Ignorance affects both sides of the aisle.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) are joining forces to reform Medicare in a way that both say will save the social safety net.
The plan (PDF), set to be officially unveiled at the Bipartisan Policy Center Thursday, would give seniors the option of choosing between new private insurance programs and a form of traditional Medicare.
Like the plan Ryan introduced earlier this year, this new proposal would still provide seniors with a set amount of money in the form of vouchers, but it’s more generous than Ryan had proposed because “premium support” would fluctuate with the actual costs of health care.
The bipartisan-duo is proposing an annual growth rate based on nominal gross domestic product plus 1 percent instead of basing it on the cost of inflation as Ryan originally wanted, something that would not have kept up with skyrocketing health care costs.
Beginning is 2022, seniors would be forced to use their vouchers to buy coverage through a Medicare “exchange” — which would also include private insurance plans. Unlike Ryan’s plan, private companies would have to agree to offer plans at least as comprehensive as Medicare, and they would have to agree to cover any senior regardless of medical history.
Seniors would be responsible for paying out of pocket for any costs above any beyond the voucher.
Read the rest at Raw Story
by David Edwards
Affordability is never an issue for a currency sovereign that is the monopoly provider of a non-convertible floating rate currency of issue. The only issue is the availability of real resources in relation to effective demand. The objective is not to limit access to existing resource or fail to create enough future resource to meet demand, but to match existing and future resource with effective demand.
Price is not the way to ration health care in order to control costs. This undermines effectiveness in providing care, the purpose of the health care system. The way to control costs while providing optimal care is by improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the system rather than starving it of money.
Make no mistake. This ends the Medicare guaranteed benefit as its exists, effectively killing Medicare as we know it. Medicare as we know it is one of the most successful and popular government programs. "Lack of affordability" is not a sufficient reason, because affordability is a bogus issue.
UPDATE: Jason Links comments at The Huffington Post
Ryan-Wyden Medicare Plan: Great Political Trap, Dubious Policy
So far, the president gets it. But will he cave under Beltway pressure as the campaign heats up, Links asks?
Ryan-Wyden Medicare Plan: Great Political Trap, Dubious Policy
Anyone who thought that the 2012 election battle over health care would be a simple matter between President Barack Obama and a candidate who wants to privatize Medicare and "repeal Obamacare" is waking up to new complications today, as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) are teaming up on a new Medicare reform plan that has both men pitching and yawing leftward and rightward from their previous positions.As Brian Beutler and Benjy Sarlin put it, this plan is going to "turn the fight over Medicare on its head." It could also alter the competitive dynamics of the 2012 race in significant ways. Will the plan improve the lives of ordinary Americans, though? That's debatable.
Ryan and Wyden rolled out their idea in an interview with Lori Montgomery in the Washington Post, and the conventional way of looking at the matter is that Wyden is willing to embrace health care subsidies in the form of "premium support," while Ryan is now open to "maintaining the current Medicare system." Ryan also makes a significant concession -- the Medicare subsidy would be tied to the ebb and flow of health care costs instead of inflation. Ryan's previous plan did the opposite, which is what made it a joke: health care costs have risen ahead of inflation, which meant the subsidy he offered would likely get less and less valuable over time, until it was no help at all. The essence of Ryan's previous Medicare plan was that he'd save the government money by ceasing to spend it altogether, while pretending otherwise. Under Ryan-Wyden, those "premium support" vouchers are more valuable, but you also don't affect the budget bottom line as significantly.
What you do get from this plan, however, is an influx of taxpayer cash headed in the direction of private insurers.... [Emphasis added]Private insurance introduces significant inefficiency into the the US health care system in the form of added administrative costs and rent extraction.
...So, we have a policy whose benefits on the American public are, at best, dubious -- from the pair's admission that it will have a limited budget, to the fact that it will weaken Medicare's bargaining power, to the real concern that it will toss seniors into uncertain consumer waters. In short, it looks pointless....What we do have is greater wealth extraction in the from of economic rent, and a worse deal for seniors than they have presently — all in the name of "saving money." What is actually involves is moving money from government transfers to private coffers, while lowering effectiveness and efficiency, as Links goes no to show in his post.
So far, the president gets it. But will he cave under Beltway pressure as the campaign heats up, Links asks?
White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer says: "We are concerned that Wyden-Ryan, like Congressman Ryan’s earlier proposal, would undermine, rather than strengthen, Medicare ... The Wyden-Ryan scheme could, over time, cause the traditional Medicare program to 'wither on the vine' because it would raise premiums, forcing many seniors to leave traditional Medicare and join private plans. And it would shift costs from the government to seniors. At the end of the day, this plan would end Medicare as we know it for millions of seniors. Wyden-Ryan is the wrong way to reform Medicare."
