Local blogger Brenda is against "government run health care." She doesn't even like the bipartisan Baucus proposal on health care. She is afraid "Our great grand children are going to be paying our doctors bill for us."
Brenda is on Medicare.
More and more I am seeing people opposed to health care reform are either stupendously selfish--"I've got mine, you can go jump in a lake" kind of people--or they are confused.
I've been paying for Brenda's (and lots of others) Medicare all my life. I've been paying for everyone's social security, too. I pay school taxes and don't have kids in school. I get a little cranky about all that $$ but figure it's part of the social contract, morally and financially.
ReplyDeleteYes, I want mine when I'm old enough. But I don't want anyone else not to have theirs.
I think that's the difference here, Roch. Either they're too stupid to see that "gov't run" and "medicare" are the same darned thing or they're learning from Repubs how to redefine words so the conversation cannot move forward.
And damn the rest of them.
It is confusing, Sue. I am still looking for that Medicare recipient who is insisting on paying all of her medical bill herself and demanding that her benefits be cut for the fiscal sake of our children.
ReplyDeleteRoch - I'm under 40, and while not a Medicare customer, am adamantly opposed to increased government control of the health system precisely because of Medicare. Medicare is in horrible shape financially, and is the clearest indication of government incompentance in running health care there is. I understand your point about hypocrisy, and agree in part with your logic - but I'm not stupid, nor am I confused about this issue.
ReplyDeleteThe vast majority of Americans, according to research done on both sides, are reasonably happy with their existing coverage. While I think we need reform in numerous areas (tort, buying across state lines, tax credits, etc) the answer is clearly not more government involvement. We don't need to give the public option a chance to see how it works....we already know how it works, and it's called Medicare. Brenda and other seniors may be happy with Medicare - but it's a fiasco financially, and not a strategy we ought to double down on.
Everest, by what measure is Medicare in "horrible shape financially?"
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment, BTW.
ReplyDeleteWhere to start...?
ReplyDelete- Medicare A, funded largely by the 2.7% payroll tax, will go negative (it pays out more than it takes in) in the next 24 months
- Costs under Medicare have grown more than 2.4 percentage points faster than GDP since the 1970s. These outlays will consume a HUGE part of the nation's GDP over the next 40 years, if no reform takes place.
- Medicare B & D, funded largely by general tax receipts, are enormous long term entitlements, and both in the red in dramatic fashion in the coming decades.
- Medicare is facing the same demographic challenges that Social Security is, although the "formula" for changing Medicare payments long term is much more complicated.
The fact is that costs under Medicare have soared, even while trimming Medicare payments to physicians has been the main source of cutting overall costs. If you look at the share of GDP that Medicare will consume in the next 40 years, it's mind boggling...and that's if it grows at half the pace it has the last 30years.
I'll promise you that I'm neither confused, nor stupid about the health care debate - Medicare is a train wreck Roch, and while seniors may be happy with it, it's a mess. It's also the clearest example of why the government should keep it's hands off the remainder of the health care system. The vast majority of people in this country (1) have health insurance and (2) are happy with it - do we need reform...sure we do. But involving the government further is a huge mistake. I don't need to give the public option a chance to understand how bad it is...if you want a glimpse of what it looks like, take a look at the long term outlook for Medicare.
But you don't have to take my word for it Roch, check out the "2007 Long Term Budget Outlook" from the CBO...it will scare the hell out of you on Medicare. Plus, I'm sure President Obama understands this problem, as the report was written by Peter Orszag, President Obama's current Director of the Office of Manangement and Budget....perhaps Peter could share it with his boss.
Finally, if you want to know how the "co ops" in the Senate bill will turn out, check out Fannie Mae.....
Thanks for the comment, Everest. I have read the 2007 Long Term Budget Outlook (well, skimmed it carefully enough to agree with you that it is scary.)
ReplyDeleteYou keep saying that Medicare IS a mess, however. That's not really accurate. The rising costs you attribute to it are, in fact, symptoms of the rise in health care costs, not something unique to medicare. For the sake of Medicare or those insured by other means, I am eager to see serious proposals that will curb the rise in health care costs.
But to suggest that Medicare IS a mess because its projected trajectory on its current course is simple minded, in my opinion. Allowing healthier, younger people to enroll in Medicare as a "public option" would infuse cash. Raising taxes, raising eligibility age, reducing benefits, allowing the government to negotiate drug prices -- these are all things that could change the projected course of Medicare which is not currently a mess and which is only destine to be a mess if we do nothing about it.
Any program that is structured like Medicare, that operates at the current annual deficit it does, and is as inefficient as Medicare IS a mess Roch. And any program that has the long term issues Medicare does to me qualifies as a mess...not sure why that view is simple minded. And while you're at it, ask physicians what they think of Medicare...
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that we could alter the course of Medicare Roch, but none of the Democratic "plans" argue for those changes. Sure, you heard the POTUS and Congress talk about squeezing fraud and waste out of Medicare - but when has either party ever demonstrated an ability to do that? The same Democrat party that suggests it can find $600 BILLION in waste, is the same Democrat party that raised holy hell in the mid-90s when Republicans wanted to simply slow the rate of growth.
None of that addresses the issue of whether the government is competent enough to run health care for the rest of us - you and I could disagree on whether Medicare is a mess or not, or on how to fix it...but I've not seen any evidence that the federal government can run ANYTHING efficiently and effectively (except the military, which Congress doesn't really run)...have you?
"but I've not seen any evidence that the federal government can run ANYTHING efficiently"
ReplyDeleteSee, this is where I realize I'm arguing against an ideology and not reality. Anything? Really? Not a thing, huh?
And describing Medicare as operating at a deficit is inaccurate.
See that's where you lose me...you make assumptions about ideology, based on positions people take..and that's okay, but Roch, there's nothing wrong with ideology. My guess is that you've got one as well...and just because we're making ideological arguements, doesn't in and of itself, mean it's not fact-based.
ReplyDeleteCan you give me an example of something the federal government runs effectively and efficiently? You mean like the Post Office, Amtrak, Medicare, Social Security, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, HUD, FHA, SBA, etc....those are an awful lot of big examples ineffective, inefficient govt. But I'll wait for your examples of programs the government runs that are efficient/effective...
And Medicare "spends" more money each year than it takes in from premiums....isn't that the definition of running a deficit? Perhaps instead of dismissing arguements you don't like as ideology, you could pull out a calculator, and take another look at the Medicare budget...
I am a pragmatist. I have my values, but my first response to an issue is not to think "The less government the better," nor is it "The government should do something."
ReplyDeleteI do not know why you put the military off limits from something the government does well. It's like you want to say, "I don't think the government does anything well if you allow me to exclude this thing we would agree the government does well."
One can find flaws and room for improvement in just about any human enterprise, so "well" is going to be a bit subjective, but I am glad the government keeps planes in the sky from flying into each other (glad they inspect them too). I'm glad they screen passengers before they get on those planes. I'm glad they set and enforce standards for the things we ingest so that, you know, we aren't eating lead or bacteria.
I'm glad they are a phone call away if my house catches on fire or there is a stranger in my back yard.
I am glad that we have a public college system that is the envy of the world and that it gave me and millions of kids every year an education.
And only by ignoring their success at achieving their objectives can you say that Medicare or Social Security have been failures. The fact is that we do have a safety net in this country that works. Ask someone who relies on Medicare if they think it is a failure. Ask the person who otherwise would not have been able to buy a house if they think the FHA or VHA is a failure.
So yeah, set up some arbitrary yardstick that measures something different from the program's objectives and you can define them as failures. They are failures if you don't consider, do they keep fliers safe in the air; don't consider, do they keep our food safe; don't consider do they keep our senior citizens from suffering from lack of medical care; don't consider, do they provide advanced education to our young adults; don't consider, do they rescue us from fires. In short, you can say the government does nothing well only if you define "well" as some impossible standard of perfection or if you substitute your ideology for reality.