stay connected

FrumForum Facebook FrumForum YouTube Update Twitter FrumForum Flickr

Political Popularity And The Problem With Reforming Entitlements

January 23rd, 2009 at 9:21 pm by Jeffrey Singer | 12 Comments |

Share

While most of Illinois has been distracted by the inauguration of President Obama, soon we will be fixated on another political drama – the impeachment trial of Governor Rod Blagojevich. It is worth noting that our scandal-tainted Governor was once very popular here in the State and lest we Republicans forget, he beat us in 2002 and again in 2006. One of his most popular programs and a winning campaign theme for him back when he was running for office was that he would provide medical coverage to all children in Illinois. The Governor kept his promise, expanding on the traditional Medicaid program by creating something called “All Kids.” I happen to be intimately familiar with this program since I just enrolled my family after losing my job. But I’m not some struggling working class Dad, whose wife works and yet still worries about making the next mortgage payment and/or how the family will afford medical coverage for the kids. Instead, I’m solidly middle-class, my wife is a stay-at-home mom, and we have a fair amount of assets – not enough to make us rich, but certainly enough to survive for a few months until I find a new job. But my assets, including my cash savings, have nothing to do with eligibility for “All Kids.” All I need to do is prove to the State I have no income and my kids are covered and even better, my wife and I are covered. And the co-payments are extremely low — $2 per office visit. If I had to buy insurance through COBRA, I’d be out almost $1,000 a month to cover my family. Now I can certainly use that $1,000 and given my uncertain future, I’m not going to turn down the Governor’s generous program on principle, but there is something very wrong with our whole health insurance system and especially entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid when these programs aren’t means-testing based on assets and instead, politicians like Blagojevich are figuring out how to expand existing coverage for more and more voters (in fiscal year 2007, Medicaid accounted for just over one-fifth of the entire State of Illinois budget).

Recent Posts by Jeffrey Singer



12 responses so far

  • 1 senorlechero // Jan 24, 2009 at 8:40 am

    I think I missed the point of this post. Help me out here…”Blogo is great and folks love him because he gave out free stuff….” is that right so far? Then…”the stuff he gave out is garbage….”? Am I tracking right or did I miss something? Then…..Nothing! OK….I think I get it. Unless Republicans start giving away garbage we cannot win in Illinois.

  • 2 jsinger008 // Jan 24, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    senorlechero,

    I liked your incisive commentary over on Kirchick’s post, so I’m naturally concerned that my “point” wasn’t clear in my first post for New Majority. Allow me to clarify: there is a real concern out there in “middle-America” about health care — whether or not folks can afford it at all, whether or not they have to worry about ever-rising costs, or whether or not they can leave their job to open up their own business when the cost of health-care is so high. I think Republicans need to address that concern, not by ever-expanding the role of government in the health care market but rather by reforming that role. Two quick examples that come to mind is the idea of a national market in health-care (right now, if I wanted to buy a plan from neighboring Indiana, I can’t) and the notion that we need to sever the link between employment and health care, restoring to the consumer the power over their own health care decision (especially spending decisions). There are many other great market-based ideas to controling costs and expanding coverage and a good place to start reading about those ideas is here:

    http://www.manhattan-institute.org/thecure/

  • 3 senorlechero // Jan 24, 2009 at 1:07 pm

    jsinger….thank you for the clarification. I was really hoping you were aiming at conservative solutions to the publics concern over health care. Frankly I’m a bit dissappointed with the “moderate” posters at this site and they seem to be saying “We better start believing liberal ideas or we are doomed”. You have some great ideas about health care and I agree that the GOP better jump all over the issue. I would add HSAs to your list.

  • 4 senorlechero // Jan 24, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    All that being said….While I agree that the GOP better get some good ideas out about health care, I think they should also try to put health care in perspective. Yesterday my wife was visiting my 84 year old retired schoolteacher, liberal, Catholic aunt, who told her “I just don’t know why anyone would be against Universal Health Care”. My wife smiled politely and said nothing, for she knew that my aunt doesn’t want to know why. If she did my wife would have told her that #1, a job is more important than health care….why not Universal Jobs? #2, Food is more important than health care…why not Universal Food? #3, a car and gas are (for most folks) more important than health care….why not Universal Cars and Gas? And if she were snarky like me (which praise God she is not) she would have added…#4, Retirement Funds are more important than health care…why not Universal Retirement? In fact, why should you, a retired teacher, have such a wonderful retirement income when we will have only social security and whatever we can save? How is that fair? Thankfully she said none of that and my dear aunt still thinks we are wonderful but misguieded relatives.

  • 5 nealjking // Jan 25, 2009 at 3:12 am

    senorlechero,
    There are two reasons why health-care insurance should be universal: 1) As long as it is not, it is to the advantage of the insurance companies to reject people likely to have problems, and for people to try to hide their problems from the insurance companies; this leads to mutual dishonesty and inefficiency. 2) In any case, we all end up paying for everybody’s health-care treatment anyway: People without insurance get treated in emergency rooms, and what they can’t pay gets folded into everyone elses’ hospital bills anyway; so it makes more sense to make sure people are treated BEFORE their conditions become emergencies: safer and cheaper (for all of us) overall.

    The point is that it is not the importance of health-care insurance relative to jobs, food, etc., but the way in which access to it affects the system overall.

  • 6 InTheMiddle12 // Jan 25, 2009 at 12:59 pm

    Senor, maybe this is what your Aunt would say to continue the dialogue: 1) jobs are available and free to apply for 2) there are many free food programs so people don’t go hungry and food doesn’t require access to a professional to dole it out, 3) there are decent public transportation systems poor people do use and 4) social security, though probably against your better wishes, still exists. Health Care, unlike those 4 examples you site, is ridiculously costly and very often unavailable, even to the employed. When someone is sick it takes priority over everything else. As someone (maybe even the bible) says: “Your health IS your wealth.” I’m surprised you don’t understand that.

  • 7 senorlechero // Jan 25, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    inthemiddle….are you telling me there is no job discrimination (I’ll be happy to hear you say there is not)? Are you telling me that everyone has access to that “free food”? Same for public transportation? Are you admitting that Social Security has been morphed into a retirement program? The problem with all your comebacks is that Universal Healthcare is a “one size fits all” and all pay for it program. I’m also insulted that you think my aunt, a schoolteacher for 40 years, is so ignorant as to miss the point of my question, which was….If fairness and equality is so important for health care, why not the other things which are far more important?

  • 8 senorlechero // Jan 25, 2009 at 6:29 pm

    in fact, in the middle, your argument turns around on you really well, so thanks for making it. 1) dont have transportation to get there, 2) are too busy working 2 jobs to make a living to go, 3) don’t know where to go because the public servants who should be helping them are too busy campaigning for Obama

  • 9 InTheMiddle12 // Jan 26, 2009 at 6:02 am

    Senor: 1) There is access to free counsel should you be discriminated against in hiring practice, and laws to protect people against discrimination; 2) Free food is available at food programs and there is no means test to get a meal (I worked for years in one); 3) Public transportation is not free, though highly discounted for disabled and retired and the cost is manageable; 4) For those with failed 401k programs, including my 80 something year old parents, yes, social security is their income (they worked 55 years owning a small business); 5) your description of ‘universal healthcare’ as President Obama campaigned for is inaccurate; 6) I meant no offense to your Aunt, or anyone else, I am stating my thoughts… and finally, your last post seems more of the same empty attacks that sadly cost the GOP the last two election cycles. I’m listening.

  • 10 senorlechero // Jan 26, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    nthmddl….I never mentioned Obama’s healthcare proposals. I mentioned “Universal Healthcare”, a term which usually means a single payer system, with equality of access and treatment as it’s goal. I’m really surprised you would not know that

  • 11 senorlechero // Jan 26, 2009 at 12:48 pm

    LOL….and of course I know you werent insulting my aunt. Thats funny

  • 12 senorlechero // Jan 26, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    NealKing….I’m sorry I missed your comment. You make good points, but each of them can be resolves without Universal Healthcare. Read mr. singers comment below, he describes a couple ways to deal with these issues.

You must log in to post a comment.