News & Comment
Blogs and Opinion
President Obama’s Looming Medicare Concession by Michael Tomasky, thedailybeast.com | December 11, 2012
Sunday afternoon I received an email from Howard Dean. Not a personal one, but nevertheless seeing his name there made me look twice, because I never get emails of any kind from Howard Dean. This one warned me ominously about the looming cuts to Medicare, and while the Deanian digit of outrage was pointed at the Republicans, the email also noted that my voice was needed to ensure that the Democrats stood united against the assault. Translated, this means that liberals are terrified that the White House is about to agree to increase the Medicare eligibility age to 67. I think the White House ought to know that by all existing evidence, if it agrees to such a deal, Barack Obama will lose liberal support far more quickly, more despondently, and more, if I may put it this way, ferociously and furiously than he ever lost it over the public option. read more »What Raising the Medicare Eligibility Age Means by Paul Waldman, prospect.org | December 10, 2012
Raising the eligibility age saves very little money, on the order of a few billion dollars a year. That's because the 65 and 66-year-olds will have to get insurance somewhere, and many of them are going to get it with the help of the federal government, either through Medicaid or through the insurance exchanges, where they'll be eligible for subsidies. However, since many Republican-run states are refusing to expand Medicaid in accordance with the Affordable Care Act, lots of seniors who live in those states will just end up uninsured. What we'd be doing is taking people off Medicare, the most efficient and inexpensive option for them to have insurance, and putting them into the individual market, which works less well and costs more. When we start talking about this in more detail, that's what Republicans should really be forced to address. read more »Healthcare Dominoes by Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post | December 7, 2012
Raising the eligibility age for Medicare sounds like a fiscal no-brainer. After all, the Social Security retirement age is rising to 67. It would seem sensible for Medicare to have the same rule. After all, life expectancy is growing. Today, the average 65-year-old can expect to live another 20 years — about five years longer than when Medicare started. After all, federal health-care spending is on an unsustainable course. Something’s got to give. Amid the entitlement mumbo jumbo, raising the eligibility age is attractive to politicians casting about for savings because it is tangible. Here’s the wrinkle: This no-brainer turns out to be exceedingly complicated. The savings aren’t as big as you might imagine, because costs to other government health programs would rise as a result. Meanwhile, the move could have an array of problematic effects, from leaving seniors uninsured to raising premium costs for many others. read more »How Medicare Is Misrepresented by Uwe Reinhardt, economix.blogs.nytimes.com | December 7, 2012
A common phrase in the current debate over the so-called fiscal cliff is “Medicare needs to be restructured.” The term serves as code for policies unlikely to be appealing to voters, a term that can mean everything and, thus, nothing. The question is what problem restructuring is to solve in traditional Medicare, which remains one of the most popular health insurance programs in this country. People who use this vague term should always be challenged to explain exactly why and how Medicare should be changed. read more »Cliff Notes on the Three Real Perils Ahead by Robert B. Reich, robertreich.org | December 6, 2012
The “fiscal cliff” is a metaphor for a government that no longer responds to the biggest challenges we face because it’s paralyzed by intransigent Republicans, obsessed by the federal budget deficit, and overwhelmed by big money from corporations, Wall Street, and billionaires. If we had a functional government America would address three “cliffs” posing far larger dangers to us than the fiscal one. read more »Don’t Raise the Medicare Eligibility Age by Matthew Yglesias, slate.com | December 6, 2012
When economists and policymakers worry about the long-term fiscal crisis, what they’re mostly worried about is Medicare. That’s why a persistent idea during this fiscal cliff season is raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. It’s an idea that appears superficially to have many virtues. Bringing the Medicare retirement age into line with the Social Security retirement age seems logical. The change is simple to describe to journalists and the public. And agreeing to reduce spending by keeping the program the same but limiting eligibility for it allows Democrats and Republicans to come together without resolving their fundamental disagreement over what Medicare should look like. As far as big picture entitlement reform goes, in other words, it’s relatively simple, straightforward, and easy to accomplish. Unfortunately it’s also a terrible idea that cloaks a staggering giveaway to hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers. read more »The Big Debt Driver: Rising Health Care Costs, Not Medicare by Diane Archer, Huffington Post | December 2, 2012
As both our national debt and health care costs continue to swell, America's CEOs and other "influentials" have targeted Medicare as a key culprit and insist that Congress cut Medicare spending in the current deficit discussions. In truth, we do not have a "Medicare problem" in this country; we have a big problem with rising health care costs. To rein in escalating deficits over the long-term, Congress must address the lack of competition in the health care marketplace, which is driving up overall health care costs, including Medicare's. If we are to control health care spending, we need to restructure the private health care market to bring down prices. Cutting Medicare spending, without addressing this systemic issue, will simply shift the burden of rising health care costs to vulnerable older adults and people with disabilities. It is not a long-term solution for either Medicare or the deficit. read more »Report: Walmart Plans To Deny Health Care Benefits To New Employees by Kathleen Grier, Washington Monthly | December 2, 2012
Why the ACA can’t kick in soon enough, part the infinite: the Huffington Post is reporting that, according to a new policy that will take effect in January, Walmart will begin denying health insurance to new employees who work less than 30 hours a week. It will also reserve the right to cut health benefits for certain groups of current employees who work less than 30 hours. Walmart workers, like many retail employees, often have shifts and hours that vary from week to week, according to seasonal business cycles, so even workers who are currently working 30 hours or more could be affected. Let’s not forget that Walmart is the nation’s largest private employer, so this change is hugely important. And it’s important not only in itself, but in the spillover effect it could have on the employment policies of comparable retailers. read more »The Great Society's Next Frontier by MIke Konczal, prospect.org | November 19, 2012
As The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein declared shortly after voters re-elected President Barack Obama, one of the major winners last week was health-care reform. With Democrats holding on to the Senate and the White House, Republicans will be unable to repeal the law before all of its provisions go into effect in 2014—after which, the theory goes, the public will come to accept that government has the responsibility to ensure health care is available for all. This is the end of a long battle for progressives: Health care has been the major missing piece of our welfare state for nearly a century, and for decades making it part of our system of social insurance has been a primary goal of politicians, think tanks, and activists. With this piece of the progressive puzzle in place, the natural question to ask is, What’s next for the welfare state? read more »Defending the Right to Treat Your Employees Like Dirt by Paul Waldman, prospect.org | November 16, 2012
Getting tired of eating at Chick-Fil-A every day to express your hatred of liberals? Well, now you have a couple more options. You can chow down at Applebee's, where the CEO of their New York franchises went on TV to declare that he won't be doing more hiring because of the costs Obamacare would impose. Or you can head over to Papa John's, whose CEO, John Schnatter, has said that Obamacare could add as much as—brace yourself—10 cents to the cost of a pizza, and since obviously customers would never tolerate such price gouging, he'll just have to cut back employees' hours. In our new era of corporate political activism, we're goin to be seeing a lot more of this kind of thing. So let's make sure we all understand exactly what it is these chieftains are complaining about: They don't want to give their employees health insurance. That's it. read more »
The Latest
Group: Public Plan Could Save Money Faster, Reuters | June 24, 2009
that includes a Medicare-like government option could save $1.8 trillion more than if only private plans are offered, a prominent private U.S. health policy group said. more »
Obama Signs Tobacco Bill Into Law, BBC News | June 23, 2009
U.S. President Barack Obama has signed into law America's strongest anti-smoking measure ever, saying it will save lives. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration now has new powers to regulate the content and marketing of tobacco products. Hailed as a milestone in the history of tobacco regulation, the bill was passed by Congress earlier this month. more »
Study: Americans Struggling To Pay For Health Care, Reuters | June 22, 2009
Americans are struggling to pay for health care in the ongoing economic recession, with a quarter saying they have had trouble in the past 12 months, according to a survey released. more »
Report: Health Care Costs to Rise 9% in 2010, USA Today | June 18, 2009
mployers who offer health insurance coverage could see a 9% cost increase next year, and their workers may face an even bigger hit, according to a report from consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers. Costs will rise in part because workers worried about losing their jobs are using their health care more while they still have it, the firm said in the report released to the Associated Press. more »
Budget Chief Sees "Hard Slog" on Health Reform, USA Today | June 17, 2009
Overhauling the nation's health care system won't easily lead to the long-term budget savings that President Obama hopes to achieve, the director of the Congressional Budget Office says. Obama has said that "health care reform is entitlement reform," but he plans to use savings from Medicare and Medicaid over 10 years to extend health insurance coverage to millions of people. more »
Former Senators to Present Health Reform Compromise, Associated Press | June 17, 2009
Trying to prevent a repeat of the 1990s standoff over health care, four former Senate leaders are preparing a plan that combines ideas from both political parties to guarantee coverage for all. more »
Sebelius: Single-Payer Health Care Not In Plans, npr.org | June 16, 2009
As lawmakers on Capitol Hill hammer out legislation to overhaul the nation's health care system this year, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says that a single-payer option is not on the table. "This is not a trick. This is not single-payer," Sebelius told Steve Inskeep. more »
Doctors and hospitals-Vital players in health care reform, newyorker.com | June 16, 2009
This article in the June New Yorker magazine, brought to my attention by Bob Laszewski's blog at http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2009/06/its-not-prices-stupid...., describes and analyzes various health care markets in the U.S. with the surprising conclusion that holding Doctors and Hospitals accountable for cost could be a key to reform
Pelosi: "No Health Care Reform Without Public Plan", Huffington Post | June 12, 2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the Huffington Post Thursday that a health care overhaul that did not include a public option wouldn't make it through the House because it "wouldn't have the votes." At a press conference earlier in the morning, Pelosi had been asked if including a public plan that would compete with private insurance was "essential" to health care reform.
Out-Of-Pocket Health Costs up 34% in 3 Years, Marketwatch | June 3, 2009
Americans with job-based health insurance saw their protection from higher out-of-pocket costs erode between 2004 and 2007, especially those who were sick and of modest means, according to a new study. The majority of people with health insurance, about 160 million Americans, receive it through their jobs. more »
