If you say health care isn't important, you're wrong

So says Leavitt in his latest blog post on Medicare, which is in response to the legislation he sent to Congress as a result of the Medicare trustees' report. According to Leavitt:

The problem is we are using more and more regular tax dollars, those usually used on other parts of the budget, to pay for Medicare. So, if you worry about education, you should worry about Medicare. Because, Medicare will get its money before education does. Likewise, if you want good roads, you should worry about Medicare. If you think medical research is an important priority, you should be worried about Medicare. Health care costs paid by the federal government are eroding our capacity in other important areas. (emphasis mine)

An important point. I feel like the media doesn't do a good enough good stressing the importance of Medicare/Medicaid funding and the problems with the funding running out (small details, I know). Which is most certainly the fault of lawmakers for not caring enough. I would consider myself a solid liberal, but at some point, sacrifices in the name of financial stability have got to be made. Democratic lawmakers go on and on about not cutting back services, not cutting benefits, etc., but really, we all have to make sacrifices in order to keep the budget afloat. It needs to be addressed and no one's doing it.

For example, great op-ed this week in the Washington Post on the subject on both refusing to compromise AND my nemesis Barack Obama (Also featured in the last post on the election). Columnist Robert Samuelson writes:

A favorite Obama line is that he will tell "the American people not just what they want to hear but what we need to know." Well, he hasn't so far. Consider the retiring baby boomers. A truth-telling Obama might say: "Spending for retirees -- mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- is already nearly half the federal budget. Unless we curb these rising costs, we will crush our children with higher taxes. Reflecting longer life expectancies, we should gradually raise the eligibility ages for these programs and trim benefits for wealthier retirees. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for inaction. Waiting longer will only worsen the problem."

Instead, Obama pledges not to raise the retirement age and to "protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries." This isn't "change"; it's sanctification of the status quo. He would also exempt all retirees making less than $50,000 annually from income tax. By his math, that would provide average tax relief of $1,400 to 7 million retirees -- shifting more of the tax burden onto younger workers. Obama's main proposal for Social Security is to raise the payroll tax beyond the present $102,000 ceiling.

Samuelson goes on the say this isn't just Obama's problem, all politicians do it (agreed). But if lawmakers continue to avoid the problem, and on top on that Democrats win both Houses and the presidency (not trying to say I oppose that situation), what will happen in the future? What happens to the people of my generation (and basically anyone living past year 2019, according to the trustees)? Then what?

**

Very funny.