36 thoughts on “How The Dems Will Deal With The Medicare Issue”

  1. Finally, the ad says that “AARP says the plan Mitt Romney supports undermines Medicare.” Here the ad cites this AARP letter to Congress from March of this year, showing a quote on the screen that says “would undermine . . . Medicare.” The words replaced by the ellipses are “the market power of.”

    I almost spit coffee out from that. I can envision the proggy wonks sitting around a table hashing that out. Half of them don’t want to associate Medicare with anything market-based, even if it’s only in a spock/goatee universe. The other half just want to show AARP’s opposition. The compromise? Simple: remove “the market power of.” Problem solved. Have some kool-aid.

      1. Misrepresent? Medicare’s market power is one of its greatest strengths, so of course undermining that market power will undermine Medicare.

        1. Are you posting from Aldebaran? Medicare is market based? With government bureaucrats fixing prices? Geez Jim, put down the crack pipe.

          1. Go read up on what market power is, and maybe you’ll understand how important it is to Medicare.

            As a starter, consider that nearly all doctors and hospitals accept Medicare patients, even though Medicare reimburses less than private insurance. Why is that? How might that change if Medicare only insured a minority of senior citizens?

          2. consider that nearly all doctors and hospitals accept Medicare patients

            I would if it were true. The more important thing to consider is the trend. How many doctors accept medicare patients today compared to a year ago. Compared to two years ago. Why? Nothing related to Obamacare I’m sure, right Jim?

          1. Because lots of people don’t know what market power is, and explaining it is beyond the scope of a 30 second ad. See Curt, above.

          2. Your not knowing it doesn’t translate to “lots of people” Jim. Though I think a more salient contrast between what you know and what lots of people know would be the motivation behind the decision to replace those words with ellipses.

      2. …because accusing someone of ‘lying’ is so un-PC, regardless of whether they lied or not.

  2. Levin’s complaint is that the Obama ad uses an analysis of an earlier version of Ryan’s Medicare plan (the one the WSJ said would end Medicare). But that’s the only variant of the Ryan/Romney plan that’s been submitted for CBO analysis. If Romney wants people to think his newer plan doesn’t have the same flaws, he should have Ryan submit it to the CBO. They won’t, because the Romney campaign does not want to defend its plans for Medicare, taxes, the budget, or anything else with specifics.

    It doesn’t mention that the Romney Medicare proposal would leave current seniors entirely unaffected

    Surely Levin knows about the Medicare benefits (free preventative care, closed drug donut hole) that Romney has promised to eliminate. So why is Levin lying here?

    1. When is Harry Reid submitting his budget for CBO analysis? Oh wait, you said yesterday that the Democrats didn’t even have to create a budget, so why even make one much less send it to CBO. At least Romney/Ryan have a plan. The Democrats have lies.

      1. At least Romney/Ryan have a plan.

        Obama not only has a plan, he’s passed legislation.

        The Democrats have lies.

        There is no comparison between the truthfulness of the two campaigns.

        1. Obama hasn’t had a plan since 2009. The budgets he’s pushed since then (things scored by CBO) have been soundly rejected unanimously each year by the Senate. And again, Harry Reid hasn’t even submitted an alternative.

    2. So what you’re saying, Jim, is that the CBO can’t contribute its usual nonsense to this argument. That’s a real shame.

      1. If you were evaluating Obama’s budget proposal, whose opinion would you trust more, Obama’s or the CBO’s?

        And if you were evaluating Ryan’s budget, whose opinion would you trust more, Ryan’s or the CBO’s?

        If your answer to both isn’t the CBO, you are a fool.

    1. I’ll go for old-fashioned regular truth, myself. Levin, on the other hand, seems to equate any sort of informed skepticism about Romney/Ryan’s Medicare plans with lying.

      Levin’s underlying claim is that the Republicans are Medicare’s best friend. We’re supposed to believe this despite nearly 50 years of GOP opposition to Medicare and the rest of the Great Society program, and despite Ryan’s 2010 plan to end Medicare, which won approval from virtually every Republican in the House. Skepticism is in order.

      1. He’s not trying to end it, he’s trying to save it. As opposed to allowing it to go belly-up, which is what will happen if no changes are implemented. Or if it’s cut by 700+ billion. Which is what will happen if Obamacare goes forward as is.

        1. He’s not trying to end it, he’s trying to save it.

          The 2010 plan ends Medicare as a guarantee of insurance coverage. It only guarantees a voucher, which would quickly be insufficient to pay for insurance. So those without other resources would lose coverage.

          Or if it’s cut by 700+ billion

          Ryan’s plan made the same cuts, was that to “save” Medicare?

          1. which would quickly be insufficient to pay for insurance.

            Because… oh yeah, because they want to end it. As opposed to Obamacare, which would quickly cause the whole insurance system to collapse.

            One side says we’ll create a competitive environment for the sale of insurance, the other side says we don’t want insurance to exist at all. I’m guessing that as those facts become clearer the American people will come down firmly on the side of the former.

  4. We’re supposed to believe this despite nearly 50 years of GOP opposition to Medicare and the rest of the Great Society program

    Oddly Jim, this is the point. Medicare exists. Despite being a bad idea and being opposed. But it is broken and kicking the can down the road doesn’t fix it (or stealing it’s funding for another broken program.)

    People depend on medicare which is why Ryan is not going to change it for anyone 55+. Is there any part of not changing it for 55+ that you do not understand?

    Now for those under 55? Nobody knows. Not you. Not me. Not anyone.

    But we’ve got to do something and political games (lying) is not a winning plan.

    1. Is there any part of not changing it for 55+ that you do not understand?

      Evidently Ryan and Romney don’t understand, because they’ve promised to drop no-copay preventative care, and reinstate the prescription drug donut hole. They are changing it for 55+.

      kicking the can down the road doesn’t fix it

      So “not changing it for 55+” is good, but “kicking the can down the road” is bad? 2023 is a ways down the road.

      But we’ve got to do something

      Obamacare does something. The 2013 Obama budget request does something. The Dem Medicare plan restrains spending just as much as the latest Romney/Ryan proposal (GDP + .5%), but does so without leaving poor seniors in the cold, and without massive giveaways to insurance companies.

  5. Ahh.. obviously you guys haven’t spoken to a leftist lately. Otherwise you would have heard these words: there’s plenty of money. It’s like a dogmatic chant now. The undeniable fact that the USA is bankrupt has been evaded for a decade now and can be denied. It will be.

    1. An old friend of mine, she’s a SCREAMING liberal who lives in Chapel Hill NC [on purpose!], sen me an article using those words that she got from some lefty indy newspaper over in CH, she says even IF there is ‘plenty of money’ she can’t bring herself to vote for Obumble again.

      And she doesn’t believe the line anyway. I’m beginning to think the current WH Staff needs to start looking for some packing boxes. That particular friend is just one of many lifelong liberal [socialist] Democrats I know, who are either not voting at all, or skipping the POTUS section of the ballot.

  6. The undeniable fact that the USA is bankrupt has been evaded for a decade now and can be denied. It will be.

    “Evaded” would seem to exclude a credit downgrade, so an un-undenialist would have plenty of ground. And the “there’s plenty of money” weirdness has appeared here, though sparsely. The dogmatic chant is more personality based. Which means it’s subject to rapid change.

    1. Wonder if President Downgrade will face any questions about that or any follow ups about how the TP wanting to return to fiscal sanity was at fault for Obama’s lack of budgets and runaway spending.

      1. Why would liberals care about runaway spending?

        The state is the manifestation of the goodness of humanity. All evidence that the state is in-fact corrupt and evil is just evidence that humanity has yet to progress to absolute goodness. It only follows that state spending is good spending.

        That the bankers of the world have decreed that the US government is spending too much is merely further evidence that the state is great, because bankers are the worst of humanity.

        Liberals hate spending cuts because of their fundamental beliefs, and no amount of bad consequences will change their viewpoint on that. Consequences don’t matter, only intentions, and the intentions of the state are always pure.

        2. That the bankers of the world have decreed that the US government is spending too much

          The bankers who are currently paying the US government to take their money?

          Liberals hate spending cuts because of their fundamental beliefs

          Liberals hate spending cuts that hurt people, and love spending cuts that free up money to help people (see Obama’s student loan reform). Liberals don’t care about spending per se, they care about what happens to people. Libertarians hate spending on principle, whether it does any good or not.

          1. Liberals don’t care about spending per se, they care about what happens to people.

            Actually they don’t care about people much either. The fact that most of them refuse to accept that many entitlements lead to dependency is just one example. Look at the thundering silence from the left as a result of Obamas rollback of welfare work requirements.

          2. Cutting doesn’t free up money to spend on other things if your deficits are $1.4t.

            Democrats: “The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are bankrupting us. We must bring our babykillersyoung men and women home so that we can spend that money on something else.”

            If spending that money on wars is bankrupting us, wouldn’t spending those same dollars on something else have the same effect?

  7. Trent write:

    “Consequences don’t matter, only intentions, and the intentions of the state are always pure.”

    Slight ammendment to that. Consequences do matter to Coccie-libs – the consequence they like is more government control of the populace and Medicare is a fabulous way to do that.

    It also happens to be a driver of high medical costs which, for the Soccies, is a positive feedback mechanism…

    Deities forbid that nedical costs be so reasonable that retirees can afford a policy on their own.

Comments are closed.