Although the Bush administration's single minded focus on SSI might leave most people doubting it, one of the main dangers to the social wage in this country is Medicare's looming failure as a program funded with its own dedicated tax. Now, it's possible that the Republican plan is to allow the program to go bankrupt, thereby making its elimination a fait accompli when its financing is weighed against other priorities in the tight fiscal climate they've created. Hurrying that outcome would have been one of the 'benefits' of a business friendly rule change that a judge blocked in the middle of last week ("A federal district judge on Wednesday blocked a Bush administration rule that would have allowed employers to reduce or eliminate health benefits for retirees when they reach age 65 and become eligible for Medicare," March 31, 2005, "Judge Blocks Rule Allowing Companies to Cut Benefits When Retirees Reach Medicare Age," Robert Pear (
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/politics/31retire.html).
At the same time, however, the administration and its allies on Capitol Hill are catching heat for the deficits that their tax cuts have created. A sudden jump in the budget deficit, the kind of bump up that will certainly come when Medicare's many recipients begin using the prescription drug benefit, could be used against the Republicans in the mid-term elections. The Catch 22 here is that many of those legislators will want to claim credit for that benefit and harvest the votes it may bring. One way of avoiding the paradox created by the voters' conflicting views of the benefits of the program and of its cost would be to slow the rate at which the claims grow, preferably without offending any powerful constituency. This news article could be the report of such a solution:
"The Bush administration said Monday that it had sent the first of some 20 million applications to low-income people who might qualify for financial assistance with Medicare's new prescription drug benefit.
But lawyers and other advocates for low-income people said the form was so complex that they expected fewer than 5 percent of the people to respond."
(March 29, 2005, "Medicare Applications Sent to Low-Income Americans," Robert Pear (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/politics/29medicare.html)
Such a manipulation is well within the purview of an administration that was likely involved in cooking intelligence to get approval for an unwarranted war, that sought to reduce VA expenses by reducing the number of claims processors, that has consistently underfunded its education law (NCLB) and commitment to global poverty reduction, and so on.
The final item of Medicare news was that next years premiums are rising at a rate well ahead of that of inflation: "Medicare spending for doctors' services shot up 15 percent last year, and beneficiaries will have to pay premiums of $89 a month in 2006, up $11 from the current level, the Bush administration said Thursday." (April 1, 2005, "Medicare Says '06 Premiums Will Rise $11," Robert Pear (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/01/politics/01docs.html)). While I'm in no position to adjudicate the veracity of the administration's claim, it seems a pretty steep rise to me, what with all those HMOs making sure we get the maximum in efficiency and what not.
A note on citations: due to a lack of time, I've left most of my claims without the support of citations. If someone doubts the accuracy of what I've written, I'll be happy to go dig up the links.