Obama: Entitlement Reform May Begin With Social Security
President Obama suggested today that, when health care reform is behind him, he may set his sights on Social Security:
"I think we're in a position to be able to, either at the end of this year or early next year, start laying out a broader picture about how we are going to handle entitlements in a serious way," Obama said. "It may start with Social Security because that's, frankly, the easier one."
In a long and technical interview with the Washington Post, Obama addressed several of the challenges health reform faces, including the question of financing. Though he's all but ruled out the possibility of covering the cost of legislation by capping the tax exclusion on current employer provided health care benefits, Obama said he's open to the possibility of taxing part of the additional, future cost of those benefits as the price of health insurance inflates.
But for the most part, editorial page editor Fred Hiatt stuck to the famous Hiatt hobby horse of entitlement reform.
CBO and other economists say that, as you say, you can't solve the fiscal problem if you don't solve the health problem. But they also say that solving the health cost problem is not sufficient, that a big part of the issue is demographics and aging. And so -- and as you know, the 10-year budget shows the government raising 18 or 19 percent of revenue in 2019, and spending 24 or 25 percent.... So can I ask you how you think about the timing and politics of closing that structural gap?
Aging is crucial, but mainly because providing health care to the elderly is expensive, and right now a huge percentage of elderly people in the country are on Medicare--a single payer, government-guaranteed risk-pool. And it's a very risky pool. Critics say that's the key to entitlement reform, which can't happen in absence of broader, systemic health care reform. And Obama's suggestion that Social Security should be on the block for the sake of political expediency could set off a storm among progressives.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
July 22, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I dunno. Doesn't Obama still have some largish campaign promises to tackle before he moves on to something that was never really an issue in his campaign and that nobody seems to really be calling for? Does anyone really care about social security reform that doesn't work in the media?
July 22, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would think that the climate bill and immigration reform would come first.
July 22, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the new divide brought to us during the primaries; the generational divide. Middle and lower class Boomers are the enemy. Those awful hippies with their sixties "psychodrama". "Soylent Green" may not be so far away.
July 23, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ending subsidies for the private insurers (on reducing ER visits) and payment reform and so on could be enough to meet the goal of deficit-neutral. The Times in a July 7 editorial argued “As much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in this country—some $700 billion a year—may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients,” .
According to a national study conducted by Weill Cornell Medical College, the cost of interaction between physician practices and health plans is roughly $31 billion annually, making up 6.9 percent of the total costs for physician and clinical services.
Medical IT SYSTEM and to create national administrative standards for billing forms and codes, as well as procedures for the approval of treatments could save time and money.
And the FBI estimates that each year financial losses due to health care fraud range from $60 billion to $226 billion.
THANK YOU !
July 24, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The House leaders reached a deal on Medicare payments: A "Pay for Value" reimbursement system that rewards doctors and hospitals that achieve the best outcomes at the lowest cost.
As a result, The House gained a lot of votes, a lot of people who were withholding support.
The federal Medicare program insures some 44 million elderly and disabled Americans at an annual cost of $450 billion, almost one-fifth of total U.S. health care spending.
Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and improve care, that means $1trillian over a decade. (Please visit http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=820455&catid=391 for detailed infos)
The Times in a July 7 editorial argued “As much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients,” Thus the remaining $239 billion over a decade does not matter.
No one can disagree with this best outcome / evidence-based system, and private insurance, too, will be greatly influenced by this change with the focus on value over volume. !
THANK YOU !
July 25, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's put aside some distractions caused by the health industry-sponsored Democrats, and the controversial analysis of CBO on the economic effect of the proposed independent advisory council and how to empower it substantively, get back to focus on how to meet the goal of deficit-neutral.
The House leaders reached a deal on Medicare payments: A "Pay for Value" reimbursement system that rewards doctors and hospitals that achieve the best outcomes at the lowest cost.
As a result, The House gained a lot of votes, a lot of people who were withholding support.
The federal Medicare program insures some 44 million elderly and disabled Americans at an annual cost of $450 billion, almost one-fifth of total U.S. health care spending.
Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and improve care, that means $1trillian over a decade. (Please visit http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=820455&catid=391 for detailed infos)
The Times in a July 7 editorial argued “As much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients,” Thus the remaining $239 billions over a decade do not matter.
No one can disagree with this best outcome / evidence-based system, and private insurance, too, will be greatly influenced by this change with the focus on value over volume. !
Dr. Armadio at Mayo clinic says, "If we got rid of that stuff, we save a third of all that we spend and that is 2.5 trillion dollars on health care. A third of that and that is 700 billion dollars a year. That covers a lot of uninsured people."
THANK YOU !
July 27, 2009 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink