[12/11/1996–09/23/1997]: 42-t-26444785-20060476F-001-002-2013

ARMS Email System
(Announcements. )
MR. DONALDSON: The Senate has now voted to increase premiums on
,Medicare for the elderly with incomes above $50,000, and to phase in a
higher age, from 65 to 67 : George S., is that a good idea? Will it fly?
MR. STEPHANOPOULOUS: No and
MR. DONALDSON: I see. Can you elaborate?
(Laughter. )
MR. STEPHANOPOULOUS: First of all, this was not part of the budget deal
that the Democrats and Republicans agreed to earlier in the year.
Secondly, it's going to create profound changes in the long term in the
system. It's going to take away the universal character, and there's going
to be a huge problem created for those people who fall in the gap between
65 and 67. How are they going to get health insurance? It affects about
five million elderly Americans.
MR. WILL: It's being phased in over 25 years, which means that all
Americans 40 years old or younger have a quarter of a century to plan for
two years' ,additional time before they're eligible for Medicare.
MR. DONALDSON: Be the ant, not the grasshopper -- is ,that what you're
saying?
MR. WILL: Yeah. Look, if ,we had in 1935 indexed Social Secu:!:-ity's
retirement age to life expectancy, life expectancy today is about 72, 73,
that would be the retirement age, there would be no problem with Social
'Security. ,We're just adjusting Medicare to take account of normal
demographic changes.
MR. DONALDSON: Linda.
MS. DOUGLASS: Well; they're also talking about making changes in this
which would cover that gap from 65 to 67, 'making it possible to enroll at
an earlier age. And isn't ,the question that there was a certai'n amount of
the question for the people in the White House who oppose this -- I
mean, there was courage demonstrated by many Democrats in even tackling
this issue of entitlements. I mean, this is an enormous problem. You can't
just' forever pander to the elderly.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOUS: Well, you know, I think it's always interesting
that a lot of people say that it's courage whenever you're going after
those who are middle class, those who are the most vulnerable in society,
people earning 20 (thousand dollars) $25,000 a year on a fixed income.
There have to be changes in Medicare. This administration on this budget
deal -- .
MR. DONALDSON: The premiums don't kick in until above $50,000.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOUS: That's the premiums. That's different 'from losing
your health insurance between 65 and 67.
MR. DONALDSON: But that's a long-term phase in. Themost'immediate
threat, I guess, if you are someone who is elderly and do'esn't want tO'pay
any more, is the premium business.
MR. KRISTOL: I think the significance of this politically -- I'm not
sure it will survive the conference committee or be signed by the
president ultimately -- the significance of this politically is what it
says about the meaning of the 1996 election. The conventional wisdom,has
been Clinton beat up the Republicans on Medicare, and the lesson they were
supposed to learn was you couldn't touch it, it was the third rail of
American politics.
It turns out that the lesson both parti~s learned is that you --they
took on Medicare very clumsily in '95, '96. They held Congress.
A lot of Democrats figure they've got to take it on eventually, and
there's now a pretty big bipartisan majority for doing something that a
year ago looked politically undoable.
MR. DONALDSON: But that's it. Haven't we all paid lip service over the
years to the fact that until we get entitlements und'er control, we' 11
never get the ,long-term budget situation under control. And yet anytime
whether it was Dan Rostenkowski in the '80s, who tried to make a certain
segment· of elderly pay for their' own particular catastrophic care or
whether it's now, anytime you say, yes, but we're going· to have to do it,
the AARP jumps up and says, don't touch it. . ,
MR. STEPHANOPOULOUS: But Sam, no, there's -- and you do ne'ed a
balanced, bipartisan, long-term solution, but it is wrong and people have
a right to take offense when you're making these kinds of cuts in
Medicare, when you're giving huge tax cuts, up to $77,000 -- '
MR. DONALDSON: Well, do you think the elderly should ever pay? If the
income is such that they are not people that need help, do you think they
should pay for their medical care, or ,is there' ~ government entitlement
which says, reach 65 or 67, wham, the kids will pay for you.
Page 12 of 15
ARMS Email System Page 12 of15