And as one who cares about Jack’s future, I’m sick of it.
Like Albany, our health care financing system is not “dysfunctional,” but rather functions very well for those with power and privilege.
Today’s senior citizens get government-funded health care without limit, funded in part by a tax that workers pay and the retired do not, and in part by borrowing on such a scale that there is no chance that (absent some restraint) Medicare will be there for younger generations when they need it.
Public employees also get the same deal – virtually unlimited health care paid for by less well off taxpayers who increasingly do not have health insurance themselves, particularly if they are in younger generations.
That massive difference in income between the haves and have nots is not counted as income by the tax system, and that back door subsidy is greater the more is spent on employer-funded health insurance, and the higher the income (and thus marginal tax rate) of the recipient, thus favoring the rich, who also like it that way.
The health care industry, in its corporate, non-profit and local 1199 manifestations, gets richer and richer by charging more and more for more and more services of more or less value, having the government force people to pay, and then telling people the services were free.
All and sundry seemed to have the veto power to hold things up until their interests were satisfied. The Republicans, allegedly the party of fiscal restraint, pandered to Generation Greed by insisting that no limits be placed on, nor any questions be asked about, taxpayer funded health care for today’s seniors. Death panels, they said. Even as they insist that drastically reductions must be made in the Medicare benefits that will be made available to younger generations when they get old, because of the debt.
The insurance companies, as part of their deal, got to keep their exemption from anti-trust laws, and limits on the extent to which they would be asked to restrain their costs. Then they opposed the bill, because it still wouldn’t be as good as the deal they have now.
And the public employee unions insisted on a deal under which their health care would be worth more than those of non-union workers, tax free. They were still opposed. The Democrats pandered to them.
I won’t even talk about the fact that the bills as proposed did not go far enough, and would have had health care continue to limit flexibility in the economy by keeping the link between government subsidized health are and place of work. Even what was offered is too much for those who benefit, at the expense of those who pay. The Republicans pandered to them. The Democrats were unwilling to challenge them. And after the Massachusetts election, health care corporate stocks went up, and I’m sure the public employee unions and the AARP celebrated, the latter quietly.
So now there is talk of a more political tenable bill – one that offers further guarantees government provided or subsidized health care, with fewer limits, while doing nothing for those who pay taxes and get nothing.
Here’s a couple of quotes from a blog I follow from those on the other end of the benefits the “I’ve Got Mine Jack” crowd receives.
“Despite being a lean, fit, marathon runner, and having been continually covered by an employers plan for more that 30 years, I am uninsurable in the private insurance market at any price due to the discovery of a genetic heart condition. Too bad the doc didn’t just keep his mouth shut.”
“So, I am locked in to my job for the next four years until I can transition to Medicare. If it weren’t for maintaining my health coverage, I could retire and give my seat to the next generation. I have no intention of having the heart problem “fixed” and have a very strongly written non intervention living will. The problem is, if I were to collapse, they would have me in the hospital and a quarter million bill wracked up before anyone could stop them.”
Younger generations will be in the same situation, except they may not get Medicare until age 75, if they are still alive. He not only can’t retire, he probably can’t get a new job. And what if he lost the job he has?
“I’m becoming a “self-employed contractor”, whether I want to be or not. Me-thinks that health insurance premiums that are 40% of my take-home pay are a little out of line. But that’s just me. Basically, if you are 45-50 and not generating a six figure plus income, you are “economically unviable” in the US economy.”
Ah, but taking away benefits from workers in stores and services means the executives, the seniors and the public employees with health care get to pay less when they shop, right?
“Just for kicks I got a quote from Anthem for my family of 5. A crappy policy with a $2000 deductible: $1400/month…Bingo. Anyone without a nice income can forget about seeing a doctor in this country. Small wonder ER’s are choked with patients who can’t pay.” And a reply. “We’re being gouged that many of us would consider this a really good deal.”
And on and on it goes. Well life is a battle, and these are the losers, so what right does the government to step in one might say? Well guess what – they are the losers BECAUSE of the government. Between Medicare, Medicaid, the VA system, health insurance for public employees and retirees, and the unlimited back-door subsidy via the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance form taxable income, the government (federal, state, local) is funding more than three quarters of third party health care expenditures in this country. We’re paying more and more but not enough, because much of the cost is being funded with borrowed money.
And what is the attitude of all these special interests, who have been putting out all their propaganda? “I’ve got mine Jack.” And in Massachusetts, those who’ve got theirs responded accordingly.
That’s all this is. And until someone is willing to challenge the sense of entitlement of Generation Greed and the special interests that have their hooks in both parties, by making the link from what they have taken to what others have lost right to their faces, they won’t even pay a psychic price for it.
I’ve said it before – either the McGovern or Goldwater solution is better than what we’ve got now. Anyone who read my series on health care know that what was proposed wasn't near to what I wanted, but it was somewhat more just than what we have now. And that, not it's shortcomings, is what was used against it.
Things have to be equalized one way or the other. Anyone want to propose limiting Medicare spending to that which can be financed by the existing payroll tax and beneficiary premiums, and eliminating public employee retiree health care? Of course not. For those who are getting, no limits. For those with nothing, we can't afford anything.