Since we don’t know where the candidates stand on fixing the overall finances of Medicare, it’s hard to say which candidate would help or hurt Randle the most. Cutting benefits to shore up the system would certainly pinch, since he would have to finance more care from his own slim income. Increasing premiums and copayments for certain Medicare services would also hurt him. One solution on the table is making wealthier beneficiaries pay more for their benefits, either through higher premiums or higher coinsurance, a move that some say leads to the further privatization of Medicare. Even if Congress defines “wealthy” as incomes around $50,000, which a few experts think could happen, Randle’s very low income keeps him safe for now.
- 1
- 2
Permitting Medicare to negotiate Part D prices would do the most to help seniors like Randle. Primarily since Medicare is the "big pool" and would most effectively negotiate "big savings" -- larger than even the Veterans Affairs can leverage for its clients. A lower overall base price for each medication means that the doughnut hole is that much farther away for Randle and seniors like him. A conservative strategy would be to insert a "true" Medicare Part D plan as a nationwide choice, using its clout, and let all those other private Part D insurers race to beat or match the Fed's prices --- like how the $4 generic concept sprang forth at every chaim pharmacy. It's still capitalism: Money is still being made, just not the obscene amounts. And that would save Medicare and taxpayers billions.
Posted by Lisa on Fri 26 Sep 2008 at 02:19 PM