President Johnson signs Medicare in to law

The Republicans have shot themselves in the foot right out of the gate.  Why has the debate gone to the discussion of Medicare?  Americans love their Medicare.  My own grandmother threatened to “slit my throat” over it  (still not sure why).  1946 is the first year of the baby boomer.  Guess what happened in 2011?  The first babyboomers “came of age”–they became 65 and eligible for Medicare.

Thinkprogress.org warns us about Ryan:

Ryan wants to end Medicare, replace it with a voucher system. Ryan’s latest budget transforms the existing version of Medicare, in which government provides seniors with a guaranteed benefit, into a “premium support” system. All future retirees would receive a government contribution to purchase insurance from an exchange of private plans or traditional fee-for-service Medicare. But since the premium support voucher does not keep up with increasing health care costs, the Congressional Budget Offices estimates that new beneficiaries could pay up to $1,200 more by 2030 and more than $5,900 more by 2050. A recent study also found that had the plan been implemented in 2009, 24 million beneficiares enrolled in the program would have paid higher premiums to maintain their choice of plan and doctors. Ryan would also raise Medicare’s age of eligibility to 67.

That doesn’t sound like something anyone near retirement would want.   I have never heard anyone on Medicare say they didn’t like it.  Why would they vote for someone who promised to take it away?  They won’t if they are the least bit informed.

Should Team Romney/Ryan not even bother with Florida?  It sounds like that is a done deal.  To quote Joe Biden, a BFD!  Should Medicare dominate 2012 rlection?  Its pretty much a BFD, for sure.

 

20 Thoughts to “Why Medicare?”

  1. “Why has the debate gone to the discussion of Medicare?”

    Because its the hammer that the Democrats and Media (but I repeat myself) use to attack the GOP. They do that because THEY have no idea how to reform it. You do realize that Obama cut even MORE money from Medicare to pay for ACR than Ryan does from his budget, right?

    Ryan doesn’t take it away. His plan leaves it in place and offers ALTERNATIVES.
    Medicare, Medicaid, and a few other entitlements are using 100% of the budget income. ALL other budget matters are being funded with borrowed money. What can’t be sustained forever, won’t be. This should have been reformed back in the early 80’s but everyone then panicked too when the Democrats screamed about grandma being left to die.

    1. Obama did not alter the face of Medicare as we know it. The Ryan plan does. Throwing in a voucher system complicates a system that is already somewhat difficult to naviagate through.

      The current Medicare savings is achieved through reduced provider reimbursements and curbed waste, fraud and abuse, not benefit cuts. They are in the House Republicans’ FY 2013 budget, which Ryan authored. So they must not hate it so much.

      My point is not to debate Medicare point by point. I can’t. Its far too complicated. My point is why choose one of the most popular programs in the history of this country to threaten? It shows how out of touch with the average American Team Romney really is. I can’t think of a national program more people love than Medicare. (Lots of kids have grown up loving Sesame Street and you dudes want to defuend PBS also–but that’s another story for another day)

      I find it horribly offensive to even slide medicaid in next to Medicare. The American worker has paid into Medicare for decades. Medicare is now 47 years old. Additionally, Americans continue to pay in to coverage. There’s no real free lunch for most of us. Romney/Ryan talk insults those of us who paid into the system and who are still paying into the system. Most importantly, it rattles people confidence. Why would Team Romney think anyone near retirement age would vote for them?

      There are all sorts of ways to fix Medicare. Turning it in to a voucher system isn’t one of them because older Americans won’t elect someone who is going to do that.

  2. Because Medicare is so huge. Its grown way beyond sustainability. The Ryan plan affects no one under the age of 55. It stays the same for them.

    Cutting reimbursements is supposed to be better. Ok. How many benefits can you use when doctors stop taking Medicare? That’s what’s happening.

    1. Let’s drag out that old fear factor. You can get insurance to protect you that happening, I understand. (gap policy)

      READ MY LIPS

      I don’t want to debate Medicare. Neither your or I probably know enough about the finer tuned part to even get started. The point I am still trying to make is…why would Romeny pull in a running mate who wants to crater Medicare as we know it? How can that be a winning ticket? The largest block of people in the history of this country are coming of age as senior citizens.

      What idiot is going to go out and vote to do away with medicare as they know it? The youngest baby boomer is 48 years old if we accept that the baby boomer years are 1946-1964.

      You are getting a small window of opportunity there.

      I would just go after something else if I wanted to get elected. I would rein in Wall Street or something that appeals to people.

  3. Formerly Anonymous

    I am coming back at least through the election to lend what support I can to the Romney/Ryan ticket. For those who remember me, I am a fiscal hawk. I like much of Ryan’s plan but there are certainly elements of it that I don’t like. However, the main reason for my support of Romney/Ryan is that the election has now essentially become a proxy referendum on large scale deficit reduction. This issue is simply dwarfs every other political issue out there.

    Why Medicare? Because it is a very large component of the budget (21% for Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP) and is growing much faster than the CPI (chained or core) or even Federal spending overall. Medicare already spends more than it takes in, a situation that is only getting worse as the Baby Boomers retire. Notice the Ryan plan doesn’t do anything to Social Security. Because SS is (more or less) solvent for a few more decades. Medicare isn’t, which means it is taking money out of the General Fund budget.

    Is Paul Ryan’s plan perfect? No. But it is a good plan and could be a starting point for a better plan. If the Senate would have taken the bill up, we could have gotten a real debate going. If we had a large scale deficit reduction bill based the House GOP plan, tempered by the Senate Democrats, we could start to fix our financial mess. Instead, the bill was shelved with no alternative bill produced.

    The country has kicked this fiscal can too far down the road already. (It should have been dealt with in the early 2000s.) Ignoring it is not an option any longer. One of these days, the economy will get moving again and interest rates will pick up again. Our budget mess is bad enough already without the cost of servicing debt doubling or tripling by 2020.

    Pick one of the three plans that are out there: Simpson-Bowles, Super Committee or Ryan’s plan and work from it. Anybody who just demagogues and points out negatives in a plan instead of offering constructive alternatives is just trying to kick the can further down the road. You want keep Medicare in its present form? Fine. Name, specifically, where you are going to come up with the $700 billion to restore the cuts already in place? Note, that’s $700 billion in new cuts or taxes just to maintain the current baseline. If you want to actually reduce the deficit you’ll need to come up with more.

    Federal spending will be reduced by trillions of dollars over the next ten years. That’s an absolute fact. We still have some time to come up with a plan that allows us to have some control over how we control spending to minimize the impact. But if we don’t get our act together soon, the markets will solve our problem for us. For those of you old enough to remember the 60s, I’ll paraphrase. “What if they held a bond auction and nobody came?” It’s a little farfetched today, but if we wait a few more years, it could happen.

    1. SEveral people on here would really like this post. Unfortunately, for whatever ereason, it ended up in the spam filter. I fortunately found it before I emptied the spam.

      If your remarks don’t post within say 3 hour, email us. Let us know you aren’t going through. If we don’t answer, email again. I am lame about checking the web email. Email me personally if you have that email address.

  4. Formerly Anonymous

    I am coming back at least through the election to lend what support I can to the cause of trying to fix our budget mess. For those who remember me, I am a fiscal hawk. I like much of Ryan’s plan but there are certainly elements of it that I don’t like. However, the main reason for my support of Ryan is that the election has now, for better or worse, essentially become a proxy referendum on large scale deficit reduction. This issue is simply dwarfs every other political issue out there in terms of importance. If you don’t think so, quite frankly, then you don’t understand the severity of our fiscal crisis.

    Why Medicare? Because it is a very large component of the budget (21% for Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP) and is growing much faster than the CPI (chained or core) or even Federal spending overall. Medicare already spends more than it takes in, a situation that is only getting worse as the Baby Boomers retire. Notice the Ryan plan doesn’t do anything to Social Security. Because SS is (more or less) solvent for a few more decades. Medicare isn’t, which means it is taking money out of the General Fund budget.

    Is Paul Ryan’s plan perfect? No. But it is a good plan and could be a starting point for a better plan. If the Senate would have taken the bill up, we could have gotten a real debate going. If we had a large scale deficit reduction bill based the House GOP plan, tempered by the Senate Democrats, we could start to fix our financial mess. Instead, the bill was shelved with no alternative bill produced.

    The country has kicked this fiscal can too far down the road already. (It should have been dealt with in the early 2000s.) Ignoring it is not an option any longer. One of these days, the economy will get moving again and interest rates will pick up again. Our budget mess is bad enough already without the cost of servicing debt doubling or tripling by 2020.

    Pick one of the three plans that are out there: Simpson-Bowles, Super Committee or Ryan’s plan and work from it. Anybody who just demagogues and points out negatives in a plan instead of offering constructive alternatives is just trying to kick the can further down the road. You want keep Medicare in its present form? Fine. Name, specifically, where you are going to come up with the $700 billion to restore the cuts already in place? Note, that’s $700 billion in new cuts or taxes just to maintain the current baseline. If you want to actually reduce the deficit you’ll need to come up with more.

    Federal spending will be reduced by trillions of dollars over the next ten years. That’s an absolute fact. We still have some time to come up with a plan that allows us to have some control over how we control spending to minimize the impact. But if we don’t get our act together soon, the markets will solve our problem for us. For those of you old enough to remember the 60s, I’ll paraphrase. “What if they held a bond auction and nobody came?”

  5. Romney pulled a running mate with ideas. One of those concerns Medicare, which needs to be reformed so that it can be sustained.

    Either Americans want to discuss serious matters, like the budget or they want the gov’t status quo. Republicans want to reform the budget, reduce spending, bring down the deficit and the debt. We cannot continue as we are. THAT’s why Ryan was picked. He has ideas about the budget and has the courage to present them. I don’t want a political coward running for office. We’ve had enough of them in office.

    1. SOME Republicans.
      @Cargo

      So do SOME Democrats. Please don’t act like Republicans have the edge on wanting to fix the countries economic woes. They do not. I will call foul on that one. If Republicans really wanted to do all the things you said they would have worked on them instead of trying to come up with ideas to restrict reproductive rights for for women.

      Both R and D need to get in there and start compromising and coming up with something other than some of the crap they have been focused on.

      Are you more pleased having a make over running for office?

      Paul Ryan seems genuine to me but the Medicare issue is just not the way to go. That one will go down in a blaze of glory. The political reality is, there are simply too many baby boomers.

      but again, please don’t even pretend to take the moral high road as far as being the only people who care about fixing the finances of this country.

      I am still looking at a deficit from this time last year in my own personal portfolio.

  6. SlowpokeRodriguez

    The left is going to get more and more desperate to find something to be critical of since Ryan is a popular pick and Biden jams his foot down his throat again and again

    1. yes slow, they are so desparate they are smiling all over themselves over this pick.

      I will say this for Ryan, at least he isn’t embarrassing like someone else I am thinking of. I may disagree greatly with his policies. Yes, I do think he is an extremist…very much so regarding some issues that are pretty important to me, but I don’t feel like he is a fool. (so far)

  7. @Moon-howler
    You are absolutely right. SOME Republicans. The others act like the Democrats. SOME Democrats? Which one would that be? 😉 What plans have the Democrats put forth to reform spending? Who in that party has the moral high ground in fixing our finances? Really, please tell me. I’ll applaud them too, but they haven’t made the news or presented a budget. At least the GOP has a few that are attempting to fix the finances and economy.

    The only people wanting actual cuts in spending is the TEA Party. Ryan’s budget does not do that. He’s not a TEA Partier, though he is popular with them.

    What kind of compromise do you envision? I’m really interested. Because I can’t see any compromise that would both reduce our budget problems and be enacted. The GOP is scared to cut and the Democrats don’t want to cut. Congress is addicted to spending and they don’t care what happens.

    Medicare is being trumpeted because Ryan is one of the few that presented a plan for reform. All the others have their heads buried in the sand, hoping that math doesn’t actually work. Its being highlighted because the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) feel that the GOP now is a target. If they can bloviate about Ryan killing grandma, then they don’t have to talk about the millions unemployed, their lack of a plan to save Medicare, the recession, etc.

    1. @Cargo

      Just keep playing with the medicare. See where that gets you.

      Stop spending is just a bumper sticker–that’s it. every time I see it I am going to say stop spending what?

      Quit protecting the rich. there is no reason that they should be on the same tax level that I am. $250k too low? There’s a good place for compromise…compromise on a cap.

      Social security troubles? raise that ceiling. Make it flat rather than a rate. Its still better than nothing. Keep all hands out of it other than the kids with dead parents. Create a separate fund for the disabled that isn’t part of FICA. Cut out some of the choices for people to pick a spouse.

      There’s a place to start compromise. The teaparty is all or nothing. Plus they have a social agenda. People that can’t compromise are irrelevant.

  8. SlowpokeRodriguez

    Moon-howler :
    yes slow, they are so desparate they are smiling all over themselves over this pick.

    Yeah, I see the smiles, too!

  9. Medicare is going to go broke by 2020, if its not reformed.

    Protecting the rich? So..the top 20% pays 94% of the taxes already, the top 1% pays over 30%. How much more do you want them taxed and for what purpose? Confiscating the entirety of their wealth doesn’t even clear this year’s deficit.

    Social Sec…that’s some good ideas.

    People that can’t compromise are irrelevant. I’m glad that we agree about the current Senate Democrats. The TEA Party wants THE OTHER SIDE to compromise for once. Until recently, compromise was what Republicans were supposed to do. Let’s have the Democrats compromise.

    Stop spending is a bumper sticker slogan? Really? So, you advocate that we should just increase spending every year? You’re happy with 1.2 trillion dollar deficits? Nothing should be cut? Just cuts in the rate of increase?

    Let’s see a budget from the Senate so that the Senate and House can work something out. Unfortunately, the Senate refuses to write a budget. They’re afraid of compromise.

    For one thing…stop bailing out industries and banks. Two, put everything on the table, SS, Medicare, medicaid, military, etc. No more protected categories. Three, get rid of departments that we don’t need, like Education, Energy, etc. Four, cut corporate subsidies. Five, cut mandates like the ethanol mandate. Six, deregulate and reform the regulatory agencies. Seven, reform the tax code to a flat tax. Work on repealing the income tax. Eight, Audit the Fed and the various departments. Combine redundant programs. Nine, repeal ACR and save 900 billion.

    Of course, the Fed, once the GOP takes office, will stop the easy money. Interest rates will rise. This will be blamed on the GOP. But its necessary. Inflation is here. I don’t believe the inflation rate as shown by the gov’t and believe that real GDP is negative and that we’re in a depression.

    1. Cargo said:

      Stop spending is a bumper sticker slogan? Really? So, you advocate that we should just increase spending every year? You’re happy with 1.2 trillion dollar deficits? Nothing should be cut? Just cuts in the rate of increase?

      Now that just pisses me off. You know I didn’t say that. Why would you try to do that? You just won the prize for why I efen hate Republicans. I hate THAT! Stop spending says absolutely nothing. It isn’t a solution. It is a bumper sticker.

      I won’t even participate in this.

  10. @Moon-howler
    YOU SAID IT. I REPLIED.
    “Stop spending is just a bumper sticker–that’s it. every time I see it I am going to say stop spending what? ” What ELSE could you mean? If I’m wrong, tell me what you would cut spending on.

    YOU inferred that the idea of stopping spending was idiotic. So what’s the alternative? You denigrated the idea so I gave it back to you as a question AND some ideas.

    So, if you don’t support MORE spending, you obviously want to STOP spending. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. Put some ideas out instead of denigrating those that are trying to do something about it.

  11. Ray Beverage

    Moon, your right about Medicare…it has so many pieces to it, it makes it difficult for the average person to understand it. So does the “Old Age, Survivors & Disability Insurance Program” aka the Social Security Act of 1935.

    I call that Act the “spider web bill” as it has so many connections to so many other programs (to include Medicare) tied into it, I don’t think there is a person on this planet who can figure it out. The only simple thing about Medicare and Social Security is the payroll deductions out of someone’s check!

    Your points on reform is spot on as some of the cost to see a specialist I consider to be out of control. Need to see an Endocrinologist? He or she is happy to you and bills your 10 or 15 minutes at the rate of $500. Why? because of all the reforms happening, not fixing the issue of tort reform nor cost of education. But I digress….

    Medicare is about to get another “whammy” in terms of things….over in the land of Retired Military, the move is afoot that once turning 65, the Tricare for Life program becomes the secondary insurance payer. Several of the programs that were designed as Managed Care Organizations are ending shifting those over 65 to this setup, and younger than 65…well, stick around and watch what happens with the Tricare premiums. The military for those on Tricare for Life have already tweaked the Drug Formulary where you are paying more copay.

    I have a saying: as Medicare goes, so goes Tricare. What you see in the most loved, largest government medical insurance program (Medicare) is going to happen within Tricare. Why? Because Tricare for Life is actually under the Veterans Administration which is also bundled in the Department of Defense budget – the V.A. is NOT a seperate budget away from DoD – and the V.A. is a broken system, going broke.

    Ryan’s proposal had some sound ideas BUT you have to take each one of his paragraphs in that bill, and apply it to the “spider web” – and it is going to hurt anyway you look at it.

    1. @Ray, exactly, re-Ryans proposal.

      I don’t understand how the military health care works well enough to comment. I know that retired military is a lot cheaper than what I had to pay when I retired from my job. I just had to pay out of pocket. Full cost. When I have talked to Moe and George about it, it sounds like they are living the good life. On the other than, retired military can’t just be stuck in Medicare if they haven’t been paying in to it.

      Of course, we are talking like Ryan is running for Prez rather than VP. That doesn’t say much about the Romney plan. I just wouldn’t dangle Medicare out there if I wanted to win an election. Strategically its just not smart. There are a million other ways to reform government. One of the things a smart person would do is take a good look at the ACA and reform it. The binary thinking drives me nuts. Why must it be all or nothing?

      There is also lots of room for reform with social security without messing with the main event. One example that blew me away was that spouses could claim half of their spouses payment and defer taking their own. Cut out some of that. Also you can shop around and go with the spouse who made the most money to glom on to. Now that is understandable for long marriages but how long can you go back? If you were married to Joe Johnson in 1960 for 5 years, then married Tom Thomas for 45 years, meanwhile Johnson became a millionarie…I don’t think Johnson should be touchable. On the other hand, a woman could be married to a man for 40 years, he could drop dead, she would get the widow ss. If she remarries, she loses the widow ss. That makes no sense.

      Meanwhile, up the ceiling on FICA…not as a rate but a flat payment based on the top rate now. Now increase with salary. That would do a lot to fix ss. give employers some sort of break on it so it isn’t killing them.

  12. Ray Beverage

    For retired military living “the good life” as you said, well, that all depends on what rank you retired at, when you retired, and what you did afterward. But for fun one day, I looked at my retired check and wondered at what percent – if I had no other personal or household income – I would be above the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).

    Master Sergeant (E-8) retired February 1998 with 23 years of service = 180% above the FPL. Puts me just out of the window for certain Federal programs like Medicaid, and in the window for other programs. Key to doing well is moving on and not just relying on the Military Benefits.

    Now, can they be stuck in Medicare? Yes they can. I and all the “Brothers in Arms” paid into that with every check. The military is not exempt from SS and FICA taxes.

    The “spider web” comes back into play because by Federal Code, “former members of the military” – meaning retired and those who served and just got out – are connected to other programs. It is a complicated history going all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt in 1903 trying to fix the pensions for Civil War Veterans. The solution was to label these elderly Veterans as “disabled”….and years later, FDR picked up his relation’s prior work and incorporated part of that in 1935.

    As for the Romney Plan, well I lay odds the same gent at MIT that created the MA one for him – and the same guy who had a play in the ACA until the politicians stuck their fingers into it – is probably going to be pulled back in. I am waiting to see if a hybrid is going to come out of Romney-Ryan Team.

    Your comment on SS and spouses – part of that bit about remarrying is a left over of the “place of women” (please pardon the phrase, couldn’t think of any other) where in the law, there still is the remnant where a woman once remarried and not working would have to rely on survivor benefit once more when new husband dies. That is the only real explanation I have ever heard from anyone as to why it is. Similar to the way the Military Spouse, if he/she had 10 years and 1 day of marriage to the Service Member, and they divorce. The spouse is then entitled to 50% of the Member’s retired pay…but in this case, if he/she remarries, the payments can continue.

    My mother never remarried after my father died in 1973, and never dated or anything as she always said there would never be a man to replace him. She receives both a payment related to his retirement and also draws her SS based on his years because his payment was longer, and the amount is higher. My mother was a bookkeeper and worked until she was 62 – retired because they were bringing computers into the job and she was not going to learn them back in ’84. That choice of his rate or her rate for SS is another one of those things in the law.

    Bottom line is there is reform needed all around….just scares the hell out of folks because you have to look at each and every piece, follow the lines to how it is connected to others and to the “core” acts.

Comments are closed.