This Day In Healthcare "Reform"

UPDATE:  See.  I told you so.

Because there is a budget crisis, after all. And ALL problems in this country can only be solved on the backs of the poor, sick and elderly.

Today, Republicans cheered on House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) as he introduced a budget proposal that would eliminate Medicare and Medicaid over a ten year period.  Particularly good is this analysis, over at Talking Points Memo.

And if you are a geek, you can find the Congressional Budget Office's preliminary analysis here.

I guess since Republicans can't get to their ultimate goal of completely privatizing Medicare, their proposal is the next best thing. Pick from a choice of private insurance options, and then subsidize the choice, by need. Good enough for Medicare, but not the Affordable Care Act, did I hear you say? From Ezra Klein:

Ryan-Rivlin would turn Medicare from a program in which everyone gets Medicare into a program in which everyone gets a check to purchase some Medicare-certified private insurance, and that check grows much more slowly than the current rate of health-care inflation. “The objective,” Rivlin told me, “is to get genuine competition on an organized exchange among comprehensive health plans so they will compete and arguably produce better health care for less money.”

What’s odd about the right’s embrace of Ryan-Rivlin is that the plan basically turns Medicare into the Affordable Care Act. It’s the same idea — regulated exchanges offering certified insurance products populated by subsidized buyers. If Ryan-Rivlin will unleash ferocious innovation that holds costs down, then so too should the Affordable Care Act. So at the end of our conversation, I asked Rivlin, who supported PPACA, if I was missing something. She laughed. “I keep talking to Paul and trying to convince him of that,” she said. “But even if he agreed with me, he couldn’t say so.”

But, if you are over 55, don't worry.  Not going to effect you.  You know, people over 55 -- folks who tend to VOTE.  No political calculation, here.

Medicaid would be turned over to the states, into what else, but a Block Grant Program.  Lump sums from Washington, to the states.  Because after all, states are in such a good position in the present moment to provide services to the needy.  And hell -- poor people tend to vote democratic anyway.  No loss here.

From Matt Yglesias, on Medicaid.  The emphasis is mine:

This is mostly a program for the elderly and the disabled. It’s the main way we finance long-term care in this country. If you don’t directly benefit from it, you very likely have a parent or grandparent who does and whose financial needs will simply tend to fall on you if the program is cut. Meanwhile, in terms of the “welfare” aspect of Medicaid by far the largest set of poor people it covers are poor children. Is Ryan’s view that these kids should have worked harder to have rich parents? Poor kids tend to struggle with a lot of problems and are in many ways disadvantaged in the competitive economy by the time they’re out of diapers. It seems to me that investing in their basic health care is a no brainer way of leveling the playing field somewhat and ensuring that the country is making the most of our human resources.

If only it were true, that a majority of those in power were interested in leveling the playing field, and making sure we are all in the position to put our best foot forward. But kudos to Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) who came out fast and furious against the plan. Gives me hope the Democrats will get (and keep) a spine on this one. Sen. Baucus' statement is featured prominently on his website:

"We can't allow the House to end Medicare and hand seniors' health care over to private insurance companies - and we won't, NOT ON MY WATCH," said Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance committee, which oversees the Medicare program. "Independent experts agree the House plan makes deeps cuts to Medicare and leaves seniors with fewer benefits and higher costs. Plain, simple, and wrong, the House plan means more for insurance company CEO's and less for Montana seniors. I won't stand for it."

More here, here and here.  And much more I am sure, in the days and weeks to come.