Nyt: Republicans and Medicare: Paul Krugman

[AsburySkinsFan]

This ought to be fun.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/opinion/12krugman.html

Republicans and Medicare

“Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis.

And irony died.

Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. Furious denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — death panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away with it.

Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts.

After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy.

No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills.

What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” the budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, in fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to power.

The broad picture that emerges from the “roadmap” is of an economic agenda that hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush proposals of five years ago.

But what’s really worth noting, given the way the G.O.P. has campaigned against health care reform, is what Mr. Ryan proposes doing with and to Medicare.

In the Ryan proposal, nobody currently under the age of 55 would be covered by Medicare as it now exists. Instead, people would receive vouchers and be told to buy their own insurance. And even this new, privatized version of Medicare would erode over time because the value of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind the actual cost of health insurance. By the time Americans now in their 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn’t be much of a Medicare program left.

But what about those who already are covered by Medicare, or will enter the program over the next decade? You’re safe, says the roadmap; you’ll still be eligible for traditional Medicare. Except, that is, for the fact that the plan “strengthens the current program with changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure long-term sustainability.”

If this sounds like deliberately confusing gobbledygook, that’s because it is. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which has done an evaluation of the roadmap, offers a translation: “Some higher-income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced.” In short, there would be Medicare cuts.

And it’s possible to back out the size of those cuts from the budget office analysis, which compares the Ryan proposal with a “baseline” representing current policy. As I’ve already said, the total over the next decade comes to about $650 billion — substantially bigger than the Medicare savings in the Democratic bills.

The bottom line, then, is that the crusade against health reform has relied, crucially, on utter hypocrisy: Republicans who hate Medicare, tried to slash Medicare in the past, and still aim to dismantle the program over time, have been scoring political points by denouncing proposals for modest cost savings — savings that are substantially smaller than the spending cuts buried in their own proposals.

And if Democrats don’t get their act together and push the almost-completed reform across the goal line, this breathtaking act of staggering hypocrisy will succeed.

[Kilmer17]

For the umpeenth time.

The GOP was POWERLESS to stop the Dems from doing anything. They are still powerless to stop the Senate bill from becoming law.

The constant whining from the left wing extreme about how the GOP is stalling anything is so stale.

[China]

It's about hypocrisy, not stalling.

[DjTj]

For the umpeenth time.

The GOP was POWERLESS to stop the Dems from doing anything. They are still powerless to stop the Senate bill from becoming law.

The constant whining from the left wing extreme about how the GOP is stalling anything is so stale.

Isn't that basically what Krugman says? :whoknows:

And if Democrats don’t get their act together and push the almost-completed reform across the goal line, this breathtaking act of staggering hypocrisy will succeed.

Democrats are the ones that need to get their act together.

He's just pointing out the absurdity of the fact that one of the major criticisms against health care reform is that it will cut Medicare, and that Republicans have embraced this line of attack. I'm not sure if that shows the utter hypocrisy of the Republicans for defending big government or the utter incompetence of the Democrats for being unable to even maintain the big government side of the argument.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Isn't that basically what Krugman says? :whoknows:

Democrats are the ones that need to get their act together.

He's just pointing out the absurdity of the fact that one of the major criticisms against health care reform is that it will cut Medicare, and that Republicans have embraced this line of attack. I'm not sure if that shows the utter hypocrisy of the Republicans for defending big government or the utter incompetence of the Democrats for being unable to even maintain the big government side of the argument.

Its real easy political points which the GOP was trying to score

Its as similar as to the scare tactics the Dems used (and xenophobes on the GOP side) to oppose the Dubai Ports deal

There is no way Dems could resist an easy cheap shot and political points, even if they came off looking racist.

As for the article, the GOP in the healthcare debate was 100 percent irrelevant, despite what many on the left want to say

[Kilmer17]

Isn't that basically what Krugman says? :whoknows:

Democrats are the ones that need to get their act together.

He's just pointing out the absurdity of the fact that one of the major criticisms against health care reform is that it will cut Medicare, and that Republicans have embraced this line of attack. I'm not sure if that shows the utter hypocrisy of the Republicans for defending big government or the utter incompetence of the Democrats for being unable to even maintain the big government side of the argument.

I didnt read it that way at first, but yes, I think that is a good breakdown. Of course it misses Krugmans expected bombs at the GOP, but they'r expected.

And of course it fails to address the Dem hypocrisy of hurting medicare with this HC bill. But Im sure theres a right wing nutbag who does that job like Krugman on the other side.

[DjTj]

Its real easy political points which the GOP was trying to score

Its as similar as to the scare tactics the Dems used (and xenophobes on the GOP side) to oppose the Dubai Ports deal

There is no way Dems could resist an easy cheap shot and political points, even if they came off looking racist.

Eh, certain parts of the Democratic Party have always been against free trade, so that wasn't totally unexpected. Democrats would never place free trade/foreign corporations as a prominent part of their platform in the same way that small government is part of the Republican platform.

As for the article, the GOP in the healthcare debate was 100 percent irrelevant, despite what many on the left want to say

I think Krugman acknowledges that ... he's just trying to capitalize on what he perceives as hypocrisy. And in any case, right now the GOP is at least 1% relevant.

I didnt read it that way at first, but yes, I think that is a good breakdown. Of course it misses Krugmans expected bombs at the GOP, but they'r expected.

And of course it fails to address the Dem hypocrisy of hurting medicare with this HC bill. But Im sure theres a right wing nutbag who does that job like Krugman on the other side.

But Democrats aren't really hurting medicare. They are moving that money into larger government programs. You would expect the GOP to attack that part of the plan, but focusing on the cuts to Medicare is galling.

[Kilmer17]

Eh, certain parts of the Democratic Party have always been against free trade, so that wasn't totally unexpected. Democrats would never place free trade/foreign corporations as a prominent part of their platform in the same way that small government is part of the Republican platform.

I think Krugman acknowledges that ... he's just trying to capitalize on what he perceives as hypocrisy. And in any case, right now the GOP is at least 1% relevant.

But Democrats aren't really hurting medicare. They are moving that money into larger government programs. You would expect the GOP to attack that part of the plan, but focusing on the cuts to Medicare is galling.

Well it DOES take money away from Medicare. And we all know the Gimme Gimme generation isnt going to allow that.

Id be fine getting rid of all giveaways to people based on age. Start with the Bush/GOP senior drug giveaway plan. Worst piece of crap legislation that bunch passed. But old people vote, so both sides bow before them. It sucks our system dry.

[zoony]

Democrats are the ones that need to get their act together.

.

more specifically, Obama. His leadership throughout has been, well, less than inspiring. He can't even rally his own party. The average American has no idea wtf this bill even is.

I don't know if he thought the political process would be peaches and cream or what- maybe it's better if he's got a tough opposition. It might inspire him to be a little more passionate and vocal and display more leadership.

.....

[twa]

Eh, certain parts of the Democratic Party have always been against free trade, so that wasn't totally unexpected. Democrats would never place free trade/foreign corporations as a prominent part of their platform in the same way that small government is part of the Republican platform.

I think Krugman acknowledges that ... he's just trying to capitalize on what he perceives as hypocrisy. And in any case, right now the GOP is at least 1% relevant.

But Democrats aren't really hurting medicare. They are moving that money into larger government programs. You would expect the GOP to attack that part of the plan, but focusing on the cuts to Medicare is galling.

That is what's galling to me,the Dems fully intend to cut medicare benefits and promptly spend the "savings" elsewhere.

It will have to be cut(restrict benefits),but by simply shifting the money to another entitlement is foolishness and does not fix the spending/deficit issue.

[JMS]

As for the article, the GOP in the healthcare debate was 100 percent irrelevant, despite what many on the left want to say

Yeah, 41 seats in the Senate voting as a block against a bill are toally irrelevant to passing legislation. Totally irrelivent to getting a compromise. Totally irrelivent to governing.

Because the GOP is voting as a block against something, absolves them of all responsibility for that something not passing!!! :insane:

[zoony]

Yeah, 41 seats in the Senate voting as a block against a bill are toally irrelevant to passing legislation. Totally irrelivent to getting a compromise. Totally irrelivent to governing.

Because the GOP is voting as a block against something, absolves them of all responsibility for that something not passing!!! :insane:

Reagan's MO was to give the middle finger to Congress and rally the country around his ideas. Congress had no choice but to listen to their districts. An opposing party congress at that.

There has been none of that from Obama. Quite the opposite. Members of his own party are bailing on him and bowing to the demands of their districts... districts made up mostly of voters who have no idea what the bill even is.

So I think it is 100% fair for Republicans to put this one on the Democrats- and more specifically Obama himself.

[JMS]

That is what's galling to me,the Dems fully intend to cut medicare benefits and promptly spend the "savings" elsewhere.

What I find galling is you totally are missing that the GOP under Bush put that waste into Medicare as part of Bush's 900 billion dollar off budget 2006 Healthcare reform which you and the "conservatives" didn't bat an eyelash over.

Not because it wasn't expensive, not because it didn't yeild any benifits to the consumers, but because it took the form of a massive pay off to the drug and insurance trusts.

It will have to be cut(restrict benefits),but by simply shifting the money to another entitlement is foolishness and does not fix the spending/deficit issue.

Again what I find gualing is the lack of understanding that the US government is currently the largest consumer of healthcare in the country in the form of medicare and medicade programs wich currently insure about 120 million folks. The short sightedness which claims spending 2% of the countries healthcare costs over 10 years in order to reform the heavy government regulated market is somehow excessive.

That's what I find gualing...

Hell we know if we do nothing these programs will bankrupt us in the next decade. Why is reforming them even controversial?

[Larry]

Wow. Gee, Krugman has hit upon what I have been saying has the biggest irony of this entire "debate", for a year.

A Democrat has proposed making cuts in the government's biggest entitlement program.

And the Republicans are unanimously opposing it.

Who says there hasn't been Change?

[Larry]

Reagan's MO was to give the middle finger to Congress and rally the country around his ideas. Congress had no choice but to listen to their districts. An opposing party congress at that.

There has been none of that from Obama. Quite the opposite. Members of his own party are bailing on him and bowing to the demands of their districts... districts made up mostly of voters who have no idea what the bill even is.

Agreed. The Man has completely surrendered the ultimate power which the President has over Congress: The power to speak to Congress' bosses.

[JMS]

Reagan's MO was to give the middle finger to Congress and rally the country around his ideas. Congress had no choice but to listen to their districts. An opposing party congress at that.

I liked Reagan. I don't think he Railroaded much through congress. I think Congress recognized his mandate and worked with him. Ragan got things which were important to him like a massive military build up. Congress (Tip Oneal) got things important to them like increased social programs.

Newt, another Republican I liked, proved you couldn't run the country from the speakership.

There has been none of that from Obama. Quite the opposite. Members of his own party are bailing on him and bowing to the demands of their districts... districts made up mostly of voters who have no idea what the bill even is.

So I think it is 100% fair for Republicans to put this one on the Democrats- and more specifically Obama himself.

I think there are two issues. (1) I agree the democrats who actually have conseratives, moderates and liberals in their party are much tougher to herd in on important issues. (2) I don't think that absolves the GOP from monolithically oposing all legislation, confirmations, or initiatives from the Democrats.

[twa]

What I find galling is you totally are missing that the GOP under Bush put that waste into Medicare as part of Bush's 900 billion dollar off budget 2006 Healthcare reform which you and the "conservatives" didn't bat an eyelash over.

Not because it wasn't expensive, not because it didn't yeild any benifits to the consumers, but because it took the form of a massive pay off to the drug and insurance trusts.

Again what I find gualing is the lack of understanding that the US government is currently the largest consumer of healthcare in the country in the form of medicare and medicade programs wich currently insure about 120 million folks. The short sightedness which claims spending 2% of the countries healthcare costs over 10 years in order to reform the heavy government regulated market is somehow excessive.

That's what I find gualing...

Hell we know if we do nothing these programs will bankrupt us in the next decade. Why is reforming them even controversial?

Sure bring up W's boondoggle that was just slightly higher than the Dem proposal:silly:

That's about the time I lost my sense of humor with him.

What part of I support cutting the damn benefits did ya miss?

What I do not support is shifting the spending to yet another NEW entitlement spending program.

That ain't saving ****.:saber:

Congresscritters spend like a woman with a new charge card:evilg:

[JMS]

Agreed. The Man has completely surrendered the ultimate power which the President has over Congress: The power to speak to Congress' bosses.

It's supprising too, because Obama's such a good speaker. I wouldn't equate him with Reagan, but he's still very good.

It's unbelievable he hasn't rallied the bully pullpit to his agenda. It's unbelievable he hasn't even defended the initiatives from the ravaging from the right...

I think it's fair to hold Obama and the Dems accountable for their failings. I just don't think it's justification for holding the GOP blameless.

[twa]

Big difference between a leader and a giving a good speech

Kinda like cheer leading vs playing the game.

Talk is cheap

[JMS]

Sure bring up W's boondoggle that was just slightly higher than the Dem proposal:silly:

That's about the time I lost my sense of humor with him.

Six years after supporting him? After voting for him twice? That's when you lost your "sense of humor with him"?

I lost mine when he lied to us about Iraq being involved in 911 and then used that involvement as a justification for invadeing Iraq. That would be 2002-2003.

What part of I support cutting the damn benefits did ya miss?

I didn't miss it. What I'm saying is there is so much fat in healthcare we could save both public and private funds by reforming the system. Going with the status quoe, which is the GOP's stated position is a recipe for bankrupcy.

What I do not support is shifting the spending to yet another NEW entitlement spending program.

You say spending is the problem, only when the Democrats are in office. I say the problem is stupid spending. Spending to reform a disfunctional 35 trillion dollar segment of the economy over the next 10 years to my mind isn't stupid spending if their is a chance that it will work. Knowing the GOP totally flubbed the task and wasted 900 billion in doing so doesn't make an impression on you. Does on me.

[JMS]

Big difference between a leader and a giving a good speech

I agree with you Reagan was a good leader.

I will begrudgingly agree with you that Obama has not shown good leadership on the healthcare issue.

[twa]

Six years after supporting him? After voting for him twice? That's when you lost your "sense of humor with him"?

I lost mine when he lied to us about Iraq being involved in 911 and then used that involvement as a justification for invadeing Iraq. That would be 2002-2003.

I didn't miss it. What I'm saying is there is so much fat in healthcare we could save both public and private funds by reforming the system. Going with the status quoe, which is the GOP's stated position is a recipe for bankrupcy.

You say spending is the problem, only when the Democrats are in office. I say the problem is stupid spending. Spending to reform a disfunctional 35 trillion dollar segment of the economy over the next 10 years to my mind isn't stupid spending if their is a chance that it will work. Knowing the GOP totally flubbed the task and wasted 900 billion in doing so doesn't make an impression on you. Does on me.

I objected to spending excesses from the time of Medicare D on...feel free to check

Shifting the spending is not cutting fat.

Reform would be cheaper healthcare that is more available...this ain't it.

Cut the fat and reduce the deficit,NOT simply spend it elsewhere.

[Veretax]

The problem is you have an entire generation of people dependent upon medicare. It would be wrong to cut it off to those people who had little chance to plan another means of health coverage in their waning years. That's my objection. I think it should go away, but its going to have to be done in a way that enough of us younger folk can plan for it in advance. I've thus far not heard anyone on either side make any suggestions to achieve that. So in the absence of it, I think its wrong to take funding from those who can do the littlest to dif themselves out just to prop up younger workers who many of them don't even want health insurance.

[AsburySkinsFan]

That is what's galling to me,the Dems fully intend to cut medicare benefits and promptly spend the "savings" elsewhere.

It will have to be cut(restrict benefits),but by simply shifting the money to another entitlement is foolishness and does not fix the spending/deficit issue.

That's what galls you? I guess maybe we missed the point that the Republicans are the one's screaming out to scare the little old ladies about cuts to their medicare when all the while their plan cuts the medicare MORE than the plan they are screaming about.

That's the hypocrisy, and that hypocritical fear mongering should gall us more than someone's plan that saves more and cuts less.

[AsburySkinsFan]

A Democrat has proposed making cuts in the government's biggest entitlement program.

And the Republicans are unanimously opposing it.

All the while proposing even GREATER cuts, that's hypocritical.