Romney’s Medicare ‘reform’ plan … such as it is

In his recent whiteboard presentation on Medicare, Mitt Romney made two basic claims that ought to be explored more fully. As you can see above, they are:

1.) President Obama proposes to cut $716 billion from Medicare for current seniors, while Romney proposes to cut nothing.

2.) President Obama’s approach would leave the Medicare trust fund bankrupt in 12 years, while the Romney approach would make the trust fund solvent and preserve the program for upcoming generations.

Let’s take a look at those assertions, in order:

1.) The $716 billion in reduced Medicare spending that Romney would “restore” would not go to Medicare beneficiaries, as he implies. The money also would not be used to extend the fiscal soundness of the Medicare trust fund. Much of it would go instead to higher Medicare reimbursement rates to doctors, hospitals and other health-care providers. In other words, Romney’s move would be good for stock prices, dividends and CEO salaries of drug companies, for-profit hospitals, etc., but the benefits to beneficiaries would be minimal.

In fact, sacrificing the cost reductions negotiated by the Obama administration wouldn’t merely add to the government’s cost, it would also end up costing Medicare beneficiaries money out of pocket. That’s because when costs to government go up, the share of payments that are shouldered by beneficiaries increases as well.

“Marilyn Moon, vice president and director of the health program at the American Institutes for Research, calculated that restoring the $716 billion in Medicare savings would increase premiums and co-payments for beneficiaries by $342 a year on average over the next decade; in 2022, the average increase would be $577,” the New York Times reports.

2.) Romney asserts that under current policy, the Medicare trust fund is scheduled to be empty by 2024. That is correct. However, by raising payments to Medicare providers by $716 billion — and remember, that’s exactly what he proposes to do — Romney would accelerate that bankruptcy by eight years, to 2016.

The only way to avoid that outcome would be to reduce benefits or raise premiums.

In the presentation above, Romney also asserts as fact that under his plan, the Medicare trust fund would be made solvent for future generations. Notably, he cites no evidence for that claim and no independent analysis to support it. He just states it as fact.

That’s because there is no evidence or analysis to support his claim. And there is no evidence or analysis because there is no plan in the first place. Romney has laid out only the barest of description about what he proposes to do. Essentially, he intends to give taxpayer-funded vouchers to senior citizens with which to purchase private health insurance.

As Romney explains the idea on his campaign website, “With insurers competing against each other to provide the best value to customers, efficiency and quality will improve and costs will decline. Seniors will be allowed to keep the savings from less expensive options or choose to pay more for costlier plans.”

In other words, Romney intends to solve Medicare by waving the magic wand of competition over the program. As a matter of ideology, it is consistent with Republican orthodoxy. The problem is that ideology is strongly refuted by actual real-life experience in this field.

If competition among insurers can actually drive down costs, as Romney hopes, why did private family health-insurance premiums jump by 113 percent between 2001 and 2011, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation? That’s more than four times the rate of overall inflation.

Romney’s bald claim that private-industry competition will drive down costs and make Medicare solvent is also undercut by the experience with Medicare Advantage, which he mentions in the presentation above.

Medicare Advantage was created in 1997 and expanded in 2003, and was designed to test Romney’s assertion. Basically, it offers seniors a voucher with which to buy Medicare-type coverage on the private market, the idea being that greater competition would drive more choice and more efficiency.

It hasn’t worked like that. On average, a Medicare Advantage plan today costs 12 percent more than traditional Medicare. The Obama administration proposes to end that subsidy — that savings is part of the contentious $716 billion — on the reasonable grounds that it is no longer sustainable.

In other words, when Romney argues that the Obama approach will end Medicare Advantage for 4 million Americans, he is correct. But the reason that he is correct undermines the entire basis of his Medicare proposal, as sketchy and incomplete as it is.

– Jay Bookman

163 comments Add your comment

Peadawg

August 22nd, 2012
2:27 pm

DannyX

August 22nd, 2012
2:30 pm

Romney used a whiteboard, he must have forgotten his Etch-a-Sketch.

Oh well, the whiteboard is easy to erase.

Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!

August 22nd, 2012
2:31 pm

And what gets me is that Ol’ Mitt is a Bishop in his church. I wonder how he sleeps at night.

stands for decibels (SfBA)

August 22nd, 2012
2:32 pm

I figured if Mitt stepped in front of a white board, he’d disappear.

Peadawg

August 22nd, 2012
2:32 pm

“In other words, Romney’s move would be good for stock prices, dividends and CEO salaries of drug companies, for-profit hospitals, etc., but the benefits to beneficiaries would be minimal.”

It’s all about money with Romney.

stands for decibels (SfBA)

August 22nd, 2012
2:34 pm

President Obama proposes to cut $716 billion from Medicare for current seniors, while Romney proposes to cut nothing.

I realize it’s not all that newsworthy that Mitt is lying, but it’d be kind of nice if our Press Corpse could report it as such once in a while.

Peadawg

August 22nd, 2012
2:34 pm

You’re such a party pooper, Jay…taking down my 2:28.

Sour grapes from the last blog I guess. Don’t like be called out, eh?

Brosephus™

August 22nd, 2012
2:37 pm

Would you expect anything different from our “Joe Isuzu” candidate?

Jay

August 22nd, 2012
2:37 pm

rIght, Pea.

My “revenge” for whatever it was you wrote was to pull down your casual use of a cuss word that people have complained about in the past.

ZoSo

August 22nd, 2012
2:38 pm

and so how does the President’s plan work?

stands for decibels (SfBA)

August 22nd, 2012
2:40 pm

PD, Jay asked me nicely not to use that term when announcing “SHEETZ.”

So I don’t.

[shrug.]

Peadawg

August 22nd, 2012
2:40 pm

“casual use of a cuss word that people have complained about in the past.”

Oh cry me a river. People shouldn’t be on her if ‘female dog’ (in a humerus, non-mean way might I add) offends them.

Simple Truths

August 22nd, 2012
2:41 pm

Just like Ryan, Romney wants to put ya’ll back in chains!

Jay prefers to stick with the plan that will bankrupt the country.

Peadawg

August 22nd, 2012
2:42 pm

on here*

stands for decibels (SfBA)
August 22nd, 2012
2:40 pm

That would actually make me lol if I saw that written.

Fred ™

August 22nd, 2012
2:42 pm

My “revenge” for whatever it was you wrote was to pull down your casual use of a cuss word that people have complained about in the past.

I wish the AJC would be consistent across the blogs. You have a damn auto snagger. Whoever is in charge of the blogs (as a whole group) can program it however the AJC decides, after that, leave posts the hell alone that use LEGITIMATE words that pass through the auto snagger.

But then that’s just my two cents and everyone know I’m just a dumb redneck son of a bit……. (oh wait, you’ll pull that)…………. biscuit

Joe Hussein Mama

August 22nd, 2012
2:42 pm

PD — “People shouldn’t be on her if ‘female dog’ (in a humerus, non-mean way might I add)”

I found this humerus. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humerus

Peadawg

August 22nd, 2012
2:44 pm

Common Sense

August 22nd, 2012
2:45 pm

” it would also end up costing Medicare beneficiaries money out of pocket.”

Oh my God. You mean someone might have to pay for what they are consuming? How un-American!

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

August 22nd, 2012
2:45 pm

Just another “Obama for President” Campaign thread.

Peadawg

August 22nd, 2012
2:46 pm

Hey, Jay, can you talk to the guys in the tech department? There’s a banner under the navigation bar advertising Florida Gator season ticket/hotel packages. Blasphemy!!!

stands for decibels (SfBA)

August 22nd, 2012
2:46 pm

That would actually make me lol if I saw that written.

I stole it from Atrios’ comments page.

(don’t participate there much any more; don’t know if that’s still common practice of there.)

Joe Hussein Mama

August 22nd, 2012
2:46 pm

PD — “Nice, Joe.”

An’ it’s all medical n’ topical n’ stuff! :D

Peadawg

August 22nd, 2012
2:46 pm

“Just another “Obama for President” Campaign thread.”

What’d you expect, Romney for President? Go next door to Kyle’s blog for that.

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

August 22nd, 2012
2:47 pm

Paradoxical Quote From Ben Stein:

“Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured… but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.”

Now add this,

“Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens.”

jj

August 22nd, 2012
2:47 pm

So you finished the morning bashing Ryan, now on to Romney.
I can’t believe you get paid for this.
Again, gread job defining what you don’tlike. What’s your idea.

getalife

August 22nd, 2012
2:47 pm

I tried to follow his whiteboard speech but I kept thinking what a bad idea to let our congress get their hands on SS, Medicare,Medicade, etc…..

I don’t trust them.

Why do you?

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

August 22nd, 2012
2:47 pm

Peadawg:

I expect more professional journalism and less hypocrisy.

Simple Truths

August 22nd, 2012
2:47 pm

Jay’s blog contains a link to the New York Times and a video from the Talking Points Memo website of the channel MSNBC. If he had referenced Salon or the Nation, he would have hit for the liberal cycle.

Doggone/GA

August 22nd, 2012
2:47 pm

” People shouldn’t be on her if ‘female dog’ (in a humerus, non-mean way might I add) offends them”

And YOU are not more important that those who ARE offended. Better Jay lose one person from here (you) than all those who are offended. Number matter, after all.

GT

August 22nd, 2012
2:48 pm

Romney is every man’s answer and no answer at all. He throws together old road maps and calls them new ideas. He is like a family member everybody on the right sticks by no matter what he says happened and what really happened. The Republicans are not visionaries, they think they can go back to black and white television and no one will know the difference.

DannyX

August 22nd, 2012
2:50 pm

Peadawg, why couldn’t you have just said…

“First, female dogs.”

And do you really think there are many female dogs reading Jay’s blog?

Joe Hussein Mama

August 22nd, 2012
2:50 pm

0311 — “I expect more professional journalism and less hypocrisy.”

How would you recognize either one?

Paul

August 22nd, 2012
2:50 pm

I trust this is on topic: I continue to be dumbfounded that a person who made millions assessing risk and reward, who was noted as a data-driven person, was hailed as a terrific boss who ran an efficient team in pursuing clear goals, who didn’t make a move without analyses to make the case…

could morph into…. this.

Unless he thinks the goal is to get elected, and in getting there he’s following the assessments that say you really, really can fool most of the people most of the time.

I’m open to other suggestions.

But on topic: IF he believes what he’s saying, and moves to enact it, many millions of Americans are going to be in for a very bad time. And as usual, a very small number will take the increases in dividends and salaries, smile, and say ‘thank you.’

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

August 22nd, 2012
2:52 pm

Mr. Digits supports leaving officially un-Americans to die in the street?

Imagine a man who can’t support the least of his brethren?
He’s got an orchestra seat in Hades.

Welcome to the Occupation

August 22nd, 2012
2:53 pm

Mitt Romney’s entire campaign is basically waged on the premise that people 1) are too busy to understand the issues and/or too ignorant to understand them; or 2) don’t care and would rather vote based on other ephemeral issues like white resentment, etc.

It is a level of cynicism that suggests a virtually endless rottenness in the American political and ruling class.

Paul

August 22nd, 2012
2:53 pm

Normal

“And what gets me is that Ol’ Mitt is a Bishop in his church. I wonder how he sleeps at night.”

Point of correction: ‘bishop’ is analogous to minister or priest of a congregation. He was in charge of a diocese-level, about a dozen or so congregations organized into what is called a ’stake.’ His title while serving was stake president. He hasn’t served in that for years.

How can he sleep? Good question. But it shows me there is a heckuva lot more diversity in the views of LDS than many people assume. Some on the Right likely wonder how Harry Reid sleeps at night, too.

Jay

August 22nd, 2012
2:53 pm

jj, i bashed neither Romney nor Ryan. I criticized and explained their ideas, which to most minds is a very different thing.

As to MY idea:

Look, it has to be a grand bargain. We have to address Medicaid, Medicare, defense and everything else, including taxes. Given what is coming down the pike in the Baby Boom retirement era, it is sheer lunacy to be talking about cutting taxes further.

Taxes have to go up. Spending has to go down. Obama has indicated acceptance of those broad parameters; the Republicans have refused. Slashing Medicare and Medicaid while also slashing taxes is an absolute non-starter.

Ray

August 22nd, 2012
2:53 pm

I really don’t get at all how voucherizing Medicare, so seniors can go buy health insurance, will reduce costs. As Jay points out, private health ins. costs for those under age 65 have risen 113% over the last decade (I know mine has gone up an average of 20% per year, so 113% over ten years actually seems low). And obviously it would be even MORE expensive, not less, to insure the health of seniors over age 65 in the private market. So how on earth can Ryan, Romney, or anyone say with a straght face that moving Medicare to vouchers for private health insurance will lower costs? Total twilight zone stuff.

Fred ™

August 22nd, 2012
2:55 pm

Doggone/GA

August 22nd, 2012
2:47 pm

” People shouldn’t be on her if ‘female dog’ (in a humerus, non-mean way might I add) offends them”

And YOU are not more important that those who ARE offended. Better Jay lose one person from here (you) than all those who are offended. Number matter, after all.
+++++++++++++++++++

Almost EVERY thing someone writes or says can be found to be “offensive” by some idiot looking to be offended…………

It’s time common sense broke out on a National level.

Brosephus™

August 22nd, 2012
2:55 pm

Jay

Since that word can’t be used, can one use a link such as this???

http://jquiz.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/img_7958.jpg?w=468

Brosephus™

August 22nd, 2012
2:57 pm

Paul

I think Romney’s campaign is Joe Isuzu meets P.T. Barnum. :)

Nothing else can describe how this guy even passes 30% favorable.

Fred ™

August 22nd, 2012
2:58 pm

Brocephus: It depends on who uses the link. I had a post pulled that used a link that I stole from YOU and that YOU used (and still use).

Common Sense

August 22nd, 2012
2:58 pm

It is sheer lunacy not to expect each and every person who benefits from Medicare and Medicaid begin contributing an amount that reflects what their real expense may be in the future.

Otherwise, it’s just a transfer of wealth.

Butch Cassidy (I)

August 22nd, 2012
2:59 pm

Ray – “So how on earth can Ryan, Romney, or anyone say with a straght face that moving Medicare to vouchers for private health insurance will lower costs?”

Simple – The GOP party faithful will listen to Romney and Ryan and then for verification watch FOX news to be sure that what they heard was true. They will then walk into the voting booth like sheep and pull the RR lever. The DEM party faithful will do the same only they will listen to Obama, verify on MSNBC and then, like sheep, will walk into the voting booth and pull the OB lever. The independent voters will watch both sides, and then scratch their heads in amazement that ANYONE could possibly be taken in by the huge steaming piles of BS that both sides keep shoveling. :)

Paul

August 22nd, 2012
2:59 pm

“Oh cry me a river. People shouldn’t be on her if ‘female dog’ (in a humerus, non-mean way might I add) offends them.”

Let’s not generalize that conservatives seek to establish the lowest common denominator as the high bar to which they aspire, shall we?

Common Sense

August 22nd, 2012
3:00 pm

“Spending has to go down.”

The problem with this definition is that it means that spending is projected to not rise as fast as it was going to. But real spending does not go down.

Jay

August 22nd, 2012
3:00 pm

“It is sheer lunacy not to expect each and every person who benefits from Medicare and Medicaid begin contributing an amount that reflects what their real expense may be in the future.”

… which would seem to imply a tax hike, at least for those able to afford it, right?

Welcome to the Occupation

August 22nd, 2012
3:00 pm

Jay : “We have to address Medicaid, Medicare, defense and everything else, including taxes”

That’s where you’re wrong. After decades of relentless attack on the wages of 99% of the population, there is no need whatsoever to make the slightest cut in the safety net those people enjoy. The cut should come out of the hide of capital – for a change.

“Taxes have to go up”

That’s where you’re right. They have to go up. But on whom? That’s the question.

“Spending has to go down”

That’s where you go wrong again. Spending does not have to go down per se, it simply has to be redirected.

“Look, it has to be a grand bargain.”

In other words, there has to be a renewed social contract.

But there nothing in the world harder to imagine right now. The last one that was agreed on is 75-85 yrs old and, as I said, has been under attack for many decades. That social contract was also hammered out after decades of world war and depression, not to mention no small amount of radical agitation on the streets. There is next to none of that now to act as an engine for real change. As a consequence, capital is not going hear of even the slightest curtailment in its privileges, and thus, we will continue to move into ever more dangerous, troubled waters.

Doggone/GA

August 22nd, 2012
3:01 pm

“Almost EVERY thing someone writes or says can be found to be “offensive” by some idiot looking to be offended”

And did *I* say other wise? It’s Jay’s blog, HE sets the rules. No one is forced to post here and anyone who doesn’t like the rules doesn’t have to stay.

Brosephus™

August 22nd, 2012
3:02 pm

Fred

Really?? Wow.. I definitely had to miss that one.

Jay

August 22nd, 2012
3:02 pm

“The problem with this definition is that it means that spending is projected to not rise as fast as it was going to. But real spending does not go down.”

That is correct. But with the Baby Boomers retiring en masse, there’s no real way to avoid that.

Fred ™

August 22nd, 2012
3:03 pm

Taxes have to go up. Spending has to go down. Obama has indicated acceptance of those broad parameters; the Republicans have refused. Slashing Medicare and Medicaid while also slashing taxes is an absolute non-starter.

I always hate to quote Jay and agree because it makes one look like such a suck up, but how can anyone with a brain in their head refute what he wrote there?

Peadawg

August 22nd, 2012
3:03 pm

Peadawg

August 22nd, 2012
3:04 pm

“I always hate to quote Jay and agree because it makes one look like such a suck up, but how can anyone with a brain in their head refute what he wrote there?”

It’s hard to believe Jay when he whines about entitlement cuts like he did in the last topic.

Brosephus™

August 22nd, 2012
3:05 pm

The problem with this definition is that it means that spending is projected to not rise as fast as it was going to. But real spending does not go down.

And as long as population, prices, and needs rise, so will the costs. Rising gas prices, for example, will lead to a rise in spending for the government, even if not a single gallon more is used this year than was used last year. Depending on the increase, you could use less gas and still end up spending more.

The whole concept of cutting spending does not hold up when one does not consider ALL things that affect spending.

Paul

August 22nd, 2012
3:05 pm

Jay

“Taxes have to go up. Spending has to go down. Obama has indicated acceptance of those broad parameters; the Republicans have refused. Slashing Medicare and Medicaid while also slashing taxes is an absolute non-starter.”

Lawrence O’Donnell commentary last night: Bill Crystal, he of the Republican intelligensia, is attempting to move the party from its ‘no tax increases’ and ‘the wealthy need tax cuts because they’re job creators’ and ‘tax increases kill jobs’ philosophy.

He now thinks people in Romney’s financial universe should pay more taxes and he sees no economic ill effects from it.

http://tinyurl.com/9mqqebt

Joe Hussein Mama

August 22nd, 2012
3:05 pm

Fred — “I always hate to quote Jay and agree because it makes one look like such a suck up, but how can anyone with a brain in their head refute what he wrote there?”

RB’s still trying to argue it on the previous thread, but he’s returned to his old tricks of putting words in people’s mouths. So I don’t think he could actually refute it, but he might very well *act* like he can.

Thomas

August 22nd, 2012
3:05 pm

We have to address…..

comprehensive immigration reform as well. They are all intertwined.

Paul

August 22nd, 2012
3:06 pm

Okay, okay, dropped ‘t’ for all the folks who key in on the big issues.

Now just watch the video, okay?

Simple Truths

August 22nd, 2012
3:06 pm

Fred,

Because Obama is not accepting spending cuts. He wants to increase taxes and increase spending. they use a funny definition of cut where cut means “spend more than we are currently spending.”

Joe Hussein Mama

August 22nd, 2012
3:08 pm

S. Truths — “Because Obama is not accepting spending cuts. He wants to increase taxes and increase spending. they use a funny definition of cut where cut means “spend more than we are currently spending.”

I see that your name is not at all descriptive of your character.

Fred ™

August 22nd, 2012
3:09 pm

JHM and Peadawg: I was too late for the last topic, I’m on this one lol.

TaxPayer

August 22nd, 2012
3:16 pm

Given that Republicans don’t do math or science, we should not be surprised at their willingness to accept whatever magical mystery trash talk someone that they admire, such as Mitt, decides to trickle down on them. After all, Republicans actually believe in the Laffer Curve and the FairlyOddTax, amongst other fallacies.

Brosephus™

August 22nd, 2012
3:17 pm

Because Obama is not accepting spending cuts.

I would like to quote R. Lee Ermey from Full Metal Jacket, but I am afraid that I would seriously run afoul of our blog host. Therefore, I’ll simply…

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/3/33/Firstfacepalm.jpg

Common Sense

August 22nd, 2012
3:17 pm

” which would seem to imply a tax hike, at least for those able to afford it, right?”

Most everyone can afford it….despite your claims that they cannot. They can afford everything else, from Iphones to lottery tickets, after all.

Doggone/GA

August 22nd, 2012
3:20 pm

“I see that your name is not at all descriptive of your character”

Awww, give him a break…he just mistyped and left off the “un” by accident

Common Sense

August 22nd, 2012
3:21 pm

“That is correct. But with the Baby Boomers retiring en masse, there’s no real way to avoid that.”

Well, not the way you are willing to examine solutions.

Simple Truths

August 22nd, 2012
3:23 pm

Doggone/GA,

So, when you spend more money, that is a cut? Your math skills crack me up.

A cut is a simple concept. Until politicians get a hold of the term.

Rightwing Troll

August 22nd, 2012
3:23 pm

Flying is cheaper now, and customer service is better?

That’s the “free” market for you. Get ready to experience healthcare under romneyhood… a la carte and nothing is too small to incur extra, exorbitant, fees…

Get Real

August 22nd, 2012
3:23 pm

The NYTs…really

The Medicare battle should prove to be quite interesting now that Obama has to talk detail and not BS…that is of course if the liberal media demand it…the current system is not sustainable going forward without some type of “intervention”…what that intervention is and the “factual effects” of multiple options are what the American people need to hear….again, should be interesting

Jay

August 22nd, 2012
3:24 pm

“Most everyone can afford it….despite your claims that they cannot. They can afford everything else, from Iphones to lottery tickets, after all.

And dressage horses. You left that off the list.

Doggone/GA

August 22nd, 2012
3:24 pm

“So, when you spend more money, that is a cut?”

Yes, if you are spending less than you anticipated. Sorry, bud, that’s how it works in government. If you don’t like it…you’re WAY out of luck

ragnar danneskjold

August 22nd, 2012
3:24 pm

Minor correction, ObamaCare has already cut the $716 billion from Medicare, funds used to make ObamaCare misleadingly-appear to less expensive. The core flaw in ObamaCare, and in our host’s essay, is the assumption that people will provide services not paid for. That sounds wonderful in leftist theory, but as with all leftism, does not work in the real world.

Verbal Kint

August 22nd, 2012
3:25 pm

Jay, Taxpayer, and others:

I’d be interested to know your thoughts on this article:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_22.htm

Doggone/GA

August 22nd, 2012
3:25 pm

” funds used to make ObamaCare misleadingly-appear to less expensive.”

When you have to lie to make your “point”…you have no point

CJ

August 22nd, 2012
3:26 pm

Jay: “As to MY idea: Look, it has to be a grand bargain.

Coming at you from the left, Jay, I’m not sure that a grand bargain–Medicare benefit cuts plus tax hikes–is necessary. Rising Medicare costs are the symptom…not the problem. The real problem is that, relative to GDP, health care in America costs about twice as much as it does in other industrialized countries. Adding insult to injury, those countries are able to provide universal coverage while we leave millions uninsured.

So the solution isn’t to address the symptom by cutting Medicare benefits. The solution has to address the cause by reducing the cost of health care in this country. Obamacare was a good start, but we still have more to do.

Here’s how the Congressional Progressive Caucus proposes to balance the budget within ten years (yes, Democrats do have a plan): http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget/

Mike

August 22nd, 2012
3:26 pm

Its really very simple. President Obama cut the WASTE and over payments to providers. The Romneyhood/Ryan plan cuts peoples benefits.

Every Fact check site in existence shows this to be true.

This is classic George Orwell by way of Karl Rove. Up is down, black is white, Republicans will save Medicare while Democrats, who invented it and who have fought to sustain it at all costs, want to suddenly destroy it.

The savings will add another 8-10 years of solvency to Medicare without touching benefits. BTW…Medicare Advantage premiums are down and enrollment is up, according to HHS — hardly indicative of a plan that’s suffering due to the ACA. Also, In total so far, 5.2 million Medicare recipients have saved $4 billion on prescription drugs alone because of the dreaded Obamacare legislation. That’s $629 per person — money they would have otherwise had to pay out their own pockets.

Simple Truths

August 22nd, 2012
3:26 pm

Doggone, just because the government does it that way, doesn’t mean it’s true.

Adam

August 22nd, 2012
3:26 pm

The GOP really should just take the money. As in, they should realize they’ve already won by getting us to talk about cutting spending on BOTH sides of the aisle and stop pushing for more tax breaks and “never ever raise taxes ever” mantra.

Doggone/GA

August 22nd, 2012
3:28 pm

“Doggone, just because the government does it that way, doesn’t mean it’s true”

Ummm….want to rephrase that? How can it NOT be “true” if they are DOING THAT?

Common Sense

August 22nd, 2012
3:29 pm

So in a society where Apple Iphones are more common than health care coverage, and monthly bills range for 50 to 100 dollars, you expect someone to subsidize the health care for these same people.

Do we need to also subsidize the health care for those attending all those SEC games and NFL games and so on?

You want to paint is an image that there are no optional expenses that can be cut so that people can pay for the health care coverage you feel is so critical?

You are enabling the problem by not allowing individuals to decide what it is they need to pay for. And you expect a minority of the population to foot the bill.

Misty Fyed

August 22nd, 2012
3:30 pm

What an entirely unfair characterization of Romney’s plan…You see… we have to pass it first to really know what it says. There is no way Jay can know anything about this plan yet. That’s the democrat way… right? I mean why start paying attention to what a plan actually says before it is passed now?

Common Sense

August 22nd, 2012
3:30 pm

Sorry Doggone, just because you allow the language to be twisted does not mean the rest of us must accept it.

Misty Fyed

August 22nd, 2012
3:31 pm

Be careful Common Sense….You’ll make their heads explode. It’s like antimatter mixing with matter.

Common Sense

August 22nd, 2012
3:32 pm

“And dressage horses. You left that off the list.”

I didn’t see the Romneys stating they could not afford their health care coverage. That is who you are referring to, right?

Can you cite a source for us?

CJ

August 22nd, 2012
3:32 pm

we have to pass it first to really know what it says.

Misty,

I recommend that you go back and look at the Nancy Pelosi’s exact words. She didn’t say what you think she said.

Joe Hussein Mama

August 22nd, 2012
3:32 pm

S. Truths — “Doggone, just because the government does it that way, doesn’t mean it’s true.”

Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it false.

Adam

August 22nd, 2012
3:32 pm

That’s the democrat way… right?

Actually, no. That’s a complete misrepresentation of a point that Nancy Pelosi made ONCE, in which she said YOU wouldn’t know all of what was in it until it passes.

kitty

August 22nd, 2012
3:33 pm

The GOP’s real plan is for those who can’t afford medical care to just go and die…like I said earlier…SURVIVAL OF THE RICHEST. The next person that says this is a christian country I may just slap silly.

Adam

August 22nd, 2012
3:34 pm

Which, by the way, was because of media misrepresentation over the MONTHS the health care law was debated. Had the media done their jobs on a FACTUAL basis instead of through controversy juiciness, you and everyone else would have known WAY AHEAD OF TIME what the mandate was actually about, as well as several other SETTLED parts of the law BEFORE it passed.

Misty Fyed

August 22nd, 2012
3:34 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

CJ…Maybe you need to see what she actually said.

Soothsayer

August 22nd, 2012
3:34 pm

Paul

August 22nd, 2012
3:34 pm

Verbal Kint

Just glancing thru, it takes a route to make its point. For instance, it talks about taxes to redistribute income (that should be a red flag for anyone, no matter what their philosophy,). It aggregates amounts for a group and compares to total revenue rather than examining the changes in law designed to benefit that group. It tries to justify keeping rates for one group low because another group’s rates are lower.

So I didn’t think much of it as a basis for public policy. But it is consistent with it’s organizational philosophy and goals.

Simple Truths

August 22nd, 2012
3:35 pm

Doggone,

You may call spending greater amounts of money, albeit at a reduced growth rate, a cut. People outside of Washington and outside your fantasy world don’t consider that a cut.

Misty Fyed

August 22nd, 2012
3:35 pm

Revisionists….That’s what the Republican’s lack… That don’t have the spin factor down quite the way the dems do.

Brosephus™

August 22nd, 2012
3:36 pm

You see… we have to pass it first to really know what it says. There is no way Jay can know anything about this plan yet.

I guess you missed the link in Jay’s essay that goes straight to Mitt Romney’s campaign site. If you pass an empty plan, it’s still empty. Romney’s plan isn’t 2000 plus pages. It can pretty much be summarized in a paragraph.

nelson

August 22nd, 2012
3:36 pm

A young boy stopped while I was working in my yard. We chatted and I asked him what he wanted to do when he grew up. He replied,” I want to be President of the United States and give all the poor and homeless new houses.” His parents both liberal democrats beamed with pride.”
I replied, “You do not have to wait to be president to do that, come over and work in my yard and I will give you $50.00 and you can go down and hand it to the homeless guy standing on the corner and he can put it towards a new home”.
The little boy replied, why doesn’t he come over and work himself?”
I replied, “WELCOME TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.”

TaxPayer

August 22nd, 2012
3:36 pm

The Manhattan Institute received $19,470,416 in grants from 1985–2005, from foundations such as the Koch Family Foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, and the Smith Richardson Foundation.[5] The Manhattan Institute does not disclose its corporate funding, but the Capital Research Center listed its contributors as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exxon Mobil, Chase Manhattan, CIGNA, Sprint, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group Foundation, and Merrill Lynch.[6]

Let me guess, they’re non-partisan.

Simple Truths

August 22nd, 2012
3:37 pm

“And dressage horses. You left that off the list.”

Might as well add flights to New York City for dinner and a Broadway show to the list.

CJ

August 22nd, 2012
3:37 pm

Exactly Misty. As Adam correctly pointed out, she said, “We have to pass the bill so that YOU can find out what is in it.”