The Delusions in Ryan’s Medicare Vision
Paul Ryan has bold economic ideas. Or maybe he doesn't. It's really hard to know what Mitt Romney's VP pick thinks, since his budget plan includes Obamacare's $716 billion in Medicare savings over 10 years, but his election plan has him saying he would restore those spending cuts. Romney is accusing president Obama of "robbing" that money from today's beneficiaries.
Let's set the confusion aside for a moment and look at where the projected cuts would be made.
First off, none of the savings comes from changing eligibility or benefits. The president's health care reforms actually add benefits to Medicare. The savings come from reducing payments to hospitals, home-health services and other providers, though not doctors. And all the provider groups (except for insurers) have gone along with it because by covering 32 million currently uninsured Americans, the law brings them more paying customers.
The Ryan plan would affect only Americans now under age 55. It would replace guaranteed benefits with vouchers, whereby folks would be given a set number of dollars with which to buy private coverage or pay their Medicare premium. It would save money by increasing that number of dollars over the years by less than expected rises in medical costs.
In the real world, private insurers will skim off the young, healthy and profitable. What's left of traditional Medicare will attract the sickest patients, and down it goes.
But even accepting Ryan's sunnier vision requires swallowing several delusions:
Delusion 1: Offering vouchers to buy a private plan opens a wonderful world of choice to future beneficiaries. Exactly what would that choice be? It would be a choice of private insurers. In many cases, that means less choice of doctors and hospitals, as the for-profits force enrollees into their networks of approved providers.
Private insurers are in the buisness of making money for their executives and stockholders. UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen Hemsley alone hauled in $42 million last year. As implied above, an old person with asthma, a heart problem and two other worsening conditions is very, very bad for the bottom line. The idea that these profit-oriented companies would compete to attract sick and expensive elderly patients is not only a fantasy, it's an insane fantasy.
Delusion 2: Old-fashioned Medicare as we know it would be preserved for Americans 55 and older. This will not happen.
The scheme to radically degrade Medicare benefits for those born before 1957 would blow up well before the year of change, 2023, arrives. The Ryan plan has gotten as far as it has because younger Americans have not been focusing on their retirements. Republicans think they can drop this voucher system on them unawares.
But the likelihood that Americans born in 1957 or after are going to accept a two-class deal in which they have to pay for older peoples' generous benefits while expecting far less for themselves is about zero. As time goes on, there will be progressively more voters born after 1957 and fewer born before. Thus, the politically numerous would either demand that older Americans' Medicare benefits be dragged down to their promised levels or that the whole voucher business be dropped. And who could blame them?
Delusion 3: Only private insurers can curb Medicare spending. Not true. The evidence comes in the Republicans' own political ads complaining that ObamaCare cuts Medicare spending. Furthermore, spending on the Medicare program has been growing more slowly than that on private coverage because of lower administrative costs.
There's so much waste in Medicare that you could probably cut $1 trillion out and patients would not notice a difference. That's actually good news — or should be.
CONNECT














7 comments on "The Delusions in Ryan’s Medicare Vision"
August 22, 2012 9:35am
There is only one viable answer. A single payer health care system with zero profit allowed. Then costs would be less than half and everyone would get good care.
We have every such system as an example to evaluate. We can take the best from each. Most Americans agree. End corporate rule and allow us to have what we want.
August 21, 2012 6:00pm
Medicare & Medicaid speding together are bigger than the entire defence budget.
The only "delusions" are in this belief that Medicare can be kept in its current form for much longer.
A voucher system, along with a large scale deregulation of the industry will push prices down - which is the real problem in the US.
A sustainable future for the US healthcare system is with a HIGH DEDUCTIBLE, mostly cash based system that CUTS the reliance on insurance companies / Government departments for routine procedures, and encourages people to be more accountable for their own health & expenses.
August 22, 2012 9:31am
Pure fantasy.
A voucher system would only enrich the undeserving insurance industry. The seniors I know can not afford to add thousands of dollars to their annual insurance premiums.
But I understand. Republicans could care less if the elderly and poor can't afford it. Because the right wing thinks that wealth equal virtue and the poor are undeserving. Ayn Rand speaks from the mouth of the GOP. They're free market evangelists.
August 21, 2012 6:04pm
Unfortunately for your desire to push your delusional, unsubstantiated belief that the cure for the failing USAmerican sick care system is more of the failing for-profit, corporate sick care system...
EVERY advanced industrialized nation has found a better way to provide Health Care for All, at less than half the cost with better outcomes, that is, healthier and happier people!
Time to get real...
August 21, 2012 6:00pm
"Only private insurers can curb Medicare spending."
The BIGGEST lie of all...
The TRUTH is that Medicare costs are driven by the failing USAmerican for-profit, defective, corporate Sick Care industrial complex! DRIVEN by the "private insurers"!
This is like expecting the scorpion to hold his sting...
It's so stupid that the ENTIRE CIVILIZED ADVANCED INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD has abandoned that "method" of providing health care...
August 22, 2012 9:23am
How could be possible to find a real solution when legislaters and the Supreme Court are intensely compromise to special interest.
Perhaps are we trap without exit?
Really, can we call this democracy?
August 21, 2012 1:47pm
I agree 100%.
100%!!
I was a victim of medicare fraud. More accurately, the tax payers were.
Unfortunately I cannot prove this allegation. But it was a simple, and I believe, a very common fraudulent practice.
My "specialist" doctor would not diagnose my illness. I believe he knew the nature of my ailment from the very beginning. But, he played dumb. He prescribed test upon test upon more tests. The specialists he sent me to spoke of more and more tests of ever greater complexity and cost. In the meantime I was suffering the pains of hell.
How was this finally resolved? My wife diagnosed my illness. That's right. My wife, with no medical training whatsoever, diagnosed my problem by reading an article in a science magazine. From that moment onward I stopped with the tests and never returned to the group of doctors "looking" for the mysterious nature of my complaint.
The nature of my ailment was such that once diagnosed the only treatment required of me was a strict change of diet. It worked beautifully. But changing the diet was not PROFITABLE.
I think the author is correct. We could save one trillion in medicare costs. And that is a good thing. Just think how much we could save by extending medicare to cover everyone, even healthy citizens.
The only draw back would be a collapse in the medical fraud industry. And there could be millions of employees in this industry.