The GOP Medicare dance
By gewcew23
@gewcew23 (8007)
United States
September 30, 2010 3:00pm CST
Medicare and Social Security has always been a sore subject for the conservative wing of the GOP. For the bulk of the decades after the creation of these two programs the Republican party came to peace with S.S and Medicare much the same way that mainstream Christian denomination came to peace with evolution. With the 80's came the rise of the conservative wing and the decline of the moderate wing. This was the first chance conservative had to speak about privatizing both program. Since then it has always been a conservative wet dream to privatize both of them. For the purposes of this discussion I am only going to talk about Medicare from here on out.
Starting in 2000 it seemed that the GOP might have at lest come to accept the role of Medicare in society with the passing of the Prescription drug plan. Though this did not please the evangelist of conservatism like Rush Limbaugh and others. So still conservative themselves ideologically opposed the concept of Medicare until one faithful day. In comes the Presidency of none other than Barack Obama. Obama had a plan to reform health and to pay for some of these reforms Medicare benefit would have to be cut. Now you would think that conservatives would support this if only to oppose everything else, but not so fast. An alliance that seem oddly similar to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact conservatives started attacking the reforms on the grounds that Medicare benefits would be cut. Senior citizens ginned up with outrage preached to them by the same evangelist of conservatism rallied in mass demanding that law maker to keep their hands off their Medicare. So once the opponent of Medicare had become the defender of the program.
Yet I would if when the conservative dominated GOP takes control of government again and at some point they will, will they still be the defenders of Medicare?
2 people like this
5 responses
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
1 Oct 10
There are solutions to Medicare that would enhance the system instead of detracting it. There is a crucial piece of the argument missing and it would actually entail deregulating one part of Medicare. That is the requirement that Medicare become the primary insurance once you reach the age of 65. If they got rid of this little rule, than seniors could rely on their job insurance plans that are currently in place to pay for their health care costs instead of switching. What this would do is drop the number of people in the system to a more manageable amount. Many seniors at 65 are still working and have company insurance which could be the primary provider. It would push up the age for when seniors would actually enter the system.
@iriscot (1289)
• United States
1 Oct 10
Switching primaries might be ok for those who have insurance provided by the employers, however there is one catch. A friend of mine, who worked in a steel mill for over 35 years lost his insurance when he retired and was no longer able to work the company he worked for no longer exists. He, like myself has to pay for a supplemental policy to cover what medicare doesn't pay for. He is a year older than me and I am 81 neither of us are able to work because of health problems and age. My supplement insurance policy costs me over $200 a month. I am a cancer patient and have been for 7 years and my social security comes to $818 a month. If my primary coverage was switched there would be no way that I could pay the premium as it would probably be upward of $600 a month. My friend is in the same position now and suffers from heart disease. These are just two examples that I know of.
Can you explain to me the solution to this if the primary was switched? I'm sure there are thousands out there in the same position.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
1 Oct 10
It would be such a simple fix. One Congress could do easily, if they had the will to do it.
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
2 Oct 10
I've been wondering for awhile now how the Republicans were going to reconcile their passionate defense of Medicare during the health care debate with the current talk by tea party candidates and those who want to attach themselves to them of privatizing EVERYTHING if not totally "phasing out" Medicare and Social Security. Many of the conservatives, especially those worried about keeping their jobs, are very careful not to actually say certain words; they'll speak of the need to "cut entitlements" but they almost don't dare say outright that they're actually in favor of REALLY cutting Medicare despite their fake outrage over the changes the health care plan may bring.
I don't have a crystal ball, but I'm seriously doubtful that Medicare will be on the list of things to defend if this current crop of Republicans takes control. I know I'm seen here by some as simply "anti-GOP" no matter what, but this isn't about that at all. I've voted for Republicans in the past and I've come to support some that I hadn't voted for. I've liked and deeply respected many even if I disagreed with them on some issues. I KNOW no matter who controls Congress and the White House at any given time I'm not always going to get everything my way and I'm fine with that. I just fear that the reasonable, moderate Republicans are going the way of the dinosaur and being replaced by people who a few short years ago would have been considered so much on the fringe they'd never have been taken seriously by anyone.
Annie
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
2 Oct 10
No, not unless it would hurt their votes as they are losing on other fronts that I won't bring up in here.
I don't know to much about Medicare as a program I know privatizing it if it is anything like the Social Security Idea that I did a project on then it would in no way be a good Idea right now S.S is the most efficient program the United States Government runs with only a 7% overhead which is quite low now I realize the programing is failing but the overhead of having a portion of it on the stock market where it could make huge gains in a single day would jump to 15% overhead. And well if it gained 40% in the stock market then dropped 80% with that overhead man there would be huge amount of money gone out of thin air. So privatizing won't work to help solve it maybe having the funds go into something similar to what the Airports have it in there is a fund in the books of the federal Government that is worth about $60 Billion dollars the purpose of this fund is to upgrade the aviation systems at airports well it is in so much legal jargan because the Aviation Industry didn't want congress to use it for anything but upgrading the Airports that it is just siting there gaining interest our government is $60 Billion more dollars in debt than people realize because of an accounting trick that makes it look like the government has more assets than it does. The point of this is that S.S Medicare funds go into the General Fund meaning that Congress can mess with it and take loans out against money that is suppose to be going into these programs the spending habits of this Congress and the ones before it have made it to where these two systems are completely unable to continue running.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
4 Oct 10
yeah, Like I said congress won't upgrade our air traffic system because it would expose the truth and also they wouldn't be able to use the money for anything they want. $60 Billion is a lot of money that they wouldnt be able to play with. So just a little thing did you know that are air traffic control system goes down every day in at least one major airport where they have to manially track every plane but what they planes systems say it is at and not with the radar and other systems that the airport uses to track planes our system needs and upgrade but won't get it.
@dawnald (85130)
• Shingle Springs, California
1 Oct 10
More like the defenders of big corporations...
