This entry is from Dr. McCanne's Quote of the Day, a daily health policy update on the single-payer health care reform movement. The QotD is archived on PNHP's website.
Turning Medicare into vouchers won’t work
By Theodore R. Marmor
Tampa Bay Online, August 18, 2012
Before Medicare began in 1965, many American senior citizens — and their children — struggled to pay for their doctor bills. Ever since, Medicare’s been an American success story.
Why, then, do so many Beltway pundits and members of Congress — including Mitt Romney’s new running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. — go after it?
Some of its critics claim that slashing Medicare is the only way to control the deficit. Like most attacks on Medicare, this one is based on ideology, not evidence. Medicare’s critics often claim that rising federal health care spending is America’s biggest fiscal challenge. In fact, the federal deficit is bloated today primarily due to the Bush administration’s irresponsible tax cuts, economic mismanagement, costly wars and increased defense spending.
Of course large numbers of retiring boomers mean Medicare will need more revenue. But Medicare costs won’t need to spiral out of control. The new Affordable Care Act includes steps to limit per-person health care price hikes. It’s already saving Medicare money. Yet Romney and Ryan promise they would work to repeal it.
What’s their alternative? The Ryan Budget Plan calls for extremely deep cuts to Medicare, while promising more and longer-lasting tax cuts for a few very wealthy Americans. Most House Republicans have already voted for that. It would end Medicare as we know it, and instead force seniors to buy private insurance with vouchers that would cover less of their healthcare costs each year.
These vouchers would reduce seniors’ choices, not their costs. Why? Republican voucher plans assume that if government ends Medicare, private insurance companies will start to deliver cheaper, more efficient plans. But what’s their evidence?
When the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analyzed vouchers, it found that even a slight dip in future federal spending on health care for older Americans would drive costs up. Vouchers with slowly rising buying power would simply leave seniors and their loved ones to pay more out of pocket for bigger medical bills.
In fact, Uncle Sam’s already lost money on Medicare contracts with competing private health insurance plans. Although they spent more per patient, those private plans didn’t improve coverage or quality of care. Meanwhile, Medicare has shown it bargains more effectively for better prices than most private insurers say that they can afford to do.
How are frail older people — one in three with cognitive impairments — supposed to wade through pages of fine print to understand new, complicated and often confusing “choices”? Is that what seniors really want? Surveys show most people care much more about being free to choose their doctors than to do complex comparison shopping.
Consumer choice, it turns out, is just a fig leaf that Medicare’s critics use to try to hide what would truly be in store for seniors if Medicare were to be gutted over time: fewer benefits, higher costs and the loss of Medicare’s guarantee of access to a wide range of doctors and hospitals. What’s more, its supporters aim to mask their true aim by grandfathering in those over 55, keeping them from having to face a transformed Medicare program.
The Ryan Budget Plan wouldn’t really control Medicare’s costs. It would simply shift them to future senior citizens and make Medicare less efficient.
There’s no good reason to weaken and eventually dump a program that’s met the needs of America’s seniors and disabled citizens so well for decades. Instead of wasting time and money pushing snake oil schemes to replace Medicare, let’s tackle the real problem of rising health care costs with sensible cost controls, paid for by taxing — not cutting taxes for — those who can best afford it. That way, Medicare can survive and succeed for a long time to come.
(Theodore R. Marmor is professor emeritus of public policy and political science at Yale University and has testified before Congress about Medicare reform. He is a member of the Scholars Strategy Network, a new national organization that brings together many of America’s leading scholars to address pressing public challenges at the national, state and local levels.)
Medicare is under political attack. In this article, Professor Theodore Marmor, one of the nation’s leading experts on Medicare, explains concisely the issues and the potential consequences. It can serve as a valuable resource for explaining to others just what is at stake. For single payer advocates, educating the public on this debate is a must if we are to continue to advocate for an “improved Medicare for all.”
This entry is from Dr. McCanne's Quote of the Day, a daily health policy update on the single-payer health care reform movement. The QotD is archived on PNHP's website.
Medicare Voucher Costs
Letter, The New York Times, August 28, 2012
To the Editor:
Re “Truth and Lies About Medicare” (editorial, Aug. 19):
As a former chief executive and actuary of an insurance company that once sold both individual and group health insurance, I am particularly mystified by the effort to push Medicare participants into the individual health insurance market.
I thought that we wanted to reduce — or at least control — the cost of health insurance, but individual health insurance is by far the most expensive alternative.
Depending on the size of the vouchers, the government itself may save money, but the entire system will pay more. Someone has to pay for the costs of individual underwriting, marketing and so on, and those expenses will fall on the elderly themselves.
You are also correct in assuming that there is likely to be anti-selection, with the healthier people going to the insurance companies, leaving the sickest and most expensive people in the Medicare plan.
It is certainly true that health insurance needs reform and that President Obama is far from having all the answers, but the Romney-Ryan plan will increase the country’s health care bill with little or any of the increase going to more or better health care.
Today’s message is important because it comes from an insider in the health insurance industry. Not only does he indicate that it is a terrible idea for Medicare beneficiaries to use vouchers to purchase private, individual plans, but, of even greater significance, is “that health insurance needs reform and that President Obama is far from having all the answers.”
For private insurance reform, nobody has all the answers. The nature of the beast is that when you try to fix one defect, others open up. Instead of moving Medicare beneficiaries into private insurance plans, we need to move private insurance victims into Medicare.
This entry is from Dr. McCanne's Quote of the Day, a daily health policy update on the single-payer health care reform movement. The QotD is archived on PNHP's website.
Shareholders urge WellPoint to oust CEO Angela Braly
By Chad Terhune
Los Angeles Times, August 28, 2012
Investors in health insurance giant WellPoint Inc., which runs Anthem Blue Cross in California, are pressing for a change in top management as criticism intensifies about the company’s lagging stock, managerial missteps and disappointing earnings.
Shareholder complaints about WellPoint’s chairwoman and chief executive, Angela Braly, have grown louder since last month, when the Indianapolis company posted another anemic quarter and cut its full-year profit outlook as its enrollment fell again.
The investor unrest follows years of consumer fury that beset WellPoint as it repeatedly raised premiums on many families and small businesses by 10% or more.
A New York hedge fund, Royal Capital Management, sent a letter to WellPoint’s board last week saying that Braly has “failed miserably” as CEO and that “it is incumbent upon the board of directors to fulfill its fiduciary responsibility to shareholders by changing leadership.”
Other influential WellPoint shareholders, such as Leon Cooperman’s Omega Advisors hedge fund in New York, have expressed similar concerns about the company’s lackluster performance, particularly compared with its chief competitors’, and they have urged the board to replace Braly.
Thus far, WellPoint’s board has voiced strong support for Braly. “The board has been fully involved in the strategy WellPoint is pursuing and is supportive of the strategy and our management team,” Jacquelyn Ward, the company’s lead outside director, said in a statement last month after analysts began questioning management’s performance.
“Braly has presided over the most arbitrary and capricious health insurance rate hikes of our time,” said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, an advocacy group in Santa Monica. “Now she is learning the rules of Wall Street: Cross policyholders all you want, but don’t step on the wallets of shareholders.”
Our politicians have left the private insurance industry in charge of our health care, but what is this industry really all about? As Jamie Court says, “Cross policyholders all you want, but don’t step on the wallets of shareholders.”
Addendum to today’s Quote of the Day on Angela Braly:
Angela Braly resigned today as president and CEO of WellPoint.
It would be a mistake to celebrate this action as some sort of elimination of an evil-doer. She will be replaced. From the perspective of patients, nothing changed.
The action that we need is from the President and Congress. They need to eliminate the private insurers and replace them with an improved Medicare for all. Hold the celebration until we can accomplish that goal.
Same Doctor Visit, Double the Cost
By Anna Wilde Mathews
The Wall Street Journal, August 26, 2012
… hospitals are increasingly acquiring private physician practices.
Hospitals say the acquisitions will make health care more efficient. But the phenomenon, in some cases, also is having another effect: higher prices.
As physicians are subsumed into hospital systems, they can get paid for services at the systems’ rates, which are typically more generous than what insurers pay independent doctors. What’s more, some services that physicians previously performed at independent facilities, such as imaging scans, may start to be billed as hospital outpatient procedures, sometimes more than doubling the cost.
The result is that the same service, even sometimes provided in the same location, can cost more once a practice signs on with a hospital.
With private insurers, hospital systems with strong market heft can often negotiate higher rates for physician services than independent doctors get. The differential varies widely, anywhere from 5% or less to between 30% and 40%, industry officials say.
When Hartford Hospital, in Connecticut, bought Constitution Eye Surgery Center from its physician owners last year, it told regulators the center’s operating profit was about $3.9 million in fiscal 2009, before the sale. According to James M. Blazar, a senior vice president of the Hartford HealthCaresystem, the operating income at the center is expected to grow to nearly $8 million in fiscal 2012, the first full year of hospital ownership, though surgery volumes are likely to be fairly flat. Higher reimbursement is justified because the system made significant upgrades, he said. “We have not done this for a financial reason, we’ve done this for a quality reason,” he said of the deal.
Much has been written about consolidation of health care providers and how that gives them leverage during contract negotiations with private insurers. This article provides further confirmation of that reality.
Medicare has been drawn into this in that they often pay more for services performed in a hospital facility, but we can be reassured that appropriate adjustments will be made once the full impact of this manipulation is defined. That cannot be said for private insurers that depend on market negotiations. Those with clout prevail.
This would be fixed by simply establishing our own public monopsony – a single payer national health program – which would ensure value for all of us in our health care purchasing.
Choosing the “Best” Plan in a Health Insurance Exchange: Actuarial Value Tells Only Part of the Story
By Ryan Lore, Jon R. Gabel, Roland McDevitt, and Michael Slover
The Commonwealth Fund, August 2012
In the health insurance exchanges that will come online in 2014, consumers will be able to compare health plans with respect to actuarial value, or the percentage of health care costs that a plan would pay for a standard population. This analysis illustrates the out-of-pocket costs that might result from plans with various plan designs and actuarial values. We find that average out-of-pocket expense declines as actuarial values rise, but two plans with similar actuarial values can produce very different outcomes for a given person. The overall affordability of a plan also will be influenced by age rating, income-related premium subsidies, and out-of-pocket subsidies. Actuarial value is a useful starting point for selecting a plan, but it does not pinpoint which plan will produce the best overall value for a particular person.
Consumers anticipate some health care needs when choosing a plan, but many health care expenses are not predictable and some consumers are drawn to low cost-sharing plans because they prefer to minimize risk. Even when provided with information about the plans and their premiums, it can be hard for people to choose a plan that best meets their expected medical needs.
Although this analysis focuses on out-of-pocket expense, premiums, and affordability, it should be noted that there are other important considerations in judging the value of a plan. Health plans also differ in network access and quality of care. Exchanges are responsible for providing information to help consumers evaluate these dimensions, including the ability for consumers to search for particular providers in each plan’s network.
The important contribution of this study is that it shows that choosing an exchange plan based on its actuarial value (bonze, silver, gold, platinum) does not necessarily predict what out-of-pocket expenses may be. There are so many other variables that out-of-pocket expenses can be quite different for plans with the same actuarial value.
Some of the variables include the size of the deductible, whether or not some services are covered before the deductible is met, the amount of copayments, the amount of coinsurance, the maximum cost exposure, the age of the patient, income levels in qualifying for premium subsidies and for out-of-pocket subsidies, and, most important of all, how much medical care you require during the year, much of which may be totally unpredictable.
Under a properly designed single payer national health program – an improved Medicare for all – none of these variables would apply. You would not be forced to choose each year from plans that are unaffordable, or that underinsure, or both. Insurance would not be an issue. When you need health care, you get it. Period.
Controlling Health Care Costs in Massachusetts With a Global Spending Target
By Robert Steinbrook, MD
JAMA, August 22, 2012
In July 2012, after years of consideration, Massachusetts enacted wide-ranging health care reform legislation that aims to control costs and improve quality. A signature feature of the act, signed into law by Deval Patrick, the state’s Democratic governor, on August 6, 2012, is the creation of an annual global spending target for total health care expenditures, which is tied to the growth rate of the state’s economy.
For 2013, the health care cost growth benchmark is set at 3.6%. For 2014 to 2017, the benchmark is set at the growth rate of potential gross state product, and for 2018 to 2022, it is set at the growth rate of gross state product minus 0.5%, with some provisions for adjustment. The state will not dictate how the annual benchmark is met.
The Health Policy Commission is to “establish procedures to assist health care entities to improve efficiency and reduce cost growth.” The commission may encourage, cajole, and, if needed, shame them into doing their part to control costs. Starting in 2016, the commission may require some to file and implement a “performance improvement plan” because they have exceeded the cost growth benchmark and have not adequately explained potential mitigating factors. Such an entity will be identified on the commission’s website until its plan is successfully completed.
There will be no way to know if this plan for Massachusetts is working until it has been in effect for at least several years. Until then, skepticism about the amount of projected savings is appropriate.
With a global spending target, health care in Massachusetts is still likely to be very expensive as compared with the United States and all other member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Health care may just not be quite as expensive as it could be without a spending target.
Recognizing that health care reform in Massachusetts enacted when Mitt Romney was governor has failed to control health care spending, Massachusetts has now enacted legislation supposedly designed to limit spending. One of the most important features is the introduction of global budgeting, an important economic tool long advocated by Physicians for a National Health Program. No, wait. It isn’t a global budget, but rather a global spending target, and that is the point of today’s message.
Massachusetts continues to finance care through a fragmented, dysfunctional system that can never be reined in. There is no state universal budget for health care, so there can be no global budgeting. Even hospitals cannot be globally budgeted because they have to interact with so many different payers. All this legislation does regarding global spending is to identify the various entities that exceed the targeted rate increases and them put them on a naughty boys’ list.
Be prepared. A few years from now, when we continue to teach that global budgeting is one of the more effective tools that we should be using to contain costs, we’ll have to respond to the claim that Massachusetts already tried that and it didn’t work. No they didn’t. Erecting targets on the sidelines has nothing in common with crafting a budget using real dollars.
Patients Would Pay More if Romney Restores Medicare Savings, Analysts Say
By Jackie Calmes
The New York Times, August 21, 2012
Mr. Romney has been especially critical of the cuts for insurance companies that provide Medicare Advantage, a popular private-policy alternative to Medicare. “This is the president’s plan: $716 billion cut, four million people losing Medicare Advantage and 15 percent of hospitals and nursing homes not accepting Medicare patients,” he said in a recent campaign appearance.
But Medicare Advantage, which was created 15 years ago in the hope that private-market competition for beneficiaries would result in lower prices, has consistently cost more than standard Medicare — costs that Medicare beneficiaries must help subsidize through their premiums.
The reductions for Medicare Advantage providers are “a matter of basic fairness because they’ve been overpaid for years,” said (Marilyn Moon, vice president and director of the health program at the American Institutes for Research). As for beneficiaries, she added, “they’re guaranteed basic Medicare benefits. They may lose some extra benefits they may have been getting, but in effect you’re saying some of the windfall benefits may go away.”
“The bottom line,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, which Mr. Ryan leads, “is that Romney is proposing to take more money from seniors in higher premiums and co-pays and hand it over to private insurance companies and other providers in the Medicare system.”
Why would Mitt Romney support overpayments to the Medicare Advantage program? The reason is that they want a vibrant market of private health plans in order to be able to put into place their plans for a premium support (voucher) program for Medicare, even though those plans cost more than does the traditional Medicare program.
The precursor to Medicare Advantage (Medicare + Choice) already demonstrated that private insurers cannot meet Medicare’s lower costs for comparable Medicare populations. They pulled out of patient markets with average or worse levels of health, keeping the healthier regions enrolled in their plans. In the Medicare Advantage program, they have gone even further. They are receiving unwarranted risk adjustment payments by submitting data indicating that their patients are sicker than they actually are.
(There has been some misleading publicity about Medicare Advantage bids this year being only 98 percent of traditional Medicare costs, but the complicated formulas still result in payments well in excess of Medicare costs.)
Once the premium support system is up and running, the intent is to cap the amount that the government contributes to the premiums for the private plans, shifting an ever-increasing portion of the costs to the Medicare patients – sort of a delayed gratification for anti-government ideologues.
(Although today’s message is about the nefarious plot to foist off on us the privatization of Medicare, some may wonder what the NYT headline means. The scheduled reduction in payments to Medicare come from two sources – reduction of overpayments to the Medicare Advantage plans, and reductions in payments to some health care providers, but not from a reduction of benefits in the traditional program. The savings are shared with Medicare beneficiaries in the form of lower premiums and lower coinsurance payments. When Romney restores the Medicare cuts, costs go up for both the taxpayers who finance the government and for Medicare beneficiaries through higher premiums and coinsurance payments.)
Investors in Health Care Seem to Bet on Incumbent
By Andrew Ross Sorkin
The New York Times, August 20, 2012
Who is going to win the presidential election?
You might want to ask Mark T. Bertolini. He just bet $5.7 billion on President Obama.
Mr. Bertolini is the chief executive of Aetna, which on Monday agreed to acquire Coventry Health Care, a huge provider of Medicare and Medicaid programs. His $5.7 billion bet makes a lot of sense if you believe that the Affordable Care Act — otherwise known as Obamacare — will not be repealed.
Mitt Romney has pledged to repeal the act “on my first day if elected,” so any gamble that Obamacare stays intact could be fairly described as a wager that President Obama will remain in office.
At a minimum, the stock market, which is an indicator of future earnings, seems to be in disagreement, at least somewhat, with the steady drumbeat of C.E.O.’s and investors who have said that President Obama’s administration, in the words of Daniel Loeb, the outspoken activist hedge fund investor, “is openly hostile to most businesses and unable to articulate or implement policies to spark growth and reduce unemployment.”
Mr. Loeb is a frustrated Obama voter who now backs Mr. Romney.
But take a look at some of his most recent investments in the health care field. In the last quarter, he reported in Securities and Exchange Commission filings, he picked up shares of Aetna, Cigna, Humana, UnitedHealth and WellPoint, among others. All of those companies stand to benefit while Obamacare remains in force; a repeal of the bill could send those shares reeling.
Aetna is not the only company to make a bet on the White House. WellPoint agreed to acquire Amerigroup for $5 billion in July, just a little over a week after the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Before that, Cigna paid $3.8 billion for HealthSpring in another bet on the expansion of Medicaid and Medicare.
Companies like Aetna, WellPoint and Cigna have all gravitated to rivals with a foothold in government-sponsored programs because the prevailing view is that margins for private customers are going to steadily erode. According to Aetna on Monday, the acquisition of Coventry will “substantially increase Aetna’s Medicaid footprint, creating more opportunity to participate in the expansion of Medicaid and to pursue high acuity positions as they move into managed care.” Aetna’s revenue from the government will jump to 30 percent from 23 percent.
David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital recently made the contrarian case that companies like Cigna would actually do better if the law were to be repealed, ostensibly because of the margin compression that is likely as a result of the new law.
“While the stocks are already cheap, there is the additional unpriced upside in the possibility that the election changes the political landscape, resulting in a possible modification or repeal of Obamacare,” he wrote in a letter to investors last month.
Still Mr. Einhorn, through smarts or luck, made a big investment in Coventry in the last quarter. With the sale to Aetna, irrespective of his investment thesis, Mr. Einhorn’s firm just made about $72 million.
Although this article suggests that presidential election politics may influence the future of the private health insurance industry, the message is really nonpartisan. No matter who is elected president, there will be a lot on money to be made by investing in private insurers. Regardless of the election outcome, this message is terrible news for the patients in our health care system.
Health care’s new maverick
By Geoff Colvin
Fortune, August 13, 2012
What’s the future of American health care?
Dr. Ralph de la Torre, CEO of Steward Health Care System, may represent the answer. Steward, owned by the private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, is a growing Massachusetts-based group of community hospitals, and industry analysts say de la Torre is one of the most dynamic and influential executives in the business. He’s consolidating hospitals, finding efficiencies, investing big in infotech, and creating a new model that he says won’t change much regardless of how Obamacare’s future plays out. De la Torre, 46, is the son of Cuban immigrants and became the chief of cardiac surgery at Harvard’s Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at age 38, then gave up practicing medicine to become a CEO.
You’ve hosted the President at your house for a Democratic fundraiser. Have you advised him on health care policy?
I always give my opinions, but they’re not always listened to by either side of the aisle. One of the harder realities is that health care reform is not about public health. That’s the mistake people make…
Health care reform is public finance. And when you get into public finance, it’s not about doing a study to guide policy; it’s about creating a business plan…
You’ve bought a lot of community hospitals, and it wouldn’t be surprising if you bought more. Is this consolidation trend going to become a nationwide phenomenon?
It has to. In deference to those who love the individual hospital, you have to look back at America and the trends in industries that have gone from being art to science, to being commodities. Health care is becoming a commodity. The car industry started off as an art, people hand-shaping the bodies, hand-building the engines. As it became a commodity and was all about making cars accessible to everybody, it became more about standardization. It’s not different from the banking industry and other industries as they’ve matured. Health care is finally maturing as an industry, and part of that maturation process is consolidation. It’s getting economies of scale and in many ways making it a commodity.
: an economic good
: something useful or valued
: a good or service whose wide availability typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors other than price
: one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market
Massachusetts has been leading the way in health care reform, even if in the wrong direction. Now, instead of reform heading in the direction of public health, we are seeing the commoditization of health care. Even Puck could see what fools these mortals be.
Comment by Quote of the Day subscriber Sarah K. Weinberg:
Americans seem to get stuck on the idea of health care as a privately traded commodity, and therefore, in general, something the government should not interfere with. The rest of the world (all of the industrialized nations and most of the less developed nations as well) views health care as an essential service that is a governmental obligation to provide for all its citizens. In my opinion, we will not get a universal health care system in the U.S. until we change our view of the role of government.
This particular American exceptionalism goes back to our founding fathers, who had just fought a nasty war to separate us from England. Much of the impetus for fighting for independence was unhappiness over excessive intrusion by the British crown in American life, especially in levying excessive (punitive?) taxes. Our first attempt at an independent government was a confederation with an extremely weak central government. I don’t know much about this period except that it didn’t last more than a decade at most, and I believe it was unable to raise the funds necessary to pay off debts incurred to fight the War of Independence. So we convened a constitutional convention to draft a better central government structure.
So you can see that the mindset of the founding fathers at that convention was to set up a government that would be just strong enough to manage defense against an enemy attack, with just enough taxation power to fund such a war. The rest was to be left to the states to manage as they liked. Even our “cherished” Bill of Rights was an afterthought, put in as the first 10 amendments to the constitution. Unlike other democracies, our Bill of Rights is all negative – spelling out what the federal government is NOT permitted to do to individual citizens or states.
Contrast that with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which spells out obligations of governments toward their citizens (and includes medical care as one such right). The U.S. signed the UN Declaration, but has never incorporated its principles into our laws, let alone our constitution. Other democracies have followed the UN Declaration in writing their constitutions and/or laws, which makes it MUCH easier to create and maintain a national health care system supported by general taxes of some sort.
Somehow Americans have to get beyond the myth of us all as rugged individualists and recognize that we are all in this together and need to share our resources enough to provide for all those who need support. We like to look down our noses at “socialist” Europe, assuming that all those nations are inferior to us, but actually, most of them are doing very well with good social infrastructures that are not bankrupting them.
Republicans, like Democrats, opposed to cutting Medicare benefits, wary of privatization
Kaiser Health Tracking Poll
When it comes to Medicare, one of the most notable aspects of Republicans’ views is how uncharacteristically similar they are to those of Democrats and Independents, according to this month’s Post/Kaiser poll. A large majority of Republicans (69 percent) say they are opposed to reducing Medicare benefits, even in the service of debt reduction. At the same time, roughly six in ten Republicans would support cuts in benefits if they were targeted only at high income seniors. In both cases, these views put Republicans on the same side of the issue as Democrats, a rare occurrence of late.
At the same time, a majority of Republicans (55 percent) currently say they prefer that Medicare continue as a defined benefits program, rather than changing to a system in which seniors are guaranteed a fixed amount of money to be used to buy coverage either from Medicare or from a private plan, an option supported by 39 percent of Republicans. Here again, the balance of opinion among Republicans puts them closer to the views of Democrats and Independents than usual in this area. The issue is set up to be an important one this fall given Representative Ryan’s advocacy of moving toward some sort of premium support model, though both Representative Ryan and Governor Romney have explicitly stated that any such change would not impact today’s seniors but would take effect for younger people when they become eligible for Medicare in the future.
Democrats share with Republicans a preference for keeping Medicare as it is rather than switching to a premium support system (68 percent prefer to keep the current system, compared to 29 percent that would back the change). They are also opposed to cutting Medicare benefits as a way to reduce the federal budget deficit (85 percent oppose), unless those cuts are targeted only at the rich, in which case two in three would be supportive.
A large majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, are supportive of Medicare and do not want to see its benefits reduced, nor do they want it privatized through a defined contribution, premium support, or voucherized program. As dissatisfaction with our current dysfunctional health care financing system increases, it is inevitable that the public will eventually support an improved Medicare for everyone.
One concern in this poll is that Republicans and Democrats alike believe that Medicare benefits should be reduced for the wealthy. That would be a terrible mistake, and not only because of the administrative headache that would be created trying to match benefits with labile incomes. The wealthy will have to contribute more, but that should be done through progressive tax policies that are used to finance the entire system. The full complement of benefits should always be there for all of us, reinforcing the importance of social solidarity that is characteristic of the very successful health care programs in other nations.
Physicians for a National Health Program's blog serves to facilitate communication among physicians and the public. The views presented on this blog are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of PNHP.
PNHP Chapters and Activists are invited to post news of their recent speaking engagements, events, Congressional visits and other activities on PNHP’s blog in the “News from Activists” section.