"Worried
Democrats courting elderly voters as midterm elections near," reads a
headline in The Washington Post. It's long been clear that if Democrats
had been less afraid, they'd have less to be afraid of now. Case in
point was the brawl over health care, which a timid President Obama let
go on and on in a fruitless quest for Republican support. As a result,
Democrats squandered precious time pushing through the Affordable
Health Care for America Act. That left two more months of toxic debate
and two fewer months for the dust to settle. Suppose President Obama
had lowered the boom on the stupid-talk about government-run death
panels rather than let it fester. A year ago, 36 percent of seniors
thought that the bill would allow "a government panel to make decisions
about end of life care for people on Medicare," according to a Kaiser
Family Foundation poll. Another 17 percent weren't sure. Unbelievable! Once
the bill became law, the propaganda campaign faded and public support
for the legislation steadily rose. By last month, it stood at 50
percent, according to a recent Kaiser poll. More importantly, only 27
percent of Americans want the law repealed right away. But the same
poll shows the elderly more uncomfortable with the law than is the
broader public. Some 48 percent of those 65 or older expect they will
be worse off under it, while only 23 percent see themselves better off. What
should Democrats do? They should write their own headline: Health
Reform Preserves Every Promised Medicare Benefit, Adds New Ones and
Improves Program Finances. They might pass around copies of the
Medicare trustees' latest annual report. It says that the law will keep
the program solvent for 12 more years than previously forecast. It's
true that Medicare's chief actuary, Richard Foster, has issued his own
more pessimistic projection. He points out, for example, that the
trustees don't include the likelihood that Congress will prevent an
automatic cut in payments to Medicare providers, as it does every year.
(They're not allowed to predict actions Congress may take.) But some
economists argue that the changes will significantly contain Medicare
spending over the long term. After all, last year's report -- against
whose numbers the new predictions are based -- also didn't account for
the congressional vote to maintain reimbursement levels for Medicare
providers. Far easier to explain is Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul
Ryan's plan to replace the current Medicare setup with a voucher
system: Each beneficiary would receive a check with which to buy
private coverage. The voucher would be worth less than the amount spent
on the average Medicare beneficiary. If slashing the soaring costs
of Medicare is your only goal, this is the real deal. But if secure
health coverage is the biggest factor, it's the end of the world. The
elderly lobby has quietly strangled Medicare voucher schemes in the
past. Republicans have never loved Social Security, but they know
that plans to privatize the program remain deeply unpopular. A few
holdouts still carry the privatization flag, but most others prefer
another tack: undermining faith in the program's solvency. Hence all
this loose talk about the Social Security Trust Fund's being "a
fiction." Democrats should remind voters that American workers have
been paying taxes into the trust fund for more than a quarter-century.
That was real money, and the U.S. government has an obligation to pay
it back. Obama has shown spirit defending Social Security, but
Democrats still strain under his delay in pushing through the
health-care reforms. Had Democrats not been scared into letting the
circus run overtime, they'd be a lot less worried about their prospects
in November.
To
find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators
Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web
page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2010 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
