contains a lot of gibberish. Some on the part of Rep. Gibson, some on the part of the TU writer.
Gibson: "In the past, I've been concerned about Medicare vouchers. What got my attention is the fact that two bi-partisan commissions supported it."
Supported it?
From the Bowles-Simpson National Commission on Fiscal Reponsibility and Reform and Fried Twinkies report:
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/
"A voucher or subsidy system holds significant promise of controlling costs, but also carries serious potential risks. To assess the balance of benefits and risks, we recommend a rigorous external review process to study the outcomes of the FEHB premium support program to determine its effects on costs, health care utilization, and health outcomes. Although the population covered by FEHB is different from the Medicare population, if this type of premium support model successfully holds down costs without hindering quality of care in FEHB program, that experience would be useful in considering a premium support program for Medicare."
Vouchers now! Or, after a commission - not us, though! - examines some other system and everyone dozes off, and let's pretend we never even brought up vouchers.
Now, let's look at the TU writer ...
Vielkind: "Both reports mention moving Medicare from a fee-for-services model to a premium-supported model [...]"
In insurance terms, fee-for-service essentially means "not managed care." The doc gets paid 80% of his or her fees. A "premium-supported model" is a description of how a person would pay for his or her coverage in the system. So Vielkind is comparing apples (how docs get paid) to oranges (how a person pays for his or her coverage).
"Medicare really is sacrosanct," Gibson reiterated Sunday. "We need a bi-partisan solution to the problem. So when I hear two bi-partisan commissions talking about that prospect (vouchers), I ought to at least consider it."
"Sacrosanct" and "vouchers" are incompatible, despite what the GOP is trying to sell.
No comments:
Post a Comment