First:
Second:Klein: "Walk me through your thinking on that. The public option would be competing on a level playing field with private insurers, it's limited in who can purchase it. Why can't this be the compromise?
Graham: My belief is that no private-sector entity can survive over a long period of time competing against the government. The public option will be written by politicians. It will be generous. Nobody in my business worries about the bottom line. Eventually, the public option will dominate the marketplace because the political forces in the public sector are different than the economic forces in the private sector. Eventually, the private sector will give way.
You know, we already have Medicaid and Medicare. The private sector covers the middle. If a public option becomes part of that mix, you'll have the whole deal covered by the government. That's why I'm against it. And what I'd like to do long-term is enhance the options available to the retirement community and reform Medicare.
We need to come to grip with the fact that our entitlements programs are unsustainable. We talk about one trillion dollars for health-care reform, but what about the 36 trillion unfunded liability on Medicare? Do you know that 78 percent, I think it is, of Part B premiums are subsidized by the government? Every American on Medicare pays $96 a month. That's 25 percent of the cost of the service. Why should the government subsidize my health-care premium when I retire? I'll have money available. I think we should look at that.
If you could start from scratch, would you scrap Medicare?
No! Medicare was a safety net for those seniors who couldn't afford coverage. I buy into the idea of everyone having health coverage. You can have the public-private partnership in retirement. You can have a government-run system for those who are needy. But above that it's best for the private sector to cover people. There's still a government role. Look at the Wyden-Bennett bill. The government helps people buy their health care in the private sector. To me, that's proper. I don't mind helping people be covered in retirement. We're not going to get rid of Medicare and there's no reason to get rid of it. We just need to be sure it's a well-run program and we can afford it."
"The car example is interesting. When I go to get a car I can walk out of the dealership of I don't like the prices. But if I have a pulmonary embolism and am on a gurney, it's hard to comparison shop, or to have anyone do it for me. And so we generally give that power to the doctor.I like Senator Graham. He does come across as forthright in this exchange. But he is incorrect or perhaps just being unclear. Graham says, "No! Medicare was a safety net for those seniors who couldn't afford coverage." In reality Medicare cover all senior regardless of their ability to afford coverage. He also says, "I don't mind helping people be covered in retirement. We're not going to get rid of Medicare and there's no reason to get rid of it. We just need to be sure it's a well-run program and we can afford it." It sounds as if he may be hinting at means testing. Is that a good idea? Sphere: Related Content
Can I be my own critic here? Lindsey Graham is wrong when he suggested a health care purchase is the same as buying a car. I realize that. We have an entitlement mentality to health care that we don't have with a car. There is no belief in America that everyone deserves cable television. When someone says they don't have cable TV, I don't worry much. If they don't have health-care coverage, I do worry. We have to understand that a hybrid system has to be built around health care. Most Americans understand we're going to cover the poor and the elderly and the downtrodden. Every American family should have some form of coverage so they don't become bankrupt if it becomes sick. But we also got to be okay with the idea that health-care choices and spending still is real money. That's the problem I think. Real money is still being used here."
1 comment:
I agree that Graham does sound "forthright" here. Graham...dispite his role in the Clinton impeachment and trial often redeems himself as a sensible voice on the right. His reasonable position and vote for Sotomayor the just latest evidence.
His conservatism does not blind him to the necessity of Medicare/Medicaid either, hence his apparent double contradiction.
So I don't think he is unclear...just pragmatic (with a hint of ubiquitous pandering to the monolithic over 60 crowd).
As for means testing, it could be a nod to that. It would be interesting to see where he goes in the debate to that end...if at all.
Is it a good thing? Yes, but is very unlikely because politically the well-off retirees become instantly "poor" (in their delusions) whenever the specter of means testing entitlements come up.
eb
Post a Comment