Robert Reich writes: "Estimates of how much would be saved by extending Medicare to cover the entire population range from $58 billion to $400 billion a year. More Americans would get quality health care, and the long-term budget crisis would be sharply reduced. Let me say it again: Medicare isn't the problem. It's the solution."
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Medicare for All Is the Solution
13 April 11
Mr. President: Why Medicare Isn't the Problem, It's the Solution
hope when he tells America how he aims to tame future budget deficits the President doesn't accept conventional Wasington wisdom that the biggest problem in the federal budget is Medicare (and its poor cousin Medicaid).
Medicare isn't the problem. It's the solution.
The real problem is the soaring costs of health care that lie beneath Medicare. They're costs all of us are bearing in the form of soaring premiums, co-payments, and deductibles.
Americans spend more on health care per person than any other advanced nation and get less for our money. Yearly public and private healthcare spending is $7,538 per person. That's almost two and a half times the average of other advanced nations.
Yet the typical American lives 77.9 years - less than the average 79.4 years in other advanced nations. And we have the highest rate of infant mortality of all advanced nations.
Medical costs are soaring because our health-care system is totally screwed up. Doctors and hospitals have every incentive to spend on unnecessary tests, drugs, and procedures.
You have lower back pain? Almost 95% of such cases are best relieved through physical therapy. But doctors and hospitals routinely do expensive MRI's, and then refer patients to orthopedic surgeons who often do even more costly surgery. Why? There's not much money in physical therapy.
Your diabetes, asthma, or heart condition is acting up? If you go to the hospital, 20 percent of the time you're back there within a month. You wouldn't be nearly as likely to return if a nurse visited you at home to make sure you were taking your medications. This is common practice in other advanced countries. So why don't nurses do home visits to Americans with acute conditions? Hospitals aren't paid for it.
America spends $30 billion a year fixing medical errors - the worst rate among advanced countries. Why? Among other reasons because we keep patient records on computers that can't share the data. Patient records are continuously re-written on pieces of paper, and then re-entered into different computers. That spells error.
Meanwhile, administrative costs eat up 15 to 30 percent of all healthcare spending in the United States. That's twice the rate of most other advanced nations. Where does this money go? Mainly into collecting money: Doctors collect from hospitals and insurers, hospitals collect from insurers, insurers collect from companies or from policy holders.
A major occupational category at most hospitals is "billing clerk." A third of nursing hours are devoted to documenting what's happened so insurers have proof.
Trying to slow the rise in Medicare costs doesn't deal with any of this. It will just limit the amounts seniors can spend, which means less care. As a practical matter it means more political battles, as seniors - whose clout will grow as boomers are added to the ranks - demand the limits be increased. (If you thought the demagoguery over "death panels" was bad, you ain't seen nothin' yet.)
Paul Ryan's plan - to give seniors vouchers they can cash in with private for-profit insurers — would be even worse. It would funnel money into the hands of for-profit insurers, whose administrative costs are far higher than Medicare.
So what's the answer? For starters, allow anyone at any age to join Medicare. Medicare's administrative costs are in the range of 3 percent. That's well below the 5 to 10 percent costs borne by large companies that self-insure. It's even further below the administrative costs of companies in the small-group market (amounting to 25 to 27 percent of premiums). And it's way, way lower than the administrative costs of individual insurance (40 percent). It's even far below the 11 percent costs of private plans under Medicare Advantage, the current private-insurance option under Medicare.
In addition, allow Medicare - and its poor cousin Medicaid - to use their huge bargaining leverage to negotiate lower rates with hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies. This would help move health care from a fee-for-the-most-costly-service system into one designed to get the highest-quality outcomes most cheaply.
Estimates of how much would be saved by extending Medicare to cover the entire population range from $58 billion to $400 billion a year. More Americans would get quality health care, and the long-term budget crisis would be sharply reduced.
Let me say it again: Medicare isn't the problem. It's the solution.
Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written thirteen books, including "The Work of Nations," "Locked in the Cabinet," "Supercapitalism" and his latest book, "AFTERSHOCK: The Next Economy and America's Future." His 'Marketplace' commentaries can be found on publicradio.com and iTunes.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |











Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
None of your bilge made any sense nor did it actually address the critical point brought up by Prof. Reich.
MEDICARE COSTS LESS
Medicare does not cost less; it shifts the costs to the private sector. At the end of the day, someone has to pay. When Medicare and Medicaid reduce the rates, insurers get billed more, and they then pass that cost on to consumers. If there is no one to shift the burden to, then services and staffing will have to be reduced. You also omit that in one instance private individuals and corporations pay the bill and in the other the federal government pays the bills for everyone.
Medicare payments from workers and taxes on the population are LESS than insurance premiums that are no longer due. When you see a specialist or leave the hospital, there is NO PAY WINDOW.
I'm glad that you don't support insurance companies. I guess you understand that whining about how low their profit margins are doesn't make much sense in a country where some people are being denied basic health care.
One-Two Punch: Man Is Beaten In Anti-Gay Hate Crime and Also by America's Sick Health-Care System
"After a brutal attack, Barie Shortell is taking a whipping from one of the insidious antagonists of 21st century American life—the health-care system."
It is just one example among thousands.
I thought RSN covered this but could not find the link.
Peace,
Sark
This leaves the US with the most draconian of rationing in that only those with money get treatment. How in the world do you find this superior in any way. As for companies and innovations, you claim that America is the leader in new drugs and treatments, which it is not. If you will do a quick and cursory check on the Internet, you will find that the majority of medical advancements are now made in foreign countries by foreign corporations. Of course, this begs the question of what is a foreign corporation, since almost every corporation with the wherewithal to make any medical advancements is an enormous multinational corporation. Finally, you contradict yourself. You say we have a "gargantuan regulatory structure" stifling innovation and that precautions have to be taken to avoid lawsuits. Then, you turn around and say our system allows people to take risks. It can't be both ways. What are these other alternatives of which you speak?
Look deeper into the numbers. Look at who has the the better numbers for success at treating the truly deadly diseases. Compare apples to apples. The US has more costly medical treatment because it has better results.
No, actually the U.S. has more costly treatment because it has more hands in our pockets and more private profit involved in our health care system.
Profit costs money.
I thought I'd fix that before I invited ncmike's comment questioning that other countries have no infant mortality at all. My point is that, at least they try to avoid it. Sadly, in our country we don't.
Since I pay a max of $9.00/month per prescription, I'll never have to decide whether to "afford" my food or my pills.
Basic dental health care is a low-pay option, too, and my wait to see top-rated physicians is no different from that experienced by Mr. or Mrs. Got-rocks, the self-insured plutocrats.
Yes, Sir! Medicare-for-all, if enacted, would be an economical step upward. It would save lives and was the outcome anticipated under President Obama's 2008 mandate!
Thank You for your service and thank you for speaking the truth!
There has to be a Kool Aid fount here somewhere! To orthodox conservatives , Lawyers, who uniquely police the medical professions - like Unions who policed workplace safety, who won a 40 hour week and who drove out child labor sweat shops - are the evil bane of management's existence. But, Hey! If MD's were to assiduously purge their ranks of their incompetent brethren, their legal woes, like a cauterized hemorrhoid, would largely dry up and go away.
Big Health care, a purely for-profit $2.5 trillion business, claims 30% of gross revenue for overhead expenses. Single payer Medicare and Tricare-for-Life each claim (for expenses) from 3% to 6% of a much smaller premium pool for the same services.
". . . will lead to Rationed health care"? Americans die every day because Big Health Care, Medicare or Tricare for Life denied benefits, and that's OK. Eg,. a 400 lbs, 80 year old diabetic, with lung cancer and a two-pac-a-day habit just can't qualify for a heart-lung transplant. Less clear-cut cases arise hourly, and although very difficult, calls have to be made. Mistakes will occur, but the object is to minmise them.
Doctors are human. Humans are not infallible, so mistakes will happen. You can not elimiate all mistakes, what you erroneously call incompetence. Further, many doctors have to deal with frivolous lawsuits from people looking to hit the litigation lottery.
Americans do not die because of any provider of health insurance; they die from medical conditions.
Healthcare is not rationed in this country. Some people don't have health insurance and therefore can't pay for the service being offered by medical professionals. The number of people that truely have no options for health insurance in the private market can and should be protected; this is a very small number. The rest are choosing to spend money on other things; it is not my responsibility to make up for their poor choices nor is it the doctor's duty to provide free services to the person. The government should never be determining who gets treatment and who doesn't; not to mention that the government is not granted this power in the Constitution.
I don't know if "rationing" is what you'd call it, but it is publicly financed already. When people can't afford healthcare (because they "are choosing to spend money on other things" like food and shelter), they still get sick. In fact, they get more sick because they have no access to preventative care. When they get a little sick they wait until they're extremely sick and then they enter the emergency rooms like the one where my wife works. They come in droves and they aren't turned away.
The rest of us absorb the cost, because health care costs money and someone has to pick up the tab. This is why it seems wasteful to be donating money to hungry middle men in the insurance industry who don't provide health care, but are good Vegas-styled odds makers.
Quoting the CBO is the last thing I would expect from a conservative. Usually, it's considered your enemy.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Or to simplify:
The Congress shall have Power To provide for the general Welfare of the United States;
It's too simple?
Big Health Care, with its phalanx of lobbyists, is fighting just as hard from the other direction. They stand to lose big if a single payer system were to be adopted, so ultimately, the issue will be decided by which side has the most efficacious K Street advocates. This, of course, begs the ULTIMATE question, to wit " Which group of lobbyists controls the larger stable of beholden legislators?" Isn't that what all of these legislative squabbles boil down to?
Yet for something as critical as our health care, we should farm it out to Corporations that will look to preserve a profit frirst, then look to preserving a life.
I secretly taped a rich persons response:
"The medical care industry is at least 15% of our economy and growing. Theres a lot profit in them premium premiums. Can't let the gummint use all that money to help people when we an get it to buy another yacht or a mansion or 2!"
Here is a fact for you: Health Insurance companies have a profit margin of 3%. 3%. Hardly exorbitant. In fact, at least 85 other industries in the US have a higher profit margin. Some of those with a larger profit margin include the Waste Management industry, Specialty Eateries, and Confectioners.
The health insurance industry should not be making any profit at all for a service that is totally redundant.
So why is the PT co-pay set at a level that discourages people from getting treatment that will prevent the need for an expensive operation? It doesn't make sense - but then again, our whole system doesn't make much sense.
But if we think of rationing care, I am rationing my own care by deciding I don't want to pay for more than 3 PT sessions. That is called "consumer-driven health care", and it the model for most health insurance today. What a stupid system!
Your article contradicts itself. First, you say medicare is the solution, then the cost of it is the problem. I am for covering medical costs among all legal Americans, not illegal Americans; and if the additonal costs can be covered only by revenue (changing tax code to receive more revnue from the wealthy. Who are the wealthy; they are big corporations (i.e., GE & Koch), CEO's, Politicians (including Congress, President, etc.), Wall Street tycoons (i.e, George Soros), movie stars, athletes, etc. That said, I am against letting anyone to join Medicare. Again, illegal Americans have not paid their dues, as my American born parents and myself. How unjust, unfair and discrimanting is your statement for those who have worked during their healthy years paying into the system!!!! Also, I don't agree with you that Americans get far less medical treatment than other nations. If so, then why so many Canadians seek medical treatment in USA? Medical cost do need to be cut through restricting false law suites against doctors, reducing hospital charges and lowering cost of medications. Would you pay a retailer $1 to $5 for a handful of aspirin? Of course not, so why pay the hospital this enormous amount of money? So, in closing, let's resolve the real problems rising medical costs first, then look toward expanding Medicare to those who are legal Americans!
If we all work together instead of feeling threatened by "the other," we can all live well.
Amazing! Human! Get hurt in most of the developed world and you will be cared for, no questions asked.
Healthcare is a human right, not a privilege.
What is this hang up on persons that are not citizens? Lets just leave it at two points. First, they are not coming here for our medical system; second xenophobia is just a fancy big word for racist and you are a xenophobe.
Canadian are not streaming over the border to use the American medical system. Just not true.
Law suits against doctors is not a major drag on our medical system, especially in terms of cost. There are numerous efficiencies through automation, standardization , eliminating duplication, and as medicare blogger points out inefficient care plans.
Then lets cover all that are present, rich, poor, young, old, American, and guests too. After all, you would be covered in many of their backward, hole in the wall, piss poor, filthy countries.
There is no hang up or hatred toward persons not being citizens. You are so quick to judge me as racists when all I indicated was a limit or border on who recieves Medicare benefits. So you don't want limits or borders, then let's give Medicare benefits to those on the other side or our borders. Those that come to our country illegally had a choice legal or illegal. By the way, you don't have to be a citizen of our country to receive Medicare, you just have to here legally (called legal alien), such as a guest. Some of my best friends are from the poorest countries. When they have entered our country appropriately as our guest, I am glad to see they receive Medicare benefits.
PS Do be careful to judge and who you call a racist. They might be as kind and forgiving as I am.
Wild Buffalo Bill
Please explain to me how the government can expand coverage to everyone and it not cost more.
You're right about the U.S. doing well treating wealthy patients once they've already contracted cancer though.
It's just too bad that you have to cherry pick which details you're willing to discuss rather than discussing the whole subject.
Maybe we should be discussing a few statistics that have a STRONG correlation to the insurance industry - like infant mortality rates, for instance. Why is it that conservatives are so concerned about abortion before a baby is born, but have no problem with killing babies once they are born by not providing universal health care for them, not to mention the pre-natal care that's necessary to give birth to a healthy child?
While we're at it, why would anyone against abortion want to shut down family planning and take away the only chance millions of American children have at pre-natal care? It sounds like the right wants to use the budget to murder innocent babies.
cont.
Speaking of "cultural" differences, poor people who work two part time jobs don't really have the same amount of free time for exercise, or the "extra" income for healthy food. You claim to be big on "looking at all of the variables before making wild claims". Are you capable of accepting that there's a lot more than just a "cultural" divide that affects the health of the poor vs. the rich in this country? Or would you rather just stick to transparent paper thin fox talking points that always come from from someone other than fox?
Talk blah blah blah....
The PROBLEM with that is our 'TWO PARTY SYSTEM'
The Republican Party is now the openly Insane Party that is still always and steadfastly, first and foremost, The Pro-Global Corporate Party. Then secondly, its The Fringe Rightwingnut Party long before its a Party with any thoughts or considerations for the 'Collective American - WE THE PEOPLE'
In the eyes of this Global Corporate-Fringe Alliance known as the Republican Party, MOST Americans are simply little more than Consumers for Corporations to squeeze.
The Democratic Party, also know as the 'We lost Our way and now represent NOTHING except a fretting Obsession over daily polls and how to get reelected' Party has a Mission Statement that seems to be: ALWAY TRY TO GET ALONG AND DON'T MAKE WAVES EXCEPT WHEN SMILING AND WAVING FROM A STAGE'
Democrats are a disaster because of their collective lack of originality, spine, cohesion, sense of purpose, zero ideology and a compulsive, knee jerk psyche which delivers them to the lesser status of a REACTIONARY PARTY stuck on playing the 'Offended Ones' whenever Republicans open their mouths.
Their strategy seems to be based entirely on--- 'Look, WE ALWAYS TRY TO GET ALONG WITH THOSE CRAZY REPUBLICAN. So wouldn't you rather have US instead of them.., huh?... Wouldn't you?... Come on, please...
The Dems don't even look at the polls anymore. At least then they would know that the American people agree with the Progressives when it is presented accurately.
The Dems listen to Fox and the rest of the Right Wing Media and therefore believe distorted versions of reality.
I hope you are not in MA. I had bc/bs and from the consumer point of view it was not bad. My company dropped it this year since their rates increased so much. I should have known none of those increases were going to the actual providers.
Of course the biggest money maker is war so there seems to be a theme working here. Dead and dying people are cash cows! Wow, what a nation!
Medicare is absolutely the answer.
I always thought the major mistake in Obama's Healthcare reform was not expanding Medicare.The best starter would have been to expand the popular program to include everyone at age 55.
Medicaid could be expanded to include lower income single individuals.(Which I think the reform plan is attempting to do.)- Probably why so many Republican governors are opposed.
Simple, but effective- as compared to the largely incomprehensibl e insurance reform bill that was passed.
Lastly, whenever a tea drinker rails against government intrusion in their lives and the need to cut government programs I always inject by advising them to NOT accept their Social Security and Medicare benefits. Doesn't seem like many like that helpful suggestion.
One of the first pieces of advice that anyone contemplating visiting the US is given is "Make sure that you have enough health insurance - it will cost you far more than you think if you are ill while you are over there."
I don't know what the solution is for the US, but from this side of the Atlantic it's difficult not to feel that this is one area where we may be a bit closer to the right answer.
Since we pay nearly $8000 per capita, if we reduced costs to the next highest cost country (under $4000 / capita), and covered all 300 million Americans, we'd save over $1 Trillion per year - right? (currently paying $2.8 trillion). Our health system IS THE answer - as Reich tells us.
Now - where's the political cahones to make it happen (no laughter, please).
His lower back pain example is spot on. I'm limping proof.
Until we accept basic health care as human right and not a privilege, we get nowhere on this issue.
There is no hang up or hatred toward persons not being citizens. You are so quick to judge me as racists when all I indicated was a limit or border on who recieves Medicare benefits. So you don't want limits or borders, then let's give Medicare benefits to those on the other side or our borders. Those that come to our country illegally had a choice legal or illegal. By the way, you don't have to be a citizen of our country to receive Meidcare, you just have to here legally, such as a guest. Some of my best friends are from the poorest countries. When they have entered our country appropriately as our guest, I am glad to see they receive Medicare benefits.
Why don't you look at the Heritage Foundation's studies on Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare? Or any of a number of other studies done by those opposed to the programs? Why don't you look at the CBO's numbers for these programs and what they cost us? Then when you are done, go read the Constitution and show me where it says that we are a collective and that the government has the authority to do these things.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Or to simplify:
The Congress shall have Power To provide for the general Welfare of the United States;
RSS feed for comments to this post.