A Conventional Dog
Putting the Ouch in the Vouch
Thursday, September 6, 2012
PUTTING THE OUCH IN THE VOUCH: Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels once famously didn’t say when he heard the word “culture,” he reached for his gun. For me, it’s the word “voucher” that makes my trigger finger itch. Getting a voucher is like being on a sinking ship and being given a life preserver that someone let the air out of. When you go to CVS and are handed one of their famously voluminous receipts that include a $3.39 rebate on future purchases of mango-papaya-guava-scented hair conditioner, that’s a voucher. When the famously gluttonous cartoon character Wimpy tells Popeye, “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today,” that, too, is a voucher. Even 4-year-olds intuitively understand Popeye will never see a dime. I mention this because the voucher is the centerpiece for Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan’s master plan to tame out-of-control federal health-care spending. Republicans like Ryan because he’s abs with a brain, a ripped wonk who does push-ups while spewing out white papers. Given how he recently “mis-remembered” running a marathon a full hour faster than he actually did, I have my doubts Ryan — dubbed “Bowhunter” by his Secret Service protectors — is really the genuine exercise beast or hard-core egghead we’re led to believe. But I like him anyway because he’s the classic altar boy with a shiv. With all his talk about “my mom” — never “mother,” always “mom” — Ryan will lull you into a state of sentimental stupefaction, then stab you in the back. His weapon of choice, of course, will be the voucher.
Angry Poodle
Given the ridiculous cost of medical coverage and the expanding demographic bulge caused by aging baby boomers, Ryan and his band of born-again social Darwinists have set out to do some serious culling of the herd. To that end, they’ve proposed gradually doing away with the current system of Medicare — the federal health-insurance program designed to cover older Americans. Hey, if God wanted old people to play tennis, He would have given us all artificial hips at birth. As the next generation of oldsters starts to gray, we’ll be given federal voucher checks in lieu of coverage and told to go out unto the wilds of the private-insurance market and find a policy that fits our needs. What our capped government stipend doesn’t cover, we’ll have to pay out of our own pockets. It was this very proposal that prompted Newt Gingrich, a formidable right-wing gas bag in his own right, to accuse Ryan of “right-wing social engineering.” And while less colorful in his prose, no less than Ronald Reagan’s former budget director, David Stockman, has also assailed the plan. While Ryan — a pseudo-objectivist mystic who worships at the altar of the invisible hand — has waxed rhapsodic how vouchers will generate choice and competition that in turn will bring down prices — the more secular and sober-minded Congressional Budget Office estimated his plan would cost Medicare beneficiaries, on average, $6,400 a year. I don’t know how you plan to bridge that gap, but I’ll be robbing 7-Elevens.
Clearly, Ryan’s real strategy is to make Medicare even more complicated than it already is so that eligible beneficiaries — confused and frustrated — will just give up and die. And the system is already plenty complicated. My wife’s parents — who live outside Salt Lake City — have hit the age where they need all the care and attention their policies can provide. They recently hit a serious snag after purchasing a private-insurance policy to supplement their Medicare coverage — precisely the free-market scenario envisioned by Ryan. Without getting into all the confusing details, concerns soon surfaced whether my wife’s parents’ underlying coverage had been somehow compromised. There was reason to believe it could be cut off as of September 1. That’s scary stuff. My wife and her siblings jumped in, and they’re a formidable bunch. My wife, a mediator, is trained in the art of untying Gordian Knots. Her older sister is a surgical nurse, and her older brother an attorney. And before retirement, my wife’s mother worked as an executive secretary for a hospital administrator. In other words, these are people who know their way around big medical bureaucracies and fine print. Even so, all their concerted efforts to get a single human being from the private-insurance company that sold the supplemental policy in the first place — Humana — on the phone failed. For all their efforts, they could not penetrate Humana’s force field of protective voicemail. They had better luck navigating the Medicare bureaucracy, but the information they were given — always delivered in a conspiratorially helpful manner — was invariably wrong. Out of desperation, they contacted the office of Jim Matheson, the Utah congressmember who represents their parents’ district. Matheson is a Blue Dog Democrat who has managed to get himself elected and reelected in what by all rights should be an iron-clad Republican district. He now finds himself, yet again, in the fight of his political life, this time against Republican Mia Love, who — if she wins — will be the first female Republican African-American ever elected to Congress. All I know is Matheson’s staff worked their mojo. Helping out with a little not-so-subliminal body English was the office of Santa Barbara Congressmember Lois Capps. Out of all these exertions, someone from Humana finally called. The good news is that none of my wife’s parents’ coverage will be revoked. The bad news is that it took intervention from two members of Congress to straighten out what should have been a simple question. If Paul Ryan’s voucher plan were to go forward, I can guarantee Congress will get far more not done than it already isn’t. Our electeds will find their days consumed riding herd on the Humanas of the world. In the meantime, my wife’s family appreciates all the help they got. And I can vouch for that.
Related Links
Comments
Doctors getting sued left and right isn't helping. Which political party do trail lawyers favor?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 4:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's easy for Nick to criticize Ryan's solution without offering his own. Taxes on the 1% and huge military cuts aren't even going to come close to filling the hole in the budget from our entitlement program deficits. Simpson-Bowles offered a solution which the president rejected out of hand. That also included entitlement cuts like the Ryan plan does.
Without entitlement cuts, there is no solution to our huge budget deficits, and I challenge Nick or anyone else to say otherwise.
Botany (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 6:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Try adding a new category to the list billclausen; "trial lawyers" have already been added to the long and growing 'scapegoat list,' the list of people to hate by the conservative fascist caucus. Please try not to buy into these bullying tactics.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 6:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Doctors getting sued is a good point - it has made them test junkies. The number of CT scans, MRIs, and every other kind of expensive test prescribed these days far outstrips any rational expectation. You can't sue the doctor for prescribing a CT scan, but it's easy to make a case that some rare underlying (and unrelated) malady might have been spotted it you had had your head scanned after you broke your toe.
Big money for the hospitals, and CYA for the doctors.
rambler (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 6:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ryan fought to kill Simpson-Bowles. Why bring that red herring up in his defense?
rambler (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 6:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So did the president. At least Ryan offered his own solution, that's more than I can say for the president.
Botany (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 6:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually, the president did offer a budget that he worked out with Boehner, but the House crushed it. So, actually, that isn't more than you can say, LOL.
rambler (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 6:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Taxing the wealthiest 1%, who own something like 30% of all U.S. wealth "won't even come close to filling the budget gap."
Neither will cutting military spending, though it makes up a huge percentage of the budget.
No, only by cutting school lunches and privatizing Medicare can we fill that gap. Right.
rambler (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 7:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Medicare and Social Security are the big elephants in the room. Anything else is relatively chump change.
Look at the facts. If you don't deal with those two, you won't solve the problem.
Botany (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What are you proposing? Vouchers?
Medicare abuse could be curtailed. Some reform wrt medical expectations could reduce malpractice costs and drive down unnecessary expensive tests. But Ryan's plan won't work.
As for SS, why don't you explain?
rambler (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think I need to give a lecture on econ 101, but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out where we're going.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO...
Botany (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The plane for my flight to Denver from SBA never arrived the other day. United Airlines gave me a voucher for a taxi ride form the Santa Barbara Airport to the Santa Barbara Airbus.
Only in the taxi did I learn: the voucher was or $10, and the taxi ride cost $15.
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That graph is a little misleading. The dotted line for revenue (20% of GDP) does not include payments into SS, but below that line, the SS expenditures bar is included.
We spend about the same amount on "defense" as we do on your two elephants. This includes single-seat fighter planes that cost $100M each.
Our debt just reached $16T. At least $3T of which we wasted invading Iraq.
As the author points out, vouchers won't solve the problem. Ryan is a false expert, and a compulsive liar, apparently. If you want to reduce the cost of Medicare/Medicaid, a good start would be to reduce the waste.
Obama took a good cut at that by urging reform in medical records: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Presiden...
rambler (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And when has waste ever been reduced in government? All I see is the waste just increasing with each new government program shoved down our throats.
Botany (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"shoved down our throats"? No one has ever shoved anything down my throat. It does sound bad, but I'm not sure what you're talking about.
I guess it's no longer the Obama/Boehner budget proposal or social security.
rambler (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am all for the free enterprise system, but NOT when it comes to people's health. The US has the most expensive health delivery system in the world, and nowhere near the best results.
Try to find out how much your insurance company will pay the doctor for the procedure you are about to receive. You won't be able to. It is "proprietary information." How so will you be able to make an informed purchasing choice? And who wants to have to do that on their way to the hospital anyway?
The whole system is nuts and needs to be scrapped in favor of a single payer public insurance fund where everyone contributes according to their income, not their age. No need for employers to purchase health plans for employees.
This public plan should cover preventative care and all medically necessary procedures and prescriptions. If you want additional bells and whistles, you buy supplemental private insurance on your own. Oh, and get off the couch, lay off the greasy foods, and eat vegetables once in a while, it will save us all some money. Also outlaw commercials for prescription drugs, and send Medicare fraudsters to general population prison to discourage scams.
If we don't seriously reform the entire system, pretty soon we won't be able to afford old people.
blackpoodles (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think I am developing a crush on the Poodle.
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
me too
rambler (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
the blackpoodles too
rambler (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Independent IT department just needs to buy Nick a >RETURN< key...
...So he can throw in the occasional paragraph.
Chester_Arthur_Burnett (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Social Security is good for another 22 years at least! Quit moaning about it.
DrDan (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As long as we get to use it, that's what counts, $#*& the future!
Botany (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Like global warming!
rambler (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Try adding a new category to the list billclausen; "trial lawyers" have already been added to the long and growing 'scapegoat list,' the list of people to hate by the conservative fascist caucus. Please try not to buy into these bullying tactics.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 6:15 a.m.
Don: I'm taking this in a new direction by asking direct questions about the effect of trial lawyers on our medical system. (Hence I offend the Lefties) Now to offend right-wingers: It would seem if medical school were subsidized we'd have a lot more doctors and nurses to go around, but such an idea would brand me a "socialist".
Now I've offended everybody--or maybe found some common ground.
By the way Rambler, where have you been all this time? Seems as though you dropped off the blogesphere for a long time.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The clear but unstated plan for health care as offered by the Angry Poodle and asked by Botany is:
VOTE for Obama/Biden.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
September 6, 2012 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it is a fair statement by the Poodle: Voucher = Oh please throw me a short term bone! (that will get smaller as the time continuum goes on)
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2012 at 12:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Want to dramatically cut medical spending? Ensure everyone has access to healthcare, with an emphasis on preventative medicine. Prevention costs a tiny fraction of what it takes to repair/treat/etc after the fact.
So many people have no or insufficient coverage, so the typical response to ailment is wait and see. It will either go away, or you end up in the emergency department. Can't pay that massive bill? The federal gov't (ie tax payers) reimburses some of it, and the balance is passed on to all other patients' insurance companies in the form of adjusted expenses.
Couple that with the fact most private insurance companies offer only nominal preventative coverage (because they're not paying a penny for something that doesn't yet exist).
An ideal HEALTHcare system is one that enables us to have a healthy population, not simply a treated one.
Sothep (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2012 at 12:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is no immediate problem with the social security and/or medicare trust funds. But simple ways to make both programs even more stable and solvent into the far distant future would be to put democratic leaders in office.
Eliminating the maximum taxable earning amount (currently at $110k a year) would be reasonable for those who do Democratic arithmetic rather than republican trickle-down fuzzy-math. And remember to keep trust funds in a 'lock box' so republicans and their friends can't steal it.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2012 at 6:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great idea Don! We can see what a swell job the Democratic leaders have done for the state of California. Well, at least the feds can print their own money, so it's much easier to postpone the day of reckoning.
Botany (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2012 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What has happened to Carifornia as well as other major economies is the result of Wall Street packaging 'investments,' or selling bad loans and then knowingly buying insurance on those bad investments. It was all part of the malfeasance, mismanagement and lack of oversight by the Bush administration.
And the Federal Reserve is not printing money http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/mo...
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2012 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually what got California in a fiscal hole was the Enron mess, remember? We used to have a nice fat surplus, but then the Republicans sold the idea of deregulating energy to Republican governor Pete Wilson. That was a really dumb idea, because California consumes more energy than ist produces, so it left us at the mercy of a temporary shortage. Then while Gray Davis was governor and W Bush president, Texas energy producers conspired to create artificial shortages. Instead of calling their bluff and letting California go dark, Davis panicked and signed usurious contracts that broke California's piggy bank. Not to say that there isn't waste in Sacramento, but we got suckered by a bunch of Texans.
blackpoodles (anonymous profile)
September 7, 2012 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The question everybody is afraid to ask: Are Blackpoodles and The Angry Poodle related to each other?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2012 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)