Associated Press
Democratic President Lyndon Johnson at a 1965 Medicare signing ceremony, along side Democratic President Harry Truman.
I was reading Charles Krauthammer's column this morning, and noticed that he's adopted the Romney/Ryan talking points on Medicare -- the far-right columnist accused President Obama of "robbing Granny's health care."
My first instinct was to explain how wrong this is, but it occurred to me how disjointed the nature of the debate has become. The fight over Medicare, on a conceptual level, got off track recently and has been careening in the wrong direction ever since.
Given how critically important this is in the presidential election, let's pause for a moment to consider the bigger picture.
The Romney/Ryan argument is that Obama/Biden is cutting Medicare, hurting seniors, and undermining the financial security of the Medicare system. All week, I've been making an effort to set the record straight by pointing to the facts: Obama's savings strengthen the system; benefits for seniors have been expanded, not cut; the Republican budget plan embraced the same savings Romney/Ryan is now condemning; the GOP privatization alternative is dangerous; etc.
The facts are, to be sure, still true, and they're important. But let's ignore the trees and look at the forest.
What is Medicare? It's a massive, government-run system of socialized medicine. It's wildly popular, very successful, and one of the pillars of modern Democratic governance. This government-run system of socialized medicine was created by Democrats against the opposition of conservative Republicans, and it's Democrats who've fought to protect it for more than a half-century.
Or to summarize, the left loves Medicare and always has; the right hates Medicare and always has. For liberals, the system is a celebrated ideal; for conservatives it's an unconstitutional, big-government outrage in desperate need of privatization.
In 2012, once we get past all of the talking points and attack ads, we're left with this: Romney/Ryan wants you to believe they're the liberals. No, seriously. Think about what the Republican presidential ticket, Fox News, Krauthammer, Donald Trump, and the Republican National Committee have been saying all week: those mean, rascally Democrats cut our beloved Medicare and voters should be outraged.
In other words, the argument pushed by the most right-wing major-party ticket in a generation is that Barack Obama is a left-wing socialist who wants government-run socialized medicine and that Barack Obama is a far-right brute who wants to undermine government-run socialized medicine.
If you care about protecting the popular system of socialized medicine, the argument goes, your best bet would be to put it the hands of conservative Republicans who steadfastly oppose the very idea of a government-run system of socialized medicine.
The questions voters should ask themselves, then, are incredibly simple: putting aside literally everything else you've heard this week, why in the world would a Democratic president want to "gut" Medicare? Why would liberal members of Congress and the AARP join a Democratic president in trying to undermine the system Democrats created and celebrate?
Why would voters expect conservative Republicans to be the trusted champions of socialized medicine?
As a political matter, I understand exactly what Romney/Ryan is trying to do. As Greg Sargent explained this morning, "It's important, though, to get at the true nature of the Romney strategy here. It isn't about drawing an actual policy contrast with the Obama campaign. It's about obfuscating the actual policy differences between the two candidates over the program."
That's exactly right. The Republican plan to deal with the intense unpopularity of the Romney/Ryan plan is to simply muddy the waters -- both sides are accusing the other side of being against Medicare; the media doesn't like separating fact from fiction; and voters, even well-intentioned folks who want to know the truth, aren't quite sure what to believe. For all I know, this obfuscation strategy might actually work.
But while assorted hacks may find partisan value in falsely accusing Obama of "robbing Granny's health care," does that make any sense on a conceptual level? Since when do Republicans look at President Obama and think he's too conservative when it comes to socialized medicine?
All I'm suggesting is that a little critical thinking on the part of the electorate and the political world can go a long way.
Leave a Comment:
Why would they gut medicare? Because Obama won't release his college transcripts! And he hates old people! Death panels! Marxocommunifascokenyanticolonialism!
Also, too, argle bargle blargh! Wolveriiiiines!
This article claims Medicare is socialized medicine that is widely popular and very successful. huh?
My mother pays 150.00 a month out of her very small social security check to supplement a service that she paid for 100 times over by contributing to the system her entire working life. Just last week she went to the doctors because her knees are going out and she heard of a series of shots that would help relieve the pain temporarily. They said the "co-pay" for these shots would be 400.00. Unable to afford this she called me to help. I told her no problem but let me do some research first. I found and contacted a local doctor's office that accepts cash only and gives discounts because they don't have to deal with insurance companies or government programs, which can be a real nightmare to collect. I was able to get these same shots for 250.00, without Medicare or health insurance. For this service I didn't have to pay 150.00 a month nor did I have a lifetime of taxes withheld from my paycheck.
My question is: So what's so great about Medicare?
The notion a system now paying out more than it takes in and literally a train wreck waiting to happen is successful would only come from an ostrich with their head in the sand.
How about a $200,000 brain operation. That's what good about Medicare. How about a cancer survivor who can't get private insurance. That's what's good about Medicare. Find an insurance company where a 65 year old can pay $150.00 a month. In fact, find an insurance company who would even cover a 65 year old.
@downfromhere:
"I found and contacted a local doctor's office that accepts cash only and gives discounts because they don't have to deal with insurance companies or government programs, which can be a real nightmare to collect."
This is an argument for a single-payer system. In many countries, where health care is paid for through a single government program, or where payment is coordinated through many insurers who are regulated to adhere to uniform standards, doctors do not need to maintain a large professional staff solely to deal with billing.
"My question is: So what's so great about Medicare?"
The fact that your mother doesn't have catastrophic health issues that you might have to pay for out of your pocket if she didn't have it, period.
Medicare is a scam and a rip-off. What else can you say about a system where someone can pay in a few thousand dollars while they're working and then receive a couple of hundred thousand dollars in benefits in their retirement, like millions of retirees in their 80s and 90s. What's fair about that? Even couples retiring today will receive at least twice as much in benefits over what they paid in, and the rest of us are paying for it. There simply won't be enough future workers to keep the ponzi scheme going on our behalf.
Just don't pay the doctors?? How many do you think will continue providing care for MediCare patients Obama?? Our Incompetent-In-Chief strikes again.
My mother actually made a pretty good life for herself. Because she is self employed she averaged paying 6000.00 per year (well over 10k per year at the end of her career) to social security for about 48 years. She paid the same rate all of us pay but don't realize because it is hidden when our employers pay half of it. She actually lost most of her worth because she was in the reality industry, bad stock investments, and was lucky to come out of the economy hiccup with a house paid and no bills.
That's a 228,000.00 contribution. Now, if she was to have paid that into a private account she would have close to 1,000,000.00 with compounded interest to apply towards a Cadillac Insurance plan of about what? 12,000.00 per year? Even at 20k a year that would give her supreme health care and the minimul social security payments she now receives for another 30 years, which would be available long after she has passed.
We know and demonize every other health insurance company in this country for charging too much and making too much profit and the US government health insurance, Medicare, is broke? Should the US government, which collects more than any other company, really be in the health insurance business?
David- are you confusing Medicare and Social Security? When did you pay into Medicare? If you're talking about Social Security, most people alive now (as opposed to people in the 40's-50's) have paid into the system all their lives. Since I started paying Social Security taxes in the 1950's, I'm sure that I will probably never get as much in return as I put in. Also, SS is not a savings plan. You are not putting the money in so you can take it out later. You are paying so that your parents and grandparents might have something to live on.
By the way, downfromhere, I just started on Medicare last year, and $115.00 a month comes out of my Social Security check each month to pay for Medicare B. That's the maximum for everyone, not $150.00. Try to get any insurance for $115.00 a month that covers prescriptions, medical care, hospitalization, etc. Report back to me on that, OK?
Sometimes it is cheaper to buy medicine over the counter than through a prescription (with co-pays). Sometimes it's cheaper to fix your own car than use your insurance and watch the premiums go up. Your story of your mother is nice, but remember, anecdotes are not data.
Downfromhere- so you're saying that your mother was quite well off, that she averaged $90,000 per year for 48 years (your math, not mine). Now, that was just her income, not family income. I don't know about you, but I really have trouble believing that your mother was making $90,000 a year back in 1964, or that she maintained that through the recessions and stock market crashes between then and now.
She lost most of her worth because of bad stock investments? How is the President Obama's fault? She was in the Realty business? Unless she was buying houses to flip them, she had no actual money tied up in the business, because it's based on commissions. If there are no sales, there are no commissions. So how was she able to maintain that $90,000 a year, and that 10K at the end of her career (sounds like she went out with a bang)?
What on earth do you consider a small SS check? If she made the kind of contributions you claim, she would be receiving several thousand dollars a month. Her home is paid for (which is the primary expense for most people), she gets the vast part of her medical bills paid (the second greatest expense), she made almost $4.5 million during her working career (again, your math, not mine), and she doesn't have enough money to pay a Medicare co-pay? Has she ever considered taking out a personal loan on her house? Or a reverse mortgage which would give her a huge line of credit? She was a realtor, she'd know about those things.
There's just so much wrong with your story. Your math doesn't add up. If your mother is now broke, it didn't happen under Obama. Stocks have rebounded under him from 6500 to over 13000. Your mother made bad or careless investments, and somehow lost everything she had. The whole story smells.
Anecdotes are not data.
No, he's just loopy from the lack of fresh oxygen in the right-wing bubble.
The response to all this stuff from the right about Medicare (and Social Security, too, while we're at it) is simply that Republicans have always been vehemently against it. There's no cogent reason for their opposition. It's simply in their DNA to be against anything beneficial. It's the same deal with energy-efficient light bulbs and electric cars. And because they don't have any real reasons to want to destroy Medicaid, they're reduced to a jumbled mess of incoherent screeds about why everyone else should hate Medicare, too.
Instead of getting bogged down in refuting their pretend arguments, we really should just be dismissive. Bring out your inner Dogbert, wave your paw in a shooing motion and say "Bah!"
rwsgate - you are right I was considering the entire 13.625% paid by self employed and all of us (after including employer matching contributions) that is divided into Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. The average income of under 45k per year, real math not yours, generates a 6k per year Social Security tax bill. Hardly the rich speaking here.
No one is blaming anyone for the economic downturn, although I personally believe government regulations and irresponsible wall street corporations had allot to to with it, and very little by those that were actually affected.
My point, and hard to dispute is, if the lifetime contributions that were taken by the government for Medicare and social security, combined with the monthly supplemental 115.00 "co-pay" (I'll concede to that number because I'm not privy to the actual amount) were deposited in a private insurance account the health-care coverage and monthly retirement check would be much different from that doled out from our inefficient, broke public system bloated with fraud and abuse.
"There's no cogent reason for their opposition. It's simply in their DNA to be against anything beneficial."
Of course, there is a cogent reason for them to oppose government health care, MeddlingMonk. It's the same motivation that causes them to reject government run programs in general. Those kinds of systems don't funnel profits upwards. They want privatization of almost everything. More surplus profits funneled upwards means more money available for Republican politicians during and after their political careers. That's been the primary purpose of the GOP since the 19th century.
@FromDownHere: Are you sure both doctors offices were talking about the same shots ?
From your initial description, it sounds like the shots were Hyalgen or Synvisc (hyaluronic acid) Hyalgen is a series of 5 shots and the cheapest I could find for the medicine was $40/shot (total cost $200) https://www.medicadepot.com/buy_hyalgan_wholesale_online.html . For Synvisc it was $299 for a kit, which I presume includes the whole series of shots http://www.pharmacychecker.com/compare-drug-prices-online-pharmacies/Synvisc-16+mg&2522ml/19335/99203/ If she paid $250 for all the injections, that would leave only $50 for all five office visits (only $10 per visit)with the hyalgen and the office would actually be losing $50 if they were using Hyalgen. If they were giving intra-articular corticosteroids, the cost of the medicine is much less. It may be that the first office was telling her the cost for hyalgen and the cash only doctor was giving her corticosteroids .
Also you estimated that her contributions to social security, including the compounded interest. would be about 1 million dollars. With an interest rate of 3% that would give her a guaranteed income of $30,000/year.Her medicare benefits would be in addition to that.
You also mentioned she was in the reality business. How did that work? (I know you probably meant realty /real estate.)
@FromDownHere: Actually, basic Medicare can be expensive and the way around it is to buy a Medicare Advantage supplement policy. That may sound like a lot of extra expense, but for an extra $45 a month only -- with my plan, there are no co-pays. Best to involve someone certified in finding the best Medicare plan for your mom's situation.
"...the right hates Medicare and always has"
...Until they turn 65.
There, fixed that for ya.
The raw cynicism is mouth gaping!
Romney/Ryan is campaigning for the "keep government off my back, don't mess with my Medicare" crowd!
Agitation, spin, rinse and repeat is the strategy we will witness from the Republican brand from here to election day, funded by Koch Bros and Crossroads Inc.
If ever Jefferson's observation about a "collective wisdom" rings true, it is now in 2012! -Kevo
Had I been given a choice - which is what the Romney/Ryan Plan does - would have had neither Social Security or MediCare and had a VERY nice little nest egg.
tpaine - you know nothing of which you speak. I have actually done the math. It is not hard. This is what I did: Take your SSA annual statement. It shows how much you earned each year over your lifetime. Multiply that by the SS rate for each year (these rates are available at the SSA website. Invest your share quartely, by year, over your lifetime. I did this by talking with my financial planner. He found a mutual fund that had been running that long. I gave him the numbers and he plugged them in. It turns out that I would have an investment that would pay me almost as much as SS, based on the accepted 4% withdrawal rate.
But what happens to my investment in years like '07, '08'09?
This investment theory also assumes that you made EVERY withholding and deposit on time and NEVER touched it till you were retirement age. Think that would ever actually happen?
Funny how 'the right' has no problem with VA benefits, Medicare, and Social Security. Even Ayn Rand cashed her Social Security checks.
"What is Medicare?"
1) A life-saver for the elderly.
2) Insurance against being in poverty when you're sick, or a burden on your children!
3) A program that doesn't add a penny to the deficit!
4) A reminder of what successful government programs can do for US!
5) Another source of fleecing the public that the GOTP is just salivating to get their hands on!
VOTE OUT THE GOTP IN NOVEMBER 2012!
FYI, #3 hasn't been true since 2008
www.healthreformgps.org/wp-content/uploads/tr2012.pdf
FYI, #3 hasn't been true since 2008 when the Great Recession hit, revenue dropped off a cliff.
Every single thing that was mandated by law to still be paid - or increase if more people qualify - add to the deficit.
We need to go back to doing what we did before 1993: very slowly raise tax rates and adjust earnings ceilings. Both parties, on a very much bipartisan basis, kept the SS and Medicare systems on a sound fiscal footing.
Rates were almost imperceptibly changed, year by year, to account for increases in the number of beneficiaries and the work force's anticipated earnings. Some years, both the SS and Medicare rates both went up. Other years, one went up and the other down, with little or no net change to the overall FICA rate.
Then, in 1993, we got into the "no tax increases anytime, for any reason" bullpuckey. We haven't raised rates since then, despite the fact that the baby boom generation is now starting to retire. Had the Republicans acted responsibly over the past two decades, this wouldn't be an issue. Instead, they figured that they could end SS and Medicare by causing a financial crisis.
It won't work. People love the programs. They're not going to settle for some voucher program.
Unfortunately, we have some catching up to do that's going to involve some economic pain if the programs are to be available to future generations.
The Medicare trust fund will not be depleted until 2024. Yes, it needs to be looked at and adjustments made now, but the program is not broke as yet.
Yes, the trust fund, like the Social Security trust fund, is, by law, invested in government treasury bonds, which just like all treasury bonds must be paid back, with interest, when the bond matures. Call that adding to the deficit if you will, but that is money owed just the same as if it were owed to an outside our country holder. It's important not to confuse deficit with national debt, which often is the case.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
"What is Medicare?"
1) A life-saver for the elderly. Not it's not. Most seniors on average have a higher net worth than any other age group. And most seniors had insurance when Medicare passed. It was supposed to be a supplemental program, but now it costs 900 percent more than the original projections.
2) Insurance against being in poverty when you're sick, or a burden on your children! If seniors didn't have Medicare, they be on the same policies they had most of their lives. Most do not live in poverty. Not a burden?? What do you call trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities?
3) A program that doesn't add a penny to the deficit! Bull@!$%#. It's now running a deficit that will keep growing. Again, it now has trillions of dollars in liabilities that it cannot meet.
4) A reminder of what successful government programs can do for US! Successful?? Only for those who received much more than they ever paid in. They rest are screwed.
5) Another source of fleecing the public that the GOTP is just salivating to get their hands on!
VOTE OUT THE GOTP IN NOVEMBER 2012! No, it's time to end one of the biggest scams of our times.
Daniel Lampo- Would you please cite some statistics on your claim that seniors have a higher net worth than any other age group? I doubt that most seniors had insurance back in 1965, or there wouldn't have been a need for Medicare at all. And what do you mean by "average"? When Bill Gates walks into a room, does the average income suddenly skyrocket in the rest of the room?
Social Security and Medicare are two different programs. SS started in 1932 and Medicare in 1965. One deals with guaranteeing a base income to survive on, and the other guarantees basic medical services. Neither are gold-plated nor intended to be. Those who have more money can do whatever they want in terms of purchasing insurance. There are millions of seniors who do not have insurance, and cannot get insurance. There are millions of seniors who do not have substantial retirement savings. Maybe not in your neighborhood, but most studies I've seen show that an awful lot of Americans are one paycheck or one illness away from total destitution.
Do you pay for insurance of any kind? Auto, home, theft, life, health? Then you are participating in a socialistic activity. You pay in knowing that if your car gets damaged, your home burgled, your health deteriorates, the insurance will cover you, because you paid into a pool of shared risk. Are you screwed because you didn't need to ever have your car fixed? Do you feel cheated because you didn't have to go to the hospital to get some of your money back? If my paying into Medicare through my taxes means that people who need it get help, why is that a bad thing? You seem to be upset that some people may get more out of it than they put in. Until you need it.
How old are you, David? I ask only because you don't sound like you're anywhere near 65, and probably don't have any understanding what a lot of seniors are going through. Why don't you ask your friends parents how they feel about Social Security and Medicare and get back to me. Thanks.
Hey, it's shooter242 - Did you know this guy is a liar and a racist?
shooter242 being racist http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/04/emotionalism-lawmaking-primer-nra#comment-491811907
Being a hypocrite http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/04/helping-poor-now-apparently-anti-bible#comment-492438500
I was wondering where you wandered off to...
Yes, Crissa, he's a very well known asswhole.
You might have seen this:
http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/comment-page-1/#comment-191137
You've no doubt seen the extremely "pie" argument over at Mother Jones. His libertarian sewage can also be found doing the wingnut troll dance at firedoglake.com, salon.com, huntingtonpost.com, talkingpointsmem.com, capitalgainsandgames.com, Ezra Klein's wonkblog, etc.
In short, he makes wingnut trolling liberal/progressive blogs and comment sections a full-time hobby. And getting his a$$ handed to him has no effect. He must like getting punched in the mouth.
I have to wonder what the metric is for an "effective" tactic? It certainly can't be persuasiveness.
I like the unconscious irony of a tr0ll calling the legit denizens of a place "trolls". Apparently, among the tr0ll community the definition of the word is turned on its head.
He probably does enjoy the reaction, which is why I put jerks like that on ignore almost as soon as I spot them. I may play with the more obviously deranged ones for a short while, but their limited range of responses gets boring very fast. Ignoring them really is the best way to go. It's like sucking the oxygen directly from their hemoglobin molecules.
That's a good question, Monk, which I've wondered about myself. It seems to me that for a troll, effectiveness simply means disruption with transparently specious "arguments," semantic hair-splitting semantics worthy of the most irritatingly lame law school moot court practice, and rhetorical practices to simply irritate. Clearly since he spends so much time at it, there is almost no metric for "effective" other than getting the sense he irritates.
One would think that a true measure would be if the antics resulting in other people changing their minds. I would estimate the number of people who've done that to be 0. Mr. Mitty has also claimed he does it for the "thinking lurker." Well, it's difficult to imagine a "thinking" anything being influenced by the tactics he's displayed.
You wrote: "...effectiveness simply means disruption with transparently specious "arguments," semantic hair-splitting semantics worthy of the most irritatingly lame law school moot court practice, and rhetorical practices to simply irritate."
Isn't that the mission of the entire Republican party?
Dear God, the debates can't come soon enough.
Dunno. I am bracing for disappointment*. The "presidential debates" have always had a gameshow quality to them that does not clarify anything. We can only hope that Romney will drool or say something incredibly stupid or offensive by accident.
* I heard that the word for this is "anticipointment"
The Lyin' Sack of Mitt will look straight at the audience, then straight at the moderators, then straight into the camera and ..., lie.
And the media will just repeat his lie.
Maybe, but one of the oddities of the Romney campaign is how totally unprepared they all are, including Mitt, to deal with their vulnerabilities. For example, even though his business record was exposed as a vulnerability rather than a strength by Ted Kennedy way back in the '90s, Romney still tries to run on that record. When Obama hammers at him in a manner similar to Kennedy, all Romney can do issue a supercilious demand that his business record be off-limits.
Seriously? Way to admit how that's your Achilles' heal, Mitt. Doing what Romney did in that was like a merchant vessel sailing up to the Queen Anne's Revenge and signalling, "Our hull is paper thin and we're badly overloaded with gold and jewels. Please don't rake us with a broadside, mister pirate, sir." Hard to believe Romney has been campaigning for one political office or another for nearly 20 years. I guess not everyone learns from their mistakes.
I think Romney, like GWB, is out to best his father. He's got to do what daddy didn't and do it with more gusto than daddy would have. It's a complex I believe both of these guys suffer from. Or...we suffer from at their hands.
The christian right has a deep and abideing understanding that really the only? thing that christ actually told us to do was,,,,,,, feed and care for the poor.
...and heal the sick.
which was refreshing from the 90% of the bibble that tells us how to conduct our sex lives...
I guess if you believe in a book full of lies it gives you a great background for being a,,,, republican.
book full of liesPlease our sensibilities fairy tails...fairy tails....Jesus also set aside questions of blame in order to emphasize the need to "do the works of him who sent me." (John 9:4) Even as his disciples posed the question of whose sin was responsible for a man being blind, Jesus waved off the issue of culpability in favor of the act of healing.
By contrast, conservatives use the issue of sin and culpability to eliminate the human obligation to help our neighbor in his need. They say that young people should not have taken out so many student loans. They should have majored in business and finance. Families should not have borrowed money for a house. The drug addict should have turned from temptation. The adulteress should not have let herself be caught in the act . . . .
The Gospels, however, are clear about what is important:
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former." (Matthew 23:23 NIV)
Justice and mercy are the more important matters, and should take precedence over counting 'how much' and 'how many'.
Confusing paying your taxes with charity is a delusion of the left. You don't help your neighbor by rendering unto Caeser at the tip of a Federal spear.
But it reimburses non catastrophic health issues, making it very expensive.
Medicare: End It, Don't Mend It
Romney-Ryan 2012
"very successful" - are you kidding me? Only the socialist would say a system that is going bankrupt is successful! "Pillars of modern democracy" - only a socialist would call it that. Look at North Korea - they call themselves the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" and do you think they are democratic?
And there's also the Republic of the Congo - do you think they're Republicans?
Let's set that straw man argument on fire right now.
The average Medicare recipient lives very closely to the poverty line. If it were not for Medicare, far more elderly people and their families would be destitute. That would hardly be good for the economy as our economy is consumer based.
It is a large enough program to effectively pool risk, and efficiently handles costs (relative to private insurance) without the marketing and executive /administrative costs that come with private insurance companies.
The fiscal challenge that Medicare faces is the spiraling cost of health care, which is affecting all health insurances, not just Medicare. Medicare, however, delivers more services and benefits per dollar spent than private insurance as the private insurers want more and more profit for their stockholders, while Medicare is not beholden to anyone other than their patients.
The costs of delivering health care can be better controlled when profit is removed from it. Therefore, the most cost-effective way to deliver health care is essentially to make it a socialist program.
And really, when you think about it, there is something wholly and completely IMMORAL about seeking to make a profit by denying medicine and care to people who need it.
bigern70, are you really Larry Linville (aka, Frank Burns)?? I loved you in M*A*S*H*!!
But, seriously, I understand how you could make the mistake, there is a lot of misinformation out there, but I personally assure you... Medicare is NOT GOING BANKRUPT!!. I will explain it to you at length if you would like (very long and boring) but it's not something that you should be getting all worked up over.
And, even though YOU, YOURSELF, like the rest of us, ARE A SOCIALIST, nobody believes that N Korea is a democracy or that China is a Republic or that any other despotic regime operates as the misnomers they adopt to avoid calling themselves "The Tyrannical Dictatorship of North Korea" or the like...
P.S. - I never thought you were a "ferret face!!" :-)
bigern70, like my brother-in-law, is harping on a Rush-ism, where Rush says "We need to get back to being a republic instead of a democracy!"
So I printed out the definitions of both words, put them in front of my brother-in-law, and asked him to tell me which is which. He couldn't tell me, because they are nearly identical.
But in the minds of the sheeple, there are huge differences...and none of them realize that there are elements of our country that are socialist in nature - highways, military, and so on - that they very much appreciate having and would not want to be without.
I am British, and a doctor, am I a tool of a communist dictatorship like in North Korea? Or am I someone who can provide the best possible care to any and every patient who comes to me, with out having to ask them how they are going to pay first?
If it's going bankrupt, then why are the savings (or cuts if you prefer) that Obama has found and Ryan's plan endorse, a bad thing?
I am grateful every day that I can pay my share of taxes, and consequently, never worry that my children will get ill and I will not be able to get treatment for them.
@KJ, CR, IA You make an interesting point. That would put Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist at odds with one another. Norquist wants an executive that merely has enough digits to sign into law what the legislature hands him. That would be a de facto non-republic. Sort of like Great Britain but without a hereditary monarch figurehead as head of state.
Evil Newsvine double posts! [shakes fist]
JRCricket- I wish I could take your entire post and save it. You very succinctly stated the case for Medicare as well as single payer. Well done!
Medicare will only go bankrupt if it is left to go bankrupt. Revenue can be used in a variety of ways...like providing the pay it does for people in congress; like the never ending COLAs they get; like the lifetime retirement pensions some 382+ of them get now -- some after as little as six years of service. Ever hear about any need to cut down on any of that because of deficit problems? The money can be found; it's a matter of desire to find it.
Thanks so much, Steve, for reminding us of the real & historical divisions between the parties over Medicare. This clarifies everything & no need to understand the math or arcane U.S. budgeting rules! Dems LIKE & support Medicare. Repubs DON'T. R&R are lying when they say otherwise.
I agree. Thanks Steve for explaining it with a new angle that makes the argument much easier to get out without getting lost in the weeds. Every democratic operative should be using this angle in their defense and explanation of Obama's positions. Good stuff, Steve!
What's truly insulting about the Romney/Ryan Medi-scare strategy, is that they are essentially saying "If we say it, these dumb seniors will believe it." Seriously - you'd have to check your brain at the door to be able to believe that the guy who is "not concerned about the very poor," who got wealthy driving companies into bankruptcy and throwing people out of work and who has vowed to throw millions off their insurance, is now going all out to make sure you have Medicare benefits. As for the other guy on the ticket, he is profoundly anti-government, was the biggest backer of Bush's push to privatize Social Security, and wants to turn Medicare into a voucher program. But these are supposed to be the guys who are so concerned now about your Medicare benefits.
Romney's whole campaign has depended on taking people for fools. But with this, they're practically blaring, "We've determined you actually are stupid, so here's our latest lie, complete with whiteboard."
This is so very true! And while I know there are plenty of voters who really don't pay any attention to detail and facts, I am hopeful that Romney's attempts at obfuscation will fail. The right-wing spends endless amounts of energy railing against socialist programs like Medicare until it's general election time, and then suddenly they're all for it. But I think those "brands" (Dems favor social programs like Medicare, Republicans oppose them) are pretty well sunk in to most folks' heads by this time. Hopefully these attacks will be dismissed by most because they just don't make a lot of sense.
"The fight over Medicare, on a conceptual level, got off track recently and has been careening in the wrong direction ever since..."
Like I said recently, and took grief for, the Democrats should have been way out in front of one of their best issues. And like always, they were caught flat-footed, just waiting to get punched in the mouth. So they got punched in the mouth, the issue is now confused in the public's mind, and that's just what the Republicans wanted.
Congratulations again to the geniuses in the Democratic campaigns who allow this to happen over and over and over and ...
Again, Mark Thoma:
"...If the Democrats can't make Ryan's views on Medicare and Social Security an issue in the campaign, if they allow Republicans to falsely claim that they are trying to save these critical programs rather than cutting them as much as they can get away with, they deserve to lose."
You know Disgusted. If you hate the way the Dems run their campaigns. Or have the inability for them to see into the future. To know that Romney would be dumb enough to pick the Kill Medicare Guy as his running mate. So they could get out ahead of an announcement. Before the actual announcement. Either do something about it. Or just STFU already.
Because all you seem to do is whine, moan, bitch and complain. About how they are running things. And you yourself are probably doing nothing to actually help. So either get off your ass and start doing something. Or just stop bitching. Because if you're going to whine. Go join the Romney Camp. They could always use more cry babies. If you're going to stay. Put your big boy/girl pants on. Dry up your tears. And stop this insidious and constant complaining.
@Calvin #10.1
Don't shoot the messenger!!!
@Disgusted makes some good points (but his little icon is a bit ... whatever).
"And you yourself are probably doing nothing to actually help. "
Perhaps you should find out whether this is true or not before you continued with the rest of your rant.
Or, better yet, just make the assumption that someone as passionate about this is actually doing something about it.
@Calvin:
"To know that Romney would be dumb enough to pick the Kill Medicare Guy as his running mate. So they could get out ahead of an announcement. Before the actual announcement. Either do something about it. Or just STFU already."
1) Was he so dumb? Have they confused the public? Is Medicare the issue it should be for Democrats? Pal, if you couldn't see this coming, I don't know what to tell ya. Do you really think they would pick Ryan knowing what they know about him, and NOT go on offense about Medicare? Really? Are YOU that stupid?
2) As far as me not doing something, you are clueless. You do not know what you're talking about.
3) Protect your best issues. Set the public perception. Democrats FAIL every time. They need to be held accountable for their repeated failures. Others outside the inner circles of the decision-making need to DEMAND they do better. We have a guy in charge, Jim Messina, that, just the other day, implied that the cause of the Great Recession was the rising deficits and buildup of debt during the W. years. You just don't get more clueless that that. This guy is running the Obama campaign!
YOU STFU.
You tell him Disgusted. Way to counterpunch that two-faced punk. On this:
"Democrats FAIL every time. They need to be held accountable for their repeated failures."
I hate to give you the rest of the bad news but the reason Democrats FAIL is not an implementation issue but rather the gross stupidity of the policy in the first place. You can't eat the cake once you've burned it.
And one more thing, you will indeed be held accountable for the failures in November... in a very big way.
Cheers mate.
Sorry, pal. I'm not your friend. This is an internecine battle amongst fellow liberals/progressives/Democrats. The Democratic policies are the correct one. It's Democratic political strategy that Calvin and I disagree on. The policy failures are Republican. And it's 30+ years of it.
There is ONE outcome that must come out of this election, America is going to need the GRAND BARGAIN in which we pull more money out of the cost side and we increase the revenue side. Trying to trap each side on matters like the $716 is N
UTS. We should be applauding Obama AND Ryan instead of entrapping both parties in hiding what both parties know must come. One word both parties use is we are on an unsustainable course. The questions we should be addressing is what time horizon to solve first, as in 10 years, 15 years as the NEXT bite on what is likely to be a 50 year work out (after all the depression was long term solved by WW II, and WWII debt was steadily (not completely) addressed over the following 6 Presidents and Congress.
Under Romney / Ryan, Medicare will be bankrupt before they finish their term in office. Just the way they want it.
"What is Medicare? It's a massive, government-run system of socialized medicine."
No, it is NOT socialized medicine. It is single-payer social insurance.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/what-is-socialized-medicine-a-taxonomy-of-health-care-systems/
And we pre-pay for the insurance when we are working so we don't have to pay when we have limited income.
Well it must be "socialism" because it makes liberals get into precisely the kinds of of utterly ridiculous toenails and teeth and eye-gouging fights to the death about utterly meaningless semantic differences that seem to be the main occupation of real socialists throughout history. And far be it from me to refrain.
"Socialism," defined narrowly and in very 19th century terms, means government ownership of the means of production. In broader, less coal and steam and wrought-iron terms, means public ownership or co-option of sectors of the economy that deliver goods and services to the people.
Medicare is indeed a "socialist" program because, while the government did not nationalize health care delivery, it did co-opt a sector, or at least subsector, of the economy--primary health insurance for old people--that was, at best, dysfunctional at the time.
(Also, screw the Judean People's Front! Splitters!)
Exactly right, maphi. And the reason we're having trouble is because of a disastrously inefficient private health care system that is perpetuated by a bought Congress.
I'm pretty sure Steve isn't being entirely serious. But I'm not entirely sure.
The only people we hate more than the
RomansRomneys are the f*cking Judean People's Front!Don't you oppress me!
So WHAT if we use the word socialism? I mean really. People say that word as if we're talking about commies and conjuring demons. I'm tired of the negative connotations put on the word socialism. It's not something cooked up by the former U.S.S.R; it is not communist; it is nothing but a big group policy insurance plan. If you have a private insurance group policy for health insurance along with a lot of other people also having that group policy, and you all benefit from it, isn't that a kind of social arrangement for the benefit of all?
mr. benen has a helluva lot more faith in the cognitive power of the electorate than i do.
Allow me to offer an analogy that even the shooters among us can understand.
Both Democrats and Republicans agree that Abner Doubleday's baseball is a great game- indeed, the American Pastime!
Democrats say all you need is a few bucks for a ball, a couple of bats- the players can buy their own gloves- and a vacant field to lay out a diamond. Fun for the kids.
Republicans say yes to all that- except we should build a real ball park- and pay for it with public funds.
And, now that we have a ball park, we can sell naming rights to corporations and sell TV commercials to beer and car companies. And charge the fans admission, so we can pay the players a small (compared to OUR salaries as corporate owners)salary. Why we can make a bundle!
The analogy, for those still in the dark, (Install lights! Night games! More money!) the comparison is a game for the players vs a business for owners.
That's a terrible analogy, and in any case, it's almost the exact opposite of the way the parties view things.
Funny thing about the Authoritarian mind....it wants to posse up and go get THEM, but it is practically incapable of telling one THEM from another.
Tests have proven, even when given a description of themselves, and then told this personality type was a threat, Authoritarians wanted to go get THEM, in reality, themselves.
Steve, you are dealing with Authoritarian Personalities, and contradiction is their stock in trade.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
All I'm suggesting is that a little critical thinking on the part of the electorate and the political world can go a long way.
Sorry, most graduates of the American system of public mis-education wouldn't know what "critical thinking" was if it came up and kicked them in their fat posteriors. Anyone in the past 60 years who did learn the concept learned it in spite of the system. Why would those who created the system and profit from it ever want an "informed" electorate capable of "critical thinking"?
If we had more critical thinking TC, we would have far fewer Democrats in the USA because more people would be able to figure it out for themselves. It's helping to perpetuate the gene pool of the hapless and the hopeless.
Oops, wrong again, altster. If Americans had critical thinking they'd know the Republican ideas and policies are complete and utter failures. There's no shortage of evidence and proof of that. Don't believe me? Try me.
Steve,
I think we should stick with the "single payer" term rather than socialized medicine, as many of the same doctors, hospitals, and other providers that deliver services to elders and a few others on Medicare also handle lots of people with private insurance and even a few self-pays. That means they are not government employees, which I think is a prerequisite for socialism.
I think that "single payer for all" would be an outcome that would well serve this country, and I think that is much more reachable than fully socialized medicine.
Romney, Ryan, and Reince - the three R's and their surrogates like Sununu are lying. Period. Full Stop. The $716 billion PBO takes from Medicare ADVANTAGE (a private insurance plan) and waste, fraud and abuse GOES BACK INTO MEDICARE to provide seniors with PREVENTIVE health care with NO co-pays and starts to CLOSE the DOUGHNUT hole in prescription coverage. Not ONE DIME is removed from BENEFITS.
The $716 billion that Ryan removes from Medicare goes to MILLIONAIRES/BILLIONAIRES in tax breaks. He then offers seniors VOUCHERS to pay for health care. Of course, when the voucher is used up, then the seniors have to go on the open market and find private health care. Lots of luck with that. Since Romney/Ryan will repeal ACA (Obamacare) the preexisting feature goes away. So now seniors who probably have high blood pressure, diabetes or some other preexisting health issue will never get or be able to afford private insurance. Oh, yeah and with the repeal of Obamacare the doughnut hold opens up again and seniors will have to pay a lot more for their prescriptions.
I'm waiting for someone other than Maddow in the MSM to tell the truth about the Romney/Ryan plan. The Republicans are tying to make this "Death Panels 2.0". Sure hope somebody out there has the balls to stand up to these liars.
Like I said, the hapless and the hopeless... on full display here.
Showing your stupidity, again, altster.
Of course not. Reason number eleventy-bajillion why I call them:
Rape-Public-CONs
;-)
<i>What is Medicare? It's a massive, government-run system of socialized medicine. </i>
Socialized medicine, eh? Yessiree Bob, that'll change people's minds on it.
Actually, though, it's not. "Medicare for all" would be, but we don't have that. Yet. What we have is a health insurance policy provided by the government only to those who haver paid their "premiums" over the years (with a few exceptions), but with the premiums set too low. That's why Medicare is in trouble. Social Security has the same problem. Raise the premiums up to where the plans are self sufficient and nobody has anything to bitch about. Which is why it probably won't happen...
Right. I agree. There should not be a cap on earnings above which you stop paying into the system. If everybody paid from any of their income regardless of how much it is, we wouldn't be short of funds.
I know Medicare. Medicare is a friend of mine and you, Steve Benen, are no expert on Medicare. I have received Medicare since 2010 and have seen adverse changes every year - why? Because I am signed up for a Medicare HMO - the part that Obama HAS attacked in the name of "fairness". His savings have caused the co-pay of some of my prescriptions to increase by 500% - from $10 to $50. They have caused my first HMO to drop my doctor of 14 years and forced me to sign with a plan that costs me $99 more per month. All in the name of leveling the Medicare playing field so that we ALL will have to buy a Medicare supplemental plan. The money Obama has stolen (YES, STOLEN) is not a saving but a robbing of Peter to pay Paul scheme to finance the expansion of Medicaid at the expense of Medicare. After all, seniors die off and before they do they often vote Republican but, as it says in the Scripture, "The poor you will always have with you!"
Steve- sounds like you and I are the same age, and both on Medicare. We are both signed up for an HMO and there is a reason for that. Medicare is not government run medicine. Medicare actually goes through HMO's (Health Maintenance Organizations). In your area of the country, as in mine, there are about twenty or more HMO's that compete to sign you up. That all comes as part of Medicare Part B. Medicare Part A (Major medical) is provided free. You pay for Part B (mine is $115 a month). If you don't choose an HMO one will be chosen for you; that's how it works. You are automatically signed up for an HMO. It's not voluntary, although you have a choice between plans. You can also choose not to take Part B, or even to go on Medicare at all. Part B and Part D (prescriptions) are voluntary and you pay for them.
Obama is not taking money from your HMO. He is reducing the money that the government is paying into Medicare ADVANTAGE, which is whole different program, and putting it back into the regular Medicare system. This helps to pay for reducing the donut hole, and keeping Medicare solvent.
Sorry, but your HMO cannot force you to sign with a plan, because you can change HMO's, and they know it. How can they charge you $99 more a month, since your Medicare payment of $115.00 a month is regulated by the government? It sounds like you are in an Advantage Plan, which is not regular Medicare. If your HMO dropped your doctor, it sounds like you have a beef with your HMO, not the government. When I got Medicare, I got about 20 1/2 inch thick plans from all the HMO's in the area, and I got to choose which one I went with. You can change your HMO.
I'm really tired of the hyperbolic ranting about President Obama "stealing" your money. That's a crock of BS. Do your homework and quit sniveling.
My Medicare Advantage plan is different. I am free to see any provider -- not from some pool of providers picked for me to access. My advantage plan costs me $45 on top of the usual Medicare part B and for that, I have no co-pays.
The question is not what is the truth but how to say it so that the generally disinterested public who have other pressing things to do such as earning a living in a brutal economic situation understand what these folks are up. This piece says it and now it has to be re-said over and over. But please do not use a damn erasble white board. Only Tim Russert could do that. Obama has to take the stage and tell it like it is in non-wonkish langauge. THEY HATE MEDICARE AND WANT TO DISMANTLE IT.
The average monthly Social Security payment is $1230, subtract $99 for the Medicare Premium leaves $1131.Subtract $500 plus that the radical extremist republican Ryan plan will initiate leaves $63!. Now, subtract Dr. and drug co-pays, rent, utilities, groceries, clothing, transportation, etc.. and what will the Senior have left?
Dear GOP/radical extremist republicans and their stooges,
Please tell the Seniors where they can live in the USA on that amount of money if the Robber Baron Romney and "Butcher of Seniors Medicare" Ryan are elected.
They are supposed to prepare for their retirement. No one ever intended that Social Security be the sole support of retirees.
Mary- No one ever plans on getting sick. No one plans for getting laid off, or having their business fail. No one plans for technological changes that render their knowledge and skills obsolete.
It would be nice if we could all see into the future. What about all those people carefully planning for their future who were forced to buy Enron because they worked there? What about the people who invested in stocks, and put money away, only to have it disappear in the crash of 2007? What about the people who bought homes only to lose them to bankruptcy and foreclosure? What about the people who got sick and then found out that their insurance company wouldn't cover most of their expenses? What about savings accounts at the bank that only pay 0.25% interest? How does compounding work with that?
All the avenues traditionally used by people to prepare for their retirement have been compromised. In many cases, Social Security may be the sole support many retirees have. It doesn't matter that it wasn't intended that way when it was signed into law in 1932. Deal with the reality now.
The article is an excellent example of the "straw dog" form of argument, assert something unattrative but untrue about your opponents, then attack it. Republicans, including Romney, Ryan, seniors, us soon-to-be retirees, and younger, LIKE Medicare. We want it arround for a while. But to do nothing (except take out $700B, and limit Medicare Advantage) like the Obama team is doing, leads to a failure of the system in the not-so-distant future.
Robert- Medicare Advantage is a private insurance plan, not part of Medicare. Please read again (in numerous places) where the $716 billion is coming from and where it's going. Reducing the governments support of Medicare Advantage actually strengthens and prolongs regular Medicare. All that info is available so I'm not going to repeat it. Just look it up (hint: don't use FOX or Politico as your source).
Steve, that sounds like a personal problem. Why would you continue paying that HMO when you don't need to?
Because it is still cheaper than paying $120 or more a month for a Medicare supplemental Insurance plan that still has a deductible as does regular Medicare. My HMO has NO deductible for doctor's visits and zero co-pay for tier one drugs and a lower deductible than regular Medicare for hospital visits - that's why. Frankly I don't see any reason for anyone to be in regular Medicare except for those who who absolutely insist on being able to go to any doctor or specialist without worrying about them being "in network". The latter for me is not a problem!
Steve- what's the difference between Medicare supplemental and regular Medicare? Are you talking about Medicare Advantage? My Medicare is run through an HMO, as is everybody's. You generally choose your HMO based on the drug coverage they offer, as most of the other services are pretty much the same.
I'm glad you've found insurance cheaper than Medicare, and with lower co-pays. Perhaps you'd care to share that with the rest of us. My guess is that you have Medicare Part A and B, serviced through an HMO. If you have part D (expanded prescriptions) you'll pay more. If you have Medicare Advantage, you have more services covered, but as that is a private insurance policy, you'll pay for that too.
You do have an option, though. You are not required to participate in the Medicare program. Nobody can put a gun to your head and force you to use Medicare. You can have Medicare Part A free of charge, but you don't have to use it. Buy your own insurance, if you can. Just don't have any pre-existing conditions, don't be elderly, don't have any special needs, because your insurance will lack coverage or be too costly.
But, hey, it's your choice.