Tag Archives: Medicare

Geography of Life After Sixty: You Do Have A Choice

Posted on by
3

VANCOUVER, BEST CITY FOUR YEARS RUNNING. Wikimedia Commons photo

MELBOURNE SKYLINE. AUSTRALIA HAS FOUR OF THE WORLDS TOP CITIES. Wikimedia Commons photo

We haven’t talked about geography in a while. Have you ever thought about relocating to a better place?

Like, “If Congress is stupid enough to kill Medicare, I’m moving to Canada!”

If you’re retired and living on Social Security, you might actually have the freedom to make a considered decision about the best place for you, personally.

Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of the Commonwealth, must be doing something right. Public domain photo

Turns out, Canada’s not a bad choice. In Time’s list of the 10 Happiest Countries in the World, Canada comes in third, behind only Denmark and Sweden. Australia is fourth and New Zealand is eighth. These Commonwealth countries must have a secret. Could it be their health care systems? Ireland, my favorite place to consider living, is 10th. Come to think of it, I guess all the countries in the top  10 have universal health care. The U.S. does pretty well, at 12th place, considering we have health care that’s more expensive and less effective than many countries.

In a ranking of the Most Livable Cities in the World, Australia has four(!) in the top 10 and Canada has three. Vancouver, Canada (most livable city in the world four years in a row!), and Melbourne, Australia took first and second place. If you’re gazing north across the border, Calgary and Toronto also make the top 10. Pittsburgh(!) is the top-ranked U.S. city, at 28th.

Gazing south across the border? Dunno. People used to retire to Mexico for the low cost-of-living. But I hear they’ve got an out-of-control drug war going just now.

As always, these rankings of places are subjective. You have to consider what factors were considered in the rankings. What’s important to you? Health care? Cost of living? Climate?

— John Hayden

(Quick-take rating for this post: 342 words)

Related Articles

American Debt Crisis: A Cinder-Block Wall, Or A Screen Door?

Posted on by
Reply

No. 1 in a series on the Debt Crisis of 2011.

The American political deadlock over debt and taxes is an enigma. It’s a monster with too many heads. Starting today, I’m doing a series of blogging quick takes, each post only a few sentences, zeroing in on one question. No more windy dissertations.

Today’s question: Is the world as we know it about to end, if Democrats and Republicans can’t agree to raise the debt ceiling?

The sovereign debts of the U.S. and other countries are huge beyond comprehension. But what is their real import? In the 1980s, when “fiscally responsible” Republicans were digging the debt hole, they decreed that deficits no longer matter. Could that possibly be true?

Is the debt crisis being trumped-up for ideological purposes, to kill Medicare, or Social Security?

To be sure, debt exists on paper, as bonds and notes and bookkeeping entries. But what, if anything, does the paper represent? Is national debt a tangible reality, like wood; or an abstract concept, light as air?

Better check under the bed. Is anyone hiding there?

Remember Y2K? End of the world. Planes were going to fall from the sky. Approaching Y2K, it looked like a cinder-block wall, into which civilization was going to crash and burn.

Arriving at Y2K, we passed through it like air through a screen door.

— John Hayden

(Quick-take rating for this post: 215 words.)

Last Stand of the White Men in Suits

Posted on by
4

HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERS. AP photo, 02-09-11

Not to belabor the obvious, but does the above photo look like the last stand of Republican white men in suits?

REP. PAUL RYAN. AP photo by J. Scott Applewhite

This morning, Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, presented the Republican budget for 2012. Joining him were a TV screen full of his Republican colleagues on the House Budget Committee. Everyone present, from what I could see on TV, was a white man. With a few exceptions, they are from the Red States, the heartland of America.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Republican budget would cut government spending by $6.2 trillion over a decade, and sharply cut taxes for the wealthy. The top income tax rate would be reduced from 35 percent to 25 percent. Is the U.S. really broke, or is the U.S. wealthy? You decide.

Here is a list of Republican members of the House Budget Committee. White men in suits from the heartland. Only one female name is on the list.

Many believe the Republican budget is so draconian that it's dead on arrival. I hope so, but the hard line on Medicare, especially, is ominous.

NOT TO IGNORE THE REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE. Roger L. Wollenberg photo, 03-31-11

Umm, the photos above, of Republican leaders in the House and Senate, and the list of Republicans on the House Budget Committee . . . Is this what democracy looks like in America, in 2011? (Disclaimer: Many of my friends and relatives are white men. Come to think of it, I am a white man. Hey, I even own two winter suits AND two summer suits, so I am prepared to attend weddings, funerals, and job interviews in all seasons.)

The name of the Republican budget is “Path to Prosperity.” Rep. Ryan says these words, “Path to Prosperity,” with a straight face, without a hint of irony.

Here’s an early analysis of the Republican budget numbers, from the Huffington Post.

Here’s another analysis by Ezra Klein in the Washington Post.

The “Path to Prosperity” runs right over Medicare and Medicaid. At this moment, it appears to me that the Path to Prosperity would effectively destroy Medicare and Medicaid. Maybe that is a  good thing. Sometimes, I think, the only way to reform a program or a bureaucracy is to destroy it and start over. But I don’t think that’s what Republicans have in mind. I think Republicans intend to privatize health care for the elderly and the poor. In the name of paying off the debt. (For an earlier post on Republican strategy regarding Social Security, see “Divide and Conquer.”)

Also on the Republican chopping block: education, from Head Start to Pell Grants.

I think Republicans are focused entirely on two things: paying off the public debt, and reducing taxes. Two contradictory goals, but possibly both can be accomplished at the same time, by grinding the middle class and the poor — and the elderly — into the dirt. (Go ahead, accuse me of class warfare. Doesn’t this look like a scorched-earth policy to benefit wealthy America and corporate America?)

Rep. Paul Ryan says the Republican budget will “create jobs.”

SHOW ME THE JOBS. How exactly do you create jobs by slashing spending to the bone, on everything except the Department of Defense?

How do you create jobs when Toyota is shutting down 13 factories in the U.S., and food and gasoline inflation is vacuuming up every spare dollar of discretionary spending? AND the U.S. is fighting three wars in the Middle East.

Oh, yeah. And to show their power, or something, Republicans intend to shut down the U.S. government at the end of the week. Will that create jobs?

— John Hayden

Related Articles

Now You See It, And Now You Don’t: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid in a Shell Game

Posted on by
3
In honor of Tax Day

Image by swanksalot via Flickr

Welcome to the carnival. Watch closely . . .

The present attack  on “entitlements“ and “debt” is setting the American people up for a deal from hell, a deal the devil thinks we can’t refuse. Just my opinion.

Here’s the devious strategy:

  1. All-out attack on “entitlements,” vilifying Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid . . .
  2. Grudging acknowledgment that the financial structure of Social Security is not so bad . . . compared to the evils of Medicare and Medicaid . . .
  3. Target Medicare and Medicaid as the two programs that will surely sink America, leading to financial collapse . . . (China will rule the world!) . . .
  4. But wait! Maybe there’s a way out . . .

If the American people will agree to kill Medicare and Medicaid, the titans of finance will extend Social Security (for a little while)!

(Do you doubt this mid-February opinion that Republicans would be so callous as to destroy Medicare and Medicaid? See the Republican budget plan, issued at the end of March, to destroy Medicare and Medicaid, among other things.)

Attention old folks and future old folks! Listen up: You can survive without Medicare, right? We’ll keep sending you a diminished Social Security check (no cost-of-living increase). It’s a fair deal. You keep Social Security, we take Medicare. Everyone has to share the pain, right? This will only hurt a little.

It’s a deal you can’t refuse, old folks and future old folks. Or can you? Watch the little ball. Keep you eye on the shells. Now you see it, now you don’t.

If Republicans and their wealthy patrons can pull this off, it will be the biggest public relations coup since the invention of  “the death tax.” Democrats are taking the bait.

— John Hayden

Related Articles

Divide And Conquer: The New Plan To End Social Security By Dividing America at 55

Posted on by
5

Now begins the cold-blooded campaign to destroy Social Security. The plan is to divide and conquer the American people along generational lines. Synchronize your calendars.

If you’re over 55, you’re a Social Security winner; if you’re under 55 you’re a Social Security loser. Life is a lottery based on a four-digit number, the year you were born.

The proponents of this cynical conspiracy intend to pit father against son, mother against daughter. The elders are comfortable, warm and well-fed. So what if the sons and daughters have to eat dog food in old age? Who cares?

FDR SIGNING THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, 1935. DO THESE PEOPLE LOOK LIKE COMMUNISTS? WikiMedia Commons Photo

Since the beginning, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Social Security into law in 1935, some people have hated Social Security. The concept of lifting every elderly American off the dirt floor of poverty infuriates the cold-hearted and mean-spirited. The diehard opponents of Social Security live by their own “Golden Rule,” to wit:

“He who has the gold, rules.”

The spirit of Social Security is too good, too honest, too simple, too clear. Social Security is kindness and justice for every old man and old woman in America, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. Every old man and old woman deserves to live in dignity, with food to eat and a roof over their heads. What’s so hard to understand about that?

IDA MAY FULLER, RECIPIENT OF THE FIRST SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK. (THESE DAYS, YOU CAN GET DIRECT DEPOSIT.) SSA Photo

 

The Social Security safety net has been a blessing for every generation since the Great Depression. Medicare has been a life-saver for senior citizens in a health system run by unforgiving insurance companies. There is no good reason why Social Security and Medicare should not continue to be a blessing for today’s adults — whatever their age — and for their children and grandchildren. Where did this crazy idea of discriminating by age and generation come from? Oh, right. For the record, it came from Republicans.

(By the end of March2011, it appears clearly that Republicans intend to destroy Medicare and Medicaid first, by way of a scorched-earth budget policy. Please see my post, “Wilding in Washington: Last Stand of the White Men in Suits.”)

I’m 62, and no one I know among my contemporaries would wish upon their children and grandchildren a future without Social Security.

Only a fool would believe that children born in 2010 will be so healthy and wealthy, 65 years hence, that they will not need a safety net in old age. What is the logic, what is the fairness, in saying that America will keep faith with everyone over 55, and to hell with everybody under 55?

I wouldn’t stand for it, if I were 25 years old today, or 35, or 45. If you’re going to treat one group of people fairly, you must treat every group fairly.

Social Security is solvent right now. The propaganda claims it is not financially viable for the future. The propaganda is a lie. The most recent projections say it won’t run out of money until 2037.

All Social Security needs is minor adjustments to keep going past 2037, and going strong.  See 12 Ways To Fix Social Security.

Every machine needs routine maintenance. That is Social Security exactly. Congress made adjustments in the 1980s, and the machine has been running smoothly ever since. Right now is simply the time for the regular 100,000-mile maintenance.

To discriminate by age is not the American way. Divide American into the privileged and the have-nots at age 55? No way. Put your foot down. Open your window and scream. Just say no.

We can and must save Social Security for today’s 25-, 35-, and 45-year-olds.  With a little fine-tuning, Social Security will still be strong, for those over 55, and for all Americans. What do you think? — John Hayden

Related Articles

President Obama Declares Support for ‘Public Option’ in a Health Insurance Exchange

Posted on by
1

Surfing back and forth between the cable news channels, FOX News and MSNBC, before President Barack Obama’s address to Congress on health care reform, a visitor from Mars would likely conclude that the Fox pundits and the MSNBC pundits reside in parallel universes, or perhaps on different planets. 

No surprise if it sometimes seems that people are brain-washed by either the conservative pundits at FOX or the liberals at MSNBC.

The president attempted Wednesday evening to speak over the heads of FOX and MSNBC, to speak directly to the American people. 

President Obama made his intentions and his resolve clear from the start of his address: “I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.” 

The president refused to parrot the pundits on either political extreme. He attempted to position himself squarely in the center, saying he prefers “to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.”

Congress has been pecking at health care for months, in the unlikely hope of achieving a bipartisan agreement. Wednesday, the president finally made clear his own proposal.

President Obama proposed a “new insurance exchange” from which citizens could select  and pay for the health insurance plan of their choice. He proposed that the insurance exchange “take effect in four years, which will give us time to get it right.”

Ending weeks of speculation, the president came down solidly for a “not-for-profit public option” to be available along with private health insurance choices in the insurance exchange.

To those who fear losing their present health insurance, the president said: “Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have,” and he declared, “I will protect Medicare.”

And to those who urged him to fight for health care reform, President Obama said, “I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans cannot find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice.”

He declared that the principles of social justice and the character of America are at stake in the health care decision.

Let’s not let cable news channels trivialize the issues.

— John Hayden

Divide And Conquer — Medicare Vs. Universal Health Care

Posted on by
Reply

All the good intentions of those two dreamers — President Barack Obama and Sen. Ted Kennedy — and their hopes that health care might be available to ALL Americans, have run into a wall of mindless self-interest.

It turns out that Medicare-eligible senior citizens are the new privileged class. People over 65 are the haves; people under 65 are the have-nots.

The virtue of generosity once again is no match for the power of fear and selfishness.

Senior citizens to America: “We’ve got our Medicare; the rest of you can go to hell.”

I never believed the prediction that American democracy would disintegrate into inter-generational warfare over Social Security and Medicare. I was under the naive delusion that America’s  elders would teach wisdom and generosity.

Never mind.  It turns out that as a group, senior citizens appear to be as callow as a gang of teenagers; as greedy as a roomfull of CEOs; as indifferent to the poor as a convention of Wall Street bankers.

If President Barack Obama’s goal of health care reform fails, it will fail because complacent senior citizens decide to make their children and grandchildren America’s health care have-nots.