Reich writes: "Mitt Romney charged President Obama's Affordable Care Act will 'cut more than $700 billion' out of Medicare. What Romney didn't say was that his running-mate's budget would cut Medicare by the same amount."
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Whose Plan Destroys Medicare - Obama's or Romney-Ryan's?
14 August 12
tumping in Florida today, Mitt Romney charged President Obama's Affordable Care Act will "cut more than $700 billion" out of Medicare.
What Romney didn't say was that his running-mate's budget - approved by House Republicans and by Romney himself - would cut Medicare by the same amount.
The big difference, though, is the Affordable Care Act achieves these savings by reducing Medicare payments to drug companies, hospitals, and other providers rather than cutting payments to Medicare beneficiaries.
The Romney-Ryan plan, by contrast, achieves its savings by turning Medicare into a voucher whose value doesn't keep up with expected increases in healthcare costs - thereby shifting the burden onto Medicare beneficiaries, who will have to pay an average of $6,500 a year more for their Medicare insurance, according an analysis of the Republican plan by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Moreover, the Affordable Care Act uses its Medicare savings to help children and lower-income Americans afford health care, and to help seniors pay for prescription drugs by filling the so-called "donut hole" in Medicare Part D coverage.
The Romney-Ryan plan uses the savings to finance even bigger tax cuts for the very wealthy.
Spread the word. Don't allow the GOP to get away with this demagoguery.
Robert B. Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Ironically, it took until electronic spreadsheets came along and I began using them on a daily basis to understand what my teachers knew. A spreadsheet without labels for the columns and the rows is just a useless blob of data. A page of numbers and other bits of information without context ready to be molded into empirical fact that can prove whatever outcome I want. The best part is that nobody can prove me wrong.
Republicans assume that most people though as I used to and believe that labels are a waste of time. So they will toss out numbers like 700 BILLION Dollars! And the people will gasp at the enormity of it. They won't ask how Obama is cutting 700 Billion Dollars, there is no label, no context. It is a typical Republican double switch, where they take a true fact and then make up a story about that fact instead of the truth. Most people hate doing arithmetic and they would just as soon let someone else do it for them. Somehow, the Left has to find a way to show the labels that the Republicans cover up. (And don't get me started on fractions and the number line!)
According to Medicare, it WILL run out of money in the early 2020's and once the money is gone it will be gone. Maybe if we cut all the money going into social security we could save it also.
I love the logic here. "My cuts will save the program" but "your cuts will kill it" ROFLMAO
Under the ACA, a significant portion of the Medicare reduction GOES BACK TO SENIORS to help them pay for prescription drugs, by filling the "donut hole" in Medicare Part D coverage. It also eliminates out-of-pocket costs for annual wellness visits, some cancer screenings, and other preventative services. Those benefits have actually started already: In the first six months of this year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, more than 16 million seniors took advantage of the free preventative care provision.
Ryan's budget—which, again, Romney has repeatedly embraced and said he would sign—actually takes those new benefits AWAY. The Part D donut hole would open back up. Access to free preventative care would vanish. And where would Ryan and Romney put the money instead? Tax cuts for the rich. If somebody is "stealing" from seniors here, it's not Obama.”
Still laughing?
Also, please note that you stated that a significant portion of the Medicare reduction (that means Medicare gets less money) goes back to seniors. So just where is the money coming from in the first place? Medicare is RUNNING OUT of money according to the board of trustees. Taking money OUT of Medicare, regardless of where it is going, means that Medicare goes BROKE. No Money-No Program!
So according to you both Obama and Ryan will take money OUT of Medicare. When more money goes out of a program than is going INTO it the program will be broke.
So yes I am still laughing at people who say taking money out of Medicare is going to save it.
Please stop laughing. Under ACA the same amount of tax dollars are used to pay for Medical care. The reduction in Medicare is an accounting change. The dollars previously allocated to Medicare are now being allocated to other accounts in that are funded with those tax dollars. Thus, the savings in Medicare. Ryan's plan just cuts it out from the entire Health Care budget.
The difference between the two is dramatic and very relevant. There is some overlap since both plans will take advantage of implementing much needed efficiencies. ACA is more likely to get better results since many of the savings result from improved care; which is not part of the Ryan plan.
ACA does not claim to "save" Medicare, it claims to improve it; again big difference.
ACA is not Medicare. When Medicare goes broke then there will be NO program for seniors.
I am still laughing when someone tries to say that taking money out of a program will save it.
But wait! A day has passed, so therefore, the Mitt-Flopper has a new position: From the Wash Post — GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s new promise to restore the Medicare cuts made by President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law could backfire if he’s elected.
The reason: Obama’s cuts also extended the life of Medicare’s giant trust fund. By repealing them, Romney would move the program’s insolvency eight years closer, toward the end of what would be his first term in office.
Instead of running out of money in 2024, Medicare’s trust fund for inpatient care would go broke in 2016 without the cuts, according to estimates by the program’s own experts.
And taking 700 billion out is not reducing the GROWTH it is reducing the amount it has to be solvent (which it really isn't anyway).
But if you are right (your not but let's just say you are), then since you say it is running out in 2014 then why not have ACA remove 800 billion or a trillion so that it can save even more money and curb even more waste, fraud and abuse.
Now you brought up a new sublect: Fraud waste and abuse in a govt program. Why do we need ACA to reduce it?
Take your time.
So in fact NEITHER side is protecting it.
Since it is going broke, I guess the Republicans were right to not like it since it has cost sooo much money and unless they INCREASE by a great amount the taxes that we pay into the program and limit the payments out of the program it is going away.
although the next post was written after yours, in it, objsectiveobser ver1 notes that if we take all the money from CEO's who make over 10 million that would keep Medicare afloat. Why would we need to take money from the rich IF Medicare was not going broke? So, typically, I am debating 2 libs who have different views. One (you) that Medicare going broke is a Republican prediction (ie lie) and the other (him/her) that we can save it by taxing the rich (wow, what a new idea from a progressive: tax the rich) ROFLMAO again.
Hemsley may be the most egregious example, but he is certainly not the only one. What will happen when only the wealthiest can afford private insurance and the safety nets for everyone else have been removed? That is the road the Republicans are trying to lead us down.
You think these very smart people would just roll over and willing let 90 million of income be taken? You can't be that naive.
Little tax history for you. CEO used to be paid high salaries and like ALL salaries a company/corp pays it was deducted as an expense by the company thus reducing the profit and tax. So Congress (libs) limited the amount of deductable salary to 1 million. So what did business do? They started to pay executives both a salary and with stock options. So now it was more beneficial for a CEO to do what was good for the stock even if it was only short term instead of doing things that were better long term. Better to cut workers (expenses) to improve short term profits to drive up stock prices so make more money on their options. Thus libs caused many of the propblems with their short sighted hatred of the rich. And once again you propose to take away their money and you think they will just accept it. You have got to be kidding me and you should stop living in la-la land.
I agree the messaging can be simple. Unfortunately, after reading through the disconnected logic being used by phantomww, I see how difficult the task is that we Progressives face trying to get them to at least remove the blinders off of one eye.
As for Obama's economic achievments? You mean high unemployment, highest debt and deficit, no budget from the dem controlled senate in over 1000 days (over 3 years), no votes for either of the last 2 budgets Obama has submitted (not even a single dem voted for either of them). Less people working now than when he took over (yes, I know it is all Bush's fault blah, blah). I guess the smart Obama is not smart enough to fix what the stupid Bush did. Yet in the 80's it took Reagan one term to fix most of the problems left to him by the stupid Carter. Guess Reagan is smarter than Obama. (or else libs economic policies don't work as well). which do you think it is?
Don't vote Republican at any level.
Do get out and vote while we still can vote.
Medicare could be saved by two things: 1) Medicare-for-al l, at least as an option, which would have the money those of us are currently paying for-profit HMO's to now go into Medicare, and this huge influx of funding would put it on a more stable footing, just like a balanced insurance plan, and 2) get serious about addressing the underlying skyrocketing costs of health care itself. THIS is where the real battle is. With a for-profit provider system, doctors and adminsitrators and investors and executives all want their higher-than-inf lation raises and returns on investment, which of course makes the costs to patients go up much faster than inflation. Only tight regulation on how much providers can charge for specific procedures can work if we don't "nationalize" the provider network.
Hoping what goes around.....
Republican Motto----If you can't win fairly, cheat, lie, and steal!!!!
I used to trust the government to be reasonable...no more. Some physicians are audited and asked back for money that they no longer have - it has been paid out in salaries to office staff etc.
Why do they never comment on threads like this?
HEY EVERYONE! I'm voting for Obama! I'm NOT voting for a 3rd party candidate! This article is a clear representation of one my reasons.
Care to prove there's STILL "no differences between the two"?
You forgot to include the ones that believe that Obama is a tool of the corporate interests to the point where he does their bidding and only their bidding. I recently read an article that reviewed one of they key points of Obama's "introduction to America" speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. He noted that America is not Liberal or Conservative, it is the United Sates of America. He may have attempted to govern that way for the first 3 years, but why is it such a surprise? Look at his record, he rarely has pushed for Progressive legislation. On the other hand, he is much further away from the Republicans than the Clintons. Barack Obama is not the Progressive future, and if he wasn't black, he just might have been given a little more breathing room.
In my opinion, President Obama has had to measure up to a different set of standards, from both the Right and the Left, than any white President has had to face.
However, to be honest, I may vote for Jill Stein since Obama is from MA and he will likely carry the state overwhelmingly and a vote for the Greens keep them on the ballot. But other than that, I will vote for Democrats to Congress and in my district that is not an automatic win.
it is all about electoral votes, not people votes.
NO OPT OUT FOR THE CORPORATIONS!
ACA does NOT save money.
First, the GOP effectively makes its case for tax cuts across the board - and that everyone will win. What do Dems say?
No, it doesn't! Look at the plan!
But do people look at the plan? No, not when the GOP, like all propagandists before then, effectively say the same simple message over and over again. We will give everyone a tax break. I remember getting a tax rebate check during the George W administration - that was effective propaganda. Was it fair, equitable, and did it lead to lower taxes for the middle class? Of course not, but it was effective political theater.
Second, the GOP made its case for extending the tax breaks on the upper crust. Those same tax breaks contributed to the recession.
What did the Dems do? They didn't fight it hard enough. The President even signed it into law! By doing so, he legitimized the whole philosophy of trickle down economics.
Now, the GOP has effectively reduced the CHANGES in Medicare brought about by the Affordable Care Act into CUTS! And what are the Dems and the lefties like Rachel Maddow doing?
They're agreeing that they are CUTS!
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! What are the Dems thinking? Are they thinking? Do they have a simple message that they can repeat over and over again?
If they don't they better find one, because the Presidency depends on a simple, repeated phrase.
We have an aging population. We have two visions and two plans.
The Republican plan is Care For Those Who Can Afford It. Under that plan those who can not afford the care get to go home and die.
Why are medical costs spiraling up at some many times the rate of inflation? Has cancer been cured? Are Americans vastly more healthy than we were a generation ago? The US has had a predominantly for profit health care system, what cost containment has the "free market" provided?
We have two choices, if only we were given two real options. The Republican plan which is Health Care for the Rich.
The alternative is Health Care for ALL.
RSS feed for comments to this post