×
Dean Baker writes:
Robert Pear has written many good pieces on health care policy at the NYT over the years, but he has a disturbing tendency to attribute grand ideological motives to politicians when their behavior can just as easily be explained by crass political calculations. He did this yet again when he described a proposal by President Bush for a series of cuts in the Medicare program as "advancing the Republican vision of a larger private role in the health care system."Do we really think that there is a group of Republican political philosophers (presumably chaired by President Bush) that contemplates the ideal health care system? Perhaps something like that exists, but it seems at least as plausible that Republican elected officials know that they have gotten lots of campaign contributions in recent years from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries and that they are expected to work for their money, hence the interest in expanding the private sector's role in Medicare.Right, there's that, and then there's cost pressures. Medicare -- like the health system -- is too expensive. Bush is proposing somewhat stiffer drug premiums for higher-income beneficiaries. Insofar as there's an ideological edge, it's in saving money by charging enrollees rather than allowing Medicare to bargain down drug prices. He's got to do something, so he's arguing for a bit more cost sharing, and a bit more information transparency. That really does nothing to increase the private sector's role in health care. Bush isn't proposing any major ideological initiatives here. He's a lame duck president lacking vision, Congressional allies, and the interest and understanding necessary to actually reform social policy.
