Democrats and Republicans still undecided on a solid solution to the Medicare funding issue.

Despite the fact that election time is just around the corner, it seems that neither Obama nor Romney can propose a complete solution to the Medicare issue as of yet.  Aside from the obvious slurs each party is throwing about how the other wants to cut Medicare funding, the key details behind said parties' ideas have not yet come to fruition.  While Romney's proposal mainly focuses on a voucher system, he is still being surprisingly vague.  On the other hand, Obama firmly believes that a voucher system is definitely the incorrect way to go and that, perhaps, a bill might be the solution.

According to The Huffington Post, Romney's plan would opt to change Medicare so that "competition among insurers will keep costs in check."  Romney believes that shifting people under the age of 54 onto a different type of Medicare plan will cut costs, but that it would not affect current beneficiaries.  While this may seem like an interesting proposal, it can be detrimental to people who are permanently disabled.  As of today, many people receiving Medicare are capable of working at least a part-time job and simply choose not to.  As a future consequence of this, the people who are permanently disabled and unable to work at all may end up paying more out of pocket than they can afford.

Obviously against a voucher system, Obama plans to increase the amount of money collected from Medicare recipients who make over a certain salary each year.  Additionally, "he also would hit newly joining baby boomers with a series of fees."  While this could perhaps be a potential issue solver, the proposal may not go over well with the generation before us, who are rapidly closing in on retirement age.  This generation has paid countless taxes towards insurance systems and as a consequence for being forced to pay said taxes, they are being rewarded with more fees and a possible drop in quality of insurance coverage for themselves when they reach the age for retirement.

Perhaps the Democrats and Republicans should focus on solidifying their plans and actually putting thought into them instead of wondering how they can get more votes by ruining the reputation of their opponent.

Full Articles:
Romney
Obama

Unintended Consequences?

Promoted by the Bush and Obama administrations as a cost-cutting measure, have electronic patient records actually led to increased healthcare costs?

According to an analysis by the New York Times, the push to streamline patient record keeping through federal subsidies for electronic records systems may end up increasing costs to Medicare.  The federal government has provided billions of dollars to hospitals to upgrade to the new electronic systems, in hopes of "improv[ing] efficiency and patient safety", in addition to reducing healthcare costs due to misdiagnosis and duplicate medical tests.

However, several doctors and healthcare experts interviewed by the Times say that the new systems make it easier for hospitals to "upcode", an industry term for defrauding Medicare by using medical codes for care that was never received by the patient.

The Times article quotes a Health and Human Services Department spokesperson stating that Medicare "has strong protections in place to prevent fraud."

Update:  The federal government has responded to the original story, sending a stern letter to hospitals discouraging the "gaming" of the system described above.