Saul Friedman: Bush’s Budget Further Privatizes Medicare but Reporters Don’t Even Ask About It
Posted at 9:35 pm, February 11th, 2007
Here is one reason reporters too often don’t ask the right provocative questions of the president or his briefers: They bog themselves down in details and make it easy for the briefer to slip away, as Tony Snow did the other day when he was asked about proposed budget cuts for Medicare and Medicaid, on which 90 million people depend for some medical care.
I will explain, but first some background known to virtually every reporter assigned to write about the new budget: For readers as well as reporters, in the main stream press, the annual budget is the least understood, most widely written, under-read story of the year. And the TV types rarely bother with it, except maybe to show meaningless pictures of the budget books. One large reason for this lack of interest– the main budget stories are full of facts and numbing numbers, but they don’t tell the truth.
For example, The New York Times’ Robert Pear, who knows more about Medicare than any expert, told us in his initial budget piece on Feb. 2, that “President Bush will ask Congress…to squeeze more than $70 billion in savings from Medicare and Medicaid over the next five years…The proposals, part of a White House plan to balance the budget by 2012, set the stage for a battle with Congress over entitlement spending…”
Naturally there were the predictable skeptical quotes from Democrats, but the story went on, “Mr. Bush has repeatedly said that Medicare has serious long-term financial problems and many experts share his concern.” And that was backed up with a predictable quote from the right-wing American Enterprise Institute, which (like Bush) has never been a friend of Medicare.
As it turned out, Bush is seeking even deeper cutbacks in Medicare and Medicaid, which were also reported as “savings,” as the Times said. By savings the reporters meant the administration would spend that much less than it had planned, sort of like saving by not buying the car you don’t need. But ‘savings” is a misleading euphemism, and Medicare and Medicaid are not like merchandise. Cutting the growth means cutting back on services. And more than that, the president proposed a cap on Medicare and Medicaid spending and absolute reductions in amounts paid to providers.
My point is, as the reporters well know–or should know by now–the president has been steadily privatizing Medicare, that is, doing away with it as a national, public health care program for older Americans and the disabled. The budget is a political document, reflecting the ideology and values of the president. But no one writing the main stories talked to reputable Medicare advocates, such as New York’s Medicare Rights Center, or the Washington lawyers for the Center for Medicare Advocacy.
As a result, it was easy for Tony Snow to slip away from the few questions on the budget and the only one that was asked about Medicare’s cuts on Feb. 6. Snow said the budget merely cut back the rate of growth, “so there are no cuts at all.” It was a fact, but not the truth. He could have been asked a different question based on a truth: “Tony, given the privatization of Part D and Medicare Advantage, is the president in favor of keeping Medicare as a public, universal health care program?”
[Click here for an 'Ask This' item by Saul Friedman on the damage already done to Medicare during the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.]
February 11th, 2007 at 11:57 pm |
[...] Posted in Medical, Health, Government, GOP, Bush Administration at 8:57 pm by LeisureGuy Spine-ectomies? Brain diminution? Look at this: Here is one reason reporters too often don’t ask the right provocative questions of the president or his briefers: They bog themselves down in details and make it easy for the briefer to slip away, as Tony Snow did the other day when he was asked about proposed budget cuts for Medicare and Medicaid, on which 90 million people depend for some medical care. [...]
February 15th, 2007 at 3:45 pm |
Saul Friedman is right; the president has been steadily privatizing Medicare. If Bush’s proposed budget passes, Medicare beneficiaries with incomes over $80,000 will have to pay higher premiums and will seek less expensive options in one of Medicare’s ever-increasing number of private plans. These private plans will then bleed the Medicare budget because subsidies to them will cost over $5 billion over the next 5 years and will drive the traditional Medicare program to make draconian cuts. In the meantime, people with lower incomes – often those who also have greater health needs – will remain in the traditional Medicare program. And as the infamous Baby Boomers turn 65, Medicare will not be there to cover their health care.
People forget what it was like before Medicare: 50% of people over 65 had no health insurance at all. Because of Medicare, 93% of older people now have inpatient and outpatient health coverage. Medicare is a successful program whose support and longevity comes, in part, from its universality. If Medicare is broken into hundreds of private options, it will lose its universality, and traditional Medicare will become another poverty program, subject to even bigger budget cuts.
The facts show that the traditional Medicare program is not only more cost-effective than private insurance, it is also a better means to provide secure, basic health insurance for older and disabled people. At a time when we are beginning to seriously discuss the need for universal health insurance, and many states have taken action, this Administration continues to seek to do away with Medicare, the only universal coverage we have. The privatizing of Medicare spends precious dollars on subsidizing private plans, dollars that would be better spent on health coverage for our aging population within the traditional Medicare program. Instead of breaking up Medicare, policymakers should build on Medicare and consider making it more, not less, available.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:49 am |
The MedAdvantage programs are paid so much a month by Medicare for each enrollee. Do you know how much this payment is?
My wife’s doctor is only accepting Atrio or the traditional Medicare. You either sign up for Atrio or Use the old Medicare. If you sign up for Atrio, you can not use the traditional Medicare. Drug co-pay on Atrio are $12 for tier ones and $43 for tier two. Her present program is $5 and $25.