Nick Kristof hammers critics of today's health-care reform proposals with the Medicare cudgel.
We're hearing the same arguments that were raised against Medicare back in the '60s, the NY Times columnist says. They were wrong then, which means they're wrong now.
Wait a minute. I'm not sure that's a logical conclusion.
Medicare was Medicare. The Pelosi-Reid health-care bills are something different.
Sure, some of the opposition to Medicare was irrational. It didn't turn the United States into the Soviet Union.
But critics who said, "You're selling us a bill of goods. This is going to cost a lot more than you're letting on, and someday it might break us," weren't wrong.
I see an analogy to the aquatic center brouhaha here in Greensboro. The voters agreed to pay for a certain amount only to learn later it's going to cost quite a bit more. Its proponents say, "What are you griping about? It doesn't matter how much it costs. It's going to be a great facility." OK, it's going to be a great facility. But could it be a little less great at a little less cost? Or at least, couldn't proponents have been more truthful about it from the start?
Sure, Medicare is a terrific program, but it's terrifically expensive. Honestly, does it really have to cover folks who are very wealthy and could afford to pay for their own medical care?
The irony, of course, is that today's congressional leaders pushing their health-care reform bills sell them as affordable -- and even claim they'll reduce the deficit -- because they will cut Medicare spending, somehow at some time in the future.
Anyone who says that's just plain old BS is brushed off as sounding just like those Medicare opponents back in the '60s.
Health-care reform ought to be just that -- reform. One of the goals was supposed to be cost-containment. We desperately need cost-containment because health care is gobbling up a massive portion of our GDP. So where's the cost-containment other than these promised Medicare cuts that, come on, are not likely to really materialize? Paperwork efficiencies? Sure. Reduce ER visits? Maybe some, but you'll still have millions of illegal immigrants with nowhere else to go.
Tax increases are slated to cover some of the anticipated costs, but that just transfers more wealth from the non-health-care sector of the economy into the health-care sector -- the opposite of what we ought to try to achieve.
Well, never mind. To be on "the right side of history," you have to vote for it -- even if you think most of its promises are hogwash or wishful thinking.