.

A Basic Principle

Small government? Large government? Which rules actually matter?

A basic principle of politics is that the rules don’t matter if they inhibit your progress or agenda, but the rules are sacrosanct if they inhibit your opponents’ agenda or progress.

The Republicans have installed a Debt Clock at their convention in Tampa as a way to visually highlight their disdain for fiscal irresponsibility.  The Republicans, with a Democrat in the White House and Harry Reid leading the Senate, are now deficit hawks.  Even Condoleezza Rice, in her speech last night to the delegates, stressed the importance of getting our financial house in order.  But it has only been a few years since Paul Ryan was voting for Medicare Part D and bailouts and Vice-President Dick Cheney famously declared that “Deficits don’t matter”.

Hypocrisy and the total absence of intellectual honesty are just as common on the other side.  Up is down and down is up when it is politically expedient.  The current Medicare debate is a perfect example.

Let’s take a two second detour to the “Bush Tax Cuts”.  Congress, especially Republicans, like to pretend that revenues will increase if the tax rates decrease.  But knowing that that is all BS, the cuts of 2001 and 2003 were made temporary and designed to end within ten years.  This allowed Congress to ignore the fact that the legislation was not revenue neutral.  They didn’t have to acknowledge the debt they were creating.  Congress has been fighting about retaining those cuts for the last few years.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was billed as revenue neutral, too.  It never was.  Part of the funding for the PPACA came from the CLASS program, the ill-fated long term care policy that has already been eliminated.  Part of the funding was to come from the new 1099 rules, which have also been repealed.  There are still numerous fees and taxes sprinkled like fairy dust throughout the law.  And 716 million dollars comes from future Medicare spending.

Ah Ha!  The Republicans are right.  He is gutting Medicare.

No, not really.  As David Wessel notes in today’s Wall Street Journal, both Obama and Ryan remove a similar amount of future funding from Medicare.  Mr. Romney has now backed himself into a corner and pledged to restore the money.  That too will change.

The problem is that none of these men are at all credible when discussing this issue.  The numbers never add up.  The details never include the HOW something will work.

Where are we now?

  1. Medicare was designed to pay about 75% of a senior’s health care expense
  2. Our current system incentivizes care
  3. Our current system creates an environment where fraud and abuse are almost inevitable
  4. We have no way to cap expenses currently
  5. About 30% of Medicare dollars are spent on a person’s last year of life

How do you control costs?  The obvious answer is to reverse as much of the above as possible.  How do you lose an election?  The obvious answer is to attempt to reverse any of the above.

The President has proposed the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).  By setting standards in both care and pricing, the government would begin to get a handle on unnecessary procedures and costs.  The IPAB will classify certain questionable treatments as elective or self-pay.  If you want it and can pay for it – go ahead.

Mr. Ryan would have you buy a private insurance policy.  He would give you just enough to purchase a basic policy, the second worst in the marketplace.  If you want more coverage, a plan that might pay for certain physicians or medications, you will make up the difference.  The insurer will classify certain questionable treatments as elective or self-pay.  If you want it and can pay for it – go ahead.

The results are about the same.  The wealthy will always have access to care.  The rest of us should be OK.  If all of this looks vaguely familiar, think about the number of prescription medications that are now available over the counter.  OTC doesn’t require a prescription, so the government (Medicare, Medicaid, and government employee coverage) and the insurers save money.  No doctors’ visits.  No coverage for the cost of the drug.  If you want Prilosec, pay for it.

Albert Brooks, in his dystopian novel 2030, offered a vision of the U.S. where the Right To Life movement shifts its focus from abortion to preserving, at any cost, the lives of the elderly.  Is it that far fetched to envision warehouses of comatose elderly connected to expensive hardware, alive in name only?  Would a Republican Party ready to extend the protections of the 14th Amendment to the unborn require unlimited care for the brain dead?  And if that care is mandated by the government, will it also be unfunded?

The answer – Perhaps.  See all of those rules about small government vs. large government; regulations vs. the free market are only as strong as the special interests pushing our politicians.  The good news is that our politicians occasionally surprise us.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »