RSS Feed MenuThe Washington Post finally discovers what should have been obvious from the sea of gray and white heads in evidence in all those town hall videos: senior citizens loathe Obamacare. It’s not hard to see why: they have Medicare now (recently enhanced by virtually free prescription drugs). Many have “Medi-gap” coverage as well through their former employers. It’s hard to see how they can “win” under Obamacare. Add to that scary (and not terribly exaggerated) stories about being forced to undergo “end of life” counseling, and voila! Instant town hell.
Also, as any rookie marketing executive can tell you, getting older people to try a new product is well-nigh impossible. They are creatures of habit, and anyone – politicians especially – who try changing those habits does so at their peril. You would think the Democrats would know this. They are now getting a taste of the medicine they have ladled out so lovingly for the last quarter-century whenever a Republican president made noises about “reforming” Social Security.
Democrats have always viewed national healthcare as a big political winner for them, a la Social Security. But frankly, I never really understood the politics of health care reform, from the liberal perspective. The biggest likely beneficiaries – the poor, the young, the marginally employed, the illegal – are already solidly in the Democrats’ camp. Not obvious that there are many new votes to be mined there. By contrast, the almost certain losers, aside from senior citizens, are working, middle-class voters with solid (if not gold-plated) corporate health plans. (Like me.) Frankly, I think any politician would be mad to try courting the first tranche of voters at the expense of the second. Unlike the young, the poor and the illegal, who are unreliable voters at best, seniors treat polling places as if they were banks. (Why not? For them, they are.) And when you get middle-class Americans sufficiently riled up to take to the streets, look out. (Think 1994.)
The whole “national healthcare” subject has a bit of a dated ring to it, it seems to me. The Democrats appear to be clinging to it almost out of habit, rather than good sense. The world has changed in ways Franklin D. Roosevelt couldn’t even have imagined. Trying to implement his vision of a vast, centralized, enormously costly bureaucracy in 2009 seems wildly out of sync with the times. It’s as if John F. Kennedy had taken office in 1961 pledging to finally implement the free coinage of silver.
The emerging conventional wisdom is that the Obama administration will have to settle for a scaled-down reform of the health insurance industry. Maybe. Things are getting so wild out there that I wouldn’t rule out a rerun of Hillarycare and see it die altogether. The politics just don’t seem to work.
ottovbvs // Aug 10, 2009 at 10:09 am
……..All of these senior citizens (including me)are of course the recipients of govt healthcare……the fact that the GOP and it’s various front groups have been able to recruit the more partisan members of this group to show up and shout at these meetings doesn’t prove much apart from the fact that some old people are gullible and stupid……I particularly love their demands that “Government get out of my healthcare.”
“The emerging conventional wisdom is that the Obama administration will have to settle for a scaled-down reform of the health insurance industry. Maybe. Things are getting so wild out there that I wouldn’t rule out a rerun of Hillarycare and see it die altogether. The politics just don’t seem to work”
…….You wish
jd_34285 // Aug 10, 2009 at 11:28 am
One flaw in your analysis. The Democrats ran on health care reform both in 94 and 08. Bush hid the fact that he was going to recommend social security reform. If you recall during a private fund raiser it leaked out that social security reform would top the Bush agenda. Bush campaign denied it, from then on it was called the “January surprise”. January came and Bush started talking about social security reform.
Winning an election alone doesn’t mean you have a mandate. Your mandate is what you campaigned on. If Bush had ran on social security reform AND won the election he would of had the mandate. Having to hide his intentions in order to win the election proves he simply did not have the mandate to reform social security at all.
sinz54 // Aug 10, 2009 at 11:41 am
The reason they’re angry, is that ObamaCare depends on finding $500 billion in “savings” from Medicare. That means, at the very least, doing away with Medicare Advantage. And probably other cuts too. Medicare used to restrain costs by “cost shifting” to private insurers. But with the new cost controls that ObamaCare wants to put on private insurers, that won’t be possible. So the cuts will fall on Medicare–deeply.
Seniors ALWAYS get angry when politicians try to create new programs on their backs.
Personally, I think they have nothing to worry about. No one in Congress has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to seniors and make them eat deep cuts in their programs.
Instead, what will happen is that ObamaCare is going to cost that extra $500 billion, making the total cost $1.5 trillion just for starters. And the deficit will be even higher.
balconesfault // Aug 10, 2009 at 12:33 pm
How can senior citizens be made to support universal health care?
I’d say, the same way that working couples in their 30’s and 40’s are made to support Medicare.
They understand that society is better off if our nations elderly can receive healthcare in their post-employment years without becoming destitute. They understand that their own parents may have issues that would force them to decide between college for Junior and lifesaving healthcare for Grandmaw.
I don’t see senior citizens in America as a bunch of selfish narcissists who take an “I got mine, Jack” attitude towards healthcare. They are rightfully afraid of losing their care, even more so with the pathetic “death board” rhetoric that’s being thrown around.
ottovbvs // Aug 10, 2009 at 2:30 pm
sinz54 // Aug 10, 2009 at 11:41 am
“The reason they’re angry, is that ObamaCare depends on finding $500 billion in “savings” from Medicare. That means, at the very least, doing away with Medicare Advantage.”
……….Only a small proportion of seniors are on advantage plans…I’m one…..it’s a great deal for me and the insurance companies who receive about 13% more than the regular Medicare cost to run it….for this reason I was never stupid enough to think it would last…..I’ll be quite happy to surrender it for a universal system……..Perhaps because I’m spending $1300 a month to cover my wife who doesn’t yet qualify for Medicare!……God knows what Sinz’s motives are as he’s already in a universal healthcare system that he doesn’t think anyone else should have
RLHotchkiss // Aug 10, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Health care seems to me one case where conservatives have fallen victim to their own talking points. Part of the problem is with polls. Polls generally ask questions about the present. For this reason polls can vastly under report the number of people who suffer episodic episodes. If you ask some one if they are covered by insurance and are happy with it you are getting the number of people for whom that is true for that moment time. With the average American living somewhere around 70 years you are getting 1/70 th of the picture. Many more people have lost or will lose coverage than those not covered now.
Then there is the intensity of the episode. The upper middle class commentators and political operators may see people struggle with health issues. But lower middle class families see the total destruction the combination of loss of health insurance and major health problems. When you help move someone from their house into a trailer, believe me you remember it forever.
The reality is that for the lower middle and lower class Americans, it is highly unlikely that they will ever achieve the pay or stability of their parents. Unless the Republicans can offer real security to these people someone else, not necessarily on the left, will be governing the country.
Obama’s Medicare Cuts // Aug 11, 2009 at 8:31 am
[...] York in the Examiner today digs deeper into a point made yesterday by NM’s Gusher: President Obama’s healthcare scheme rests heavily upon Medicare [...]
sinz54 // Aug 11, 2009 at 9:28 am
ottovbvs sez: “God knows what Sinz’s motives are as he’s already in a universal healthcare system that he doesn’t think anyone else should have”
That is FALSE. I’m not in any such plan.
I’m going to continue to follow you around and continue to correct your misstatements.
sinz54 // Aug 11, 2009 at 9:29 am
ottovbvs: When you are faced with contrary arguments, you question people’s motives, you attack them with put-downs and slights. And more recently, the language you use in your posts has become more and more similar to the argot of the Left.
For a “moderate Republican,” you have made the transition all the way to the Left, complete with the Left’s incivility and boorishness. And that’s how you are regarded around here. Not just by me either.
barker13 // Aug 11, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Re: Sinz54 // Aug 11, 2009 at 9:29 am (#9) –
(*PILING ON*)
(*GRIN*)
Hell… and I haven’t read one of his actual posts in God knows how long!
Get ‘em, Sinz… GET ‘EM!
(Beloved) BILL
(*SELF-DEPRECATING CHUCKLE*)
Spartacus // Aug 11, 2009 at 4:50 pm
sinz54 // Aug 10, 2009 at 11:41 am wrote: “Instead, what will happen is that ObamaCare is going to cost that extra $500 billion, making the total cost $1.5 trillion just for starters. And the deficit will be even higher.”
Wrong again. If nothing else, you are indeed consistent.
Obama’s plan will cost $1 trillion over 10 years – period. In an effort to pay for that $1 trillion cost, he has proposed cuts of $500 billion. If those cuts are never implemented the original cost of the program does not rise to $1.5 trillion; it remains at $1 trillion. There simply will be a $500 billion shortfall in covering the $1 trillion cost.
ottovbvs // Aug 11, 2009 at 5:23 pm
sinz54 // Aug 11, 2009 at 9:28 am
” ottovbvs sez: “God knows what Sinz’s motives are as he’s already in a universal healthcare system that he doesn’t think anyone else should have”
That is FALSE. I’m not in any such plan.”
………They have what is the nearest thing to a universal healthcare system in MA…do you live in MA?
“I’m going to continue to follow you around and continue to correct your misstatements.”
………..Ohhhh you’re stalking me….I thought you weren’t speaking to me and demanding my removal because I’d had the effrontery to call out the pejorative racist comments of yourself and others…..and I’m sure you and Baarking are in complete agreement on my sins
ottovbvs // Aug 11, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Spartacus // Aug 11, 2009 at 4:50 pm
“Wrong again. If nothing else, you are indeed consistent.”
……….Math and economics were never Sinz and Baarking’s strong points
ottovbvs // Aug 11, 2009 at 5:31 pm
sinz54 // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:48 am
“See RomneyCare, the Massachusetts health care initiative. Why couldn’t that have been the basis of a national care program?”
sinz54 // Aug 11, 2009 at 9:28 am
ottovbvs sez: “God knows what Sinz’s motives are as he’s already in a universal healthcare system that he doesn’t think anyone else should have”
That is FALSE. I’m not in any such plan.
……..Okaaaayyyyy
HOT5 Daily 8/11/2009 « The Cyber Lifestyle & Tech Blog // Aug 15, 2009 at 5:22 pm
[...] forum, it gleefully excludes any and all dissenting ideas. We have several examples of this. 5. “Now It’s the Dems Turn to Experience Mediscare” Why healthcare reform is a political loser for Democrats.Representative Sample: The biggest likely [...]