Robert Reich- Mr. President: Why Medicare Isn’t the Problem, It’s the Solution

[avaistheone1]

I hope when he tells America how he aims to tame future budget deficits the President doesn’t accept conventional Wasington wisdom that the biggest problem in the federal budget is Medicare (and its poor cousin Medicaid).

Medicare isn’t the problem. It’s the solution.

The real problem is the soaring costs of health care that lie beneath Medicare. They’re costs all of us are bearing in the form of soaring premiums, co-payments, and deductibles.

Americans spend more on health care per person than any other advanced nation and get less for our money. Yearly public and private healthcare spending is $7,538 per person. That’s almost two and a half times the average of other advanced nations.

http://robertreich.org/post/4559031328





Yes, Medicare for all. :kick:

[rurallib]

1. Bingo, Mr. Reich

my rec brings it back to 0.

[ProSense]

2. "The real problem is the soaring costs of health care that lie beneath Medicare." Yes,

and the President knows that.

Dean Baker: Dana Milbank Missed the Health Care Reform Act

[zipplewrath]

6. And yet he did not

HCR saved the federal government money, over what they would have spent, but did not end the rising cost of health care, even to the federal government. By the White Houses own estimates, health care cost will continue to rise at 6% or more for the foreseeable future. IF we do not get control of health CARE costs, and soon, the federal government AND the general population will soon be economically "crippled" by the continued rising costs.

And HCR did little to nothing about that fundamental problem. It slowed down the growth for the federal government, but for the vast majority of americans did little to slow the growth at all, and in many cases caused the cost of their insurance to rise as well. Those who were most "protected" by these rising costs will soon be considered in "cadillac" plans and be taxed. Insurance companies, on the other hand, are not disincentivized from doing much about underlying costs, because they are limited in their profit margins. So their path to greater profits is through greater health care costs, of which they get to charge a percentage. And those who can least afford their "mandated" insurance, will not be able to afford the underlying care with its co-pays and deductibles, much less use drug importation to try do access medicines.

Getting control of health CARE costs is the only way to get control of the federal budget. And we can't get control of health care costs until the federal government becomes the majority payer of health care costs. Obama decided that idea wasn't even worth arguing.

[ProSense]

10. "and in many cases caused the cost of their insurance to rise as well"

How did the health care law cause "the cost of their insurance to rise"?

The only ones pushing that claim are insurance companies.

[zipplewrath]

11. Removed the ability to differentiate

Some folks had lower rates because the companies could "cherry pick" to some extent. Those folks rates will rise. Some folks had down right weak policies, which allowed for lower rates. Bringing those plans "up to snuff" will also cause their costs to rise. Some folks had such low annual payout limits, or lifetime limits, that their rates were kept low (at a much larger risk). Those rates will rise.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eridani]

12. Yes, and he flat out refused to do anything about it when he had the chance

Why is he now coming out for bargaining on pharma prices when he explicitly ruled it out of HCR?

Why are there no cost controls whatsoever in HCR? And don't bother with silly bloviation about "bending the cost curve." The financial analysts who advise people on buying health industry stocks know it's bullshit, and so should everyone else.

An analyst at a health care brokerage firm said of health care reform “There does not seem to be any onerous cost control.” --Les Funtleyder of Miller Tabak, NYT 4-9-2010; "Health care overhaul may help a fund sector"

France, Germany and Japan, truly REGULATE their private insurance companies. In these countries, their governments treat insurance companies the way that our utilities commissions treat public utilities here—no Enrons allowed. Our current reform does not. Their systems—

--Absolutely forbid denying any claim whatsoever.

--Have fees directly set by the government for health care services instead of useless attempts to regulate medical loss ratios.

--Have just one universal comprehensive plan in which prices and items to be covered are specified by the government, and which must be offered on a non-profit basis.

--Do not allow age rating.

--Have no deductibles, though co-pays may or may not be entirely covered, depending.

[Raven]

3. I just signed up for SS and Medicare. These government programs

are unbelievably efficient. Everything was done like clockwork and the folks I dealt with were polite, professional and efficient. LET'S KILL IT, IT'S TOO GOOD. GIVES THE NASTY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT A GOOD NAME...CAN'T HAVE THAT!!!!!

[Skink]

4. While we are at it let's lower the enrollment age for medicare.

[ProudDad]

9. I suggest a new enrollment age of

9 months before birth...

Improved and Enhanced Medicare for All...

[polichick]

5. This is the Democratic position - instead, all we get are far-right and center-right positions.

[slipslidingaway]

7. knr nt