33 thoughts on “The Growing Medicare Dilemma”

  1. So Romney’s advantage is that he can run to the left of Obama on Medicare? It makes Romney/Ryan an odd pairing: Ryan on the record as favoring full privatization and dropping the Medicare guarantee, and Romney promising to not only keep the current system, but add another $700B in spending.

    they screwed themselves politically with ObamaCare

    It’s worth noting exactly how and why the Democrats screwed themselves. Just like George W. Bush with Medicare drug coverage, they wanted to offer a new entitlement, affordable health insurance for adults under 65. But unlike the Republicans, they felt bound to demonstrate fiscal responsibility by actually paying for this new entitlement, rather than increasing the deficit. Paying for things is never popular: it means raising taxes, or cutting spending. And, sure enough, the cuts to future Medicare spending, one of the major ways Obamacare pays for itself, have proven to be politically toxic, and were a major factor in Democrats losing the House in 2010.

    By doing the responsible thing the Democrats have utterly confused the Republicans. The idea of actually paying for new spending is so foreign to the GOP that they can’t believe it’s actually possible. So regardless of what the CBO says, they continually attack Obamacare for increasing the deficit, and increasing the debt. And then, in the next breath, they attack it for cutting Medicare — a major reason why it does not, in fact, increase the deficit or debt.

    The moral of the story: where the deficit is concerned, no good deed goes unpunished.

    1. 2010 was about Obamacare not Medicare, in addition to $1.4-1.6t deficits, Obama’s divisive politics, executive overreach, high unemployment, and the failure of the stimulus. It was a referendum on the performance of the Democrats in full control of the government and the people were not happy.

      1. The 2010 GOP candidates ran lots of ads on how the Dems were cutting Medicare (as part of Obamacare), and they worked. Romney’s (false) line about Obama being the only president to cut Medicare is an attempt to re-use a successful attack from 2010.

        1. They might have brought it up in a few districts but the issue was be no means the deciding factor in the turnout in 2010.

          1. Here’s Charles Krauthammer on the topic:

            In 2010, the election where they swept, they emphasized over and over again the theft of the $700 billion from Medicare to pay for the new entitlement, Obamacare. They won on that issue.

          2. As someone who is more in tune with the motivations of the TP than Krauthammer, I disagree. And my GoogleFu leads me to a quote from August 2012. Now if Krauthammer said something like that in 2009 then maybe you he and you would have a point.

    2. I see you’re johnny on the spot with the talking points on this one Jim.

      Obamacare took $700b out of medicare. The liberal on ‘The Five’ tried to explain why he didn’t. It was hilarious.

      Ryan on the record as favoring full privatization and dropping the Medicare guarantee

      Way to spin Jim, both ‘fast and loose’ and false. I’m 53, so I pay attention when Ryan’s plan says it would only apply to those under 55. No change for those over 55. The whole point is it’s broke and has to change to something for the next generation or it won’t be there at all. The democrats? Kick that can down the road… Democrats plan? [crickets chirping]

      add another $700B in spending

      No. Put back what was stolen by Obamacare which will be done away with.

      You usually spin better than this Jim.

      But unlike only the Republicans tea party is concerned with fiscal responsibility.

      FIFY.

      1. Democrats plan? [crickets chirping]

        Crickets? The Democrats have already passed their plan! It holds Medicare spending to the same rate as the latest version of the Ryan plan, but does so without shifting costs onto individual seniors.

        But only the tea party is concerned with fiscal responsibility.

        So who’s the tea party candidate? Where health care entitlements are concerned, Obama is the fiscally responsible one. Ryan voted for Medicare Part D, a new entitlement with no offsetting revenue or spending cuts. Romney is calling for adding $700b to Medicare spending, and tacking it onto the debt.

  2. Jim – From my understanding, it’s true that the Ryan plan and the Obama plan both include these cuts to Medicare. The difference is that Obama uses the money for a massive new additional entitlement, and Ryan uses it to cut the deficit. Let’s ignore for the moment that both promises are almost certain to be broken, Obama’s by the ever-escalating cost of his plan and Ryan’s by both parties’ refusal to be fiscally responsible with the budget when it’s in their hands. But the two are not equivalent.

    1. But the two are not equivalent.

      They are 100% equivalent. Money is fungible. Just like Ryan, Obama could argue that the Medicare cuts are reducing the deficit, because they are. A dollar saved is a dollar saved.

      1. Not if you spend more money than you “save” and if money is fungible then you have to look at total spending and not just one program.

      2. “A dollar saved is a dollar saved.”

        Not of it’s then spent…

        Did you take ANY math?

        And especially not when 40 cents of that dollar was borrowed.

      3. Money is fungible. Just like Ryan, Obama could argue that the Medicare cuts are reducing the deficit, because they are. A dollar saved is a dollar saved.

        You sound profoundly confused, Jim. One has to look at the whole budget, not just one particular cost cutting measure. And what does the fungibility of money have to do with it?

        1. If the Dems had passed Obamacare without the Medicare cuts the projected deficit would be $700b larger (over the decade in question). If you strip the Medicare cuts from the Ryan budget that the GOP House passed the projected deficit would be $700b larger (over the same decade). There is no meaningful difference.

          The GOP can say “Obama raided Medicare to pay for Obamacare”. And the Dems can say “Ryan raided Medicare to pay for tax cuts for millionaires.” That’s an argument that doesn’t have anything to do with Medicare, it has to do with Obama and Ryan’s contrasting priorities for the rest of the budget.

          1. Ryan was using Obama’s base line numbers because he had to deal witth the reality that Obamacare is the law. So Ryan’s cuts are there because of Obama.

          3. Ryan was using Obama’s base line numbers because he had to deal with the reality that Obamacare is the law.

            What a lame excuse! Ryan’s budgets make all sorts of changes to the current law. They could have reversed the Medicare cuts, as Romney is now promising to do (although he never complained about them when he was saying he’d sign the Ryan budget…), but it would have meant a $700b bigger debt.

          4. It is a pretty good excuse 🙂

            I don’t totally buy it either but spinning it like that would be the wise political move.

  3. My understanding is that Ryan could not find sufficient savings elsewhere to pay for re-instating the Medicare cuts. So he didn’t.

    We are in a world of hurt and there will be no simple magic solutions. There will be pain.

    Thank you Lib-Dem-Marxist-soccies

  4. Just a brief note on the USG’s “compassion,” and one way it is now saving money on Medicare. In the past, Medicare would refuse to pay for treatment of anyone re-admitted to a hospital within 30 days of being discharged from said hospital if the readmission was related in any way to the original hospitalization. Now, because of Obamacare rules, Medicare will refuse to pay for any hospital care for any reason whatsoever if the patient was discharged from the hospital for an unrelated reason within the past 30 days.

    Discharged after successful heart surgery, but hit by a truck? FU, if you’re on Medicare. My wife is an RN, and is in tears over what she’s seen so far — and it has only started.

    This is what happens when people seek power by promising some people freebies at the expense of others, and the freebies are matters of life or death. When the “others” can no longer afford it, the freeloaders are screwed. You can’t not know this, Jim. If you do, and still support it, you have blood on your hands, and a lot of it.

    1. Now, because of Obamacare rules, Medicare will refuse to pay for any hospital care for any reason whatsoever if the patient was discharged from the hospital for an unrelated reason within the past 30 days.

      It’s true that Medicare is pushing for higher quality care by penalizing hospitals with high rates of readmission. That’s a good thing. Patients get treatment regardless, and hospitals have a financial incentive to do a better job (e.g. adopt procedures to reduce rates of hospital-caught infections, a major cause of re-admission).

      1. It’s a good thing to deny life-or-death treatment to someone because they had been hospitalized less that 30 days previously for completely unrelated reasons?. That’s not a “re” admission.

        This is Leftist “compassion” in it’s raw essence.

        1. Nobody is denied treatment, the patient is covered regardless. But if the hospital has a high overall rate of re-admissions, they get less money from Medicare, as an incentive to do better.

          This is Leftist “compassion”

          So you think that hospitals with high readmission rates should be compensated just as much as ones that do a better job fighting infections, avoidable complications, etc.? In that case you’re actually giving the hospitals an incentive to encourage readmissions, since they’ll get paid even more. That isn’t compassion — it’s moral hazard.

          If your mechanic screwed up a car repair and you had to take the car back in, do you think it’d make sense to pay him twice? Or should you get a partial refund on the original repair, to compensate you for him not getting it right the first time, and to give him an incentive to do better?

      2. Sure. There’s the one where you’re put in charge of anything more important than flushing a toilet…

  5. And yet…the feds seem to have the money to buy 174,000 rounds of .357 hollow points for….

    the Social Security Administration……

    https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=6c39a2a9f00a10187a1432388a3301e5&tab=core&_cview=0&fb_source=message

    Or NOAA buying 16,000 rounds of ammunition for semiautomatic pistols to be factory-loaded .40 S&W caliber, 180-grain jacketed hollow point (JHP)…..

    NOAA????? The weathermen?

    The DHS’ decision back in March to purchase of 450 million rounds of .40-caliber hollow point bullets that are designed to expand upon entry and cause maximum organ damage prompted questions as to why the federal agency required such powerful bullets and in such large quantities merely for training purposes.

    This was followed up by a more recent order for a further 750 million rounds of assorted ammunition, including bullets that can penetrate walls.

    450 million and 750 million rounds??????????

    1. If they’re buying it to take it off the market before election day, after which the B-Ho issues an executive order to ban ammo sales, there’s your answer.

        1. Sure. There’s the one where you’re put in charge of anything more important than flushing a toilet…

  6. Greg, as a shooter, ther are logical reasons for those numbers.

    The 450 mil rounds are for basically all Federal LE for liek a ten year peroid. It is an open-ended, long-term contract to secure ammo at a fixed price.

    Or NOAA buying 16,000 rounds of ammunition for semiautomatic pistols

    Shit! I go thru that mch pistol ammo in three seasons of practice, training and competitions! I know people who shoot that in six months!

    That is a rounding error, background noise!

    1. Yes but why does the National Weather Service need ammo?

      I am a shooter too and you know what I find? I find that I cannot GET the ammo I want. There is a shortage….stores cannot stock it.

Comments are closed.