Medicare for All
An editorial appeared in the Kansas City Star Sunday supporting a program of "Medicare for All." The concept attracts, because of its simplicity, obvious advantages, and the way it builds on well understood programs already in place. But would it solve the problems we face?
In my humble opinion, it would not.
My young adult son, with no health insurance, would not gain anything from a system of Medicare for all. Neither would any young uninsured person. To understand why, we must understand a little about Medicare.
Medicare has three parts; part A covers hospital expenses, part B covers medical expenses and the newly formed part D covers prescription drugs. Part A is fully funded by the payroll tax; parts B and D both require monthly premiums.
A young adult with a minimum wage job cannot meet basic needs for himself such as adequate food, shelter, and transportation to work. Premiums for part B will be $88.50 monthly effective January, 2006. A worker earning minimum wage grosses $10,712.00 annually, or $892.67 per month.
Of course, that money is subject to various taxes; the net after tax may be as little as $750.00 per month. A number of studies have been done on the “living wage” issue, attempting to quantify the minimum cost of living for a single individual. This study gives a figure of $21,694.40 for a single individual living in one of the higher cost areas of the US. Even allowing for the fact my son lives in one of the cheapest areas of the country, he still cannot pay for basic needs. Under his present circumstances, he will never enroll in parts B or D of Medicare.
Under current law, hospitals provide life-saving services to uninsured individuals regardless of ability to pay. With Medicare for all, hospitals would fare much better than under the current system, which has them dunning deadbeats in an hopeless attempt to cut their losses.
But from the consumer's point of view, nothing would have changed. Routine preventative care, of the sort that would keep them out of the hospital, would still not be covered. Prescription drugs, insulin or asthma medications, of the kind that prevents acute illness, would be out of reach.
Medicare for all sounds good, and would be a step in the right direction. Alas, it would also be a few steps short of solving the whole problem.
In my humble opinion, it would not.
My young adult son, with no health insurance, would not gain anything from a system of Medicare for all. Neither would any young uninsured person. To understand why, we must understand a little about Medicare.
Medicare has three parts; part A covers hospital expenses, part B covers medical expenses and the newly formed part D covers prescription drugs. Part A is fully funded by the payroll tax; parts B and D both require monthly premiums.
A young adult with a minimum wage job cannot meet basic needs for himself such as adequate food, shelter, and transportation to work. Premiums for part B will be $88.50 monthly effective January, 2006. A worker earning minimum wage grosses $10,712.00 annually, or $892.67 per month.
Of course, that money is subject to various taxes; the net after tax may be as little as $750.00 per month. A number of studies have been done on the “living wage” issue, attempting to quantify the minimum cost of living for a single individual. This study gives a figure of $21,694.40 for a single individual living in one of the higher cost areas of the US. Even allowing for the fact my son lives in one of the cheapest areas of the country, he still cannot pay for basic needs. Under his present circumstances, he will never enroll in parts B or D of Medicare.
Under current law, hospitals provide life-saving services to uninsured individuals regardless of ability to pay. With Medicare for all, hospitals would fare much better than under the current system, which has them dunning deadbeats in an hopeless attempt to cut their losses.
But from the consumer's point of view, nothing would have changed. Routine preventative care, of the sort that would keep them out of the hospital, would still not be covered. Prescription drugs, insulin or asthma medications, of the kind that prevents acute illness, would be out of reach.
Medicare for all sounds good, and would be a step in the right direction. Alas, it would also be a few steps short of solving the whole problem.
posted by Mike at 10:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home