Tag: medicare vouchers

‘The Dangerous Gym Membership’?

Here’s a poor, unsuccessful letter I sent to the editor of the Washington Post:

The dangerous gym membership” [Jan. 12] claims that in Medicare Advantage, “advertising a plan as the go-to health insurance source for marathoners could lure in a healthier subscriber base, disrupting the rest of the market place in the process.” Oh?

Does it disrupt the market for sneakers when running shops advertise themselves to marathoners? Since when does giving consumers something they want disrupt the market? That’s why markets exist.

What’s disrupting the market for seniors’ health insurance is government—in this case, Congress’ counter-productive attempt to cross-subsidize the sick via price controls that forbid carriers to consider each applicant’s risk when offering and pricing health insurance.

Strike Three for PolitiFact

The annual unveiling of its “Lie of the Year” award garners PolitiFact more attention than anything else. Hopefully, it will garner so much attention that people will recognize this award, which is supposed to improve political discourse, instead degrades it.

PolitiFact’s past three Lies of the Year have been about health care.  Not one of them was a lie.

A lie is when a speaker says something that he knows or believes to be false, for the purpose of deceiving others. None of these supposed Lies of the Year even met the threshold test of being false.  The first two (“death panels” and “ObamaCare is a government takeover”) were actually, demonstrably true.

The third and latest Lie of the Year—that “Republicans voted to end Medicare”—is arguably true: its veracity depends on what your definition of “Medicare” is. To seniors, Medicare means “the government helps me pay for health care.” The House Republicans’ budget (a.k.a., the Ryan plan) would not end such federal assistance, and would arguably improve access to quality health care. To the Left, “Medicare” means the particular way the federal government helps seniors access health care: a single-payer system.  The Ryan plan would end that single-payer system. My leftist friends are right and PolitiFact is wrong: from a certain and valid perspective, this claim is true.

Moreover, even if these three statements were false, the speakers believed them to be true. Therefore, they cannot be lies. Every single Lie of the Year award has gotten that basic fact wrong.

In the process, this award degrades political discourse by implicitly launching—an encouraging others to launch—ad hominem assaults on people who hold legitimate differences of opinion. PolitiFact should find a better way to attract readers.

I have been writing about the flaws in PolitiFact’s business model for some time:

I’m glad to see my friends on the Left have taken notice, though I regret the way it happened.

Ryan Plan Would Reduce Medicare & Medicaid Fraud

That’s the theme of my article in the current issue of National Review:

The budget blueprint crafted by Paul Ryan, passed by the House of Representatives, and voted down by the Senate would essentially give Medicare enrollees a voucher to purchase private coverage, and would change the federal government’s contribution to each state’s Medicaid program from an unlimited “matching” grant to a fixed “block” grant. These reforms deserve to come back from defeat, because the only alternatives for saving Medicare or Medicaid would either dramatically raise tax rates or have the government ration care to the elderly and disabled. What may be less widely appreciated, however, is that the Ryan proposal is our only hope of reducing the crushing levels of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid.

The three most salient characteristics of Medicare and Medicaid fraud are: It’s brazen, it’s ubiquitous, and it’s other people’s money, so nobody cares…

The full article is now available at the Cato website.

Provenge Controversy Argues for Medicare Vouchers

The new prostate-cancer vaccine Provenge (manufacturer: Dendreon) appears to extend life by an average of four months at the relatively high cost of $93,000 per patient.  This week, Medicare bureaucrats will conduct a national coverage analysis before deciding whether Medicare will cover the vaccine.  This “unusual“ step has sparked charges that government bureaucrats are rationing medical care to save money.

Today’s Washington Post includes letters from two cancer survivors that neatly illustrate why the government should not be in the business of providing health insurance or purchasing medical care at all.  Cancer Survivor #1 argues that Medicare should cover Provenge:

“Expensive” treatments have given me many extra years with my family. I witnessed my older daughters graduate from high school, start college and celebrate events doctors told me I would never see…Time is precious, life is priceless and every breath is a gift.

Cancer Survivor #2 says no way:

As a 63-year-old cancer survivor, would I forgo just four more months of life if it would cost $93,000? Yes, in a heartbeat…Let’s quit trying to live forever and put those millions of dollars into educating the next generation.

If the government stayed out of health care, or just subsidized Medicare enrollees with a voucher, then both cancer survivors would get their wish.  Cancer Survivor #1 could purchase coverage for expensive cancer treatments.  Cancer Survivor #2, and millions like her, could buy lower-cost insurance and donate the savings to scholarships.

Yet politicians and government bureaucrats dictate what type of insurance Medicare enrollees get, which means they also decide what enrollees will not get.  And no matter where they draw the line, someone loses.  Either Cancer Survivor #1 won’t get her expensive medical treatment, or Cancer Survivor #2 won’t be able to fund scholarships for kids.

The only way out is Medicare vouchers.  In addition to being the most plausible way to reduce Medicare spending, vouchers are the only way to protect Medicare enrollees from government rationing.

Obama’s Fiscal Commission and Health Care Spending

Following up on what Dan and Chris have said …

If the co-chairs of President Obama’s fiscal commission were serious about reducing federal spending and deficits, they would have proposed eliminating the federal deficit, rather than “reduc[ing] it to 2.2 percent of GDP by 2015.”  Yawn. They would have proposed cutting federal spending (currently, 24 percent of GDP and rising) to match federal tax revenue (currently at 15 percent of GDP).  But the co-chairs proposed only to “bring spending down to 22 percent and eventually 21 percent of GDP.”  Not only does that elicit another yawn, but since the co-chairs only asked for half a loaf, they won’t even get that much.

If the co-chairs were serious about reducing federal spending and deficits, they would have proposed a balanced-budget amendment.  They would have proposed block-granting Medicaid.  They would have proposed implementing Medicare vouchers immediately.  (Vouchers are the only way to reduce Medicare spending while protecting seniors from government rationing.  They would also change the political dynamics that repeatedly stymie efforts to reduce Medicare spending.)  Instead, the co-chairs propose the same ol’ failed strategy of trying to limit Medicare and Medicaid spending using government price-and-exchange controls, which they euphemistically describe as “rebates” and ”payment reforms.”  Along the same lines, they propose strengthening IPAB, ObamaCare’s rationing board.  IPAB’s mandate is – you guessed it – to ration care by fiddling with Medicare and Medicaid’s price and exchange controls.  It will therefore inevitably fall prey to the same political buzzsaw.  To appease Republicans, the co-chairs propose unwise and unconstitutional federal rules that would prevent patients injured by negligent physicians from recovering the full amount they are due (euphemism:  medical malpractice liability “reform”).  Finally, the co-chairs propose that if federal health spending continues to grow faster than GDP growth plus 1 percent, Congress should consider “a premium support system for Medicare” (which could mean vouchers) and “a robust public option and/or all-payer system” for people under age 65 – a debate that wouldn’t even begin until 2020.

Fiscal Commission members, congresscritters, and citizens who are serious about reducing federal spending and deficits – and who are looking for specific ways to cut government spending – should instead consult Cato’s excellent web site DownsizingGovernment.org.