REDUCING MEDICAL COSTS

POLICY PAPER

There is a way to reduce the cost of both Medicare and medical insurance.  By simple changes to Medicare, I can make the case that costs will decrease for both Medicare and medical insurance companies.  Its called Medicare at 55.  Here are the changes and requirements which can reduce costs to the insured.  First allow individuals to opt into Medicare at 55 as their choice. Have current rules for Medicare apply with the following changes:

Changes proposed:

1. Individuals may receive Medicare at 55, however they must have paid into Social Security for 60 quarters.
2. If your doctor does not accept Medicare reimbursements, employees can choose not to opt in.  Employers that provide health insurance will not be allowed to force older employees off their plan. 
3. Employers can agree with eligible employees’ doctors to add a supplement to Medicare reimbursement payments to entice the employee’s doctors to take Medicare as a choice.  Even this choice could save costs for both the employee and the employer.
4. Medicare annual payments will apply and should be re-evaluated annually.

Advantages:

1. By diluting the Medicare pool with younger and healthier individuals (currently Medicare covers patients age 63-and on) average Medicare cost per individual will reduce and will help keep Medicare healthy.  The pool is diluted by those of 55-63 yrs. of age that opt into Medicare. 
2. By reducing the higher risk individuals (age 55-63) from the medical insurance pool the risk exposure is reduced and therefore costs on the average should also be reduced.  These patients, age 55-63 are the higher risk individuals in the medical insurance pool because they are at the top end of age prior to being eligible for Medicare.
3. Older employees will have a vehicle to insure their medical security. 
4. This gives older (55-63) employees greater opportunities to strike out and form small businesses.  
5. Younger employees will replace the older employees and give them more opportunity for upward mobility.
6. Actual dollar savings should inure from the differential administrative costs as well as executive salaries and profit which does nothing for your health.
7. These changes could add to numbers of small business and potentially having more competition reducing consumer prices.
8. This proposal reduces the numbers of individuals which are tied to the for-profit medical insurance industry, which I feel makes a profit off of a basic human right.
9. Older individuals that are being replaced with automation and have worked and paid into Social Security for 60 quarters when and if replaced will have access to Medicare.
10.  Older individuals will have peace of mind knowing, if laid off, there is Health insurance security.

*Simple Cost Analysis:

• Medicare Administrative costs 4-5% and charge -0- profit.
  •  Non-Medicare Medical insurance administrative costs are 15-20% and an additional 10-15% for profit.
  • Cost Savings 25-35% Medicare vs non-Medicare medical Insurance

Disadvantages:

1. Insurance companies will loose administrative employees (automation has already decimated the industry)  This impact is minimal.
2. Insurance companies’ numbers of policyholders will shrink and loss of customers would impact their bottom line.
3. Employers top “grey beard” talent may strike out on their own having their medical benefits guaranteed.

* Note:

The above cost analysis is why Medicare for all is popular, however current doctor participation in Medicare is optional.  Will doctors be required to accept Medicare for all reimbursements?  Therefore would you really be able to keep your doctor? What about Hospitals? Are they required to accept Medicare reimbursements? Will Medicare For All eliminate Medical Insurance companies? There are lots of questions.  Medicare at 55 is a step toward Medicare for all that can easily be explained and implemented.

In my opinion:

I can remember living in southern California in the early 1950’s. County medical clinics and state mental facilities and very few homeless visible.  Pollution in the form of smog was so prevalent it was hard to breathe and your eyes watered and ultimately, lead was removed from gasoline.  Recently the clean air and water act was suspended.  This action by the government will insure millions of children will be asthmatic and millions more will be exposed to cancer causing chemicals in the water supply.

 Within the last few months Waste Management Corp. was allowed by the EPA to dump a known Cancer causing chemicals into the Marmac River. Coal slug containing mercury is allowed into contaminate rivers in Appalachia. 

Automobile MPG emissions are being lowered with the effect of more pollution.  The effect is to create a situation where poor and failing health can be created by government actions.

 I therefore feel the government has the responsibility to provide basic medical care for everyone as a right. It states in the preamble to the Constitution “promote the general welfare”. 

Fracking for oil creates earthquakes.  This was evident when the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado in the early 70’s forced contaminated water into the ground at 2.5 PSI and then there were swarms of earthquakes had never been recorded. Where earthquakes were recorded and pumping stopped so did the earthquakes.  This shows earthquakes can be triggered by fracking and was known in the early 70’s. 

What about the chemicals used in fracking are the harmful to the watershed?  Will they cause illness? Cancer?  The oil companies are not required to disclose the chemicals. 

Back to earthquakes, if the big one 7.0-8.0 magnitude was to be triggered by fracking the injuries one could blame on the Oil companies, this is all with the blessing of the government.

These are some of the reasons why the government has a responsibility to provide medical care as a basic right. Causation equals responsibility and is at the base of this argument.