It’s no secret to anybody who’s been paying attention to budget
numbers that the United States, with its current GDP of just
under $14 trillion, is sinking deeper into debt by the day, week,
and month. However, what’s not generally known is that America’s
national debts is actually $52 trillion larger than advertised,
thanks to one specific area: Medicaid and Social Security
payments owed to those who have already prequalified by paying
into the system.
No matter how you look at those numbers, that’s some real money
— and that’s just what’s already owed folks who are over 22 and
in the workforce or have already retired, all having paid into
the system at some point. The program could be ended today, and
we the taxpayers would still be left holding a $52 trillion IOU.
Here’s something else you might not know: the federal government
skirts around this issue when doing its budgeting by counting
Medicare and Social Security as “liabilities,” rather than
“debts,” because those who are or will be eligible for returns
under the programs have no actual binding or contractual right to
those returns. That’s why you hear so much about a “$7 trillion
national debt” — that additional $52 trillion is purposely left
out of the discussion through the use of clever accounting
terminology.
Current and future Medicare costs for those already owed benefits
make up over 60% of that liability ($32.3 trillion). Given this,
you might think it a good idea to opt out of a Medicare program
that probably won’t be solvent enough to cover the costs of your
care as a retiree, in favor of a Health Savings Account or some
other less costly, more efficient health insurance plan, which
you can help pay for with your meager Social Security benefit
checks.
Here’s one more thing you might not know: under federal law,
that’s not an option. Whether there’s money to fund your Medicare
or not, once you’re retired, you’re legally required to accept
Medicare as your health coverage. If you try to turn down
Medicare Part A and go with another, more cost-effective (and
higher quality) form of coverage, you officially forfeit your
ability to collect on the Social Security benefits you paid into
your entire working life.
Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has introduced legislation
that would change that, cutting the ironclad tie binding Medicare
enrollment to Social Security benefit eligibility. H.R. 1118, the
“Health Care Choices for Seniors Act,” would cut the cord tying
Medicare to Social Security, and would allow seniors the choice
(yes, choice in health care — can you imagine that?) of
accepting a voucher for a private Health Savings Account or other
high-deductible private health plan in lieu of Medicare Part A
“benefits,” or of opting out of Medicare altogether, without
losing the Social Security benefits they paid into their entire
working lives.
The current “penalty of opting out [of Medicare] is severe
because you are also forced to opt out of all Social Security
benefits,” said Blackburn about the bill.
“Think about that for a moment,” she continued. “Unless you
accept government-run health care, you have to forfeit a federal
benefit you have paid into for your entire life. For a healthy 65
year old with a robust HSA, this is a galling prospect.”
Blackburn’s “Health Care Choices for Seniors Act” follows in the
footsteps of H.R. 7148, Rep. Sam Johnson’s (R-TX) 2008 “Medicare
Beneficiary Freedom to Choose Act,” which also would have freed
seniors to choose efficient, quality health coverage without
losing their Social Security benefits. Unsurprisingly in the
Democrat-led 110th Congress, Johnson’s bill never made it out of
committee.
With the 111th composed as it is, Blackburn’s is even less likely
to see the light of day. With the current emphasis being put, by
both Congressional and administration Democrats, on an effort to
shoehorn the entire country into a one-size-fits-all, inefficient
government-run health care program, it seems a bit much to ask
that a commonsense bill that allows people to opt out of one such
program would receive the attention and consideration it
deserves.
However, in a time when the Democrat-dominated federal government
seems set on expanding its scope and power at the expense of
citizens’ personal freedom of choice, Blackburn’s proposed
legislation should serve as a model for the Republican
opposition’s commitment to providing legislative alternatives
that embrace the conservative and libertarian ideals of personal
freedom, choice, and independence of government control.
Real reform of government spending, management, and health care
— not the so-called “reform” being offered by Congressional
Democrats and the Obama administration — is what America needs,
and is what Americans want. If the GOP can rally behind proposals
like Rep. Blackburn’s “Health Care Choices for Seniors Act,” then
it will be well on its way to setting the tone for a 2010
election in which it can and will represent real change for
America, in the form of a return to personal freedom and choice,
and of smaller, more responsible government.
