Medicare: Two choices for the future

[Nottingham]

Medicare: Two choices for the future
By Ellen Beck
United Press International
Published 9/15/2003 5:39 PM
View printer-friendly version


This completes UPI's series examining Medicare as Congress attempts to reform the national health insurance program for seniors.

--

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Medicare in the coming decades is likely to follow one of two scenarios, experts say: either it will remain a defined benefit program and a growing part of the national budget, or it will evolve into a defined contribution program in which the government limits its financial participation.

The outcome, at the moment, is wide open, but both sides in the debate seem to agree Medicare's fate must be part of a broader national discussion about society's health care responsibilities and priorities.
"You've got an absolutely fundamental debate," said Stuart Butler, vice president of Domestic and Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. "This is not just an issue of how do we make a slight improvement in Medicare. This is a turning-point issue."

A congressional conference committee this fall is working out differences in House and Senate Medicare reform bills, each of which adds prescription drug coverage to the insurance program that includes some 41 million seniors and disabled. Both bills expand managed care options through the use of private health plans. But a key political division involves language in the House bill that would, in 2010, tie traditional or fee-for-service Medicare payments to reimbursement levels for private plans -- HMOs and preferred provider organizations.
This so-called premium support provision would move Medicare -- now spending $242 billion annually -- closer to a defined contribution program because it would begin to limit what the government spends. In traditional Medicare, the government simply pays the bills, which is why each year Medicare expenditures rise and the government spends more.

Democrats say American taxpayers can continue to absorb Medicare's costs as they have done for the past 38 years. Republicans counter by saying the 76 million baby boomers getting ready to retire will swamp the program, so the government needs to find a better way to manage and allocate taxpayer dollars.

more...

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=e6e82206c78706af


All I know is that the elderly would be ticked off if they lost their Health Insurance :bounce:

[Noordam]

1. And a lot of companies tooooo

most companies health benes go to second place once you get Medicare age.

[papau]

2. Excellent post - I agree with Dem position - and push single payer

to reduce those future costs

The insurance companies in health must convert to companies providing administrative services only. Jobs are saved, and we save 30% as all that capital tied up in Health insurance companies gets released to do wonders in other parts of the system (the reserves Health insurance companies must maintain on their balance sheets are not required for a Gov single payer plan).