Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

The Ryan-Rivlin Plan, in Pictures

I have a piece in the American magazine this morning looking at the plan to reform Medicare and Medicaid proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan and economist Alice Rivlin. There are several things I do not like about this plan. For instance, it continues the Washington tradition of extending open-ended entitlement promises to millions of people without paying for them.

However, this plan is important because it is a clear option for reforming the programs that are at the source of most of our financial problems. Without being radical in any way, shape, or form (I certainly wish it was more radical), the plan does solve our debt crisis by reducing spending enough that interest on our debt does not end up consuming most of our budget in the future. Also, it is evidence that there are some serious Democratic-leaning economists who are willing to talk about these reforms.

The plan has two main features:

First, people who turn 65 in 2021 or later would not enroll in existing Medicare. Instead, they would receive vouchers to purchase healthcare in the private market (the voucher amount would equal the average amount of Medicare expenditure per enrollee, growing at the same rate of growth as gross domestic product (GDP) plus 1 percentage point). These vouchers would introduce a meaningful element into the healthcare system, one currently missing from our single-payer Medicare program: price competition. By introducing competition for consumers into the insurance market, the voucher system will pressure insurers to compete on cost while maintaining a high standard of care.

Second, the Rivlin-Ryan plan would establish Medicaid block grants for states. These grants would continue providing states with federal Medicaid, but determine funding evenly by the state’s proportion of low-income residents, growing in future years at gross domestic product plus 1 percent (including adjustments for population growth). In exchange for slower growth in federal support for Medicaid, states would have a greater level of flexibility than under the current system. Overall, the plan would contain the growth of Medicare and Medicaid to the growth of GDP plus 1 percent.

Now, I wish that lawmakers on both side of the aisle would look at this plan seriously and join forces with Ryan and Rivlin to address this pressing issue. I also wished that Republicans could make up their mind about where they stand on reforming Medicare.

The whole piece is here.

By the way, e21 is organizing a discussion with Representative Paul Ryan today at the National Press Club at noon. More information about the event is here.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   3

EXPAND  

   01/06/11 09:55

What do you do with a voucher at the "average amount of Medicare expenditure per enrollee," when you have a serious cancer or need heart surgery? How does a person with MS or diabetes pay for their treatment over the long haul? This is not a serious plan.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   01/06/11 10:14

While not familiar with the plan myself, I believe the graph used to depict the effectiveness of the Rivkin-Ryan plan is misleading especially compared to the post where you examine via graph form the Obamacare plan as a percentage of GDP.

For instance, in the year 2020, both plans Rivkin-Ryan and Obamacare, have federal heathcare spending at about 7% of GDP and at 2030 both plans are between 8 and 9%. So what is the significant difference between this plan and Obamacare if we are concerned about federal health care expenditure?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
noahp
   01/06/11 12:18

My solution to the healthcare mess is pretty radical: the government replaces it with a $2000 debit card balance per citizen ($600 billion). The balance would accumulate annually and could be donated without penalty to any other citizen and could be used for standard medical care. Bottum up replaces top down.

I contend that under such a system objective measures of public health would improve over the kind of big govt pie in the sky programs being floated about. We should all know by now that they won't work.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact