Today's Wall Street Journal has an editorial, "Medicare for Dummies", that pretty much explains why we shouldn't entrust health care to the government. The editorial makes the following points about the President's use of Medicare as an example of why we should trust him (and Congress) with our health care.
For example, the President used Medicare's unfunded liability of $37 trillion as a "selling point". As the WSJ says he used "Medicare's insolvency as an argument to justify the creation of another health-care entitlement, this time for most everyone under age 65. It's like a variation on the old Marx Brothers routine: 'The soup is terrible and the portions are too small.'
As astonishing, Mr. Obama claimed he can finance universal health care without adding "one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period," in large part by pumping money out of Medicare. The $880 billion Senate plan he all but blessed this week would cut Medicare by as much as $500 billion, mainly by cutting what Mr. Obama called "waste and abuse." Perhaps this is related to the "waste and abuse" that Congresses of both parties have targeted dozens of times without ever cutting it."
The President means it this time though. The WSJ put it this way, "Mr. Obama means it, though he said this doesn't mean seniors should listen to "demagoguery and distortion" about Medicare cuts. That's because Medicare is a "sacred trust," and the President swore to "ensure that you—America's seniors—get the benefits you've been promised."
So no cuts, for anyone—except, that is, for the 24% of senior beneficiaries who are enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program, which Democrats want to slash by $177 billion or more because it is run by private companies. Mr. Obama called that money 'unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies—subsidies that do everything to pad their profits but don't improve the care of seniors.' "
The editorial points out that the President further showed how serious he was about waste. The Journal says he " did also promise to create "an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead." That kind of board is precisely what has many of the elderly worried about government rationing of treatment: As ever-more health costs are financed by taxpayers, something will eventually have to give on care the way it has in every other state-run system.
But Mr. Obama told seniors not to pay attention to 'those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut, especially since some of the folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past and just this year supported a budget that would essentially have turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program.' "
Oh, and the WSJ said the President called for "'civility' in debate even as he calls the arguments of his critics lies.' So in the spirit of civility, we won't accuse the President of lying about Medicare. We'll just say his claims bear little relation to anything true."
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 16
go figure.
My question regarding the "cut $500 billion of waste and abuse".
He has yet to use "line item veto" on the "pork" that went through earlier. I bet if he had, he'd have his $500 billion without gouging the seniors!
"actions speak louder than words' maybe if he'd vetoed the wasteful spending earlier, I might buy his story... but right now, I think he's hoodwinking the general populace.
A recent survey found the news pages of th WSJ to be to the left of the NYT, while the op-ed pages were very conservative.
That's something for everybody!
Also, if I recall the bills my mother got from her health-care providers correctly, they had notice that stated that Medicare patients were not legally obligated to pay any amount beyond the amount that Medicare paid due the terms to which health-care providers agreed when they accept patients who are on Medicare.
That may be a bit of a simplification, but essentially it means that unless you go to a doctor several times a year, have lots of diagnostic test or lots of prescription or are hospitalized, the insurance companies are making money on the Medicare Advantage plans the patient is still stuck with co-payments and the Medicare fund is deprived of money that the insurance companies do not have pay out.
From what I have deduced Obama is not lying about Medicare and savings that could result from the streamlining of the payment process.
We are not clones, we are individuals. So, don't try to tell me whether or not Advantage is a good deal because you don't know my situation. It may not have been for your mother and she may have made other choices, but that's her right.
In the case of Advantage, once before Congress voted it in and many people selected this option. But, a new party took control and decided to cut the reimbursement for Advantage, so many companies dropped the program. Millions of Medicare beneficiaries had to find new supplemental coverage and many lost drug coverage. The politicians weren't looking out for seniors (any more than they are now), they were playing politics with the Medicare budget.
Regarding savings, the President is going to cut $500 billion out of Medicare without telling seniors just how he is going to save the money. If he is wrong, Medicare will be in worse financial shape than it is now, and seniors are worried. Our seniors are right not to trust any politician until they see the details, but so far, he hasn't given us the details of any of his proposals.