The Trojan Horse

[Guest guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/14/opinion/14KRUG.html?th

 

November 14, 2003OP-ED COLUMNIST The Trojan HorseBy PAUL KRUGMAN

 

hat are we going to do about Medicare? That should be the subject of an open

national debate. But right now Congressional leaders are trying to settle the

question by stealth, with legislation that purports to be doing something else.

 

An aging population and rising medical costs will eventually require the nation

to provide Medicare with more money or to cut benefits, or both. Meanwhile,

there are demands for a new benefit: a gradual shift away from hospital

treatment and toward the use of drugs has turned the program's failure to cover

prescription drugs into a gaping hole.

 

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.

 

Some background: originally, Medicare provided only hospital insurance, paid for

with a special tax on wages — and this tax, according to estimates from the

trustees, will be enough to cover hospital insurance costs for at least 20 more

years. Medicare now also includes additional benefits, but the costs of these

benefits have always been covered out of general revenue — that is, money raised

by other taxes.

 

But one 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.

 

You might say it's a good idea to face up to Medicare's problems early. But the

legislation would allow only two responses: either an increase in the payroll

tax (a regressive tax that bears more heavily on middle-class families than on

the wealthy) or benefit cuts. Other possibilities, like increases in other taxes

or other spending cuts, would be ruled out. In short, this is an attempt to

pre-empt discussion of how we want to deal with Medicare's future and impose a

solution reflecting a particular ideology.

 

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. (Those who opted to remain with the

traditional system would have to pay extra premiums.) The ostensible rationale

for this change is the claim that private insurers can provide better, cheaper

medical care.

 

But many studies predict that private insurers would cherry-pick the best

(healthiest) prospects, leaving traditional Medicare with retirees who are

likely to have high medical costs. These higher costs would then be reflected in

the extra payments required to stay in traditional fee-for-service coverage. The

effect would be to put health care out of reach for many older Americans. As a

2002 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation judiciously put it, " Difficulties in

adjusting for beneficiary health status . . . could make the traditional

Medicare FFS program unaffordable to a large portion of beneficiaries. "

 

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.

 

Faced with adamant opposition from Democrats who understand exactly what's going

on, like Senator Edward Kennedy, the Republicans are reported to have retreated

a bit. The consequences of the crunch planned for 2011 will apparently be less

drastic, and premium support will be introduced as an experiment — albeit one

involving millions of people — rather than all at once. But this bill is still a

Trojan horse.

 

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

 

 

NEW WEB MESSAGE BOARDS - JOIN HERE.

Alternative Medicine Message Boards.Info

http://alternative-medicine-message-boards.info

 

 

 

Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard