Numberscruncher: The Magic of Medicare

Ann Logue August 18, 2009 16

your_health__medicare.Par.15273.Image.0.0.1[1]The debate about health care reform has more irony than a vintage issue of Might magazine. To start, notice how no one is talking about dismantling or privatizing Medicare? That’s because Medicare is way too popular to mess with.

My parents love Medicare; my father was the executive director of a regional trade organization and had a hard time securing health insurance at a reasonable price because there were so few employees and because my mother survived cancer. No matter what doctors or medical researchers say, insurance companies do not believe that it is possible for someone to be cured of cancer. Premiums for a cancer survivor are high, and many insurance companies refuse to write individual or small group plans if a cancer survivor is in the group. My mother’s 65th birthday was a huge relief to my parents, because she could finally get health insurance.

My husband loves Medicare, too. He handles affairs for one of his grandmothers, and the health insurance part is easy. She sees a doctor, the bill gets paid, and my husband receives a notice. As opposed to health care for our healthy 11-year-old child, insurance for an elderly woman with diabetes is handled with no patient explanations that our coverage is through Blue Cross of California’s out-of-state plan, not Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois, and the information is on the card, so please check your files and resubmit the bill; no fights over whether the vaccine falls under the pharmaceutical benefit or an office procedure and thus whether it is covered by the co-charged against the deductible; no worries about whether the doctor is in-network at the city location and the suburban location or just at the city one. Under Medicare, the very little paperwork moves from place to place and culminates in a check for the doctor. Hurray!

Which brings us to the second irony: although Medicare recipients almost universally love their coverage, at least some of those opposed to any sort of reform of health care are Medicare beneficiaries. They write their congressional representatives and go to town hall meetings and demand that government health care not mess with their Medicare. Why is that? It’s because Franklin Roosevelt was a political genius, that’s why.

When Social Security was set up in 1935, it was promoted as an insurance plan via the Federal Insurance Contribution Act, which is why the box on your paycheck says “FICA”. Roosevelt wanted to stress that this was nothing new, something that the Social Security Administration seems to stick to. It wasn’t the dole, it was a pension insurance plan that everyone would pay into, and everyone would receive benefits from it. People would make contributions or pay premiums, not pay at tax. It was for working people, not deadbeats, which is why half of the premium would be paid for by employers.

Likewise, when Lyndon Johnson added Medicare to Social Security, he was clear to call it insurance. The share of your FICA payment that funds it is called your hospitalization insurance premium. Hence, people tend to view it as insurance that they paid for, not some government plan that some other anonymous taxpayers contributed to.

Medicare has a few different parts. Part A is hospitalization coverage, and that goes to anyone who paid FICA. Part B covers physician services, and there is a monthly charge for it that varies with income. In 2009, a married person with a family income below $170,000 would pay $96.40 per month, and it is deducted automatically from Social Security payments. Even though $96.40 is possible only because of generous subsidy from the government, it reinforces the idea that this is insurance. Then, the Social Security Administration has contracted the administration of the bill payment out to private insurance companies, mostly regional Blue Cross or Blue Shield organizations. Finally, many Medicare beneficiaries buy additional (subsidized) coverage known as Medigap, which is offered through private insurance companies. Hence, the system doesn’t look like Britain’s National Health Service.

Instead, many Medicare beneficiaries believe that they are paying their premiums to get insurance through Blue Cross. They believe that anyone who wants to can get similar insurance through Blue Cross.

Clearly, these are not people who wracked their brains trying to remember just how many times their now-healthy 11-year-old child saw a doctor for ear infections 10 years ago, with the knowledge that putting too much information on the form might lead to rejection but too little could lead to charges of fraud should the family actually need to use the insurance.

Johnson did something else sneaky. He started including Social Security revenues in the annual budget. First, this is intellectually consistent, because FICA is not insurance in any private-market sense.  Second, the government is on the hook for any shortfalls. Social Security and Medicare are overfunded right now, but that is likely to change as the Baby Boom works through retirement. After all, my income tax does not include a contribution for environmental protection and one for highway maintenance and one for embassy operations. Likewise, I’m not paying into a special government retirement plan. It’s all revenue, and it’s all expense.

But FDR knew that as long as people thought they were getting something special, they’d be happier about paying their taxes. Smart, huh?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
  • http://www.popdose.com Zack

    I have good health insurance through work. So why am I so supportive of a public option? Because I'd much rather see my $600 monthly premium get spent on some sick person (even if, god forbid, they happen to be poor and unemployed [and obviously lazy, since if they weren't so lazy they wouldn't be so poor and sick]) rather than to help an insurance company shareholder pay for their new fucking boat.

  • MatthewF

    As an Englishman, I've gotta say that we are totally baffled at the amount of hatred flung in the direction of 'socialised' medicine, pretty much summed up by this headline from a british comedy news site (a bit like the Onion) AMERICANS WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE ATTACK PLAN TO GIVE THEM HEALTH INSURANCE. We just don't get it I'm afraid.

    Also, yo, we don't like you yanks slagging off the NHS. It's like criticising your family, we're allowed to do it, but you ain't.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    I went over to http://www.healthreform.gov/ and they have an interactive map that has info on how health insurance reform (they revised it from health care) will benefit Americans. I clicked around and learned that in many states, one health insurance company often covers/owns over 50% of the market in a state. When you have that kind of market dominance, it's no wonder you see The Screaming Assholes in front of the TV camera frothing over items in congressional bills that have nothing really to do with insurance reform. Scream about socialism, death panels, and the like and you shift the conversation away from why we need reform in the first place. Sadly, we have a compliant media that gives voice (without much critique) to those who are protesting– and mostly those who are protesting from the extreme Right.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    Funny, Ann. Your columns are under the heading “Numberscruncher,” and yet this one seems remarkably devoid of relevant numbers. I want people to be informed and prepared for what is coming, so I hope those who want to see the future will check out these links and draw their own conclusions.

    Social Security is doomed — I defy anyone looking at a demographics chart to conclude that it is not doomed: http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/08/us-po

    If Social Security is doomed, Medicare is more doomed, if it is possible to be more than 100% doomed — haha.

    The demographics show that, compared to the future, we are living in the best of times with regard to health care expenditures. http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/08/healt

    Looking into the future, the general economy will be seeing the worst of times for some years to come. Bill Gross, the king of bond investors, speaks of a “new normal” economic growth rate of 1-2% (when we actually do stop contracting and start growing), while Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will increase by 6% of GDP over the next 20 years. http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Featured+Market+Co

    In short, the White House projections on future budgets are fantasy, pie-in-the-sky. This includes projections on the alleged non-cost of health care reform. Since we are going to get squeezed from both sides in health care (less income than expected, increased demand for government expenditure), rationing must be the order of the day. While Palin used the inflammatory term “death panels” (the context of which she clarified — with footnotes — in a follow-up to the death panels post), Nat Hentoff is singing the same tune, minus the Palin hyperbole: http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff081909

    Hentoff, hardly a right-winger, says, “…now I am finally scared of a White House administration.”

    The numbers force the issue: Under ObamaCare, with government dictatorship over what insurance plans offer (and what they cost), who will get preferential treatment, i.e. who and what will NOT be covered, czar-like panels deciding life and death on a mass scale will be in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. Do the actions of government in the past twelve months convince you that our legislative and regulatory apparatus is working for you, the average guy? Do you believe that the competence and trustworthiness of the massive federal government will work in your favor (or your grandma), when it comes time to divvy up the health care pie? It's a question of faith, a question of trust, and to my mind, a question of gullibility — a complete triumph of hope over experience — if your answer is in the affirmative.

    A final thought regarding Bill Gross' GDP estimates: If our government is borrowing 5% of GDP (the year it'll be closer to 10%, I think) and our GDP growth comes out at 2%, isn't that actually like a negative 3% in real terms, since we have just reduced future growth to pay for a phony positive GDP in the present? Remember this if GDP turns positive later this year or next year. Remember the amount the US Government/Fed is printing/borrowing (a tax on the future) in order to pump up growth to the anemic levels we might see.

  • MatthewF

    Well I guess it's a choice between car like panels deciding the value of life and death based on the best possible outcome for the widest number of people, or czar like panels deciding the value of life and death based on the need to maintain a strong dividend for shareholders over the forthcoming fiscal quarter.

  • http://www.annlogue.com annielogue

    Medicare and Social Security suffer from the same problems: we live a lot longer than we were supposed to when the plans were designed, and we have fewer children. The easy fix for Social Security is to raise the retirement age. Medicare, unfortunately, has no easy fixes, and we have to make them as a society. Private insurance companies have decided that the way to make a profit no matter how much health care people want is to ration care.

    And I have said this before, Autodidact, but you are naive if you think that rationing does not go on now. Insurance companies refuse certain individuals and small groups, they make claims confusing, and they pull out the pre-existing conditions clause whenever they like.

    Now, Americans seem to like health care, and maybe part of the solution is that we have to pay higher taxes for it. Leaving it entirely to the private sector isn't working.

  • JonCummings

    Nat Hentoff had a great career as a proponent of civil liberties–which, by the way, is not a “liberal” position–but he is a nutcase when it comes to healthcare. He was stupid and wrong about it in 1994, and he's stupid and wrong now. He's living his own paranoid delusions about what happens to a way-over-the-hill columnist who has come out on the wrong side of the Village Voice's own death panel (he was axed in January).

    As for the demographics of it all — duh. We've known this for at least 25 years. To use those demographics as an excuse to “doom” Social Security and Medicare, instead of fix them, is pure ideological blindness, the heir to the failed Republican attempts to stop Social Security in 1935, to stop Medicare in 1965, and to begin privatizing in 2005. You may succeed this time, at least in part, by dumbing-down the debate (and there's no other phrase for what you're doing, no matter how many talking-points links you toss around) and by scaring the bejeezus out of people.

    I guarantee you haven't improved the country by manipulating those millions of Americans who spend years gaining perspective on the bankruptcy (financial and moral) of the current healthcare system, finally vote for people who want to do something about it, and then lose their minds when your side starts tossing around bullshit bogeymen like “death panels” and “rationing” (which, as Annie notes, happens at least as much under our private system as it does in countries with national health care).

    I honestly don't understand how a person who has no health coverage himself, as you noted under Annie's last column, can be so much more concerned about the decrepitude of the “legislative and regulatory apparatus” (which your conservative friends drove into the ditch) than you are about your own needs and–just as important–those of others who are in your position or have things even harder. How's the free market working for you lately? Once again, your argument is, “See? We Republicans spent 14 years proving that government doesn't work, through our own incompetence and corruption. Why give anybody else's ideas a chance?”

    If healthcare reform goes down to defeat this year, and you remain unable to afford insurance that might improve your life and help you maintain the nest egg of which you wrote, you may have to start listing “ideological purity” as part of your pre-existing condition.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Joe Nation had a decent overview of the “controlling costs” problem in today’s SF Chronicle:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/23/INDR19B11F.DTL

    It’s an op-ed piece, so it’s kind of vague, but he might make a good Popdose Interview for the Current Events section.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Joe Nation has a good (but unfortunately, vague) op-ed piece in today's SF Chronicle about controlling costs in heath care: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/

    He might make for a good Popdose Interview in the Current Events section…

    BTW: I tried to post in the comments section before and I think my comment was relegated to WP limbo because Disqus wasn't available when I posted.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Joe Nation has a good (but unfortunately, vague) op-ed piece in today's SF Chronicle about controlling costs in heath care: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/

    He might make for a good Popdose Interview in the Current Events section…

    BTW: I tried to post in the comments section before and I think my comment was relegated to WP limbo because Disqus wasn't available when I posted.

  • JonCummings

    Nat Hentoff had a great career as a proponent of civil liberties–which, by the way, is not a “liberal” position–but he is a nutcase when it comes to healthcare. He was stupid and wrong about it in 1994, and he's stupid and wrong now. He's living his own paranoid delusions about what happens to a way-over-the-hill columnist who has come out on the wrong side of the Village Voice's own death panel (he was axed in January).

    As for the demographics of it all — duh. We've known this for at least 25 years. To use those demographics as an excuse to “doom” Social Security and Medicare, instead of fix them, is pure ideological blindness, the heir to the failed Republican attempts to stop Social Security in 1935, to stop Medicare in 1965, and to begin privatizing in 2005. You may succeed this time, at least in part, by dumbing-down the debate (and there's no other phrase for what you're doing, no matter how many talking-points links you toss around) and by scaring the bejeezus out of people.

    I guarantee you haven't improved the country by manipulating those millions of Americans who spend years gaining perspective on the bankruptcy (financial and moral) of the current healthcare system, finally vote for people who want to do something about it, and then lose their minds when your side starts tossing around bullshit bogeymen like “death panels” and “rationing” (which, as Annie notes, happens at least as much under our private system as it does in countries with national health care).

    I honestly don't understand how a person who has no health coverage himself, as you noted under Annie's last column, can be so much more concerned about the decrepitude of the “legislative and regulatory apparatus” (which your conservative friends drove into the ditch) than you are about your own needs and–just as important–those of others who are in your position or have things even harder. How's the free market working for you lately? Once again, your argument is, “See? We Republicans spent 14 years proving that government doesn't work, through our own incompetence and corruption. Why give anybody else's ideas a chance?”

    If healthcare reform goes down to defeat this year, and you remain unable to afford insurance that might improve your life and help you maintain the nest egg of which you wrote, you may have to start listing “ideological purity” as part of your pre-existing condition.

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    Joe Nation has a good (but unfortunately, vague) op-ed piece in today's SF Chronicle about controlling costs in heath care: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/

    He might make for a good Popdose Interview in the Current Events section…

    BTW: I tried to post in the comments section before and I think my comment was relegated to WP limbo because Disqus wasn't available when I posted.

  • Pingback: Health Reform Debate: Role of Medigap; AARP profiting from Medigap royalty sales | Consumer Focused Health

  • Pingback: The GOP's Medicare Privatization Plan Will Cost Seniors ,770 A Year

  • Pingback: The GOP's Medicare Privatization Plan Will Cost Seniors ,770 A Year

  • Pingback: The GOP's Medicare Privatization Plan Will Cost Seniors 14,770 A Year