The Politics Of Medicare
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
Election season is fast approaching.
Primaries are in May. The general election is in November.
That means it's time for President Clinton to start the biennial process of making Republicans look evil.
Let the games begin.
Just this week, Clinton came forward with two plans - one to expand Medicare coverage and another offering tax breaks and subsidies for child care.
Of course Republicans are telling the president there is no blank check for these these items. And there isn't.
But I can hear the rhetoric already.
The president feeling the pain of old people and children. The evil Republicans refusing to yield.
Everyone knows these proposals play well with the public.
But the question is not whether the programs sound good - they do.
The question is whether they would bebeneficial and whether they are worth the money.
Let's take a look at Medicare.
Medicare is a legacy of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
Medicare spending is out of control. It is expected to go broke around 2002.
In 1965, when LBJ started Medicare, the total federal spending for the year was about $101 billion.
By 2000, we will spend more than four times that amount on Medicare alone. Medicare spending will equal defense spending by then.
Medicare expenditures are forecast to more than double from around $100 billion in 1990 to around $210 billion in 2000.
There has been talk of forming a bipartisan commission to come up with a solution to the Medicare crisis.
The commission hasn't even been formed yet.
Nonetheless, the president comes out with a bold plan to expand Medicare coverage.
The plan would open Medicare coverage to Americans at age 62 instead of 65. They could buy into the program by paying premuims of about $300 per month.
Once they became fully eligible for Medicare at age 65, they would still have to pay slightly higher out-of-pocket fees than those who didn't buy in early.
Clinton says the proposal is fiscally responsible because any additional costs would be paid by the subscriber premium.
I don't believe that.
First of all, many 62-year-olds in this country can't buy health insurance for $300 per month.
Most people, by that age, have some sort of pre-existing condition that boosts their premiums.
The government can't insure those people for $300 a month either. So the program becomes yet another drain on an already overburdened Medicare system.
But beyond that, the program is aimed at some 3 million people between the ages of 62 and 65 who do not have private health insurance.
Think about that for a moment.
If you are between the ages of 62 and 65 and don't have health insurance, what does that mean?
In most cases it means you're not working and you can't afford the insurance on your own.
If you're not working and you can't afford insurance, it generally means one of two things. You're retired or you're disabled.
If you're retired and living on Social Security, you probably can't afford the $300 a month.
If you're disabled and on Social Security, you probably can't afford it either. But even if you can afford it, your disability probably puts you in a high-risk health insurance group. Your premiums will be significantly higher than $300 per month and the government will lose money on you.
So that leaves the people who are retired, probably in pretty good health and who can afford the premiums.
They are the ones who would take advantage of it and they are the ones who least need it.
By Clinton's own admission, only 300,000 of those 3 million people between 62 and 65 without insurance would be helped by the program.
And those 300,000 - the ones with means to afford insurance - probably would feel more comfortable in the private sector anyway. Why would anyone want to buy into an insurance provider that is on the verge of bankruptcy?
I think Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, said it best: "If your mother is on the Titanic and the Titanic is sinking, the last thing on Earth you want to be preoccupied with is getting more passengers on the Titanic."
But again, it sounds good. And if you argue against it, you can be labeled as anti-aged.
Don't be deceived. President Clinton's proposal to expand Medicare is very little about helping the elderly and very much about gaining political advantage in an election year. [[In-content Ad]]
Election season is fast approaching.
Primaries are in May. The general election is in November.
That means it's time for President Clinton to start the biennial process of making Republicans look evil.
Let the games begin.
Just this week, Clinton came forward with two plans - one to expand Medicare coverage and another offering tax breaks and subsidies for child care.
Of course Republicans are telling the president there is no blank check for these these items. And there isn't.
But I can hear the rhetoric already.
The president feeling the pain of old people and children. The evil Republicans refusing to yield.
Everyone knows these proposals play well with the public.
But the question is not whether the programs sound good - they do.
The question is whether they would bebeneficial and whether they are worth the money.
Let's take a look at Medicare.
Medicare is a legacy of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
Medicare spending is out of control. It is expected to go broke around 2002.
In 1965, when LBJ started Medicare, the total federal spending for the year was about $101 billion.
By 2000, we will spend more than four times that amount on Medicare alone. Medicare spending will equal defense spending by then.
Medicare expenditures are forecast to more than double from around $100 billion in 1990 to around $210 billion in 2000.
There has been talk of forming a bipartisan commission to come up with a solution to the Medicare crisis.
The commission hasn't even been formed yet.
Nonetheless, the president comes out with a bold plan to expand Medicare coverage.
The plan would open Medicare coverage to Americans at age 62 instead of 65. They could buy into the program by paying premuims of about $300 per month.
Once they became fully eligible for Medicare at age 65, they would still have to pay slightly higher out-of-pocket fees than those who didn't buy in early.
Clinton says the proposal is fiscally responsible because any additional costs would be paid by the subscriber premium.
I don't believe that.
First of all, many 62-year-olds in this country can't buy health insurance for $300 per month.
Most people, by that age, have some sort of pre-existing condition that boosts their premiums.
The government can't insure those people for $300 a month either. So the program becomes yet another drain on an already overburdened Medicare system.
But beyond that, the program is aimed at some 3 million people between the ages of 62 and 65 who do not have private health insurance.
Think about that for a moment.
If you are between the ages of 62 and 65 and don't have health insurance, what does that mean?
In most cases it means you're not working and you can't afford the insurance on your own.
If you're not working and you can't afford insurance, it generally means one of two things. You're retired or you're disabled.
If you're retired and living on Social Security, you probably can't afford the $300 a month.
If you're disabled and on Social Security, you probably can't afford it either. But even if you can afford it, your disability probably puts you in a high-risk health insurance group. Your premiums will be significantly higher than $300 per month and the government will lose money on you.
So that leaves the people who are retired, probably in pretty good health and who can afford the premiums.
They are the ones who would take advantage of it and they are the ones who least need it.
By Clinton's own admission, only 300,000 of those 3 million people between 62 and 65 without insurance would be helped by the program.
And those 300,000 - the ones with means to afford insurance - probably would feel more comfortable in the private sector anyway. Why would anyone want to buy into an insurance provider that is on the verge of bankruptcy?
I think Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, said it best: "If your mother is on the Titanic and the Titanic is sinking, the last thing on Earth you want to be preoccupied with is getting more passengers on the Titanic."
But again, it sounds good. And if you argue against it, you can be labeled as anti-aged.
Don't be deceived. President Clinton's proposal to expand Medicare is very little about helping the elderly and very much about gaining political advantage in an election year. [[In-content Ad]]