Medicare “buy in”: more deficits, higher premiums, & step toward single-payer

A Wall Street Journal editorial summarizes:

[Harry Reid] is claiming that a Medicare “buy-in” for people from ages 55 to 64 has overcome the liberal-moderate impasse over the “public option.” But if anything, this gambit is an even faster road to government-run health care. …

Mr. Reid’s buy-in simply cuts out the middle man. Why go to the trouble of creating a new plan like Medicare when Medicare itself is already handy? A buy-in is an old chestnut of single-payer advocate Pete Stark, and it’s the political strategy liberals have tried since the Great Society: Ratchet down the enrollment age for Medicare, boost the income limits to qualify for Medicaid, and soon health care for the entire middle class becomes a taxpayer commitment.

Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute explains how Medicare is already in debt:

This unprecedented expansion of Medicare, which would add about 2 million to 3 million people to the Medicare rolls, would be disastrous for America’s fiscal – and physical – health.

Already, the program is deep in debt. Medicare Part A, which pays for hospital care, is $36.4 trillion in the hole, according to the latest report from the Medicare Trustees. Medicare Part B, which covers doctor visits, has an unfunded liability of $37 trillion. The trustees have also concluded that the funding source for Part A – the Medicare Hospital Trust Fund – will be insolvent by 2017.

Expanding Medicare to an even greater swath of the population would drown the federal budget in even more red ink. …

She also notes that Medicare increases our insurance premiums by underpaying doctors, who respond by shifting the costs to those with non-government plans.

Similar Posts:

This entry was posted in Medicaid/Medicare/SCHIP, PPC and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.