MEDICARE II: RESPONSES TO CLINTON PLAN
Newsday reports that some critics of the Clinton MedicareThis is part of the California Healthline Daily Edition, a summary of health policy coverage from major news organizations. Sign up for an email subscription.
eligibility expansion plan "said the proposal offers only a
piecemeal solution to the nation's health care problems." Long
Island Coalition for a National Health Plan Vice President Donna
Kass said, "The largest number of uninsured Americans are in the
much younger age group. How long are we going to futz around and
do little pieces of this? ... Isn't it time we said Medicare for
everybody?" (Rabin, 1/7). The Charlotte Observer reports that
"the principal drawback" of the Clinton proposal is that the $300
per month premium "is too much for many older adults." Bonnie
Burns, a California consultant who advises seniors on insurance,
said, "That's a killer premium. It will be too much for a lot of
people, but it will help some. Piecemeal approaches tend to pick
up a few here and there, and leave the group at the bottom of the
economic ladder behind" (Zaldivar/Enda, 1/7).
MORE, MORE
According to the Memphis Commercial Appeal, the American
Association of Retired Persons "stopped short Tuesday of
endorsing the proposed Medicare expansion." AARP spokesperson
Greg Marchildon said, "The devil's in the details. But from what
we know, this plan could make a difference in thousands of
people's lives" (Campbell, 1/7). Families USA Executive Director
Ron Pollack said, "Even with this first step, early retirees at
the lowest income levels, those most in need, will still not be
able to afford the premiums. As this proposal is developed and
refined, Families USA will be working to ensure that those early
retirees who can't afford Medicare, but are among the most
vulnerable to illness and injury, are not left out" (release,
1/6).
BUSINESS DOUBTS
The Healthcare Leadership Council said yesterday that it
opposes the expansion effort. Pamela Bailey, the group's
president, said, "Caution must be our watchword. History tells
us that entitlement expansions, no matter how well-intended, can
cost more and not work as well as their creators envision"
(MacDonald, Hartford Courant, 1/7). Bailey also said, "Soon, a
bipartisan commission will begin considering how to strengthen
Medicare for future generations. It would seem premature to act
now to expand this financially-beleaguered and management-
challenged program" (release, 1/6). The Health Insurance
Association of America said extending coverage to all Americans
can best be achieved "through the private sector, or through a
joint private/public approach." The group said relying on
government-run health care to expand coverage should be avoided,
"especially a government program that already is under financial
duress" (release, 1/6). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the
National Association of Manufacturers "said Tuesday they oppose
Clinton's proposal." NAM's Sharon Canner said, "The taxpayer is
obviously going to be subsidizing. So we're all going to pay in
the end" (Commercial Appeal, 1/7).
NEWSPAPERS SAY 'YES'
An editorial in today's Los Angeles Times calls Clinton's
proposal "a modest and incremental approach to filling in a
disturbing gap in health coverage, unlike the complex plan for
virtually universal coverage that Clinton unsuccessfully backed
in 1994." However, the newspaper notes that the "burden of proof
is on the administration" to demonstrate that the eligibility
expansion will not add to Medicare's costs (1/7). A New York
Times editorial says Clinton's plan "is a worthy effort to boost
coverage among two vulnerable groups." Putting the eligibility
expansion plan into the larger context of Medicare's problems,
the Times concludes: "Most policymakers have come to agree that
Medicare needs to offer a wider range of financially attractive
private HMOs and fee-for-service plans as well as the
government's fee-for-service option. If Mr. Clinton works with
Congress to put better choices in place, and if costs do not
soar, then Republicans would have no valid reason to oppose
extending Medicare to the near-elderly" (1/7). USA Today asks,
"Will the plan grow into an entitlement costing billions? Will
the access invite employers to drop retiree health plans? Should
Medicare -- riddled with waste, fraud and abuse -- be given more
customers? All are compelling questions. But none are
compelling enough to scuttle the idea" (1/7).
EXPLODING COSTS
Writing in the "Opposing View" section of the USA Today
editorial page, the Cato Institute's Michael Tanner contends that
the Clinton plan would cause Medicare costs to skyrocket. "[T]he
people most likely to take advantage of the president's proposal
are the sickest and most costly patients. Relatively healthy
people are unlikely to want to pay the estimated $400 per month
in premiums. Sick people will find such below-cost health care
an irresistible deal. That will drive up costs throughout the
entire Medicare system" (1/7). Fox News' Brit Hume said in a
commentary, "When presidents estimate the cost of new government
benefits, it's usually time to grab your wallet and hold on"
("The Report," 1/6).
UNIQUE UNION TAKE
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said Clinton's proposal
"makes practical sense" given "the growing prevalence of caps by
companies on future employer contributions to retiree health
coverage designed to reduce their liabilities under FASB
regulations." Sweeney continues, "As these caps -- now in place
at 36% of large companies -- begin to hit, retirees will be
exposed to soaring out-of-pocket costs, forcing them to drop
coverage. A soon-to-be-released study commissioned by the AFL-
CIO shows that millions of working families have already lost
coverage where rapidly growing employee premium contributions
have made employer-based family coverage unaffordable" (release,
1/6).