Taxing the Young to Save Medicare for the Old
Medicare and Social Security make up the lion’s share of the federal budget. The government is setting records for both deficits and debt. And everyone is projecting both of these programs to go bankrupt. A dim picture for anyone hoping to rely on either for their retirement. And they’re worried (see AP-GfK Poll: Baby boomers fear outliving Medicare by Jennifer Agiesta and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar posted 12/29/2010 on the Associated Press).
A new Associated Press-GfK poll finds that baby boomers believe by a ratio of 2-to-1 they won’t be able to rely on the giant health insurance plan throughout their retirement.
The boomers took a running dive into adolescence and went on to redefine work and family, but getting old is making them nervous.
Now, forty-three percent say they don’t expect to be able to depend on Medicare forever, while only 20 percent think their Medicare is secure. The rest have mixed feelings.
The problem with both Medicare and Social Security is that they are both Ponzi schemes. Scams by the government to make generations dependent on government. And to funnel a lot of cash to Washington. But the Baby Boomers mucked up the works. Their free love in the 60s and use of birth control and abortion left their family tree a barren one. The boomer generation of families with maybe 2-3 kids will support in retirement their parent’s generation of families with 10+kids. There’ll be more people entering retirement than entering the workforce to pay for those retirees.
Here’s the math: when the last of the boomers reaches age 65 in about two decades, Medicare will be covering more than 80 million people. At the same time, the ratio of workers paying taxes to support the program will have plunged from 3.5 for each person receiving benefits currently, to 2.3.
And the numbers are worse. Because Social Security will be covering those same people. We’re approaching one working person supporting one person in retirement (Medicare and Social Security benefits combined). Even Bernie Madoff’s great Ponzi scheme had a better ratio when his pyramid imploded. It just isn’t sustainable anymore. Something’s gotta give. And by something I mean benefits paid out to people.
The government can’t balance its books without dealing with health care costs, and Medicare is in the middle. Some leading Republicans and a few Democrats have called for phasing out the program and instead giving each retiree a fixed payment — or voucher —to help them buy private medical insurance of their choice. The poll found doubts about the idea, and a generational debate.
Overall, a narrow majority (51 percent) of Americans opposed the voucher plan. But those born after 1980 favored it by 47 percent to 41 percent, while seniors opposed it 4-to-1. A majority of boomers were also opposed, with 43 percent strongly objecting.
And here’s the problem. Those who don’t pay payroll taxes anymore (retirees) are all for raising taxes to pay for their current level of benefits. No matter how much it bankrupts future generations. And these people vote. More than anyone else. So for good reason they call Social Security the third rail of politics. You touch it at your own peril. Those with a lifetime of paying taxes ahead of them, on the other hand, would rather raise a family than support an individual in retirement. Not only do they want to touch the third rail, they want to short it out. But they don’t have the numbers. Yet.
States to Make Steep Cuts in Medicaid to Stave off Bankruptcy
And we even haven’t talked about Medicaid yet. This program is bankrupting the states. It’s their biggest budget item. And they can’t sustain it any longer (see Medicaid Pushes U.S. States Off ‘Cliff’ as Governors Seek Cuts by Christopher Palmeri and Pat Wechsler posted 12/22/2010 on Bloomberg).
Governors nationwide are taking a scalpel to Medicaid, the jointly run state and federal health-care program for 48 million poor Americans, half of whom are children. The single biggest expense for states, Medicaid consumes about 22 percent of their total $1.6 trillion in expenditures, more than what is allocated to elementary and secondary education, according to a National Governors Association report.
Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place. You know that states aren’t going to cut education. The unions won’t let them. So they have to address the 800 pound gorilla in the room. And cut Medicaid.
Governors are slashing Medicaid to close as much as $140 billion in budget deficits for the 12 months starting in July 2012, after eliminating $130 billion in gaps this year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based research group. Spending is being cut even though state revenues rose for the three quarters ended Sept. 30, as the U.S. recovered from the longest recession since the Great Depression, the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government in Albany, New York, said in a Nov. 30 report.
“I don’t think most states want to sentence people to death,” said Judy Solomon, co-director of health policy at the Center on Budget and Policy. “But what we see is a pretty bleak picture of tough cuts made this year, and next year’s numbers look worse.”
The sad truth is that sick people are costly. Dead people aren’t. So you can see where this is going. Rationing.
Spending on Medicaid nationwide rose 8.8 percent last year, the most since 2002, according to Kaiser. Nearly every state issued at least one new policy to cut program costs in the past two years, including benefit reductions, increased copays and lower reimbursements to health-care providers.
Cost cutting and reductions in benefits. Rationing. And you know where that will lead to. More dead people. Which is the only thing that will save Medicaid. That, or federal contributions.
Every state has a unique formula for calculating the federal contribution for Medicaid. The 12 with the highest personal income, including California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Colorado, typically depend on the U.S. government for about half their expenditures.
Lucky for the states that the federal government has money to spare. Wait a tic, they don’t. They’re setting record deficits and debt. They don’t have the money. Especially now that they’ve thrown Obamacare into the mix. And the cost for this behemoth will dwarf Medicare and Medicaid.
States face the prospect of enrolling 16 million more people in Medicaid beginning in 2014 under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the health-care law Obama signed in March. It expands coverage to include certain childless adults under 65, according to Foley & Lardner LLP, a law firm in Milwaukee. The federal government will pay 100 percent of the increased expense for the first three years.
Well, perhaps not. They’ll be sticking the states with some of those costs. Poor states. These unfunded federal mandates are killing them. But they won’t be the only ones dying. In three years time, when those federal subsidies expire, some of the current Medicaid patients may lose their heath care benefits. And die.
Death Panels to Decide Life and Death
The problem with healthcare is that the raison d’être of healthcare is the very thing bankrupting it. Providing healthcare to sick and dying people. If the sick and dying would just hurry up and die these healthcare programs (Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare) would be just fine. If only there was some mechanism to encourage people to take a pill to manage pain instead of consuming expensive healthcare services. I mean, they are only delaying the inevitable. They should just suck it up. And do the right thing. After receiving something like, oh, I don’t know, let’s call it end of life counseling (see WSJ Opinion Death Panels Revisited posted 12/29/2010 on The Wall Street Journal).
On Sunday, Robert Pear reported in the New York Times that Medicare will now pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling as part of seniors’ annual physicals. A similar provision was originally included in ObamaCare, but Democrats stripped it out amid the death panel furor. Now Medicare will enact the same policy through regulation.
We hadn’t heard about this development until Mr. Pear’s story, but evidently Medicare tried to prevent the change from becoming public knowledge. The provision is buried in thousands of Federal Register pages setting Medicare’s hospital and physician price controls for 2011 and concludes that such consultations count as a form of preventative care.
No wonder they hid it. Encouraging people to hurry up and die. That’s something that doesn’t win you points at the PTA. The law as written isn’t all that bad, though. The panels are voluntary. So far. But everything Big Government has done started small. They are, after all, the master of incrementalism. And with out of control healthcare spending bankrupting Medicare and Medicaid, what do you think these panels will evolve into?
The regulatory process isn’t supposed to be a black-ops exercise, but expect many more such nontransparent improvisations under the vast powers ObamaCare handed the executive branch. In July, the White House bypassed the Senate to recess appoint Dr. Berwick, who has since testified before Congress for all of two hours, and now he promulgates by fiat a reimbursement policy that Congress explicitly rejected, all while scheming with his political patrons to duck any public scrutiny.
If there was nothing to hide they wouldn’t have hidden this provision so deep in the federal register. But when you hide things, there are reasons you hide them. So much for transparency. And the most ethical Congress ever (of course an ethical Congress is a moot point when the executive rules by fiat).
Under highly centralized national health care, the government inevitably makes cost-minded judgments about what types of care are “best” for society at large, and the standardized treatments it prescribes inevitably steal life-saving options from individual patients. This is precisely why many liberals like former White House budget director Peter Orszag support government-run health care to control costs: Technocrats in government can then decide who gets Avastin for cancer, say, and who doesn’t.
When a government bureaucrat decides who gets life-saving medication and who doesn’t, that sounds like a death panel to me. Because that decision has the power of life and death. They can be as nontransparent as they want but the truth is pretty clear. To control the out of control spending of Medicare and Medicaid (and, in time, Obamacare), they will be partnering with the Grim Reaper. Because dead people don’t consume health care benefits. And that is their biggest problem. Consumers of benefits.
The Swedish National Health Care System Rations Care
So what about the social utopias of European Socialism? Those advanced nations that have national healthcare? Are they having these problems? Of course they are. In fact, their future is ours. Here’s a small sampling of what to expect (see Man’s penis amputated following misdiagnosis posted 12/29/2010 in Science and Technology on The Local).
A Swedish man was forced to have his penis amputated after waiting more than a year to learn he had cancer.
The man, who is in his sixties, first visited a local clinic in Blekinge in southern Sweden in September 2009 for treatment of a urinary tract infection, the local Blekinge Läns Tidning (BLT) reported.
When he returned in March 2010 complaining of foreskin irritation, the doctor on duty at the time diagnosed the problem as a simple case of inflammation.
After three weeks passed without the prescribed treatment alleviating the man’s condition, he was instructed to seek further treatment at Blekinge Hospital.
But it took five months before he was able to schedule an appointment at the hospital.
When he finally met with doctors at the hospital, the man was informed he had cancer and his penis would have to be removed.
It remains unclear if the man would have been able to keep his penis had the cancer been detected sooner.
The matter has now been reported to the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) under Sweden’s Lex Maria laws, the informal name used to refer to regulations governing the reporting of injuries or incidents in the Swedish health care system.
Misdiagnosis. And long waits. National healthcare. Where government bureaucrats cut costs and make doctors work long hours. Not a very attractive offer for all those years of medical school. So there’s a doctor shortage. And, consequently, long waits. In this case, 6 months to be advised he needed to go someplace else. Then another 5 to get an appointment someplace else. In the mean time the cancer spread. This is what happens when you ration health care.
Is this the future you want? It’s not the future I want.
The Third Rail of Politics is a Generational Thing
It’s a generational battle. The young want to cut taxes (and benefits). Because they’re paying those taxes. And not consuming the benefits. The old want to raise taxes and maintain benefits. Because they’re not paying those taxes. But are consuming the benefits. Right now there are more old than young. So you can guess who will win this struggle. Bankrupting the future will help the politicians stay in office today. So the old will win.
But there is a little irony in all of this. To save these programs (Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare), they need old people to die. But once they do, the politicians will lose their political support. The younger generation (whose future the politicians mortgaged) will then broom them out of office. And they will be all too glad to short out that third rail once and for all.