In its ongoing
failing attempt to present a balanced editorial section the Washington Post
has allowed former Obama Budget Director Peter Orszag space to
write about the problems (misconceptions, lies, deceit, pick your term) in
the Paul Ryan fiscal proposals. Now Mr.
Orszag is a partisan, so we don’t want to give his analysis more credence than
other partisan analysis is given. But
there is one non-partisan conclusion that Mr. Orszag makes that is very
important.
More fundamentally, if
the Romney-Ryan ticket wins, their administration would probably have to choose
one or two of the big three items: tax reform, Medicare changes or
block-granting Medicaid.
Among the three, I’d
bet on Medicaid, given how difficult the other two goals are. The fact that the
harm from block-granting would be concentrated on the poor, and that Congress
would get to leave it to governors to impose the pain, sadly makes that change
more politically viable than the others.
There is almost
nothing more certain then if the Romney-Ryan ticket prevails that Medicaid
will be turned into a bock grant program to the states. And it is absolutely certain that the states,
not having the financial resources of the federal government, will gut these
programs and that health care for the most vulnerable of citizens will be drastically
reduced. They may be kept alive, but
just barely.
But what Mr. Orszag
and others who support this change do not say is how this will impact the
cost and availability of health care for the rest of us. See the benefits of Medicaid flow to the very
poor and the very old and the very disabled, but the money flows to the health
care system. With the absence of this
money, and the health care system retaining much of the costs of treating
Medicaid patients (they aren’t going to let them die) the additional funding
needed will be made up by higher charges for non Medicaid patients.
This means higher
insurance premiums, higher out of pocket costs and less access to medical
care for everyone. The only beneficiary
in all of this is high income taxpayers, as the savings to government, which should be passed on to the population as a whole, are used to fund tax cuts for high
income individuals. But this is part of
the same policy of shifting the costs of Medicare onto the general
population. The theme is basic and
simple, lower government spending on health care, higher costs for individuals
to replace government spending and lower taxes on the very wealthy.
Does anyone think
this is not deliberate? Really,
anyone?
I wonder whether Republicans are deliberately trying to fool the non-rich into giving up their financial security to support the rich, or if they are just misguided. It probably depends on the Republican.
ReplyDelete