November 14, 2003
BEWARE OF DEKES BEARING GIFTS:
The Trojan Horse (PAUL KRUGMAN, 11/14/03, NY Times)
A Congressional conference is now trying to agree on prescription drug legislation. But beware of politicians bearing gifts — the bill will contain measures that have nothing to do with prescription drugs, and a lot to do with hostility to Medicare as we know it. Indeed, it may turn out to be a Trojan horse that finally allows conservative ideologues, who have unsuccessfully laid siege to Medicare since the days of Barry Goldwater, to breach its political defenses. [...][O]ne of the proposals being negotiated behind closed doors — misleadingly described as "cost containment" — would set a limit on Medicare's use of general revenue, and would require action seven years before projections say that limit will be breached. This rule is reinforced with a peculiar new definition of "general revenue" that includes interest on the Medicare trust fund, accumulated out of past payroll taxes. The effect would be to force the government to declare a Medicare crisis in 2010 or 2011. [...]
Meanwhile, another proposal — to force Medicare to compete with private insurers — seems intended to undermine the whole system.
This proposal goes under the name of "premium support." Medicare would no longer cover whatever medical costs an individual faced; instead, retirees would receive a lump sum to buy private insurance. [...]
What's going on? Why, bait and switch, of course. Few politicians want to be seen opposing a bill that finally provides retirees with prescription drug coverage. That makes a prescription drug bill a perfect vehicle for smuggling in provisions that sound as if they have something to do with improving Medicare, yet are actually designed to undermine it.
Well, the first five of 6 Bushian horses snuck by, but at last Mr. Krugman has figured out he's being hoodwinked. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 14, 2003 9:59 AM
He's a renowned economist? He sounds like an expat. from Soviet Russia ... or to be kinder ... Canada.
Thanks for carrying one of his opinions. I refuse to read them, or Dowd's, at the Times . I wouldn't want to give them the hits. It's good to occasionally realise I'm not missing anything but increased blood pressure.
Posted by: genecis at November 14, 2003 10:17 AMI have never figured out why it is the federal governments duty to provide medical insurance for its citizens. I guess I keep reading over that part of the constitution.
Posted by: BJW at November 14, 2003 10:22 AMBJW: equal protection??
Posted by: old maltese at November 14, 2003 11:16 AMOld Maltese: Even the Warren and Burger courts never read Equal Protection as creating an affirmative duty. Blackmun and Ginsburg notwithstanding, that hasn't changed in the last fifteen years.
Posted by: Chris at November 14, 2003 2:24 PMChris -- Sorry, I meant it as a joke. Um, protection from illness. Lame, I know.
Posted by: old maltese at November 14, 2003 5:44 PMBJW:
It isn't the duty of gov't to give citizens medical insurance, if one takes a narrow view of gov't's role in society.
However, modern society has determined that we don't want citizens dying in the streets. That means that the gov't must become the provider of last resort.
With that understanding, giving people lump sums to buy insurance with, seems like the best solution.
If you DON'T want the gov't to be in the insurance business, you must first change society.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 14, 2003 7:02 PMA Medicare crisis in 2010 or 2011? Where, exactly, did Krugman get his degree?
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 15, 2003 2:08 AM