Working In These Times

Pamela R. Kelley 7 Dec 2009
3:50 pm

Legislation without a public option offers no hope of long term cost-containment.  Any bill will be flawed, that’s a given in the legislative process.  But this fig leaf is not worthy of support, and our Senators need to know it.  Please call, email and write your Senators.  If you haven’t, why?

Maggie Mahar 9 Dec 2009
1:27 pm

Expapnding to Medicare to those 55 to 65 may sound
good—until you look at what it would cost middle-aged Americans.

Isolating this group means you are creating a very expensive pool of people who need chronic care management, surgeries, preventive care, etc-.

Witihout younger people in the pool premiums would have to be around $10,000 per person—just to cover Medicare’s costs.  (I’m posting about this on HealthBeat, explaining the numbers. If it’s not up yet, it will be up soon.)

Medicare has lower administrative costs than private insurers, but Medicare’s outlays to doctors, hospitals and
patients have been spiraling over the past 15-20 years because THE COST OF CARE IN OUR VERY INEFFICIENT AND WASTEFUL SYSTEM IS SO HIGH>

Every year, Americans undergo more surgeries, more tests, more procedures, and buy more drugs.

Meanwhle we over-pay fo some specialists’ services and for many drugs and devices. 

As a result, it would cost Medicare about $10,000 per person just to cover the cost of providing care for people in this age group.

Their care becomes unaffordable unless they are in a pool with 18-55 year-olds (the original public option.)

Even right now, the Senate is saying no subsidies to help the 55-54 year-olds premiums until 2014, although Medicare would open to younger people in 2012)

Even when subsidies kicked in, a couple earning $58,200 would not be eligible for a subsidy. And they wouldn’t be able to afford $20,000 . . .

This is, as you say, a ruse.