Seniors need a Medicare deal, not a war
More than 90 percent of American seniors would participate in the prescription drug plan proposed by House Republicans, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found — a judgment that ought to give pause to Democrats.
The two parties last week unveiled rival proposals, launching the 2002 Medicare wars in earnest, but the CBO finding — still unofficial — should encourage both sides to find common ground.
Instead of just dismissing the $350 billion GOP plan as inadequate and underfunded, Democrats ought to give it serious consideration as a model, perhaps enriching it to achieve even more acceptance.
Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) told me in an interview that the CBO had scored his proposal as likely to gain 93 percent acceptance from seniors.
CBO officials confirmed that their preliminary analysis shows that the Thomas plan would come in at that level, though an official judgment would await actual introduction of a bill.
The CBO finding undercuts the charge made by Democrats and their allies in the AARP that Thomas’ plan would be widely rejected by seniors because it requires them to pay a $35 to $40 monthly premium if their income exceeds about $15,000 a year.
AARP conducted a poll last year showing that 69 percent of seniors would not pay such a premium. A Senate Democratic plan favored by AARP calls for a $25 premium.
Thomas’ proposal would cost $350 billion in its first 10 years. The plan outlined by Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and Zell Miller (D-Ga.) would cost $425 billion over six years.
Instead of planning to iron out differences, the two parties seem intent on making political points with their plans in order to appeal to seniors in the 2002 elections.
Thomas touted his proposal as representing “a permanent new entitlement for seniors,” deriding the Democratic alternative as “a gimmick” because it expires.
“The Democrats are building a front-end model that looks good,” he said, noting that it “can’t be sustained” for budget reasons. He predicted that Graham’s plan would actually cost $1 trillion over 10 years — money the country doesn’t have.
Democrats countered that one major reason money is tight is President Bush’s $1.6 trillion tax cut plan, which Thomas championed and wants to make permanent at a cost of perhaps $4 trillion over the next decade.
And, they said that his prescription drug plan contains a fatal “doughnut” or “hole” that would require some seniors to pay premiums but get no benefit in return.
The barbs suggest that a stalemate is brewing. Prescription drugs are the basis of modern medicine, and members of both parties agree that lack of drug coverage under Medicare is the problem they hear most about from their constituents. But, the two parties seem more inclined to exploit the issue politically than to solve it.
Thomas acknowledged to me that he hasn’t consulted Democrats in devising it.
He said his legislative procedure is to “figure out what a conference agreement would look like and pass it out of the House — primarily with Republican votes, because Democrats don’t want to do anything.”
Following this pattern, Republicans plan to push Thomas’ Medicare bill through the House before Memorial Day, but it stands little chance in the Senate.
Conceivably, a Democratic measure such as the Graham bill — or an alternative being drafted by Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.) — could pass the Senate.
But, it’s hard to see the two sides resolving their differences.
Seniors “continue to pay premiums, but they don’t get any benefit,” Daschle said last week. “This gap would be devastating for most seniors.” No gap in coverage exists in the Democratic plan. The government would pay all costs above $5,000 in the Thomas plan and above $4,000 in Graham’s.
Republicans admit that Thomas’ plan isn’t “perfect,” but claim “the perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good.” It’s a good argument that should work in all directions. Politicians should be judged on how hard they try to produce a drug plan for seniors this year — not on how hard they work to create an election issue.
(Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill.)