Out-of-pocket costs for Medicare beneficiaries would more than double under Republican plans to convert the federal health-insurance program for the elderly into a voucher system, according to estimates in a new congressional report.
Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, released the state-by-state analysis on Friday during a roundtable discussion in Scranton. The report is based on projections by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and state-specific utilization data from the federal agency that runs Medicare and its companion program for the poor, Medicaid.
“I am going to fight tooth and nail to make sure we don’t balance the budget on the backs of our older citizens,” said Casey, chairman of the bi-partisan JEC, which has members from both houses of Congress. “This isn’t a cost savings, it’s a cost shift.”
The House-passed GOP budget, written by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, would provide those 65 and older with vouchers to purchase private health-insurance plans beginning in 2022, in order to slow the rapid rise in health-care costs exploding the federal budget.
But the costs will instead be borne by senior citizen beneficiaries of Medicare, as private-sector premiums will quickly outstrip the government voucher payments, Casey argued. Private insurers have proven to be less effective than Medicare itself at slowing price increases in health-care, he said.
CBO estimated that out-of-pocket costs for a Medicare beneficiary would jump from $6,154 to $12,513 annually when the Republican plan took full effect ten years from now – an increase of an average of $6,359 nationally.
Florida residents would see the biggest increase, $7, 383.16, the Casey report found.
New Jersey costs would rise an average of $7,060.03. And in Pennsylvania, out of pocket costs would jump an average of $6,303.27.
Democrats have seized on the proposed Medicare changes in the Ryan plan as a political weapon, likely to play a prominent role in their bludgeoning of GOP opponents in the 2012 elections. But the Democrats have not advanced a specific plan of their own to deal with the looming insolvency of Medicare.
The Social Security trustees say that Medicare will run out of funds in 2024 because of the rapid aging of the U.S. population and increasing costs, unless changes are made.
- SJ2AZ: here are some ideas, all opposed by Republicans: 1. return to the Clinton-era tax rates on those earning more than $250,000. 2. end the unfunded Bush prescription D program. 3. end farm subsidies which are unnecessary with agribusiness. 4. Bring all of our troops home from EVERYWHERE, including South Korea, Germany, the U.K., Iraq, Afghanistan. 5. End tax subsidies for the large oil companies. 6. Reform Wall Street and the banking system. 7. Continue the reforms to the health care system that Obaman has begun based on Mitt Romney's Massacusetts plan, which he now disses at the Federal level, including importation of generics from Canada and move toward a single-payer system. Reagan and George W. Bush both drove up the deficit more than at any time in our history, which the greed of Wall Street brokers, big banks, and deceptive realtors, along with the phony trickle-down economics symbolized by the Bush tax cuts have inflated by drying up revenues. By the way, cannot help but love the Republican approach to Medicare, which approach 80 percent of Americans oppose, including many Tea Party members; good luck with that.— chuckw
- chuckw I like your thinking.— Worker1
- I am with you, ChuckW. To narrow it to just Medicare, why not let younger working citizens buy into it either individually or through their employers? Say, anyone over the age of 50 or 55, whatever makes the math work. It would strengthen the Medicare pool and bring down insurance costs for everybody since we would be removing people who are generally less healthy than their co-workers from their current insurers and placing them in Medicare where they are generally more healthy than the seniors.
There is a bill pending for Medicare For All that would eliminate private insurers altogether. I can't wait to see the CBO score that!— TomH1 - One thing I don't understand... if it increases the costs to the public, why can't we call it a 'tax increase?' If it walks like a duck....— HenryFaley
- Perfect comment! When you take money from rich it is tax, but when you rob from poor seniors it is "responsibility" according to Repugnents. Rich don't have any responsibility towards the society according to them. — Seed
- Casey is lying....or using the same smoke and mirrors the Dems used to say Obamacare would be profitable....and fitzgerald the crony is backing up Casey with his lack of true reporting. Medicare does not touch anyone who is currently over 55 years old so it can't affect the seniors. YOU'RE USING SCARE TACTICS!!. I am 50 years old so I am negatively affected by this but I say; go for it! let me CHOOSE who I want to be insured by when I am a senior citizen. If you all are truly informed, you won't fall for these scare tactics of Casey, Fitzgerald, et al...— keapitreal
- Here are the facts:
Since Romneycare was instituted, healthcare costs in MA have risen the fastest in the nation. Wait times to see a family doctor average 48 days with waits of up to a year for specialists. One in two doctors have stopped accepting new patients. Emergency room visits have increased by 9% (or 3 million users) crushing the argument that universal coverage will lower emergency room visits. In Vermont, Gov. Dean in 2004 pushed out competition for a government controlled insurance program and what was the result? The number of uninsured remained almost unchanged and costs grew at an annual 8.2% vs 5.7% nationally. If you want to reduce costs, get government out of healthcare. Allow insurers to sell across state lines, allow consumers to set what minimum coverage they desire and not the government, enact tort reform. None of these things were done by Obamacare which is why costs will continue to spiral. All of this information is easily found in the IBD or the Wall Street Journal. Of course, you will never find this kind of info in the left wing Philly.com.— g18188 - It doesn't do anything to most of the Boomers. That is exactly the point. For them, it is business as usual. For everyone currently 55 and under, tough sh~t. We will more than 2x your out-of-pocket healthcare costs in retirement pretty much ensuring that even if you have saved adequately for retirement that you will have little to leave to your heirs because having adequate medical insurance during you retirement will run you a minimum of $200k and probably more like $250k & up per person.— PhillyGuy77
- G18188 I respectfully disagree with your facts and the resources that you have obtained them from regarding Mass. I have family in Boston and they are small business owners and one is seriously ill. They have stated to me that they are very satisfied with both the care that they are receiving and they the rates that they are now paying with the initiative. Statistics can always be "rigged" to make any case but my answers are from the mouths of business owners and patients and I will have to accept their opinion that they approve of the plan more so than WSJ. I would have to defer to the folks that actually have the insurance. I can't speak to VT.— Worker1
- Interesting that you would cite the Investor's Business Daily, which bitterly opposed Obama's health care plans and generally speaks from the Right and also the Rupert Murdoch, News Corp-owned Wall Street Journal. For another view, look at the Urban Institute study of December 2010. Bottom line: Republicans hated Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security when set up, still hate them, but will go over the cliff as they continue to try and emasculate them.— chuckw
- Time to move to another country...very dismal outlook for health care in this country without getting a second mortgage.... I mean a third, have to pay educational loans first.— dogman5
- keepitfake, this isn't Casey's survey. This comes from the CBO, a non-partisan branch of Congress. Funny how repubs never mention anything when the CBO tells us how phony the gop plans are. But, if the CBO would come down on Dems, the repubs trumpet it to high heaven. Repubs are such phonies. GOP=Gang of Phonies. You can't trust anything they say.— mike l
- !!!KEEP THEIR REPUBLICAN HANDS OFF OUR HEALTHCARE!!!— GigantiSP
- At what point do the seniors have to pay their own way? The Seniors aren't the only people we have to worry about in this country. The government was NEVER intended to be the sole means of retirement support.
Seniors are always portrayed as victims and while I do have some amount of sympathy for them, did they not have a hand in all of the elections of prior years that elected government officials that kicked the Medicare/Social Security can down the road all these years? Did they not enjoy the benefits of lower tax rates while the government was spending Social Security 'trust fund' to keep taxes artificially low (relative to government spending and handouts)?
Seniors remind me of of a kid given limited money to spend at the carnival. He spends it all on the first ride he sees and then everyone is supposed to feel sorry for them when they have no money to ride the big ride at the end.
I am in my early 40's with three kids to put through college and have no hope of collecting one dime from all of my 'contributions' to the social security system. I am sorry that I refuse to bow at the altar of the almighty 'senior' voting bloc, but I guess politicians will, and continue use the threats to seniors as the 'bogeyman' that will frighten the sheep in to voting their way...— Wiseman6
 | Follow on Twitter |
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
It's so easy to rip them mean.nasty,heartless Republicans isn't it? The gauntlet has been thrown, Dems. Let's see what you've got.