Now please read carefully - the above claim by the Washington Post (which has published more misleading, unsubstantiated articles of late) is false. Here, Maggie Mahar explained, very clearly, why.
With a little bit of digging, the Washington Post would have known that these proposed Medicare cuts were never actually performed even though they have always been budgeted in falsely during the Bush administration, simply because it is impossible to do. Part of the current problems with health care is that our current reimbursements are illogical, with important fields like primary care and palliative care underpaid, while other fields are overpaid. Blindly cutting reimbursements across the board is lazy and stupid - Problems with Medicare reimbursements are obviously complicated and require well thought-out, personalized, specific changes. If the Washington Post had done a little research, they would have known that suddenly accumulating all past unperformed cuts and execute it in one blow years later is a ridiculous idea, not to mention that Congress for all of those years never went through with it - why should they suddenly go through with a ridiculous idea at an even more ridiculous level (21%) now?
This makes me question - what type of irresponsible journalism led the Washington Post to make such false, inflammatory claim when a simple research would have shown that the claim is untrue?
More interestingly, watch this face-off between Maggie and