BCT Editorial – 1/26/05

This page was last updated on January 27, 2005.

Words and deeds; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 26, 2005.

My critique doesn’t defend the Medicare prescription drug plan. I opposed the plan because I believe government has no business being involved with paying for healthcare. I merely address the gross hypocrisy and partisanship demonstrated by the Times editorial board.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“If at first you don’t succeed, force people into enrolling in a government program.

“The Washington Post reports that because of the less-than-enthusiastic response to its Medicare drug discount card, the Bush administration has announced that it will automatically enroll millions of low-income seniors in the full drug benefit program when registration begins next fall.

[RWC] After the plan passed, didn’t we have a parade of stories about how complicated it was and that it didn’t really help anyone? Given that reporting, should we be surprised that a lot of eligible people didn’t sign up?

“That means that whether recipients want to or not, Medicare officials intend to automatically enroll ‘dual eligibles’ - people who qualify for Medicare but receive drug coverage through Medicaid - in the comprehensive drug program to ensure higher participation rates, the Post reports.”

[RWC] Enrolling someone doesn’t force that person to use the coverage.

How much do you want to bet that if a Democrat had proposed automatic enrollment, the Times would be hailing the idea as progressive thinking? Further, the editorial would likely claim lack of compassion as the reason the Bush administration didn’t think of it and would use the same “Words and deeds” title. In other words, the hypothetical editorial would claim President Bush got the plan passed but he didn’t really want anyone to use it.

“The reason for the move was the abysmal response of low-income Medicare recipients to the government’s generosity. The paper reports that of the nearly 7 million retirees who were eligible for $1,200 worth of free medications between June 2004 and the end of this year, only 1.7 million took advantage of the provision.

“Please understand the Medicare prescription drug plan does benefit the dual eligibles who are being forced to enroll in it. This is not necessarily a bad thing for the people who are being forced onto the rolls.”

[RWC] “Nearly 7 million retirees who were eligible for $1,200 worth of free medications?” “The Medicare prescription drug plan does benefit the dual eligibles.” How can this be? Didn’t Democrats and their accomplices in the old media – like the Times – tell us the plan was bogus and wouldn’t help anyone?

To this point, the editorial has used the word “force” three times. The problem is no one is being forced to do anything. Automatically enrolling eligible seniors in the program doesn’t force these people to use the program.

“The timing of the announcement, though, was freighted with irony.

“In the same week the president was proclaiming the virtues of freedom and liberty - preaching about ‘making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny’ in his inaugural address - millions of Americans were told what was good for them by the administration.”

[RWC] Let me get this straight. When the government sends you a card for a program for which you qualify, that’s infringing on your freedom? Remember, we’re talking only about enrollment. No one is forcing anyone to use the cards. The decision to use or not use the card remains with the individual.

“As we have said before, don’t listen to what this administration says. Watch what it does.”

[RWC] Consider the following few points.

· We constantly hear how seniors are being forced to choose between paying for medication and paying for clothing, food, rent, and other necessities. I personally don’t buy into this view of the world, but that’s the picture painted by liberals and the old media.

· We heard over and over again how difficult it was for eligible participants to enroll.

· The government streamlines the enrollment process so the people who can benefit the most can more easily take advantage of the program.

Shouldn’t liberals hail this development since it puts more money in the hands of people liberals claim need it?

This editorial is yet another example of blind partisanship. When something you claim to stand for becomes bad simply because “the other guys” did it, you need to reassess your positions.