"The estimated exhaustion date for the Medicare trust fund remains at 2024." You read that right. Medicare, as we know it, is bankrupt in 10 years. So if you are a senior and plan on living more than 10 more years, if President Obama is re-elected, you better start planning to pay your own way.
You would not know this stark fact from reading media accounts that are grossly disingenuous and factually vapid regarding the Romney/Ryan plan for Medicare. Nor would you know that the first line in this response came straight from the president's own appointed Medicare Trustees.
You see, beyond raiding over $700 billion in Medicare revenues to finance Medicaid expansion (Social Security recipients will find this raid eerily familiar) and appointing 15 bureaucrats to control prices, the most disgusting part of the president's ongoing Medicare charade is that "Medicare as we know it" is gone in less than 10 years, even after Obamacare, and he does absolutely nothing to fix it.
I ran in 2010 as a strong supporter of Paul Ryan's Medicare fix. I couldn't care less about re-election; I ran to fix the problem. The truth is, seniors, like everyone else, are tired of being lied to.
As someone with a record of telling my party when I think it is wrong, I can say, without hesitation, that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are the only candidates in this race with a real plan to preserve and strengthen Medicare for today's seniors and for future generations. How can I say that? Simple.
Under the Romney/Ryan plan, nothing changes for those 55 and older. You paid into Medicare and planned your retirement around it; and it will be there for you. But Medicare either changes or it dies for those close to retirement or who want to live more than 10 years. It is just that simple.
So what does the Romney/Ryan plan do to save it? It puts in place systems that are proven to work everywhere, but takes power away from Washington. Two things that cut the heart out of the status quo.
First, future beneficiaries would be given the power to choose from a set of Medicare-approved plans, or the existing "traditional" fee-for-service plan. Contrary to claims, seniors would not receive a "voucher," nor would anyone be denied coverage. If a company covers one senior, they must cover them all. Much like Medicare Advantage, which is overwhelmingly popular with current seniors, the Romney/Ryan plan would give current and future seniors control, not Washington.
They would get better quality health care. Why? Because currently Medicare has no incentive to improve quality, reduce fraud or provide service. They are the only game in town, and they know seniors have nowhere else to turn. That is unfair to seniors and spells the demise of quality.
The New England Journal of Medicine recently reported, in a story titled, "The Medicare Advantage Success Story" that, "Medicare Advantage plans outscored fee-for-service Medicare on 9 of 11 [care quality] measures." The same program that allows seniors to shop amongst private insurers and choose a plan that is most cost effective and coverage specific, is also delivering superior care at a lower cost. Even the Obama administration knows this. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said earlier this year, "The program [Medicare Advantage] is stronger than ever with improved benefits and lower costs ... as we projected in September, Medicare Advantage premiums have fallen by an average of seven percent while enrollment has risen by about 10 percent."
Translation: Costs continue to fall, and seniors are getting greater bang for their buck.
Competition has worked for seniors and taxpayers in the Medicare Prescription Drug Program as well. The Obama administration recently announced that, "Federal spending on Medicare drug benefits has been about 30 percent lower than the Congressional Budget Office predicted when the drug legislation was passed in 2003." How many government programs ever came in under budget? The fact is, competition works to improve quality and reduce costs in everything from auto insurance, soda, auto sales to cellphones, TVs and computers. It will do the same for seniors.
Besides more choice and lower costs, coverage and services the Romney/Ryan plans provide would be required to be at least as good as those beneficiaries receive today. Medicare would also provide seniors with defined financial support — more for low- and middle-income seniors — to help them purchase a plan that best fits their needs. Seniors will be allowed to keep the savings from less-expensive options, or they may choose to pay more for costlier plans.
Requiring insurers to compete against each other, across state lines, to provide the best value to seniors will cause health care quality to improve and costs to decline, thus securing the program for their kids and grandkids.
This is not merely an academic argument as to the path forward. Nor can anyone tell you that Obama has a plan to fix it. The clock is ticking; the cliff is approaching. Romney and Ryan are being honest. It is time the media try doing the same.
