Health Care Reform Does Not Cut Medicare- and Speaking of Medicare's Passage...
by Morra Aarons Mele

“Opponents of health-care reform should be chanting "No more Medicare!"The arguments that have been made against the public option (a health
insurance plan sold and administered by the federal government) apply
with equal or greater force to Medicare.”

That's from economists Simon Johnson and James Kwak. Let’s get this straight: Health care reform does not involve cutting Medicare benefits. Medicare is the second most-beloved Government program. Medicare is also a public option. GOP opponents of health reform have been falsely saying reform will cut Medicare benefits. This is not true.

In 1965, Conservative Ronald Reagan was running for Governor of California. He was violently opposed to Medicare, which was then the hot policy battle. The debate cut much along the same lines as the health care debate today, except that during the Cold War, “socialism” was even more loaded a term, and back then, opponents used "red menacing" tactics to scare people away from Medicare. Here’s Reagan, trying to scare people against supporting President Johnson’s Medicare program:


"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people, has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project — most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it."

In fact, LBJ passed Medicare, but it was Richard Nixon who

“recast the entire concept of national health insurance, creating a new model that kept employer health care in place, covered the poor and the old and gave people who weren’t covered national health insurance. Before that, most people who wanted national health insurance wanted a single-payer Medicare system for all. But this mixed model has been embraced by Carter, Clinton, Obama and all the Democratic hopefuls who ran on health care—Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale. They’ve all borrowed from Nixon, who wrote up this idea on his yellow legal pads.”

The above is all from James Morone and David Blumenthal’s new book, The Heart of Power. They show us that we've really been here before. Except that luckily, the right side won in the Medicare debate of the sixties.

Right now, “on Fox News' Hannity, GOP consultant Frank Luntz forwarded the false conservative talking point that President Obama plans to cut Medicare benefits, claiming that it "is almost like he's declaring war on Medicare because it's the only way for him to pay for health care.”

The non-partisan FactCheck.org noted: "The claim that Obama and Congress are cutting seniors' Medicare benefits to pay for the health care overhaul is outright false."

Here is the truth:


The truth is that the pending House bill extracts $500 billion from projected Medicare spending over 10 years, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office, by doing such things as trimming projected increases in the program's payments for medical services, not including physicians. Increases in other areas, such as payments to doctors, bring the net savings down to less than half that amount. But none of the predicted savings -- or cuts, depending on one's perspective -- come from reducing current or future benefits for seniors.


AARP says: Fact: None of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services. [FactCheck.org, 8/14/09]

Find out yourself. BlogHer’s partnership with the Sunlight Foundation and OpenCongress.org means we can track the bills. And, most importantly, we can follow the health care money. Next time you hear anti-reform words coming out of a politician’s mouth, click on over and see just how much money they’ve accepted from the health insurance lobby.

And while you’re at it, I cannot recommend enough this segment with Wendell Potter, former Corporate Communications Chief at health insurance giant Cigna: “Profits before Patients.” But don't expect to get through it without steam coming out of your ears. I listened to the podcast and used it to fire me through a run I'd not been able to do before!!!

Submitted by Morra Aarons Mele (view blog) on Sat, 08/29/2009 - 9:39am

Comments

 

Thank you!

Morra, thank you SO MUCH for writing this!  It has amazed me that those against any health care reform are also in favor of keeping Medicare.

PunditMom
aka Joanne Bamberger

BlogHer News & Politics Contributing Editor

Submitted by PunditMom on Sat, 08/29/2009 - 14:12
 

Tank u

In truth, immediately i didn't understand the essence. But after re-reading all at once became clear.

health and women

Submitted by ariska on Sun, 08/30/2009 - 06:05
 

I am surprised that your

I am surprised that your piece dated in August is not up to date. Prior to your written piece our President stated he would be cutting Medicare cost by $500 Billion. He stated that these cuts would come in the form or reform of Medicare. He also stated that with the influx of the baby boomers cutting the Medicare by $500 Billion was necessary to provide coverage to them. In the piece that I am referring to he mentions that our Nation is spending $6,000 more per person for health care compared to civilized countries such as Denmark. If that is the case then Denmark is spending $200 per person, compared to the amount I currently pay for my coverage. I think you need to read between the President's lines when quoting him. He plans of "re-forming" health insurance companies. Another words, he will dictate to them exactly how they will run their business, what they will cover and how they will cover it. The problem with that is, insurance companies are just like any other business, they must make a profit to survive. If you believe that insurance companies have little or no right to make a profit then maybe you should view other companies not in the insurance business and check their profits. The company I currently work for has greater profits and the CEO and board make God awful salaries and benefits by forcing the workers to take pay cuts. No one has bothered to plaster them all over the news media. What is missing in the equation is torte reform. Meaning the lawyers suing the doctors, hospitals, insurance companies. These suits cost billions of dollars each year. We as purchasers of insurance get to pay higher cost to make up for the loss. These ambulance chasers are costing you and I more money for insurance. Another factor in the health care reform is a little known fact that has been hidden from the masses, unless you do some searching, is States dictate to an insurance company what their policies must have in them. Another words, Massachusetts makes it mandatory that insurance companies who sell policies in their States, MUST include envitro fertilization. So, if I were to have a policy in that state I would be covered for envitro. I don't need envitro nor do I want (made) to pay for it. Another issue is, some States require as many as 150 such requirement to insurance companies. This boost the cost considerably. Some States require sex change operations. I don't need or want that either and believe it should be an elective. So you see just some of these issues not reported to the public can alter the facts on why some people may not consider a single payer system. Reading the bill may help too. Here is the link to the above mentioned Obama reference at a town hall.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/28/obama.health.care/index.html

Submitted by airdebster on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 13:26
 

SOME PEOPLE STILL DON'T GET IT

Let's just say that when the news is reporting anything in politics, they assume you know what Washington is all about.  So, when it comes to moms and dads like you and me, it's hard to understand what is meant by "medicare cuts".  I have always believed that health insurance shouldn't be a profit organization or business.  If you want to make money, raise auto insurance, homeowner's insurance, life insurance.  No one should have to die or live a less than poor quality of life, because it costs money and expertise to do so.  Insurance companies should not be "companies".  CEO's should not be making millions for running the business "efficiently".  I am part of a family of five in a one income household, with an income (this year) of about $50,000.  We live in the midwest, so with cost of living, we do okay.  We pay out over $250/month for health insurance.  That's over $3000 a year and that doesn't include what the employer pays into it.  We have not used all of what we have put in.  Most of the people we know have not used what they've put in,yet, our insurance goes up just about every year.  They are investing the $3000 a year and making money on it and if I need it, they no longer want to give it to me.  They would rather I die or live a poor quality of life.  If they give it to me, they don't make that interest on it and they don't care that my intention for giving them the money is to protect me from financial disaster- not them!  I pay them out of fear.  How is that a business.  You cannot compare that to Wal-Mart who pays their employess next to nothing.  I don't give Wal-mart my money to help me financially to stay alive and healthy and they have never promised me they would help when I had health issues.  I agree that the whole health system is somewhat corrupt, but this is a great start to fixing it.  I know people believe in free market, but that only exists in small business owners.  If they don't do well, the government doesn't bail them out.  People need to abandon their greed within their family and in work and lifestyle.  THAT will fix the health care system and everything else in the world.

Submitted by jchavez on Sun, 11/08/2009 - 05:03