ShareThis Page

Medicare @ 50: Sick, getting sicker

| Wednesday, July 29, 2015, 9:00 p.m.

The Obama White House's deceptive happy-face spin regarding Medicare trustees' latest annual report reinforces complacency about a program that's failing taxpayers, hospitals, doctors and patients as it turns 50 years old today.

The report says Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be solvent until 2030 and per-beneficiary spending grew last year at less than half its 2000-10 average rate. But “hospital insurance deficits will hit $110 billion in 2031,” then climb above $1 trillion annually, Investor's Business Daily points out.

And The Washington Free Beacon reminds that total Medicare spending has tripled since 2000 and is projected to more than double by 2024. Plus, the administration's optimism depends on sharp ObamaCare cuts in Medicare provider payments actually happening — which history shows is politically unlikely and about which the report says there's “substantial uncertainty.”

David Hogberg, an analyst for the National Center for Public Policy Research, has documented how Medicare rules and regulations harm patients and doctors in his new book, “Medicare's Victims.” That betrays the original Medicare legislation's prohibition against federal interference in doctor-patient relationships, he reminds.

Mr. Hogberg calls Medicare “a sick program … that needs to be seriously revamped.” And the longer that unjustified optimism about this big-government mess delays reform, the longer that taxpayers, hospitals, doctors and patients will suffer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.