Medi-Scare?
There they go again, says the Washington Times. The evil Democrats are demagoging Medicare.
Rep. Dick Gephardt, whose foundering presidential campaign will likely disintegrate on Jan. 19 if he fails to repeat his 1988 victory in the Iowa caucuses, is no stranger to demagoguery. He mastered the tactic during the 1995 battle to reform Medicare. Indeed, Mr. Gephardt and his Democratic colleagues were so unrelentingly demagogic in their "Medi-scare" campaign that even The Washington Post editorial page found it necessary — not once, but twice — to describe the Democratic Party as a collection of "Medagogues." (Gephardt's 'Medi-Scare' Campaign, The Washington Times, September 21, 2003)
That last sentence kills me. The "liberal" Washington Post found it necessary to describe the Democrats as "Medqagogues." And twice!
But the Washington Times editorial raises two serious questions. One, is it true that as governor of Vermont Howard Dean supported New Gingrich's position on Medicare? And, what's going on with Medicare right now that should worry us?
The Gingrich-Dean connection? Gephardt alleges that in 1995, Governor Dean supported a Republican measure to cut Medicare. What Governor Dean actually supported back then was a plan to cut Medicare costs by making Medicare a managed care instead of a fee-for-service program; the money saved would have been used to provide prescription drug benefits. So it appears Gephardt really is demagoging just a tad.
"Gephardt doesn't differ much from Dean on Medicare, so he attacks the doctor for something he said about restraining the program's growth in 1995," wrote Howard Kurtz in today's Washington Post.
So, a virtual rap across the knuckles for Dick Gephardt. This stuff isn't helping us any, Congressman. While you're carping about what an opponent said eight years ago, Republicans in Congress right now are trying to kill the Medicare program entirely.
The Real Medi-Scare? A House-Senate conference committee is concocting a Medicare program overhaul that would provide a paltry drug benefit now at the cost of privatizing Medicare by 2010.
"We'd be better off with no bill at all," said Vicki Gottlich, Washington representative for the Center for Medicare Advocacy. "As it now stands, the bill would privatize Medicare, while cutting benefits, and sharply raising premiums and co-payments." {Saul Friedman, "Gray Matters," New York Newsday, September 27, 2003)
Both bills being considered in conference would give beneficiaries the option of staying in traditional fee-for-service Medicare or switching to a private plan. But, according to the AARP, the Republican-written House bill would phase in a much larger role for private plans. Under the House bill, Medicare would provide a subsidy to help beneficiaries purchase private health insurance, and the private health insurance plans would compete directly with Medicare.
This would work roughly the same way school vouchers work. Those who are able could use their subsidies to bypass the Medicare system in favor of private insurance, leaving Medicare with the sickest and poorest patients. This would drive up Medicare premiums and ultimately undermine the program, possibly killing Medicare entirely, which is probably the plan.
The Bushies and their ideological cohorts at think tanks like the Heritage Foundation are sworn to dismantle all remnants of the New Deal and Great Society programs, such as Medicare.
Here's what Edward Fuelner, president of the Heritage Foundation, wrote to supporters: ". . . today's policies are a product of the Great Society of the 1960s, which grew out of the New Deal of the 1930s, which was an assault on founding principles articulated in the 18th century. . . . Connecting the historical dots is no small task." For Great Society, read Medicare; for New Deal, read Social Security. And the real task is to connect the contemporary dots. (Paul Krugman, "Connect the Dots," The New York Times, April 2, 2002)
We can see where this is going. "President" Bush is eager to sign a Medicare drug benefit bill so he can go into the election cycle bragging about it. And if the Dems fight the provisions that would strangle Medicare down the road, the Pubs will claim that Democrats obstructed prescription benefits for seniors.
If you want to impress me, Congressman Gephardt, see what you can do to save your party from another Bush trap.
http://www.mahablog.com
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
