The Peril of Positioning Dems as Managers, Not Leaders

The Peril of Positioning Dems as Managers, Not Leaders

The Peril of Positioning Dems as Managers, Not Leaders

Senate Democrats are celebrating the fact that, in their rush to come up with a scheme to pay for health-care reform, they have blocked an effort to preserve payments to home health agencies that provide nursing care and therapy to homebound Medicare beneficiaries.

Dumb move.

Medicare is one of the most popular, and well-run, health care programs in the world.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Senate Democrats are celebrating the fact that, in their rush to come up with a scheme to pay for health-care reform, they have blocked an effort to preserve payments to home health agencies that provide nursing care and therapy to homebound Medicare beneficiaries.

Dumb move.

Medicare is one of the most popular, and well-run, health care programs in the world.

It may not be as efficient as it should be.

But this public program is dramatically better run than private insurance firms. And it produces far better results for Americans.

Perhaps most significantly, the Americans for whom Medicare produces results for those older Americans who remain the steadiest voters in off-year elections.

Of course, Saturday’s attempt by Republican senators to restore about $42 billion in funding to Medicare’s home health-care programs was cynical.

The Grand Old Party has a long history of wanting to slash rather than expand Medicare.

But the Democratic “strategy” of paying for health-care reform by nickle-and-diming Medicare is a fool’s errand.

There is no question that Medicare programs can and should be improved. And, yes, efficiencies can be achieved — especially if profiteering by the private-sector recipients of Medicare money is controlled. Senate Finance Committee chair Max Baucus, D-Montana, may even be right when he says of the assault on home health benefits that: “We are getting the waste out.”

But, somehow, that just not have the same ring as the declaration by Senator Mike Johanns, R-Nebraska, that: “The cuts will hurt real people.”

No matter which side is right about the details of these particular cuts, a plan to pay for health-care reform by squeezing Medicare makes no sense when there are so, so, so many better places — such as the bloated Department of Defense budget or allocated-but-as-yet-unused funds for “rescuing” financial-service industry speculators — to find money to pay for expanding access to health care.

To begin the health-care debate in the Senate with Democrats celebrating their successful defense of Medicare cuts is madness. What next? Reform education by slashing day-care funding? Address the mortgage crisis by bailing out big banks? (Oops.)

After the GOP amendment failed — having gained just 41 votes from Republicans and four centrist Democrats — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, tried Saturday to put things in the best light, saying, “The fact is that our bill will, in short, save lives, save money, and save Medicare,” Reid said. “It will make it possible for each and every American to afford to live a healthy life. We can’t afford not to do this.”

But that the GOP television ads in next year’s tightest Senate races — including Reid’s reelection race in Nevada — will talk about Democrats cutting Medicare.

The problem with cutting Medicare to find money for health care reform is that is positions the Democrats as managers rather than visionaries, as bean counters rather than reformers.

That’s not a fair characterization, especially when contrasted with the GOP’s “Party of No” behavior.

But if the Democrats score many more victories like the one they achieved on Saturday, they are going to suffer the fate of parties that manage decline rather than lead for change. And it is not a pretty one.

Can we count on you?

In the coming election, the fate of our democracy and fundamental civil rights are on the ballot. The conservative architects of Project 2025 are scheming to institutionalize Donald Trump’s authoritarian vision across all levels of government if he should win.

We’ve already seen events that fill us with both dread and cautious optimism—throughout it all, The Nation has been a bulwark against misinformation and an advocate for bold, principled perspectives. Our dedicated writers have sat down with Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders for interviews, unpacked the shallow right-wing populist appeals of J.D. Vance, and debated the pathway for a Democratic victory in November.

Stories like these and the one you just read are vital at this critical juncture in our country’s history. Now more than ever, we need clear-eyed and deeply reported independent journalism to make sense of the headlines and sort fact from fiction. Donate today and join our 160-year legacy of speaking truth to power and uplifting the voices of grassroots advocates.

Throughout 2024 and what is likely the defining election of our lifetimes, we need your support to continue publishing the insightful journalism you rely on.

Thank you,
The Editors of The Nation

Ad Policy
x