Before Rep. Todd Akin’s bizarre views and/or misstatement on rape recently became the political scoop du semaine, the presidential campaign seemed to be settling in for a long debate over which party would destroy Medicare more. Before Rep. Todd Akin’s
Before Rep. Todd Akin’s bizarre views and/or misstatement on rape recently became the political scoop du semaine, the presidential campaign seemed to be settling in for a long debate over which party would destroy Medicare more.
No doubt the issue will return in the next two weeks, first at the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., this week and then next week at the Democratic convention in Charlotte, N.C. It’s not a bad idea; America needs a smart national debate on Medicare, whose growth is at the heart of the deficit time-bomb.
Unfortunately, the kind of partisan, distorted debate we’ve seen so far is not likely to help.
You have to give Republicans points for chutzpah. Having been demagogued on the subject by Democrats for decades, they’re now returning the favor. They’ve run television commercials in swing states attacking President Barack Obama’s health care reforms for “cutting” Medicare by $716 billion over 10 years. Three problems with that:
—The alleged “cuts” actually are savings the Congressional Budget Office forecasts will be realized by (a) cutting reimbursements for private Medicare Advantage Plans more affluent seniors buy and (b) holding down annual increases in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers, the idea being to encourage them to be more efficient and (c) fees and taxes on taxes on insurers and other companies that will benefit from having 30 million new insured customers.
—The “cuts” that the Republicans criticize the president for are nearly identical to the savings envisioned in the House-passed budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. The GOP is whacking Obama for ideas shared by their own putative vice presidential nominee, hoping nobody will notice.
—The ad blatantly and falsely attempts to pit one group of Americans against each other. The scary-voiced announcer says, “So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that’s not for you.”
Ryan would go further, of course, turning Medicare into a voucher program by 2023. The value of the vouchers surely would not keep pace with rising medical costs, but the political risk is mitigated because everyone 55 and older (a huge part of the likely-to-vote-electorate) would get to keep his or her current benefits.
Thus, assuming the GOP ticket of Mitt Romney and Ryan is elected in November, and assuming they can get a version of Ryan’s budget through the Senate next year and President Romney signs it, the first Medicare vouchers would be issued three years after their second term expired, assuming they won a second term.
On the other hand, Ryan’s budget also envisions turning Medicaid into a block grant for states. Sixty percent of America’s nursing home patients are supported by Medicaid. Depending on what state you live in, those 65 and older now would get to keep their Medicare health coverage but might lose nursing home benefits.
However theoretical this debate, it’s worth having. The future for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid must be assured, even as the nation addresses its critical deficit problems. Add defense spending to the mix, and the four programs are the deficit problem.
As everyone but determinedly ignorant “low-information voters” must know by now, the nation faces “Taxmageddon” or the “Fiscal Cliff” at year’s end — a drop-dead budget and financial deadlines.
Without grown-up attention by the lame-duck Congress, taxes for nearly everyone will go up next year. Spending on defense and non-defense domestic programs each will be cut by $600 billion over 10 years. The nation could default on its debt.
The good news, the Congressional Budget Office reported last week, is that all of this would cut next year’s projected deficit nearly in half, from $1.13 trillion to $641 billion. The bad news is that it would not only halt recovery, but cut the GDP by 3 to 4 percent and push the nation back into recession.
Let the candidates declare a mutual nonaggression pact. In the national interest, let them jointly advocate reaching compromise on a deficit reduction plan. The starting point would be the plan outlined in late 2010 by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, the so-called Simpson-Bowles commission.
The election, however it turns out, is likely to be narrowly decided. There will be a choice: A doomsday game of financial chicken played out over the holiday season, or a historic opportunity for statesmen to craft solutions in the center.
Congress isn’t good at that any more. Its members carry the extremism and distortions from the campaign into governance. In the next two weeks, the parties will choose their leaders. Let them lead.
