Medicare: Republicans’ Waterloo?

By Bill Colon

Recently, the lower house of the U.S. Congress, controlled by members of the Republican Party, passed a 2012 budget bill that, for all practical purposes, eliminates Medicare “as we know it”. This is the “Ryan’s Budget” proposed by Wisconsin Republican Congressman Paul Ryan.

Why is this important to all Americans? The Medicare program, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, provides guaranteed health insurance to persons over 65 years of age. We older folks believe we are “entitled” to this benefit, as we have paid into the Medicare fund all our working lives. It is part of our safety net, part of our social compact between the government and us, the governed. It might not be in the Constitution, but it is an earned privilege that have for decades protected grandma and grandpa in their elder years.

Nevertheless, this partially free (it is not all free, recipients must purchase additional insurance for prescriptions and certain services) insurance is responsible, along with Social Security payments, for a large part of the federal budget deficit. For many years changes to the benefits to those who reach the age of 65, and the age at which they may access this insurance have been debated. The debate has always been muted, as these entitlement programs were considered the third rail of American politics, not to be touched by either party. Now, due to the country’s deteriorating fiscal condition, it is obvious that changes to Medicare funding must take central stage.

What many were not ready for, nor suspected, was that activists from the conservative wing of the Republican Party would come to control the House of Representatives and pass a budget bill which includes changing the Medicare program from a guaranteed, mostly free, and subsidized health insurance to one which will provide a “voucher” approved up to a certain amount, with the rest of the costs to be assumed by the beneficiary. Estimates by the Congressional Budget Office stipulate that the average senior would have to spend an additional $6,400 per year to cover the services that are currently provided at minimum or no costs.

How would this new program work? There would be no guarantees and it would not be for free. It would leave it up to the owners of large pharmaceutical companies, doctors, hospitals and insurance purveyors to charge our elderly whatever the market would bear. Our older folks would have “choices” to select insurance companies, and in theory, “shop around” for the best deal. Yes, the proponents of the idea are betting that when I reach 80, I’ll be healthy enough and sane enough, to be able to make these kinds of decisions.

This new program, without intervention and little government protection,  would expose the elderly and their families to more poverty, ill health, and—to some—an early death sentence as some would not be able to bear the costs that now are covered by  Medicare. Many may have to choose between using their limited resources to buy food, or buy medicine.

This is a crazy idea. It is also heartless.

It is heartless as this is still the richest country in the world. This is the country that has the resources and a unique history of always taking care of those who are less fortunate. Sadly, this is also the country that grants tax exemptions and subsidies to the super-rich and the large corporations whereby they pay little or no federal taxes. Or, as in the case of one of our largest oil producers last year, pay no taxes and receive a refund of $159 million.

Obviously we need to make changes to Medicare funding. We have to live within our means. But this heartless proposal is not the way to go. There are other more reasonable ideas, and there have to be more “shared” sacrifice from those who benefit the most in this society.

Fortunately, we have seen the appropriate reaction of the vast majority of thinking people in repudiation of Congressman Ryan’s idea. The latest opinion polls show that 80% of the public is opposed to this radical notion.

If the Republicans persist in embracing and pursuing this putrid solution, it might as well be their Waterloo, and the party will be condemned to be in the minority for years to come.

# # #