With the selection of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running-mates, Republicans pumped up the enthusiasm of their base (and frankly, President Barack Obama’s.) But they also inherited Ryan’s controversial budget “road map” — which the vast majority of congressional Republicans voted for — and which would turn the popular Medicare program into a voucher system. To take the sting out of Democratic attacks on the “Romney-Ryan” budget, Republicans have rolled out a series of defenses, each of which is problematic in its own right.
Defense #1: “Obamacare” cut Medicare, too!
This has become the favorite talking point of Republicans, including Republican National Committee leader Reince Priebus, who went on the Sunday shows this past weekend and leveled the charge that President Obama “stole” — that’s “s-t-o-l-e” $700 billion from Medicare, to fund “Obamacare.” Priebus even added the flourish that in doing so, Obama has “blood on his hands.” The blood of millions and millions of seniors, I presume…
The problem with waving the Bloody Priebus, is that the Affordable Care Act’s $700 billion reduction in the cost of Medicare came from cutting subsidies that the federal government would otherwise pay to insurance companies, drug companies, and in some cases, hospitals, under Medicare Advantage — part of the prescription drug overhaul commonly known as Medicare Part D — signed by former president George W. Bush. Hospitals and drug companies actually supported the changes, which unlike Ryan’s plan, didn’t touch the consumers who use Medicare. By contrast, Ryan’s plan would cut the benefits that Medicare recipients receive — and do so drastically. Because the vouchers (or “premium support” as Ryan prefers to call them) wouldn’t keep up with inflation, seniors would suddenly be paying much more for healthcare — estimates have projected as much as 40 percent more.
Another problem with the “Obama did it too,” defense? If the president has “blood on his hands” for cutting drug and insurance company subsidies as part of Medicare Part D, Ryan and his fellow Republicans’ hands are positively drenched — not only did Ryan vote for the Medicare Part D expansion of drug coverage; complete with a “donut hole” that forced seniors to pay more out of pocket when they reached a spending threshold (Obamacare, which Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to repeal, closed the donut hole), and not only did supposed fiscal Hawk Ryan vote for Part D without it being paid for; in his “roadmap,” Ryan keeps the $700 billion in subsidy cuts in place. If the $700 billion in “cuts” are so awful, why hang onto them?
Defense #2: Ryan tried to save Medicare, not end it.
As ThinkProgress, citing the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, pointed out last April, Ryan’s “roadmap” plan for Medicare would work in two stages:
Stage One, Vouchers: Ten years after the Ryan Plan takes effect, it eliminates traditional Medicare entirely and replaces it with a voucher system that seniors can use to by a private health plan. Although this proposal does produce small savings for government when it takes effect, it does so by massively increasing the out-of-pocket costs to American seniors. According to the Congressional Budget Office, total health expenditures for a typical 65-year-old “would be almost 40 percent higher with private coverage under the [Ryan] plan than they would be with a continuation of traditional Medicare” in the first year that the Ryan Plan is in effect.
Stage Two, Phase Out: After eliminating traditional Medicare, the Ryan Plan then begins to gradually phase out the Medicare program. Because Ryan vouchers do not grow in value each year at a rate that keeps up with the rising cost of health care, they effectively lose value every single year. According to the CBO, “[b]y 2080, Medicare would be cut 76 percent below its projected size under current policies.” In other words, a child born in 2015 would receive less than one-quarter of the Medicare resources that today’s seniors enjoy when that child became eligible for Medicare. And that child’s Ryan vouchers would continue to lose value during each year of their retirement.
To quote the conservative Wall Street Journal, in an April 4, 2011 editorial: “The budget has been prepared by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican and the new chairman of the House Budget Committee … would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/4/11]
Defense #3: Ryan had bipartisan support for his Medicare reforms.
Here, Republicans cite Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, who for a time, worked with Ryan to craft a bipartisan alternative to the politically toxic “roadmap” (both its harsh original version, and a later, slightly less draconian one.) Wyden’s efforts were considered self-serving by most Senate Democrats (he was up for re-election in 2010 at the time), and never went anywhere, having garnered exactly zero support from the Senate’s Democratic majority, or anyone else on Capitol Hill, other than Republicans eager to soften Ryan’s image and push back on Democratic lambasting of Ryan’s Medicare voucher plan.
Which leads us to the fourth, and final defense Republicans have put forward to spare themselves the wrath of seniors over the now-Romney-endorsed voucherization of Medicare:
Defense #4: Nobody over age 55 would have to worry about it anyway.
Here, I think, Republicans are engaging in what you might call “age warfare” — attempting to pit current seniors against future ones. Perhaps it’s a measure of how deeply Ayn Rand’s philosophy of selfishness has seeped into the GOP psyche, that they believe present-day seniors are only out for themselves, and will gladly consent to gutting the Medicare safety net for their children and grandchildren, so long as they get theirs. Polls, it turns out, haven’t read “Atlas Shrugged.” Strong majorities of seniors have consistently opposed turning Medicare into a voucher plan.
In 2011, opposition ranged from 65 percent to 84 percent — the latter when pollsters pointed out that the coupons’ value don’t keep up with inflation. And a Kaiser Family Foundation poll last spring found opposition among seniors in the 60-plus percent territory, too. Republicans seem to be banking on Ryan’s youth, charisma and general pleasantness to make Medicare vouchers more palatable. but there’s no empirical evidence that even the nicest messenger can convince a majority of Americans to trade in the popular Medicare program for a handful of coupons.
Follow Joy Reid on Twitter at @thereidreport.