Obama, Medicare, and Socialized Medicine
At his AARP event yesterday, President Obama derided those who in the 1960s called Medicare “socialized medicine.” Yet later in the event he conceded the point. See for yourself:
I got a letter the other day from a woman; she said, I don’t want government-run health care, I don’t want socialized medicine, and don’t touch my Medicare. And I wanted to say, well, I mean, that’s what Medicare is, is it’s a government-run health care plan that people are very happy with.
As he read this, he and the audience laughed condescendingly as if to say, “What a dolt. She hates socialized medicine but she loves Medicare. Doesn’t she realize they are the same thing?”As for people being happy with Medicare, Obama might have pointed out that retirees receive far more in medical benefits than they ever paid into the system. At the moment they can basically have all they want for free or for low cost. Now they even have drug coverage. But that will change if Obama gets his way, because he’s decided “we” spend too much on m medical care and he is determined to do something about that. Part of that “something” will be to scale back Medicare, which Obama himself says is, along with Medicaid, the biggest source of the budget deficit. Anyone who thinks that “reform” won’t start denying options to retirees is dreaming. It’s already happening. Wait until the government inserts itself in to end-of-life decisions. I guess the earlier critics of Medicare weren’t wrong, they just had their timetable off.If government were really interested in seeing a rational medical system, it would stop forcing the taxpayers to pick up the tab for other people’s medical care. How could that do anything but send costs through the roof and then “justify” government control?
Comment by Rob on 7 August 2009:
“If government were really interested in seeing a rational medical system, it would stop forcing the taxpayers to pick up the tab for other people’s medical care. “So if you think that is viable:1) The Conservatives should be introducing legislation today to abolish Medicare and Medicaid. They were in power from 2000-2006 do you recall them doing this? I don’t and I don’t see any of them calling for it now – why not?2) Are you willing to watch a child that has been seriously injured being taken to an emergency room and then wheeled back out and dumped on the side walk because the parents can’t afford the treatment? After all – if the kid is treated and the parents can’t pay who do you think will be stuck with the bill?If Conservatives were true to their stated beliefs they would scrap medicare, medicaid and just plain deny treatment to anyone who can’t pay by saying that the government is out of the business of helping anyone.That’s fine – but I would bet that we would see a lot of these old people who are yelling about “socialism” get very cold feet when they saw a Medicare Cancellation letter show up in their mail box and they suddenly realize that they have to try and buy insurance in the open market – seriously – who is going to insure anyone over 60 with health problems at any thing the average person can afford …Of course you know the answer to the above – the answer is that by 2012 there would be less than a dozen Republicans left in Congress.Good luck with your brilliant thoughts…
Comment by John Awana on 20 August 2009:
When President Obama received this letter from a woman who was against government-run health care, but didn’t want her Medicare messed with, he seized upon an apparent contradiction to decry those who are opposed to socialized medicine, yet benefit from it. But on closer inspection, what this woman expressed is consistent with her fear that we become dependent on the government when we give it control over private aspects of our lives. Her admonition is that this dependency should not be accepted by those still working, as they will be abdicating whatever control they have by doing so. I believe the president is wrong in implying that the existence of a government-run program on one end of the spectrum (Medicare for the retired) means that a government-run program on the other end (health care for the working sector) would be beneficial. Medicare was started as a government program and soon became the sole source of health insurance for most people. Retired workers have become heavily dependent on it, considering Medicare an entitlement to which they contributed through their working years. But you don’t hear lawmakers insisting on the need for competition with the government’s Medicare program, the only option for retired citizens. The woman who expressed her fear to President Obama was simply proving the point that we are at the mercy of the government when it systematically excludes all other choices. The fact that she was afraid that government might cut back on the only program available to her is hardly an endorsement of more government control. Now the president insists that we need a government program so that there’s competition in the health- care market with private plans. When the government plan is subsidized through the taxpayers and sets the highly prescriptive rules under which private insurance companies operate, competition will be the first thing that is eliminated. Employers, from whom most people get their insurance, will drop their more expensive private plans and send workers to the cheaper government option. The end result will be less competition, not more. So, the message of the woman who sent the letter to President Obama is without contradiction. In government-run programs you end up with no choice, little freedom, and more dependency. They are that way by design. It was a message only someone stuck in the system could understand. I think she made her point.
Comment by England Patriots Season tickets on 4 February 2012:
I truly wish I hadn’t witnessed this particular as I really want just one now!