When Mitt Romney chose -- or was told to choose -- Paul Ryan as his running mate, he had to realize he'd be pressed on Medicare. After all, the far-right House Budget Committee chairman is widely recognized as the guy who wants to end Medicare and replace it with a voucher program. Romney and his advisors surely knew questions about this were coming, and had some time before Saturday's announcement to come up with their position.
Apparently, Team Romney hasn't come up with much.
Romney was in Miami yesterday -- where there are apparently a few senior citizens -- and fielded several questions about the differences between his Medicare plan and that of his running mate. The Republican presidential hopeful struggled badly.
"[M]y plan for Medicare, it's very similar to his plan for Medicare, which is do not change the program for current retirees or near retirees, but do not do what the president has done, and that is to cut $700 billion out of the current program," Romney eventually said.
Let me try to explain this in a way Romney will understand: if the Romney plan is the same as the Ryan plan, and the Ryan plan includes Obama's Medicare savings, then the Romney plan includes the same Obama policy that Romney is condemning.
Romney can support the president's policy that strengthens Medicare, or he can oppose the president's policy that strengthens Medicare, but he can't support and oppose the same policy at the same time.
Being president is really difficult; understanding the basics of the Medicare debate is pretty easy. In this case, either Romney has absolutely no idea what he's talking about after six years of running for president, or he thinks voters are ignorant fools.
Ryan's ambitions of privatizing Medicare and Social Security out of existence will make it difficult for Romney to compete in the Sunshine State (and Iowa and Pennsylvania, which also have large elderly populations). If the Republican ticket is going to overcome its self-imposed problems, it's going to have to do better than it did yesterday.
Leave a Comment:
The people proposing and voting on all the Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc. issues in Congress have absolutely no understanding of the problem most citizens have with health care. These people have a health and benefit package, tax payer funded by the way, the average person can only dream of. Most are multi-millionaires who will NEVER have to depend on social programs. Do you honestly think they really understand the issues?
"either Romney has absolutely no idea what he's talking about after six years of running for president, or he thinks voters are ignorant fools."
To quote my bumper sticker - " Only millionaires and FOOLS vote Republican"
some are both because they do not understand that their businesses cannot survive without consumers. the rich do not spend enough on their personal living expenses or pleasures to significantly support all business.
Here is some food for thought;
Medicare (Part A [HI]) Trust Fund is (2010 projection) $238bn and projected to increase to $317bn by 2019. That is a lot of ASSETS sitting there "unused" or otherwise unavailable for Private Investment access (can only be invested in special issue T-bills which is part of the total US debt, but more on that later).
Social Security (OASDI) Trust Funds end of year balance (2010) $2.6tn. Again, that is a lot of ASSETS sitting there "unused" or otherwise unavailable for Private Investment access.
False equivalency; reducing Medicare expenditures decreases costs of healthcare in America. What it actually reduces is what the government pays directly for medical costs in America. In the case of fraud, this is a good thing. If it actually reduces delivery of health CARE it is not.
Another false equivalency; existence of fraud means that the program is worthless or broken beyond repair. If the fraud were eliminated or reduced to minimal levels (crime exists because some people think they can game the system) then the argument goes away leaving a very well run (2-3% overhead as a opposed to 20-30% for private insurers) program. Social Security (OASDI) admin costs were 0.9% of expenditures in 2010 (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html). Compare that to the admin costs of any other investment vehicle a private person might access if these programs were "Privatized."
Government Trust Funds are required to invest in only one vehicle; special issue Treasury Bills. As Treasury securities these assets are both debt (counted as part of the total debt) and asset. As an indicator of financial health they are neutral just like your savings account is an asset that if you borrow against is now both debt and asset. The difference is that if the Trust Funds have income exceeding expenditures they MUST invest those "excess" funds in T-bills keeping the assets fiscally neutral.
A reduction in benefits only has the effect of increasing any "excess" income for that program. It does not reduce the deficit even if you stopped all benefits entirely. The only way for the Trust Funds to contribute to the deficit is if the funds were exhausted or otherwise paid benefits from the General Fund. While these two programs account for some 36% of all federal expenditures, as they do not contribute to the deficit (their surpluses hide the actual deficit spending levels of other programs), eliminating them not only would not decrease the deficit they would actually show what the deficit really was.
The payroll tax "holiday" this last year actually HARMED the trust fund solvency by decreasing income while not reducing expenses, bringing possible future insolvency a few years earlier and doing very little to actually increase consumer spending. The big winners in that scheme were those that were maxed out on their payroll tax funding of the programs as that was less they had to contribute to a system they don't really use. The losers were those for whom Social Security is or will be a major portion of their annual income.
Rachel should do a segment entitled "$3,000,000,000,000 that Wall Street wants but cannot touch!" That would be the combined balances of the Medicare and OASDI trust funds, rounded up of course.
The problem for both R&Rmoney and the President is that the money that is being re moved from Medicare is for Medicare Advantage plans. Neither wants to explain why.
These plans incorporate the part D(prescription drugs), part A(hospitalization) and part B(doctors) into one plan. the owner of an advantage plan essentially is moving into an HMO/PPO for their healthcare. for reasons I am not privy to they are said to be a failure. I suspect they are not failures but too costly to the insurer given the limited copays vs actual costs for seniors.
for ryan not explaining it is because he just wants to give you the voucher. For Rmoney it is because he doesn't want to explain why his plan in Massachusetts isn't good enough for everyone let alone discuss Medicare. for the President it involves explaining why Medicare Adavantage plans don't work. MA's our not his policy and do offer savings in the government expenditures fr Medicare. the problem is if you are on traditional medicare you often buy a supplement plan to pay for what Medicare doesn't cover. Each year those plans become more expensive(law of large numbers against cost of aging population w/ a higher and more expensive use f medical care) against a population that does not have the income to pay for the plan.
"And the President doesn't want to explain the cost shift back to seniors."
that is the final sentence in the above paragraph. I cut it while copying.
Medicare Advantage plans are a failure because they cost more and deliver less than standard Medicare. the idea was to relieve the federal government of the onerous task of administering the Advantage plan enrollees and save those costs. The anticipated admin savings never amounted to any significant savings and the payments to the HMOs were at least 20-30% higher than with regular Medicare while the HMOs were denying benefits under the Advantage plan, just like they do with private insurance customers. With regular Medicare there was an approval process that allowed the patient and their doctor to decide what was needed and if the procedure or Rx was previously approved for other patients it was generally automatic approval.
Yeah, stumbling. Does it seem like Mitt has had a kind of life of ease to you? Doesn't it show?
And here I thought George W Bush lacked intelligence, Mittens seems to be as lost as W. What are they teaching in the Ivy League institutions of higer learning anyway. I know, I know it is the person not the institution. As I posted on another site, if a politician tells you he has a plan but is vague about the specifics of that plan hold on for dear life because you are going to get screwed big time if he gets elected.
this topic is distracting people away from his tax returns! lol, he wanted to get away from that topic for so long now
I'm ON Medicare and I don't understand it. I'm 66 and have been on it for a year and it's the most confusing thing I've ever been through.
I don't see anybody mentioning the gazillions of baby boomers coming along every day and retiring and being eligible for Medicare and THEM not understanding it, but being afraid it won't be there for them, so the very idea that ROMNEY, who probably will never even NEED it, doesn't understand it, is not far-fetched.
The fact that he doesn't understand it and doesn't know what it's like to be on it makes it that much more sickening that he's so willing to get rid of it. Ditto, Ryan, the prig.
Obamacare finds savings from reducing the subsidies to Medicare Advantage premiums. Romney wants to expand Medicare Advantage. Romney wants to provide premium supports as a defined contribution to the purchase of private healthcare insurance, preserving government run Medicare as an option. Wait a minute. Weren't Republicans opposed to a public option during the health insurance debate two years ago? Republicans need to get their talking points straight - alternatively, they can admit that there are some bipartisan ideas that deserve support...
Obama's plan cuts Medicare by about 700 billion in the near future to pay for Obamacare. This will effect all current retirees and everyone who retires soon.
Ryan's plan doesn't change anything for anyone for the next 10 years. Current retirees are never effected. Then, in 10 years, there are some options.
Saying that these options that start in 10 years will mean a 700 billion dollar cut is pure fantasy.
So, Romney's statement is correct and sensible.
.
Please, please, please..learn from what has happened in WI! He who shall not be named and his Republican cronies are spending more on prisons and workhouses than on public education, have gutted collective bargaining that maintained over 50 years of labor peace, and their reward? One is a featured keynoter at the GOP convention, one is the mastermind of deviousness and the corruption of our democracy, and one is the running mate. Please! Free us from the fools who are the core of the GOP!