Tag Archives: medicare

Fighting ground.

Okay, let’s get one thing out of the way at the start: very few people enjoy paying taxes. To that I can only add my own personal observation that the people who seem to complain the loudest about taxes are the ones who can most afford to pay them. They have an excellent means of making their complaints heard, too – it’s called the Republican Party. In fact, in service to those who would pay not a single dime more than the historic low rates they’re paying today, the G.O.P. is creating a default crisis out of whole cloth by linking the authorization of additional borrowing to the conclusion of a draconian budget agreement that will gut the essential social programs they have always sought to defund, privatize, etc.

The two things, of course, have nothing to do with one another in the real world. Raising the debt ceiling is merely addressing financial commitments that have already been agreed upon. It is something the Republicans have gladly passed many times before under their own presidents, as well as under Democrats. They have seized upon it because it offers an opportunity to, in effect, put the entire nation up against a wall until we give up on the idea of not spending our elderly years in penury. (That’s sooooo 1960’s of us.) The Republicans see an opportunity here to realize what they could never accomplish during George W. Bush’s tenure – privatization of Medicare, pirating Social Security, and locking in massive tax cuts from now until perdition. And they sense, perhaps correctly, that the Democrats don’t have enough fight in them to stop it.

I will gladly crib Bernie Sanders, Keith Ellison, and Dean Baker on this – Social Security is not – repeat, not – part of any budgetary problem. It is fully self-funding for the next 25 years with no changes whatsoever. How many programs can make that claim? The G.O.P. and spineless Democrats merely want to pirate the fund to pay for extending Bush tax cuts for the richest people in the country. Regarding Medicare and Medicaid, they are single-payer systems dedicated to the elderly, poor, disabled, and stricken amongst us. The rest of us – those who are relatively young, fit, and almost never need a doctor – are reserved for the profit of private insurers. Single payers systems only pay for themselves when everyone – sick and well, old and young, rich and poor – participates in them. If we want to solve the funding problem, we need to decide whether we can continue to afford contriving a profitable market for companies like BlueCross.

In short, the deficit hawks in the Republican caucuses are blackmailing us into funding tax breaks for wealthy people – including the fuckers who caused the financial crisis – by crippling our already inadequate social safety net.  I say, call their bluff. This is ground worth fighting for.

luv u,

jp

Medigap.

My first thought at a Democrat winning the 26th district congressional race in upstate New York was one of deja vu. Didn’t this happen two years ago, with that seat up near Watertown, when McHugh was appointed Army Secretary? Bill Owens won, then won again last fall – the only Democrat in my little backwater region of upstate to manage reelection, as it turned out. Dems and liberal commentators tried to read that race as a bellwether, too, but it didn’t turn out to be predictive at all of the 2010 election. What matters is what the party does in between. If the Dems sit on their asses and wait for the check to arrive, they’ll be sorely disappointed.

There’s no denying, though, that this speaks to a strong undercurrent of distrust in the Medicare “reform” cooked up by Paul Ryan and company. As much as they try to dress up their voucher / privatization program, it’s still just a pig with way too much lipstick, and any fool can see it.  I am a bit heartened that their attempt to buy off the elderly by saying their privatization scheme would only affect people under 55 (i.e. me) has thus far failed miserably. Perhaps they neglected to consider that eighty-year-olds might have fifty-year-old children. In the midst of all their yak about family values, they apparently forgot about families. Nice try, mothers!

This should be a gift to Democrats, but if they keep participating in the GOP narrative about deficit reduction, any political benefit will evaporate. Democrats have to overcome the generalized distrust people tend to have for all politicians, and they won’t do that by agreeing to choke off the sick, poor, and elderly person’s lifeline a little bit more gradually than their colleagues across the aisle. If they’re truly on the side of ordinary people, they should say to the Republicans: Want to cut the deficit? Bring tax rates on the wealthy at least back to where they were prior to 2001… or wherever they need to be. Shut down the wars, shutter the overseas bases, and cancel the over-the-top weapons programs. And join the rest of the developed world in building a single payer health care system for everyone, not just the oldest, poorest, and sickest people in the country. And by the way – insist that everything the U.S. government purchases is made in America.  

Do all that, and if there’s still a massive long-term deficit, I’ll eat my shoes. (I don’t have a hat.)

luv u,

jp

Wunderkind.

Paul Ryan has come up with a remarkable innovation – gradually bring elderly and disabled folks back to the standard of living they enjoyed in the 1930s. Brilliant! Obviously the idea behind moving Medicare to a voucher system is to save the government – and, therefore, the collective “us” – money.  But it’s only a savings if you don’t count the vast, vast majority of elderly people for whom that voucher will be worth very little in terms of health services. This is a very serious issue for anyone planning to become elderly one day. (Note: if you care nothing about the elderly and disabled and plan on jumping off a cliff when you turn 65, the Ryan plan will probably be fine by you.)

I’ve blogged about this before, so forgive me for covering the same ground – it’s just that when a person of influence advances a legislative plan that overtly calls for the dismemberment of Medicare and Medicaid, I feel compelled to repeat myself. This isn’t a question of saving money. This is a question of what we collectively decide is necessary to preserve the well-being of the nation. I’m not trying to appeal to your sense of charity. I’m saying that virtually every one of us is liable to need this type of coverage at some point in his/her life. Like investing in first responders, this is something we all have an interest in preserving.

No matter how much Ryan and his associates claim that is precisely what they are trying to do, don’t buy it. A voucher plan will throw elderly people into the private insurance market – one that is already way too expensive for pre-retirees to afford. What kind of premium will an Excellus ask of a 75 year old with a weak ticker? Seriously… Medicare is there for a reason. Before its existence, elderly people relied on charity, family members, etc., and many had access to neither.

The only reason why wunderkind Ryan and his express can feel comfortable criticizing such vital programs is that Medicare and Medicaid cost so much. They do because they cover those most prone to serious illnesses. If we had a reasonable single-payer system – Medicare for all – the system would also cover those many millions of us who see a doctor once a year and no more. Include them (i.e. us) and the system will finance itself. And frankly, wouldn’t you be willing to trade whatever plan you have (if you have one) for Medicare coverage at a reasonable cost?

Note to Dems: there’s a reason why Medicare is a third rail issue. It’s because it’s freaking necessary.  

luv u,

jp

Payback time.

The election is barely past us and corporate America is already knocking on our door for the rent.

Speaking of timing, former Sen. Alan Simpson and former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, co-chairs of the president’s commission on deficit reduction, have agreed we should gut Social Security, Medicare. Well, there’s a surprise – both have an execrable history of animosity towards these quite successful social programs. (Simpson’s contempt for elderly people is palpable and disgusting, and he never misses an opportunity to toss a rhetorical brick at them.) Of course, their proposal also calls for tax cuts for the rich and for corporations. Again, no surprises there.

This is just the latest chapter in the attack against the poor, working class, elderly, and infirm that has been underway for decades in this country. Time and time again they have sought to undermine Social Security, to loot its trust fund, and to convert it into something it was never intended to be – an instrument for the creation of private wealth. Social Security is a supplemental guaranteed retirement program and, as such, an extremely successful one. It has kept elderly people (at least the ones who did not retire on a mountain of money, like Simpson) out of poverty for seven decades. Likewise, Medicare has not only made the elderly more financially secure, but it has also improved their quality of life in demonstrable ways. Not for nothing that these are the most popular social programs in America.

It may mean little to Simpson, Bowles, and many who share their views that people they don’t know will have to work until 68 or 70 and do without adequate cost of living adjustments in their old age. It sure as hell matters to me, and I imagine to many others as well. Social Security is not on the brink of bankruptcy – far from it. They just want to use its revenues to cover our government’s bad decisions with regard to financial regulation and foreign policy – decisions that have cost trillions of dollars over the last decade alone. Now we are being asked to pay for those criminal actions. There can be only one answer to that.

Don’t know, but we may have to take a page out of France’s book. If it takes standing in the street to protect the lives and livelihoods of ordinary people, it’s goddamned worth it.

luv u,

jp

Contact with America.

First item: the Democrats are among the most exasperating political parties on Earth. They seem to have an innate sense of how to alienate their core voters, casting over the side any item of legislative action – the public option, Medicare expansion, don’t ask don’t tell, the fight over middle class vs. top 3% marginal tax rate reductions, etc. – that is remotely popular.

That said, let’s look at their opponents. Probably a good idea, since there’s an election coming up. And these folks look pretty grisly. Oddly, they picked what looked like a Home Depot lumber department to announce their “Pledge To America”, a lobbyist-written document full of stuff that would make, well, lobbyists very happy. (Perhaps the choice of venue is their way of telegraphing the kinds of jobs they plan to create. How do you look in an orange vest?) Rather than talking about what’s in the document, let’s look at what they didn’t put in there… but which they advocate none the less:

Privatization of Social Security. It’s no secret that most if not all G.O.P. legislators are in favor of converting Social Security into a glorified 401(k) plan with private accounts. This has long been their goal, given their hostility to the very notion of the social contract that is at the heart of that very successful program. They will, like W. Bush and others (including, amazingly, more than a few Democrats), appeal to individual greed in hopes of building support for ending this guaranteed supplemental income that has lifted elderly people from poverty for the past seventy years.

Gutting Medicare. They hate this one, too, no matter what they tell you. The Republicans want to move to something more like a voucher system, so that old and sick folks can go out and buy coverage on the open market – so easy to do when you’re old and sick. Is Medicare losing money? I would expect so, since it only covers (wait for it) old and sick people. If they want it to be solvent, why not expand it to include everybody… including those who don’t need a lot of care? I’m just saying.

Dismantling the Veteran’s Administration medical system. Same deal – vouchers instead of reliable care. This has been shamefully advanced by John McCain, whose beer-heiress wife will pay his medical bills if needed, no doubt.

Nothing particularly new in this list. And there are those amongst the Democrats who would jump right on board with most or all of it. But if the Republicans fail to gain a majority, they would never have the opportunity to do so… so let’s save them (and us) from themselves.

luv u,

jp

Health and taxes.

There’s a t.v. ad that runs almost constantly in my area featuring a “regular-guy” type grocery store owner (not many of those left) complaining about the proposed soft drink tax in New York State. At some point in the ad he says, “Taxes never made anyone healthy.” Interesting statement. I guess he’s never heard of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, various Health and Human Services programs, and any number of other government services, from OSHA to the FDA, that in some respect help us stay healthier as a result of tax revenues. Yeah, I know the ad is about a “sin” tax, but you can also see how taxes on cigarettes and alcohol have had a positive effect health-wise. In a sense, it’s just a way of having the price of something reflect the true cost. Sure, we want people to be healthier. But we also want to recover some of the cost of their NOT being healthy, like emergency care costs for people who sugar themselves into heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and the like. Don’t we?

I’ve probably been on this rant before, but this is such a fundamental problem in our society that it cannot be said often enough. Nobody likes paying taxes. Nobody likes taking their medicine, either (well, most people don’t), or eating their oatmeal, or washing behind their ears, or doing their homework, etc. But at some point we must put childish ways behind us (1 Corinthians 13:11 – got your bible right here, kids!) and face up to the simple fact that, yes friends, we get what we pay for… and only that. If we want to have a modern society, we have to pony up some cash to pay for it. I think that should be done in the most equitable way possible – those more able to pay pay more, those less able to pay pay less, those not able to pay pay nothing. The usual method. But taking a “taxation is bad” philosophy to its most absurd extreme is just… well… childish and short-sighted.

And yet the philosophy continues to command respect. Somehow people like Grover Norquist and his ilk are still listened to, still asked for guidance. Meanwhile, the nation’s infrastructure is falling apart, our last major investments (beyond maintenance) in roads, bridges, tunnels, rail lines, etc., now decades old. A stiff wind storm knocks out power to whole states. Instead of investing in the future of this country, we’re putting band-aids over compound fractures. The most striking irony is that these programs are being starved by the kind of deficit hawks who constantly claim that they are doing this for our children and our grandchildren, i.e. not leaving them a huge debt. Fine. There’s a solution. Get people to understand that we need to pay for things, and that civilization is not free. That’s the central point of health reform, lackluster as it may be.

It’s just that we’ve reached the point, particularly in places like California, where people want all these services, but they won’t let their representatives raise the revenues to pay for them. Sorry… that will never work for long.

luv u,

jp