Medicare Sux: Overcharging lesson for liberals

    By PeraclesPlease on Tue, 08/28/2012 - 3:58am |

     

    Okay, provocative title, but point is that we charge 2-3 times per person what sane countries charge, and our "cures" are to charge another third over the next decade. Bravo, bravo.

    (ref. Miller, WaPo)

    I recall debates over Medicare & Social Security 6 years ago - where I pointed out to conservatives that Social Security didn't have a problem - Medicare did. Any long-term projection showed this.

    Suddenly 2008's come and gone, and no longer is Medicare a long-term train wreck in progress - it's our Cadillac system that ACA should have emulated and bought into.

    Well, no, kinda. As long as our military-health complex (that's what Ike said, right?) keeps overcharging, then no, we don't see cost savings no matter how much we talk about them.

    And "stealing" $700 billion from Medicare would be great if it meant bringing Medicare costs - not services - from an $8 trillion outlay down about 8%  without damaging performance (better would be 33%). Which should be possible when aggregating more participants, improving medical infosystems, leveraging advances in pharmaceutical production and genetic analysis and understanding of physiological systems. Or just copying European programs.

    (if I spent $2700 for a Buick in 1947, with inflation same car is $27k in 2012 - which is about avg cost of 2012 car, but much better features, gas mileage, safety, handling, cost & time to service. Do we get passed a consumer margin in value for healthcare? Could a car dealer survive acting as shitty and unresponsive as an HMO?)

    Oh, did I mention we're getting our asses kicked because we can't respond to "dumb" Romney? Best soundbite response so far? "Not so". "Is too." "Nope." "Loser."

    Yeah, this is going to go far.

    So how do we cut Medicare costs without cutting out grandma (and me)? Hint: don't invite the military-health complex to the table. Ever seen defense budgets go down? Ever seen health expenditures decrease? Two sides of same coin. And they own both candidates. We're f***ed.

    Comments

    The overpayment aspect of our healthcare system is well known. We will eventually wind up with single payer. Much of our no emergent health will be delivered by nurses and physician assistants. Given the way government operates there has to be two parties willing to compromise. That is not the case.

    A previous column by the same author titled "GOP to the Uninsured Drop Dead" notes that one side wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act and six of it's Governors say that they won't go along with Medicare expansion. The idler reminds us of the Republicans shouting "Let Him Die" answering the question posed to Ron Paul about the fate of an ill, uninsured man. How do you compromise with that position?Legislators feeding red meat to that constituency are a roadblock that cannot be ignored.

    Single payer is coming. Instead of despair, I see a baby step towards the inevitable. Once it's done, the GOP will point to the GOP genius in Massachusetts who originated the idea. A lesson learned during the Civil Rights era was after any slight victory, you got up the next day with the motto, "The Fight Goes On".

    We're not  F'd. The Republicans are F'd in the log term. As I note above, they have already planned there escape route (the Massachusetts miracle)


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/28/2012 - 9:02am

    ...their escape route.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 08/28/2012 - 9:06am

    Obama is up with new Medicare ad.

    "Mitt Romney---an end to the Medicare Promise.


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 08/28/2012 - 11:09am

    Oh, did I mention we're getting our asses kicked because we can't respond to "dumb" Romney?

    I'm waiting for those who believe it's because of the huge $$$$ gap in campaign funds (thanks to citizens united) to begin the David v. Goliath meme. 

    As I've stated before, Obama's campaign rhetoric has to quit being reactive and be proactive. 

    The polling says that the seniors are not supportive of anything that will negatively impact their medicare and social security.  But, does the majority of them feel the same about their children's and grandchildren's like benefits?  That's not something I'm aware has been part of the factoring and/or campaign with any intensity.


    by Aunt Sam on Tue, 08/28/2012 - 12:17pm

    No, the reason, as Bob Somerby keeps pointing out, is that we can't simply explain what happened to that $716 billion - where it came from, how it was used.

    http://dailyhowler.blogspot.cz/2012/08/medicare-muddle-take-medicare-mud...

    And if one side says "Obama stole it from Medicare" and the other side says "mislfzzts... waskaloodl....pffswolla...you racist lying bastards!!!" which one is going to triumph?


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 08/28/2012 - 1:04pm

    I'll concede this may be part of the problem, but IMO there's other elements of this conundrum that are impacting this issue. 

    To your point tho', again I say, seal the message with a K.I.S.S. delivery.


    by Aunt Sam on Tue, 08/28/2012 - 1:20pm

    Okey doke, "part of the problem".

    And I agree with the K.I.S.S. delivery principle.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 08/28/2012 - 1:38pm

    aggregating more participants, improving medical infosystems, leveraging advances in pharmaceutical production and genetic analysis and understanding of physiological systems. We already have a system which does this: The VA. For starters, if one were able to.bring a prescription otherwise commanding a mammoth co-pay under MedD to the VA pharmacy, where the "buy in" was 25% per month of the meds premium, this alone would save individuals AND the fisc serious money. Extend to non-medicare individuals and you.have begun to flatten that cost curve. Widen the intervention to permit full VA buy in (voluntary) and you will crush the insurers.

    by jollyroger on Tue, 08/28/2012 - 8:12pm

    I'm not saying we can't do this - we don't.

    Between the demand price and the supply price is supposed to be the consumer's margin.

    In the health field that's become awfully slim - the providers take in profits their share and what should be our benefits of service. Instead it's a rather joyless straight gouging.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 08/29/2012 - 12:19am

    Well. actually, we don't because we can't without a repeat of the objections raised by some repugnant (McConnell?) who whined that private carriers couldnt hope to compete with a public option because they needed to make a profit!

    by jollyroger on Wed, 08/29/2012 - 10:06am

    Latest Comments