Sunday, March 6, 2016

Tackling Social Security part 2

I will be discussing the portion of the social security act that became Medicare. If you go back and reread the preamble there was nothing specific that talked about medical coverage. It was the general statement: “…make adequate provisions for the aged person….” that Medicare can be derived or at least in my thinking.

First though let’s tackle another issue and that is healthcare in this country overall. I do not think we can tackle improving Medicare until we address some other issues. We seem to have healthcare upside down.

The primary people in healthcare should be the patient and the doctor. Unfortunately Wall Street, big pharma, insurance companies, for profit hospitals, and a few other identities seem to get the most attention from Washington D. C.  Outsize profits seem to be the order of the day in healthcare instead of patients’ health. Now I do have to be careful in addressing this problem. One question is how do you define outsized profits? Just starting there touches on the basis for many of the problems facing healthcare in our country. The primary question is do we go to a more socialized medicine concept or do we let healthcare still be open to the general market place?  If we go to socialized medicine it resolves dealing with outsized profits, but opens up other issues. If not, how do we determine what is a reasonable set of expectations for the health care industry in regards to profits and overall business size.  And of course how do we get it back to making the patient and the doctor the primary focus.

And resolving the healthcare issue is one of the great examples as to why democracy should work or more importantly why it needs to work. Healthcare is not a right, but it is an obligation for the individual and for society. People can expect that their health is of more importance than the benefit of the system that provides healthcare. How does this work?

One problem is the failure of what is commonly referred to as Obamacare. There is definitely some benefit in trying to overhaul a system that was getting out of hand. Expenses to the patient and overall insurance costs expenses are becoming untenable to the middle class’ budget. And being able to afford insurance to prevent a catastrophic illness from destroying a family’s budget/life/future is a wonderful benefit. Obamacare did not resolve this problem. Sure many more people have insurance, but the cost of health insurance is still going up and the cost of medical care is still going up and is going up faster than wage growth. And then you read many insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, for profit hospitals are making money and some of them making very large profits and add on that they have to meet Wall Street expectations as to earnings etc and you have an upside down healthcare industry.

How many times do you see an ad for a new medicine that deals with a certain condition (I chose the word condition on purpose) and yet there is a monstrous amount of side affects you need to worry about. And think about this, they are advertising these new drugs heavily.  To me it seems they are selling you the condition so you have to buy the medicine. Yeah there are medical problems, but if you are seeing ads how prevalent is the condition or how much do they have to sell it. You would think that if people had the condition or illness that a doctor can make a reasonable assessment of your condition and decide what if any medicines you may actually need.  Most pharmaceutical companies send drug reps out to the doctors, why the heavy ad blitz.   Again think meeting wall street expectations.
Obviously I am dealing with a market place healthcare system and not socialized medicine, yet that does not mean that we put the cart before the horse. You are more important than the health of a company. If they cannot manufacture what we truly need in medicine, what are they manufacturing. The doctor should make the decision what is needed not late night TV. So the pharmaceutical companies should not be measured by Wall Street expectations, but by ours. I think we need private market companies because they will make the effort to find the medicines and products we need in a more competitive and efficient manner, but the true healthcare market should be the driver of need.

And then there is insurance and this is where Medicare comes back into this writing. And many of the same arguments as above exist for insurance. Wall Street does not need to be the driver of expectations for the measurement of these companies’ success. The driver should be the patients’ needs. And the discussion could branch out in many directions from here, such as health, eating habits, holistic medicine, etc which I am going to brush aside and just talk about insurance. What should we reasonable expect for healthcare and how much is our responsibility and how much should society contribute. And of course the flip question is, should society even contribute. We already answered the question when we created Medicare. At this point we feel it is a combination of govt. management and individual contribution. There is a whole separate payroll deduction. Is this insurance? Conceptually it is not suppose to be, however, we have now added buying insurance to supplement Medicare and we treat it as insurance in some ways.
Do we truly combine Medicare into an insurance policy and pull it completely out of social security and maybe even out of the government’s hands?  Do we create insurance policies for life via Obamacare? I do not think we can answer these questions or any similar ones till we pull special interests out of Washington and the discussion. This is where democracy or at least the way our country should run should apply. The interests of the people in certain arenas such as healthcare have to take precedent over any individual interests where it be a locale or a business or organization.
So step one to truly reform Social Security and Medicare begins with overhauling special interest and Congress. Step two for Medicare is defining what we really need in healthcare. Can we continue to contribute through the current payroll system into a mass pool and have it meet the needs of our society’s healthcare needs for the elderly? One answer exists because we had to create Medicaid.
One answer is to create socialized medicine and implement price and care controls defined and regulated by the government. This to me will actually be more expensive in the long run than reigning in Congress and removing Wall Street and the companies’ influence on legislation
Step three is the details. And I mentioned one option above and that is insurance for life. So does that mean we never contribute to Medicare again and just have one premium and carry it with us. And can we shop insurance companies like auto or home to get the best price possible. Do we continue to rely on employers to help foot the bill as part of the benefit package of working for a company? Many employers are also strapped as to paying healthcare. And this leads me to some confusion, you would think employers would be the largest voice on Capitol Hill to reign in insurance costs, yet it doesn’t seem to be a priority for them.

Do we continue with a two deduction system? One deduction is for our health insurance through our employer or our payments to a private insurance company directly and then the Medicare Tax withholding for future use. Can we put aside Medicare money like we put aside retirement money?  How we answer healthcare reform will have an impact on how we make these decisions.
Do we go back to one deduction for Social Security, prepay insurance with it and when we receive benefits we automatically have Medicare which is what most people going into retirement think is going to happen. And if we keep the 80/20 responsibility how do we help people prepare for retirement so they can afford the 20% of their share of healthcare costs? And by reducing costs overall would this mke the 20% more palatable to a retiree’s budget? Could we create a lump sum Medicare savings plan? And if so do we create a pool trust or individual accounts? Is it all individual contributions, which probably will not fly since some people would use it more than others. Which unfortunately circles back to what I wanted to brush off, how much responsibility does a person have in taking care of themselves or government regulating their care if society is going to contribute to some of each individual’s healthcare and healthcare costs.

These are some of the questions and some proposals offered in discussion for the Medicare portion of what do we do with Social Security. If you have managed to struggle through to this far you realize health care is a monster that needs improvement for us now and into our retirement. And as previously mentioned Obamacare did not resolve the core problem of health care costs and ultimately how much is our and our society’s responsibility. Medicare is not a stand alone issue to resolve.
Can we do the same for Medicare contributions we might do for the retirement portion and invest it? Heck you could even use Medicare to invest in the same insurance companies etc that profit from Healthcare, somewhat of a push me pull me relationship to the cart and the horse. The final problem is balancing the amount of government intervention into the whole healthcare system and determining our responsibility for ourselves. None of this is an easy feat.

Part three will be about the social welfare aspect and then part four is hopefully a concise recap of ideas and proposals discussed.



No comments:

Post a Comment