Who needs a death panel?

    By Flavius on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 8:50am |

    From Brad Delong

    Pear:

    Medicare Proposal Financing Differs From Federal Employee Plan: Under the federal employees’ health plan... the government pays a fixed share of premiums. So the federal contribution generally keeps pace with rising premiums, which in turn reflect rising health costs. No such guarantee exists under the Republicans’ plan to transform Medicare....

    So, the Congressional Budget Office says, under the Republican plan, Medicare would pay a shrinking share of beneficiaries’ total health costs, and seniors would pay a growing share. For a typical 65-year-old, that share would be 68 percent in 2030, more than twice what it would be under current law.

    Brad and Robert Pear whom he quotes are putting the  em pha' sis on the wrong syl lab' ble.

    The consequence of Paul Ryan's plan is not that seniors will have to pay 68% of their medical bills. It'll be that they'll pay 0%  because they won't be treated. 

    I haven't gotten much traction here on this subject but what Ryan proposes is that when you get sick, you'll die. Unless you're wealthy. They of course will be able to afford to pay. And with the majority of the elderly essentially removed from the medical market the wealthy might have added negotiating clout  which could translate into lower costs. For them. 

    Ryan is proposing a hobbesian society so different from anything we've experienced that the implications haven't been grasped. Historically there was a  family doctor who came to the house with his bag and you paid. (The last time  I remember a doc made a house call was in Brussels but they have a national health system so that doesn't count). For whatever reasons not only the house call but affordable care disappeared. But not health care per se, employee insurance and Medicare/Medicaid came into the equation.

    Not under Ryan. Come 2030 those unaffordable medical charges will be 30% covered by the Govt. Which, to repeat, might as well be 0. Since most of the elderly won't be able to pay the 70% the Govt. will save its 30%. More to the point, most people will just die. Untreated.

    One more time. The Ryan plan means that when the elderly get sick, they'll die.

    Fortunately, Sarah, that won't be the result of a death panel. It'll be a propoer market based death so it'll be OK.

    Comments

    So the GOPer's are opposed to a government controlled death panel paid for by taxpayers. However, they have no problem with an industry death panel that's using a market model to squeeze as much profit out of employee and public health care systems as Congress will allow.


    by Beetlejuice on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 9:31am

    Exactly. 


    by Flavius on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 9:34am

    There is another big difference from the insurance that Congress gets:

    When a Congressperson chooses his/her insurance they have a list of policies, detailing coverage, and what their premiums would be. These options are pre-negotiated for them, and their premiums are low compared to most other people in the country.

    Seniors, however, will fill out multiple pages of information on themselves, listing every health problem and all medications, etc. They will SUBMIT this info to insurance companies, which then evaluate the senior according to what the insurance company thinks it might have to pay. THEN, the senior finds out what premiums and what deductible, and co-pay, etc they have to choose from.

    See the difference? And a 75 year old just might not feel up to comparing and contrasting all those 'options" every year.

    Every time I hear one of these liars claim that what they propose is giving seniors the same health-care as they get, I want to scream!

    Oh, and if it is so wonderful, why are they exempting those of us 55 and over? Because they know it sucks, and they don't want to lose the geezer vote.


    by CVille Dem on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 10:51am

    It's infuriating. Worse than that. I restrain myself from using the word: evil. But it's hard.


    by Flavius on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 11:15am

    The consequence of Paul Ryan's plan is not that seniors will have to pay 68% of their medical bills. It'll be that they'll pay 0%  because they won't be treated.

     

    Well this kind of message is scaring the hell out of certain repubs.

    I know Pawlenty is walking away from any changes to Medicare right now.

    Good slant on Ryan's plan for sure!


    by Richard Day on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 3:16pm

    One of the theoretical supports of Congressman Ryan proposal  is the ever popular reliance on "market forces"   to reduce health care costs.  Fresh off their achievement in the housing sector, I suppose.

    To provide a patriotic frisson .it's combined with  " free choice" that hardy conservative value,except in the case of..well,Choice .  Arguably Ryan will set Joe Retiree Free ( here, five seconds of Martin Luther King) and send him forth to threaten Carl Cardiac-surgeon with losing Joe's patronage unless Carl provides a discount by-pass.(I'm entitled to joke since I just had one- a by pass, not a discount)

    Question. Does the existing  30% cost sharing motivate Joe? If not , why would 30% that he might actually just be able to  pay  be less effective than  68% which is no more relevant to him than the cost of a Chalet in Steamboat Springs? Which he also can't afford.

    More fundamental question. Is there any point in dignifying Plan Ryan with a rebuttal of its supposed rationale .? Back during the 70's gasoline crisis supposedly a Texas bumper sticker read

    Let the Yankees freeze to death in the dark.

    Wouldn't one reflecting   Ryancare read

             Save the Trust Fund, die at home from your heart attack

     

    . .  .

     


    by Flavius on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 4:39pm

    Yeah, the ultimate death panel.

    Good metaphor. A metaphor that becomes the reality.


    by Richard Day on Wed, 05/04/2011 - 5:21pm

    Latest Comments