Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Earlier this morning I wrote a post about the differences between Paul Ryan’s 2012 Medicare plan and Paul Ryan’s 2013 Medicare plan. My point was simple: the 2013 plan is quite different from the 2012 plan, and if we’re going to attack his plan, we should be attacking the current one.

So here’s the main point of attack: Ryan’s 2013 plan relies on competitive bidding to lower costs. Healthcare providers all bid for Medicare contracts, and seniors get a voucher equal to the second lowest bid. That way, there are always at least two plans they can buy without having to fork out any money beyond the value of the voucher.

But Ryan also includes a “fallback” growth cap. The overall cost of Medicare won’t be allowed to rise faster than GDP + 0.5%.

So here’s the question reporters should be asking Ryan: What happens if all the bidders submit bids that are over the growth cap? Who pays the difference? Seniors?

If not seniors, then who? You can’t just arbitrarily force everyone to lower their bids. Nor can you lower payments to providers for specific services, since you’re just soliciting bids for insurance coverage, not paying providers directly for services. So what happens?

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate