<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19403">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>
<H2>The drive to dismantle Medicare</H2>
<H5><FONT size=2><A
href="">http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/04/01/pers-a01.html</A><BR></FONT>1
April 2013 </H5>Following the imposition of “sequestration” budget cuts that
will amount to $1.2 trillion over the next decade, Obama and the Republicans are
quickly turning their attention to slashing and ultimately dismantling Medicare,
the government health insurance program for the elderly in the United
States.<BR>The New York Times published an article last week detailing ongoing
closed-door negotiations between the Obama administration and congressional
Republicans, pointing to broad agreement between the Democrats and Republicans
on a deal to cut Medicare costs.<BR>According to the Times, “The president told
House Republicans that he was open to combining Medicare’s coverage for
hospitals and doctor services. That would create a single deductible that could
increase out-of-pocket costs for many future beneficiaries…”<BR>The proposal
would have devastating and almost immediate consequences for millions of people.
Obama and the Republicans are proposing to merge Medicare Part A, which covers
hospital care, and Part B, which covers outpatient care, such as doctor visits,
tests and medical procedures.<BR>The deductible for Part A, which is used by
only 20 percent of Medicare recipients in a given year, is relatively high, at
around $1,200, while the deductible for Part B is intentionally set far lower,
at $147, in keeping with the mission of Medicare to enable the elderly to afford
the minimum level of medical care required to stay healthy and live
longer.<BR>Combining Parts A and B would increase the amount of money that
elderly people have to pay for doctor visits, a move that would sharply increase
out-of-pocket costs for routine care.<BR>For the ruling class, the structure of
the Medicare system is intolerable because the elderly are not “incentivized” to
limit treatments and medications. Under the terms of the program, they are able
to go to the doctor as many times as they and their doctor feel is necessary,
without significant additional expense. Large sections of the bourgeoisie
consider this an outrage, because elderly people are spending money to maintain
their health that could otherwise be funneled into the stock market portfolios
and bank accounts of the financial elite.<BR>In the anodyne words of the Times,
echoing the language of the Obama administration, “The goal is to discourage
people from seeking unneeded treatments, shrink health spending and offset the
costs of a cap on beneficiaries’ total out-of-pocket costs.”<BR>Who determines
what treatments are needed or “unneeded,” and on the basis of what criteria? In
any rational and humane system, such decisions should be made by individuals and
their doctors. Obama, the Times, and both the Republicans and Democrats want
such decisions to be dictated by the profit interests of the pharmaceutical and
insurance companies.<BR>Those conspiring to impose these changes are well aware
that they will shorten the life span and vastly erode the economic conditions
and quality of life of the majority of Americans. Medicare “reform” will send
older Americans to their graves sooner and reduce the overall life expectancy of
working people. That, however, is the desired outcome, as far as the financial
aristocracy that really rules America is concerned. Why waste potential profits
and bonuses on keeping people alive and relatively healthy who produce no
surplus value for the capitalists?<BR>The Times, the chief organ of the liberal
establishment, politically and ideologically allied with the Obama
administration, has been spearheading the campaign to ration health care and
deny treatments to the “mob” ever since Obama took office. For years, the
newspaper has been carrying politically motivated and dishonest articles arguing
that much of preventative medical care, particularly that received by the
elderly, is “unnecessary” and even harmful.<BR>The aim is to create an even more
heavily class-based health care system, in which the rich have access to the
full panoply of treatments and tests, while workers and the vast majority of
elderly people are relegated to substandard care. Obama’s 2010 health care
“reform,” presented as a “progressive” measure, was, in fact, a major step in
this direction.<BR>Obama is now seeking to present his push to increase Medicare
recipients’ out-of-pocket costs as a “compromise” position with the Republicans,
who earlier this month put forward a budget that would transform Medicare into a
voucher program for the purchase of private insurance. As always, Obama is
playing a good-cop/bad-cop routine with the Republicans, seeking to present
brutal cuts to vital social programs as a reasonable middle ground.<BR>Behind
this dog and pony show, the two parties are agreed on the basic strategy. In the
words of Democratic Senator Mark Warner, quoted in the Times, “We don’t really
like what [Republican Paul] Ryan has done—premium support—but we want systemic
reform.”<BR>The proposals currently under discussion would signal a massive
retrogression in the conditions of life for the majority of people in the United
States. The implementation of Medicare in 1965, along with the expansion of
Social Security benefits, helped to sharply decrease poverty among the elderly,
from about 30 percent in 1965 to under 10 percent now.<BR>Even with Medicare and
Medicaid (the federal-state health insurance program for the poor) in place, the
lack of affordable medical care in the United States is disastrous. Some 45,000
people die every year in the US because they lack access to affordable health
care, according to a 2009 study by Harvard Medical School. This is more than
those killed by drunk driving and homicide combined. The more than 45 million
uninsured people in the United States have a 40 percent higher risk of death
than those who are insured.<BR>If the ruling class has its way, the situation
will become far worse.<BR>The creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 as part
of Johnson’s Great Society program was the last gasp of American liberal reform.
These reforms came in response to the mass upsurge of the working class in the
1930s and the ongoing militancy of workers through the ‘50s and ‘60s, together
with the explosive upheavals associated with the civil rights movement.<BR>At
the time of its creation, progressive public opinion in the United States saw
Medicare as the bare minimum in health care, to be rapidly superseded by a
system of universal health care, as in Canada and Europe.<BR>For the ruling
class, these and other social programs were seen as temporary concessions to be
eliminated as soon as possible. The corporate and financial elite is now using
the crisis created by the 2008 economic collapse as an opportunity to radically
weaken and ultimately dismantle them.<BR>Medicare and Medicaid, far from being
beneficent gifts of the US ruling class, were extracted as a result of mass
struggles. These struggles, however, were kept within the framework of the
profit system and aborted, primarily through their being channeled behind the
Democratic Party. This is what has made the past gains of the working class
vulnerable to being continually chipped away at and eventually destroyed.<BR>A
new mass movement of the working class is the only means for defending what
remains of past social gains and extending them to secure the basic social right
to quality health care for all. This time, however, the movement must be armed
with an independent program in opposition to both parties of big business and
the capitalist system they defend.<BR>What is required is the political
mobilization of the working class on the basis of a socialist perspective,
including the nationalization and public ownership of the banks and corporations
and the reorganization of society on the basis of social need, not private
profit.<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>