It’s Obama’s Plan that Guts Medicare
August 11, 2012 at 8:39 am in News, ObamaCare by Phil Kerpen 12 Comments
If Republicans ignored public opinion to gut Medicare to the tune of $741 billion over 10 years (and about $5 trillion over 20 years) there would be no other issue in any federal election until that law got repealed. Democrats would be relentless and seniors would be up-in-arms. And understandably so, especially because about 10,000 baby boomers are now retiring every day.
Yet that was precisely what Obama’s health care law did to Medicare, and the liberal media is dutifully downplaying the significance of these devastating cuts. Republicans should be banging the drum as heavily as the Democrats would if the shoe were on the other foot. Yet there is a sense that it would be unseemly or inconsistent to do so. We’re the party of cutting spending, right? So we shouldn’t attack Obama’s slashing of Medicare? Dead wrong.
The best explanation I’ve seen was by my friends Peter Ferrara and Larry Hunter, who wrote in the WSJ:
The drastic reductions in Medicare reimbursements under ObamaCare will create havoc and chaos in health care for seniors. Many doctors, surgeons and specialists providing critical care to the elderly—such as surgery for hip and knee replacements, sophisticated diagnostics through MRIs and CT scans, and even treatment for cancer and heart disease—will cease serving Medicare patients. If the government is not going to pay, then seniors are not going to get the health services, treatment and care they expect.
They continue:
Everyone should know by now that Medicare suffers dramatic long-term deficits and unfunded liabilities, and is in need of fundamental, structural reforms. But effectively refusing to pay the doctors and hospitals that provide the medical care the program promises to seniors is no way to solve that problem.
That is the crux of the issue. The big lie from Democrats about Ryan’s plan is that it would end Medicare; quite the contrary, it would save Medicare from devastating cuts to reimbursement rates coming now thanks to Obama.
Most conservatives would not have created the Medicare program the way it presently exists. But it would be wrong to simply deny people who spent their entire working lives paying taxes into the Medicare system access to the care they believed they were paying for.
Ryan’s plan recognizes resource constraints exist and empowers individuals to harness the power of competition to provide more with less and create greater choice. It put seniors– not unaccountable bureaucrats like Obama’s IPAB — in control.
Obama’s plan – now staring us in the face because his $741 billion in cuts (per the Congressional Budget Office:, see page 5, table 2 of this PDF) have been enacted into law to pay for his vast new government takeover of health care – is to simply starve Medicare of funds. That’s wrong – and conservatives shouldn’t hesitate to attack it forcefully and without reservation.
It is now the time for WE THE PEOPLE of FAITH (black,white,tan,yellow,red,etc) to evict all the evil that is trying to destroy this USA from the inside out; “OMG”
GOD BLESS this Country Again!
The Ryan plan will privatize Medicare without adjusting premium subsidies relative to increasing healthcare costs.
The Affordable Care Act doesn’t cut Medicare benefits; it reduces the rate of increase in Medicare spending based on calculations of savings through changes in the service model (like bundled and preventive care). The ACA also cuts $132 billion in subsidies for cuts to Medicare Advantage plans, which now cost the government more on average than traditional Medicare.
Politifact.com: “The national health care law does not cut funding for Medicare, though it does decrease projections for future spending growth. Spending on the program will continue to grow, but at a slower pace.”
Factcheck.org: “Here’s a quick rundown of the latest Ryan plan:
■ For seniors who are now in Medicare, nothing changes. They can stay with the traditional program as it is.
■ Beginning in 2023, 65-year-olds would have their choice of insurance plans — private and traditional — on a new Medicare exchange. A premium-support payment, like a subsidy, would be sent to the plan of their choice.
■ If the chosen plan costs more than the premium-support, the senior would pay the difference.
■ The Medicare eligibility age would be slowly raised to 67 by 2034.
■ All plans on the Medicare exchange would offer a base level of benefits, and they would be regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
■ The premium-support payments would be tied to the second-cheapest plan, which can’t grow more than gross domestic product plus 0.5 percentage points. If the cost does grow faster, Congress would be required to step in and take some action to keep costs down.
CBO didn’t conduct an analysis that shows what seniors might have to spend out of pocket under the latest plan. But it said that “beneficiaries might face higher costs,” adding that there was uncertainty in making such predictions. CBO said that both the Ryan plan and current law could lead to the same consequences — “reduced access to health care; diminished quality of care; increased efficiency of health care delivery; less investment in new, high-cost technologies; or some combination of those outcomes. In addition, beneficiaries might face higher costs, which could in turn reinforce some of the other effects.” And some of the effects would be greater under the Ryan plan because government spending is lower.
I’m retired, a vet and been married to the same woman for over half of my life. I’ve been loyal to the party since the bebinning. This is the 1st time I feel that I must speak out. I’ve attended a debate and watched them on TV. I listen to Rush, Glenn , FOX News and I wathe ads on TV.
Now it’s time for me to paraphrase the guy in the movie……I’m Fred Upman and I’m not gonna take it any more.
This is America where we say what we want and not what the gov’t wants us to say. We make up our own minds and not what the gov’e wants us to do. We vote for who we want ant who the gov’t wants us to vote for. If we make a mistake we should be able to correct it. That’s what I’m going to do here now and I’ll try to help try to correct it too…..it’s your choice.
As I said before I’m retired. I live on Social Security. I don’t have a pension. When I retired I lost my health insurance until Medicare kicked in. Thisn Saturday Gov. Romney picke Paul Ryan to be his running mate. Ryan wants to end Meicare and revamp Social Security from the way we have it today. THAT’S NOT RIGHT! LEAVE MY MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY ALONE! It’s the only health insurance I have and I can’t afford any more.
Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t like Obama’s plan or policies either. Romney doesn’t care if we pay more for medical insurance since he can get whatever kind he wants or needs. Ryan is too young to really care about it. DO YOU CARE?
There are things that can be done. We can ask the GOP, Dems and the Tea Party to help us. If they DON’T want to help we can do the following…..Still vote for Romney KNOWING THAT HE DOESN’T CARE…..Vote for Obama…..or NOT VOTE IN PROTEST. I’m not crazy about any of these options, so I’m having a hard time deciding what to do. my HEALTH, MEDICARE and SOCIAL SECURITY are too important to make the WRONG choice. WHAT DO YOU THINK????
The Ryan plan will do nothing to your SS or Medicare if you are over 55. Traditional Medicare Fee for Service would remain available for all. Premium Support, that is government funding of private insurance plans chosen by the individual is an option for those who choose.NO senior would be forced out of the traditional Medicare program against his/her will. Overall funding of Medicare under the Ryan/Wyden Plan is scheduled to grow the same as Obama’s plan. Is this “gutting Medicare and ending Medicare as we know it”? In reality, its giving Seniors cheaper, higher quality choices they can take if they wish, with the Traditional Medicare remaining an Option.
S.S. and Medicare are going to bankrupt the country (even more?) long before Ryan’s plan will have enough effect to save us.
The promise I got from the government was that they were going to ‘Protect the blessings of Liberty”, and I’ve never been able to reconcile that with the redistribution of wealth.
No matter that you might have thought paying Medicare tax was somehow buying you health insurance from the government (silly you), the taxes you paid are long gone, and any benefits you get now have to be paid out of someone else’s pocket. That’s redristribution of wealth.
right on, Craig if you are rich–don’t need to be famous
I have to laugh whenever I hear liberals say that Ryan’s plan will be “the end of Medicare as we know it. Anyone who’s ever had to balance a checkbook knows that the end of Medicare as we know it will be, well . . . Medicare as we know it.
This Country has been Breeding Little Socialists In Our Schools for A Long Time. Its Tough to Change everything overnight But The Inroads Tea Party Candidates Are Making this Year is Great.
Folks, I am afraid that Alexander Tyler’s analysis of the democratic process is coming to fruition right before our eyes. If you are not aware of his writings and analysis, do a web search for “Cycle of Democracy”. In looking back, and then focusing on current events, we, as a nation, have followed, precisely, his predictions and analysis. We now have enough people dependent on government for their family income, that they would vote for Hitler, if he could insure that the “checks” would come in on time. This is a sad time for our great nation. I feel that if we don’t make significant changes, immediately, we will, as a super-power, ultimately dissolve into “breakaway provinces” just like the USSR did.
i can’t believe that the teaparty members would vote for Romney/Ryan based on their plans for america. they will do nothing for the middle class . their interest is in protecting the rich at the expense of the middlle class worker. What is wrong with you guys? Do you hate obama sooooooooo much as to vote against your best interest? Hanging around with the rich guys won’t make you rich . you might get a few kicks at beating Obama but Romney/ryan will kick your behind as soon as they get in the white house and you will regret you voted for these jokers. I hope you have more sense and vote for Obama
right on,Joe
Jose, I don’t know your background, but please accept these comments in the spirit they are intended. I’m not rich and like Fred Upman above, I’m on Medicare and Social Security. I’m not certain Romney/Ryan are the ideal ticket, but they are far superior to Obama and the socialists of the Democratic party and in my opinion are a good first step.
I would also encourage you to get a solid foundation in macroeconomics and free markets. There are vast differences between the two competing economic systems of free market capitalism and social democracy. Conservatives want free market capitalism as the guiding economic philosophy of this country, which is what has produced the tremendous wealth we have all enjoyed in this country since the founding. The Dems are rushing headlong into Social Democracy which characterizes the governing principles of most of Western Europe. Think Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain. In financial circles these are the pigs (PIIGS), so called because they are the countries in the Euro in the worst fiscal shape. Why? Decades of huge deficit spending on cradle to grave government programs. They are now facing the prospect of defaulting on those promises and most likely will.
Your comment about protecting the rich at the expense of the middle class indicates that you’ve been drinking the Dems kool aid too much. That’s a great sound bite but is factually untrue. Like many of the Dems proposals they sell well in the media world but are contrary to economic principles. Raising tax rates on the rich will not generate more revenue for the government. Why? Because people respond to the incentives placed on them. They will move their money (and the jobs they represent) offshore, or will not expand their businesses, since government is making it ever harder to make a profit. They will not invest their money here (which also creates jobs), etc. The proof is this: Going back many decades, the tax rates have been both much higher and much lower than todays rates, yet the revenue flowing to the government has been around 20% of GDP regardless of the tax rates.
My encouragement to you is to understand what these two competing philosopies are and the kind of society that each produces, then vote accordingly. Free market capitalism is today better represented by the Republicans, though not nearly to the extent I would like, but we’ve got to start somewhere.