• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainties'

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainties' - FoxNews.com

Though projected Medicare savings were used to build the case for the Obama administration's health care overhaul, the GAO report -- rather, non-report -- declared "significant uncertainties" in those assumptions.

The audit stated that as a result, "we are unable to, and we do not, express an opinion on the 2010 Statement of Social Insurance," which covers long-term budget projections for Social Security, Medicare and other benefits programs. The statement is the latest budgetary document to raise questions about whether the government's plans for reining in Medicare will hold.

"We couldn't determine whether the numbers were fairly presented in the statement," Robert Dacey, chief GAO accountant, told FoxNews.com. "There are a lot of concerns about whether or not (planned cost reductions) could be achieved."

The GAO report cited an alternative projection showing the long-term shortfall over 75 years could actually be $12.4 trillion more than the $22.8 trillion estimated by the federal government. The huge gap between possible budget scenarios made it virtually impossible to weigh in, Dacey said.

The office noted concerns that Medicare costs will probably exceed those in current projections, in part because of a law that would nix planned reductions in doctor payments through the end of next year. The report specifically questioned a projection that doctor payment rates would be reduced by 30 percent over three years.

"There are significant uncertainties concerning the achievement of these projected decreases in Medicare costs," GAO said.

Wow. The Obama administration experts at work. Gotta love that 'hopey-changy' thing, huh.

The administrations numbers are so hopelessly ****ed up, the GAO can't even properly audit them!

And without knowing the real numbers on Medicare, you can't count on any savings there for use in paying for that monstrosity called Obamacare. Sweet.

Way to go, Barry!
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

And this is a surprise? Just ask Pelosi or Reed, they will give you the straight facts.:lol:

It has been my experience that most of the time what the govt/Congress tells you about a program and its costs/savings is mostly BS.
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

GAO estimates are always a crapshoot anyway. They're often laughably wrong. Anyway, I'm not too worried about it. Health care costs for many procedures should fall dramatically (and the quality of service should improve dramatically) in the next 10-20 years, as genome sequencing, stem cell therapy, senescence treatments, and nanotechnology completely revolutionize the field of medicine. It will make preventative medicine much more commonplace, which should reduce the overall cost of health care to a small fraction of what it is now.

I'm not at all worried about the sustainability of our health care spending. Government projections always assume that our grandchildren will have no better medical care than we do, which is a ridiculous assumption.
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

Anyway, I'm not too worried about it. Health care costs for many procedures should fall dramatically (and the quality of service should improve dramatically) in the next 10-20 years, as genome sequencing, stem cell therapy, senescence treatments, and nanotechnology completely revolutionize the field of medicine. It will make preventative medicine much more commonplace, which should reduce the overall cost of health care to a small fraction of what it is now.

Yeah... Good luck with that. Unless you're actually kidding, in which case very well done. Very funny.
 
Last edited:
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

Yeah... Good luck with that. Unless you're actually kidding, in which case very well done. Very funny.

So you believe that our grandchildren will have no better medical care than we do, and that our projections should just assume that there is no medical progress at all in the future? Pessimistic projections of our health care expenditures are premised on exactly that assumption.
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

So you believe that our grandchildren will have no better medical care than we do, and that our projections should just assume that there is no medical progress at all in the future? Pessimistic projections of our health care expenditures are premised on exactly that assumption.

Oh no. They'll certainly have better care. I'm simply arguing the point that health costs will not fall.
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

GAO estimates are always a crapshoot anyway. They're often laughably wrong. Anyway, I'm not too worried about it. Health care costs for many procedures should fall dramatically (and the quality of service should improve dramatically) in the next 10-20 years, as genome sequencing, stem cell therapy, senescence treatments, and nanotechnology completely revolutionize the field of medicine. It will make preventative medicine much more commonplace, which should reduce the overall cost of health care to a small fraction of what it is now.

I'm not at all worried about the sustainability of our health care spending. Government projections always assume that our grandchildren will have no better medical care than we do, which is a ridiculous assumption.
the GAO, a VERY competent agency, was prudent in pointing out that it was unable to concur with the optimistic assumptions
would much rather have that frank assessment instead of a rubber stamp on bogus projections ... which blind acquiescence is so commonplace in government at all levels these days

while i agree that health care for future generations should become much better - and you are correct in recognizing the past is prelude to come to that conclusion, your logic is undermined when you expect better health care to be provided at a reduced cost when compared to today. our per capita expenditure for health care has exploded
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

Oh no. They'll certainly have better care. I'm simply arguing the point that health costs will not fall.

justabubba said:
your logic is undermined when you expect better health care to be provided at a reduced cost when compared to today. our per capita expenditure for health care has exploded

Well, that's mainly because we've gotten much better quality care than in previous decades. To the extent that older treatments are even available anymore, I bet that they are much more affordable (after adjusting for inflation and PPP of course) than in the past. So I really don't have a problem with costs increasing if we're getting sufficiently better quality as a result.

However, I don't think that even increasing costs from better quality will likely be a problem for much longer. The next few decades seem likely to be fundamentally different than the last few decades in terms of medical care, due to the types of technologies set to break through in the coming years. Although treatment has improved in the last few decades, it still works fundamentally the same way today: The patient visits the doctor with some malady, and the doctor diagnoses/treats it. That pattern will not hold for much longer. The emerging technologies that are on the horizon now (especially personalized genome sequencing and stem cell therapy) offer much more potential than merely providing better QUALITY of care, they will take us from a "sick care" economy to a preventative care economy. This should reduce the costs dramatically, since it's almost always cheaper to prevent problems from occurring than to treat them.
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

the GAO, a VERY competent agency, was prudent in pointing out that it was unable to concur with the optimistic assumptions
would much rather have that frank assessment instead of a rubber stamp on bogus projections ... which blind acquiescence is so commonplace in government at all levels these days

I agree, but that has been their stance all along. The GAO (even when they have issued numbers) has often taken great pains to emphasize that these are just projections. The FOX News article makes it sound like this is a harbinger of the apocalypse, but all the GAO is really saying is that there is a lot of uncertainty with Medicare right now.
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

GAO estimates are always a crapshoot anyway. They're often laughably wrong. Anyway, I'm not too worried about it. Health care costs for many procedures should fall dramatically (and the quality of service should improve dramatically) in the next 10-20 years, as genome sequencing, stem cell therapy, senescence treatments, and nanotechnology completely revolutionize the field of medicine. It will make preventative medicine much more commonplace, which should reduce the overall cost of health care to a small fraction of what it is now.

I'm not at all worried about the sustainability of our health care spending. Government projections always assume that our grandchildren will have no better medical care than we do, which is a ridiculous assumption.

Not saying that this isn't possible, but people said the exact same things 20 or 30 years ago.
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

We as a nation have(for the past decade or so) been steadily marching to a situation where the definitions of technical terms and the measurement of data available to us, both of which are used for making hugely important policy decisions, have been rendered increasingly vague or illusory. The end result is that the government can describe the technical aspects of the economy in any way it likes and have the end result be confusion and apathy rather than understanding and anger.

The definition of the term "recession," for example. It once has a very well-known mathematical definition (I believe it was 2 consecutive quarters of decline in the GDP, but that's neither here nor there), and the definition most commonly used has since become significantly less firm. In some cases, the duration of decline necessary for a recession has telescoped to a year and beyond, and in other cases the word is used as if it's some kind of slang adjective.

At any rate, this is nothing new, it doesn't surprise me, and I don't see it stopping anytime soon -- no matter who is in the White House or running Capitol Hill.
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainties' - FoxNews.com




Wow. The Obama administration experts at work. Gotta love that 'hopey-changy' thing, huh.

The administrations numbers are so hopelessly ****ed up, the GAO can't even properly audit them!

And without knowing the real numbers on Medicare, you can't count on any savings there for use in paying for that monstrosity called Obamacare. Sweet.

Way to go, Barry!

And with the new census data, I'm sure it's even more interesting.
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

Did I fall asleep and miss where the GAO became a partisan organization?
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

Did I fall asleep and miss where the GAO became a partisan organization?

Who said that they were? I'm reading the OP's post as arguing that the fact that GAO has given up on making these estimates says something about the validity of the numbers that people have used to defend the health care bill and its supposed cost curbs for Medicare.
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

Who said that they were? I'm reading the OP's post as arguing that the fact that GAO has given up on making these estimates says something about the validity of the numbers that people have used to defend the health care bill and its supposed cost curbs for Medicare.

I was referring to all the responses who try to paint this as being the fault of Democrats specifically.
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

I was referring to all the responses who try to paint this as being the fault of Democrats specifically.

If the uncertainty is caused in large part by the democrats' health care bill and its never-gonna-happen cuts in medicare reimbursement rates, then why would it be wrong to paint this as having been caused by those democrats? It sounds like that's exactly what happened.
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

From the OP:

The GAO report cited an alternative projection showing the long-term shortfall over 75 years could actually be $12.4 trillion more than the $22.8 trillion estimated by the federal government. The huge gap between possible budget scenarios made it virtually impossible to weigh in, Dacey said.

Gosh, the GAO can't project medical care costs over the next 75 years. Go figure. Must be the fault of the Obama administration. Since there have been hardly any changes in medical science since 1935, and since scientific progress has stopped now; since changes in demographics are all calculated with precision, and since everyone knows what the needs will be in 2085, one would expect an exact account of the expenditures anticipated over that time, wouldn't you think?
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

From the OP:



Gosh, the GAO can't project medical care costs over the next 75 years. Go figure. Must be the fault of the Obama administration. Since there have been hardly any changes in medical science since 1935, and since scientific progress has stopped now; since changes in demographics are all calculated with precision, and since everyone knows what the needs will be in 2085, one would expect an exact account of the expenditures anticipated over that time, wouldn't you think?

Snark aside, he has a perfectly valid point.

Actuaries regularly calculate the 75-year shortfalls for programs like SS and Medicare. They've been able to do it for the past few decades. It's only now, after the most recent healthcare bill included huge cuts that nobody with any sense believes will actually happen, that these actuaries are now unable to even come up with numbers at all.

I think that's a perfectly valid story to note, as it highlights how much of the supposed "cost savings" in Obama's healthcare bill are simply pipe dreams and delusions.
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

Not saying that this isn't possible, but people said the exact same things 20 or 30 years ago.

Most of the medical advances that were predicted for today were the kinds of things that actually transpired: Better treatments for major killers, better monitoring of infectious diseases, and the beginnings of effective cancer therapy and genetic therapy. When people went out on a limb, it was mostly for things like a cure for cancer...In other words, people thought medicine would get better but the fundamental way we practice medicine was not really in question.

That won't be the case in the next few decades. The cost of genome sequencing is dropping at a Moore's Law-like rate, so that we'll probably be able to sequence our genomes for $1,000 by next year and for $100 a few years after that. This (along with advances in stem cell therapy which are tightly intertwined with genomics) will not merely enable BETTER medicine, it will enable a different KIND of medicine...where people know exactly what diseases they are at risk for, where medicine is prescribed for specific patients instead of the average patient, where we can regrow healthy organs/tissues in the laboratory, and where we can reprogram our cells and turn our genes on and off at will. All of these things mean that we should have a lot more preventative care soon, which is almost always cheaper than treating disease.
 
Last edited:
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

Not saying that this isn't possible, but people said the exact same things 20 or 30 years ago.

I would agree with Right here. Partially, some of the higher costs are due to the better treatment. If someone would have died in his 60s from a disease we now can treat lives to 95, we've just increased healthcare costs by that extension. Sure, individual costs may have declined by the extension of life via increased treatments seems to have erased those financial cost reductions. Sure, we live longer due to better treatment, but we end up costing more. We get all this new stuff, but it doesn't make it cheaper.

And preventive medicine won't reduce the most expensive medical costs.
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

And preventive medicine won't reduce the most expensive medical costs.

Sure it will. Detecting and treating cancer when it's 1,000 cells is a lot cheaper than chemotherapy when it's 10 billion cells and has metastasized to several organs. And prescribing personalized medicine to a healthy person to prevent heart disease (which their genome shows they will likely develop 10 years from now) is a lot cheaper than a heart attack.
 
Last edited:
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

Sure it will. Detecting and treating cancer when it's 1,000 cells is a lot cheaper than chemotherapy when it's 10 billion cells and has metastasized to several organs. And prescribing personalized medicine to a healthy person to prevent heart disease (which their genome shows they will likely develop 10 years from now) is a lot cheaper than a heart attack.

I was talking more about end of life care. That stuff is exorbiantly expensive. The last 2 years of my grandfather's life were expoentially more in medical costs then the rest of his life combined. Costs were in the thousands per day. Preventive won't stop the body from shutting down.
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

Sure it will. Detecting and treating cancer when it's 1,000 cells is a lot cheaper than chemotherapy when it's 10 billion cells and has metastasized to several organs. And prescribing personalized medicine to a healthy person to prevent heart disease (which their genome shows they will likely develop 10 years from now) is a lot cheaper than a heart attack.

But even if all that comes to pass, it still won't lower the costs of hiring nurses to wipe asses and to help people climb in and out of wheelchairs.

I just have a hard time envisioning any scenario in which our health care costs decrease except as the result of a decision to simply stop providing some types of care.
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

But even if all that comes to pass, it still won't lower the costs of hiring nurses to wipe asses and to help people climb in and out of wheelchairs.

I just have a hard time envisioning any scenario in which our health care costs decrease except as the result of a decision to simply stop providing some types of care.

Unfortunately, money is finite while need is not. Death panels are going to happen no matter if we go with public or private medical financing.
 
Re: GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainti

I was talking more about end of life care. That stuff is exorbiantly expensive. The last 2 years of my grandfather's life were expoentially more in medical costs then the rest of his life combined. Costs were in the thousands per day. Preventive won't stop the body from shutting down.

No, but it can delay the amount of time before the body shuts down, which A) reduces the overall health care cost at any given point in time, and B) buys time for future medical advances to further delay the amount of time before the body shuts down.
 
Back
Top Bottom