Reporters - Bah

Here's a headline from today's New York Times:

For Some Who Manage to Solve Puzzle, New Medicare Drug Plan Is Paying Off

Now here are some grafs from the article itself:

"One way to assess the program is to talk to people in a place like Tulsa. People here are far removed from the raucous debate in Washington, where Republicans describe the drug benefit as a boon to older Americans and many Democrats call it a disaster.
....

"In Oklahoma, Medicare beneficiaries can choose from 43 prescription drug plans, with premiums ranging from $10.07 to $70.79 a month, different co-payments and very different lists of covered drugs.
....

"Satisfied beneficiaries say they could never have analyzed the options or made a choice without the help of friends and relatives, pharmacists or counselors from groups like LIFE Senior Services, a private nonprofit group, which offers advice at seminars and enrollment clinics in the Tulsa area.
....

"The counselors are adept at using the Medicare Web site to compare drug plans and identify the ones with the lowest overall annual cost for a particular beneficiary. Before selecting a plan, a beneficiary typically must spend an hour with a counselor, but some spend much more time.
....

"For example, Bobby G. Brown, a retired letter carrier, and his wife, Anna, both 71, spent four hours with a LIFE counselor. "It was well worth the time," said Mrs. Brown, who is being treated for congestive heart failure, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, high cholesterol, depression and other ailments.
....

"People who are satisfied are the quieter voices," said Leslie A. Dick, executive director of the Burgundy Place retirement community in Tulsa.
....

"Many beneficiaries say they are grateful to local insurance counselors, rather than to Medicare, the government or politicians.
....

"We had a whole lot better deal before the government started messing with it," said Francis A. Murphy, 79, a retired airline mechanic who is losing drug benefits from a former employer. He said he did not expect to see any savings under Medicare. Beneficiaries are anxious about their choices for good reason. Their out-of-pocket costs under different plans can vary by hundreds or thousands of dollars a year.
....

"Even those who save money may complain because the new program is "much too complicated for a lot of people to understand," Mr. Coffey said.
....

"Todd E. Pendergraft, owner of a Medicine Shoppe pharmacy in Broken Arrow, Okla., outside Tulsa, said the new drug coverage was "significantly beneficial" to one-third of his 750 Medicare patients, "marginally beneficial" to half the patients and "no benefit at all" to the remainder.
....

"They are not on Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor. People eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare had comprehensive drug coverage under Medicaid, but lost it on Jan. 1 and were assigned at random to private Medicare drug plans. The Medicare plans may charge slightly higher co-payments and often cover fewer drugs.

"Also, Medicare beneficiaries are more likely to appreciate the new benefit if they live in places like Oklahoma that did not have generous state-financed programs to help them with their drug costs. Drug benefits have been available for years to low-income people through state programs in Maine, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, among other states.
....

Beneficiaries could face new problems in coming months. Insurers can impose stricter limits on access to certain drugs after March 31, when a 90-day transition period ends. In addition, some beneficiaries will have to pay more at the pharmacy counter, because most drug plans have a gap in coverage after a person's total drug costs reach $2,250. The gap lasts until the beneficiary incurs total drug costs of $5,100. Beyond that point, Medicare pays about 95 percent of the cost of each prescription."

Emphasis added.

It appears that some people are getting a benefit, but the majority are not. Who allows such a misleading headline. & the gratuitous slam at Washington - ReThugs for the plan & Dems against it, as if both are wrong. This is the "balance" bullshit the MSM claims it aims for. If you read the article, those people who have statistics on the benefits, claim that a good majority of seniors do not get much of a benefit. The anecdotal evidence provided by the reporters is interesting, but it's not in context. Note how the better off seniors are now better off. Jeez, that's hardly proof that the plan is working. & note that Tulsa is in a state that had a woefully inadequate program to begin with, again it's hardly a surprise that some people are happier. & while I would certainly encourage everyone to get a lot of help in figuring this thing out, why the hell is it so hard to figure out in the first place? Yeah, yeah, market forces. Why didn't this reporter interview those who didn't sign up yet, to find out why they didn't? The Times seem to indicate that these folks are just too damn lazy to figure out a complex, unfair plan. It's their fault that they can't figure it out. & those who are finding the benefits are the quiet, rock solid, heartland Americans. &, again, the implication is that because they don't complain, aren't raucous, they deserve the benefit. Shh, be quiet, then you'll get yours from Bu$hCo. Typical ReThug compassion.