Republicans Announce New Proposal To Kill Medicare

March 17, 2012 — Ron Chusid

No matter what claims you hear to the contrary, the Republicans really are trying to kill Medicare. Past Republican plans would come pretty close to doing that. Now the Republicans are taking this even further with their latest proposal, even extending this to those currently on Medicare.  Dana Milbank explained in his column yesterday:

Republican lawmakers announced their proposal to abolish Medicare — “sunset” was their pseudo-verb — even for those currently on the program or nearing retirement.

In Medicare’s place would be a private plan that would raise the eligibility age and shift trillions of dollars worth of health-care coverage from the government to the elderly. “This will be the new Medicare,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the proposal’s author, announced.

For years, Republicans have insisted that they would not end Medicare as we know it and that any changes to the program would not affect those in or near retirement. In the span of 20 minutes Thursday, they jettisoned both promises…

All the details aren’t out, but Paul says his plan would cut funding of Medicare by $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce Medicare’s liabilities by $16 trillion. It would do that by enrolling Medicare recipients in the health plan now used by federal workers. The government would pay 75 percent of the insurance premium on average but 30 percent or less for those who earned more than $100,000 a year. The eligibility age would gradually be raised to 70 from 65. If seniors can’t afford their share of the premium, they can apply for Medicaid, the health program for the poor.

Paul claimed his idea came from the Democrats’ 2004 presidential platform. But John Kerry wanted to extend the federal employee health plan to the general population, not to Medicare recipients. The 2004 platform vowed to “oppose privatizing Medicare.”

Posted in Congress, Health Care, John Kerry, Op-eds, Republicans. Tags: , , . 10 Comments »

Romney Spreading Misinformation As He Declines Medicare, But Response From Think Progress Isn’t Without Its Own Errors

March 12, 2012 — Ron Chusid

Mitt Romney has made a lot of mistakes during this campaign, from his $10,000 bet to listing the number of American cars his family owns, including his wife’s two Cadillacs. He made another error today which might harm him with the senior vote–announcing he will not sign up for Medicare when he turns 65. This hardly makes him appear to be concerned about the future of the program.

Besides being out of touch with the concerns of voters, Mitt Romney has a very difficulty time differentiating between fact and fiction. His dishonesty reaches the levels previously seen by George Bush and Richard Nixon. I spent the day treating patients, many of whom are on Medicare. Medicare has been a highly successful program which provides health care to those over 65 and many who are disabled. Fortunately, while I was busy, Think Progress has looked at Romney’s lies about Medicare. Romney’s campaign released five questions about the program, most based upon misinformation (but Think Progress did get two points wrong).

QUESTION: Why Is President Obama Ending Medicare As We Know It By Allowing It To Go Bankrupt In Less Than 15 Years?

FACT: Medicare is not going bankrupt. The Congressional Budget Office reports that one portion — Medicare Part A or hospital insurance — will become “insolvent.” As Igor Volsky has reported, “Dedicated revenues will not be sufficient to pay all of its bills and the hospital fund will meet about 90 percent of its commitments, rather than the full 100 percent. In the succeeding years that shortfall will slowly widen and then contract, so that in 2085, Medicare could pay out 88 percent of its obligations.” By lowering annual payment updates to providers, savings from the Affordable Care Act will extend the life of the trust fund by nine years.

QUESTION: Why Is President Obama Ending Medicare As We Know It By Funding Obamacare Through $500 Billion In Medicare Cuts For Today’s Seniors?

FACT: The health law does not cut Medicare’s current budget. As ThinkProgress has previously explained, it slows the growth in the program by removing $500 billion from future spending over the next 10 years — not cutting from current senior’s benefits. The cuts help stabilize Medicare by eliminating overpayments and slowly phasing in payment adjustments that encourage greater efficiency. As a result, the law extends the life of the Medicare trust fund by nine years and allows seniors to retain all of their guaranteed Medicare benefits.

QUESTION: Why Is President Obama Ending Medicare As We Know It By Creating An Unaccountable Board To Ration Care For Today’s Seniors?

FACT: The proposal is statutorily prohibited from rationing benefits or increasing co-pays and will go into effect unless Congress acts to alter the proposal or discontinue automatic implementation. And the board will be composed of doctors, economists, and consumer representatives who will be confirmed by the Senate and will be tasked with designing a savings plan if health care spending increases beyond a certain threshold.

QUESTION: Why Is President Obama Ending Medicare As We Know It By Destroying Medicare Advantage For Today’s Seniors?

FACT: Far from destroying Medicare Advantage, the choices available through the program are “stronger than ever,” the White House reported in February. Nancy-Ann DeParle, White House deputy chief of staff for domestic policy, explained that premiums for Medicare Advantage are lower and enrollment has been higher since the Affordable Care Act made the changes to Medicare Advantage, which Republicans derided. “As reported last year, 99.7 percent of people with Medicare still have access to Medicare Advantage plans,” DeParle said.

QUESTION: Why Is President Obama Ending Medicare As We Know It By Ending Access To Care For Today’s Seniors?

FACT: As has been explained, the Afforable Care Act does not cut current benefits, is not disappearing, and has actually expanded options for seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage. And many presidents have made changes to Medicare since 1965, including Republican idol Ronald Reagan, without ending care for seniors or destroying Medicare. Reagan even instituted a series of reforms that are strikingly similar to some of the payment changes included in the Affordable Care Act (policies Romney now refers to as cuts or price controls).

There are a some further clarifications which should be made. Regarding the false claims of Medicare going bankrupt, while neither Part A or B is going to go bankrupt (unless we have Republicans managing the budget), it is Part A and not B which is at greater risk without changes. Romney will be in Part A and is declining Part B, so his decision could not be related to concerns about Medicare B being fiscally sound.

Romney is also wrong about his claims of cuts to Medicare. The cuts were to subsidies to private insurance plans which receive more money to care for Medicare patients than patients in the government plan. If the free market is always so superior to government, as conservatives believe, why does it cost more to care for the same patients in private Medicare Advantage plans than in the government plan? Of course it comes as no surprise that Republicans favor corporate welfare for the insurance industry.

The post at Think Progress, however, makes two mistakes in discussing the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which is opposed in its present form by many Democrats as well as Republicans. First, the prohibition against rationing is virtually meaningless. The IPAB could do many things which could reduce Medicare benefits as long as it is not called rationing. It could also change the structure of Medicare in ways which could reduce access to care, as we’ve seen with the fiasco following the implementation of  a flawed payment formula which has already made it more difficult for many Medicare patients to be accepted by physicians.

The second major error made by the post at Think Progress is to claim that proposals from the IPAB “will go into effect unless Congress acts to alter the proposal or discontinue automatic implementation.” I’ve seen many liberal blogs defend the IPAB based upon a mistaken belief that its proposals are subjected to an up or down vote by Congress  The IPAB is structured so that it will be virtually impossible for their rulings to be overturned by Congress. (The original House version of the health care reform legislation did not make this mistake as was the case with the Senate version).

An IPAB which is not accountable to Congress risks causing harm even if their intentions are good. The situation could be far worse if it becomes dominated by conservatives who are hostile to the program. Does anyone really think it would be a good idea to risk that in 2013 Mitt Romney, should he be elected, and the Republicans could pack the IPAB with people who share their hostility to Medicare? Not only would it not be possible to block the recommendations of such a board under a Republican government, it would also be difficult or impossible to reverse them even should Democrats be elected afterwards.

Posted in Barack Obama, Blogs & Social Media, Health Care, Mitt Romney. Tags: , , , , . No Comments »

Large Majority Opposes Republican Medicare Proposals

March 1, 2012 — Ron Chusid

A survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that 70 percent of Americans prefer to keep Medicare as it is as opposed to a premium-support system as is being promoted by Republicans (along with one Democrat who is making a terrible mistake):

About 70% of Americans say they favor the Medicare program as it exists today, while 25% say they would support a premium-support model in the federal healthcare program, according to a February survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Among those surveyed, 83% of Democrats said they want to keep Medicare as it is and 14% say they would support the change. That compares with 53% of Republicans who prefer the status quo and 39% who said they would like to see a premium-support model, which is the basis of a proposal from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), as well as GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Although the plans are not exactly the same, both include a system in which the federal government guarantees to each person with Medicare a fixed payment to buy health insurance. But the survey indicated that current debate on the contentious issue could sway opinion.

I bet an even higher number will oppose the proposed changes when they realize how much it could increase their out-of-pocket costs. Just think back to the Tea Party supporters who demanded to keep the government out of their Medicare. While their understanding of government is poor, their motivation is quite clear

Posted in Health Care, Polls, Republicans. Tags: , , . 5 Comments »

House Republicans Back Down

December 22, 2011 — Ron Chusid

Yesterday we say Republicans ranging from the editorial writers of The Wall Street Journal to Karl Rove condemn the refusal by John Boehner to hold a vote on the temporary payroll tax extension which was passed by the Senate with strong bipartisan support. The Tea Party faction of the House had pulled the House Republican Caucus to such an extreme position that few other Republicans would go along. The final straw came today when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called on the House to pass the temporary extension. Boehner backed down and passage now looks imminent.

Now we can look forward to February when the battle is fought all over again, but at least there will not be a tax increase in January and Medicare will be able to fully pay claims.

Posted in Congress, Economy, Health Care, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

PolitiFact Has Problems Understanding Medicare

December 20, 2011 — Ron Chusid

For the past three years, PolitiFact has chosen health care statements as their lie of the year. Last year they chose the Republican lie that health care reform is a government takeover of health care. In 2009 the lie of the year was Sarah Palin’s claim about death panels. Perhaps they felt compelled to show that they are not biased towards either party by choosing a Democratic argument this year. The problem, as I discussed previously, is that the argument that the Republican-passed Medicare plan would destroy the Medicare program is actually true.

PolitiFact is nitpicking based upon the misleading fact that the GOP plan would replace the current Medicare program with something completely different. They point out:

With a few small tweaks to their attack lines, Democrats could have been factually correct, said Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. “I actually think there is no need to cut out the qualifiers and exaggerate,” he said.

Maybe it would be preferable if Democrats said the Republicans voted to destroy Medicare as we know it, or destroy the current Medicare program, for people under age 55.  Leaving out such qualifiers hardly turns an accurate criticism into a lie. Steve Benen has a good analogy to explain this:

This is simply indefensible. Claims that are factually true shouldn’t be eligible for a Lie of the Year designation.

It’s unnerving that we have to explain this again, but since PolitiFact appears to be struggling with the relevant details, let’s set the record straight.

Medicare is a single-payer health care system offering guaranteed benefits to seniors. The House Republican budget plan intended to privatize the existing system and replace it with something very different — a voucher scheme. It would still be called “Medicare,” but it wouldn’t be Medicare.

It seems foolish to have to parse the meaning of the word “end,” but if there’s a program, and it’s replaced with a different program, proponents brought an end to the original program. That’s what the verb means.

I’ve been trying to think of the best analogy for this. How about this one: imagine someone owns a Ferrari. It’s expensive and drives beautifully, and the owner desperately wants to keep his car intact. Now imagine I took the car away, removed the metallic badge off the trunk that says “Ferrari,” I stuck it on a golf cart, and I handed the owner the keys.

“Where’s my Ferrari?” the owner would ask.

“It’s right here,” I’d respond. “This has four wheels, a steering wheel, and pedals, and it says ‘Ferrari’ right there on the back.”

By PolitiFact’s reasoning, I haven’t actually replaced the car — and if you disagree, you’re a pants-on-fire liar.

Part of the problem is that the fact checkers are journalists who attempt to determine the truth but cannot be experts on all matters. Health care law is complicated, and I have found similar lack of understanding on their part in the past (as in the discussion to this post). If PolitiFact had reviewed this and provided further background information they could have provided a useful service. Calling this a lie is simply a false interpretation.

PolitiFact claims that, “They ignored the fact that the Ryan plan would not affect people currently in Medicare — or even the people 55 to 65 who would join the program in the next 10 years.”  First of all, destroying Medicare in ten years is still destroying Medicare. Secondly, while some may have ignored this fact, I have discussed this issue in the past (and I doubt I’m the only one).  It is probable that those 55 and older will see changes if the plan were to pass as those under 55 are not likely to support continued funding for the Medicare program if they are never able to benefit from it. People over 55 have good reason to oppose the GOP proposal to maintain political support for funding the real Medicare program.

Their other objections are equally inane, such as arguing,

They used harsh terms such as “end” and “kill” when the program would still exist, although in a privatized system.

Eliminating a government-run single-payer system and replacing it with a privatized system with benefits which are not comparable to what seniors now receive is most certainly ending, and even killing, the current program regardless of whether the new program has the same name. In their discussion they even acknowledged that “seniors would have to pay more to get the benefits they receive today, according to an analysis completed earlier this year by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).” Once again, a plan which is structured in a totally different manner and which provides lower benefits is not the same program as we have today.
 

Posted in Health Care, Republicans, Sarah Palin. Tags: , , . 5 Comments »

What The F**k Were They Thinking?

December 15, 2011 — Ron Chusid

There were two moves this week which were so idiotic I just have to ask, WTF?

First was Brandon Hantz giving someone else the immunity idol on Survivor, leading to him getting voted off.

Second was Ron Wyden joining Paul Ryan in proposing a plan which would destroy Medicare as we know it, denying seniors the security that they will receive adequate health care coverage. Fortunately  many Democrats are already speaking out against the plan, such as one senior Democratic Congressional aide:

“For starters, this is bad policy and a complete political loser,” this aide said. “On top of the terrible politics, they even admit that it dismantles Medicare but achieves no budgetary savings while doing so — the worst of all worlds. Thanks for nothing.”

The White House is also concerned:

“We are concerned that Wyden-Ryan, like Congressman Ryan’s earlier proposal, would undermine, rather than strengthen, Medicare,” said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer. “The Wyden-Ryan scheme could, over time, cause the traditional Medicare program to “wither on the vine” because it would raise premiums, forcing many seniors to leave traditional Medicare and join private plans. And it would shift costs from the government to seniors. At the end of the day, this plan would end Medicare as we know it for millions of seniors. Wyden-Ryan is the wrong way to reform Medicare.”

Posted in Barack Obama, Congress, Health Care, Television. Tags: , , . 2 Comments »

Question of the Day

November 4, 2011 — Ron Chusid

How come conservatives can force Republicans to stand by a pledge not to raise taxes, even on multimillionaires, but liberals can’t put enough pressure on Democrats not to accept Medicare cuts?

Posted in Democrats, Economy, Health Care, Republicans. Tags: . No Comments »

Approval Of Obama Drops, But Voters Still Prefer His Policies Over Republican Policies–Will That Save Us From A President Worse Than Bush?

September 14, 2011 — Ron Chusid

Republicans are encouraged by headlines, such as at Bloomberg, that Obama Approval Plummets to New Low Among Americans Skeptical of Jobs Plan. This is discouraging news, but I also wouldn’t have expected one speech to bring about an immediate turn-around for Obama. On the other hand, Republicans need to be cautious as their support in the polls has dropped even more than that of Obama. Several polls have findings similar to the CNN polls showing Americans trust Obama more than the Republicans on the economy.

As people are frustrated with both Democrats and Republicans over the state of the economy, 2012 could be a bad year for incumbents. However polls of positions supported by voters often do not correlate well with actual election results, as voters have frequently voted Republican while supporting Democratic policies. Last night’s special elections in New York and Nevada showed that 2011 is still an awful lot like 2010. Democrats have over a year to turn things around, benefited by factors such as that the facts are on their side, and the opposing side is supporting extremist ideas which Americans do not support. Unfortunately, ever since their victories in 2008 Democrats have been losing the messaging wars–badly. If the Democrats do not do a better job of showing what they stand for and why voters must reject the Republicans, I fear that in 2012 many voters in Democratic areas will vote against the incumbent, while  voters in Republican districts will vote against Obama and his party.

It would be disastrous if a party which opposes Medicare and Social Security while supporting theocracy and further transfer of wealth to the ultra-wealthy controls the government. Unless Democrats do a better job of winning the spin wars over the next fourteen months, this very well can happen. Further Republican appointees to the Supreme Court can tip the balance away from individual liberty for years to come.

Obama’s major accomplishments, such as reforming health care so that people cannot be denied coverage for preexisting conditions, and keeping us out of a depression with the first stimulus, have been turned from political selling points to negatives for the Democrats. Far too many voters believe a fictional account of what Republicans believe as well as a fictional account of Democratic policies which is spread by the right wing noise machine. When the Democrats do not do an adequate job of defining themselves and their policies, they make it easy for the Republicans to do it instead. Obama shares part of this blame, but this has been a problem with the Democratic Party which existed before Obama was even in the Senate. Responding to this by turning on Obama only increases the chances of Rick Perry taking office in 2013 with both Houses of Congress under Republican control.

The left was far more united when George Bush was in office, as it was far easier to agree on opposing Bush’s destructive policies than it is for the wide variety of individuals on the left to agree as to what should be done.  The one thing we should all agree on is that we cannot have another era of Republican control, which is likely to be even worse than the Bush years. Differences in opinion with Obama, often exaggerated by the limitations upon what he can accomplish, are trivial compared to what a Perry government would do. There is a small number on the left who manage to do incredible mental gymnastics and twist the facts to claim Obama is worse than Bush. Hopefully they will wake up to reality before 2012 or we might really see  the harm that  a president who is worse than Bush can do to the country.

Posted in Barack Obama, Congress, Democrats, Economy, George Bush, Politics, Polls, Republicans, Rick Perry. Tags: , , , , . 3 Comments »

Republican Fringe Ideas Help Obama’s Reelection Prospects

September 6, 2011 — Ron Chusid

With Rick Perry moving into a  lead for the GOP nomination, there are some conservatives who recognize that his nomination could be a disaster of Goldwater-proportions. Joe Scarborough says there is “No way” Perry could beat Obama. Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review has a realistic column for Bloomberg arguing that Obama’s weakness is leading to Republican overreach, making it hard for Republicans to win in a general election. Ponnuru wrote:

Already the Republican primaries have seen candidates take positions that will be hard sells in the fall of next year. Both Bachmann and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, for example, want to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency. Polls suggest that while the public doesn’t consider environmental protection its top priority right now, it favors regulation and trusts Democrats over Republicans on the issue. Texas Governor Rick Perry has suggested that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and that they should be replaced by state-run programs. There’s a reason no Republican candidate since 1964 has run on a platform anything like this one on entitlements: Both programs are extremely popular.

Perry has also suggested that he disapproves of the New Deal, seeing it as a moment when the federal government began to exceed the constitutional limits of its power. He hasn’t said he wants to undo the New Deal, but it’s not out of bounds for Democrats to make the charge, given the importance he attaches to constitutionalism.

In each of these cases, provocative positions have been met by silence from rival candidates. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney hasn’t come out in favor of abolishing the EPA or getting rid of federal entitlement programs, but he hasn’t denounced these ideas or even used them as an argument against the electability of the candidates who have advanced them. Evidently he believes either that the primary electorate doesn’t think these positions are politically toxic, or that it doesn’t consider electability a key concern.

If Republican voters had electability on their minds, they would also want to see the candidates address issues that concern the broader public: how to get wages growing again after years when they stagnated even during periods of growth; and what to replace Obama’s health-care reform with. But the candidates feel no pressure from primary voters to outline plans on those issues, and haven’t done so. Instead, they are focused on issues — such as the alleged threat of “sharia law” and the heavy share of income taxes paid by the rich — that are of interest only to the party faithful.

Ponnuru prefaced this discussion by a discussion of Obama’s difficulties in getting reelected, and hopefully underestimated Obama’s political skills:

Obama has never had to demonstrate great political skill in his general-election races. During both of them, he was blessed with good luck (a fringy opponent in his Senate race, and a collapsing economy during his presidential run).

To limit the discussion to general-election races ignores a major achievement in defeating Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Although the economic situation made it difficult for a Republican to win in 20o8 (while giving Republicans an edge in 2012 due to the short memories of American voters), Obama still did run an excellent general election campaign. On the other hand, the manner in which the Republicans won the spin wars over health care reform and the stimulus after Obama took office do leave cause for concern. Obama’s chances are helped considerably due to his potential opponents being bat-shit crazy. He might also be helped by falling in the polls now, forcing him to campaign more as he did before be was elected.

Posted in Barack Obama, Barry Goldwater, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Politics, Rick Perry. Tags: , , , , . 5 Comments »

Democrats Take Lead In Generic Congressional Ballot

August 12, 2011 — Ron Chusid

Republicans have been slipping in the polls since their mishandling of the debt ceiling debate (here and here) and now a poll shows that this could translate into losses in the House. A new Gallup poll shows Democrats leading Republicans 51 percent to 44 percent in the generic Congressional ballot.

This is hardly enough to predict that the Democrats will retake the House. Momentum can, and probably will, shift more times between now and the 2012 election. Republicans might withstand these numbers due to controlling the redistricting process. Having Democrats more concentrated in urban areas makes it easier to make a smaller number of districts which have huge Democratic majorities, so even if Democrats win over half the popular vote they could wind up with less than half of the Congressional seats. (This is exaggerated even more in the Senate where sparsely populated Republican states receive the same number of Senators as in heavily populated Democratic states).

Democrats will probably need to expand this lead in the generic ballot to repeat their successes in 2006 and 2008:

… the Democratic advantage is not as large as those they enjoyed in the 2006 and 2008 congressional election cycles — each of which produced a Democratic majority in Congress. The Democrats averaged a 10-point lead over Republicans among registered voters in the year prior to the 2008 elections and an 11-point advantage leading up to the 2006 elections, with individual polls showing them ahead by as much as 23 points.

Democrats have a better chance to win if they can highlight both the fiscal irresponsibility of the GOP along with Republican votes which would destroy the Medicare program. The best chance for Democrats will be if the Tea Party remains active, as another recent Gallup poll shows antipathy towards the Tea Party growing. Running more Tea Party candidates could weaken the Republicans, and even being associated with the Tea Party could be damaging to Republicans outside of extremely far right areas.

Posted in Democrats, Politics, Polls, Republicans. Tags: , , , , , , . 3 Comments »
« Older posts «
»