Who's 'getting the shaft' on Medicare?

For several years now, politicians of both parties have been falling all over themselves to support yet another government entitlement: paying a hefty slice of prescription drug costs for senior citizens in the Medicare program.

Creeping socialized health care is a reality because no one is doing a thing to stop it.

It does not matter that the average senior citizen pays only $650 a year on his or her prescriptions. It does not matter that the current Medicare program's share of our economy is already expected to double between now and 2035. It does not matter that senior citizens are usually much wealthier than the young kids just getting married, starting families, and expected to pay for this. What matters is that elections are coming. Everyone knows that senior citizens vote in noticeably larger percentages, and that's all that counts for our career politicians.

If you pinched a politician, he'd acknowledge that most lawmakers don't expect a prescription-drug subsidy to pass this year. Conservatives with an eye on bulging deficits -- and how Democrats will blame them on the "huge" Bush tax cut, no matter how much wasteful new spending is added -- are praying for gridlock to keep the budget in check.

But in the socialist hotbeds of network news, stalemate is an outrage. Washington is worthless unless politicians are loading yet another budget-busting, ever-expanding retirement subsidy on the backs of unretired taxpayers. On CBS, Dan Rather was lobbying for just one subset of his fellow citizens. "Senior Americans who saw retirement savings evaporate in the Wall Street meltdown have another financial headache now," he warned. "It turns out it was all talk and no action with the President and Congress again today on passing any version of Medicare prescription drug coverage."

Reporter Bob Schieffer explicitly endorsed the new subsidy. He quoted liberal Sen. Tom Harkin that "It's time that we make good on the promise of 44 million Americans who rely on Medicare." But then this objective reporter added: "It's a good thought. Drugs have become so expensive, seniors can go to places like Mexico and buy American-made drugs cheaper than they can buy them at home." Not done, Schieffer sounded the alarm: "They say they'll keep trying, but don't bet on them getting far. Instead, expect Democrats to blame Republicans, Republicans to blame Democrats, and the White House to blame Congress. Seniors, in the meanwhile, just get the shaft."

So, let's get this straight. The average annual amount of Medicare benefits per enrollee right now, before any new goodies, is $6,200. That's taken right out of the hides of younger people in the work force. But because Congress hasn't yet larded another thousand or two on that average bill, seniors are the group "getting the shaft"?

Over at ABC, Charles Gibson seemed upset that the Senate couldn't agree on a plan. He pleaded to reporter Jackie Judd: "I mentioned 34 million Americans eligible for it. That's a lot of voters. Elderly people say they want it. Can they come up with a compromise before this coming election?"

It's bad enough that we're faced with liberal unanimity with both parties pandering to pile on the senior subsidy bandwagon. But when reporters can't find one second of air time for anyone opposed to another hemorrhaging entitlement, it's an outrage. They could have called Tom Miller, the director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute. He thinks feeding this sort of political appetite will only worsen Medicare's fiscal stress down the road, when Medicare will take more and more from the general revenue pot and less from payroll taxes and monthly premiums.

Miller argues: "Simply adding another layer of underfunded, irresponsible promises to Medicare will stimulate beneficiary demand for 'cheap' drugs and overuse of those benefits. It is sure to be followed by exploding budgetary costs and increases in the 'unsubsidized' price of Medicare's prescription drugs. Up next will be waves of drug coverage rollbacks, regulatory restrictions, tighter drug formularies and price controls that chill future innovative research and snuff out the next round of life-saving drugs."

A serious concern worth explaining? Nah. The Bob Schieffers of this world aren't really students of policy debates. They're hackneyed pleaders for more government. Who among the TV-news junkies doubts that if Miller's scenario came true -- exploding taxpayer costs, price controls, regulatory restrictions -- the Schieffers would be out there shaking a fist at "draconian benefit cuts" and demanding more government cops to pound on those greedy drug manufacturers?

It's propagandistic news coverage like this -- reporters and anchors do everything but wave placards -- that drives viewers in droves away from network news, searching for that elusive other side of the story. One of the groups that's spent decades "getting the shaft" is broadcast-news viewers who'd like even a few seconds of balance for the idea that another government program is not the answer, or opposing the idea that government's highest calling is to redirect tax dollars to the most frequent voters, regardless of actual need. But that's asking too much.

Ah, Medicare.

Back when it was on its way to passage in the 60's, it might have been stopped in its tracks had the AMA (then much more powerful, representing a much larger share of MDs than now)simply said that the concept was wrong, that government ought not to be involved in medical care. The AMA might have simply refused to participate on principle.

Instead, it rolled out its own version, a 'Medicare-lite' called "Eldercare". It thereby accepted the premise that government involvement was proper and desireable.

Once that happened, the battle was over and the inevitable result is what we see today and coming tomorrow.

This is also a good lesson to keep in mind when some conservatives defend some of the 'practical compromises' of the current administration.

The FACT is that most elderly won't qualify for it as it doesn't kick in until their prescriptions exceed $4000.00 per year.

The fact is, once the foot in the door, the camel nose under the tent, or the pill is placed in the mouth, the program will be in place to modify and bet your medicine cabinet, the coverage limits will be made more generous, even as the government will reimburse the drug makers and pharmacies less money for their products...who in turn, will raise prices for the non medicare patients.

In the meantime, this measure will be counterproductive and probably lead to overprescribing by doctors, already a problem with Medicare patients. You see, many Medicare patients shop around, and see several doctors, often not telling each of them what medications they are on. It is not unusual for a Medicare patient to be admitted to the hospital for an irregular heartbeal or dizziness, told to "bring all their prescriptions" and literally show up with a grocery bag full of prescriptions from different doctors.

The symptoms are often from side effects and drug interactions,and treatment may be to just stop most of the medicines. You are probably asking yourself how and why such a great benefit for catastrophic drug charges of 4K a year would lead to overprescribing? At least one of the proposals paid for all drugs if you hit the magic number, instead of effectively making the 4K a deductible. In any even, the lure for politicians to pay for more every vote buying season would eventually result in the following.

If the limit is 4K and then all drug costs are reimbursed, what if you have prescriptions for 3k? If you can get another 100 dollar a month prescription, then you all the sudden make 3000 dollars. If you have yearly prescriptions of 2k, then 200 dollars a month more will make you 2000 dollars...you see the logic here. Doesn't take but a trip a month to a doctor to walk out with some expensive antibiotic prescription to get to 100 dollars, and since a Medicare office visit costs patients an absurdly low amount...why not get another prescription to leave in the medicine chest, or give away, or sell.

I would support a prescription drug benefit if it were entirely funded by the Medicare users...but of course, that won't happen.

This is a terrible idea, and I think even our spendthrift Senate got a little gunshy about committing so many hundreds of billions of dollars of additional spending to an already failed Medicare program...

But that's the pessimist view. An optimist would call Medicare a successful intergenerational embezzlement scheme run by politicians in exchange for votes.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.