This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Matthew K. Wynia, MD
Tufts New England Medical Center Boston, Mass

JAMA. 1996;276(1):30.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—Dr Wright¹ defends proposed Republican changes to Medicare as necessary and good because, he claims, Medicare spending must be reduced to save the Medicare Trust Fund and, moreover, because a reduction in expected spending for Medicare is not actually a budget cut. These assertions are startling.

The news that current Republican proposals are urgently needed to save the Medicare Trust Fund is surprising for 2 reasons. First, the trust fund covers Medicare Part A only, while more than half of Republicans' proposed cuts come from Part B. Second, for years the trustees of Medicare have issued little-noted reports explaining when in the future the trust fund could run out of money; now, suddenly, Republicans propose urgent reductions that, incidentally, are at least 3 times larger than necessary to solidify the fund.

Wright's distaste for the word cut in the context of Medicare is also intriguing. Previously . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?