Rep. Mark Schauer reassures Chelsea seniors about Medicare benefits after health care reform
U.S. Congressman Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, came to the Chelsea Senior Center Friday to reassure constituents that Medicare benefits are safe in light of the recent national health care reform bill.
His remarks—along with those of Michigan AARP president Eric Schneidewind—were persuasive and generally well-received by the audience of 75 people.
Michigan AARP president Eric Schneidewind, left, and Rep. Mark Schauer address Chelsea seniors on Medicare benefits during Friday's town hall meeting.
The meeting was Schauer’s seventh and final town hall meeting in his district, which extends over seven counties, including the western part of Washtenaw County.
The first-term representative argued reform was necessary with health care costs amounting to 16 percent of the gross domestic product, compared to 10 percent in competing nations.
“We’re literally handing them a club to beat us over the head with and take our jobs,” he said.
Schauer told the audience Medicare will be solvent for the foreseeable future.
“The program will be self-sustaining and your benefits will not be cut.”
Both Schauer and Schneidewind asserted the new program will emphasize low-cost preventive care and make insurance available and affordable to everyone. They said it will also encourage the development of efficiencies in service delivery.
Opponents of the reform bill engaged in “a lot of scare tactics about Medicare being cut,” Schauer said. He recommended people consult websites like FactCheck.org for accurate information.
While some in the audience expressed skepticism about the legislation and the process by which it was passed, several also stood during the Q&A period to commend Schauer for voting yes on the bill.
Lima Township resident John Bulick, a 74-year-old former product design engineer for Ford Motor Company, told Schauer, “My math doesn’t correspond.”
Bulick was looking at the handout that said no deficit spending is involved in paying for the reform.
Schauer’s stated stance is that merely by cutting waste and the “excessive profits of private insurers,” as the document states, more than $100 billion will be cut from the deficit in the next decade.
John Bulick questions the health care math during Friday's town hall meeting.
Later, Bulick told AnnArbor.com he felt Schauer and Schneidewind were “chewing up on the insurance companies.”
“Everybody’s got their opinion on this, but I feel we’ve been taken for suckers.”
Others had no quibbles about the cost.
Reid McCarthy, a Dexter Township resident, said in his work as Ann Arbor attorney, he helps seniors to avoid “going broke paying for health care.”
One of the new law’s provisions is intended to close the so-called “donut hole” that finds Medicare beneficiaries paying tremendous out-of-pocket costs for prescription medications.
“It really is unfortunate to see seniors having to pay $1,000 per month for their drugs,” McCarthy said.
Webster Township resident Carol Hollenshead thanked Schauer on behalf of young people and those with preexisting conditions. She called the reform “a major step forward” and told him, “You’ve done good work.”
Ron Motsinger also thanked Schauer. The Dexter Township resident said with companies currently offering little more than part-time jobs and no benefits, “I don’t know what we were going to do if we didn’t pass health care.”
Afterward, Schauer called the meeting “polite,” whereas others in the previous six had been more “contentious.”
He said, “This was a very productive opportunity for folks to hear the facts about what’s in the new health care law, particularly how it will help seniors and how it will strengthen Medicare.”
Washtenaw County Commissioner Mark Ouimet drove from Scio Township to attend the meeting.
“I find it very helpful to listen to the thought that led up to the decision on health care,” Ouimet said. “That’s always a plus for me to hear it directly instead of reading about it or seeing it on television. I think that’s important to be able to get a better understanding of the what and the why.”
Ronald Ahrens is a freelance writer for AnnArbor.com. Reach the news desk at news@annarbor.com or 734-623-2530.
Comments
Hot Sam
Tue, Apr 13, 2010 : 2:05 p.m.
"""But I don't feel congress is being straight with me.""" The understatement of the year...
Mick52
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 3:15 p.m.
This HC plan does nothing to lower costs. Happy Fun Ball is correct, Schauer never provides details, just boiler plate. Many questions go unanswered: If children can be covered until 26, does this require employers that may provide that coverage to continue dependent benefits? Have not heard anything on this. If employers will have to, that will cost business. Or will it let parents keep them on the plan, but the parents will pay the employers contribution too. Also, for those with "existing conditions." If a person decides not to buy insurance, pays the penalty which costs less, then gets ill or injured, they can now go buy insurance. But will they be able to stop the insurance after they get well? It seems as though this would provide a person expensive care for a great bargain. So you can save by paying the cheap penalty, and go get insurance only when you need it. The penalty should equal the costs of premiums. Seems that this will drive up costs. Health care is expensive, period. You can't make it inexpensive, especially if its high quality. This folly of saving money by "eliminating waste and excessive profits of private insurers" is always noted but never explained, not details are given. I hesitate to believe that politicians know the HC system better than Drs/hospitals and insurance companies. What are "private insurers?" For profit insurers? Are there "public insurers?" BCBS is a non profit, but you will still find its premiums expensive. For profits likely are more expensive, they have to make profits. But so are private hospitals. Private hospitals may be owned by physicians or by private investors. Evil? Perhaps that hospital would not exist if it were not for the investors. The promoters of this movement are blaming insurance companies. Insurance pays providers, physicians, hospitals, etc., and maintain themselves, for profit or non profit. So is it that the insurance companies are at fault, or is it what the providers demand/need to operate? Its expensive because of personnel, high tech and infrastructure. Is your Dr willing to take a pay cut? In the UK (single payer system), Docs make about 1/3 less than in the US. Its not just insurance. I think a lot of people are going to be surprised when they find out what "affordable" is going to be. Something has to be done, but not this. The bottom line is, it is going to be very very expensive.
DPL
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 9:04 a.m.
I find this debate very frustrating. All we get is "he said she said" painted as informational reporting. Why cannot the news simply print the bullet points of the bill for us? A simple summary of the benefits and when they happen and who qualifies for them. A simple summary of the additional taxes/charges, when they go into effect and who will have to pay them. Please give us the simple facts and let us plan for what's to come. Is that too much to ask? I suspect we're not getting this summary because it's bad news for most of us who worked hard to attain positions of employment which included a good health insurance benefit, and it's good news for some smaller population. I suspect the entire "reform" amounts to a tax on the "have good health insurance" to support those without. Frankly, I probably would support such a thing if presented as such; I don't mind being charitable. But I don't feel congress is being straight with me.
outdoor6709
Sun, Apr 11, 2010 : 8:52 a.m.
If you are intereswted in the future of healthcare in US look at WSJ article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304198004575171782805022028.html?KEYWORDS=massachusetts+health+insurance Healthcare will spend a lot of time in the courts, not a good sign. The fact that Michigan's conggressional delagation continues to either not give requested information should cause us to rethink our choices.
Hot Sam
Sat, Apr 10, 2010 : 10:08 a.m.
"""the mandate for private insurance was actually a republican idea""" And not necessarily a bad one. The problem is that we have almost 3,000 pages of nonsense that give special deals to every one of the 30,000 plus lobbyists that have paid off the vanguards of the proletariat...
Hot Sam
Sat, Apr 10, 2010 : 10:04 a.m.
"""doing the same thing (waiting for "the market" to reduce costs) and expecting different results is insanity""" "The Market" has not been in play in health care for years...the whole debacle has been run by politicians, lobbyists and lawyers for over half a century...the same bunch some are looking to to fix it...
clownfish
Sat, Apr 10, 2010 : 9:47 a.m.
UTOWNIE, If you would like a summary of what your insurance will be after the passing of this bill, look at the summaries you received from your employer. That will be the insurance you will have available. There is no "government health care" or "government run insurance". You will keep what you have, or be able to choose from other policies as your employer makes them available. HURON74, some of the changes are effective immediately, including the ability of children to remain on parents plans until age 26, no refusal of insurance for kids with pre-existing conditions. Some taxes do begin soon, but so do some tax breaks for small businesses. No question that this bill was far from perfect, but doing the same thing (waiting for "the market" to reduce costs) and expecting different results is insanity. There are programs in this bill that will seek to find cost saving solutions to the rising cost of care. Most of these programs will not impose ANY regulations, but will hopefully suggest ways the system can be made more efficient, and therefore save all of us money. Right now you ALL pay for the health care of those that cannot afford to pay, to the tune of billions of dollars annually. That cost is hidden in the fees you pay to your hospitals and physicians. the mandate for private insurance was actually a republican idea, promoted recently by Sen Hatch, and also by a bi-partisan bill in 2009. President Nixon favored a mandate, as did the Heritage Foundation, in the 90's. The mandate was asked for by the insurance industry in lieu of any discussion of a '"single payer" system. So the question is, why the sudden attack on what the "other side" proposed just a little while ago, and what was asked for by "the market"?
Hot Sam
Sat, Apr 10, 2010 : 8:56 a.m.
"""Schauers stated stance is that merely by cutting waste and the excessive profits of private insurers,""" Cutting waste? In Washington? That's working really well... Profits? Aren't most health insurers "non-profit"? With that said, insurance company margins are estimated to be in the area of 4%...hardly the sole source of our problem.
Hot Sam
Sat, Apr 10, 2010 : 8:45 a.m.
"""That's right, I pay more for health insurance coverage which I haven't made a claim against in over three years, than I do for the roof over my head. Does this seem reasonable to anyone?""" If any one can point out how this bill will change that, then I'm all ears...
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball
Sat, Apr 10, 2010 : 8:19 a.m.
Schauer has refused to openly comment on Health Care Reform for what seems his entire term. All his answers are "by-the book" - and he avoids the reality of costs.. Government predictions on these Massive reforms have been wrong EVERY time (Social Security costs, medicare costs, military development, etc) Cost prediction are so bad that we voters now know that ANY estimate form the Government is just 'political' and certainly WRONG - In the end, the Voter pays for the error every time and the officials responsible just get a pass. If there is soooo much "waste and Fraud" in the system, why do they need some sort of Law or Reform to fix it? Should not the government FIX the problems on a daily basis? Should not the Government stop the fraud WITHOUT yet another LAW? If they were to not pass this law - does the fraud and waste just continue????. I bet it it were Schuare's own money - he would treat it differently.. Sorry Congressman - your fired.
Huron74
Sat, Apr 10, 2010 : 7:48 a.m.
How this bill helps I don't know. It doesn't kick in until 2014 but the taxes start next year. It doesn't cover everybody unless they buy a policy. This isn't my idea of universal coverage. Boos & hisses for Schauer.
JustMyTwoCents
Sat, Apr 10, 2010 : 7:21 a.m.
I am so sorry I was not able to attend this talk given by Rep. Shauer. I, like County Commissioner Ouimet, prefer to get information about mattters such as this directly from a live person, rather than read by a radio personality from a prepared script. As a recently unemployed 56 year old single female (for the record, until last fall I had worked continuously since the age of 18), I am grateful for any help I may get to afford my monthly health care premium which now exceeds the amount I pay for the mortgage on my home. That's right, I pay more for health insurance coverage which I haven't made a claim against in over three years, than I do for the roof over my head. Does this seem reasonable to anyone? I am going to work hard to make sure that Rep. Shauer is re-elected to the full extent of his term limits. Please join me.
utownie
Sat, Apr 10, 2010 : 12:05 a.m.
Before Schauer voted for health care, he was asked to provide a short summary explaining the content of the proposed law. He never provide it. With my employer's benefits plan, I am provided a 6 to 8 page summary of each plan I can choose that explains covered services and the monthly cost. Why could I not get the same thing with the government mandated health care? Nearly one TRILLION DOLLARS, and I could not find an equivalent summary anywhere. What was Schauer hiding? Did he even know what is in the legislation? The idea that so called health care reform will reduce the deficit is just not true. I am going to work hard to make sure Schauer is a one term mistake. Please join me.