Nearly no one in Washington is surprised that the Medicare Wars have returned.
This time, Democrats are claiming that Republicans seek to harm the well-liked government health program, which provides coverage to 64 million seniors and people with disabilities. Republicans have previously been successful in portraying Democrats as the threat to Medicare.
Why do politicians continue to use Social Security and Medicare as weapons? because voting has a proven track record of success. The party accused of endangering the sacred entitlements typically pays a price, but the people who stand to lose the most are the millions of recipients who depend on the feuding lawmakers to keep the programs financed.
Republicans have frequently said that if Democrats don’t negotiate changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, they will hold the raising of the federal debt ceiling hostage. About half of the federal budget is allocated to these three programs, together with money for the Affordable Care Act and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
President Joseph Biden’s State of the Union address featured a political bomb that had been building for several weeks. Biden pledged to veto any Republican attempts to slash Social Security or Medicare in his speech. He only threatened to veto three things that evening. Following the speech, Obama emphasized it more forcefully while traveling to Florida: “Republicans that I know all want to cut Social Security and Medicare. In that case, let me just state that I’m your nightmare if that’s your dream.”
Top Republicans have distanced themselves from the plans Biden was referring to, particularly ideas from the House Republican Study Committee and Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., to make cuts or even let Medicare expire unless Congress agrees to keep it going.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell criticized the plan again on a Kentucky radio interview on February 9, saying, “That’s not the Republican plan; that’s the Rick Scott plan.” McConnell has previously opposed the concept.
The day before Biden threatened to veto the measure, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy stated that cuts to Social Security and Medicare were not an option.
Rick Scott evidently does not comprehend what McConnell and McCarthy do: Politicians threaten significant, well-liked entitlement programs at their peril. Additionally, Republicans typically bear the electoral costs.
This goes back at least to the first midterm elections under President Ronald Reagan in 1982, when Democrats gained more than two dozen House seats by using Republican threats to cut Social Security benefits. By persuading voters that Republicans led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich wanted to privatize Medicare and Social Security in 1996, President Bill Clinton was able to win reelection.
President George W. Bush made “partially privatizing” Social Security a primary objective at the start of his second term, in 2005. That turned out to be incredibly unpopular. Democrats regained control of the House in the ensuing midterm elections for the 카지노사이트 주소 first time since they had lost it in 1994.
In 2010, Republicans flipped the script and took back control of the House by claiming that the Affordable Care Act had “Medicare cuts.” (The so-called cuts largely consisted of lower provider payments; beneficiaries received additional benefits as a result of the ACA.)
The use of the Medicare issue as a stick by Democrats likely peaked in 2012 when Ryan, the Republican vice presidential nominee and leader of the House Budget Committee, came under fire for his ideas to privatize Medicare. After that debate, a divisive political advertisement featuring Ryan throwing a wheelchair-bound “granny” off a cliff with the lines “Is America Beautiful without Medicare?” was made. It was funded by the liberal Agenda Project Action Fund and was widely remembered in Washington.
The truth is that Medicare’s usefulness as a political tool also thwarts attempts to work across party lines to find a solution to the program’s funding issues. When the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund came this close to going bankrupt the last two times, in the early 1980s and the late 1990s, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to save the program.
Politics can be ingrained in even the word “cut.” A Medicare “cut” for one stakeholder is a bonus for another. Beneficiaries’ premiums, which are determined by the total cost of the Medicare program, may be decreased by cutting payments to medical providers (or, more frequently, by reducing the extent of payment increases to physicians and hospitals). Raising premiums or cost sharing for beneficiaries benefits all taxpayers, who contribute to the funding of Medicare. Expanding the number of benefits offered benefits recipients as well as physicians, hospitals, and other healthcare professionals, but it costs more for taxpayers. And on it goes.
It is impossible to cover up the fact that the parties disagree on some fundamental points. Many Republicans want Medicare to change from a “defined benefit” program, in which beneficiaries are guaranteed a certain set of services and the government pays whatever it costs, to a “defined contribution” program, in which beneficiaries would receive a set amount of money to finance as much as they can and would be responsible for the remaining costs of their medical care.
Thus, seniors would be exposed to the government’s increased risk of health inflation. The taxpayer would undoubtedly benefit from it, but it would be bad for Medicare recipients as well as providers. Republicans are right that unless both sides put down their weapons, Medicare and Social Security can’t be “fixed.”
As a result, seniors would be exposed to the government’s health inflation risk. Therefore, while the taxpayer would undoubtedly benefit, both providers and Medicare beneficiaries would suffer.
Republicans are right in saying that until both sides put down their weapons and start communicating, Medicare and Social Security cannot be “fixed.” But, the chance of a truce seems to be dwindling every time a politician reveals his or her talking points on “Medicare cuts.”
Be First to Comment