Getty Images
I guess we should have seen this one coming.
Speaking at his alma mater Miami University in Ohio, Paul Ryan slammed President Obama for adopting Medicare cuts that, until last week, were openly supported by Ryan himself. [...]
Ryan went on to say that "what I don't think he'll be telling people is that the president took $716 billion from the Medicare program -- he raided it to pay for Obamacare."
Consider this remarkable series of events:
1. President Obama extends new benefits to seniors on Medicare and finds savings in the system to strengthen Medicare's finances.
2. Paul Ryan approves of Obama's Medicare savings and incorporates them into his own budget plan.
3. Mitt Romney endorses Ryan's plan, which includes Obama's Medicare savings.
4. Romney changes his mind, and tries to argue he's for and against the Medicare savings at the same time (for them in Ryan's plan, against then in Obama's law).
And finally 5. Ryan denounces the Medicare savings he supports.
So to review, the Romney/Ryan ticket is for and against Obama's Medicare savings, for and against including Obama's Medicare savings in the Republican budget, for and against extending benefits for seniors, and for and against strengthening Medicare's finances -- all at the same time.
Complicating matters, Romney/Ryan intends to deliberately eliminate the savings -- "We're putting the $716 billion back" -- which necessarily means pushing Medicare closer to insolvency and $716 billion in additional entitlement spending that Romney can't afford.
It's like the Republican ticket is sinking deeper into the quicksand of policy stupidity.
For her part, Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul told the AP, "The idea that restoring funding to Medicare could somehow hasten its bankruptcy is on its face absurd."
Just for fun, let's flesh out to see who's actually being absurd.
The AP's summary on this is actually terrific.
The reason: Obama's cuts also extended the life of Medicare's giant trust fund, and by repealing them Romney would move the insolvency date of the program closer, toward the end of what would be his first term in office.
Instead of running out of money in 2024, Medicare says its trust fund for inpatient care would go broke in 2016 without the cuts. That could leave a President Romney little political breathing room to finalize his own Medicare plan. [...]
Obama's cuts were not directly aimed at Medicare's 48 million beneficiaries; instead they affect hospitals, insurers, nursing homes, drug companies and other service providers. Simply undoing the cuts would restore higher payments to those service providers. And that would cause Medicare to spend money faster.
There are really only two possible explanations for this. The first is that the Romney/Ryan ticket and its team of policy aides are so remarkably ignorant, they've launched this policy offensive without learning the basic details of Medicare. The second possible explanation is that the Romney/Ryan ticket and its team of policy aides believe Americans are idiots.
Which of these two is right? I honestly have no idea, but it'd be awfully nice if someone asked them.
Here, I'll make it easy for those who can ask Romney questions directly: "Gov. Romney, how do you intend to pay for the additional $716 billion in Medicare spending?" Or how about, "Gov. Romney, why do you think it's a good idea to eliminate Medicare savings and push the program closer to a fiscal crisis?" Or maybe, "Gov. Romney, why do you support a policy that would force seniors to pay more for prescription medication and preventive care?" Or how about, "Gov. Romney, do you understand that forcing Medicare to spend more money would be bad for its financial future?"
Leave a Comment:
There's been 716 billion dollars of savings sitting on the table for how long now? 10 years? Some lobbyist somewhere didn't pay up?
For about 6 months before the Official Announcement of the ACA, I believe.
The 716 Billion is only an "issue" now is because Ryan is on the ticket. And when you pick the "Kill Medicare Guy" as your VP. Muddying the waters on who's 700 Billion is worse for Medicare. Is really the only cards you have left to play. But when your own party is running away for Ryan's Budget Plan. You can't muddy up the waters enough. To hide the fact that his plan is so bad. His own party has to run ads saying they don;t support it.
"It's like the Republican ticket is sinking deeper into the quicksand of policy stupidity..."
Actually the rethugniCon ticket is banking on uninformed Americans blindly sucking up their garbage. It also smacks of 1% hubris!
Q: Gov. Romney, why are you so selfish that in order to get another tax break you would force the elderly (many of whom don't have the money) to pay more for needed services - that you yourself would have no problem paying for as you get older?
No matter whether is comes from Obama or Ryan's budget, all of this is based on one presupposition that so far I have not seen addressed, namely, that the medical profession is captive to Medicare.
In most free markets, the consumer has a right to offer lower payments and the provider has a right to refuse. In order for this to work, we would have to assume that health care delivery is not a free market and thus cannot refuse. While these payments do not go to doctors directly, doctors steer their patients to particular hospitals. If hospitals keep receiving less money, doctors will send their patients to those hospitals that take a lower percentage of Medicare patients.
This is also true of the new ACA program that provides for lower payments to hospitals that have worse patient care results. Since by defintion, hospitals in lower economic areas have worse results than those in higher economic areas, this is a negative self-reinforcing cycle. Hospitals in poorer areas already face great difficulty in operating costs. This will only add to that burdern
Finally if the rationale for reducing payments is so, why has Congress waived the automatic budgetary cuts to Medicare provider rates that have been law for what is it ten years straight now? The only reasonable conclusion is that the rationale for doing so was incorrect then or the rationale used by the Obama adminstration is incorrect now.
Here in Fla. medicare payments at some hospitals are higher than those negotiated by private insurance companies, which have had to scramble when they tried to make their contract rate too low. The hospital also has to jump through less hoops to admit a medicare client and to get paid after care was completed.
yes, there are arguments on both sides, my point was that nothing is cut and dried. In fact the very program now being cut was only passed because it was expected to lower costs in the first place, which proved untrue in practice.
In health care it seems the law of unexpected results is the rule rather than the exception
Healthcare should be free, that's what God would want. If you have within your power the ability to save a persons life then by all means you should, regardless of the cost. We should thank God that he has blessed certain individuals with this gift. Why is it for sale to the highest bidder? The person that isn't helped because he can't afford it and dies, may have been the person that could have saved your child's life in the future. Maybe he took the bullet that would have killed one of your loved ones. Every person here on Earth is here for a reason, we don't know what that reason is but, how dare we play judge and jury and decide who gets saved and who doesn't. We should in all our ability help our neighbors and those less fortunate, not throw them under the bus and say oh, well. you should have been rich like me. What have we become?
The present debate about the Affordable Care Act contrasts access to care with fiscal responsibility for that expenditure. It is based upon the premise that the unfunded Emergency Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA, 1986) cannot be challenged.
The general view is that hospitals and doctors will pass on their losses to paying patients, insurance companies, the general public through tax deductions, and themselves for the remainder. However, that concept has been attacked. 1) The paying patients have complained to Congress and their insurance companies to resolve this problem with some results. 2) Insurance companies have established managed care protocols to control unreasonable costs. 3) Congress wants to cut the payments being made to hospitals and physicians. 4) Doctors and hospitals refer the umpaind bills to collection agencies for a return of .20/$1.00. 5). Since tax deduction never returns the amount of the expenditure, the doctors and hospitals pay the remainder themselves.
At this time States want to restrict the number of Medicaid people on their roles, continuing to shunt the expense to the medical community. The overall concept is that of the quality of life within the community, and requires a determination as to which people within that community have the fiscal responsibility to ensure it.
If EMTALA were required to be funded by the responsible communities (Federal, State, Local), wouldn't it be logical to ensure that an ACA were available to implement that quality of life concept that was envisioned during the Reagan administration?
I admit to not understanding a lot of the legal and economic factors that are inherent in this problem, and that's why I decided to ask you, because someone on you staff can probably answer this without hesitation.
On a serious note, could someone explain how taking 700 billion out of medicare can save the program? If the savings were there, why not keep them in the program?
The 700 Billion taken out of Medicare by the President. Was money that was being paid to Insurance and Drug Companies. Who were over charging for Prescription Drug Coverage and the Drugs. The ironic part is. The 700 Billion was actually agreed upon. By the Insurance/Drug Companies. Because the money is being redirected into the ACA. To allow more people to be able to have health insurance. Which in turns provide more money to the two company types. It's a win/win.
Ryan's 700 Billion takes away from benefits. And is given to the top 1% as a tax cut. Wile still allowing the Insurance/ Drug Companies. To overcharge for their services. Ryan's plan doesn't extend the life of Medicare. it practically bankrupts the program over a ten year span.
tom:
This is based on the idea that there is or was 700 million dollars in "excess" payments being made to providers and that you can receive the exact same results after cutting the money that you did before, from those servicing Medicare recipients.
Whether or not that claim is true, we will find out.
calvin:
not exactly. here's a pretty good explanation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/
Calvin,
Ryan's plan is what it is JUST A PLAN. It was never implemented, can still be revised, changed and scrapped altogether while Obama's plan of taking 716B from Medicare to fund Obamacare was ALREADY ENACTED in the hopes but with no absolute guarantee that it would create savings in the future which is frankly a huge gamble. As a consequence it now deprives CURRENT seniors of adequate benefits and coverage to an already vastly underfunded program by $23 Trillion & projected to go bankrupt in 5-8 yrs. according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Cindy I know for a fact that it doesn't deprive current Seniors of anything. Because my Grand Mother is on it. And she has actually SAVED money form the parts of the ACA that has already been enacted.
And The CBO has never said that the ACA would bankrupt Medicare. It said the Ryan plan would, or seriously defund the program. So much that it would be considerably hard for it to continue.
Thirdly No New Plan regardless of who presents it. Is guaranteed to work as 'planned'. But the one thing that one cannot dispute. Is how the numbers add up. And Ryan's Plan in both form A and B. Does NOTHING to save Medicare or improve it's system. And it seriously does nothing to decrease the debt. And that's coming from the CBO. So next time you want to quote The CBO. Don't mix up who they were quoting and for which plan they were referring too.
This lie absolutely gives Obama the win in any debate.. Amazingly illustrative of republican hypocracy..
Boy, that Kerry fella sure missed a chance at some major bucks! Not copywriting, "I was for it, before I was against it."
What'd be really awesome is if they stopped calling these "cuts" and started calling them what they are: "savings."
Obama didn't take services away from seniors, but made the services less expensive and used the savings to increase services.
Soledad O'Brien has taken the lead in pushing back against the $716 billion dollar lie. She is taking a lot of heat from the Right and hasn't wilted. TPaw and Sununu were just plain rude and condescending to her but she hung tough. I'm still mad about how Rich Lowry disrespected Rachel on Sunday about this lie.
Finally a MSM piece (AP) that does not equate insolvency with broke. Too bad they never correct the record when they report on campaigns which is nothing more than transcription in too many cases.
Steve, I think you're mistaken about this:
There are really only two possible explanations for this. The first is that the Romney/Ryan ticket and its team of policy aides are so remarkably ignorant, they've launched this policy offensive without learning the basic details of Medicare. The second possible explanation is that the Romney/Ryan ticket and its team of policy aides believe Americans are idiots.
I think the answer is that it's not that they are ignorant of Medicare details, they just don't care to know them BECAUSE they know voters won't know them either.
Sadly, I think most Americans might just be idiots and are quick to believe anything they hear. And all that is needed for Romney to win this election is that most Americans fail to think critically about what is said to them.
I'm getting more and more surprised by how much Anti-Obama sentiment and merchandise is out there.
This comment is directed at Romney and Paul
I hope one day you have to watch the person you love actually dies of AML Leukemia, then spend over 2.21Million dollars on their health care in less than 6 months...and then be asked to clean up the financials afterwards...Your callous betrayal of a friendship is making me not like you at all...I am saying the amount the Social Security Administration kept/stole from his life time account belongedto the Estate..A community property agreement says clearly all accounts all amounts...apparently you do not understand legal documents...The lifetime benefit money earned should have been applied towards the tax burden it created thus leaving the Social Security administration at least at $44,400.00 from his earned benefits! Having to adjust your yearly income tax by $62,000.00 is not normal in any ones world..let alone watching alot of Callous @!$%#tards sitting by that are not able to understand it! The balance of the situation is the money that is withheld from the persons' lifetime earnings is the actual money that belongs to the estate of the deceased and should be made available to those who are compromised by the sudden death of the wage earner. DOMA restricts this type of fiscal responsibility to the dependents of a deceased partner or loved one that is regarded as the head of household upon their death. They simply take back the money without any fiscal regard of the harm it causes to the household after a person dies...The lifetime earned money belongs to the estate of the deceased..not the Social Security Administration.
Mr. Benen: "Here, I'll make it easy for those who can ask Romney questions directly:
"Gov. Romney, how do you intend...
Or how about, "Gov. Romney, why do you think...
Or maybe, "Gov. Romney, why do you support...
Or how about, "Gov. Romney, do you understand...
That is some pretty mean, cold and heartless stuff there Mr. Benen. Just look at those confrontational openings. You would deign to ask FUBARRomney REAL questions. And you would have him actually answer them. How cruel.
This constant digging for details and facts in the search for a coherent plan or a rational explanation really is just too much. The more questions of this combative and interrogational sort that are asked, the more sniveling and pained heart rending sadness we will have to watch from the long suffering r candidate. Which, in turn, causes great heartburn and bemusement among the observers of said sniveling.
This profound meanness must come to a stop. Feelings. Are. Being. Hurt.
"The idea that restoring funding to Medicare could somehow hasten its bankruptcy is on its face absurd."
Dear Mr. Romney.
Please send me $250 million. The idea that sending me all your money would lead to your bankruptcy is on it's face absurd. So why not.
This is the problem with electing someone who embraces a plan to cut their own taxes to nothing. They no longer care how the government wastes it's money.
These are definitely NOT your parents' Repulican Party. They have been so brainwashed and scared by the idio Tea Party, that they can't remember what they believe from day to day! I wish the Tea Party would just crawl in a hole and disappear! The $716 billion they keep attacking was taken from the "goodies" that have been given to the insurance companies in the past for doing nothing more than lining their own pockets. All the Romney/Ryan need to do is read the newspaper!
The women alone in this country need to stand together and fight. The Republicans are taking us back to the 1950's! And now there's a new idiot on the Republican team who has the audacity to say that women are "predisposed to being subservient"!!! They're all running scared - the Republicans in particular, and men in general. They've realized they don't control everything, women and smarter and more educated than most, and we can work AND take care of a family, and they just don't know how to handle it; so they are trying to suppress us. Ladies, we outnumber them by far, so it's time to show them all just who really is the boss!
Romney's lies have tied him into a pretzel and he's backed himself into a corner. I would like to ask him the following: By reducing payments to health care providers and eliminating inefficiencies, waste and fraud, Pres. Obama has saved the government 716 billion dollars in medicare costs. Why do you want to come into office to reverse this and thereby have the government pay 716 billion dollars more than they have to? (I thought you were about reducing the cost of gov't?!) Then you wouldn't have the money to pay for the free preventive services for seniors or the closing of the donut hole. YOU would be the one taking benfits away seniors. Ultimately you would say medicare is too expensive so we have to change it to a voucher system so seniors you're on your own!
A simple analogy would be I negotiate the purchase of a car for $25,000 and free maintenance. You go buy the car and pay 30,000 and say no thanks to the free maintenace!!
If people in the media and the campaign can't find this simple way to explain this to the people and force Romney to answer this question, Obama is going to lose this election on the medicare issue. How IRONIC??
Between this and touting the Romney health plan the Romney is now running against (on FOX NEWS, of all places), how does this woman still have a job? I understand gaffes, but this is a spokesperson! It's her job to sound at least intelligent, while not contradicting the campaign.
Ryan just purchased his "Etch a sketch" he's testing it out like Rmoney but, he hasn't quite got the hang of how it's supposed to work. He's still stuck in all that messy rubber and glue. I wonder what they'll try next, they have once again underestimated and insulted the intellegience of The American people. By the time they decide to be patriotic and join the human race, it might be too late for them. At least they'll have their yachts and mansions to fall back into. What is enough for these guys? Why are they so gung-ho about selling The U.S.? I think they have enough toys to play with. The rest of us might like to one day go on a vacation, remember vacations?
How about just "Governonr Romney, why do you like so much?"
I have a question that needs to be explained by someone with intelligence and fact-checking capability. That is not meant to be a form of false praise; it is meant to state that it isn't a simple problem.
The present debate about the Affordable Care Act contrasts access to care with fiscal responsibility for that expenditure. It is based upon the premise that the unfunded Emergency Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA, 1986) cannot be challenged.
The general view is that hospitals and doctors will pass on their losses to paying patients, insurance companies, the general public through tax deductions, and themselves for the remainder. However, that concept has been attacked. 1) The paying patients have complained to Congress and their insurance companies to resolve this problem with some results. 2) Insurance companies have established managed care protocols to control unreasonable costs. 3) Congress wants to cut the payments being made to hospitals and physicians. 4) Doctors and hospitals refer the umpaind bills to collection agencies for a return of .20/$1.00. 5). Since tax deduction never returns the amount of the expenditure, the doctors and hospitals pay the remainder themselves.
At this time States want to restrict the number of Medicaid people on their roles, continuing to shunt the expense to the medical community. The overall concept is that of the quality of life within the community, and requires a determination as to which people within that community have the fiscal responsibility to ensure it.
If EMTALA were required to be funded by the responsible communities (Federal, State, Local), wouldn't it be logical to ensure that an ACA were available to implement that quality of life concept that was envisioned during the Reagan administration?
I admit to not understanding a lot of the legal and economic factors that are inherent in this problem, and that's why I decided to ask you, because someone on you staff can probably answer this without hesitation.
This is an interesting point.
The theory goes, Seniors will be less likely to get care, because Doctors will be dropping them (like hot potatoes) because they can't fudge the medicare paperwork anymore and overcharge the government.
From Forbes: Essentially, he's saying Seniors will wind up paying more out of pocket, or have a very difficult time finding a Doctor that will take them.
Edited to add:
The posting interface is just plain lousy.
I wanted to comment that this is somewhat of a spin by the author as he is right leaning.
We will certainly find out quick enough who the real Doctors are. Unless they have thrown the oath out the window. It's a good way to weed out the bad nuts from the good ones. I personally would trust a Doctor more that cared about my health and not his wallet. Isn't it funny how far we've gotten from the decent treatment of human beings. If we don't learn how to balance profit and service, we all lose. As an individual you really don't have to care about anybody but yourself, but is it wise? If everybody just thought only of themselves, what a messed up Republican World we all would live in. Grey and depressing.
Democrats I've seen on TV don't have a good answer on the Medicare issue yet, and they've got to get it together fast.
1) They've got to address Obama cutting Medicare in the first sentence: not one penny of the $700B+ in savings comes out of people's benefits; it comes from cutting subsidies for insurances companies, waste, and fraud. And, Ryan's plan retains this savings.
2) Then, they should pivot to what the two plans do with this savings, which is quite different: Obama's plan uses it to close the "doughnut hole" in the Medicare prescription drug program and to help provide health care to 10s of millions more people. Ryan's/Romney's plan uses it to fund more high-income tax cuts.
3) Then, close with Ryan's plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program, eliminating the guaranteed benefit, forcing seniors to shop for private insurance and pay out of pocket when the voucher doesn't cover it all.
I can't stress the importance of #1 enough. If they don't make this point early and concisely, some people will tune out the whole issue as just both sides accusing the other of something, when it should be a winning argument for Obama.
The Romney campaign was obviously ready to preempt the Medicare issue. They knew they were picking Ryan. They had an ad already made. The Obama campaign needs to dispatch with this attack quickly and directly, then get to what the Romney/Ryan plan does. They have to address both points.
Speaking of Paul Ryan, I stumbled upon a BEAUTY of an article over on foxnews.com this morning entitled "Repubs should be careful what they wish for with Paul ryan on the ticket". I couldn't believe THEY would write such a thing!
Here are the facts about Paul Ryan and the Romney-Ryan budget:
• The Romney-Ryan budget would turn Medicare into a private voucher system, which the Congressional Budget Office says would increase the cost to seniors by at least $5,900 by 2050.
• Ryan has long sought to privatize Social Security, handing the money over to the same Wall Street firms that crashed our economy in the first place. Incidentally, even George W. Bush thought Ryan's plan was too radical…
• The Romney-Ryan plan would actually kill over 4 million jobs in the next two years, including vital roles like police officers, firefighters and teachers who help our communities and whose spending helps private industry.
• The Romney-Ryan plan would also gut Pell Grants for students, food stamps for hungry families and Medicaid — in fact, 62% of the cuts in Ryan's budget come from programs that mostly help poor families in America.
• And the Romney-Ryan plan would raise taxes on 95% of Americans but give extra tax breaks to the already-rich.
• Oh yeah, and the Romney-Ryan plan actually INCREASES the deficit .
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/14/republicans-should-be-careful-what-wish-for-with-paul-ryan-on-ticket/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz23jPwbip4
Is ryan running for re election. could he lose both his congressional seal and his bid for vp