Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan kept getting tripped up in their attacks on Barack Obama’s “$716 billion in Medicare cuts” by the inconvenient fact that Ryan included the same cuts in his budget. So after a fruitless week, Romney and Ryan came up with a new plan: to explicitly disavow those Medicare cuts.
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Mitt Romney on Wednesday unequivocally rejected more than $700 billion in Medicare spending cuts proposed by his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
In an interview on “CBS This Morning,” Romney was asked how he squared his running mate’s plan to cut spending on the popular health care program for the elderly with his criticism of President Barack Obama for making the same reductions.
“First of all, Congressman Ryan has joined my campaign, and his campaign is my campaign now, and we’re on exactly the same page,” Romney said in response to anchor Anthony Mason’s question. “And my campaign has made it very clear: The president’s cuts of $716 billion to Medicare — those cuts are to be restored if I become president and Paul Ryan becomes vice president.”
This is part and parcel with repealing the Affordable Care Act, where these cuts were located.
By the way, before I keep saying cuts, I should define terms. We’re talking about about 1/3 a reduction in the growth of hospital reimbursement rates, 1/3 a reduction in overpayments to the wasteful Medicare Advantage private insurance program, and 1/3 in reductions to things like Medicare Disproportionate Share Payments (for hospitals that accept more uninsured patients, which in theory there will be less of under the ACA) or cuts to payments to home health care providers. No Medicare benefits are cut under the law. You can make the argument that quality may suffer from the reduction in reimbursement, but since this just slows the growth rather than cuts, and since hospitals entered into the agreement voluntarily, it’s unlikely to have a significant effect.
This is why Paul Ryan kept these cuts in his budget, because they made sense on policy grounds. But Republicans have been successful in making them politically toxic. So now, even Ryan had to attack the cuts that he signed onto just a few months ago:
Perhaps unwilling to fully embrace Romney’s attacks on the cuts themselves, Ryan parsed his words carefully — he only referred to them in the context of using the funds to finance the Affordable Care Act. But by claiming in Ohio that the cuts will hurt services to seniors, which the White House strongly denies, Ryan essentially accused himself of doing the same thing twice in his own budgets.
“The president’s campaign says this raid of Medicare to pay for Obamacare, which leads to fewer services for current seniors, is an achievement,” Ryan said. “Do you think raiding Medicare to pay for Obamacare is an achievement? Well, neither do I.”
The President actually punched back against this yesterday, saying that Romney and Ryan “want to turn Medicare into a voucher program,” and added:
My plan has already extended Medicare by a decade. Their plan ends Medicare as we know it. My plan reduces the cost of Medicare by cracking down fraud, and waste, and subsidies to insurance companies. Their plan makes seniors pay more so they can give another tax cut to millionaires and billionaires.
Vice President Biden essentially said the same thing yesterday, and hinted closer at a bright line on Medicare. After describing the Romney-Ryan voucher program, he said “We see an America where Social Security is protected, where Medicaid is available to distressed people and where Medicare fulfills its original mission.” Now, that’s not a guarantee of much of anything, but it inches closer. The only positive that can come out of this insistent talk on deficits and social insurance is if it forces the Obama-Biden ticket into a corner where they must defend the programs and vow not to cut benefits for them. We’re taking baby steps in that direction every day.




12 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Of course he will. After he restores the cuts he will have more money for his voucher plan. And we all know who will profit from the extra money in his voucher plan. If you think I am talking about HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY, you are right. I can just see it now, insurance will cost seniors $15,000 and the voucher will be for $5,000 a year. Who knows what private insurance will cover particularly when their lobbyists do their work.
Next up cutting Medicaid, that will be great for seniors when they are thrown out of nursing homes because there is no money to pay for the care. Just think, the nursing home’s will have to file for bankruptcy because there will be no patients to care for.
Way to go!!!
David- Democrats of course have their own problems here— they denied that there were any cuts of any kind to Medicare during the hc debate and throughout the 2010 election cycle.
For better or for worse, both sides (frankly Dems more than Rs) have demonized the other side by calling a slowing in the rate of growth as a “cut”.
On the Medicare spending issue, Democrats are far more guilty of hypocrisy on the cut issue over the last few years… and I would expect to start seeing some ads attempting to exploit this if the issue continues.
As you remember the politics of the hc debate– the general approach of stakeholders was to ‘be at the table or on the menu’ — and leadership of trade organizations (think AARP, e.g. which stands to make billions in new Medigap policies with MA cuts) were frantically cutting deals that did not reflect the wishes of many members. The AHA was certainly no exception.
Polls universally show that younger voters seriously doubt that Medicare and social security will be there for them.
I, for one, think that attempting to shamelessly pander with promises of no changes has a high probability of backfiring at the polls… not to the level of a complete swing, but enough to make an impact in the election.
Yes election promises: Let’s sample some past promises.
Single Payer
Close Guantanamo
Open and Transparent Administration
Compassionate Conservative
Small Government
Oh they are so believable. The makers of these promises so trustworthy.
All this means is they will cut SS & medicare is some back door bipartisanly manner. We can’t have the 1% forced to repay its gains from “lower taxes” with transfers from the “higher social security taxes”
distrust fund.Maybe I’m just totally naive but it would seem to me that one should be on the same page as ones running mate.
Just saying
Why how Old School of you! Showing your age today, are we?? /s
All bets are off, especially for those who self-label as “Republicans.” You might recall the inglorious
basterdsduo of McCain/Palin in 2008. Not much agreement between those 2 either. I do recall Tundra Trash Cougar going off the reservation numerous times, much to the conserternation of Grandpa What’s-his-name.RMoney/Granny-Starver are just the next chapter in this Kabuki Show. Might as well pass the popcorn, as it really don’t mean shit anyway. The 1%’ll have their way with the 99%, per usual, no matter who is play-acting the part of POTUS.
The big thrust of a Romney administration would be selling and enacting the privatization of Social Security, so the bankster gamblers can get their hands on a big chunk of real assets.
Hey Willard you picked PAUL RYAN as your running mate. PAUL fricking RYAN. Don’t even try to claim anything other than the fact that PAUL RYAN is your VP pick you CLOWN.
If we don’t reform Medicare it’ll go bankrupt soon, so reform will happen one way or another. . . Ryan’s plan says if you are 55 or older Medicare stays the same, no change in benefits for you. People under 55 years old, will have to choose between staying on the new reformed Medicare plan at age 67 instead of 65 plus most likely other changes, or choose one of the 3 private insurance plans, the Federal Government will give you a voucher that will cover the cost of the middle plan. You can choose any of the 3 plans, or just stay on the New Reformed Medicare plan. If you choose the cheapest plan, you can pocket the extra cash, if you choose the most expensive plan you have to pay the extra amount out of your pocket.
The problem I see with this plan is that it probably won’t save enough money to fund Medicare for much more than a few extra years, but the Democrats are not stepping forward with a plan of their own, other than leave medicare as is, and watch it go bankrupt.
I’d like to see an increase in immigration to get more workers paying into medicare and SS so these programs can continue for 50 years, but we need more workers paying in than the 3/1 ratio we now have, an 10/1 ratio would allow medicare and SS to be funded for the next 50 years.
Willard and Petey wil lie about anthing to get elected.
O needs to put in terms so Joe Sixpack can understand. The issue is like insulating one’s house to lower the heating/electric bill. Spending money in one place to lower your cost in another.
For any changes to be made to peoples national health insurance and national retirement annuity programs there must be several Democratic member of Congress involved . Publicizing in their locals what Democratic members have such plans would prevent any changes .
Medicare does not need reforming . It is solvent until 2029 and so is Social Security under the present economic conditions . If the economy improves by gaining more self employed and more workers then the solvent date will extend even farther in to the future . You can Google this information .
This is a dangerous argument to make that actually threatens the social safety net by advancing it – I say there because there has been an attempt to change the COLA where the exact same arguments are made to justify changing the COLA calculations for the social safety net and government pensions.
It is a cut. If it is in your employment contract that every year you’ll get a 3% raise and then you’re contract is re-written so that you only get a 1% raise, you’ve received a pay cut because your contracted payment schedule has been cut from your prior agreement. This is why things are such a threat with the COLA in that people’s standard of living can be secetly reduced by not keeping up with inflation. What can happen with this is that facilities get themselves out of contracts to no longer treat Medicare patients, which that having lack of access is a direct cut to those on Medicare.