Five Undeniable Facts about Ryan’s Medicare Reform Plan
August 15, 2012 at 7:22 pm in Fiscal Responsibility, ObamaCare by Phillip Dennis 1 Comment
The political left is conniving to make the case that Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan—which he co-sponsored with liberal Democratic Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon) and an earlier outline with liberal Democratic economist Alice Rivlin—is a radical departure from the current Medicare system that will hurt seniors. Don’t you believe it, and here’s why:
1. It is not a new idea. Ryan’s plan is called a “premium support” model; the government gives a health plan a set amount of money, and the plan provides comprehensive coverage. A version of this model known as Medicare+Choice was first passed by Congress in 1997, and an improved version passed in 2003 under the name Medicare Advantage.
2. It’s popular. Currently, 26 percent of seniors voluntarily choose a Medicare Advantage plan over traditional Medicare. Under Ryan’s most recent proposal, Medicare beneficiaries can choose either a Medicare Advantage-type plan or stay in traditional Medicare.
3. Low-income seniors and minorities participate. A new study from America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) shows that 64 percent of African American and 82 percent of Hispanic Medicare Advantage participants had incomes under $20,000.
4. It grows at the same rate as ObamaCare. Critics will claim that Ryan’s plan hurts seniors because it eventually caps the premium support at the growth of GDP plus 0.5 percent. But that is exactly the same rate imposed by ObamaCare. The difference is that ObamaCare tries to keep the lid on growth by regulating from the top-down; the Ryan plan tries to keep the lid on growth by creating the right economic incentives.
5. It gets the economic incentives right. By providing a set amount of money for each Medicare beneficiary’s health care coverage, the Ryan plan starts a process of encouraging seniors to ask where they get the best value for their health care dollar—just as we all do in every other sector of the economy. That change will create a new dynamic in Medicare that will increase competition, lower costs and improve quality—the missing links to preserving and strengthening Medicare.
Merrill Matthews, Ph.D., is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation, a research-based, public policy “think tank.” He is a health policy expert and weekly contributor at Forbes.com. He also serves as Chair of the Texas Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Read more from Merrill Matthews at www.ipi.org
Thank you Merrill that is good clarification. I support Ryan. The only question I have is whether his plan creates one nationwide market for the Medicare plans–we need the competition and Medicare is the greatest fiscal threat.
But looking at the larger picture, to become just and free per our constitution let us consider that the very Institution of Retirement is not in our Bill of Rights. What our nation so desperately needs, is for members of our Greatest Generation who still labor in business and medicine and politics and religious service to storm the beaches of Normandy once again in a glorious event to tell everyone even close to 60 to Just Say No to retirement as long as they can.
Our seniors have the wisdom, the character, and the capital to provide the leadership we need. These great men and women can bless us beyond measure like Reagan and Ben Franklin and Moses did.
Therefor let us regulate health insurance commerce so that aging parents can be added to our employer-sponsored health plan. Let us free up the IRA and 401K rules for people to invest into businesses that they can continue to lead into their golden years. Who knows, we have talented seniors who might be willing to trade their social security and Medicare benefits in exchange for tax exemptions on what they can earn and eventually pass onto their heirs. I bet that the increase in productivity growth through engaging retirees in work life will pay for their health care and living expenses ten times over. Most important, the retirees’ involvement in our work life would be a channel for these citizens to exert their moral influence to build our national values.
Why is Medicare and Social Security the sacred cow? If it must be that way in order to defeat President Obama, I will not lay a hand on that cow. But after November 4th, We the People have to come and reason together–the institution of retirement is not what our veterans died for!
The state has taken the place of the family in taking care of their own elderly parents. This is far worse than a bailout of an auto manufacturer–it is a bailout of the American family! If we family members don’t need one another, it stands to reason that the family will break down. And what do we have left of it? If we do not have strong families, how can we have a strong nation?
Medicare and Social Security is an injustice because it is a transfer of income from today’s workers and employers to today’s retirees, with no reason for our younger workers to expect the same benefits.
This post may be too early since I can see our citizens are not ready for this discussion, but let those of us here be considering this issue and be praying about it.