Would GHAP's PRIVATIZATION/“voucherization” of MEDICARE permanently DOOM Universal Single Payer?

Faryn Balyncd

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Mar-06-09 11:52 AM
Original message

Would GHAP's PRIVATIZATION/“voucherization” of MEDICARE permanently DOOM Universal Single Payer?

Edited on Fri Mar-06-09 12:04 PM by Faryn Balyncd

Would the Emanuel/Fuchs GHAP PRIVATIZATION/(“voucherization”) of MEDICARE permanently DOOM Universal Single Payer Healthcare?

(Contrasting the views of Howard Dean & of Zeke Emanuel)

Howard Dean proposes allowing younger Americans who choose to “buy in” to Medicare. He estimates the number choosing such a “public option” will increase as private insurance prices continue to escalate.

While Dean does not advocate a strictly Single Payer solution at this time, he strongly believes that:

Howard Dean: Real Health Reform ‘Rises And Falls On Whether The Public Is Allowed To Choose Medicare’

“If Barack Obama’s bill gets changed to exclude the public entities, it is not health insurance reform…it rises and falls on whether the public is allowed to choose Medicare if they’re under 65 or not. If they are allowed to choose Medicare as an option, this bill will be real health care reform. If they’re not, we will be back fighting about it for another 20 years before somebody tries again.”

VIDEO

What are we to conclude, then, from the administration’s snubbing of Howard Dean, even as they have hired a “White House adviser” who proposes the PRIVATIZATION of MEDICARE?

As proposed, the well-intentioned, but misguided, Emanuel/Fuchs GHAP (Guaranteed HealthCare Access Plan) envisions vouchers which would cover private purchase of insurance for basic defined services with the option of additionally purchasing various (more expensive) services.

A striking aspect of such a plan is the ease with which benefits could be curtailed by future administrations or Congress:

How would private insurance vouchers differ from Medicare?

Under Medicare, the retiree’s financial obligations are limited to his deductibles, which are known. The political hazards associated to politicians considering reneging on Medicare obligations affords retirees a measure of stability.

In contrast is the utter ease with which such a privatized, voucher based system could be transformed by a future Republican administration into a system in which the voucher only covered a portion (or even a small portion) of the price of even the most basic insurance coverage.

Once Medicare is privatized, all that would be required for such a transformation would be for a right wing administration (or Congress) to keep the vouched funds constant in the face of rising insurance prices.

Once Medicare is privatized,and replaced with a (well meaning) voucher system (in which the retiree must purchase a private policy using the voucher supplemented by his own funds {for “upgrades”, etc}, how would a hypothetical future right wing administration/Congress respond to higher prices by insurance companies?

Would a right wing Congress and/or the administration readily adjust voucher funds to meet higher prices?

. . . . . . . . . .

Today, under Medicare (or any Single Payer system), the federal government must deal with increased medical prices through negotiations, politics and/or regulations.

In a post-Medicare world, by writing vouchers the government would pass the burden of negotiation to individual retirees.

Could there be a greater power mismatch than retirees negotiating with insurance corporations (corporations that will then possess the ultimate trump card - - - the fact that consumers are ultimately required to purchase one of their policies, regardless of price)?

If a future Congress/administration does not increase voucher funding to meet rising insurance prices, what will prevent insurance prices from consuming a major portion (or more) of a retiree’s Social Security (or other) pension?

. . . . . . . . . .

How ironic is it that a right wing Republican administration would have NEVER have had the political capital to privatize Medicare, but if Democrats actually privatize/"voucherize" Medicare for them, a future Republican majority could easily destroy the value of those vouchers incrementally through inflation and inaction.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5180499&mesg_id=5180499

When Howard Dean stated that reform will rise or fall depending on whether younger Americans are allowed to opt-in/buy-in to Medicare, he predicted that a defeat (of a Medicare buy-in option) would likely result in a 20 year delay in future attempts (to move toward Medicare-for-all/public universal health care/single payer).

But even Dean’s dire prediction did not reckon with the possibility of Medicare itself being PRIVATIZED/(“voucherized”) with NO PUBLIC OPTION.

If Medicare, our most successful public medical plan is thus privatized, what is the likelihood that Single Payer reform could EVER be achieved?

If Medicare is privatized, how will we ever be able to apply the 31% “administrative” cut now reaped by insurance companies, & apply it to actual health services.

If Medicare is privatized, how will we ever achieve cost effective medical care for all Americans, and allow our productive industries, now hobbled by escalating insurance prices, to once again be competitive?

* * * * * * * * * *

From another perspective, if you were an insurance lobbyist hoping to design a POISON PILL to destroy forever the possibility of public Single Payer Universal Healthcare, could you design a plan more effective than the PRIVATIZATION/(“voucherization”) of Medicare as proposed in the well-intentioned, but misguided, Emanuel/Fuchs “Guaranteed Healthcare Access Plan”?

And, if you were an insurance lobbyist, what would you fear more than Howard Dean’s proposal to allow younger Americans the option to buy-in/opt/in to Medicare?

:kick: