Saving Grandma

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Should Medicare be a requirement? Or should seniors be allowed the option of foregoing medical coverage and just taking cash instead? Ezra Klein lays out the obvious objection:

As a society, we are not willing to let people die painfully in the street, even if they have previously made decisions that would lead to that outcome. In reality, what terrifies all of us is what happens after someone takes the cash and then gets sick.

Let’s run through the cash-grant world: At age 65, grandma decides to purchase no health-care plan, as she figures she’ll just get one when she gets sick, or maybe just get one next year, or perhaps she just doesn’t want to spend money extending decrepitude. But then she has a stroke and gets rushed to the hospital. Someone is paying for that emergency care. It might be the hospital. It might be the taxpayers. But it’s someone….[Or] perhaps you just build in a requirement that grandma has to at least purchase a catastrophic care plan. The problem with catastrophic care plans, of course, is that they often don’t cover the care you need. That’s why they’re cheaper. So the question is what happens when grandma needs more than the catastrophic care plan will provide — and when you’re dealing with seniors, that’s a “when,” not an “if.”

This is all true, but I think there’s something else at work here that no one really likes to admit: not all medical care is emergency care. So if grandma gets sick and can’t afford her non-emergency treatment — drugs, chemotherapy, hospice care, hip replacement, you name it — who’s going to pay? “Someone,” says Ezra, and he’s right. And most likely that someone is her kids. Which is to say, you.

I think this is sort of the dirty little secret of universal care for seniors. Obviously we all pay Medicare taxes because we think we’ll benefit from receiving Medicare ourselves in our old age. But there’s also this: We would all rather pay a modest annual amount to cover everyone over 65 than be on the hook for an eventual decision to either (a) let grandma die of cancer or (b) bankrupt ourselves paying for grandma’s proton therapy. This is, after all, about the most wrenching kind of decision you can imagine, and today the average worker pays less than $2,000 each year to avoid ever having to make it. That’s a pretty good deal. But it’s only a good deal if it genuinely relieves you of the prospect of having to decide whether to save grandma’s life. If she’s allowed to opt out, that prospect becomes very real all over again and the deal suddenly looks very crappy indeed. For that reason, grandma doesn’t get a choice.

There are other reasons that it’s a bad idea to let grandma opt out of Medicare too. But this one is probably both the most important and the least likely to be talked about.

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. It's our first time asking for an outpouring of support since screams of FAKE NEWS and so much of what Trump stood for made everything we do so visceral. Like most newsrooms, we face incredibly hard budget realities, and it's unnerving needing to raise big money when traffic is down.

So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate