Mitt Romney celebrated his 65th birthday this week, which made him eligible for the popular, successful Medicare program. The Republican presidential candidate's campaign wasted no time in letting reporters know a key detail: Romney isn't signing up for the health care benefit.
This is, of course, his right. But Romney's decision matters because of what it tells us about his approach to the bedrock American program. The former governor has already endorsed Paul Ryan's House Republican budget plan, which would eliminate the Medicare program altogether, replacing it with a private voucher system. Romney also wants reduced entitlement benefits for the most well-off Americans (which, obviously, would include him).
But Jonathan Cohn explained this week that the problem with Romney's approach is that his plan "wouldn't simply reduce Medicare coverage for the very wealthy. It'd reduce Medicare coverage for many other people, too."
[G]iven Romney's promise of a tight cap on federal spending, [the value of the voucher he would give seniors to pay for care] would likely decline relative to health care costs, so that large numbers of seniors would face significantly higher out-of-pocket medical costs. (Either that, or there'd be massive cuts to other programs, inevitably putting seniors at risk of other hardships.)
Romney has indicated he'd protect the lowest income Americans, by giving them larger subsidies. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that's what he really intends. But it's not just the poor who need protection. Given the budget constraints he's promised to impose, many near-poor people would end up in trouble. (And that's assuming he really would protect the poor. Given that Romney also wants to cut Medicaid, which provides supplemental coverage to seniors who need extra help, I'm not sure that's realistic.)
Why would Romney think that putting middle-class seniors at greater financial risk is even tolerable, let alone advisable? Who knows. But you have to wonder whether his affluence blinds him, or at least desensitizes him, to the threat medical expenses can pose -- and the difficulty older Americans traditionally have in the private insurance market.
Romney, worth in upwards of a quarter-billion dollars, can simply write a check for any and all of his family's health care needs. But the number of Americans who enjoy that level of financial security is extremely small.
It's why the DNC responded to Romney's announcement this week with a new video noting that he may not need Medicare, and he may even want to scrap the existing program, but for the rest of the country, this would be a disaster.
Leave a Comment:
How sweet of Mitt. He is going to rely on private insurance. Why private insurance? With his wealth he can buy a whole damn hospital, doctors and all.
He can certainly afford the sky high premiums he'll pay.
Mitt also doesn't need compassion so why should the rest of America need any.
Romney is likely just grandstanding.
Almost all people who work past age 65 and have employer-based insurance "decline" Medicare as long as they are still working. In fact, Medicare encourages this and makes it easy to move over to Medicare when an individual does finally retire.
Assuming he has group insurance through some entity (Bain Capital, a family trust, etc.), he's not doing anything unusual.
"wouldn't simply reduce Medicare coverage for the very wealthy. It'd reduce Medicare coverage for many other people, too." This is the problem with MOST of the conservatives policies. Health care? WHY should we cover contraception? WHY should we subsidize unions? WHY should we pay out social security? The WEALTHY don't need it. Why do YOU? They all have jobs. They have pensions. They have health care. Why don't YOU?
This is fascinating to me because yesterday my husband and I spent the day at a local medical center getting him approved for a cochlear implant because his hearing has deteriorated to a level that is affecting his social interactions and his well-being. Medicare will pay for the entire procedure, equipment, and future needs. Since we have very limited resources compared to the quarter-billionaire, we are very, very grateful to the Congress that passed Medicare way back when.
It's kind of bizarre that Romney thought refusing Medicare would convey "I'm principled and not using a Government program I don't support," and not see the more obvious out-of-touch message of "I'm rich and don't have to worry about paying for healthcare."
Maybe this plays well in the know-nothing GOP primaries ("Keep your government hands off my Medicare!") but it's hard to see how.
Could it be possible that Rmoney is using the same method that the Tealiban used in 2010 elections. All their candidates ran on the message of Jobs. After they got into office it then changed to social issues. Could the reason that Romney appears to flip-flop so much is that if he were to win the Presidency he would automatically go back to his initial stands and beliefs on the issues. He just wants to be President so bad that he'll say anything. I don't think he has any intentions of changing his older positions on the issues. If the Tea Party can do it why can't he. If he is intellegient he knows that the new healthcare bill is working and that women should be in control of their own bodies. He is appeasing the voters and then he'll go right back to being Mitt and not Willard.
Another statement by Romney that he wants to eliminate Medicare would be a gift to the Dems. Let us hope he repeats these statements on the campaign trail. Video lives on and on.
Ann Romney has a terrible disease she must live with. She can get the best care. I do not understand why Romney would so distance himself from his Mass. plan and the need to help others qualify for proper care given what his family must deal with. It makes no sense to me.
I am retired and living on SS and a small private pension of $293.28 a month. I paid into SS and Medicare all my working life. After I pay $99.00 for Medicare Part B, my SS check is $1510.00. Add the $293.28 from the pension and my total monthly income is $1,803.28. In the summer I have a small vegetable farm that makes about $5,000.00 or $6,000.00 in profits. If the Ryan budget that these Republican candidates have all endorsed is passed, it is supposed to cost seniors like me an additional $6,000.00 per month. What makes anyone think I could afford an additional $500.00 a month to pay for health coverage.
Since I am very healthly and take very good care of myself -- lots of exercise and good home grown, organic vegetables -- and I come from a long line of folks many of whom lived well into their 90s, I could probably get along without Medicare, but I would be in real trouble if I needed something. If I had to pay out an additional $500.00 per month, the first thing I would have to give up is the only regular medical procedure that I am now getting which is a bi-weekly message which I pay for out of my garden profits. Message therapy keeps me from having to use my Medicare for expensive conventional pain management, something that just goes with age.
With medical costs going up all the time, even many of Romney's very rich supporters -- those making $100,000.00 and up could not afford a major illness.
What baffles me are the voters who are on SS and Medicare who vote for Republicans who have repeatedly stated they want to get rid of these programs. If they are willing to cut future benefits, then they will not hesitate to cut current benefits. These voters don't realize that a public option would help to keep their costs down because medical providers do not have to pass the costs of the uninsured on to those who have insurance.
Mike,
It baffles me too although I really think that when the Republicans really try to pass a bill ending Medicare as we know it, they will find that it is even more radioactive than their war on women. The Republicans already lost a Congressional seat in a very red district to a Democrat because of the Ryan budget.
What the Democrats have to do is let the American public know exactly what the Ryan proposal would do to real people like me. That is why I put my personal account information on this blog.
One of the things that bothers me the most about so much of the political dialog especially on the right, is that it is vague and general. None of the candidates has to live on what the average retiree has to live on. There may be some who can still live comfortably, but even many who are still working and have a good income can barely afford health insurance.
While the health care debate was raging, there was a video of Sen. Chuck Grassley that really struck me as outstanding. He was asked by a constituent why they could not get health care as good as his government plan. Grassley responded that the constituent should get a job with the government. Dems should have replayed that video many times over. Grassley's arrogance stunned me and if I were a voter, I would have been furious.
Paul Ryan and the rest of the Republicans should be subject to the same attack. They are willing to take your health care away while they enjoy their government plan and they and their families can get free health care while in DC. That is how Dems should pound the Republicans showing the Republicans attitude of "I got mine and screw you."
The Repugnicants have a plan and they work as a block on attaining their goal. There are rigid talking points using specific language. If a person wants to run for election in any capacity on the GOP ticket, that person MUST spew the scripted garbage or there will not only be no support from the GOP, but they will band together against h/im/er and back a candidate that lives and breathes the GOP ideal.
We all talk about how Romney appears robotic and makes many gaffs, especially when he veers from the "script" which he then has to backtrack on. To me, this is a clear sign that he is not being authentic and is "acting" a part that he is not comfortable with.
Will he revert to his "real" self if elected? Not if he wants a second term.
Mitt Romney does not need Medicare, he has million dollars, and Medicare is for the people like me. I do not earn so much & I have to spend major part of my income on medicines & doctors. I need to visit eye doctor <a href="http://www.alleganyoptical.info"> Allegany Optical </a> every month while Medicare only covers basics. I will say Medicare should cover completely.
He can help his own family. Can we all?