United Liberty
Wolf Blitzer educates Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Ryan’s Medicare plan
Tue, 08/14/2012 - 12:10pm | posted by Jason Pye
As expected, the attacks on Paul Ryan’s budget proposals are well under way. Specifically, President Obama’s campaign is attacking Ryan’s Medicare reform plan, which was a plan pieced together with Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon.
The proposal would offer a competing plan different than the current “fee-for-service” model, by giving new enrollees — those younger than 55-years-old — the option of a voluntary voucher program to purchase health insurance. Nothing would change for seniors already in the system.
But President Obama is already demagoguing the issue, claiming that the Ryan-Wyden plan would have hurt Medicare, which is our most costly long-term entitlement, and refuses to acknowledge that his own health care law cuts more than $700 billion from the government-run health insurance program for seniors.
During an interview with Wolf Blitzer yesterday, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) tried to tear down Ryan, who was picked by Mitt Romney as his running mate, claiming that the plan is “extreme” and would hurt seniors. Blitzer came back at Wasserman Schultz’s talking points about Ryan’s proposal, noting that anyone over 55 would not be affected in any way and that the traditional “fee-for-service” option would still be available for those who want it.
Here’s the video:
Ryan being on the Republican ticket has brought the argument back to the real issues facing the United States, such as budget deficits and crippling long-term entitlements. It’s a risky move given that Medicare is one of the third-rails of American politics, but voters have responded well to Ryan thus far; though that’s to be expected in the short-term.
These same tactics being employed by President Obama and Wasserman Schultz were used during the 2010 mid-term election, but they were unsuccessful. Republicans took control of the House and put themselves in position to make a run at the Senate this year. If Romney and Ryan can control the narrative, with journalists acting responsibly, as Blitzer did yesterday, then Team Obama may have to head back to the drawing board.
Your analysis of Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan is, as always, dishonest and incomplete. Just because Wasserman-Schultz couldn’t think of all the ways senior citizens would be impacted immediately if the Ryan budget became law doesn’t mean there aren’t any. Perhaps, like Wolf Blitzer, you should get “educated” about these things.
If the $700 billion “cuts” to Medicare are so awful, why does Paul Ryan keep them? Why does he steal that savings from Medicare to fund tax cuts? Why not restore that spending? Currently, that $700 billion is taken out of the provider side, ending the private insurance boondoggle Medicare Advantage, which charged the taxpayers 14% more for the same care given through traditional Medicare. Obamacare takes that and other waste and fraud savings and puts in back into Medicare, extending its life by 8 years.
As far as immediate impacts, Ryan’s plan would absolutely dilute the quality of care for current seniors and increase the amount of money they pay out of pocket by ending the coverage for preventative care, which 16 million seniors have already taken advantage of in 2012. He would also re-open the “donut hole,” costing the average senior citizen $4,000 a year on their prescription drugs. Wasserman-Schultz was right: the Ryan budget hurts future seniors and current ones, just in very different ways. I don’t expect a lifetime government employee and Washington insider like Ryan to understand that, but I’d hoped you would.
Jim,
You state that Obamacare’s theft of 768 billion of medicare spending ends the private insurance boondoggle Medicare Advantage, extending Meciare’s life by 8 years. That sounds an awful lot like the business model of a private sector enterprise that has received a lot of attention lately, Bain Capital.
The question is, what advantage comes in extending the life of a government program that has 0% probability of survival. Shouldn’t we look for alternatives as soon as possible, such as encouraging private enterprise to compete for the medicare dollars that are available in the federal budget? Seems logical that would reduce medical costs. It follows the same logic as technological advances in other industries. As R&D results in one company being able to provide better service/product (care), they will be able to capture a larger market share. (think cameras, tv’s, dvd players, etc.) Eventually other companies will be forced to adapt/change or be left behind. (think Kodak, not GM or Solyndra) That is the America I believe in.
The point Wolf Blitzer was trying to trying to make to Wasserman-Shultz is that Ryan’s plan would not increase the amount of out of pocket costs or reduce coverage for anyone currently 55 or older. If you are 55 or older, you will continue to be covered under the existing terms of the plan. Your statement to the contrary is absolutely false. Shame on you and your liberal colleagues for utlizing scare tactics to support your agenda.
I’ll never understand why you feel that just because someone can afford to pay more means that they should pay more. Our country does not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. We have way too many entitlements currently. US citizens are entitled to a free and safe society. They are not entitled to free cell phones and more money for every child that they have.
Rob, you clearly have not read the Ryan plan at all. Unlike you, I’m not relying on talking points. I’m going to the source. Ryan’s plan not only keeps the “cuts,” but he also plans for the complete repeal of “Obamacare.” That means that current seniors over 55 would have to pay up to $4,000 more for prescription drugs and would no longer have preventative care covered under Medicare, something 16 million seniors have used in just the first 8 months of this year alone. Obamacare makes Medicare Advantage payments more competitive and cuts out waste and fraud. Ryan’s plan does nothing to extend the life of Medicare or even try to control health care costs (the reason Medicare is in trouble in the first place). He just shifts the costs onto seniors and gives them a coupon for roughly half, a coupon he specifically ensures won’t keep up with the rising cost of health care. That coupoon will be worth less and less as the years go by. It’s not “shameful” to point these facts out. It’s “shameful” to pretend that Obama “raided” Medicare or that Ryan is out to save it. Those pesky facts say otherwise.
You obvisouly don’t care about any of that, though. You oppose the very existence of Medicare. I’d love to hear what you think should happen when a senior citizen gets sick and is left to the whims of private insurance, which can’t make a profit off of covering her. Please, tell me how an 80-year old with pre-existing conditions who needs care is supposed to get affordable coverage on the private market. If high-risk pools are your answer, try again. Those mostly have sky-high deductibles and extremely high premiums that most seniors on a fixed income can’t afford.
This is the reason we have Medicare. It’s not profitable for health insurance companies to cover the elderly and the sick with affordable plans. It’s not “dependence” for a senior citizen to be able to access affordable health care. It’s morality. A society that leaves its older members to the whims of insurance company death panels who are only concerned about the bottom line is not a society at all.
Jim,
You’re scare tactics and talk of throwing grandma off the cliff are getting old and boring.
The current economic direction is a complete cluster $#@%. We tried multiple stimulus plans. They have thus far failed and there is no expectation of any near term improvement. Barry tried and failed. You don’t get second chances when the stakes are this high. It’s time to try something else.
I have little hope for meaningful change until we have term limits for congress. There was a time when it was a priviledge to represent your constituency. Today it’s another way to get rich regardless of party affiliation. Harry Reid resides in a suite at the Four Seasons hotel in Washington DC at a rate of $800/night. There are similar insane expenses on the GOP side. We cannot sustain this level of government without meeting the same fate as Greece, Spain, etc. We can’t just keep kicking the can down the road. We have to make meaningful and fundamental spending changes. We’re not going to throw grandma off the cliff. We aren’t going to let people starve. But we are going to address the problem.
Rob, facts are not scare tactics. You’re the one engaging in scare tactics and “throw grandma from the cliff” lies when you cut and paste the GOP Mediscare talking points. AGain, you need to read the Ryan budget and understand what the numbers mean in the context of what’s currently in place. The changes he would make have real-world consequences for people of any age, not just those under 55. Sorry if you can’t handle that, but whining about it without actually rebutting it with any facts doesn’t change anything.
This level of government you’re talking about is the smallest it’s been since the Eisenhower administration. Our revenues are the lowest they’ve been in 60+ years. We have a spending AND a revenue problem, and Obama is the only candidate who acknowledges that and wants to take common-sense steps to fix it. Tax rates are already very low, yet we’re told if we cut them just a bit more, we’ll see boom times. Sorry, but the last decade was enough proof that that isn’t true. The wage gap widened and we created barely 3 million jobs from 2001-2008. Obama has created 4.5 million jobs in half that time. Your stale talking points just don’t match reality.
Undoubtedly, additional tax revenue plays into a solution. I actually support that. However, spending must be curbed, and we must create and follow a budget. We are NOT at the smallest level of government in recent history. Your liberal talking point of 4.5 million jobs can’t even be remotely substantiated since it comes from the White House. The fact is, unemployment remains well in excess of 8% nationally. By his own admission, if he couldn’t bring unemployment below 8%, Barry didn’t deserve consideration for a second term.
A fool is never reasoned into his position, therefore a fool can never be reasoned out of his position. This agreement to disagree will be resolved in November.
Post new comment