Lawmakers Offer Bipartisan Medicare Overhaul Bill

[Damocles]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/u...to-overhaul-medicare.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

WASHINGTON — A Democratic senator, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and a Republican member of the House, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, unveiled a bipartisan plan on Wednesday to revamp Medicare and make a fixed federal contribution to the cost of coverage for each beneficiary.

The lawmakers aim to reshape the debate over the giant health insurance program by addressing concerns that have provoked fierce opposition to similar ideas in the past.

Just as important as the details of their proposal was the fact that the two were working together on an issue that both parties have exploited for political advantage.

In 2010, many Republicans won House seats — and the support of older voters — by arguing that President Obama’s health care law would damage Medicare. Democrats are hoping to retake the House by arguing that Mr. Ryan and other House Republicans are pushing for the privatization of Medicare, which they say could greatly increase costs for beneficiaries.

The new Wyden-Ryan proposal, by blurring the contrast between the parties on this issue, could make it more difficult for Democrats to win the argument.

The proposal would make major structural changes in Medicare and limit the government’s open-ended financial commitment to the program.

Under the proposal, known as premium support, Medicare would subsidize premiums charged by private insurers that care for beneficiaries under contract with the government.

More at link...

 

[Bonestorm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/u...to-overhaul-medicare.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

WASHINGTON — A Democratic senator, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and a Republican member of the House, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, unveiled a bipartisan plan on Wednesday to revamp Medicare and make a fixed federal contribution to the cost of coverage for each beneficiary.

The lawmakers aim to reshape the debate over the giant health insurance program by addressing concerns that have provoked fierce opposition to similar ideas in the past.

Just as important as the details of their proposal was the fact that the two were working together on an issue that both parties have exploited for political advantage.

In 2010, many Republicans won House seats — and the support of older voters — by arguing that President Obama’s health care law would damage Medicare. Democrats are hoping to retake the House by arguing that Mr. Ryan and other House Republicans are pushing for the privatization of Medicare, which they say could greatly increase costs for beneficiaries.

The new Wyden-Ryan proposal, by blurring the contrast between the parties on this issue, could make it more difficult for Democrats to win the argument.

The proposal would make major structural changes in Medicare and limit the government’s open-ended financial commitment to the program.

Under the proposal, known as premium support, Medicare would subsidize premiums charged by private insurers that care for beneficiaries under contract with the government.

More at link...

The proposal is basically ObamaCare for seniors with a public option -- traditional Medicare -- and this article is really bad at describing what the proposal actually is. There is no real blurring of the lines. Republicans passed a bill that would end traditional Medicare and turn it into a voucher program. This proposal keeps traditional Medicare as an option for seniors, but allows for private insurers to compete with it.

 

[Bonestorm]

As for my personal take, it like it, but would have to see more of the particulars. This is basically what I wanted for the 65 and under crowd and I think that if this were expanded to include everyone it would pass.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

As for my personal take, it like it, but would have to see more of the particulars. This is basically what I wanted for the 65 and under crowd and I think that if this were expanded to include everyone it would pass.

Do you think there is any chance of that happening?

 

[Bonestorm]

Do you think there is any chance of that happening?

Slim and none and slim left town a while ago. I doubt that anything will be done before the 2012 election. After the 2012 election, if Obama wins I cannot imagine he would be very interested in fighting another healthcare battle. The public option didn't have the votes with 59 Democratic senators and won't have it after 2012.

If a Republican in 2012, he isn't going to do anything worthwhile on healthcare. The Republicans make proposals like these only when there is a Democratic president and they feel compelled to offer an alternative to what the Democrats propose (see the early Clinton era), but have no interest in actually doing it when they have the power to do so (see the GWB era).

 

[Mott the Hoople]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/u...to-overhaul-medicare.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

WASHINGTON — A Democratic senator, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and a Republican member of the House, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, unveiled a bipartisan plan on Wednesday to revamp Medicare and make a fixed federal contribution to the cost of coverage for each beneficiary.

The lawmakers aim to reshape the debate over the giant health insurance program by addressing concerns that have provoked fierce opposition to similar ideas in the past.

Just as important as the details of their proposal was the fact that the two were working together on an issue that both parties have exploited for political advantage.

In 2010, many Republicans won House seats — and the support of older voters — by arguing that President Obama’s health care law would damage Medicare. Democrats are hoping to retake the House by arguing that Mr. Ryan and other House Republicans are pushing for the privatization of Medicare, which they say could greatly increase costs for beneficiaries.

The new Wyden-Ryan proposal, by blurring the contrast between the parties on this issue, could make it more difficult for Democrats to win the argument.

The proposal would make major structural changes in Medicare and limit the government’s open-ended financial commitment to the program.

Under the proposal, known as premium support, Medicare would subsidize premiums charged by private insurers that care for beneficiaries under contract with the government.

More at link...

Hmmmmm that smells strongly of a single payer system. Why aren't you screaming "socialism"?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

As for my personal take, it like it, but would have to see more of the particulars. This is basically what I wanted for the 65 and under crowd and I think that if this were expanded to include everyone it would pass.

Exactly. I'm 15 years away from my Golden Buckeye Card so I'm very interested in the particulars.

 

[Damocles]

The proposal is basically ObamaCare for seniors with a public option -- traditional Medicare -- and this article is really bad at describing what the proposal actually is. There is no real blurring of the lines. Republicans passed a bill that would end traditional Medicare and turn it into a voucher program. This proposal keeps traditional Medicare as an option for seniors, but allows for private insurers to compete with it.

Yet it doesn't make a list of winners or force everybody to buy something from that list. It isn't ObamaCare because it isn't a requirement that you purchase something you may not need or want.

IMO this is a bit better than ObamaCare in that area. I would like to see something like this tried in some of the states to see if it is viable. I like that it also tries to actually address costs rather than ignore that issue and just tell people they must buy a product they might not want.

 

[Damocles]

Hmmmmm that smells strongly of a single payer system. Why aren't you screaming "socialism"?

Are you ignorant of what private insurance means? It gives people options other than the current government run health care. I like it better than the current system because of that.

 

[Damocles]

Slim and none and slim left town a while ago. I doubt that anything will be done before the 2012 election. After the 2012 election, if Obama wins I cannot imagine he would be very interested in fighting another healthcare battle. The public option didn't have the votes with 59 Democratic senators and won't have it after 2012.

If a Republican in 2012, he isn't going to do anything worthwhile on healthcare. The Republicans make proposals like these only when there is a Democratic president and they feel compelled to offer an alternative to what the Democrats propose (see the early Clinton era), but have no interest in actually doing it when they have the power to do so (see the GWB era).

Actually, unless ObamaCare is struck down in the SCOTUS in March, a republican winner will do something to change ObamaCare before it comes active.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yet it doesn't make a list of winners or force everybody to buy something from that list. It isn't ObamaCare because it isn't a requirement that you purchase something you may not need or want.

First, I don't know what you mean by a "list of winners." Please elaborate as to what specifically you are talking about.

Second, I don't know all the particulars, but my guess is that, while the Ryden (see what I did there) proposal doesn't require seniors to purchase health insurance, they don't get vouchers if they don't get health insurance. So you pay into the system your entire working life and get nothing for it unless you purchase health insurance, which everyone will do because the premium support payment is in the amount of the second least expensive plan. If you choose the least expensive plan, you get health insurance and you get a rebate check. So it makes it stupid not to purchase health insurance through incentives. The Affordable Care Act, by contrast, penalizes you for not having health insurance.

IMO this is a bit better than ObamaCare in that area. I would like to see something like this tried in some of the states to see if it is viable. I like that it also tries to actually address costs rather than ignore that issue and just tell people they must buy a product they might not want.

It addresses costs the same way that the Affordable Care Act does -- by forcing insurers to compete. The only difference between this and the insurance exchanges is that this proposal has traditional Medicare as an option, whereas no government plan exists under the ACA (much to my chagrin).

 

[Bonestorm]

Actually, unless ObamaCare is struck down in the SCOTUS in March, a republican winner will do something to change ObamaCare before it comes active.

Like I said, a Republican winner will not do anything worthwhile on healthcare.

 

[Damocles]

Like I said, a Republican winner will not do anything worthwhile on healthcare.

And, as I said, a republican winner will do something worthwhile on health care, and I gave you the why. Are you assuming that the SCOTUS will strike down the individual mandate?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Are you ignorant of what private insurance means? It gives people options other than the current government run health care. I like it better than the current system because of that.

Are you ignorant of what a single payer system is? Most of Europe is using a single payer system combined with private insurance in a manner very similiar to this.

 

[Damocles]

First, I don't know what you mean by a "list of winners." Please elaborate as to what specifically you are talking about.

Second, I don't know all the particulars, but my guess is that, while the Ryden (see what I did there) proposal doesn't require seniors to purchase health insurance, they don't get vouchers if they don't get health insurance. So you pay into the system your entire working life and get nothing for it unless you purchase health insurance, which everyone will do because the premium support payment is in the amount of the second least expensive plan. If you choose the least expensive plan, you get health insurance and you get a rebate check. So it makes it stupid not to purchase health insurance through incentives. The Affordable Care Act, by contrast, penalizes you for not having health insurance.




It addresses costs the same way that the Affordable Care Act does -- by forcing insurers to compete. The only difference between this and the insurance exchanges is that this proposal has traditional Medicare as an option, whereas no government plan exists under the ACA (much to my chagrin).

Actually it does more than that...

First, saying "it would be dumb not to" is not the same thing as punishing you for not purchasing from the exchange. Again, there is a huge difference between a mandate and this.

Secondly, costs are limited in the proposal directly. I didn't say it was perfect, only that it addresses it far more than ObamaCare which simply ignored it.

 

[Bonestorm]

Actually it does more than that...

First, saying "it would be dumb not to" is not the same thing as punishing you for not purchasing from the exchange. Again, there is a huge difference between a mandate and this.

I don't see the practical distinction between a modest tax penalty and being taxed your entire working life for nothing.

Secondly, costs are limited in the proposal directly. I didn't say it was perfect, only that it addresses it far more than ObamaCare which simply ignored it.

Just because you ignore the cost control measures in the Affordable Care Act does not mean they do not exist. This proposal operates the same way the exchange operates.


Also, I didn't get a response to my question about the "winners and losers" thing. I know that's the standard Republican talking point, but I thought you at least articulate what it means to a reasonable degree of specificity. Guess not.

 

[Bonestorm]

And, as I said, a republican winner will do something worthwhile on health care, and I gave you the why. Are you assuming that the SCOTUS will strike down the individual mandate?

I think we just have a little disagreement about what "worthwhile" means in this context.

 

[Damocles]

I don't see the practical distinction between a modest tax penalty and being taxed your entire working life for nothing.




Just because you ignore the cost control measures in the Affordable Care Act does not mean they do not exist. This proposal operates the same way the exchange operates.


Also, I didn't get a response to my question about the "winners and losers" thing. I know that's the standard Republican talking point, but I thought you at least articulate what it means to a reasonable degree of specificity. Guess not.

The exchange lists the people you must purchase from or be punished for it. That's a winners/losers thing.

Name one thing you must purchase in order to avoid breaking the law and being punished. And car insurance isn't it, you do not have to purchase that. To be a valid analogy it would first have to be a federal mandate, and you would be required to purchase it even if you didn't have a car to "make it cheaper" for everybody.

 

[Bonestorm]

The exchange lists the people you must purchase from or be punished for it. That's a winners/losers thing.

Name one thing you must purchase in order to avoid breaking the law and being punished. And car insurance isn't it, you do not have to purchase that. To be a valid analogy it would first have to be a federal mandate, and you would be required to purchase it even if you didn't have a car to "make it cheaper" for everybody.

This proposal would operate the same way as the exchange, just for people over 65 and with a public option. If you don't purchase insurance, you get nothing for having paid Medicare taxes your entire working life.

I'm not interested in debating the merits of the individual mandate. Been there, done that.

 

[Damocles]

I think we just have a little disagreement about what "worthwhile" means in this context.

Probably.

One thing that is good about this program of Obama's is that either it will go into effect unchanged, or it will force future politicians to actually engage and do something to fix it before it does.

I don't hate the idea, I just think that there is a better way to implement it than this and that we missed a chance at creating something truly amazing by allowing different states to come up with programs then using the most effective solutions that were implemented.

I think a leader would have realized the amazing position the US was in and utilized it to come up with a solution that was as unique as this nation is.