Rhetoric and Medicare

I was saddened by NR’s editorial on Medicare (“It Hurts Right Here, Doctor,” NR, Aug. 10). It was the sort of thing our opponents delight in offering as evidence that conservatives are what they say we are. Essentially it was a routine Pavlovian exercise: ringing the changes on a few stereotypes to start conditioned right-wing glands flowing.

Item. The editorial waxes sarcastic about the failure of “the compulsory part of the medical-aid bill” (i.e., the institutional care plan) to help “elderly people who are flat broke. They have to have a little dough in order to start the thing working.” From a conservative writer, this is either ignorance or demagogy. In both the (compulsory) institutional care plan and the (voluntary) doctors’ plan, one of the soundest features is inclusion of the principles of a “deductible” initial sum and a “coinsurance” payment. It is well known, and obvious, that these principles are a deterrent to abuse of potential insurance benefits. Does the editorialist propose to eliminate the deductible and co-insurance features? If not, what is the point? (People “who are flat broke” will of course continue to be helped as they have been: by private charity or public welfare.)

JB

About the Author

James Burnham

Featured Tags

I was saddened by NR’s editorial on Medicare (“It Hurts Right Here, Doctor,” NR, Aug. 10). It was the sort of thing our opponents delight in offering as evidence that conservatives are what they say we are. Essentially it was a routine Pavlovian exercise: ringing the changes on a few stereotypes to start conditioned right-wing glands flowing.

Item. The editorial waxes sarcastic about the failure of “the compulsory part of the medical-aid bill” (i.e., the institutional care plan) to help “elderly people who are flat broke. They have to have a little dough in order to start the thing working.” From a conservative writer, this is either ignorance or demagogy. In both the (compulsory) institutional care plan and the (voluntary) doctors’ plan, one of the soundest features is inclusion of the principles of a “deductible” initial sum and a “coinsurance” payment. It is well known, and obvious, that these principles are a deterrent to abuse of potential insurance benefits. Does the editorialist propose to eliminate the deductible and co-insurance features? If not, what is the point? (People “who are flat broke” will of course continue to be helped as they have been: by private charity or public welfare.)