World

Health Care Reform - Medicare and Medicaid

by Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke | December 23, 2009 at 02:17 am

621 views | 20 Recommendations | 5 comments

The United States is on the verge of passing historic Health Care Reform Legislation. The Legislation and the path to get 60 votes is highly controversial. This has been highlighted by the response of critics to Senator Nelson's backroom deal to provide federal funded Medicaid to Nebraska.

Critics discuss the $500 Billion cut to Medicare and the cost to other states for Nelson's sweetheart deal.

As a Canadian I am somewhat confused by all this talk of Medicare and Medicaid. My understanding is that Medicare is a Seniors Supplemental Program and Medicaid is to provide coverage for the uninsured that can't afford health insurance, base on income.

My confusion arises from the fact that the Reform Bill is supposed to ensure that uninsured Americans will be able to be covered, this includes those with preexisting conditions. In fact, once passed into law, the bill requires Americans to buy health insurance.

This confusion is further puzzling by the fact that it appears that Medicaid and Medicare will still be on the books as separate programs. Would the Health Care Reform Legislation not incorporate these programs and make them redundant. From my understanding the bill has a provision to assist Americans that cannot afford to purchase insurance.

For all you experts out there, I am looking for an explanation why these programs would still be required. I have not seen this issue addressed in any discussions anywhere. It seem to me the assumption is made that these programs are still required.

President Obama has repeatedly pledged never to sign any proposal that would “add one dime” to the federal deficit, yet he and Congress are finding it impossible to cover millions of uninsured Americans without increasing deficit spending or taking the money from the current Medicare system.

Finding money to achieve the hoped-for dramatic increase in the subsidization of health care has proven difficult for the Democratic leadership in Washington as more Americans grow concerned about the rapid increase of deficit spending and an economic recession discourages tax increases.

Christina Romer, chair of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, acknowledged the challenge the White House faces.

“We are going to be expanding coverage to some 30 million Americans,” Romer said. “And of course, that’s going to up the level of health-care spending. You can’t do that and not spend more.”

3 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Hugh Askew

at 05:12 on December 23rd, 2009

“We are going to be expanding coverage to some 30 million Americans,” Romer said. “And of course, that’s going to up the level of health-care spending. You can’t do that and not spend more.”

Nice of him to say so, so quietly and all..............

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 06:00 on December 23rd, 2009

Thanks for commenting, how about that Medicaid and Medicare?

Jordan Yerman

at 07:04 on December 23rd, 2009

Medicaid and Medicare are government-managed programs. The current healthcare reform does not include a public option, so the required coverage that makes up the cornerstone of the reform package would be provided by existing HMOs, all private companies, which must be rubbing their hands together with glee.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 07:11 on December 23rd, 2009

That's what I think too, so I'm assuming those covered by Medicaid and Medicare will continue to be dealt with as before. Technically there is not much change then, other than the windfall that Nebraska will have under this scheme.

nanute

at 08:53 on December 23rd, 2009

Essentially that is right ACP. The so called cuts to Medicare are reductions to private insurers that offer Medicare Advantage coverage to seniors. It is private insurers being subsidized by taxpayers, in lieu of traditional government coverage. The idea was that private insurers would create savings for the overall cost, when the facts after several years show the opposite. A thorough discussion on this topic can be found here.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/28/1/w29