Anyway - back on topic.
Link
(1) I recognize that assumptions must be made in order to give some sort of guesstimations.
But assuming that the legislation remain untouched for 20 years is not going to happen. Therefore virtually all of the opinions contained herein regarding any budgetary cost increases or reductions are, to me, worthless. However, we must make these assumptions in porder to have some sort of discussion.
(2) So initially they make an assumption that the "Independent Payment Advisory Board"
Who constitutes this board, and if their recommendations are in some cases non-binding then how are there going to be savings?
Furthermore, reducing physician payments will further reduce the number of providers accepting medicare as a payment form. Medicare is already reimbursing providers at a rate of approx. 20 -35% less than standard insurance carriers.
If you are not willing to pay them what they are currently receiving now and instead reduce that amount by 21% in the future, there will obviously be less providers accepting medicare as a form of payment. That is simply basic econ101.
(3) Now I know that this is from the CBO, and apparently there are provisions in the bill somewhere that specify all this quite clearly, but I couldn't find it. This is one of the troubling parts that the left says isn't rationing care, and the right says is. I don't know how else to look at it other than as it is written. "It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care." There is no guarantee, but it seems pretty clear that that the reduction of benefits is an option according to the CBO. Even taking that the care won't be rationed, it isn't clear to the CBO whether the cost reductions are even a viability.
Lastly, What steps are being taken to ensure that there will be enough primary care physicians, medical supplies and facilities to handle the increase in demand even though a shortage already exists today? Fewer physicians are currently accepting Medicare patients, and not all of the baby-boomers have retired?
Cue the partisan talking points.