Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Flashback: Republicans Opposed Medicare In 1960s By Warning Of Rationing, ‘Socialized Medicine’

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 07:23 PM
Original message
Flashback: Republicans Opposed Medicare In 1960s By Warning Of Rationing, ‘Socialized Medicine’
Edited on Wed Jul-29-09 07:30 PM by ProSense

Flashback: Republicans Opposed Medicare In 1960s By Warning Of Rationing, ‘Socialized Medicine’

Tomorrow is the the 44th anniversary of Medicare, a government-sponsored health care program that provides health coverage to virtually all of the nation’s elderly and a large share of people with disabilities. While Medicare is not without its problems, it has dramatically improved access to health care, allowed seniors to live longer and healthier lives, contributed to the desegregation of southern hospitals, and has become one of the most popular government programs.

At the time, conservatives strongly opposed Medicare, warning that a government-run program would lead to socialism in America:

Ronald Reagan: “(I)f you don’t (stop Medicare) and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” (1961)

George H.W. Bush: Described Medicare in 1964 as “socialized medicine.” (1964)

Barry Goldwater: “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.” (1964)

Bob Dole: In 1996, while running for the Presidency, Dole openly bragged that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare in 1965. “I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare . . . because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965.” (1965)

Despite Medicare’s success and the unrealized fears of its detractors, Republican lawmakers are still regurgitating the claim that Medicare would create a “Soviet-style model” of health care. As Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MS), chairman of the GOP Health Solutions Group, explained during a recent radio interview, “you could certainly argue that government should have never have gotten in the health care business…Government did get into the health care business in a big way in 1965 with Medicare, and later with Medicaid, and government already distorts the marketplace.”

more



edited to fixed link

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. My dad hated Barry Goldwater
He didn't have much more than an 8th grade education and didn't even "earn" that because he was dyslexic and functionally illiterate - but he was smart enough to know Barry Goldwater was an idiot and I would bet that statement right there is why. Yeah Dad!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. just so insurance companies can rip of the sick and dying... sick bastards
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marybourg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yep. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. I have dealt with medicare for 27 years with my parents
and Medicare does ration health care. Medicare sets standard payments they allow for services. A medical provider may bill you $2000 for a procedure and Medicare may only allow $1000,
if you have supplemental insurance the difference is passed on to it and we all pay through higher premiums. If the patient doesn't have a supplemental insurance and doesn't qualify for Medicaid tough luck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Everything is "rationed," but the high costs are not a problem with Medicare
Edited on Wed Jul-29-09 08:28 PM by ProSense
In short, free markets are not an alternative to rationing. They are just one particular form of rationing. ...

Many critics of the current health reform efforts would have us believe that only governments ration things.

When a government insurance program refuses to pay for procedures that the managers of those insurance pools do not consider worth the taxpayer’s money, these critics immediately trot out the R-word. It is the core of their argument against cost-effectiveness analysis and a public health plan for the non-elderly.

On the other hand, these same people believe that when, for similar reasons, a private health insurer refuses to pay for a particular procedure or has a price-tiered formulary for drugs – e.g., asking the insured to pay a 35 percent coinsurance rate on highly expensive biologic specialty drugs that effectively put that drug out of the patient’s reach — the insurer is not rationing health care. Instead, the insurer is merely allowing “consumers” (formerly “patients”) to use their discretion on how to use their own money. The insurers are said to be managing prudently and efficiently, forcing patients to trade off the benefits of health care against their other budget priorities. ...

One must wonder where people worried about “rationing” health care have been in the last 20 years. Could they possibly be unaware that the United States health system has rationed health care in spades for many years, on the economist’s definition of rationing, and that President Obama and Congress are now desperately seeking to reduce or eliminate that form of rationing?

Let me remind rationing-phobes what they would find in the huge body of research literature and media reports on our health system, should they ever trouble themselves to read it ...(list here)...

link


We don’t have a Medicare problem — we have a health care problem.


Edited to add quotation marks to title.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. I have excellent insurance through my employer
( thanks to the USWA). I have never run across any form of rationing anything any of my doctors ever ordered was paid for in full. I have dealt with medicare and believe me it is rationed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. BS!
Sounds like you have an agenda.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. I have dealt with Medicare, they have specific fees
for every medical procedure and if the provider doesn't agree to accept their payments (which many and more and more don't) you have to have a supplemental insurance or qualify for Medicaid. If you don't the patient pays and pays until they finally loose everything and eventually qualify for Medicaid. My 90 year old mother went through that. My dad died 20 years ago and she paid and paid medical bills until a couple years ago when she finally lost all her savings, now that she is totally broke she gets Medicaid. Thousands and thousands of people could tell you the same story. You can deny it if you want but it is the truth I have lived it first hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. "if the provider doesn't agree to accept their payments"
Answer the question at comment 11.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Here's a question:
If your parents have had bad experiences with Medicare all these years, and you are so happy with private insurance, why have they stayed with Medicare?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Well you know why they can't pay for private insurance and
for your information Medicare isn't free it's not being paid for now but your grandchildren will foot the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. So without Medicare, they'd have no insurance at all.
Case closed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. If all those unfunded costs weren't passed on to everyones
insurance maybe they could afford insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. I can't wait to hear your argument
against Social Security.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. I have no problem with Social Security, Medicare or
a national health care system (if it's not rationed) and as long as they are paid for now and not passed on to future generations. Myself I think Obama inherited one hell of a mess with a recession and two wars. I think he would be better off focusing on getting our economic situation in order before going out and creating more unfunded government programs. I worry about the deficits he is running up and many other Democrats are concerned about them too. SS, Medicare, the Bush prescription drug program all cost many times what people originally thought they would and all of them are broke. Nobody really knows what this health care system will really cost, one thing for sure it will probably cost less than the Republicans say it will and no doubt much more than the Democrats say it will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marybourg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
34. No. Not true. A provider who "accepts assignment" gets 80%; of
approved charges from Medicare, the patient (or his Medigap policy or employer-provided plan or some combination thereof) pays the remaining 20%). If the provider doesn't "accept assignment" he may charge an additional amount 5% or 10%, I'm not exactly sure, because we always ask if the provider "accepts assignment" and only use those who do, but it's never another $100% as in your example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. This is why GOP hates Medicare and would end it tomorrow if
they could get away with it. This is why they so rabidly
oppose Health Insurance Reform. They have been trying to
rid us of Medicare--God forbid we have a broader program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. So you think Medicare is some kind
success story. My father was in the hospital for a six month stay one time, Medicare is supposed to cover six months in the hospital. Well when my dad got out of the hospital he was hit with a bill for $189,000 for fees over and above what Medicare allowed (I would call that rationing). Guess who paid that bill? You and I did through higher insurance premiums and taxes. Medicare has cost far more than anyone ever dreamed it would and will be broke in a very few years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. "You and I did through higher insurance premiums and taxes." Hmmm,
something doesn't sound right. Seems like you're saying Medicare is the reason private insurance is so high. Hogwash.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Hog wash? When a patient leaves a hospital
and they are left with $189,000 of bills Medicare didn't pay who do you think pays them the tooth fairy. People think Medicare is just great, sure they do they aren't paying for it, it is being passed on as IOUs to your grandchildren. I will get Medicare myself in 3 years, what a deal I pay a few bucks a month and pass the deficit on to someone else. I'm not going to pass a deal like that up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. You're losing credibility
Edited on Wed Jul-29-09 09:08 PM by ProSense
I will get Medicare myself in 3 years, what a deal I pay a few bucks a month and pass the deficit on to someone else. I'm not going to pass a deal like that up.


Well when my dad got out of the hospital he was hit with a bill for $189,000 for fees over and above what Medicare allowed (I would call that rationing). Guess who paid that bill? You and I did through higher insurance premiums and taxes.


if the provider doesn't agree to accept their payments (which many and more and more don't) you have to have a supplemental insurance or qualify for Medicaid. If you don't the patient pays and pays until they finally loose everything and eventually qualify for Medicaid. My 90 year old mother went through that. My dad died 20 years ago and she paid and paid medical bills until a couple years ago when she finally lost all her savings, now that she is totally broke she gets Medicaid.


Care to reconcile those statements? Like I said, hogwash!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Sure they back up what I said, that $189,000
wasn't paid by my father. My dad died twenty years ago and that $189,000 was passed on to you and me through higher insurance premiums and taxes. Since my father died my mother has lost all her assets and finally qualify for Medicaid. Her medical bills will now be passed on to you and me and our children and grandchildren. If my dad wouldn't have made a fairly good middle class income Medicaid would have picked up everything from the get go. But since my dad worked hard and played by the rules they were nickle and dimmed until they lost everything. Now since my mother has nothing left to take she gets everything she needs from Medicaid and the bills will be passed on as IOUs to the future generations. Then there is Medicaid, they take a persons house lets say worth $100,000 to pay for a nursing home. the person my spend ten years in the nursing home meanwhile their home sits unoccupied for ten years. Finally when the person passes the state sells the house that has deteriorated for ten years for maybe $10000 and the other $90,000 plus any unpaid medical bills are passed on to the next generation. I could take you for a drive and show you a half dozen such homes within a mile of my home. A buddy of mine has the right idea his theory is before you die the system will take everything. So what he did was take all his money out of his 401k and put it in a safe deposit box, he signed his home over to his kids. He figures once he gets old and instead of loosing everything he will just go straight to Medicaid. When he dies his kids get all his assets and the bills get passed on to the future. Kind of sounds crazy but he does have a point I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. No.
My dad died twenty years ago and that $189,000 was passed on to you and me through higher insurance premiums and taxes. Since my father died my mother has lost all her assets and finally qualify for Medicaid. Her medical bills will now be passed on to you and me and our children and grandchildren.


I'm sorry, which is it did your mom lose all her money paying the $189,000 or are you complaining about Medicare driving up premiums for people in the future? You statements don't add up.

...the patient pays and pays until they finally loose everything and eventually qualify for Medicaid


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. My dads $189,000 bill was paid on his death by you and
me, understand? Since my fathers death 20 years ago my mother was nickle and dimmed with her own medical bills unpaid by Medicare until she finally qualified for Medicaid. Those unpaid bills will also either be passed on to other people through higher insurance premiums or passed on to future generations through higher taxes. When a person with Medicare is hospitalized any unpaid bills the patient can't pay is passed on to the people with insurance or to the government. I asked them at the hospital what happens to that $189,000, I was told all the hospitals agree to do a certain amount of charitable work during the year and in the end the government eventually comes in and foots the bill for the unpaid bills. The government is you and me. Then anything the government doesn't pay is passed on through insurance premiums to those who have insurance. Those bills just don't evaporate into thin air. I don't know how to make it any clearer, if you can't understand that you have your mind made up and refuse to understand. Apparently you haven't had any elderly parents with medical bills they couldn't pay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. No, your argument doesn't make sense
I will get Medicare myself in 3 years, what a deal I pay a few bucks a month and pass the deficit on to someone else. I'm not going to pass a deal like that up.


You simply can't have it both ways. If you love private insurance so much, consider keeping it. That way, as you say, you can spare others from having to pay your bills, from hiding assets like a criminal, and from being "nickle and dimmed" on medical bills.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Why on earth would I pay out $1000 a month for health
insurance when I can pay what a $90 Medicare Premium and pass the balance on to someone else. How much you think Medicare would actually cost in premiums if it was actually pay as you go? It's a ponsy scheme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTwentyoNine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-30-09 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. $1000.00 per month when your 65 or older?!?!
BS,you can pay that much when your in your 30's and HEALTHY.

Try phoning up a bunch of insurance companies when your 65,tell them of any and all medical problems you have or have had and see what they come up with.

Then call them when your 70,call them when your 80. Of course that's all a moot point because even the most basic coverage would be completely out of reach to someone that age unless they made millions before they retired.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Hmm, so your friend not only does't believe in "personal responsibility", he's a thief.
Wow. Society owes him free medical care and he'll do whatever he has to in order to be sure they'll provide it.

What a crook! What a socialist!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. He may be a crook but instead of letting the system
take everything he worked for for 40 plus years he is taking care of his own. He is not the first one that ever came up with such a plan. Think about it, how many elderly people do you know that worked their butts off all their lives and in the end lost everything to pay medical bills. I hate to burst your bubble but he is a staunch Democrat he has no problem with socialism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. "He may be a crook but... he is taking care of his own. "
Spoken like a crook and/or a true Republiscum.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Here's my plan
upon retiring I put my 401k and IRAs in an annuity and get a nice monthly income. I sell my house and also put that money into the annuity and rent an apartment. Or I get a reverse mortgage and have another monthly income. That way while I am alive I will get a damn nice income and when I die none of my useless relatives will get one cent inheritance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
19. I guess it is not rationing of health care when there are those that can't afford it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. That's rationing by price. The poor can't afford health care so they're rationed out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-29-09 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
27. It is the standing argument of the last 75 years or so
We say something is for the public good, they say it's socialism.

Odd to think our grandparents were fighting this same war. I wonder if our grandchildren will be as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-30-09 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
35. 44 Years Of Medicare Success
44 Years Of Medicare Success

<...>

MEDICARE'S SUCCESS: Since the advent of Medicare, "the health of the elderly population has improved, as measured by both longevity and functional status," said one study published in the journal Health Affairs. In fact, according to the study, "life expectancy at age 65 increased from 14.3 years in 1960 to 17.8 years in 1998 and the chronically disabled elderly population declined from 24.9 percent in 1982 to 21.3 percent in 1994." Leaders of the Commonwealth Fund wrote in May that, "compared to people with private insurance, Medicare enrollees have greater access to care (and) fewer problems with medical bills." The report added that this finding is significant when considering that those Americans on Medicare represent a demographic that is more likely to be in poor health and to have lower incomes. Prior to Medicare, "about one-half of America's seniors did not have hospital insurance," more than 25 percent "were estimated to go without medical care due to cost concerns," and one in three were living in poverty. Today, nearly all seniors have access to affordable health care and only about 14 percent of seniors are below the poverty line.

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION: A recent Commonwealth Fund survey found that "elderly Medicare beneficiaries reported greater overall satisfaction with their health coverage." Medicare is so popular that most Americans support expanding its coverage to Americans aged 55 to 64. According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll, "over half of Americans (53 percent) 'strongly' support such a proposal and an additional 26 percent say they support it somewhat, totaling 79 percent backing." Similarly, a Health and Human Services Department-commissioned study released in June found that "56 percent of enrollees in traditional fee-for-service Medicare give Medicare a rating of 9 or 10 on a 0-10 scale," while "only 40 percent of Americans enrolled in private health insurance gave their plans a 9 or 10 rating." "The higher scores for Medicare are based on perceptions of better access to care," the National Journal noted, commenting on the surveys, adding that "(m)ore than two thirds (70 percent) of traditional Medicare enrollees say they 'always' get access to needed care (appointments with specialists or other necessary tests and treatment), compared with 63 percent in Medicare managed care plans and only 51 percent of those with private insurance."

<...>


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 25th 2014, 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC