"C" coverages lab, X-ray, hospitalizations, doctor visits, emergency transport- most things commonly thought of as healthcare. You can choose to keep Part C which is free in most geographies or add a supplement reducing or eliminating co-pays. Most seniors choose supplement plan "F." For another $130/month (with the required $104 for Part B this brings the total to $235/month), the senior has access to any primary doctor or specialist, any hospital network accepting Medicare with no additional charges. This is fantastic coverage. I pay almost 10 times this amount and still have a deductible. This is like a an unlimited shopping spree for a buck. But unfortunately, many of the "healthcare" stores may be closing.
Here is the problem. The healthcare costs a of money a lot more than $235/month. The government has 2 choices. Additional revenue could be raised, effectively charging seniors more for similar coverage. This is DOA. Politicians like being politicians. They, like most of us, think of themselves first. Reducing entitlements, particularly Medicare, is suicide. Alternatively, expenditures could be reduced. This is what has been happening. Hospitals, doctors, device manufacturers, labs, etc... are all being paid less.
Although a popular public option, this may not be a good long term strategy. Yes, the healthcare industry is bloated and mismanaged, but inefficiencies are not going to disappear easily. As prices fall, businesses are going to fold- fewer hospitals, fewer doctors, less innovation. I am not suggesting healthcare will disappear, but rather access will decline. Like in any business without profit, store shelves become bare. Politicians will keep their jobs. Entitlements will be left untouched, but simply worth less.
This has a ripple effect. With all the dialogue around Obamacare (ACA as it is now again being called), it is easy forget the vast majority of expenditures are for the elderly. Medicare is untouched. If reimbursement for Medicare results in fewer choices and less access for the elderly, this will directly affect those participating in Obamacare; it's the same delivery system.
The ACA presumes all Americans need to pay for healthcare. Although there is (bizarrely) not general agreement on this point, most believe a civilized society requires roads, schools and police, & care for the sick. However, by segmenting the population into 2 groups (pay as you go for <65, and pay once for all you can eat for >65) seems destine to fail. Ultimately every group must have some skin in the game when making medical decisions. I am not suggesting the elderly should bear the full cost of their care but rather that price for care should be part of the decision. When the doctor suggests a course of action, price should be at least part of the conversation.
Forget Obamacare. It's a fly on the elephant's back. American's have much bigger problems. We need leaders who argue for what's right for the country, not for their careers. We need lobbyists (yes, you AARP) who recognize that saving money for their members today may mean fewer services tomorrow. People of all ages should pay something for more care. This is the only way to actively engage the consumer in the decision process.
No comments:
Post a Comment