ROMNEY CHARGES ON MEDICARE - FALSE AND UNTRUE

ROMNEY CHARGES THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS CUT $716 B FROM MEDICARE

The Christian Science Monitor's Peter Grier, (August, 16, 2012) takes up a question which has dominated the airways recently and deals with it clearly and concisely: Mitt Romney's claim that Obama 'robbed' Medicare of $716 billion. This is reminiscent of the typical propaganda ploy used by the USSR (and the USA) during the Cold War. It's called the "Big Lie". It works if you are poorly informed or simply do not have the time to sort out the facts. In the CSM piece Grier states: "Mitt Romney is hammering President Obama with the allegation that he's robbed Medicare to pay for Obamacare . That's not an accurate appraisal of Obama's plan."

It is true that Obama reduced spending on Medicare and that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – cuts $716 billion from the Medicare program over the next decade, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis. However, the ACA does not "rob" Medicare as Romney and Ryan claim. It cuts billions from the plan by reducing spending over the long term. It does not cut benefits. It achieves this by lowering pay-outs to hospitals, nurses, and others health-care providers (except physicians).

Grier states, "According to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), over a 10-year period it measured, Medicare payments for hospital services would go down by $260 billion, for instance. Payments for skilled nursing services would go down by $39 billion, and for home health services by $33 billion." There are other reductions in payments which the CBO estimates will generate savings.

Pay-out reductions are not the total picture however. The ACA (Obamacare) also sharply cuts back on an expensive experiment called Medicare Advantage plans. These "Advantage" plans are run by private insurers which competed with the traditional fee-for-service (Medicare) program. The George Bush Administration, initiated these plans, hoping that this form of "privatization" would increase "competition" (two ideas the Republicans are fond of and like to push) among the plans to serve beneficiaries and save money. It turned out that the Advantage plans, which included " sweeteners and incentives" for the companies (agreed to by the George Bush Administration) in the long run actually cost the government more than the regular fee-for-service program. The Obama Administration found them ineffective and cut them back sharply generating large savings.


Grier concludes, " In essence, the Medicare cuts contained in Obama's health care reforms reduce the pay of providers within the system." It does not reduce services to recipients while incorporating substantial savings in the program. In effect, it saves Medicare as a effective program for seniors. Thus it deals with the charges often raised by Republicans that it is too costly. They should have welcomed the plan and given credit to the President. But
they are determined to undermine Medicare and eliminate it.
But what about the Romney plan?

Romney and Ryan have a plan too. Their plan involves cutting back on services, and offering a voucher plan in which seniors would be given a set fee to find comparable insurance plan in the open market. This would be a great boon to the insurance companies, the supporters of Romney and Ryan, but would mean lower levels of medical coverage for the recipients. The government would control the amount of the voucher they offer and the insurance companies would set the terms of the amount of service. Imagine how that would work out. In the end the CBO estimates that the typical senior would have to pay-out as much as $6,500 for the same plan he or she has now. The voucher system is another way to kill Medicare.

The result of Romney-Ryan's plan is lower health care benefits and services for seniors and higher out-of-pocket costs to make up the difference in quality of care. (Note however that there will be no changes to the elaborate Government-sponsored health care services that the Senators and Congressmen and their families receive--for life! They want to economise on others, but keep their health care benefits unchanged...They are not suggesting a voucher system to replace their health care system in Congress.) Under the Romney-Ryan plan seniors will have less benefits, will have to pay more out of pocket, and some will have to go back to eating cat food so they can afford their vital services and medicines.

The story above is analogous to that of two worried fathers with teenagers who have just passed their driver's test. The nervous fathers both face higher risks and costs, and each determines to institute plans to reduce their risk exposures and lower their expenses. The first father's plan is to protect his automobile (and child) by placing a block under the auto's accelerator pedal. The new driver can develop his/her new skill, operate the vehicle at a slower but safe speed, and is able to get from school to work on time. This father's car is safe, his insurance does not rise, and the child survives to prosper and eventually buy his/her own auto.

The second father's plan is to lock up the family auto and restrict its access for his use alone. He reasons what does a teenager need with a good car? He offers this teenager instead an ancient dray horse and shabby wagon, used by his grandfather in days gone by. This teenager is faced with getting to school and work by navigating his old dray-horse along the shoulder of a dangerous high speed freeway. The result is tragedy when the rickety wagon is hit from behind by a speeding eight-wheel interstate carrier swerving into the shoulder on a dangerous turn.

Get the picture?



rjk