This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

What Does It Really Matter? Part 1.

The beginning of a discussion why facts matter when deciding which politicians provide the better program--this time its health care during retirement.

I was in the heat of a politico-philosophical discussion with a man when I asked him about his interest in President Obama’s re-election campaign. He listed several problems he has with the president. However, at the end of his explication, he shrugged his shoulders and said, “In the end, Republican, Democrats, what does it really matter?"

There followed in a different place with another person and we were soon rockin -n- ’rollin’ on “Obamacare.” It will bankrupt the country, it will put the government in the place of the doctors as to what medical services you might receive, the federal government screws everything up, look at Katrina, look at the gift of money to the banks and Wall Street brokerages and still people can’t get small business and real estate purchasing loans. The money gets to the bank and sits there waiting to see if something more horrible is yet to come.

Woah, I said. Take a break. I think you’re having some amnesia about some things. First and foremost Obama did not start the bailout of the banks. It was Secretary of the State Henry “Hank” Paulson who brought to George Bush a three page bill to provide fiscal help--money-- to banks and brokerage houses. In the initial version, the Republicans had no strategy to track the funds, no requirement on when or if the bailouts had to be repaid and no change in the regulation of the leveraged mortgage deals which all acknowledged was the primary cause of this Great Recession. Houses were foreclosed initially on the basis of a letter sent to a home owner. Often the banks themselves no longer owned or couldn’t find the original loan agreement details.

Now, full disclosure, Obama as candidate supported the bailout with more restrictions and outlining how the money could be used. Congress began work on a more detailed law which I believe came to 19 pages. This was then known as the Paulson Plan or the US Emergency Economic Stabilization Fund.  This was approved by the House on September 19, 2011. Obama was fresh off the convention and mired in debate preparations. As you recall it was about this time that McCain temporarily ceased to campaign in order go to the Senate to assure that these bailouts would be paid back to the American people.

So there was from the 19th of September until the 20th of January that Bush and his staff managed the distribution of $8B into the banks and Wall St.

We are now living with shrill voices coming from Washington, more vehemently from the Republicans that the deficit is not falling, the deficit is not falling. They are putting a choke hold on the administration to assure the decimation of the what Ronald Reagan defined as the “social safety net.” It seems to me that they’re doing this “because they can." In some ways the message is going out that if the senate and president were all Republicans, they’d have done even more damage. So, all you who vote Republican because of your desire to destroy Barack Obama, beware of the residual consequences.

The Republicans, desperate to score a big victory in overturning the long beloved program of Medicare, are comparing their current proposal, (fr. Cong. Paul Ryan), to Medicare Part D. This would help them except for the fact that they chose the most unpopular of the plans. Part D is the drug subsidy program, which requires one to be an accountant or lawyer to comprehend. And of the programs in Medicare, this is the least efficient, least effective and most hated.

We go back to the Republican proposal of what many call vouchers. The Republicans have devised a beautiful description to disguise the fact that as of a certain age level, Medicare will be history. What replaces it is the money given to the elderly annually to allow them to shop for their own health care insurance. The amount proposed is ridiculously low and will require a bigger chunk of the retiree’s money to be used for health care insurance than they ever have in their whole lives.

Certainly, the programs to be offered from the private sector health insurance companies will be devised for the company and the CEO’s to make a significant profit. Thus the co-payments will be higher along with the out-of-pocket expenses including any deductibles. What is more arcane about this plan is that the elderly are the highest users of health care services. To place all of these individuals on the open market expecting low cost full service health care is cynical. Again, the purpose of this legislation is to end Medicare to be followed by the end of Social Security.

I can only imagine that what is making this project seem so exemplary to the Republicans is that perhaps they have no knowledge of everyday people and their needs, income and health status. I do believe they look at the older people “in their circle” who are financially well off and could pay for this much more expensive to the taxpayer health insurance plan.

We of a certain age realize that retirement as our parents have enjoyed it is a unlikely scenario. It would be a better approach to increase the age for retirement under social security to 70 or even 75 within 6-10 years. This puts the retirement age closer to the 65 years that was really high back in the 1940’s. Beyond that, the age could go higher to 80. This would change the dynamic of the program closer to how it was devised during FDR’s days as president.

For me, not giving away my age too much, i don’t see retirement as a possibility until 75 years old anyway. I just hope there are jobs for people in the age range of 65-75. Just how I wanted to live out my golden years: walking dogs and filling grocery bags. “Paper or plastic?”

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?