from the new west blog: column, congressional campaigns

Medicare Override Vote Was Test of Priorities

By Jill Kuraitis, 7-17-08

Anyone who has helped a senior through a health crisis involving Medicare knows how crucial those payments can be (and how the paperwork is enough to infuriate the Dalai Lama, although that’s another story).

Without Medicare, the astronomical long-term care costs for my mother, who had Alzheimer’s, would have been out of reach for my parents, even though they were not poor. My elderly father would have collapsed under the burden of caring for her. 

I’m betting that’s a familiar story to many readers. That’s why this political story needs telling.

One of the most bipartisan votes in recent memory happened Tuesday, when the House of Representatives voted 383-41 to override President Bush’s veto of a Medicare bill that not only helps continue the program, but helps pay for it.

Later in the day, the Senate voted 70 -26 to override.  The bill is law, and it makes immediate improvements in the Medicare payment situation.

By cutting payments to big insurers, which a substantial majority of lawmakers agreed were too generous, doctors are protected from a 10.6% rate cut, and instead will receive gradual increases in their payments from Medicare. Those payments have been so low that is it difficult, many times impossible, to find a physician who accepts new Medicare patients.  That has cost the elderly and others who rely on Medicare not only money, but in some cases, their health. When patients can’t afford the care they need, they often end up in emergency rooms, costing taxpayers more than regular care would have.

Other benefits include a lower patient copay for mental health treatment, improvements for small rural health care providers, and improvements for low-income recipients. The bill’s improvements are also extended to active-duty and retired military members.

It’s easy to see that the scheduled pay cuts which are now cancelled by the bill would have been devastating for many seniors and disabled people.

“The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.” – Hubert Humphrey

In the Rocky Mountain West, just three representatives, all Republicans, voted No:  Colorado’s Tom Tancredo and Doug Lamborn, and Idaho’s Bill Sali. 

Sali’s explanation focuses on the Medicare Advantage program, which covers 1.7 million people, instead of the entire Medicare program, which covers 39 million people, points out Randy Stapilus at Ridenbaugh Press, in an excellent piece explaining regional implications. 

Sali’s headline says Congress “fails Idaho’s seniors” when in fact, about 94,000 mostly-seniors Medicare recipients, in his district alone will directly benefit from HS 6331.

Colorado Third District Congressman John Salazar, a Democrat, reacted differently: “The President’s misguided veto threatened to deny access to Medicare services for millions of seniors and people with disabilities and to fundamentally undermine the Medicare program,” Congressman Salazar said.  “Congress has shown overwhelming bipartisan support for continuing Americans access to doctors they know and trust.”

With the House up for re-election, of course this vote was political. It’s going to be hard to campaign on a No vote.  Senior citizens vote in higher numbers than any other demographic group, and they vote their pocketbooks.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.