“Your comment is pure BS. I will read Judt’s book but from your comment it seems like hyper socialism to me. Medicare is about to be screwed big time by withholding care from the elderly based on a Govt bureaucrat who, by virtue of his / her position will not be affected by it. The more welfare you pay the more welfare required. Read “Losing ground” by Charles Murray.”
The readers comment is predictable — indeed, Judt predicts it in his book. He points out that one way discussion is shut down in the United States is by people who see “socialism” in every government action. Rather than discuss the merits of a particular program, what is the most efficient and effective way to accomplish an end, they see government and always see socialism. We’ve seen this recently in the discussion of unemployment benefits. People say — if we give more unemployment benefits there will be more unemployed people. I wonder if the change to government managed fire departments led to more fires!
As to Medicare, the reader should look at the facts rather than buy into phony free market rhetoric. There are no death panels in Medicare, but private insurance companies actually hire people whose job it is to deny care, i.e. serve as a death panel. Medicare has been one of the most successful programs in American history. It is quite amazing that the government has been able to provide access to health care to a very difficult population — the elderly along with 2 million disabled people — who need more health care than younger, healthy people. Medicare provides comprehensive set of predicable benefits; universal access for those who qualify by age or disability, regardless of pre-existing conditions; free choice of physician, other providers, and hospitals anywhere in the country; simplified administration costing only about 3 percent in overhead compared to 15% to 20% for private insurance.
Further, research has shown that Medicare provides better health care than private insurance. A study published in 2009 by the Commonwealth Fund compared the experiences of elderly Medicare beneficiaries with those of people under age 65 with employer-based, private health insurance. Even though Medicare beneficiaries were older and sicker, their experiences were better across the board, with better access, higher-rated quality of care, fewer problems with medical bills, and higher satisfaction with coverage at lower cost. Another HHS study published in June cited substantially higher satisfaction among Medicare patients than among those with private insurance — 56 percent of enrollees in traditional Medicare give Medicare a rating of 9 or 10 on a 0-10 scale, compared to only 40 percent of Americans in private plans.
There is no question Medicare is imperfect and needs improvement but that is the reality in every human endeavor. The fact is that improved Medicare for all would have been a much better and less costly solution to America’s health care crisis than massive subsidies of $400 billion in taxpayer dollars annually for the insurance industry along with forcing Americans to buy a private corporate product as the new health care law requires.
Shouts of socialism block fact-based discussion on what actually works. Time to move away from socialism or libertarianism and focus on pragmatism — what works. Sometimes it will be government, sometimes it will be private business or individuals, but usually it will be a blend. Indeed, Medicare is an example of a blend — where the funding comes from taxpayers but health care is provided by private doctors, health providers and hospitals.
Why do some people who complain so loudly about government interfering in our lives demand even louder that this very same government do everything it can to prevent all abortions under any circumstances?
Abortion kills people. So do guns. So does a lack of adequate medical care.