I’ve said from the beginning, which was a long time ago, that the price for getting any kind of Grand Bargain would be that Medicare gets dinged in some way on the benefits side. But I have also always maintained that the compromise won’t necessarily be all that painful. I’ve said this both because I firmly believed that it reflected political reality and because I believed it to be true. I still think it is the case.

The progressives’ default position is that there should be no cuts in entitlements, whether they be to Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security. That’s the mirror image of the Republicans’ position that there should be no increase in revenues, whether it be through raising rates or reducing tax expenditures. It’s a hardline negotiating position. But there was never any way either side could impose an agreement that involved no concessions. We can have a deal, or we can over the cliff, but we can’t have a deal where we make no concessions on entitlements.

If you don’t feel like admitting that publicly, that’s fine. It is our negotiating position not to make concessions, after all. But, if a deal actually happens, it should be judged in its totality.

One advantage we have is that we know what we want and we have a much better understanding of the real world implications of various policy changes than the Republicans do. They want to raise the retirement age on Medicare, but they have no real idea why they want that or what it would mean for individuals or how it would play out politically over time, or even how it would impact the budget.

If done correctly, and in exchange for enough good stuff, raising the retirement age might actually be a very good trade that winds up hurting very few people at all. Whether it does or doesn’t has to do with whether states fully implement the Medicaid expansion. Seniors in the 65 or 66 age group would be covered under ObamaCare and would be eligible for the Exchanges, with accompanying subsidies. If they are too poor for the Exchanges, they’d be eligible for Medicaid in the states that have adopted those reforms. The law, as written, would prevent people from falling through the cracks. Of course, it still bad policy because it would make providing health care more expensive, but we’re negotiating with ideological idiots who are more concerned about getting a win than making good policy. Fortunately, they don’t know what a win is, so they can have one without realizing that they didn’t really get anything.

0 0 votes
Article Rating