Washington, DC felt like a city on a deathwatch this week, after a series of White House news leaks said the president would announce cuts to Medicare and Social Security benefits next Monday.
One plan was to raise the eligibility age for Medicare and Social Security. Another involved an accounting gimmick that would cut the already-inadequate cost of living adjustments for Social Security benefits -- and raise taxes on the middle class, too.
The response was negative, as most people might expect. Very, very negative.
Come Monday
Ever since these trial balloons were first floated, many elected Democrats have been dreading next Monday's speech. They saw these proposals as a fatal blow to their reelection chances.
Another dark cloud was hanging over public interest groups who represent older Americans, sound economic policy, or improvements to our health care system. They understood the damage these ideas could cause.
That was then, this is now. Today the clouds lifted... some of them, anyway.
Partly Cloudy
Today's leak, as reported in the Wall Street Journal and many other outlets, cites "people familiar with the discussions" who now say Monday's deficit reduction proposal "will leave out changes to Social Security" and "may" -- note the use of that word, "may" -- "may exclude any increase in the Medicare eligibility age."
Those "discussions" are internal White House deliberations, which means the "people familiar with them" are on the President's staff. That makes these leaks real and official, and they bring good news about Social Security.
Political and advocacy groups have been making their feelings known to the White House, and they deserve credit for the change in plans. So does the president, who was open-minded and flexible enough to see the wisdom in their arguments.
That's the good news.
What's left (isn't "left")
What's left to fix in Monday's speech? There's still that word "may" in those comments from his staff. The decision to protect Social Security is a smart one, but if the president goes ahead with his plan to raise the Medicare age it will still be a political and policy disaster. The blowback won't come from the "left," as Washington insiders might think, but from voters all across the political spectrum.
Remember, 51% of Republicans wanted the public option, which was a way of making Medicare available to all Americans. And they were right. This country is being strangled by runaway health care costs. The solution to that problem is making Medicare available to more people, not less.
A plan for insurance companies (and those who love them)
We've already listed eight reasons why raising the Medicare age is a truly terrible idea -- possibly the worst in a season of terrible policy ideas. Where did it come from? One likely source is the health insurance industry, which is giving it as warm a public reception as it possibly can without killing it.
Why wouldn't they like it? It would hand them millions of new customers, just as they were handed millions of new customers when the public option was scrapped from a bill that required people to purchase insurance products.
This idea found two Senators to propose it: Conservative Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and conservative (non) Democrat Joe Lieberman, the insurance-friendly Senator from Connecticut.
If the president proposes this Coburn/Lieberman idea on Monday, he'll be offering the insurance industry a bonanza while infuriating seniors -- and pretty much everybody else, too.
The deficit that dare not speak its name
That's not to say we don't have a long-term deficit problem, or that Medicare isn't a huge part of it. It's the biggest part of it, in fact, as this chart clearly shows:
This chart shows that we can't afford to let profiteers make millions off our elderly and sick populations any longer. The real "deficit hawks," as opposed to the phonies, are the people who understand this. It can't be fed by taking more from the pockets of older Americans. We have a systemic problem that requires systemic solutions.
The president should reject the Coburn-Lieberman-insurance industry proposal, and use this as an opportunity to demand that his opponents address the real source of our long-term spending problem: runaway profits for drug companies, insurance companies, and for-profit medical providers.
Just Say No to Drug Manufacturers
There are several steps that can be taken immediately, and reports suggest the president is seriously considering one of them. They say he'll propose letting Medicare use its buying power to negotiate discount prices with the drug companies, which it should have been allowed to do all along. That's a smart move that would save hundreds of billions of dollars from the Federal budget.
It would also save money for America's seniors by lowering their out-of-pocket costs. That, in turn, would have an immediate stimulus effect by freeing up billions of dollars, which seniors will then spend on goods and services. That means more jobs.
What a three-fer: Cut the deficit, help our seniors, and create a no-cost economic stimulus at the same time! Anybody who doesn't support that idea has lost the right to be called a "deficit hawk," and must instead be called a "pro-drug company politician."
Smart Ideas
We can do other creative things to address Medicare costs. Medical students, like other young people, graduate with unprecedented and onerous levels of debt. Why not implement a debt-forgiveness program for young physicians who agree to dedicate a certain percentage of their work to providing Medicare services for which there is a shortage of doctors?
We need more studies on which forms of treatment really work, and which force patients to endure needless suffering while driving up costs. The Dartmouth Atlas and other studies show that many surgeries are unnecessary -- and extremely costly. We're not talking about "death panels." We're talking about making sure nobody cuts you open unless it's going to help you.
That's only common sense. It's how the British and Canadians do it. For all the scare talk, one fact is inescapable: Their health plans are much cheaper than ours. And the only plan in this country that approaches theirs in public approval is... Medicare.
Will Power
As the distinguished physician and policy expert Ezekiel Emanuel pointed out (yes, he's Rahm's brother): "Cost-shifting cuts don't actually reduce health care spending; they just shift costs from the government to the private sector." If you do that enough, with foolishly-designed industry giveaways like raising the Medicare age, you'll create even more economic chaos and doom seniors to a life of poverty.
The president should be commended for deciding against unwise moves against Social Security. Now he has an opportunity to defend Medicare, too, and to propose deficit solutions that really work -- while making things better for everyone.
Today they're saying the president's plan "may exclude any increase in the Medicare eligibility age." It's time to turn that "may" into a "will." It's time to say he will exclude that increase, and that we have the political "will" to fix our real Medicare problem:
Greed.
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Reasons for doctors to be in favor are clear in the CBO analysis of medicare as a "public option", as introduced in Congress as H.R. 4789 March 9, 2010: approximately 13 million people would enroll, pay premiums 5-7% lower than for private health insurance, put "competitive pressure" on private insurance plans, and reduce the Federal Budget deficit $88 Billion from 2011-2021; additional premium revenue means Congress could eliminate reductions in payments to physicians from "sustainable growth rate" formulas, and allow annual increases in payments to reflect estimated increases in physicians' costs. Why wouldn't doctors like that? And Medicare protects recipients from insurance strategies that limit access to care.
My resolution seeking support for Medicare as a public option from the Pennsylvania Medical Society will be voted on at our Annual Meeting in Hershey PA next weekend, Oct. 15-16, 2011. I hope my fellow doctors don't refuse to take this measure of good medicine.
http://redwriteblue.blog.com/2011/02/17/polaris-snowmobile-heads-south/
That said, we're still left with the problem of ballooning costs for Social Security, which the President will apparently vow to leave untouched. While raising the retirement age almost certainly will lead to the problem you mentioned, we're still left with this stark reality: when Social Security began in the 1930's, the average lifespan was around 63 -- not very many people lived long enough to qualify for full benefits. Today it is about 77 for men and 78 for women. Yet the retirement age is unchanged for the oldest Americans, and the current one for people in my age bracket -- 66 (I'm 60) -- is only a one-year rise compared to a 14-year rise in life expectancy. And that pig can't fly forever; it's strings will break.
I don't know the answers. But what we now have is impossible over the long haul.
Our country's economic problems are caused by not enough Americans working full-time, paying income taxes and contributing to their Social Security accounts. The "Workforce Participation Rate" is only 58%! If you have a day-off during the week, check-out all the people sitting around CoffeeBucks in the middle of the morning instead of being at work.
This is result of the corporations not increasing hiring as a strategy to keep the unemployment number high until the presidential election. They figure that with a Republican president and Senate they will get the Zero income tax rate that they want. Have you noticed the ABCCBSNBC news programs saying that the President's "Approval" and political poll numbers are at their lowest level? This is all part of the "endless campaign" that we are being forced to endure.
The corporations are the source of our economic problems:
http://www.flixya.com/blog/3201910/Beautiful-Butterflys
5 painful health-care lessons from Massachusetts
Lesson 1: The Massachusetts plan does not control costs.
Lesson 2: Community rating, guaranteed issue and mandated benefits swell costs.
Lesson 3: Huge subsidies for low-to-medium earners could prove extremely expensive
Lesson 4: The exchanges reward people for working less and earning less
Lesson 5: The generous plans and added mandates give employers an incentive to drop health insurance
http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/massachusetts_healthcare_reform.fortune/index.htm
Clearly we have a cost problem in healthcare and its not insurance. It’s the providers and the system that allows them to pour unlimited care into people who do not benefit much from it – but try telling that to an 85 year old sick person….
We need better healthcare controls but NOT Canadian style universal care…
The health insurers for the seniors are making a profit, so don't be fooled by the Republican Tax Cut Crybabies:
http://www.flixya.com/blog/3022553/Health-Insurance-Choices
http://www.medicalmegatrends.com/cost.html
The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law (sobriquet: "Romneycare"),[1] enacted in 2006, mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)[2]
and this loser model is what Dems would love to see in the US and will as companies drop coverage for workers because its cheaper to "pay the fine". Get ready for disaster....
Obama needs to stop compromising or he will be defeated in a primary.
We need to let the corporations know that we will appreciate them hiring Americans to get the Recovery going:
http://www.flixya.com/blog/3201910/Beautiful-Butterflys
http://redwriteblue.blog.com/2011/02/17/polaris-snowmobile-heads-south/
That is a Washington, DC thing. Real Americans are
worried about a job. Washington, DC has detathed
its self from reality. The new definition for middle class
is someone that lives from check to check, with a
good credit rating. Talk about Nero fiddles while
Romee burns, the damn millionaires in congress
have a snake breeder testify while Americans
worry about a job, or feeding their children or
their next meal.
I AM SICK OF PROFESSIONAL, DO NOTHING POLITICIANS!!!
Mr. President, being seen as a successful President means you must be seen as a great leader, who drives the national debate, is not only driven by others to take defensive, non-decisive actions and rhetoric. Mr.President, your re-election opporutnity is on the line, your legacy is on the line, your place in history is on the line and you MUST man-up, stand-up, speak-up and do the right thing-NOW-time is running out.
LEAD, DO NOT LECTURE!
If you really want Obama to get in front of this issue, then perhaps he should admit that the version of healthcare "reform" he pushed for was a mistake, and instead campaign for something that will actually benefit the rest of the country, rather than himself and his contributors.
http://www.flixya.com/blog/3022553/Health-Insurance-Choices
The Washington political elite have been cynical for a long time with the American public -- elite which are bought and paid for by those wealthy contributors such as Pfizer and Wellpoint.
and they all have powerful lobbies....
http://www.flixya.com/blog/3022553/Health-Insurance-Choices
(i) Medicare and Medicaid are way too expensive
(ii) the way to cut these costs is to be brutal with the cost of health and the private health providers
(iii) Health business cannot be shipped abroad so any tackle of costs would have close tono impact on US international competitiveness, rather the opposite
-> force down the cost of medication
-> limit cost of medical intervention
On the opposite also, forbid penalty damages to be awarded in health lawsuits (only damages should be allowed, there should not be any further awards post damages).