Changing the discussion about Medicare

I posted about the Paul Ryan plan for Medicare more than , before Ryan was on the short list for the Republican vice presidential nomination. I reread what I wrote, including posts on this site and in letters to the editor, and I stand by my words. The current discussion of Medicare, from the Republican side, validates my position.

Making my point, Paul Ryan trotted out his mom, a retiree who lives in The Villages, Fla., and said words to the effect that he wouldn't break the promise about Medicare the government made to people like her. The plan would remain unchanged for those who today are 55 and older.

Under the proposed voucher plan, seniors are likely to have a substantial copay to buy a health insurance plan with coverage similar to Medicare. Like social security, the fact of no change from the current plan for people who are now 55 and older will create inter-generational conflict. Republicans need the 55 and older vote to elect enough people to pass the Ryan budget plan. They must be counting on voters being worried only about their personal stake in collecting Medicare. Otherwise, why would there be a two tiered plan? This is a cynical political calculation.

Where I live, there are signs touting Republican talking points, embracing "personal responsibility," and with phrases like "we are 'entitled' to freedom." There are a lot of these signs, and they rely on a basic understanding of Republican talking points. They preach to the choir that understands the cryptic messages mean Republicans want to do away with entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. It is clear as mud to a neophyte that's what they mean. Republicans don't seem to be taking their own message to heart.

Self reliance is part of who we are as Americans. It has been that way since the earliest agrarian individualism, and most people who can do things for themselves would prefer it that way. At the same time, the development of business improvement processes since World War II has driven out costs, and part of the cost elimination has been of post-retirement health care benefits and conversion of pensions to 401k plans. The pace of business skills improvement accelerated during the Reagan administration.

To meet the needs of business, companies that had retirement health plans, like the U.S. automobile industry, found they couldn't compete with foreign manufacturers who had no such legacy costs. To be more competitive, they eliminated employee costs going forward by changing the model to self-funded retirement for new employees. The net effect of this was to force employees to rely on retirement benefits from the federal government when their personal plans fell short, on Social Security and Medicare specifically.

As a society, we will never want to give up a government program we have come to rely upon, even if there is a better way. Maybe we could attempt it when wages reach a point where employees can earn a living wage, that includes the cost of full retirement benefits, for 40 or 50 hours of weekly work. Opportunities to earn a living wage seem highly unlikely under a Republican controlled government, so for now, we better stick with what we have.

The discussion about Medicare is not really about retirees, after all. It is about earning enough money during our working years to take care of ourselves. That is a discussion Republicans don't really want to have.