When the Republicans release their budget next week, they'll likely say they have a "new" Medicare proposal that will "save" Medicare instead of eliminate it. That's not true. The Republicans still plan to end Medicare as we know it. But this time they'll do so with the support of Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon.
Based on the draft proposal released in December by Wyden and House Republican Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, the GOP's Medicare plan will give seniors a voucher to buy insurance coverage just like the last plan. From the start, the vouchers would be underfunded and won't cover the costs of the insurance. Under the last proposal, seniors would pay $6,400 more on day one. Then the voucher would not keep up with rising costs of coverage. Based on the last plan, seniors would pay a staggering 68 percent of the cost of their medical care in 2030, compared to 25 percent if the law remains unchanged.
Here's what the media say is going to be different in the new plan: Seniors could go into the private insurance market or use their voucher to purchase "traditional" Medicare. But providing vouchers instead of benefits isn't Medicare as we have known it for 46 years. Medicare guarantees that beneficiaries get a specific set of benefits and services, and it pays doctors and hospitals when those services are provided. You get defined benefits that you can count on and your costs are predictable. This is what the Republicans want to get rid of.
The Republican plan -- the brainchild of Wyden and Ryan -- is the opposite. Your benefits are not guaranteed. You're on your own in the insurance marketplace. Seniors would be given a fixed dollar amount via the voucher and they would be responsible for purchasing a plan and paying the difference between the voucher and what it really costs to get a plan with the benefits and services they need. As noted above, the difference will be huge and get larger every year. This is how seniors will be crushed by out-of-pocket health care costs. While they'll have the option to remain in traditional "Medicare," they'll have to pay for it as if it were private insurance.
The new choice offered by the Republican plan is a false one because the Medicare option will go away. The entire scheme is structured so healthier people get cherry picked by private insurers because the inadequate voucher will go farther in the private market for healthier people who need less coverage, while sicker people will prefer the security of "Medicare." Older seniors and those with chronic conditions will simply be priced out of the private market and that will eliminate one of the key points of Medicare -- it spreads out the risk (and has more purchasing power). If Medicare is saddled with only the sicker people, it will whither and die, and the Republicans will achieve their goal. It will just take a little longer. And Medicare won't be any less dead because a Democratic senator got bipartisan and agreed to preside over the interment.
Despite their rhetoric, the Republican plan isn't about controlling health care costs, it's about shifting health care costs from the government to seniors. Instead of cutting waste and insurance company profits, the Republicans make seniors pay more. Instead of asking the 1% to pay their fair share in taxes, the Republicans make seniors pay more. Instead of eliminating corporate tax breaks like subsidies for profit-rich oil companies, the Republicans make seniors pay more. And they do it with a scheme that would totally replace Medicare with vouchers and private insurance.
The Republicans know that their plan to eliminate Medicare is a political loser. That's why they're trying to dress it up with a new policy twist and lots of new rhetoric about how they're the ones trying to save Medicare when the truth is exactly the opposite. Not surprisingly, Mitt Romney has been joining this conversation with plenty of lies of his own. See here, here and here.
The Republicans are trying to blur the lines. They're hoping to make it harder for voters to see the difference between the two parties on Medicare.
But it's a bright line and Democrats should make sure to keep it that way. It's a defining issue that separates the Democrats from the Republicans. Democrats have the moral high ground and a clear electoral advantage. People like Medicare and the politicians who support it. Giving up this difference would be a policy and political disaster for the Democrats.
Jon Soltz: GOP Budget Doesn't Even Say the Word "Veteran"
Not that I like insurance companies very much, but there are many more ways to reduce health care costs and insurance premiums than direct government involvement.
You dems always have it out for those evil CEOs. Perhaps you are jealous that you don't have the skill to become one and command their level of compensation. Perhaps not. This kind of jealosuly overlooks the real contribution insurance companies make to the high cost of health care.
Both insurance company extortion (through the power of their groups) that should be regulated/eliminated and government over-regulation that inhibits competition are what drive costs up. The Affordable Care Act does nothing to address these issues. Competition at the consumer level is non-existent in the health care industry. Force insurance companies to compete for customers one policy at a time and without creating a single additional government entitlement, Obama could have brought health care costs and premiums down, opening the opportunity to acquire insurance to much of the 40 million uninsured who would buy insurance if they could only afford insurance. This in turn would cut down on the ER issue that you mentioned.
The cost of Obamacare, like the cost of medicare has been grossly underestimated and will have far worse unintended consequenses than any of the benefits Democrats have tricked us into believing we will get.
Make health care unaffordable for most seniors and you solve a host of problems - when they die early you save on SS and Medicare and Medicaid. A win-win for the GOP.
Sorry folks, your government has made a bunch of promises that they can't possibly keep. The rate of increase of healthcare costs coupled with the increase in # of beneficiaries will overwhelm the government's ability to fund this program. It's not politics, it's mathematics. Based on current trends, cost per individual will double in less than 10 years. In the same time, the #of beneficiaries will increase by 33%.
Current spending is roughly $550B. Double that to $1.1T and then add 33%. That's almost $1.5T 10 years out, and it only goes up from there. Current tax revenue is only $2.2T. Does anyone really believe we can spend $1.5T JUST on Medicare?
"Republicans know that their plan to eliminate Medicare is a political loser."
Yes, voters like to hear that they are going to get a bunch of benefits, despite the fact that the people making the promises are telling blatant and obvious lies.
Somebody needs the guts to come out and tell the truth, and the voters need to be given a high school math refresher so that they recognize the truth when they see it. Only when we admit the problem can we deal with it.
Thanks anyway.
They have made it quite clear that their priorities are:
1) Corporations, banks, energy companies, insurance companies, and so on
2) Wealthy and other Politicians
3) Their family and personal wealth
THey will serve their priorities by
1) Moving money from seniors and the poor to corporations, banks, energy and insurance companies
2) Reduce services and support for all but the wealthy
3) Increase state level regressive taxes (sales, property, etc) and fees that benefit the wealth and penalize the 99%
4) Eliminate rights for women and minorities through various methods
5) Increase drug testing company profits by mandating drug testing for most Americans
4)
We do not come from your planet,
but can we please have some of that you're smokin'?
Being that far detached from reality must be a real TRIP!