The contrast continues
As John Cohn noted, the Medicare program went off without a hitch in 1966. As The New York Times reported on June 2,1966, it also exceeded its enrollment goals:
The Social Security Administration reported today that more than 17 million Americans -- 90 per cent of those eligible -- had signed up for extra Medicare benefits. The deadline for enrolling was last midnight ...[Commissioner] Ball, who said he had expected about 80 per cent of those eligible would enroll, termed the 90 per cent turnout remarkable.I'll refer you again to my post from this morning, where I examined HHS's enrollment numbers of 14.3 million. That number, notwithstanding my critique that almost half of these were enrolled automatically, is still far short of the goal. There are 42 million people enrolled in Medicare, so only 34% of those eligible were enrolled at the start of the program.
It didn't have to be this way. A government-run program doesn't mean this many hitches. The original Medicare program, which introduced a much more comprehensive slew of benefits than prescription drug coverage, started smoothly with 90% of those eligible enrolled.
The main hassle as enrollment opened this time around was verifying eligibility. That's partly due to the fact that only 150 phone operators were on hand to answer questions. They were also only dealing with 35% of those eligible enrolled. But what would we have seen if 90% Medicare enrollees had signed up for the Drug benefit?
There are three supporting points I would like to add to the Medicare mix.
First, the Medicare Modernization Act was part of the administration's orchestration to move retiree health beneifts from corporate balance sheets and onto Medicare rolls. Using the four-member panel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the administration had hoped to quietly shepherd a rule change that would allow corporations to stop providing employer-based medical benefits to supplement Medicare coverage for retirees. It appears the EEOC effort stalled in the courts, but corporations continue their push to terminate these benefits.
Second, is the corporate welfare in the Medicare Modernization Act few have noted. Have a look for yourself at the Kaiser Family Foundation's website where you can download a summary of the plan. Reviewing page 11 of the summary, you will find the following:
According to the AARP, that "...subsidy could save employers up to $1,330 a year per retiree." The article goes on to state employers cannot receive the subsidy, however, if they make retirees enroll in Part D.
Lastly, there is the cost to the federal deficit of the Medicare Part D program. According to the Christian Science Monitor's January 10, 2006 report, this program has "...created a liability that's actually twice the size of (the) Social Security problem" and (paraphrasing) would require the immediate doubling of Social Security and Medicare payroll deductions to pay the shortfall. Sobering, no?
Surely Republican and conservative advisors knew the calculus of these costs in advance, yet they forged ahead with boldly increasing Medicare (i.e. social program) spending while extending tax cuts.
I would contend that these actions are not accidental, indicative of some random confluence of events, or in the service of election year political expediency. They are straight from the conservative playbook to reduce non-defense-based government spending by any means necessary. Ronald Reagan appears positively progressive compared to this regime.
January 25, 2006 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink