He describes it as: “The GOP's Medicare Advantage” but the
truth is that it cannot be the cure to an illness that has been taken care of
already. The description is the title of an article written by Karl Rove and
published in the Wall Street Journal on August 16, 2012. The subtitle of the
article goes like this: “Democrats have long had an issue edge on Medicare.
Republicans cowered in fear. Here's why it's different in 2012.” The idea,
therefore, is not to give the American people something they need; it is to
make them believe something needs fixing that ain't broke in the first place.
The reason that Rove cites to reassure his troops that
things have changed for the debate of 2012 -- and that they need not cower anymore
-- is the following revelation: “This approach is nothing new or radical.
Called 'premium support,' it was recommended in 1999 by Louisiana Democratic
Sen. John Breaux, chairman of President Bill Clinton's Medicare Reform
Commission.” Thus, the man in command of the GOP troops is saying to his foot
soldiers not to be fearful this time because: We stole from them what we could
not fight against. Now we have a reasonable chance to stand up to them where
they used to beat us.
This is fine and dandy but the troops will still need
ammunition to fight with. So then, where is the ammunition, Karl? Ammunition?
Is this what you ask for? You really want ammunition? I'll give you ammunition.
Here it is: “$503 billion” and “$855 billion” and “just 3% less” and “$716
billion.” You still want more ammunition? Oh no, no … no more of this kind of
ammunition. I'm confused already and so will be the audience. But this is the
point my foot soldier, will say Karl Rove, confuse the people with the numbers
while pushing through a stealthy message of fear. Here is one such message:
“because so many baby boomers are turning 65, Medicare is going broke. (Thanks
in part to ObamaCare cuts, Medicare's hospital trust fund will be insolvent by
2024, according to the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees.)”
This is what is new in the debate of 2012 according to Rove.
But the intent of the plan has not changed; it remains the same old one. It is
encapsulated in the following sentence: “This will lead to rationing and slow
down innovation in new therapies, procedures and devices.” But how old is this
idea? you ask. To find the answer, you go back almost exactly three years. It
was August 18, 2009 that Martin Feldstein published an article in the Wall
Street Journal under the title: “ObamaCare Is All About Rationing” to which I
responded the same day with an article you can find in the archives of this
website under the title: “Finally A Definition About Rationing”.
Karl Rove and his troops can sugarcoat their argument all
they want, in the end it will be seen as a temporary placebo that will reassure
the public till election day, then turn into a poison pill that will almost
literally push forty or fifty million uninsured Americans off the cliff. Rather
than use the available resources to cover everyone – a move he calls rationing
-- he will take away the right of citizenship of these people to be covered by
medical insurance so as to spend the money researching and developing new
therapies, procedures and devices for the exclusive use of those who have the
wealth to pay for the best care they can get. It is the Rovian class warfare on
the middle class and the poor.
But what about the approach called: “premium support”
recommended by the chairman of Clinton 's
Medicare Reform Commission? Look here, even Karl Rove says glowing things about
it, and he adds that there is evidence it is an effective plan. Oh yes, that
plan. Well, let me tell you something. The reason why this plan works is
because it was twinned with Medicare. Take the twinning away, and the plan will
cease to work. How do I know this? I'll tell you how I know it, but brace
yourself because it's a long story.
The year was 1992, and Bill Clinton had just been elected
President of the United
States but had not yet taken office. He
asked that people send him ideas on how to reform the health care system --
then costing less than a trillion dollars but projected to shortly go over that
magic figure. Happy with the Canadian system under which I lived and still
live, but a system to which a few improvements could still be introduced, I
suggested a plan similar to the “premium support.”
But I had a proviso in my plan to the effect that in case of
a catastrophic illness, the insurance (universal or otherwise) should pay all
the expenses. I sent my plan to Bill Clinton even before Hillary Clinton had
been assigned to shepherd the debate through the American political maze. Seven
years later, the Democratic Senator from Louisiana ,
John Breaux who was then President of Clinton's Medicare Reform Commission
recommended the plan. It was adopted in 2003 and, like says Karl Rove, proved
to be effective.
Being the originator of the idea, grant me the authority to
counsel that the plan will not work if the idea behind using it will be to let
some people die – literally die – so that other people may have a better
medical coverage.
Enough is enough,
guys, you have been bellyaching about an ad that describes Romney as having
created a concept that might have led to the death of a woman stricken with
cancer years later. And now you advocate a concept that will deprive millions
of people of the coverage they deserve by right of citizenship, and die in
droves so that other people may live well, live long and get wealthier.
But who will take responsibility
for those who will die needlessly? Will you Martin? Will you Karl? Will you
Mitt? Will you Paul?
I would not want to
be in your shoes.