Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
Sunrise, FL – It was karaoke night at the Sunrise Lakes retirement village, and 76-year-old Shirley Scrop, wearing a T-shirt commemorating her granddaughter’s bat mitzvah, was laying down a rap about health care.
“I walk in the morning and I swim in the pool, I go to the doctor because I’m no fool,” she chanted. “At the doctor’s office, I don’t want to stay, but I sit and I sit and I sit all day.”
But truth be told, Ms. Scrop admitted after taking her bow, she would not change a thing about her health care. Only two months ago, she had surgery to remove a breast tumor, and Medicare and her supplemental policy covered the cost, while allowing her a broad choice of physicians.
That is why, despite voting for President Obama last November, Ms. Scrop now sees the health care debate in Washington as a source of considerable concern. Like many among the lipsticked poker sharks, treadmill walkers and mah-jongg warriors who stay active at the community’s Phase 4 Clubhouse, Ms. Scrop has found her lifelong allegiance to the Democratic Party competing with her fears that the cost of providing universal coverage will fall heavily on the aged.
“It’s scary,” said Ms. Scrop, a retired bookkeeper from Long Island who moved to southeast Florida in 1989. “If they change the benefit amounts, it’s going to come out of my pocket. I’m sure there’s going to be some kind of change. I just hope it’s not going to be too bad.”
It seemed to matter little that Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress have vowed to protect Medicare benefit levels and have disavowed any interest in “pulling the plug on grandma,” as the president put it last week. Ms. Scrop and other residents of this sprawling community of coral-colored condominiums have heard about plans to wring hundreds of billions of dollars out of the projected growth in Medicare spending.
Even though the largest of the proposed cuts would reduce reimbursements to hospitals, many fear that beneficiaries would ultimately lose out.
Whether or not they buy the false accusation that the Obama administration plans to set up “death panels” – some do and some do not – many express a generalized fear that care of the elderly will take a back seat and that access to procedures and drugs may be restricted. They paid into Medicare their entire working lives, several said, and basic fairness demands that they be allowed to keep what they have.
“I don’t want to have things cut from what I need,” said Sandy Burd, 64, the clubhouse social director. “If I’m 65 and need an M.R.I., I don’t want them to say, ‘I’m sorry, but it has to go to someone who’s 45.’ “
Hal Goldman, 79, who retired 22 years ago from Sears, Roebuck & Company, echoed that sentiment.
“What they’re trying to do – Obama is – is take from the senior citizens and give to the poor and the illegal immigrants,” Mr. Goldman said “It’s hurting the senior citizens who worked all their lives. Because of their age, like in Canada, you’ll have to wait six months for an M.R.I.”
In fact, the health care bills circulating in Congress would not extend coverage to illegal immigrants, though they could reduce some of the choices that Medicare beneficiaries now enjoy.
In last year’s election, voters 60 and older were the only age group to support Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee. But that was not the case here in Broward County, which was critical to the Democratic victory in Florida. In the nine precincts that make up Sunrise Lakes, which is dominated by elderly Jewish transplants from the urban North, three of every four votes went to Mr. Obama.
That makes it particularly striking that there is such anxiety here about Democratic health care initiatives. Although the opinion is far from universal, some Obama supporters said they were regretting, or at least reassessing, their choice.
“I voted for President Obama, and I’m not ashamed to say that I’m sorry now because I don’t trust what he’s saying,” said Elaine Carl, 71, president of recreation at the development’s Phase 4. “I think they’re going to take away from Medicare. I really do.”
On Tuesday night, at three poker tables set up in the clubhouse lobby, disagreements over health care temporarily interrupted the kvetching about the broken air conditioning.
“I can go wherever I want right now, and if I’m told that I can’t, that would worry me,” said Ruth P. Fox, 82, as she slid a nickel into the pot (in clear contravention of posted regulations against gambling). “I have a geriatric doctor, and she’s wonderful.”
But Eleanor S. Robinson, who is 80, said her elderly friends tended to worry just to worry. “When Roosevelt put in Social Security, a lot of people were worried about that, too,” Ms. Robinson recalled. “And if we didn’t have a Social Security check now, all of us would be up a creek. You sometimes have to go forward and take a chance.”
There are others, of course, whose enthusiasm for Mr. Obama has not flagged.
Ronald A. Clifford, 73, who patrols the property in a golf cart as a part-time security guard, blamed “roughnecks” for fomenting dissent at town-hall-style meetings because “they hate having a black president.”
“All in all, I support Obama no matter what he does,” Mr. Clifford said. “Whatever he does, that’s the emes. You know what that is? That’s Yiddish for the truth.”
Whatever the feelings about Mr. Obama, there was widespread appreciation that he had taken on an ambitious agenda.
“You have to give the man a chance; he took on a big task,” said Sylvia Bank, who said she had just celebrated her 88th birthday, prompting a friend to knock on wood. “If it was my son, I wouldn’t let him be president, not at this time.”
Hilda Gruber, 84, glanced up from her cards. “What does that have to do with the price of eggs in Afghanistan?” she asked.
Back in the ballroom, where the karaoke set-up had been underwritten by a supplier of motorized wheelchairs, Ms. Scrop said the best health care came from a positive outlook and regular exercise. She said she played tennis nine times a week, and line danced to boot.
“I’m not ready to leave this earth, because they only take good people up there,” she said with an impish grin. “Since I’m going to be here a long, long time, I don’t want my coverage to be too high.”
WHO rated the USA in the 30’s
but.. thats with treating the healthy…
in treating the sick, we are rated #1 !
the reason we are compared to the South African health care system, is because we dont have universal health care (?!). (what else would you expect from a UN run org?)
oh, they also use “patient doctor relationship” (what in the world is that?..) to make their ratings…
Italy is #2 . but… most Doctors only accept patients two days a week (?!). (imagine you can only visit your doctor Tue and Thur.. what if you have a strep? to bad, go to the ER…)
they have no competition.. so thats the way it looks.. but still, the UN ranks it in the top..
the USA is rated #1 in investing in Medical Technology…
so why should we change? cuz we have bad Patient “Doctor Relationship”?! or only cuz we are not universal??
but.. we gotta change. WHY?!
straight thinker, the US has now dropped to #35 in life expectancy among UN member states and a lot of it is our dysfunctional health care system and the fact that millions of Americans don’t have any health insurance at all. By comparison, Portugal is #34 , Bosnia is #29 , Jordan is #27 , and Greece is #18 — all countries far poorer than the United States. (Those rankings are not from the UN but from the US CIA.) Our investments in medical technology are useless to people without health insurance.
And I find it troubling that someone who is benefitting from government health insurance would want to deny such benefit to others. (Note also that Medicare beneficiaries do generally seem to like the plan, which brings the lie to the idea that government can run a health insurance system.)
Despite claims from the White House that it’s “disinformation,” the Lewin Group — a health econometrics firm that has been cited by think tanks and lawmakers across the ideological spectrum — forecasts more than 88 million Americans could see their current employer-based health coverage disappear under the House drafted bill that includes a new public plan. Part of the shift would be the result of employers making the economic decision to drop their current plans in response to financial incentives built into the bill.
Plus, a health plan modeled after Medicare won’t necessarily be more efficient. American taxpayers could end up subsidizing a health plan that would have an unfair advantage in the marketplace, driving many insurers out of the marketplace and limiting patients’ choices
It’s not just the United States that’s taking a hard look at its health care system. Dr. Anne Doig, the newly appointed president of the Canada Medical Association, said this past weekend that the country’s single-payer health care system was in need of major reform.
“We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize,” Doig said according to an Associated Press article.
“We know that there must be change,” she said. “We’re all running flat out, we’re all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands.”
While stating that the group is not advocating for an American-style health system, the article did note former CMA president Dr. Robert Ouellet has been promoting more private-sector role in the public health system, adding “that competition should be welcomed, not feared.”
NHC anyone?
just to clear the air… there are lots of claims that the public option is better then the private ones, well.. lets see
The first claim is that “Medicare has controlled cost growth better than private-sector health plans.” The reality is that “when payments from all sources are considered, spending on Medicare beneficiaries is increasing faster than spending on the privately insured.” The amount Medicare spends per beneficiary is growing slowly, but Medicare is paying a shrinking share of its beneficiaries’ total health costs. The total amount spent on health care for individuals enrolled in Medicare is actually growing faster than the amount spent on individuals in private insurance.
The second claim is that “Medicare’s administrative costs are lower than the private sector’s.” The reality is that “per beneficiary, Medicare’s administrative costs are substantially higher than the private sector’s.” Medicare appears to have lower administrative costs because these costs are usually expressed as a percentage of total health costs. But because Medicare beneficiaries are all elderly, disabled, or diagnosed with end-stage renal disease, they have high total health care costs. Even though administrative costs are high in Medicare, when they are divided by the very large total health care costs within Medicare, the resulting percentage is small.
The third claim is that “bargaining power of public health insurance plans significantly reduces provider costs.” The reality is that “public plans do not bargain with providers, and bargaining power cannot affect provider costs. When providers use the political process to seek payments higher than those offered by public plans, they often succeed.” To the extent that Medicare pays providers less than private plans, it is because of the government’s regulatory power, not to any “bargaining.” More broadly, bargaining power does nothing to get at reducing the actual costs of care. Furthermore, the consistent success of physicians in lobbying Congress to raise payment levels above the formulas specified by law calls into questions the ability of any public plan to save money by reducing payments to providers.
The fourth claim is that “public insurance has pioneered new payment and quality-improvement methods that have frequently set the standard for private plans.” The reality is that “private-sector organizations have introduced new quality-improvement methods, new customer services, disease management, and coverage of preventive care.” Such innovations include the managed care HMO, a plan designed to coordinate care and reduce spending. The traditional Medicare fee-for-service plan does not include this innovation
nuu..
Top 10 Reasons Obamacare Is Wrong for America
1.Millions Will Lose Their Current Insurance. Period. End of Story: President Obama wants Americans to believe they can keep their insurance if they like, but research from the government, private research firms, and think tanks show this is not the case. Proposed economic incentives, plus a government-run health plan like the one proposed in the House bill, would cause 88.1 million people to see their current employer-sponsored health plan disappear.
2.Your Health Care Coverage Will Probably Change Anyway: Even if you kept your private insurance, eventually most remaining plans–whether employer plans or individual plans–would have to conform to new federal benefit standards. Moreover, the necessary plan “upgrades” will undoubtedly cost you more in premiums.
3.The Umpire Is Also the First Baseman: The main argument for a “public option” is that it would increase competition. However, if the federal government creates a health care plan that it controls and also sets the rules for the private plans, there is little doubt that Washington would put its private sector “competitors” out of business sooner or later.
4.The Fed Picks Your Treatment: President Obama said: “They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier. … If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that’s going to make you well.” Does that sound like a government that will stay out of your health care decisions?
5.Individual Mandate Means Less Liberty and More Taxes: Although he once opposed the idea, President Obama is now open to the imposition of an individual mandate that would require all Americans to have federally approved health insurance. This unprecedented federal directive not only takes away your individual freedom but could cost you as well. Lawmakers are considering a penalty or tax for those who don’t buy government-approved health plans.
6.Higher Taxes Than Europe Hurt Small Businesses: A proposed surtax on the wealthy will actually hit hundreds of thousands of small business ownerswho are dealing with a recession. If it is enacted, America’s top earners and job creators will carry a larger overall tax burden than France, Italy, Germany, Japan, etc., with a total average tax rate greater than 52%. Is that the right recipe for jobs and wage growth?
7.Who Makes Medical Decisions? What is the right medical treatment and should bureaucrats determine what Americans can or cannot have? While the House and Senate language is vague, amendments offered in House and Senate committees to block government rationing of care were routinely defeated. Cost or a federal health board could be the deciding factors. President Obama himself admitted this when he said, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” when asked about an elderly woman who needed a pacemaker.
8.Taxpayer-Funded Abortions?Nineteen Democrats recently asked the President to not sign any bill that doesn’t explicitly exclude “abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan” or any bill that allows a federal health board to “recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package.” Currently, these provisions do not exist.
9.It’s Not Paid For: The CBO says the current House plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. And that number will likely continue to rise over the long term. Similar entitlement bills in the past, including Medicare, have scored much lower than their actual eventual cost.
10.Rushing It, Not Reading It: We’ve been down this road before–with the failed stimulus package. Back then, we also heard that we were in a crisis and that we needed to pass a 1,000-plus-page bill in a few hours–without reading it–or we would have 8% unemployment. Well, we know what happened. Now, one Congressman has even said it’s pointless to read one of the reform bills without two days and two lawyers to make sense of it. Deception is the only reason to rush through a bill nobody truly understands
yes we can.. yes we can..arent you yet obadamized?????
The problem is simpler than people are making it out to be.
All of the healthcare bills specifically exclude illegals (contrary to what I heard Glen Beck say the other day), so that argument makes no sense. The 40+ million people without insurance is only about 13% of our population. Considering where our unemployment numbers are today, that sounds about right to me.
Secondly, we do offer more advanced medical treatments than other countries do, but this mostly applies to those with exceptional illnesses sometimes requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars in care. These high-priced treatments are not always available overseas so wealthy people come here to have these procedures done. Common procedures are done in a timely manner in Italy at less than half the cost of having it done here.
However, what good are these high-tech procedures if the average American (even WITH insurance) can’t afford it? What good is it if someone has to choose between getting a high-priced cancer treatment that may or may not work, or ensuring the financial future of their family.
There are people who choose not to have procedures that insurance will not completely cover, because they are afraid of bankrupting their family on the CHANCE that they might live longer. Can you imagine having to choose between a chance at life and leaving your spouse and children homeless?
I will say again, I do NOT support the socialization of medical care. However, there are reasonable arguments to be made here based on facts and I do believe from a moral standpoint that no person should ever be put in a position of having to bankrupt his family in order to live another day.
Even as a Libertarian who is 100% against anything being socialized, as far as I am concerned healthcare is a basic human right that no human being should ever be denied because of money (or lack thereof).
When the government fails to pay to fix potholes, we scream bloody murder. However, when the insurance companies and/or the government won’t pay to save someone’s life, we call that capitalism. As a “capitalist pig” myself, I find that embarrassing.
I don’t know. I live near Plantation, FL. I voted for Obama and I am not reconsidering. If everyone would tone down the rhetoric we could have a healthy debate on the issues. The current system has to change. I am no expert so I have no answers but I do know that change is needed. Everyone is screaming about the plan. What plan I may ask? There are four plans floating around Congress. Clearly there will only be one. So let’s discuss civilly so all the issues and concerns can be aired a definitive plan set into place.