12/23/2009
Hoppy's Commentary For Wednesday
Talkline Host Hoppy Kercheval
Politicians love to reference history to bolster arguments. We are told that the health-reform bill is “landmark” legislation on par with Social Security and Medicare, thus glibly establishing the alleged historical significance.
But history—when it’s not being used as a convenient prop—can serve more precisely as a cautionary tale.
The Social Security Act of 1935 was all of 38 pages, including three pages for titles. It was pretty straight forward; the government would begin collecting a tax from employees and employers then pay benefits to retirees, dependent children, “cripple” children and the blind.
The money paid into the system would be held in a special treasury account then used to pay the benefits. Of course, all that money sitting around was too tempting for politicians who now spend it and replace it with IOU’s.
Medicare’s first budget in 1966 was $3 billion. The government said that by 1990 we would be spending $12 billion on Medicare; the budget that year was actually $107 billion.
This year the government budgeted $453 billion in Medicare and $290 billion in Medicaid.
Each program has been the victim of political expedience. Politicians of both parties have used the Social Security money with little concern over how that will impact future generations. Medicare and Medicaid have been engorged because of rising health care costs and added benefits.
I find it remarkable that the supporters of the current health care proposals can keep a straight face when they say the legislation will actually reduce the deficit. If they can get the public to buy that then they should add to the bill a “Pigs Can Fly” amendment.
Refreshingly, more Americans are catching on to Washington’s ways. Approval for the health plan has dropped below 50 percent in at least seven major polls. An NBC News-Wall Street Journal Poll found that just 32 percent Americans say President Obama’s health-reform plan is a good idea.
Yet the Democratic leadership of the Senate is rushing to pass the 2,074 page bill by week’s end. Christmas Eve may be the deadline for buying presents, but does legislation as complex and comprehensive as this have to be ready to open Christmas morning?
The answer of course is that Harry Reid’s “Cash for Cloture” program could crumble at any moment. Some senators who have not yet gotten their $100 million hospital (Chris Dodd of Conn.) or their $100 million in extra Medicaid money (Ben Nelson of Neb.) might insist on their share.
(A Talkline listener emailed me the suggestion that Senators Byrd and Rockefeller at least ask for an emergency turnaround gate on the West Virginia Turnpike in return for their “yes” votes.)
Health care reform may be the most significant piece of legislation ever to pass with no bi-partisan support. Medicare passed in 1965 with the votes of 13 Republicans in the Senate and 70 in the House. Social Security had the backing of 16 of 21 Republicans in the Senate and 81 of 96 Republicans in the House.
But all that matters is that the Reid has the numbers and this monstrosity will pass. There will be speeches about the “historic” moment. If the legislation or some form of it becomes law then we’ll know this much about history—we’ve learned nothing from it.
Talkline Host Hoppy Kercheval
Politicians love to reference history to bolster arguments. We are told that the health-reform bill is “landmark” legislation on par with Social Security and Medicare, thus glibly establishing the alleged historical significance.
But history—when it’s not being used as a convenient prop—can serve more precisely as a cautionary tale.
The Social Security Act of 1935 was all of 38 pages, including three pages for titles. It was pretty straight forward; the government would begin collecting a tax from employees and employers then pay benefits to retirees, dependent children, “cripple” children and the blind.
The money paid into the system would be held in a special treasury account then used to pay the benefits. Of course, all that money sitting around was too tempting for politicians who now spend it and replace it with IOU’s.
Medicare’s first budget in 1966 was $3 billion. The government said that by 1990 we would be spending $12 billion on Medicare; the budget that year was actually $107 billion.
This year the government budgeted $453 billion in Medicare and $290 billion in Medicaid.
Each program has been the victim of political expedience. Politicians of both parties have used the Social Security money with little concern over how that will impact future generations. Medicare and Medicaid have been engorged because of rising health care costs and added benefits.
I find it remarkable that the supporters of the current health care proposals can keep a straight face when they say the legislation will actually reduce the deficit. If they can get the public to buy that then they should add to the bill a “Pigs Can Fly” amendment.
Refreshingly, more Americans are catching on to Washington’s ways. Approval for the health plan has dropped below 50 percent in at least seven major polls. An NBC News-Wall Street Journal Poll found that just 32 percent Americans say President Obama’s health-reform plan is a good idea.
Yet the Democratic leadership of the Senate is rushing to pass the 2,074 page bill by week’s end. Christmas Eve may be the deadline for buying presents, but does legislation as complex and comprehensive as this have to be ready to open Christmas morning?
The answer of course is that Harry Reid’s “Cash for Cloture” program could crumble at any moment. Some senators who have not yet gotten their $100 million hospital (Chris Dodd of Conn.) or their $100 million in extra Medicaid money (Ben Nelson of Neb.) might insist on their share.
(A Talkline listener emailed me the suggestion that Senators Byrd and Rockefeller at least ask for an emergency turnaround gate on the West Virginia Turnpike in return for their “yes” votes.)
Health care reform may be the most significant piece of legislation ever to pass with no bi-partisan support. Medicare passed in 1965 with the votes of 13 Republicans in the Senate and 70 in the House. Social Security had the backing of 16 of 21 Republicans in the Senate and 81 of 96 Republicans in the House.
But all that matters is that the Reid has the numbers and this monstrosity will pass. There will be speeches about the “historic” moment. If the legislation or some form of it becomes law then we’ll know this much about history—we’ve learned nothing from it.
.
.
