When catastrophic health insurance for the elderly was passed by Congress last year, it seemed like wonderful campaign material in an election year. But it was a serious miscalculation that has those same members of Congress running for cover - and deservedly so.
The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act was badly flawed in the first place. It did not provide help where most needed, namely in long-term nursing home care, and the cost would have to be borne by the elderly themselves.For people on fixed incomes, that cost could be heavy, especially for a program that not one in five would ever use. A sliding scale of premiums could be as much as $800 a person, or $1,600 a couple each year.
In their home districts, members of Congress are finding that angry retired people are rising up and saying of the program: "We don't want it."
That has left Congress in a dilemma. It doesn't want to simply repeal the insurance plan, but it doesn't want to leave the financing the same as it is now.
Some 16 proposals have been introduced to modify the program, including cutting the premiums because there has been speculation that the fees will produce a surplus. However, the Bush administration is opposing that idea, saying it would be premature to cut premiums before any experience has been gained regarding what the real costs might be.
That is prudent, but it doesn't help the elderly people who may be so hard hit by the insurance premiums that the so-called cure is worse than the disease.
Why not start over, devise a sensible insurance program that deals with nursing home care as well as catastrophic illness and work out an equitable way to pay for it, including tax hikes if necessary?
If Congress tinkers around with the plan instead, it will probably manage to do all the wrong things - such as keeping an inadequate program while dumping the entire cost into the sea of red ink that already represents the deficit.