IS THIS HOW MEDICARE STARTS TO WITHER AND DIE?
Mitt Romney isn't exactly the right's ideal messenger in this case, but I think he's setting a dangerous precedent, and I bet others will follow it:
Romney to forgo Medicare
Mitt Romney is celebrating his 65th birthday. But unlike many seniors who reach that age, the GOP presidential candidate will forgo the Medicare program, according to a source with the Romney campaign.
"No, he's keeping his current private insurance plan," a Romney source told CNN....
I realize he's also claiming that the Obama administration is gutting Medicare, while clearly making plans of his own to gut it for real, following the Paul Ryan template -- but I don't want to get into that right now. I'm worried about his refusal to take Medicare himself.
I don't know of any wealthy pol who's done this. I don't know of any prominent deficit scold who's done this. The message it sends -- beyond, in Romney's case, "Yeah, I'm rich" -- is: "Fewer and fewer people should take Medicare -- and Social Security, for that matter."
Other pols will do this -- it's quite possible that it will eventually become routine for wealthy right-wing pols. And gradually the Overton window will move, until the centrist position isn't "This is a universal entitlement" but, rather, "This is welfare. Shouldn't you be trying to get yourself into a position where you don't need it? If you have any sense of personal responsibility, that is?"
Now, I think the right would love to just gut Medicare and Social Security all at once, and will try to do that, as the first order of business the next time there's a Republican president and a Republican Congress. But I think it's going to be a tough fight. So Plan B will be to do to entitlements what's been done to abortion: If a ban is impossible, just keep trying to wear the public down, until what was once a settled part of American life becomes unsavory. Kill your target by degrees.
Romney's the first to do this. He won't be the last. Eventually the right may try to make any comfortably middle-class person feel guilty about taking advantage of these programs.
(X-posted at Booman Tribune.)
20 comments:
I wouldn't worry too much about this. Anyone who is still an active employee over the age of 65 has the option to maintain coverage with his/her employer, and the overwhelming majority of folks do that. They wait to pay Medicare Part B and D premiums until they are no longer eligible for the employer-based policy.
So if Mitt has some sort of group policy through Bain Capital or the family trust or a Cayman Island shell company, he's really not doing anything all that unusual.
Well, it's the posturing I'm worried about most of all. It helps make the program seem shameful.
It helps make the program seem shameful.
First people will have to get over the shame of being on the same side of an issue as Mitt Romney.
I (avid reader of your blog) am with biz5th here - perhaps your youth is showing. I turned 65 last year and saw no reason to sign up for Medicare. I will of course do so when I retire. Romney's lying is of course something else, especially the claim that Obama will end Medicare while Romney and Ryan will not.
Notice who's winning the general election matchup in the fall in the new ABC/WaPo poll, Phil? Hint: It ain't Obama.
I don't believe that any movement depending on people giving up something voluntarily is on the success path in our society. Look at all those polls showing Medicare recipients regard it as something they've earned, not something they receive. The American Way is to believe that every good thing that happens to us is both something we did ourselves and no more than we deserve.
If it's still there when I get there - 3 years - I'll take it.
I did, afterall, pay for it.
I don't believe that any movement depending on people giving up something voluntarily is on the success path in our society.
One word in response to that: "givebacks."
Ask anyone who's ever tried to negotiate a new union contract how difficult it is to use public finger-wagging to get people to forgo what they've acquired fair and square.
Steve: The difference is that workers can't vote for their bosses. If they could "givebacks" would be much less prevalent.
Why would a guy like Mitt, who owns a fleet of luxury vehicles want a free Chevy from the government? It would be embarrassing to be seen in the Chevy.
Just like he couldn't have "illegals" doing his landscaping, cause he's running for prez. Just darned embarrassing for the man.
The difference is that workers can't vote for their bosses.
Well, on some level, public-sector workers do -- and that doesn't exactly work out every time, does it? (Reagan and PATCO, Scott Walker, etc.)
And looked at another way, we often vote for people who self-evidently don't have our interests at heart, right? What's the Matter with Kansas? and all that?
Mitt Romney thinks he's too good for Medicare.
That's what you say about this if you want to put a stop to the kill-Medicare movement.
And smintheus hits it outta the park.
Oh, yes, that Mitt Romney is such a hilarious stumblebum loser that he's beating Obama in the new ABC/Washington Post poll.
I can't understand how negative, un-generative thinking is the basis for every political issue.
These social and cultural programs should not be labeled entitlement: these programs are a nation's obligation to it's citizens.
Of course. Romney doesn't need Medicare but he doesn't deserve it either! He chose a role in society that was artificially rewarded by money, an ineffective tool to measure the worth of life. (What he does with money is, however, a more effective measure.) Some citizens choose other more intrinsic humane roles, however less lucrative. All are equal citizens.
Medicare and social security are humane programs for any society. Social Security is not called personal security.
Rich people-like Romney-should pay into the fund but forgo receiving the benefits out of commonsense: intelligent and wise consumers shouldn't take unnecessary services, thus depleting resources for the entire society. It is called sharing.
I will pay into and accept Medicare. No one can tell me I am undeserving of this"gift".
Why should we allow commonsense to become a bludgeon for the 1% to beat down the rest of us? Frankly, it should be the opposite.
I have had this discussion many times with friends and it always comes down to framing these programs as entitlement when I think these cultural programs within our nation are OBLIGATION.
"Steve M. said...
Oh, yes, that Mitt Romney is such a hilarious stumblebum loser that he's beating Obama in the new ABC/Washington Post poll."
Republicans are going to stay away from the polls in November in such record numbers-(mormon, rich guy, flip-flopper, not radical enough, too radical, etc...) that the machine will have a very hard time justifying the republican win through Diebold.
The average Repug voter will be motivated by racism, hatred, and ignorance...powerful reasons for some, but not enough to win.
I predict a abnormally low turn-out for both parties this year...disillusionment is not a vote-getter.
It used to be that you could both stick with your current insurance plan *and* pick up medicare. Sometimes even as first payer. When did that change?
I will pay into and accept Medicare. No one can tell me I am undeserving of this"gift".
Because it is not a gift- it is indeed a recognition that I am part of this society and that my contributions to society do not/did not receive the monetary return of other chosen professions.
The problem with refusing Medicare when you become eligible is you have to pay a LARGER premium when you do enter the policy. Do some reading, folks, before you drive your life over a cliff to which you may not be able to rescale.
I agree with John. Thanks for this point.
Medicare America
Post a Comment