Dangers For Both On Medicare, Part Two

In the 1960s when Medicare came into existence, opponents virtually screamed "the end of civilization is near." All of this because elderly people would receive government supported health care. Now, all of these years later, a person 65 is not really seen as elderly anymore, as life expectancy has increased because of improved medical treatments, and at least in part, because of the delivery of those improved treatments to older Americans by Medicare. To some, Medicare's success has added to its problems. By helping people live longer, more people remain on Medicare (and Social Security) for a longer period of time. To hear some critics, maybe we all should just die by 65 to save them the worry of having to deal with the problem, especially when the modern critics are funded by super wealthy interests who are more concerned with making more money, than saving people's lives. Any volunteers to die by 65 out there? Don't everyone shout at once now! Ah, what, you've all got laryngitis? Well, this isn't working out too well, so let's try this: how about you folks over 65? Any volunteers to kick the bucket... I mean, pass on, as soon as possible to keep from bothering the money makers? Let's face it folks, this is not realistic, and I hope you make sure your tootsies touch Mother Earth every day. On the other hand, I have read about some who want certain procedures or care eliminated.or curtailed, especially for the terminally ill, or for people who are much advanced in years, with the idea that we can't afford such things. The interesting thing is, some of the advocates for this seem to be some of the very ones who screamed about "death panels" when end of life counseling was proposed. Okay, let's limit the things you say you want, but who will decide who gets what treatment? Who will tell Ms. Daisy, an 88 year old, she can't have such and such a treatment to ease pain  or help help her walk better? Call them "death panels" or whatever you want, someone will have to make those decisions. And guess what else, there won't be total freedom, since someone will tell us the answers! You want total freedom? Go far away from EVERYONE, all by yourself; then you can have total freedom. Add just one person, and your total freedom stops at that other person's nose.

Of course, when it suited their purpose, these same opponents used the term "death panels" to scare people into opposing President Obama's health care reforms. Yes, the President's plan has flaws, just like anything involving human beings. Let's face it, we're imperfect, or things just don't go the way we intend for them to go all the time. My guess is, when humans crawled out of caves and made huts for living, someone said, "Yikes, huts catch on fire or let in the elements. I told you we should stay in our natural habitat." I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm damned glad most humans persisted over the millenniums and that we have graduated to the homes we have today, especially with air conditioning, 'cause its been a hot summer!

Now more seriously, in Part One I said the Republicans can't win the current debate on Medicare the way it is framed. Yes, there are problems with Medicare, but most Americans want the problems dealt with, and they don't want their family or friends to die early or suffer needlessly or go totally broke on medical care because some politicians are too ideologically driven to work on those problems, or others are too worried about making more money they couldn't spend in a hundred or more life times. On the other side of this, people must recognize and acknowledge that there are problems, and that those problems are not going to go away with just a little dab of plaster here and a touch up paint job there. There are structural problems. These structural problems are the already noted increase in the age of the population, as well as aspects of the health care system that are increasingly outdated. While I wasn't all that crazy about the final Obamacare package, I also noted back then that it was a start. Like it, not like it, the President brought a discussion to the fore about a VERY complex issue that cannot be fixed in the blink of an eye. And there will be problems with implementing the new health care law. We damned humans just can't do anything right! All of this ties together though; the health care law, Medicare, how to deliver health care to Americans, how to control costs. And the idea that we can have a nation without laws is nonsense. The debate over what those laws should be is certainly valid, but there must be laws, and we must have revenues to pay for things we want, not just health care.

The Republicans now support a voucher system for Medicare, that, if passed, would go into effect in ten years. Under this system, seniors would receive a specified amount to "help them buy" private medical insurance. The key here is "private" insurance. Remember, if you own an insurance company, you will need to MAKE money, a profit. The problem becomes, what if good insurance costs more than the voucher? The answer is, you'll have to make up the difference. Further, you'll have to be astute enough to know which plan is best for you. In other words, you're on your own and good luck! This plan, based so much upon the private sector for such an important part of our lives, makes the Republicans highly vulnerable, in my opinion, and that makes Paul Ryan a big gamble. Further, the Republican plan would supposedly give American seniors the "option" to remain in "traditional" Medicare. The "fear," correctly or incorrectly, mainly by Democrats, is that basically healthy well off seniors will be able to buy the insurance they need, leaving poorer or less healthy seniors in a withering Medicare program. Unfortunately to me, this all comes back to "we're not a country, we're a group of individuals only interested in our own personal lives. I've got mine, the hell with you! Oh....unless of course there's a war, and you just better support it and be patriotic, because we'll bomb just about any country that doesn't like us. And we LOVE the term 'boots on the ground,' it sounds so John Wayne-like.' "

Now, the Democrats have potential problems too. If they make the defeat of the Republicans the only issue about Medicare, they stand to face a backlash when changes to the program in fact need to be made, which will be sooner, rather than later. As I've noted before, the question really is, who, or which party, do you want adjusting Medicare? Trust me, changes will need to be made, not because of the laws of the political right, not because of the laws of the political left, but because of the laws of arithmetic. By the way, one idea floated by some, I'm not sure if by Republicans or by Democrats, is that doctors and other health care providers be paid fixed salaries to limit payments for extra tests, procedures, or prescriptions, which are considered a part of the escalating cost problem.

I know I'll be visiting this issue again, but currently I'm doing a little research on the overall Medicare system (and the health care system in general), especially as compared to other nations. Do some nations do certain aspects of health care or care for the elderly better than us? If so, how do we change? If nothing else, I hope these articles make you think about this issue. .
 
WORD HISTORY:
Frank-This is the word meaning "speak freely, bluntly," as in "a frank statement."  The adverbial form is "frankly," as in the famous Rhett Butler statement to Scarlett O'Hara in "Gone With the Wind," "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." Also there is a less common verb form used about free mail, in America often used more about political representatives sending free mail to constituents and called "franking privileges." The various forms go back to the Germanic tribe, the Franks. This name then goes back to Old Germanic "franko," which meant "javelin, spear, lance,"^ but its origins beyond that are unknown. The Franks conquered much of what is today France, a country thereafter named for them. As the conquerors, they were "free men;" thus, the term "Frank" came to be associated with "being free," including the related "speak openly." English borrowed the term in the late 1200s or so in that context from French, but Old English had both "Franca," as the name for their kindred Germanic tribe,^^ and "franca," with the "spear" meaning. The notion of "speak openly" eventually even took on the more emphatic meaning "speak bluntly or outspokenly."  

^ This is not a certainty, as the Franks also used a throwing ax called a "francisca/franciska." Some linguists, therefore, believe the two weapons were named FOR the people who used them, rather than the people being named for one of their weapons.

^^ It is believed by a number of historians from archaeological evidence that some Franks participated in the invasion of Britain in the mid 400s A.D. by the Germanic tribes the Angles and the Saxons, which also included some Frisians, another Germanic tribe.