The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Wolraich's picture

    Republicans' Medicare Blunder

    By Michael Wolraich on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 10:13am | Politics

    In town hall meetings being held across the country during Congress' two-week recess, American citizens are filling the ears of Republican legislators with objections to the party's budget plan, particularly proposed changes to Medicare that would replace direct coverage with subsidies for private insurance.

    Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pennsylvania, quoted in a New York Times article Tuesday, tried to play down the objections, but his explanation inadvertently exposed the flaw in his party's political strategy.

    "I am not sensing the general public is angered over Medicare reform," he insisted. "When I explain that people over 55 are not affected there is almost a sigh of relief."

    In other words, Barletta believes his constituents will only tolerate "reform" that does not personally affect them.

    This offhand acknowledgement belies the obvious truth that Republicans are loath to admit: Americans actually like their supposedly bloated, inefficient, bureaucratic, government health insurance, and they do not trust for-profit insurance companies to do it better. They like their socialized medicine so much that they're willing to give hell to anyone who threatens to take it away.

    Read the full story at CNN.com

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Being under 55 this gets under my skin of course, because I've paid into this system for 30 years, and the knuckle-headed Republicans believe that I should not get to benefit from all those payments I've made. I do believe they won't get away with this, and I am glad they are out with their crazy ideas, I am convinced it will hurt them in  2012. Yet, I do get nervous about it, cause you know, the R's get their way so often.


    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 10:45am

    And this entire time I thought you were a spry 83!


    by Richard Day on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 1:12pm

    Michael, Michael:

    Why can't you lay aside the left wing attacks that serve no purpose. I understand that you are in the business of selling books; however we have to start pulling together to save our great nation. Throwing stones have never benefited anyone. The Right and the Left have to start thinking that our National Treasury is not a giant Piggy Bank. We do not need managers like Bernie to handle our books. We need mediators that care able the Nation first.

    Our young men and women shed their blood everyday to give you the opportunity to share your one sided opinion. Why don't you start taking on issues that will save us from bankruptcy so they have a country left to come home to?

    We will allows have differences but we need to focus on issues we can come together on. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have all the answers individually. But by joining together on proper management; they can and must find solutions.

    I challenge you to walk one week in someone else's shoes and try to see both sides with an open mind. I rather doubt if you can, but it would make you a stronger American.

    Thanks for letting me sound off.

    Dan Cool


    by Daniel in Davenport (not verified) on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 11:59am

    Michael is in the business of selling books?  My friend, you may or may not agree with our pal Michael (his real name is Genghis by the way), but I can tell you that he is far more than just one who seeks to sell his book.  

    And, respectfully, the fact that you mention "mediator" doesn't make your opinion anything other than one-sided as well--which is fine, but people in glass houses. . .


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 1:38pm

    Now that Daniel in Davenport's hero, the tax cutting Great White War President is neither in office, nor in the business of selling his wars, freedom, or trillion dollar Wall Street bailouts, all of which seriously drained the sacred 'national Piggy Bank' and benefited no one but war profiteers, the GOP, the Tinpot Dictator from Crawfords re-election, and most of all, Iranian Mullahs and terrorists, we all have to 'join together' and 'find solutions'.  It was not so when we were instructed we were either 'with Bush or against him' and simply had to shop while imbibing the lies and supporting the war crimes of The Decider.

    Dan, I challenge you to walk in the shoes of someone who has known the GOP is full of shit for over 20 years, and who didn't believe anything George W. Bush ever said, and then ask yourself why Genghis or anyone else should take advice from the Limbaugh/Murdoch fantasy land you apparently live within?


    by NCD on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 7:02pm

    "If Republicans had been honest about their message of shared sacrifice to address the national debt, they might have had a shot. But in combining Medicare cuts with tax breaks for the rich, they have run afoul of the most basic rule of democratic politics: People vote for themselves."

    Yes. I think this glaring absurdity - deficit reduction through tax cuts - is a much better talking point than the other point I keep hearing from Dem party policy wonks - that Ryancare is just like Obamacare. I mean, sure, it shows that the GOP were being disingenuous in opposing the latter, but it obviously also exposes the Democrats to the same charge:

    - their scaremongering over Ryancare is utterly disingenuous as well.

    The architecture and cost-cutting philosophy of the two plans is the same - market discipline, consumer choice, profit-driven innovation. So you can't in consistency buy into one and not the other. Both parties are letting their partisanship get int he way of a good deal.

    It seems like a reasonable centrist compromise would be to take the Ryancare proposal and increase the subsidy, and stop all the hysterics on both sides. The two parties are in reality very close to one another.

    There are of course a few extremists on the left that believe this whole market-based solution is utterly bonkers and that single-payer government programs like Medicare should be the model for future cost-cutting, and should be bolstered not gutted. But fringe elements are crazy and stupid and unrealistic.


    by Obey on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 12:36pm

    Obey,

    Truly, no one party will have to give up all of their beliefs and I'm okay with that. But just as we teach our young children in pre-school; screaming and taking eachother's toys is inproper behavior. We can not have a prosperous society this way.

    We must work together. I want a better life for my children and grandchildren. I do not mind sacrificing for them.

    Our President needs to start leading with the same energy that he puts into his campaign. But not from the far left, but rather somewhere in the middle. Let Americans help solve this. It has and will work.

    .... Dan


    by Daniel in Davenport (not verified) on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 1:05pm

    Dan, most of us here hope that Obama moves to the middle, in that it would require him moving to the left to get there.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 1:15pm

    Very well put!

    ;0)


    by Obey on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 1:45pm

    SECONDED!


    by Richard Day on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 2:36pm

    I may be crazy, but I'm pretty sure I'm not stupid. Happy to say I remain somewhat idealistic, though.

    If you can explain to me in a rational way, why it is better to spend a proportion of "health care dollars" on an industry that complicates it with paperwork and bureaucracy, and whose goals are NOT patient-centered but driven by the motive of profit....as opposed to a system (which may be imperfect but works well in many other parts of the world, including our Northern neighbors) but is divorced from profit-making, and spends it's dollars on health care.....I'd love to hear your explanation

    If your idea of "centrist" is adopt the Ryan plan, I wonder if you realize that the reason we have Medicare is because insurers would not insure the elderly unless they had many more bucks than any subsidy you can imagine.

    Hysterics? Fear mongering? Obey, I was 55 and could not get insurance that was worth anything ($5000 deductible per year, with $900 a month premiums. In other words, almost $16,000 a year out of pocket before they would pay one penny!)

    The only way out of this mess is: Accept that it will cost some money and be willing to pay for it Share the risk with old and young, healthy and sick so the burden is spread --universal coverage Get the insurance companies back to insuring for unexpected things in life!


    by CVille Dem on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 1:21pm

    Just to be clear - I think Ryancare is a terrible idea. Horrifyingly catastrophic if implemented.

    What I'm saying is the following: I don't see how anyone who can on the one hand laud the centerpiece of Obamacare - the insurance exchanges - as a great idea and at the same time compare Ryancare to the spawn of Satan. The two plans are based on exactly the same flawed philosophy, a philosophy pushed by the private sector insurance and provider industries. If Ryancare is a terrible idea ... so are the insurance exchanges.

    So my problem is that the Democrats have spent the best part of the last 2 years arguing for this kind of idea for everyone under 65. They've spent a ton of money trying to get everyone to love it. They've been preaching the wonderful virtues of private sector profit-driven cost control and innovation. And they have been pooh-poohing leftists who consider it a dangerous ideological sellout, dangerous precisely because it makes utterly insane ideas like Ryan's seem totally reasonable and centrist.

    The Democratic party has already done all the propaganda groundwork for Ryancare to have a shot at passing. If enough people who trust the Dems believe their arguments about market-based reform, then that might just put the GOP proposal over the top.

    And, if so, then the Democratic party have only themselves to blame.


    by Obey on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 1:44pm

    Well...then there's stuff like this, unless Vermont and the other states we were clapping like seals in rut for...  at least those of us of the single payer ilk were...


    by we are stardust on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 2:41pm

    Well no shit!

    The whole point of the insurance exchanges was to stop the gradual trend towards single-payer, both at the Federal level and at the state level. At the federal level, up until Obamacare there was a bipartisan agreement on expanding public programs - Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP. It was gradually picking up those who were getting priced out of the private market. On the state level single payer has been gaining steam for some time as well. And the PPACA makes that conveniently illegal.

    The general strategy was clear as soon as they dropped the state waiver and the public option, fobbing the left off with 'hey, we'll give all the corporate goodies out now and ask for the quid pro quo ... well ... later'. I don't know who the hell thought this was a good idea.


    by Obey on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 2:52pm

    Mmmm.  Tiny correction or addition?  The general strategy was to get the moderate Dems to blast away at "Once the bill's in place, we can improve upon it", with hefty doses of FDR history and whatnot, and fuel the "If it saves one life' rhetoric, IMO.  Now one life is worth plenty, especially a kid's life, but not this Romney-crap that even Romney's running away from as 'Presidential Candidate Romney'.


    by we are stardust on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 3:14pm

    Great comments, Obey. Just trying to get this straight.

    In the legislation as it stands, states can "opt out" of exchanges in 2017, but would have to set them up first (how absurd is that?).

    The Wyden/Brown bill would allow states to apply for waivers now and then opt out in 2014--without having to set up exchanges first. They would be free to set up all manner of new plans, including single payer, if the minimum federal level of benefits was maintained.  States could also handle mandates and employer requirements as they saw fit.

    This whole debate is going to be fascinating from a Red State, Blue state perspective. Red states will try to weaken the waiver so as to reduce benefits (this is already being phrased as "give them more room to experiment"). Blue states will just try to get the waivers passed by hook or crook without gutting benefits overall or giving insurance companies new angles they don't already have.  


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 11:08am

    Hi Oxy. There are too many moving parts in this for me to see how it's going to play out. It's hard to tell what strategy the loony GOP'ers will opt for in any given case, especially if you're trying to determine it by thinking ... what would be the rational thing to do...? Ha.

    Here's my best shot - the GOP has the all-in option of doing nothing legislatively and relying on the Supreme Court to strike down the Insurance Exchanges part of the bill (due to problems with the individual mandate), which would invalidate the coverage provisions that these Republicans find so objectionable. And that isn't necessarily such a bad bet - it all depends on how ornery Anthony Kennedy is feeling on that particular day. But it is a risky bet.

    Alternatively they have the option of joining with progressives to pass the Wyden-Brown waiver, probably wringing out some concessions - weakening the coverage provisions so that it starts looking more just like a block grant. Though if they do so, the constitutional objections to the PPACA as a whole fall away, and the States' case before the Supreme Court collapses. It's the more low-risk low-reward option.

    In any case, I don't know if that alliance would be a very stable one. Progressives will be loath to turn the law into mere block grants. Especially single-payer states are going to face a moral hazard/adverse selection problem as people from low coverage states will just move there once they get sick.

    Personally, I think the Exchanges aren't likely to work very well and premiums on the individual market will spiral out of control - and are already doing so - making that form of coverage expansion unviable. So the coverage provisions are likely to get watered down anyway, making the Progressives more amenable to a weakened waiver bill, in turn making the Waiver option more attractive even to dead-enders in the GOP.

    Something like that...


    by Obey on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 11:57am

    Thanks. Extremely well reasoned.  

    Vermont's going to be in the cross hairs. With 500,000 population you'd have to worry about how much integrity the pool would have. Conservatives who screw with this might see this as an opportunity to make sure the Vermont plan fails and if so, there goes single payer idea again.

    In any case, Vermont itself is unlikely to see a huge influx of trhe indigent. It has a low housing stock and very cold winters, can't sleep out on the mall benches like they do in Santa Cruz, Ca.  


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 3:27pm

    I had overlooked the fact state waivers, say by 2014, need Congressional approval. Apparently the Wyden Brown Senate bill would achieve that.

    Re the 2017 date and the FDL post, Bernie Sanders blames it on CBOE. Maybe he's curryiing favor with Obama.

    I have no idea whatsoever of the chances of the Wyden Brown bill passing, or when.  I can't see Democrats voting against it and there might be enough Republican governors wanting the waiver for their own state that the bill would pass the Congress. Voting against Wyden/Brown would be voting against states' rights, and I don't think that's a position Republicans want to be in. Also, for what it's worth, Sanders and the Vt. governor look awfully confident.

    The Vermont bill received a significant amount of Republican support, particullarly because it is friendly to business, and having some familiarity with Vermont I don't think there is any way this health care plan would not have a favorable economic outcome in the state, assuming reasonable residency requirements are put in place.  

     


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 10:11am

    I forgot to bring the link here, Oxy; sorry.  I left this at Swanson's diary:

    "Er…my hair was on fire after reading this, Dave. I calmed down a mite and went a-googling for any recent info on waivers. The Maine one and four other states weren’t applicable; they were all about policies not covering a large enough percentage of health care costs, which in itself might be a boon to the insurance industry, so I dunno on those.

    But I finally found this one page that says HHS is proposing a new sort of waiver:

    “State Innovation Waivers are designed to allow states to implement policies that differ from those in the PPACA so long as they:

    Provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive as the coverage offered through health insurance exchanges–new competitive, private health insurance marketplaces.
    Make coverage at least as affordable as it would have been through the exchanges.

    Provide coverage to at least a comparable number of residents as otherwise would have been covered under the PPACA.
    Do not increase the federal deficit.”

    http://www.cmio.net/index.php?option=com_articles&view=article&id=26705&division=cmio

    Now we don’t go to doctors, so I am relatively ignorant on the ACA, and I wouldn’t buy a policy in any event, but is it a possiblility Vermont’s program could get a waiver? Or would they be turned down cuz it’s *too good*, therefore, a bad exapmple. (cynicism inside snark)"

    .......................................................................................................................

    So it um...peeved Swanson a mite:

    David Swanson April 28th, 2011 at 7:14 pm «

    Let’s be clear about something.

    Obama and his congressional henchmen created or at least radically expanded the need for federal waivers

    Obama has now said he would support legislation to let Vermont have such a waiver

    The first thing was an action.

    The second thing was a statement

    Vermont’s right to do this should not have been made subject to the snowball’s chance of Congress legislating it or to the whim of presidents

    We should be building a movement to compel Congress to legislate the right for any state to establish single-payer"

    I just googled Wyden-Brown's bill; it was introduced in Nov. 2010 (pdf); do you know what it's status is?  (Damn; this drives me crazy; I have sooooo stayed outta reach of health insurance reform...)


    by we are stardust on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:33pm

    That HHS waiver is the one already written into the PPACA bill - which lets states leave the insurance exchange plan in 2017, after already having them run for three years. That's is just designed to sabotage the possibility of any exit. There is no such viable transition from full private coverage to single payer.

    Getting an upfront waiver - at inception of the exchanges in 2014 - would require passing the Wyden-Brown bill, which Obama 'supports'. Nice but meaningless.


    by Obey on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:42pm

    Okey-dokey; thanks, Obey.


    by we are stardust on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 12:48pm

    Now the repubs are attempting to choreograph their town meetings; accepting file cards with messages. After the staff filters them the 'peasant' reads the question--this is modeled after Bush's feigned attempt at open democracy!

    People are mad; just as they were mad at Bush's idea of privatizing SS.

    The method in their madness is that this is how corporations will deal with unions; letting the older union members keep their wage levels and bennies while screwing the newer workers!


    by Richard Day on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 1:20pm

    Fellow, You don't even come close. Because "Medicare would only work if everyone was inrolled" our medical retirement bentifits were discontinued by our employers. This cannot be reversed. Employer bentifits we worked lifetimes for are lost. At the time a failed goverment experment by a dead liberal president is pushing the company into bankrupty, another liberal president is starting another goverment experment. This country cannot afford either and that's why the seniors are peaved. 


    by Slomoven (not verified) on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 3:40pm

    It seems like someone from an alternate universe has somehow managed to post in ours.

    (Goes back to researching quantum teleportation equations…)


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 4:52pm

    Sometimes you just have to pay for the things you need.  And one thing that this country needs is health care for all, unattached to employment.  

    -Our factories can't compete with factories in countries where employers are not insurance sponsors for employees.

    -Those who have innovative ideas can't take the risk of losing their group health plans to become entrepreneurs.

    -Preventive medicine and a healthy lifestyle promote the kind of citizenry that is LESS dependent on government and medical care.

    -Our medical system as it is, does not deliver, in terms of longevity or infant survival; it simply IS NOT THE BEST -- but IT COULD BE --  all we need is an actual comittment to the common good.

    I am not advocating that the government pay for everything; people who can, should pay premiums, but they would be lower if the "market forces" were put out to pasture.  "Market Forces" would give us REAL Death Panels; not made-up ones.

    But the fact is, that we can't afford the wars we are in, but we still fight them, including the ones that are completely bogus.  It is time to have the same concern and empathy for all our citizens that we claim to have for others as we go to fight in their name.

    The absurd conceit that if only the uber-wealthy get tax break after tax break, will jobs suddenly appear is belied by the fact that this mess started with tax breaks for them.  Do they create jobs?  No.  They acquire and combine companies and FIRE people!  They buy toys, and multiple houses for themselves.  It way past time for them to step up to the plate!!!!

     


    by CVille Dem on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 6:52pm

    Having been a card carrying UAW member for over 15 years; I voted with the Dems most of the time. I actually had my eyes opened when I became a Union Steward for 5 of those years. I was forced to protect people that I personally knew were stealing from the company. I had to cover for people that produced junk. During the Clinton years, they wanted to strike for GUARANTEED EMPOYMENT. Let's see: You cheat a company and produce junk! Guess what happened? The company sought out better quality and lower over head. Those idiots I was forced by the union to protect; cost my family a good income.

    Basic economics tells you that you must have a quality product at an affordable price and something people want to purchase. Without those elements, there are no jobs.

    Unions have their place but not to a degree of entitlements.

    As to me being spoon feed by Republicans; it was the opposite for me.

    I am an Independant voter now. Heck, I vote locally for several Dems based on the individual. Not just the Good Old Joe, who is probably fun to hang out and have a drink with.

    It is the far left liberals that have pushed me to the center.


    by Daniel in Davenport (not verified) on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 9:02pm

    I was forced to protect people that I personally knew were stealing from the company. I had to cover for people that produced junk.

    Unless someone was holding a gun to your head, you sound like a very unethical person. How are you judging others so easily?


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 9:21pm

    Atheist,

    Who said I was judging anyone. You are free to have your beliefs.

    As far as being forced to represent; you are naive to not understand the power of union bosses. I was threatened at that time because I wanted to walk away. You have no idea of what goes on.

    Unions are bullies, plain and simple. It is all about money and control.

    .... Dan


    by Daniel in Davenport (not verified) on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 9:48am

    "Unions are bullies, plain and simple. It is all about money and control."

    Yeah, not like our enlightened captains of industry. 

    Oh, and "Union bosses?"   You've just outed yourself as a rigthwing talking point bot.  Step off, loser. 


    by brewmn on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 10:42am

    So, LIBERALS made you cover for people you knew to be stealing? Well, sadly, that is very lame but at the same time, predictable. You make assumptions based on thin air, so I"ll just try to remind you that my point was that health care SHOULD NOT BE TIED TO EMPLOYMENT; not that everyone should be guaranteed employment. You really need to step back and actually READ what you are reacting to.

    by CVille Dem on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 9:29pm

    Who are these "far left liberals?"  The ones that passed Mitt Romney's health care plan, or the ones who extended George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy? 


    by brewmn on Thu, 04/28/2011 - 9:35pm

    Genghis, on the point of the 55 age dividing line. It seems Republican strategy is to pit worker against worker, age group against age group. Teachers against fire fighters and police. Young against old on Medicare.

    Nothing new I suppose, but not working so well this time around.

    So blatant that they've given their game away?

    Stupidity or hubris?

    Whaddaya think?

    Maybe they see the more liberal younger demographic on the horizon and they are making a last ditch effort to gain terriitory.


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 3:37pm

    Nah, that would mean that they were fomenting anger against their own policy. They just know that the AARP will never let mess with Medicare.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 04/29/2011 - 4:39pm