I am not well versed in the inner workings of Medicare. I do know that the plan, like all things related to health care and health insurance, needs some tweaking. We face an aging population and swelling health care needs. There is always room for improvement. What strikes me most about the terminology we use is the irony; there is very little focus on “care” when it comes to all things health related. Patients become numbers, statistics, and actuarial data. Doctors and insurance companies see dollars. More energy is spent caring about money than caring about people. And now we’ve come to a point in our country where our choices can impact the most vulnerable among us, the elderly. I encourage you to read what the Brookings Institute has to say on the issue of Medicare reform.
I am not here as an insurance expert, but as I write about the topic of Medicare from a lay perspective, I cannot help but cringe at the thought of a voucher system. Something about this system seems sketchy to me. We continue to implement consumer compromises in an effort to reduce costs, but have yet to hold insurance companies accountable. Unfortunately, there are no lobbyists for regular people, and we don’t have the muscle to throw our weight around Congress.
The voucher system sounds good on paper alone. It does not take into account realistic increases in health care costs that seniors would have to pay out of pocket. The plan on paper would have you think seniors would actually make money by pocketing the difference between coverage and actual costs. The truth is, coverage would be eroded over time as health care costs and premiums rise.
There are no guarantees.
Vouchers are supposed to fuel competition. There is still no solid evidence on how that plays out. The crux of the challenge continues to be the insurance companies. How can we ensure they are regulated and not participating in deceptive practices? The fleecing of the elderly is rampant in all things financial. I spent almost 10 years working in the financial services industry and worked a great deal with the elderly population. Policies, tax codes, investments, and such are confusing to the most knowledgeable among us. The complexity is simply mind-numbing and exponentially so for many seniors.
This is how I see it from a purely human perspective ... We are talking about one of our country’s most vulnerable populations here. There are stories in the news everyday about people who try to swindle the elderly. Why would our own government be a part of that treachery? We are talking about 50 million Americans here. Not numbers, not statistics. People. The question to ask is this: Do our leaders care more about the financial deficit or the moral deficit our country faces? We must take care of our people.
This post is part of a weekly conversation with our Moms Matter 2012 political bloggers. To see the original question and what the other writers have to say, see Should Medicare Be Replaced by Subsidies?
Image via James McTaggart
This Hot Dad Wants to Vacuum Your Rug
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
KStew Refuses to Shower
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
Comments 47
An acceptable definition of "privatization" is, "Instead of directly producing some service, the government may finance private services, for example, through contracting-out or vouchers."
Although Ryan calls them "premium supports" instead of vouchers, the definittion still applies.
The Ryan plan takes some functions the government currently provides and transfers these to private sector insurance companies, providing a government subsidy to pay for the private sector services.
Ryan is clear about this -- he thinks the private sector will do a better job in these activities as opposed to the ‘monopoly’ government agency. This is a traditional argument in favor of this kind of privatization.
Seniors will have a choice to stay on traditional Medicare, or opt out of Medicare and receive a voucher. Medicare is not being privatized.
Yes, they have a choice to use their "premium support" for Medicare or private insurance.
Lovemyviolet you are acting like the government does things better than the private market does, and I don't know what evidence you have. They have control of education and its in trouble, they have control of Amtrack and its in trouble, they have control of the post office and its in big trouble. What has the government taken over that they've done well. You guys are worried about Ryan having the facts wrong but what about the projected cost of Obamacare. Here is something from the weekly standard to illustrate my point.
You may not like it but health care is a service provided by business and employee's and those employee's need to get paid. So yes it is a good idea to make a profit of health care. What we need to find is the right way to do it. The right way is not redistributing wealth. Medicare as we know it isn't working and what Obama did killed it anyway. Now they will have to deal with bureaucrats from Washington to decide if they deserve a hip replacement or not. They need choices and the best way to do that is voucher's. What you are not getting is right now Medicare only pays a portion of the bill and the cost is passed to the rest of us, especially since they don't know when the government will reimburse them. Cash voucher's are away of ensuring the doctor's office gets paid. Even know if you don't have insurance most doctor's offices will give you a discount for paying same day, and I wouldn't be surprised if they did that for voucher's also.
All I have done is pointed out the issues with Ryan's plan and the lies being spread about it. My info has been as unbiased as it can get. Quoting the Weekly Standard (a conservative think tank) is not promoting unbiased information. It's spreading the same conservative propaganda!
Truly I cannot help some of you because you refuse to see facts. You would rather believe GOP lies.
*disclaimer - this does not mean that I think Dems do not lie
Lord help me, I'm gonna try...
The Obamacare savings slow the growth of Medicare over the next decade by, in part: eliminating overpayments to private insurers in Medicare Advantage, reforming provider payments to encourage greater efficiency, tying reimbursements to improvements in economic productivity, and reducing fraud and abuse. The law does not impact patient benefits.
As a result of these savings, “growth in spending will be restrained” and the life of the Medicare trust fund is expanded by eight years. Sixteen million seniors are also benefiting from the savings by receiving preventive benefits without deductibles or co-pays and saving more than $3.9 billion on prescription drugs.
BTW - Not for profit does not mean that employees do not get paid. LOL