Privatizing Medicare and Medicaid

[Howey]

aka "Return of the Republican Death Panels"

Going against the wishes of the public, the GOP's new Budget Czar has decided that medical care for the disabled and elderly be privatized.

The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills. Mr. Ryan and other conservatives say this is necessary because of the program's soaring costs. Medicare cost $396.5 billion in 2010 and is projected to rise to $502.8 billion in 2016. At that pace, spending on the program would have doubled between 2002 and 2016.

Mr. Ryan's proposal would apply to those currently under the age of 55, and for those Americans would convert Medicare into a "premium support" system. Participants from that group would choose from an array of private insurance plans when they reach 65 and become eligible, and the government would pay about the first $15,000 in premiums.

The proposal would also convert Medicaid, the health program for the poor, into a series of block grants to give states more flexibility. And it is expected to suggest significant cuts in Social Security, while proposing fewer details on how to achieve them.

What does this do? It ends Medicare for those under 55, allowing them to "pick" a private health care plan and pay for it with a voucher.

I can just see the health care companies lining up to increase rates! Hello, Solantic!

Next little item of interest. How will these vouchers be paid for? By raising taxes on the poor, of course!

Conservative activists who are familiar with the Ryan plan said they expect it to call for a fundamental overhaul of the tax system, with a 25% top rate for both individuals and corporations, compared to the current 35% top rate.

[ekg]

It also doesn't give 'cost of living' -like raises to the amounts of the voucher.. meaning, as insurance costs rise, the rich will still be able to supplement the gov't voucher with their personal funds, where as the poor will not.. so they will get less and less coverage.

the irony here is this plan also looks a whole lot like it should be called "Obamacare for the elderly"  with it's vouchers and market-place of private insurance to chose from..  it just doesn't have the safety nets Obamacare has to make it a good plan..


I still find it amazing that even in a south American rainforest, .they have universal health care

Iraq and Afghanistan, have uni healthcare that we pay for..

.. us? not so much..

[Howey]

It also doesn't give 'cost of living' -like raises to the amounts of the voucher.. meaning, as insurance costs rise, the rich will still be able to supplement the gov't voucher with their personal funds, where as the poor will not.. so they will get less and less coverage.

the irony here is this plan also looks a whole lot like it should be called "Obamacare for the elderly"  with it's vouchers and market-place of private insurance to chose from..  it just doesn't have the safety nets Obamacare has to make it a good plan..


I still find it amazing that even in a south American rainforest, .they have universal health care

Iraq and Afghanistan, have uni healthcare that we pay for..

.. us? not so much..

Wait until all these unsuspecting idiots under 55 find out they're not going to get a refund of what they've been paying into Medicare all these years...or the elderly start dropping dead for lack of care...

[uselesslegs]

But protect fetuses at all costs!  "That's different, they can't care for themselves!"  "And the elderly and infirm have a leg up...because?"

Surreal Irony is lost on so many.

[Howey]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/04/bring_on_the_bamboozlement_1.php

As House Republicans cue up their Medicare Phase-out legislation, we're about to be treated, once again, to an example of how political actors use press cowardice to deceive the public. Rep. Paul Ryan's plan, which is now the official Republican plan, phases out Medicare over 10 years. Yet you'll be treated to numerous articles that call this a 'reform' or 'overhaul' or even 'saving' Medicare. But each are no better than straight outright deceptions, whether by design or ignorance.

The Medicare system has been in place in the United States for a bit more than 40 years. The premise is simple: once you hit retirement age you move into a single payer health care insurance system in which Medicare takes responsibility for your care, regardless of the state of your health or income level. There are copays. No one's crazy about exactly how much is covered. Some doctors opt out. You've probably heard all of this at one point or another. But the key is that you're in the program. And for the rest of your life you're out of the private health insurance system. You're covered. Permanently and on the same terms as everyone else.

Now, this isn't just a good thing if you're a senior or have parents who are seniors or have anyone in your life who's a senior, which presumably means virtually everyone. It's also just necessary for pretty obvious reasons.

We all know about pre-existing conditions. You're a cancer survivor so no insurer will cover you. Or you have one of the myriad possible conditions that make you a bad risk. And no insurer wants to issue a policy for someone who odds say is likely to cost a lot of money. Well, guess what, people over 65 all have a preexisting condition: they're old!

Now, not that people aren't living longer and longer lives. And plenty of folks in their late 60s are in better health than folks 10 or 20 years younger. But by and large, we all know how this life thing works. When you hit your mid-60s or so, things start breaking down. And eventually, you die. That's a bald way to put it. But we all understand that this is true. The simple truth is that for all the problems with private health insurance for the young and working age populations, it just doesn't work for seniors.

We tried it. That's why we ended up creating Medicare.

Now, you might say, how is it that the President's health care reform has managed to ban insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions? Well, good question. But there's a straightforward answer. Most younger and working age people don't have chronic health problems. So if you can make sure that everybody is in the health care system -- that's what the mandate is about -- you have enough revenues from premiums to offset the very high costs of the relatively small number with chronic conditions. But the same approach won't work with seniors. Because, again, as a group old people just aren't healthy enough. There are complicated health care economics ways of explaining it. But do the math. It's obvious.

The Ryan plan is to get rid of Medicare and in place of it give seniors a voucher to buy health care insurance from private insurers. Now, what if you can't buy as much as insurance or as much care as you need? Well, start saving now or just too bad.

Now, by any reasonable standard, that's getting rid of Medicare. Abolishing Medicare. Phasing it out. Whatever you want to call it. Medicare is this single payer program that guarantees seniors health care, as noted above. Ryan's plan pushes seniors into the private markets and give them a voucher. That's called getting rid of the program. There's simply no ifs or caveats about. That's not cuts or slowing of the growth. That's abolishing the whole program. Saying anything else is a lie.

[Howey]

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/04/paul-ryan-slams-medicaids-middle-class-beneficiaries-as-the-new-welfare-queens/

[P]eople are supposed to think Medicaid is that "bad" kind of government spending, the one that goes to shiftless black folks not hard-working Americans like you and me and Paul Ryan. [...]

This is mostly a program for the elderly and the disabled. It's the main way we finance long-term care in this country. If you don't directly benefit from it, you very likely have a parent or grandparent who does and whose financial needs will simply tend to fall on you if the program is cut. Meanwhile, in terms of the "welfare" aspect of Medicaid by far the largest set of poor people it covers are poor children. Is Ryan's view that these kids should have worked harder to have rich parents? Poor kids tend to struggle with a lot of problems and are in many ways disadvantaged in the competitive economy by the time they're out of diapers. It seems to me that investing in their basic health care is a no brainer way of leveling the playing field somewhat and ensuring that the country is making the most of our human resources.

[lil mike]

It also doesn't give 'cost of living' -like raises to the amounts of the voucher.. meaning, as insurance costs rise, the rich will still be able to supplement the gov't voucher with their personal funds, where as the poor will not.. so they will get less and less coverage.

the irony here is this plan also looks a whole lot like it should be called "Obamacare for the elderly"  with it's vouchers and market-place of private insurance to chose from..  it just doesn't have the safety nets Obamacare has to make it a good plan..


I still find it amazing that even in a south American rainforest, .they have universal health care

Iraq and Afghanistan, have uni healthcare that we pay for..

.. us? not so much..

It actually seems very close to Obamacare.  Or sort of a cross between Obamacare and Medicare part D. 

[ekg]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/04/bring_on_the_bamboozlement_1.php
 
 

when asked about what he was going to say when Dems explained this bill to people.. Ryan said Dems will have to “lie and demagogue to make it a weapon against us.”

sure, yeah.. explanation how they are going to get fucked is lying and demagoguery..

but the key part in that piece..

, once again, to an example of how political actors use press cowardice to deceive the public. 

[Howey]

when asked about what he was going to say when Dems explained this bill to people.. Ryan said Dems will have to “lie and demagogue to make it a weapon against us.”

sure, yeah.. explanation how they are going to get fucked is lying and demagoguery..

but the key part in that piece..

, once again, to an example of how political actors use press cowardice to deceive the public. 

Yet he had to rush over to Glenn Beck's show to reap in the adolations, including a  heartfelt "I love you!" from Beck.