The medical voucher plan that would replace Medicare for seniors which is part of the GOP budget proposal hasn't been described in any detail that I've been able to find. But according to a CNN report, "Starting 10 years from now, in 2021, Americans would no longer enroll in the Medicare program, but instead receive vouchers for private insurance, according to the GOP sources, who stressed anyone 55 or older now would not be affected by the change."

That is, Medicare as a government-provided program, would be eliminated for all Amercians who were born in 1955 or later, those currently 56 years old or younger. As I understand the GOP/Tea Party proposal, individuals could take the government-issued vouchers and buy private insurance, which would replace Medicare as a single payer system of health insurance.

In another article, I read that the proposed amount of the voucher would be $15,000 per year. That is, the amount the federal government would pay for healthcare insurance for any individual--or might it be only per household or couple?--would be $15,000.

Right now, in 2011, I pay just a little less than $11,000 per year for Medicare premiums and secondary insurance from United Healthcare. And the premiums from United Healthcare have increased 24.2% in the last five years. The increase from 2010 to 2011 was the most dramatic since I've had their policy--10.6% year-to-year. I think it's easy to see that it wouldn't take more than a few years of 10%+ premium increases to exceed that $15,000 voucher limit. At that point, the cost of health insurance premiums would have to be paid by the individual.

As the result of rapidly escalating healthcare costs, Medicare Part B premiums haven't been immune to increases either. Part B premiums have increased at a rate far higher than the COLA that determines Social Security payments in recent years.

I know there has to be more detail to flush this proposal out, but from whats been presented, I fail to see how this proposal addresses what everyone has agreed are the primary problems with our current healthcare system...

• American healthcare costs are more than double per capita compared to the next highest health insurance costs among developed countries, and far greater than that when compared to the average of all developed countries. Those costs are escalating dramatically, at an unsustainable rate.

• A huge number of Americans--in the range of almost 20% of our population, including almost all of the poorest among us--would return to having no health insurance at all.

This proposal would certainly save, or at least put a cap on the amount the government spends on health insurance for American citizens. But does it address the fundamental problem that our system has created, unsustainable increases in the cost of healthcare in this country? All the GOP proposal seems to do is shift the cost to the individual, but doesn't address the systemic cost of healthcare in this country at all.

Does anyone think this is a good idea? If so, tell us all why. The plan as outlined in the GOP/Tea Party proposal cuts federal spending alright, but all it does is shift the cost to the individual. Does it address the problem of wildly escalating medical costs at all? Lots of people have been critical of the way Medicare is run. Personally, I'm even less confident that relying on private health insurance companies to provide high quality, affordable insurance would work to my advantage. If I were 56 or younger--I wish I was--I think I'd really be upset.

If you like the GOP/Tea Party Plan, tell us why you think it's better than what we have? We surely know it will work to the benefit of the health insurance companies, and probably the doctors, hospitals, drug companies and medical equipment manufacturers as well. Their profits and income would continue to increase with only the complaint letters from customers to deal with. Is it any wonder that it's these companies that are among the largest contributors to Congressional campaign funds?

How would such an idea work to the benefit of all Americans seeking to maintain a reasonable standard of health and healthcare at a cost we can afford?

I fail to see how it would be of any benefit to individuals and agree with you that the winners in such a plan would be, first and foremost, the insurance companies which, if not reigned in, would price so many people right out of health care and back into emergency rooms where we all would be paying more.

From what I read this is not technically a voucher plan. You would pick you own plan and receive a government subsidy for part of it. The amount the plan holder would pay would depend on the plan he chose and the subsidy amount would be determined on different factors including his wealth.

This new plan would only affect those 55 years old and under at the time of the plan's implementation. Those over 55 would continue under the present plan.

Originally Posted by DaleMN

I fail to see how it would be of any benefit to individuals and agree with you that the winners in such a plan would be, first and foremost, the insurance companies which, if not reigned in, would price so many people right out of health care and back into emergency rooms where we all would be paying more.

I cannot agree with you on this. The proposal will provide future seniors access to all the plans now available to all government employees including members of Congress. As Richie observed the government will provide a subsidy based upon the individual's income and wealth. No senior would have to go to the emergency room for routine care. This would be a vast improvement over existing Medicare where some cannot afford the essential supplement.

After all, haven't many of us always said we want the same plan that Congress gets?