News » November 19, 2003

Health Scare

Medicare privatization debate reaches boiling point

By Kip Sullivan

A crucial debate in Congress on whether to privatize Medicare is rapidly coming to a head. As In These Times went to press, Republican congressional leaders had reportedly instructed Republicans on a House-Senate conference committee to decide by November 10 whether to endorse the provisions of a House bill that would privatize Medicare in 2010.

Republicans are under intense pressure to add Medicare drug coverage, however meager, to soften the GOP’s image as the party of the rich, and those on the conference committee are being pressured by the right wing to endorse HR 1’s privatization provisions.

Democrats have warned, however, that retaining privatization could doom the bill. On October 23, 41 senators, including one Republican and an independent, warned Bush not to pursue privatization. Democrats have expedient reasons to play hardball: Medicare drug benefits are popular among voters; privatization is not. Republicans could suffer voter retribution in 2004 if they sacrifice drug coverage.

The outcome of this debate will have a long-lasting influence on the entire U.S. health-care system, not just Medicare. Conservatives are acutely aware of this fact. In a June 23 op-ed, Wall Street Journal editors warned Republicans not to decouple privatization and drug coverage. If they did, the piece argued, “Republicans will have already spent their one reform carrot of a prescription drug benefit, private Medicare delivery will be discredited, and the baby boomers will start retiring, increasing the constituency against change.” Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, lamented to the New York Times, “If we don’t get this right, we’re going to get European-style socialism in this country in order to finance the exploding costs of this program when the baby boomers retire.”

Ryan is talking trash when he says unprivatized Medicare amounts to socialism, but he is right to suggest that the program and the 40 million it insures resembles single-payer systems in which one tax-financed public agency sets limits on how much providers can charge and reimburses doctors and hospitals directly.

The presence of the traditional Medicare model on the American landscape makes it easier for single-payer advocates to explain how a single-payer system for all Americans would work and why it is superior to the private sector’s multiple-payer system. Indeed, in the last five years many single-payer advocates have called their proposal “Medicare for all.” Losing traditional Medicare would delay creation of a single-payer system here.

Democrats have done little to promote single-payer but most understand that privatizing Medicare would be a disaster. All evidence indicates that pushing seniors out of Medicare into HMOs would raise, not lower, costs, and would damage quality of care.

HR 1 would achieve privatization in stages by putting great financial pressure on seniors to leave traditional Medicare and enroll in HMOs. Under HR 1, Medicare’s guarantee of medical services would be replaced with a voucher that seniors would use to purchase coverage from either the traditional Medicare program (which would have to start charging a premium in 2010) or an HMO. Because sicker seniors would be more likely to stay in traditional Medicare, which neither limits choice of doctor nor interferes in the doctor-patient relation as HMOs do, the Medicare premiums would be higher than those of the HMOs. This would set off a “death spiral”: Higher premiums would drive even more disproportionately healthy seniors out of traditional Medicare, Medicare would thereby be forced to charge even higher premiums, and the program eventually would “wither on the vine,” in the immortal words of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Rep. William Thomas (R-Calif) chief architect of HR 1, was not exaggerating when he told MSNBC in June that he expected HR 1 to “end Medicare as we know it.”

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Why don’t the Democrats start a
  national movement to inform people
  in a dramatic way; do like the Adm.
  —take to the networks! Run full
  page ads, bumper stickers, rallies
  etc.
  SAVE MEDICARE FOR OUR NATION!

  Posted by Cliff Thatcher on Nov 19, 2003 at 11:27 PM

  People need to come to grips with the fact it is not right versus left, it is rich vs the poor.  These unprincipled knaves are well on their way to destroying this country & the majority is oblivious to what is going on. I shoulda went to Canada…

  Posted by Allen Brooks on Nov 20, 2003 at 12:49 AM

  You say ...

  “pushing seniors out of Medicare into HMOs would raise, not lower, costs”

  How so?

  You offer NO proof of how you arrived at that conclusion.  This is typical of the shallow pretense you Liberals offer as debating points.

  What a sham.

  The truth is that you have nothing to offer but hysterical rhetoric. Your statement is as intellectually bankrupt as is the entire Liberal movement is today.

  The bad news for you is that the people have seen through your fraud.  Next time you try to tear something down, feel free to actually provide some facts and argument.

  Posted by Sven Parnell on Nov 21, 2003 at 2:47 PM

  Hey Sven,

      Read the last paragraph. I think that explains exactly how this legislation will “raise, not lower, costs” for seniors in Medicare. Unless you can logically deconstruct the last paragraph’s argument, I don’t see that you yourself have much else going in your favor aside from “hysterical rhetoric.”

  Relax and think.

  Posted by Stephen Dedalus on Nov 21, 2003 at 10:57 PM

  My mother has allready figured the medicare bill will COST her an ADDITIONAL $670 the first year.

  So…she should start looking for an
  HMO?

  Stick it in your ear, Sven.

  Posted by Richard Bussell on Nov 29, 2003 at 5:47 AM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also featured The Candidates on Health Care
Eli Lilly and Thimerosal
Autism in a Needle?

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!