It’s by Howard Gleckman. He asks some good questions. Anybody serious about this budget should be able to answer them.
Masthead
Editors in Chief
Austin Frakt
Aaron Carroll
Managing Editor
Adrianna McIntyre
Contributors
Kevin Outterson
Bill Gardner
Nicholas Bagley
Other ContributorsRecent posts
- How Useful Are Temperature Screenings for Covid?
- Veterans Experience Differences Between VHA and Community Providers
- The Health Of The People Should Be The Supreme Law
- What Can Be Learned From Differing Rates of Suicide Among Groups
- At-Home Testing for Covid
- Bias In, Bias Out
- Come work with me (and colleagues you’ve read here)
- Covid Vaccine Facts with the WHO’s Dr. Kate O’Brien
- Nest Protect and the nuclear option
- Religion and COVID: at odds?
Archives
For speaking inquiries
Interested in having Aaron or Austin speak to your group?
For information on Aaron speaking, click here.
For information on Austin speaking, contact the Leigh Bureau.
Aaron’s stuff
Selected appearances:
The Colbert Report
Good Morning America
Sound Medicine (most recent)
The Ed ShowAustin’s stuff
Click here for links to Austin’s peer-reviewed publications and/or related posts.
My favorite reaction to Rep. Ryan’s budget
04/05/2011
Austin Frakt
item.php
Follow the blog
TIE Books
Amazon.com
Barnes & Noble
Indiebound
iBooks
Google
Kobo
Amazon.com
Barnes & Noble
Books-A-Million
iBooks
IndieBound
Powells
Buy at Amazon.com
Summary
Excerpt: Economic profit
Excerpt: Diminishing marginal utility
Excerpt: Four factors of production
Excerpt: Monopoly marginal revenue
Excerpt: Consumer/producer surplus
Amazon.com
Barnes & Noble
Books-A-Million
Borders
IndieBound
Powells
Borders
Barnes & Noble
IndieBound
Amazon.com
Books-A-Million
Powells
Austin and Aaron are participants in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.Tag cloud
ACA AcademyHealth access accountable care organizations Affordable Care Act announcement blogging cancer comic competitive bidding costs cost shifting COVID-19 employer-sponsored health insurance health care costs Healthcare Triage health insurance health insurance mandates health reform hospital readmissions hospitals individual mandate insurance exchange market power Massachusetts Medicaid Medicare Medicare Advantage mortality nutrition obesity On The Record physicians politics PPACA premiums prescription drugs quality reading list reflex RWJF spending uninsured Upshot vaccines
by steve on April 5th, 2011 at 20:19
The CBO analysis is here. Of note, by 2030 seniors, those under 55 now, will be paying 68% of their insurance premium, assuming I read this correctly.
Link to CBO analysis here.
Steve
by Austin Frakt on April 5th, 2011 at 20:53
Wow! I really do wonder why anyone under 55 now would willingly pay their Medicare payroll tax. It’s quite a step away from intergenerational equity. Facing the prospect of such high personal costs, many might rather sock the money away in their own personal health savings account (so long as it could be rolled over into retirement). Is that the logical next step here? Just playing it out.
by Kevin Outterson on April 5th, 2011 at 20:39
In the last 20 years, many employers just shifted a larger percentage of health care costs to employees and called it cost control. It controlled the employer’s costs, but not the over all costs.
By tying USG health expenditures to a percentage of GDP, Ryan’s proposal essentially block grants Medicaid and caps Medicare government expenses.
Who does the hard work of cost control? The IPAB is repealed. We’re left with private plan competition. What’s been the record on that tool the last few decades?
by Justin Anderson on April 6th, 2011 at 00:45
We’re left with two explanations here, neither of which are good.
1- Chairman Ryan, and others who support his plans for Medicare and Medicaid, only care about the direct costs to the federal budget. Indirect costs related to uninsured individuals (poor, disabled or elderly), whether borne by providers, individuals or governments, do not enter into the calculation at all because Ryan et al are monomaniacal about the budget nut. (If one was so inclined one might ascribe a certain lack of caring about the poor, disabled and elderly here.)
or
2- Ryan et al simply do not understand the effects of these proposals.
Pick your reason- spending fetish/potentially evil (Randian) or incredibly stupid. None are qualities we should hope for in members of Congress.
by Scott Sanders on April 6th, 2011 at 10:23
It seems (as usual) that the conservative leaders are thinking in terms
of short-term results as opposed to long-term progress and
efficiencies. This mindset is typical, consistent to pro-business profit
models and unfortunately…has led to the downfall of this country in
almost every aspect. This particular scenario (budget cuts)
suggests that the conservative leadership in once again
demonstrating their will to protect the interests of big business at the
expense of the middle class that carries the burden of keeping big
business successful.
Do I have an alternate solution to the proposed cuts in
Medicaid/Medicare? No, not without polling the American citizens. I
do foresee however, the inevitability of making big business
accountable for their success and high revenue – close tax
loopholes so that they pay their fair share on taxes…not the present
average rate of 8%. This could go a long way to resolving budget
issues.