Medicare expansion more costly, less coverage, with no out-of-pocket caps

posted at 8:48 am on December 11, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

What’s not to like about the idea of expanding an entitlement program that is already speeding towards collapse, mainly because too many people are entering it already?  As it turns out, plenty — and even the New York Times has noticed. It has higher premiums, none of the out-of-pocket caps that private policies have, and will attract a pool with much higher risk, driving costs of premiums and services up, according to a former Medicare trustee:

Marilyn Moon, a health economist and former public trustee of Medicare, said that for people 55 to 64, Medicare premiums could be higher than premiums charged by private health plans.

Health policy experts said that the people who chose to enroll in Medicare were likely to be heavy users of health care, with higher-than-average costs.

Moreover, Ms. Moon noted, private plans would have large numbers of healthy people under the age of 55, whose premiums could help cover costs for those 55 to 64. “Such cross-subsidies would not be available under the new Medicare option,” she said.

All of that would be a burden to a program on sound financial footing.  That certainly doesn’t describe Medicare.  It’s the worst of the entitlement nightmares, about eight times larger in unfunded future liabilities than Social Security, and it’s been a net-deficit program for years.  Thanks largely to Medicare in its current form, federal spending on it will go from 4% of GDP in 2007 (roughly 20% of that budget) to 12% of GDP by 2050.

That would be without expanding eligibility, and would be closer to 60% of the federal budget if the government took the same bite of the GDP in 2050 as it does now — which would be absolutely impossible with that kind of entitlement burden.  The federal government would have to expand its budget even without ObamaCare to contain the massive entitlement spending at the current set of liabilities.  We’re on a path towards having government take three times as much of our GDP by 2050, killing the economy by sucking out capital and putting it into the most inefficient hands possible, because no one has the political guts to effect real reform.  Instead, we’re getting the hair of the dog that bit us.

Charles Grassley offered a perfect analogy:

“If the Titanic is sinking, the last thing you want to do is to put Grandma and more of your family on the boat,” said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa.

That assumes Grandma can afford to take the quick trip to the bottom of a sea of red ink, too.  The addition of the FEHBP turns out to be an expensive option:

Senate Democrats have provided few details about their latest health care proposal, but this much seems clear: Anyone who wants to buy the same health benefits as members of Congress, or to buy coverage through Medicare, should be prepared to fork over a large chunk of cash.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, a family of four earning $54,000 in 2016, when the health legislation is fully in effect, would be eligible for a subsidy of $10,100 to help defray the cost of insurance under the health legislation being debated by the Senate. By then, one of the most popular federal plans, a nationwide Blue Cross and Blue Shield policy, is projected to cost more than $20,000.

That could leave the family earning $54,000, slightly more than the current median household income, with monthly premium costs of more than $825.

And that’s with the subsidies.  The Medicare buy-in  — for which no federal subsidies are applicable — would carry almost the same cost, at $7600 per individual (it will not have family coverage), or over $630 per month.  Remember, too, that this has a diminishing network of providers, no out-of-pocket caps on expenses, and so on.

This isn’t a plan for reform.  It’s an escape hatch for Senate Democrats who got themselves stuck on the wrong direction for reform and have trapped themselves in a highly unpopular effort.  They’re rushing to the lifeboats before the Titanic sinks, and they’re trampling Grandma and everyone else to get a seat.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Kill the bill. Just say no!!

deidre on December 11, 2009 at 8:52 AM

Why is it that medical expenses go up astronomically year after year? Can it be because the corrupt government has their fingers in the pie? Get government out of health care and let the law of supply and demand work its magic. The Federal Government is unconstitutional…………

adamsmith on December 11, 2009 at 8:55 AM

Well, that Hope and Change seems to be working out nicely, doncha think?
I’ve been barking at people for almost 50 years about the fact that liberals have been dragging this country toward communism. For most of that time, I’ve been laughed at or written off as a loon.

I wish I had been wrong.

oldleprechaun on December 11, 2009 at 8:56 AM

I trust the government. They would never, ever do anything simply out of lust for power and money. Never.

Oh yeah … I trust them on climate change too. I don’t care if four feet of snow just got dumped on my doorstep. These are respectable scientists and politicians who care about me and Gaia.

darwin on December 11, 2009 at 8:56 AM

Why do they hate seniors so much? No, seriously.

B Man on December 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM

Liberalism is Anti-Americanism.

This is incontestable.

BPD on December 11, 2009 at 9:01 AM

So with a mandate in place and even with a subsidy they would bankrupt lower income families. Way to go congress.

chemman on December 11, 2009 at 9:03 AM

Maybe they should just try and get medicare costs under control, reform the jink lawsuits and allow insurance companies to deal across state lines … and then stop the out of control federal spending.

You know, just to show us they are serious.

tarpon on December 11, 2009 at 9:03 AM

You know, this would only make sense if your intention was to destroy the presently constituted United States of America. . .

rbj on December 11, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Are they(the demonrats) loking for a way out, or are they just that stupid?

SHARPTOOTH on December 11, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Why do they hate seniors so much? No, seriously.

B Man on December 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM

Because they’re older, and older folks are more expensive to take care of … and they’re not working and paying taxes to the beast.

Better to kill them off … cheaper too!

darwin on December 11, 2009 at 9:05 AM

Like putting Grandma on the Titanic

great headline; funny and true

james23 on December 11, 2009 at 9:08 AM

This whole thing smells of desperation. They have an overwhelming urge to pass something, anything to prove themselves as saviors of the country. I think they should just walk away at this point.

Johnnyreb on December 11, 2009 at 9:12 AM

Are they(the demonrats) loking for a way out, or are they just that stupid?

SHARPTOOTH on December 11, 2009 at 9:04 AM

Not stupid … just evil. When the top priorities in your party are killing babies, killing seniors and stealing as much money as you can from the populace, you’re just plain evil.

darwin on December 11, 2009 at 9:13 AM

This whole thing smells of desperation. They have an overwhelming urge to pass something, anything to prove themselves as saviors of the country. I think they should just walk away at this point.

Johnnyreb on December 11, 2009 at 9:12 AM

What I wanna know is how they’re gonna get the CBO to score this as deficit neutral. Obama swore he wouldn’t sign a budget-busting bill. We know that’s what it is, but they have to at least make it look like it’s not in order to pass it. When even the NY Times is calling them out on their BS, they’ve got problems.

Doughboy on December 11, 2009 at 9:14 AM

What I wanna know is how they’re gonna get the CBO to score this as deficit neutral.

Doughboy on December 11, 2009 at 9:14 AM

The same way they do everything else? Threaten and lie?

darwin on December 11, 2009 at 9:16 AM

Liberalism and America are incompatible.

uknowmorethanme on December 11, 2009 at 9:18 AM

test

thomasaur on December 11, 2009 at 9:18 AM

What I wanna know is how they’re gonna get the CBO to score this as deficit neutral. Obama swore he wouldn’t sign a budget-busting bill. We know that’s what it is, but they have to at least make it look like it’s not in order to pass it. When even the NY Times is calling them out on their BS, they’ve got problems.

Doughboy on December 11, 2009 at 9:14 AM

Remember, there are expiration dates on everything Obama says. I can imagine him coming up with something like; Events have forced us to redouble our efforts in rescuing collapsing medical care in this country. Every man woman and child will die if we don;t do this, etc.

Johnnyreb on December 11, 2009 at 9:19 AM

Congresscritters, here’s a shortcut- See Article 1 Section 8 and the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It will take a hell of a lot less time to read and comprehend than the monstrosity of proposed unconstitutional health care legislation stacked on your desk. Ignore it at your peril.

Fletch54 on December 11, 2009 at 9:20 AM

In simple terms, what is all this BS really about? Is some evil tyrant at the control center feverishly plotting ways to eliminate specific types of the unborn and pull the plug on certain seniors?

Something is at work here that completely defies logic.

joedoe on December 11, 2009 at 9:20 AM

This whole thing smells of desperation. They have an overwhelming urge to pass something, anything to prove themselves as saviors of the country. I think they should just walk away at this point.
Johnnyreb on December 11, 2009 at 9:12 AM

They cannot. In a politicians mind bad laws can be amended but failure cannot be overcome.
They will willing pass anything rather than admit defeat.

LincolntheHun on December 11, 2009 at 9:23 AM

Something is at work here that completely defies logic.

joedoe on December 11, 2009 at 9:20 AM

I agree. It’s called a Democratic majority in Congress with RINOs in tow.

bluelightbrigade on December 11, 2009 at 9:23 AM

For the first time since the 80s we have health insurance I like! We have a health savings account. And it took a little while to understand it… but I like it! I feel so much more in control!

So now congress is going to take it away. America we can never allow Democrats to take power again!

Republicans can be frustrating. But Dems ruin our lives! Please get these criminals out of power!

petunia on December 11, 2009 at 9:24 AM

Republicans can be frustrating. But Dems ruin our lives! Please get these criminals out of power!

petunia on December 11, 2009 at 9:24 AM

Winner of the new 2010 bumper sticker.

redridinghood on December 11, 2009 at 9:30 AM

Instead of a mish-mash of politicized hype, the problems surrounding health care should have been treated like any other situation. Define the problem areas, analyze possible solutions and then crunch the numbers. That all should be done long before anything is put forth as a piece of legislation.

If 2 out of 3 of the problems can not be properly addressed, then you have nothing. Time to re-group and take a new approach.

What is going on in the House and Senate goes beyond simple politics as usual. Instead it appears to be some type of full blown psychotic frenzy feeding upon itself!

joedoe on December 11, 2009 at 9:34 AM

Remember, there are expiration dates on everything Obama says. I can imagine him coming up with something like; Events have forced us to redouble our efforts in rescuing collapsing medical care in this country. Every man woman and child will die if we don;t do this, etc.

Johnnyreb on December 11, 2009 at 9:19 AM

Something tells me that’s not gonna fly with the public. When we’re already looking at a trillion and a half deficit for both 2009 and 2010, the last thing people want is a multitrillion dollar health care bill that’ll add even more debt. Especially when it all but guarantees massive taxation in order to pay for it.

Doughboy on December 11, 2009 at 9:36 AM

I’m 55 yrs old. I have insurance through my employer. It’s a BENEFIT. I PAY for part of it. I realize I’m fortunate to have this benefit and that there are people who don’t have insurance at all. So why can’t the idiots in Washington figure out a way to design some kind of health care program that gives people an option to buy insurance WITHOUT penalizing those of us who already have it? This should be simple stuff. The reason it isn’t is because that’s not what they’re goal really is, is it.

scalleywag on December 11, 2009 at 9:42 AM

Ya gotta stop and ask yourself just who gains from this garbage. It certainly isn’t the average hard working American citizen.

joedoe on December 11, 2009 at 9:43 AM

Why do they hate seniors so much? No, seriously.

B Man on December 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM

When old people were in high school, American history was still being taught. It gave them dangerous ideas about personal freedom, limited government, crazy stuff…makes them a pain in the butt.

RBMN on December 11, 2009 at 9:43 AM

Get with the times Ed, it is not red ink it’s red crayon.

GnuBreed on December 11, 2009 at 9:45 AM

“Kill the bill. Just say no!!”

Without a doubt, the best answer. Not only is it a crappy bill, the country cannot afford it! Is there a way of bringing the entire congress up on charges?

GFW on December 11, 2009 at 9:45 AM

Why do they hate seniors so much? No, seriously.

B Man on December 11, 2009 at 8:59 AM

We’re cranky,conservative and vote.

katy the mean old lady on December 11, 2009 at 9:49 AM

Something tells me that’s not gonna fly with the TAX PAYING public… Especially when it all but guarantees massive taxation in order to pay for it.
Doughboy on December 11, 2009 at 9:36 AM

There, FIFY.
It will fly just fine with folks already getting a free ride.

It’s all about wealth redistribution, ask Joe the Plumber.

marybel on December 11, 2009 at 9:51 AM

Something is at work here that completely defies logic.

joedoe on December 11, 2009 at 9:20 AM

This is not about health care and never has been. This about control. If the government runs health care it can be used as a lever to achieve anything they want.

Example: People are shot with guns, taking care of those people cost tax dollars therefore we must control those guns that are costing all of us money.

Make no mistake about what is really at stake here.

Aviator on December 11, 2009 at 9:59 AM

No wonder Harry Reid didn’t want to work the weekend. He’s a coward and this plan is the worst thing I’ve ever heard of. I don’t mind if they tax me on my health care BENEFIT, if that’s what they have to do so be it (even though they promised they wouldn’t). Just leave my benefits alone. If they mess with my health insurance I want every member of congress to have to get the same thing I do. These people are flushing our country down the toilet with their massive spending and they wonder why people are spitting mad.

scalleywag on December 11, 2009 at 10:03 AM

Another problem that the NYT article doesn’t address is that Medicare pays doctors less than the actual cost of the care they provide, so that they bill the difference to people who have private health insurance, and this drives up premiums for private insurance.

If Congress allows tens of millions of people between 55 and 64 onto Medicare, that’s a much larger shortfall for the doctors, more costs to be transferred to people with private insurance, and LESS people with private insurance to pay the bills, meaning that each person gets socked with much higher premiums.

This is practically guaranteed to force private health insurance out of business, after which the government will “rescue” people from the “greedy” insurance companies by proposing a public option and rationed care.

Steve Z on December 11, 2009 at 10:07 AM

It is time to waterboard Reid and Pelosi. We must get the truth out of these lunatics.

joedoe on December 11, 2009 at 10:07 AM

maybe this is a plan to add Means Testing to Medicare

I cannot think of any other way this saves money on entitlements unless it is a back door means test to keep baby boomers with assets from getting Medicare at the established flat rates…

but then again these guys ion the Hill are loons so who the hexxknows what if anything they are thinking

the DEMS are now attaching the GOP Amendment which blocked RX imports from Canada

unreal

ginaswo on December 11, 2009 at 10:09 AM

to clarify this is the Amendment the GOP wrote under GW when the Dems claimed they wanted this to pass, including Sen Obama

ginaswo on December 11, 2009 at 10:09 AM

steve

interesting that the groups who had a ‘deal’ with the WH are finding themselves ‘on the menu’ even though they thought they were ‘at the table’ aint it

HA! the frakkers

ginaswo on December 11, 2009 at 10:10 AM

Need a new term.
“clusterfark” just doesn’t cover it anymore.
Ideas?

JusDreamin on December 11, 2009 at 10:10 AM

This is desperation.
They need to pass anything or they look as idiotic as Hillarycare. This is a collassal waste of time, money and outrage.
Theey will pass something, I am convinced but I wish they would just be honest and admit the destruction of the US. There are many leftists openly admitting it, the Congress critters may as well be just as honest.

ORconservative on December 11, 2009 at 10:15 AM

There are no words. These people have already clusterfarked our country with their massive spending and now they’ve raised the debt limit and are looking to pass another stimulus bill. And now they’re going to pass a health care bill the majority of Americans have clearly stated they don’t want. How in the world does it get more clustered than that?

scalleywag on December 11, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Tort reform
Insurance across state lines.

How hard are those 6 words to understand?

journeyintothewhirlwind on December 11, 2009 at 10:26 AM

If Obama signs any old thing they can get on his desk, will he pay the price later?

joedoe on December 11, 2009 at 10:27 AM

scalleywag on December 11, 2009 at 10:16 AM

Don’t forget the Omnibus spending bill, $446 billion, released on Tuesday.

GnuBreed on December 11, 2009 at 10:37 AM

If Congress allows tens of millions of people between 55 and 64 onto Medicare, that’s a much larger shortfall for the doctors,

Not to mention the expansion on the “young” end, allowing kids to stay on their parents’ plans up until age 25. What if their parents are 55 plus and on Medicare? Add to that the expansion of S-CHIP and the expansion of Medicaid. And if there is a public option in the final bill, there will be heavy subsidies for people making less than whatever amount is the cutoff.

That leaves a very, very small slice of the mostly healthy 26-54 yo populace left to pay full price for health insurance and cover everyone else who isn’t paying. Gee, you think premiums might rise just a tad under that scenario? Or taxes?

As horrible as this Medicare buy-in is, it may just turn out to be the thing that kills the bill.

Missy on December 11, 2009 at 10:46 AM

Maybe they should just try and get medicare costs under control, reform the jink lawsuits and allow insurance companies to deal across state lines … and then stop the out of control federal spending.

You know, just to show us they are serious.

tarpon on December 11, 2009 at 9:03 AM

Ah! That wouldn’t be socialist enough! How dare you suggest that! /sarcasm

NathanG on December 11, 2009 at 10:49 AM

and the band played on!

is it too early to start the obamacare post mortem?

msnbc headline dated jan 5, 2010: Repubs to Blame for Healthcare Reform Debacle?

DrW on December 11, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Saw 3 AARP ad’s this morning for Medicare Gap insurance.

And people wonder why AARP is for this plan?

barnone on December 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Something tells me that the stupid demos haven’t figured out yet that we’re paying attention…

Ltlgeneral64 on December 11, 2009 at 11:48 AM

***
LOOKOUT: Captain!–Iceberg in sight–dead ahead!
***
COMRADE OBAMA: Full Speed Ahead!
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on December 11, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Need a new term.
“clusterfark” just doesn’t cover it anymore.
Ideas?

JusDreamin on December 11, 2009 at 10:10 AM

Group jerk-off from the other thread seems to fit.

farright on December 11, 2009 at 11:54 AM

I’m all for this.

If Medicare caps fees per visit/procedure at the same rate it now pays, has people 55-64 pay substantially more for Medicare than people over 64 and taxes the higher income people the way the Senate bill contemplates, why won’t that improve the finanical condition of Medicare? They’re taking in more money per person but paying out the same amount they’re now paying per person.

Jimbo3 on December 11, 2009 at 12:04 PM

They’re taking in more money per person but paying out the same amount they’re now paying per person.

Jimbo3 on December 11, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Yes, but what will it do to doctors if they continue to get paid at current Medicare reimbursement rates, but now begin to receive those rates for 10-15% more of their patients?

Also, I think the premiums will be high enough by the time this all kicks in that the public outcry will be seen as justification for full-on single payer. The NYT article says a family of four making $54K would be paying $825/month out-of-pocket for coverage, and that’s with a $10K/year subsidy. That is just not going to fly with the public.

Missy on December 11, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Missy, it’s my understanding that the Medicare rates don’t really cause doctors to lose money. They only cause doctors to not make as much as they could otherwise make.

And the gross $1625/month rate for a family of four seems to be correct to me. I pay $400/month for coverage now, but my employer pays about $900/month as well. And that’s without guaranteed issue. The public just doesn’t understand how much health care insurance actually costs because most people get subsidized care through their employers.

Jimbo3 on December 11, 2009 at 12:16 PM

The public just doesn’t understand how much health care insurance actually costs because most people get subsidized care through their employers.

Jimbo3 on December 11, 2009 at 12:16 PM

That is for sure. My point was only that the public is going to realize it really soon if this goes through as it seems poised to do. My sense is that most people are still under the illusion that the public option = free health care.

Re: doctors and Medicare reimbursement, I’ve read/heard that many doctors can’t fully recoup costs on Medicare patients, so they’re treating them at close to zero profit. I can’t say if that’s true or not, of course, just that it’s what I’ve read. At minimum, it seems like we’re headed for a wave of MD retirements in addition to the shortage that is inevitably caused by expanding access.

Missy on December 11, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Jimbo3, I wonder how many Medicare Explanation of Benefits you have seen. Fifteen years ago, I moved back here. I was ill and saw a GP. He charged $75 for an office call. Now, I am on Medicare and Medicare authorizes anywhere from $40 to $56 for an office call with my GP. Does this sound like they are making money off Medicare? Consider all the overhead a doctor has.

I am glad we are now discussing what the various plans would cost individuals. I have this idea that many, many people think that “government option” somehow means free medical care for them.

Oleta on December 11, 2009 at 12:30 PM

Health care insurance is part of my total compensation package as agreed upon, when I accepted the job offer. I hardly consider it as some type of subsidy. It is an earned benefit.

joedoe on December 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM

It is an earned benefit.

joedoe on December 11, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Good point.

Missy on December 11, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Oleta, “cost” is a funny thing. A whole lot depends on what cost you are using (such as variable cost vs. fully-loaded cost, and even then it depends on the assumptions used).

I know in a recent case, our doctor billed the insurance company $120 for an office visit. Our employer-provided insurance paid about $30 and we weren’t responsible for the rest under the doctor’s agreement with our insurance company. So maybe $40-$56 isn’t a bad rate in general (of course, it depends on where the doctor is located, what services were provided, etc.)

I’m not on Medicare, so I don’t know what their EOBs say.

Jimbo3 on December 11, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Many do think Public Option = Free.

I watched an interview on one of the cable news channels recently. One guy owned a catfish restaurant, but he could not afford to provide insurance for his employees. In fact, he could not even afford to cover his own family. He said in the interview that if the public option was not in the bill, he would stay home for the next election.

There is no way this small business man can understand what he will be facing, if any of this stuff gets forced upon us. He will be mandated to provide insurance coverage, or he will get one heckuva tax bill. How is he going to get around those increased expenses and be better off than he is today?

joedoe on December 11, 2009 at 12:54 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/does_medicare_pay_below_cost_w.html.

An interesting article on Medicare payments and cost, if you want to read some more.

Jimbo3 on December 11, 2009 at 12:55 PM

joedoe, from what I remember, small employers (less than 50 employers) aren’t required to provide insurance under the bills. It’s only large employers who face penalties/added costs.

Jimbo3 on December 11, 2009 at 12:56 PM

Missy, it’s my understanding that the Medicare rates don’t really cause doctors to lose money. They only cause doctors to not make as much as they could otherwise make.

Jimbo3 on December 11, 2009 at 12:16 PM

Jimbo3, here are two cases where your wrong.

1) Two doctors leave the Air Force and start a practice together. After the first year, thier accountant advises them to stop taking Medicare patients because, with 60% of their patients on Medicare, and only 40% with private insurance, they are bleeding money.

2) I was relocated to Tennessee during the ‘Tenn-Care’ debacle. Because ‘Tenn-Care’ used Medicare reimbursement tables, doctors quickly realized they were losing money serving ‘Tenn-Care’ patients, and had to put up signs stating ‘No New Patients’ to prevent from seeing more ‘Tenn-Care’ patients. Once, I literally had to place my Blue Cross-Blue Shield card on the window for the receptionist to see just to get an appointment.

Medicare just doesn’t pay enough to cover the basic expenses of an office visit or procedure. Plain and simple. Expanding it as-is will only bring higher premiums and more hardship.

Phil-351 on December 11, 2009 at 12:58 PM

joedoe, from what I remember, small employers (less than 50 employers) aren’t required to provide insurance under the bills. It’s only large employers who face penalties/added costs.

Jimbo3 on December 11, 2009 at 12:56 PM

Which only means that a whole lot of businesses are going to shed employees so as to stay under that 50-employee cap, thus limiting growth and contributing to unemployement at the same time. Super.

Missy on December 11, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Businesses are also going to shed employees 53.5 years and up to the extent it doesn’t expose them to age discrimination suits. Expect to see a lot of restructurings in the next few years along those lines. And then they’ll hire them back as consultants, with overall costs for those consultants now less than 40-50 year olds. It will be the families of the terminated employees who get hurt: Medicare will not be available to non-55 year old family members of people over 55.

Jimbo3 on December 11, 2009 at 6:56 PM