Health Care Reform: Those “Irreconcilable Differences”
Mar 4th, 2010 | 61 responses
In an Editorial last Friday, USA Today discussed how the health summit exposed “irreconcilable differences” between Democrats and Republicans on the issue of health care reform. It said in part:
That at least makes it clear where reform goes from here. Obama and his party have three choices: They can give up and blame GOP intransigence. They can try to settle for the same sort of incremental changes made after President Clinton’s health reform effort failed in 1994. Or they can try to push through a comprehensive plan to overhaul a dysfunctional system that works well for some Americans but leaves far too many with no coverage and costs everyone too much.
My personal opinion is that—given that Democrats honestly believe that Americans (especially the 30 million uninsured ones) indeed deserve a better health care system—-there is really only one choice, and that is to proceed full steam ahead and “damn the Republican torpedoes.”
A USA Today reader took the words out of my mouth in a Letter to the Editor on Tuesday:
Democrats must stick to convictions on health care
Just as today we have “irreconcilable differences” between Democrats and Republicans concerning the proposed health care reforms, such was the case in 1935 with Social Security, and again in 1965 with Medicare (“Health summit exposes irreconcilable differences,” Editorial, Friday).
Both times, Democrats displayed conviction and had the backbone to continue to fight for what they believed was right for America. They were able to pass landmark legislation with, at the last moment, some Republican support.Although your editorial mentioned that President Obama and the Democrats have three choices, history and the desperate health care needs of millions of Americans leave them only one choice: To push through their comprehensive plan — with or without Republican support — face the music in the upcoming elections, and let the American voter be the final judge. The voters and history will once again look favorably on how Democrats handled these differences.
Some may say, yes but look at the dire straits Social Security and Medicare are in right now, and look at how much it is costing the nation.
I would agree with those who express such concerns. Those issues can and should be addressed in a bi-partisan manner, and hopefully those programs can be “made well” again. But I would also like to point to the millions upon millions of Americans who have benefitted from those programs, and suggest that if we could take a poll of past and present beneficiaries (and their families), not too many would condemn those programs or say that they would decline the benefits.
It is ironic, and a pity, that our political leaders have not been able to responsibly and forthrightly achieve much needed reconciliation on this critical issue and, instead, may very shortly be staring into the barrel of that dreaded “Reconciliation gun.”
I may be wrong, but I sincerely believe that when we look back upon these “irreconcilable differences” twenty years from now, most of us who are still around will say that the major factor that made those differences irreconcilable was the politics of the day.
61 Responses to “Health Care Reform: Those “Irreconcilable Differences””
I'm going to have to take some issues with your letter writer Dorian as far as history is concerned.
at the last minute?? With some Repub support. Not according to the record:
Seems to me that there wasn't anything last minute about any of that. And for final passage, you had 81 Repubs (79% of them) in the House vote for it and 16 (64% of them) in the Senate. Please allow me to go out on a limb and call that “bipartisan” if I've ever seen it.
I will say its about time the Dems start talking a little tougher about what they want to do, they should have done this months ago. Then we could be talking about reconciliation that includes the public option and less giveaways, deals, and bribes that we currently get. I'm all in favor of the Dems using reconciliation, I just wish they would have done it for a more progressive bill.
In other words, he who robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul. What about the future beneficiaries, many of whom got robbed? Congress, in a very bipartisan manner, destroyed Social Security, which was originally designed to be a far more viable program.
jchem
Your comments, as to whether the Republican support of Social Security and Medicare was “at the last moment,” or not, are well taken.
However, to be fair and accurate, let’s not start the clock in April of 1935, because, according to the Record, the proposal was introduced to Congress (under a different name) already in January of 1935.
We need to find out what happened during those hearings in January and February of 1935, to see whether Republican support was truly last moment or not.
On Medicare, I come across this:
.
The letter writer probably relied on other reports, and I will tell him about this. I know him quite well.
But, thanks for pointing this out . Good comments
Dorian, thanks for your comments. I didn't comment on Medicare because the Repub track record there isn't something they tend to brag about, and if they do they shouldn't. Your comments (and the letter writer's) pretty well set the record straight. Regardless of when these bills were introduced, when they had their names changed, and when they were actually voted on; take a look at the timeline, especially for Social Security. It was introduced in January, 1935 and signed into law only 8 months later. Could you imagine how government would operate today if even the most minor pieces of legislation passed that quickly?
jchem:
Actually if you consider that it was passed by both the House and the Senate in just six months, and consider the significance and magnitude of the legislation, I would say it passed at warp sped.
Dorian
As someone who has generously contributed to both Social Security and Medicare during my working life, I don't consider myself to be robbing from Peter, nor do I begrudge “paying Paul”
Great, but there's still a few hundred million after you. The record is very clear, Social Security is going under because it is so untouchable, and needed “touching” (more accurately, it needed to be left alone) decades ago. No one who is familiar with the numbers believes that it can survive in its current form, or even close to its current form, we've been over that before. The past retirees paid very low payroll taxes when they were young, which then went up as their income went up, and their promised benefits increased. Now, there simply are too many retired and too few workers to keep it up. Congress blew it, the Titanic has hit its iceberg, the crew (congress) is keeping the lifeboats to itself, and everyone else is simply waiting the for inevitable to happen, some of us knowingly, some not.
Poppycock…
“I don't consider myself to be robbing from Peter, nor do I begrudge “paying Paul”"
Thanks for that comment. The “rob Peter to pay Paul” characterization (smear) is so tiresome.
First, it's a democracy, or supposed to be, so what helps the majority is rightly the people's to choose. Second, we have “robbed Paul” to enrich Peter, through favorable tax treatment and corporate welfare. Friedmanite economics ALWAYS increases the wealth gap, so we did, by design, systematically and for decades, intentionally enrich the few at the expense of the many. Third, ALL wealth comes from consumers in a consumer economy. It is not only foolish for the top 5% to kill the golden goose of the middle class, IT IS NOT THEIR RIGHT. They're a tiny minority.
It's a matter of priority. We have enough wealth to care for our elders, the sick, the poor and disabled. We have spent more than enough on priorities of the rich and of favored industries (e.g. the Bush tax cuts, corporate welfare and the Iraq war) to shore up SS and Medicare for 100 years.
So are you saying that the government is lying to us?
Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters.
Green,
Why should we collective care for our rich elders? The elderly have higher levels of wealth than any other part of our society so what is the logic from transferring money from the relatively poorer to the relatively richer?
People who consider SS and Medicare untouchable somehow never seem to be able to or willing to address that question. I don't deny we can do it. It is a democracy as you point out. But why should we do it?
GD, you're either missing or ignoring my point. I'm not talking about inter-class transfers, but an inter-generational one. You got the goldmine, I got the shaft. My kids are getting a pile of ….. debt.
Good argument. : )
To be fair, it's Medicare that's going under far faster than Social Security. Social Security ultimately doesn't have enough dedicated tax revenue to pay out its benefits but it will take longer than Medicare to be a problem.
The fact that you don't agree simply means you don't read the reports of the trustees.
As I said:
For those of us who worry about the government's finances, we'd like some assurance that those programs can be made well before we add more automatic spending growth to the budget, particularly since the current version of HCR takes the “easiest” Medicare savings and, instead of using them to shore up Medicare, devotes them to an entirely new program.
To the point made above, polling beneficiaries on whether they like benefits is not compelling. I'd like more benefits and so would everyone else. Of course, none of us would like to pay for them which is why the Dem arguments on the popularity of HCR are so silly. Of course the benefits poll well but all of the provisions to control costs or pay for the benefits poll poorly as does the total bill.
The facts remain that SS and Medicare have become part of a larger cross-generational subsidy program for the elderly, said programs (at the Federal, State and local level) giving money to those with higher wealth and taking it from those with lower wealth.
I'd love to hear the justification for that.
And they will — after it goes under and there's no other choice. The easy choices are gone; the hard ones are being avoided; the desperate ones are coming. And you want more programs to run like this?
“To be fair, it's Medicare that's going under far faster than Social Security.”
The worst failures are in denial that these programs are unsustainable. We're going to simply have to wait until 2016+ at which point Social Security will begin to fail (run deficits, require new taxes, more borrowing, or shifting funds from elsewhere to S.S. to pay benefits in full). That will be when the long term parasitic droves in DC begin leaving office in large numbers. Deferral won't be possible any more.
Medicare (which people already write off cost-wise) is flawed and obviously should have been rescued before expanding federal entitlements to others, and in addition to originally having a way to pay for the new entitlements (a major repulsion factor from the start with this “reform” effort), robbing an already failing Medicare to pay for the entitlements (or only pay partially?) was cannibalism that showed an additional remarkable amount of stupidity.
The Dems have failed to rescue Medicare first, want to make it worse, are doing more wrong, and are seeking to pass (in an underhanded way) poor legislation, driven out of desperation and exhibiting ineptitude. They may yet manage to settle their intra-partisan conflicts and manage to pass this, with the acceptance or even support of those whom they have intended to exploit and who are easily exploited or otherwise willing to stoop to behave as accomplices. [clapping pinkies in mock applause]
“The easy choices are gone; the hard ones are being avoided; the desperate ones are coming.”
The point is to advance the incrementalist “ratchet” and extend federal entitlements to more people (who will then be more likely to vote Democratic, hopefully). The ratchet tends to move one way. Once the entitlements are created, they're Established for later as well as accomplished fact now.
SteveK:
Thanks for pointing out the origins of “Poppycock.” Although I lived and was educated in the Netherlands, I didn't know that. You learn something new every day.
Prof, I have argued vociferously and voted consistently to STOP saddling future generations with debt. But the debt that we stupidly allowed Reagan Bush and Bush to rack up, was NOT for social programs. It was for the inter-CLASS transfer of wealth from the middle and lower to the rich. All three of these Republicans (ironically sold as “fiscal conservatives”) have shamelessly peddled the line that “it's our money” (it isn't. As you point out, it never was. It was our kids'). And they squandered their future wealth on enormous corporate giveaways and wars and tax cuts that were supposedly so important, but not important enough to PAY FOR.
Your generation didn't bother to vote. And didn't see or care that the moneyed interests now control everything. And you're gullible. You believe what they want you to: The only place you can see to cut is social programs, not the continuing rape of the country by multinationals and the extremely well heeled special interest groups.
“giving money to those with higher wealth and taking it from those with lower wealth.”
Me too. That has been the 30 year project of the Republican party and has worked spectacularly. We have the greatest wealth gap in human history. But it isn't the geezers holding all the wealth. You're just falling for YET ANOTHER talking point. That lie is that we can afford debt-financed wars and bases all over the world that feed the military-industrial complex, can afford to pay $900 a day Blackwater mercenaries and Halliburton “services,” a war on drugs that costs a fortune, imprisons more than any other nation, huge tax cuts for the wealthy, thousands of pages of credits and deductions for corporations to offshore our jobs, evade taxation, etc. Seems you want to keep that idiotic program going and cut the social safety net instead. Typical.
Me too. That has been the 30 year project of the Republican party and has worked spectacularly.
In other words, Steve, the justification for robbing from the young and giving to the old is that the Republicans are worse. So are corporate tax breaks, the war on drugs, Halliburton, and measles.
Trying to make this a generational thing is just sick. Yeah, now Republicans eat their elders too. It's not old people who are rich, it's RICH people, of all ages, who are.
A huge priority of the GOP has been to increase that wealth gap on behalf of their wealthy donors. Want to fix things? It's not by making granny eat cat food. It's by undoing the things that shift national wealth to those who already have most of it. THAT is the problem. (along with the corrosive influence of money on politics and money in media, both lubricated by GOP wealth redistribution successes.)
Green,
I know you may not like data but here it is. I'm going to cross post from another website where I posted the analysis from the census and the Fed Survey of Consumer Finances.
Here's my post on economistmom.com on this point
————————————————————————–
I was curious so I pulled up the BLS data for 2008.
Here you go
Under 25 2.0 people $13950 inc pp $44200 wealth pp
25-34 2.8 $21000 $44200
35-44 3.3 $22950 $99000
45-54 2.7 $29050 $245600
55-64 2.1 $32850 $445600
65-74 1.8 $24660 $563000
75+ 1.5 $21830 $426100
Note: Net worth number are the same at the bottom because the fed numbers only report under 35 in one group.
An additional piece of information from the BLS that was interesting is the following
Age: under 25 $358 govt payments pp
25-34 $313
35-44 $443
45-54 $1144
55-64 $4545
65-74 $12752
75+ $14615
Note this would exclude Medicare/Medicaid since neither is a direct payment. This would suggest that the higher income number for 55 to 64 year olds is at least partially driven by increases in Federal payments to folks.
Keep in mind, the HHs under 45 which are clearly worse off than senior HHs on BOTH income and net worth are 42.5% of all HHs and probably about 55 percent of HHs paying SS and Medicare taxes.
The broad point that there is a major subsidy from the have nots to the haves on the basis of age remains. This point would be further amplified if we looks at only the top quintile or decile of senior households who receive benefits from all of the other households in the US because this top quintile has an average net worth of almost $1 million.
——————————————
Tell me again about the “fairness” of this intergenerational transfer.
What exactly is it that you think government is doing to drive wealth transfer? It certainly isn't the tax regime. Here's the CBO data on the distribution of taxes over time. Lo and behold, it seems that the evil rich are paying more and more of the total taxes over time
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax…
and have had less decrease as a percentage in their effective tax rate (thus controlling for income effects)
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax…
So spare me your invective and provide some data for the conclusions you want to make.
Green, I know you may not like data but here it is.
To be fair, Steve, I've found GreenDreams to be the most data-focused leftist on here.
I wish it prevented the occasional insane claim, such as that Medicare and Social Security are not generational things, but our rage gets the best of all of us sometimes.
I thought Bill Clinton eradicated measles. Or was it Jimmy Carter?
Perhaps this is too simplistic a view, but if we are so worried of taking care of our “rich elders'” health and senior living “needs,” how about cutting them off, or reducing, their SS and Medicare benefits, and just taking care of those truly in need?
And it's old people of all ages who collect SS and Medicare, regardless of their wealth. Yes there are rich people who are young but we the people aren't paying them money. That's the difference. Paying money from the less wealthy to the more doesn't make sense.
Show me where were paying money to the nonelderly rich and I'm happy to oppose that as well. I would means test every transfer payment and make no payments to the wealthy regardless of age but that's just me.
Totally agree. In fact, this sort of an approach is the only way we are going to balance the budget any time soon.
I would means test every transfer payment and make no payments to the wealthy regardless of age but that's just me.
It's not just you. So would I. Sounds like Dorian would, too. And I'm willing to bet that most folks would agree. The only place one would hit resistance (imho) is that the people who would no longer qualify for the payments have spent most of their lives putting $ in there because they were required to, when they would have been just as happy putting that same $ into their own accounts to provide for themselves.
Polimom,
For interest, I'll post a 5-point plan for balancing the budget within 5 years. I've run the analysis at a high level on this, enough to prove it works and even sent it to several Congressmen, Senators, and Rahm Emanuel.
1. Repeal all of the Bush and Obama tax cuts and stop patching the AMT
2. Eliminate SS and Medicare for the top quintile of recipients by wealth/income
3. Reduce military spending by $50 to $100 billion.
4. End industry specific tax breaks in the corporate tax code.
5. Freeze all other spending until balance is achieved.
4 to 5 years, depending on the assumptions and no more budget deficit.
I'll totally vote for you, Steve.
Lol thx but I would never run for office. There are far too many people who engage in personal attacks as a form of debate and I'm sure I've done some things in my life that I'd rather not have debated in public. I'm not sure what they are but I'm sure they exist.
Agree, Polimom However, believing that most people are generous and compassionate, I would hope that those who have worked hard—or who have hit life's lottery–so as not to need that little extra help during their senior years, would not mind having unnecessarily paid into that “insurance fund” called Social Security or Medicare.
Unfortunately, part of the problem is that the government continues to present SS as if it were a pension plan even though it isn't. I get my little statement that describes what I've paid in and what I might hope to receive and even provides a rate of return calculation.
That type of presentation is wholly disingenuous and makes the change much more difficult to accomplish
The problem's actually bigger than that yet, Steve. Not only has SS been considered a 'pension plan' for decades, it's been factored in as part of one's retirement projections as well.
Thus, as people try to figure out how much they need to live out their retirement years, they look FIRST at how much their SS will be. They then try to determine whether they'll be able to live in the way they want on that much $$.
I know TONS of people who downsized / sold / paid-off so that their financial needs would be met by SS. Everything over that amount is considered 'gravy'.
Polimom,
/agreed.
“I would hope that those who have worked hard—or who have hit life's lottery–so as not to need that little extra help during their senior years, would not mind having unnecessarily paid into that “insurance fund” called Social Security or Medicare.”
Unfortunately, I don't think this is as big a group as one might think.
Interesting.
I just looked at my Social Security Statement of three years before I started drawing SS, and I was told that my “estimated Social Security Benefits” at age 62 (early/reduced benefit) would be $xxx
Lo and behold when I started drawing my SS bnefits three years later, my benefit amount was $yyy, or about 20 percent more than I had counted on receiving???? (and I had already stopped working, several years prior)
No, Steve, wrong. It is not “the elderly” who have more wealth, it's the
WEALTHY. Your party has coddled and fed wealth to them, uh, us actually, at
the expense of everyone else. You want to cripple the programs set up to
help ALL elders while protecting the nonproductive wealth-transfer policies
of the GOP.
As long as you are so easily misled about exactly who benefits from the
entire corporate-owned agenda, you are a pawn in their game. Cripple
Medicare and SS and the rich will gleefully continue to profit handily from
your blindness. Sure, pull the rug out from under the old, sick, weak and
needy and give it to us. If you can.
At this point, I have to consider that you're either COMPLICIT, knowing
exactly what the game is and feeding into the talking points, or you're just
not smart enough to figure it out.
I'm one of those rare relatively affluent ones, like Soros and Buffet, who
see what's happening and try to change it (though of course, far from their
lofty financial “achievements”). But alas, Fox speaks louder to you than
those of us who actually benefit, yet don't consider it good for America,
and hence for us. (and yes, I'm using Fox as a euphemism for the entire
wealthy/corporado message machine, which includes their Congressional
lapdogs).
Let me also note that a period of > 10% unemployment is hardly the time to force less-than-rich elders back into the job market, or to have them keep holding their jobs (at top pay, of course because of seniority) for another 5 years. When did you want to start addressing unemployment?
BTW, I agree with many of the suggestions in Steve's comment. Freezing all government spending, though is a nonstarter. Priorities, people. Some government spending is fruitful and necessary. Some should be increased, lots decreased.
This is hardly a shocker. It takes a lifetime to amass wealth, unless you're born into it. So why was the GOP trying to create a permanent American aristocracy? Elimination of capital gains tax and estate tax = permanent aristocracy. As long as you don't work for it, you pay no taxes and pass it all on tax free to your permanently rich offspring. Bad idea, but the GOP and its followers, even poor and middle income ones, went along, I guess thinking it might increase the chances of THEM becoming rich. You know the Chance brothers? Fat, Slim and None.
Green,
Three posts, no data and no response to data other than slogans and invective. You say it's not the elderly who are more wealthy. Please provide some data that supports this point of view of refute the data I provided. You saying it doesn't make it so. Please tell me what these GOP wealth transfer policies are. I asked you to and pointed out it wasn't the tax code and you simply repeated your assertion with no facts.
I'm not misled about who benefits because I'm looking at the data. You are the one who is misled because you either refuse to look at the data or assert the data isn't relevant if it contradicts your ingoing perspective.
It's just not worth it to be insulted by a person who doesn't have any facts to support their arguments or at least none they are willing to provide.
The elderly are wealthier than everyone else and insist on having the rest of us give them more.
It's a fact however you spin.
When you'd like to actually show a number as opposed to spew a perspective, I'm open to a discussion.
You completely misrepresent what I say because it doesn't fit your little world view and simultaneously call me short-sighted. Please point to a place where I said I wanted to take money from the poor and give to anyone. Capital gains tax hasn't been eliminated. Why don't you see that giving money to the wealthy and then taking it back via the estate tax is less efficient than never giving them the money in the first place?
Sad but not unexpected given your history of posts. I guess in your world it's better to be angry and repeat your perspectives than to engage on facts and figures. I doubt you'll change but I'll be here when you do.
Care to revise and extend?
I don’t usually come to the defense of other commenters and especially in this case, of a person such as Greendreams, because he certainly doesn’t need me to defend him—he is capable enough and certainly more eloquent and knowledgeable in these matters than I am.
Having said that, it disturbs me that his comments are called by some “slogans, invective and spin” purely because he doesn’t lace his reasoning with reams of “data” cherrypicked to support one's arguments.
Some of the most convincing and memorable discourses I have seen and heard don’t include an iota of “data.”
I am sure that, if he finds it necessary, GD will provide all the data some clamor for.
However, for me and I assume for many others, his message comes through loud and clear, one that needs no data:
That our nation, with all its wealth, potential and much-touted compassion certainly can do much more for the “the old, sick, weak and needy,” more than it certainly does for the wealthy.
Just an opinion.
Care to revise and extend?
What, my defense of GreenDreams? I have admit his hysterics are making that look rash.
On good days, though, he will marshal serious data to back his positions, which makes him a standout among the local writers on the left.
When a poster asks for data and is called complicit in stealing from the poor in this country, quoting now
“At this point, I have to consider that you're either COMPLICIT, knowing
exactly what the game is and feeding into the talking points, or you're just
not smart enough to figure it out.”
If you don't consider that invective, then I simply don't know what to say. He is entitle to his opinions but if they are not supported by facts, I'm entitled to say so. When one persists in perspectives and ignores facts to the contrary “cherrypicked” as you say from the CBO, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Federal Reserve, perhaps one should reconsider one's perspectives.
I get that you agree with him and that's fine but that doesn't mean that he is making an argument. He is stating a perspective and replying to disagreement with the argument that “if you don't agree with me, you're stupid or evil”.
I don't see that as worthy of defense.
And just to be clear. I am entirely for this nation providing for those who cannot provide for themselves. Sadly, much of what we provide is to people who can provide for themselves and the bulk of that today is in Social Security and Medicare.
Sign me up for providing to those who cannot provide for themselves any day but if we are to do this, we must stop providing to those who have the means themselves, including seniors who have those means.
That's what I've said from the top of this thread and for that, I've been called complicit or ignorant.
steveinch:
I have read both your comments,and perhaps I have been a little bit one-sided.
However, I still maintain that we often (and I include myself in this “we”) rely too much on “cold” data (cherrypicked or not) to boost our positions and forget that there are human beings behind those statistics and figures.
Thanks for your comeback.
DEAR COMMENTERS
Please return to the topic without the attacks on what/why another commenter thinks what they think. Debate, discuss away, but dont attack writers or commenters.
Thanks,
dr.e