Monday, February 2, 2015
Under Obama Budget, Medicare Proposals Would Hit Patients and Providers
This article discusses another aspect of Obama's budget plan, this time focusing on Medicare. Obama proposes that Medicare make adjustments to its regulations in order to increase the profitability of the program. This would include such changes as increasing the premiums for low-income patients and reducing Medicare payments to hospitals, making it difficult for them to provide quality care. What do you think? Is it better to make Medicare more profitable or to provide better quality healthcare to more people?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't know how I feel about this. The cost of Medicare is what it is so low-income people can afford health care. But if Obama's new budget plan helps the quality of care people would receive it should be considered only if the people currently on Medicare would still be able to afford it.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Jamie. I don't think Medicare beneficiaries should have to pay more for their care and coverage, because the low-income beneficiaries won't be able to afford it. I do however like that Obama wants to continue the Children's Health Care Insurance Program, and by increasing tobacco taxes.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Rachel and Jamie. Many with low income rely on Medicare and increasing its cost would put them at a significant disadvantage. Other than that, many of the proposals such as an increased tobacco tax are good. Cutting expenses is a good ends but some of the means are questionable.
ReplyDeleteThe funding of Medicare, as it stands today, places a heavy burden on the tax payer. Programs such as this have certainly contributed to our $18+ trillion federal debt. I think any effort to make a money pit such as Medicare more profitable should be welcomed with open arms.
ReplyDeleteMedicare is important and needs more funding in order to help more people. Even if it is a burden on taxpayers it should still be increased. Why? Because keeping ALL people healthy, regardless of their class, is important, and deserves to be done. I don't think that saving lives is, as Benton calls it, a "money pit". It is an important part of our system that needs to be as polished and effective as possible. If Obama's plan can do that, it should be done. If it does the opposite, if it makes it accessible to less people, it should be scrapped. Plain and Simple.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read Antonella's question, I thought that making Medicare more profitable was the obvious choice with the national debt. However, I began to consider the lower income families that would be affected by this change, and I realized that Medicare was put in place to help those families, so, therefore, making the program not affordable for them would defeat its purpose and make the huge dollars being spent on it not worthwhile. Proposed changes would just make our debt increase at a lower rate, but at the cost of the program's whole purpose.
ReplyDeleteI like Obama's plan. I believe that under this plan sentiments above reflecting an overall worry that medicare patients as a whole will have to pay more can be set at ease. The plan specifies that only participants who "buy generous private insurance" supplements will have to pay a surcharge. Our country needs to start operating in a more fiscally efficient manner. This does not mean that all social benefits need to be cut! It just means that new and efficient ways of implementing them need to be developed. The Department of Health and Human Services is one of the most funded departments present in our government. I am sure if a team of financial analysts took a look at the details, they could find millions of dollars that are wasted.
ReplyDeleteI am not quite certain where I stand with this. It certainly isn't good to have premiums raised, especially for low-income families that rely the most on Medicare. In addition, lowering funding to hospitals which would result in lower quality health care doesn't sit well with me. However, there should be an effort to make Medicare more efficient in order to lower the amount of money that needs to be spent on it. I just don't think this should come at the expense of low-income families and quality health care. I think Obama should find other ways to make Medicare more efficient and profitable that doesn't negatively affect the people that need it most.
ReplyDeleteI am kind of split in between on this. It isn't ideal to have the costs raised since most of the people that rely on Medicare are from low income families.The other thing that I'm on the fence about is how the new budget would "reduce scheduled Medicare payments to teaching hospitals, hundreds of small rural hospitals, nursing homes and health maintenance organizations that care for older Americans and people with disabilities." However, the continuation of the Children’s Health Insurance Program through 2019 sits well with me.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason why I'm going to say that I am tipping a little to the scale of dislike with this proposition is that is will reduce the quality of care that hospitals are able to provide and raise the burden on lower income families. I get that lowering the amount of money required to sustain Medicare would be great, but I'm not sure whether that equates to less efficient hospitals considering that all of us rely on hospitals, and slightly lowered efficiency can result in radical results considering how elaborate certain conditions can be.
ReplyDeleteVery split on this issue. It would really take a hit towards lower income families. Lowering the funds of Hospitals is also a really bad idea. Health is really important and we must be able to provide everyone with the correct treatment. I think Obama should find a better way to make it more efficient and cost beneficial.
ReplyDelete