Standard and Poor’s on U.S., Canada, April 18 2011
The brief dust-up over Standard & Poor’s signal of concern over the likely stand-off on the U.S. budget (click on link above) failed to notice the statement’s positive assessment of nations considered the U.S.’ peers. France, the U.K., and Canada all have national, universal health care systems. In particular:
“…Canada, the only sovereign of the peer group to suffer no major financial institution failures requiring direct government assistance during the crisis, enjoys by far the lowest net general government debt of the five peers (we estimate it at 34% of GDP this year), largely because of an unbroken string of balanced-or-better general government budgetary outturns from 1997 through 2008. Canada’s general government deficit never exceeded 4% of GDP during the recent recession, and we believe it will likely return to less than 0.5% of GDP by 2013.”
When they get it right they get it right. But S&P is no bellwether of progressive economics - it still leaves the military budget offline, for example, and while expressing some concern over the extremist Republican agenda of slashing taxes and domestic spending, it mostly fusses that the President may continue to disagree for awhile.
For leadership on the program the public supports and needs – raising taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, protecting and expanding Medicare and Medicaid, and investing in a peacetime economy - look to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Showing posts with label Medicare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Medicare. Show all posts
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Saturday, December 12, 2009
The Senate Compromise: Does it Help?
The Senate compromise seems to be this:
For the slice of the population age 55 - 64 that would have gone into health exchanges with subsidies – uninsured, self-employed – let them instead buy in to Medicare. Except without subsidies.
The Medicare Part B premium is now means-tested – that is, based on annual income. It covers 25% of the cost of the program. Individuals earning less than $85,000 a year pay no premium; going up from there from about $44 a month to about $353 a month. Buying in to Part B alone could presumably cost 4 times those amounts, or between zero and $1400 a month. Plus the $155 deductible.
Offer the same group, under age 55, the choice of 2 nonprofit health plans, administered by the federal Office of Personnel Management.
No public option.
Til now we’ve heard that Congress would abolish lifetime caps on what the plans would pay. Now we’re hearing the caps may be back. (After which you’re on your own.)
The great thing about Medicare is that it has the clout of 40 million beneficiaries and the federal government when it comes time to negotiate with Sutter Health. So sure, add more folks in over there.
But. If they’re the oldest and sickest, and everyone under 55 is still left to the depredations of the private insurance industry…Well. Perhaps at least a few more of them will be covered.
And rumor has it that the Senate would also require the companies to spend 90% of the premium dollar on actual benefits (a big hike from the 70% or so that some plans spend now).
Ok marginally a little better than nothing. But so diluted from the House bill, in terms of a stepping stone to the future: less public involvement than any proposed public option (so less cost control), less affordability, less coverage. Makes you think that maybe the regular legislative process has some advantages over the Gang of 10 system.
Painful as it may be, and tempting as it is to go for expanding Medicare by any means necessary, it’s looking like getting something through the Senate, to be followed by a conference with the House’s better bill, is our best hope.
For the slice of the population age 55 - 64 that would have gone into health exchanges with subsidies – uninsured, self-employed – let them instead buy in to Medicare. Except without subsidies.
The Medicare Part B premium is now means-tested – that is, based on annual income. It covers 25% of the cost of the program. Individuals earning less than $85,000 a year pay no premium; going up from there from about $44 a month to about $353 a month. Buying in to Part B alone could presumably cost 4 times those amounts, or between zero and $1400 a month. Plus the $155 deductible.
Offer the same group, under age 55, the choice of 2 nonprofit health plans, administered by the federal Office of Personnel Management.
No public option.
Til now we’ve heard that Congress would abolish lifetime caps on what the plans would pay. Now we’re hearing the caps may be back. (After which you’re on your own.)
The great thing about Medicare is that it has the clout of 40 million beneficiaries and the federal government when it comes time to negotiate with Sutter Health. So sure, add more folks in over there.
But. If they’re the oldest and sickest, and everyone under 55 is still left to the depredations of the private insurance industry…Well. Perhaps at least a few more of them will be covered.
And rumor has it that the Senate would also require the companies to spend 90% of the premium dollar on actual benefits (a big hike from the 70% or so that some plans spend now).
Ok marginally a little better than nothing. But so diluted from the House bill, in terms of a stepping stone to the future: less public involvement than any proposed public option (so less cost control), less affordability, less coverage. Makes you think that maybe the regular legislative process has some advantages over the Gang of 10 system.
Painful as it may be, and tempting as it is to go for expanding Medicare by any means necessary, it’s looking like getting something through the Senate, to be followed by a conference with the House’s better bill, is our best hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)