Welcome Instapundit readers. This post looks at the politics of Medicare reform. You may also want to click on this post to see a video that succinctly explains the policy of Medicare reform.
===============================================================
Republicans are understandably nervous about polling data showing considerable opposition to the Ryan plan’s Medicare proposal – particularly since they just voted for a budget resolution in the House of Representatives that includes such a reform.
Their unease is warranted. GOPers almost surely will be subjected to a scorched-earth campaign in 2012, featuring lots of demagoguery about Medicare “privatization,” mixed in with shrill rhetoric about big insurance companies and “tax cuts for the rich.”
I don’t particularly care about the GOP’s electoral prospects, but I do want to save my nation from fiscal collapse, so that means I don’t want entitlement reform to become radioactive.
So what can be done to counter the predictable onslaught against Ryan’s Medicare proposal?
First and foremost, reformers should borrow some advice about counter-attacks from President Obama. He said during the 2008 campaign that if opponents “bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” and a high-ranking White House aide in 2009 urged supporters to “punch back twice as hard” when dealing with attacks against government-run healthcare.
While reformers obviously should avoid the unseemly rhetoric associated with the current Administration, they should copy the aggressive approach. Timidity is a recipe for defeat.
For instance, do not allow the left to compare the Ryan proposal to the status quo of unlimited handouts. That system is bankrupt and even the Obama Administration acknowledges that something dramatic needs to happen to control costs.
Indeed, the best strategy for reformers may be to compare the Ryan plan to Obama’s scheme for a beefed-up “Independent Payment Advisory Board.” Sounds wonky and technical, but IPAB is the bureaucratic entity that will be in charge of imposing price controls that lead to the rationing of health care for the elderly.
In other words, the real issue is who will be in charge of the pool of dollars that will be used to provide healthcare for the elderly. Ryan’s plan would let seniors choose a health plan that best suits their needs and provide a big subsidy to finance that policy. Obama’s plan, by contrast, will keep seniors in a government-run system and let a bunch of unelected bureaucrats decide what kind of care they should receive.
Moreover, reformers should fight fire with fire. If the left is allowed to use “privatization” to describe Ryan’s plan (notwithstanding massive government involvement and subsidies), then reformers should refer to IPAB as a “death panel.”
My colleague Michael Cannon is a one-man truth squad on these issues, and he already has explained that there was a lot of merit in Sarah Palin’s accusation that Obamacare would create something akin to a death panel, and he has documented the various ways that government-run healthcare will lead to rationing.
To conclude, here are excerpts from two excellent columns that recently have been published on Obama’s IPAB scheme.
Rich Lowry of National Review writes.
Why does Obama need specifics when he has the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB? If spending on health care is the biggest driver of government spending, then IPAB is Obama’s most important deficit-reduction initiative. …Obama…implicitly acknowledges that [Medicare] is broken and bankrupting us. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be proposing a cap on Medicare’s growth that is at least as stringent as anything New Gingrich proposed in the 1990s… Under Obamacare, IPAB is to hit a target for Medicare’s growth that significantly squeezes the program beginning in 2014 (in his budget speech, Obama said he wants to ratchet down the cap even further). …In the fact sheet released in conjunction with his budget speech, the White House says he wants to give IPAB “additional tools” and “additional enforcement mechanisms such as an automatic sequester.” …IPAB won’t make the notoriously inefficient Medicare program any more efficient. Through arbitrary reductions on payments to providers, it will simply reduce the supply of care. …Medicare’s chief actuary warned that Obamacare will drive providers out of the program. If you love Medicaid, you’ll adore the new IPAB version of Medicare. It will be the experts’ gift to America’s seniors.
The Wall Street Journal’s superb editorial page also has a good analysis.
The Independent Payment Advisory Board was created in the ObamaCare statute, and the President will appoint its experts in 2012 to six-year terms. …Starting in 2014, the board is charged with holding Medicare spending to certain limits, which at first is a measure of inflation. After 2018, the threshold is the nominal per capita growth of the economy plus one percentage point. Last week Mr. Obama said he wants to lower that to GDP plus half a percentage point. Mr. Ryan has been lambasted for linking his “premium support” Medicare subsidies to inflation, not the rate of health cost growth. But if that’s as unrealistic as the liberal wise men claim, then Mr. Obama’s goals are even more so. …Since the board is not allowed by law to restrict treatments, ask seniors to pay more, or raise taxes or the retirement age, it can mean only one thing: arbitrarily paying less for the services seniors receive, via fiat pricing. …Now Mr. Obama wants to give the board the additional power of automatic sequester to enforce its dictates, meaning that it would have the legal authority to prevent Congress from appropriating tax dollars. In other words, Congress would be stripped of any real legislative role in favor of an unaccountable body of experts. …the board will decide “what works” and apply it through regulation to all of American medicine. …As a practical matter, the more likely outcome is the political rationing of care for the elderly, as now occurs in Britain… Messrs. Ryan and Obama agree that Medicare spending must decline, and significantly. The difference is that Mr. Ryan would let seniors decide which private Medicare-financed insurance policies to buy based on their own needs, while Mr. Obama wants Americans to accept the commands of 15 political appointees who will never stand for election.
Even though I play senior softball, I’m not a senior citizen by Medicare standards. But when I reach that age, I know what I’ll decide if my choice is “privatization” or a “death panel.”
[…] we can simply leave policy on autopilot and somehow have faith that Obamacare’s death panels will “solve” the […]
[…] with Obamacare being implemented, including the IPAB “death panels,”maybe we’ll have the worst of both worlds. The inefficiency and expense of American-style […]
[…] with Obamacare being implemented, including the IPAB “death panels,” maybe we’ll have the worst of both worlds. The inefficiency and expense of American-style […]
[…] with Obamacare being implemented, including the IPAB “death panels,” maybe we’ll have the worst of both worlds. The inefficiency and expense of American-style […]
[…] Okay, that’s a morbid example, but you get the point. And my concern isn’t that rationing only exists with a government-run system. Any healthcare system will involve rationing. The real issue is whether individuals are part of a free society so they can make the choice of how to ration. […]
[…] Okay, that’s a morbid example, but you get the point. And my concern isn’t that rationing only exists with a government-run system. Any healthcare system will involve rationing. The real issue is whether individuals are part of a free society so they can make the choice of how to ration. […]
[…] is to impose bureaucratic restrictions on access to health care—what is colloquially known as the death panel approach. Neither option seems terribly attractive compared to the pro-market reforms discussed above. […]
Hope they are planning on keeping the identies of the death panel “docs” secret. I could see folks whose spouse and companion of 50+ years having been consigned to the grave by these sellouts to the lib-progs might suddenly decide that the best thing that they could do with their own few remaining years might be to take one of these death rubber-stampers with them.
Not advocating that, mind you. Just seems like there might be a prdeliction in that direction. Maybe a market for a kit that they could buy. Something I could sell online. “How to track down and ____ the ____ that signed off on your soulmate.”
[…] We can implement free-market reforms, though they won’t be easy. Or we can keep on the current path, lose more of our freedom, and eventually have life-and-death decisions controlled by bureaucrats. […]
[…] is to impose bureaucratic restrictions on access to health care—what is colloquially known as the death panel approach. Neither option seems terribly attractive compared to the pro-market reforms discussed above. […]
[…] happens is a bureaucratic system. I guess the staff at the hospital decided to be an unofficial death panel. And if you don’t treat people, that is one way of keeping costs down. Here are the grim […]
[…] is part of politics, however, which is why I think proponents of reform are making a mistake by allowing the left to characterize this issue as a fight between the status quo and the Ryan […]
[…] See also: Would You Prefer [Medicare] Privatization or a Death Panel? […]
[…] Dan Mitchell for the Center for Freedom and […]
[…] to keep in mind next time you hear Obama, Reid, or Pelosi demagogue against Congressman Ryan’s Medicare […]
The most important thing to remember is that the private world is not zero-sum. The government world is. When you make a commitment to the government world you are making a commitment to a future of frozen potential, lacking in growth and innovation. One that cannot adapt because those in charge of any adaptation have no incentive other than maintaining a status quo.
“Would You Prefer Privatization or a Death Panel?”
Why can’t we have privatized death panels?
[…] DAN MITCHELL ON MEDICARE: Would You Prefer Privatization, Or A Death Panel. […]
[…] This blog post, meanwhile, explains how to deal with demagogic attacks. […]
[…] of the Cato Institute uses his latest video to discuss the need for Medicare reform. In a related blog entry, he offers a strategy to fight criticism of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan for enacting real […]
[…] will help control costs. And the President’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (a.k.a., the death panel) will have enormous power to directly or indirectly restrict care, but that’s probably not too […]
[…] will help control costs. And the President’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (a.k.a., the death panel) will have enormous power to directly or indirectly restrict care, but that’s probably not […]
[…] will help control costs. And the President’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (a.k.a., the death panel) will have enormous power to directly or indirectly restrict care, but that’s probably not […]
[…] will help control costs. And the President’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (a.k.a., the death panel) will have enormous power to directly or indirectly restrict care, but that’s probably not […]
[…] Would You Prefer Privatization or a Death Panel? […]