|
|
||
Republicans and social programs Date published: 11/20/2009
AGENTLEMAN'S VOICE on the answering machine scolds us, in that tone of infallibility heard from some pulpits, "Back in the New Deal, all the Republicans voted against Social Security. Then when Lyndon Johnson proposed Medicare, all the Republicans voted against it. Now it's national health care and all the Republicans are against that, too. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now." Well, if the gentleman (whose message we slightly paraphrase) means literally that no Republicans voted for Social Security and Medicare he is empirically wrong. Actually, he's wrong even if he's speaking generally. Some 81 House Republicans voted in 1935 to pass the Social Security Act, while only 15 voted "nay." The GOP Senate vote was 16-5 in favor. As for LBJ's Medicare, Senate Republicans opposed it, but barely: Thirteen of 30 voted for the health-insurance program for the elderly. And in the House, the GOP caucus favored Medicare 70-68. So let us hope that the gentleman, as his Mosaic tone suggests, is a preacher and not a history teacher. But with the combined unfunded liabilities of the two programs now at around $107 trillion in 2009 dollars, one wonders how many of those agreeable Republicans of yore--and Democrats, too--would have changed their vote had they been able to peak into our time. If Republicans today in near lockstep oppose nationalized health insurance for the general population, it may be because they have an advantage over their forebears: They can look back, see the disastrous fiscal consequences of high-minded programs, and try to avoid repeating old mistakes. Our gentle caller aside, it's perhaps more interesting to compare the Democrat naysayers of yesteryear with their contemporary counterparts. Fifteen House Democrats, for example, voted against the Social Security Act, while today such Democratic senators as Virginia's Mark Warner have wisely balked at doing more to the current health care system than fixing its widely admitted flaws. So next time, Reverend, call him.
Copy editors have a day off yesterday?
ANY health care expenditure STARTS at the patient-doctor interface. Americans WANT more healthcare than they need, and it has a cost. Ie. you decide your non-emergent cold "can't wait" until tomorrow, or you don't want to hassle trying to get in to see your MD, so you go to ER, because you think it's similar to drive-in window at fast food place. There's a cost to that. Many go to ERs because as lay people, they're not sure, emergency or not. But not all! Too many want convenience.
The problem with the cost overruns of medicare are exactly driven by the rising cost of medicine. Medicare did not cause medical costs to rise, medical costs caused Medicare costs to rise. This 'analysis' is like saying the FBI budget rises in proportion to the crime rate thus the answer to rising crime rates is to cut the FBI budget.
Rising medical costs are going to bankrupt not only the govt, but families and business. It is a national problem not just a govt. problem but govt must help solve it.
|
|
|||||||||||||||
