free market" with greed. However, it seems to me that in the vast majority of situations the "free market" is the "socially responsible" way to deliever goods and services to the public. Greed will exist in the free market and in the government. Excessive pride and greed will always come back to haunt the offender. For the vast majority of honest, hard working people, running your profession as a business, with constant emphasis on delivering more to your customers for less cost, is best for consumers.I don't even understand the practical application of this. Whenever a Doctor is more concerned (because he owes money) with not being sued then he is about doing the best job he can, then the system is warped out of control. Free market demands that the Doctor concern himself about the bottom line, not necessarily about the care provided.Insurance does not cover enough, the medical community charges too much and Doctors run and hide rather then speak to their patients one-on-one. That is what you get with a free market medical system.Whatever happened to personal responsibility? To keeping your word because it is the right thing to do? Of taking care of the medical needs of patients without regard to the costs of those needs? If my medical care depends on insurance, I have to abide by the insurance standards. If the doctor I know can solve the problem isn't covered, I cannot go to him without exceptional expense. That is NOT right.Removing the profit motive and keeping the responsibility even with the commitment to people is the only solution.So I disagree. Insurance is a self perpetuating pyramid scheme and everyone has bought into it.Well, we do disagree. No one makes anyone buy insurance, but now they want to do that. I've been a low to medium wage earner all my life but I've always kept health insurance. So far, I have had little to complain about, but I am going to have plenty soon, it appears. Besides, this wrongful spending is not the systems fault, it is the government's for handing out funds with out keeping tabs on whether it was earned or not.Chris, again, I respectfully disagree. The practical implication of my first comment was to illustrate my belief that it is possible to run the medical profession in a pure free market manner that is both win-win for patients and professionals. I believe it has been the government's interference with the free market system that has driven costs high enough to create a need for a third party payor (insurance). It is ironic that government interference with the free market system creates economic problems, yet many people believe the answer to the economic problems is more government interference.I agree that personal responsibility is critical to success in any organization. However, I believe personal responsibility comes from within each individual. The government cannot correct every individual with a responsibility problem. I encourage anyone who is frustrated with the lack of service they are receiving from their medical professionals to carefully select a professional to work with. I, too, have had frustrating experiences with high priced doctors who deliver little service. However, I found two incredible doctors in Orlando. They keep their costs low by not handling insurance claims for patients. The patients handle their own claims. This eliminates overhead. I see each doctor for up to 50 minutes for under $100. I get all my questions answered. The doctors really know my medical history, and we share the same philosophy on treatment. Keep seeking the service you desire, and you will find some outstanding doctors.
I don't like what I have been hearing and seeing about Medicate, Joel. By the time, I am 65 the Medicare premium will be unaffordable. It is so heartbreaking. Thank you for sharing this well-written piece. Stay well. ~Nenita~Thank you Nenita, it is discouraging.
Joel,You spell it out well. Without a doubt, our healthcare in its present form needs work. But what is on the table currently is not the answer because, in the long run, it will hurt more people than help them. And I agree: the amount of money needed to fund this 2000 + page plan cannot possibly be done without raising taxes.Thanks for a good article.Thank you for reading, Nancy, and the nice comment as well. I appreciate it.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.