Yesterday we looked at how the proposed GOP budget cuts would affect Medicaid. Now we’ll look at Medicare, the federal health care program that provides health care to the elderly and people with disabilities. The proposal would end Medicare as it currently exists (but not for another 10 years, thus shielding Republican lawmakers from the immediate wrath of angry senior citizens). Medicare beneficiaries would be required to enroll in private health plans and would receive government vouchers to help pay for the insurance.
Hmm, this sounds awfully familiar. Hang on, I’ll think of it. Of course! It sounds like the plan envisioned for everyone else under the Affordable Care Act (or, to use the language of conservatives, Obamacare). Except that Republicans also want to repeal the ACA and only give vouchers to Medicare beneficiaries. And since Medicare beneficiaries are older and sicker than the general population, private insurers would charge higher rates to cover them. Government vouchers probably wouldn’t cover the full cost of the premiums, so beneficiaries would likely pay more than they do now for less generous benefits. Isn’t reform great?
I’m not saying that our debt problem isn’t serious and that adjustments to entitlements shouldn’t be part of of the solution. But the hard question that Paul Ryan’s hucksterism avoids is this: what is government’s role in caring for its most vulnerable citizens? Without question, caring for me or your grandma or your nephew with autism is expensive. Republicans would have you believe that “reforming” these programs through spending cuts alone won’t harm the people who depend on these programs. The only reasonable conclusion to draw from their claims is that they are either stupid or lying. Neither possibility gives me much hope that we can expect a reasoned policy debate.
