Amerikai Magyar Szó, 1984. július-december (38. évfolyam, 27-48. szám)
1984-12-20 / 48. szám
8. AMERIKAI MAGYAR SZÓ Thursday, Dec. 20. 1984. “Some policies ... are now leading inevitably toward another C j of reckoning if we don’t reorder those programs . .. What we need to do is a revamping of the program.” —President Ronald Reagan, answering reporters’ questions on Medicate, March 28, 1984 117ITH A CRUCIAL election safely out of the WW way President Reagan, his advisers and Con- ” ” gressiona! allies will be preparing for a major assault next year on Medicare, the federally-administered insurance program which protects 26 million elderly and three million disabled people. Medicare is regarded as a key target fór second-term Reagan restrictions and budget cutbacks. The Wall Street Journal believes that in 1985 “Medicare and Social Security may be the top targets” for cuts. A Fortune magazine article based on interviews with past and present Administration officials reports “there will almost certainly be a showdown pver Medicare” during the next four years. Throughout the campaign, President Reagan claimed he woiiid never ciit the benefits of present or future Social Security recipients. But his record shows he is dedicated to cutbacks in Medicare that would force older Americans to pay more for their health care. Medicare is part of the Social Security system. P RESIDENT REAGAN’S line of attáck will follow the recommendations of a bipartisan Social Secur-. ity Commission on Medicare. He wHl be looking for the same kind of deal that resulted in Social Security takeaways in 1983. Nearly two years ago, another commission of Democrats and Republicans, labor and business leaders helped “rescue” Social Security by cutting benefits received by the elderly and by increasing the taxes of those still working. The Social Security compromise, backed by both President Reagan and the Congressional Democratic leadership, increased the retirement age for full benefits from 65 to 67 years, hiked the payroll tax effective this year, and for the first time taxed some Social Security benefits. A cost of living increase was delayed six months, costing the average retiree $150. The excuse for these takeaways was a so-called crisis in Social Security funding, with predictions of a Social Security deficit reaching alarming levels in seven years. The basic cause of the existing shortfall was the ruinous recession spawned by Reagan’s policies, which had produced the highest unemployment in 40 years. Had those, unemployed been working, there would have been no shortfall. “It’s time for us to say that Medicare is in pretty much the same condition that Social Security was, and something is going to have to be done in the next several years to make it fiscally sound,” President Reagan said during his first debate with Walter Mondale. L AST MARCH, the bipartisan Social Security Com-. mission on Medicare released its recommendations —a recipe for reduced benefits and eligibility along the lines of the earlier Social Security takeaways. These recommendations are expected to be the program of a second-term Reagan Administration as it seeks assistance in Congress for “reform” of Medicare: • Raise the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67 years, to take effect in 1990. This would eliminate all coverage for 3.3 million Americans between 65 and 67. ■■ I t' • Push the eligibility age up still ifurther if U.S. life expectancy increases. : , • Charge elderly patients $10.68 per day (three percent co-insurance) for every day of hospital care after the first two in addition to the current $356 deductible for their first two hospital admissions each year. (Right now, the elderly pay the $356 deductible and nothing else until the 61st to 90th days). • Make individuals pay federal income tax on company health insurance payments above $70 a month for individuals and $175 a'month for families. The added tax money would go to Medicare. (Workers never see this health insurance money in their paychecks, but now many would have to pay income taxes on this money for the first time. Employers would still be able to deduct all health insurance payments from corporate income taxes.) • Increase federal excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco products, with the money going to Medicare. This regressive tax would be paid by consumers at the time of purchase. These cutbacks would have a devastating effect on elderly Americans. Moving eligibility from $5 to 67 means that for two years when their health needs are great, older Americans would have no Medicare coverage. They would have to be among the fortunate few able to afford private insurance, have families willing and able to pay for their final illness and hospitalization, or die at home. . • '. As most black males have a life expectancy at birth of only 65.5 years, many would never receive Medicare coverage. Some 100,000 American die each year between ages 65 and 66 years. The Reagan Administration will try to deny them Medicare health insurance coverage during their final illness and hospitalization. The .cost of hospitalization for those covered by Medicare, under the Commission’s proposals, -would go way up. The average hospital stay for an elderly person is now about 10 days. Under the present Medicare rules, this stay would cost the patient $356. If the Reagan Administration has its way, a 10-day stay would cost the patient $462.90—a 30 percent increase. Longer hospital stays would force patients to pay steadily more. Presently a 60-day stay costs a Medicare patient $356—his or her deductible. Under the proposed takeaways, a 60-day stay would cost the patient (or family) almost three times as much—$1,000. NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO, these Westinghouse pensioners, Local 107 retirees, enjoyed a “Victory Dinner” to celebrate passage of Medicare. Today that victory faces the almost certain thi?at of cutbacks from the re-elected Administration and new Congress. ¥F MEDICARE were in fact bankrupt, or facing bankruptcy, these proposals would still be the wrong remedies. And Medicare is not bankrupt. Both Democrats and Republicans claim that Medicare is in trouble. There is trouble aplenty, but the problems are not ^ith Medicare, but with the U.S. health care system and economy and government policies that affect both. Medicare has been running in the black for some time, taking more in than it has spent in every year since 1973 (with the exception of 1977, when a small deficit occurred). The Medicare fund’s reserve fattened during the Seventies, growing from $6.5 billion at the end of 1973 to $18.7 billion at the end of 1981. The Medicare trust fund was so flush, in faót, that it lent the Social Security pension fund $12.4 million at the end of 1982, to be repaid by 1989. Medicare has been affected by the dizzying upward - spiral in health care, and particularly hospitalization, costs. : Hospitalization—a major element in health cost inflation—represents the single largest component of Medicare. Of the $1,201 spent per capita for personal health care under Medicare in 1980, $888 (74 percent) was spent for hospital services. Medicare hospital expenditures rose 260 percent between 1970 and 1980. Both Democrats and Republicans have argued that hospital costs can be contained if people have to pay more for using hospital services. Applied to Medicare, such an approach is as harsh as it is nonsensical. Older American will require hospital services, regardless of the cost. As it is, the elderly now -pay about 40 percent of their medical bills out of their own pockets. The higher deductibles and co-insurance costs sought by the Reagan Administration will severely increase an , already staggering financial burden. Another of the “Medicare is going bust” arguments is the aging of the U.S. population—the increasing number of people who will be eligible for Medicare. • The politicians can’t prevent old age, but they can try to do the next best thing—change tKe definition. That’s why they call for hiking the eligibility age from 65 to 67, Increased hardship for retirees and other * older Americans denied Medicare benefits would be the chief result. /.' P ROFITEERING in health care must be curtailed.. Hospital and other health costs are too high—and in many areas, labor and community groups have joined together in coalitionsi to keep track of local hospital and physician charges’and monitor the types of services delivered by them. No one will benefiTmore from lower hospitalization costs than older Americans—but attempts to contain costs should not be made at the expense of the elderly. Medicare’s funds can be shored up without victimizing retirees and other older people. Reversing the Reagan Administration’s huge tax giveaways to the corporations and the wealthy and paring irresponsible military spending would free 'enough funds to bolster Medicare and the entire Social Security system for years to come. A full employment economy with low inflation rates, too, would keep the Social Security System sound. > r U NION POLITICAL ACTION committees should be on the alert, prepared to fight the Reagan- Congressional attacks on Medicare likely to come next year. Like all Americans, the elderly have a right to decent medical care. After years of struggle, Medicare was established to provide the elderly with both the means to obtain health care and protection from some of the - economic consequences, of illness. Medicare should be expanded—to cover dental exams, eye exams, hearing aids, outpatient drugs and preventive care—not cutback to the point where the elderly are forced to fend for themselves in meeting health costs.
