Lie of the Year 2011: 'Republicans voted to end Medicare'

By Bill Adair, Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 12:05 a.m.

Republicans muscled a budget through the House of Representatives in April that they said would take an important step toward reducing the federal deficit. Introduced by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the plan kept Medicare intact for people 55 or older, but dramatically changed the program for everyone else by privatizing it and providing government subsidies.

Democrats pounced. Just four days after the party-line vote, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released a Web ad that said seniors will have to pay $12,500 more for health care "because Republicans voted to end Medicare."

Rep. Steve Israel of New York, head of the DCCC, appeared on cable news shows and declared that Republicans voted to "terminate Medicare." A Web video from the Agenda Project, a liberal group, said the plan would leave the country "without Medicare" and showed a Ryan look-alike pushing an old woman in a wheelchair off a cliff. And just last month, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sent a fundraising appeal that said: "House Republicans’ vote to end Medicare is a shameful act of betrayal."

After two years of being pounded by Republicans with often false charges about the 2010 health care law, the Democrats were turning the tables.

PolitiFact debunked the Medicare charge in nine separate fact-checks rated False or Pants on Fire, most often in attacks leveled against Republican House members.

Now, PolitiFact has chosen the Democrats’ claim as the 2011 Lie of the Year.

It’s the third year in a row that a health care claim has won the dubious honor. In 2009, the winner was the Republicans’ charge that the Democrats’ health care plan included "death panels." In 2010, it was that the plan was a "government takeover of health care."

A complicated and wonky subject with life-or-death consequences, health care is fertile ground for falsehoods. The Democratic attack about "ending Medicare" was a pervasive line in 2011 that preyed on seniors' worries about whether they could afford health care.

Even when explained accurately, the Republicans’ Medicare plan was not particularly popular with the public, nor with some independent health policy analysts. But the plan was distorted and attacked again and again.

"In terms of creating a national conversation about fiscal reform, the last thing we need is demagoguing attacks against people who have put forward serious policy proposals," said Jason Peuquet, a policy analyst with the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "It’s very worrying."

A persistent falsehood

With a few small tweaks to their attack lines, Democrats could have been factually correct, said Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "I actually think there is no need to cut out the qualifiers and exaggerate," he said.

At times, Democrats and liberal groups were careful to characterize the Republican plan more accurately. Another claim in the ad from the Agenda Project said the plan would "privatize" Medicare, which received a Mostly True rating from PolitiFact. President Barack Obama was also more precise with his words, saying the Medicare proposal "would voucherize the program and you potentially have senior citizens paying $6,000 more."

But more often, Democrats and liberals overreached:

• They ignored the fact that the Ryan plan would not affect people currently in Medicare -- or even the people 55 to 65 who would join the program in the next 10 years.

• They used harsh terms such as "end" and "kill" when the program would still exist, although in a privatized system.

• They used pictures and video of elderly people who clearly were too old to be affected by the Ryan plan. The DCCC video that aired four days after the vote featured an elderly man who had to take a job as a stripper to pay his medical bills.

"Both parties use entitlements as political weapons," Ryan said in an interview with PolitiFact. "Republicans do it to Democrats; Democrats do it to Republicans. So I knew that this would be a political weapon that the other side would use against us."

Liberal bloggers and columnists contend it's accurate to say Republicans voted to end Medicare. Left-leaning websites such as Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos, and The New Republic said PolitiFact's analysis was wrong, as did New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

"According to (PolitiFact's) logic, if the FBI were replaced with a voucher program wherein citizens would receive subsidies for hiring private investigators to look into criminal activity, but the agency running the voucher program were still called the FBI, it would be unfair to say that the FBI had been ended," wrote Jed Lewison for Daily Kos. "I guess it's their right to make that argument, but it's transparently absurd."

In a blog post, the DCCC stood by its claim, saying the ad accurately stated Ryan's plan would "abolish" Medicare.

But PolitiFact was not alone. Other independent fact-checkers also said the claim was false.

"Medicare would remain an entitlement program, but it would also be more costly to future beneficiaries. It would not end," noted FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. The Washington Post’s Fact Checker concluded that while there’s "a worthwhile debate" about whether Ryan’s proposal should be adopted, "it is not true to claim Republicans are trying to ‘kill’ Medicare."

The Democratic attacks struck a chord. Polls showed voters were skeptical of the Ryan plan and want Medicare to remain largely the way it is now. That may be why the plan has virtually no prospects of passing the Senate, which voted to shelve the plan. President Obama has indicated he would veto any changes to Medicare that would privatize the program and substantially shift costs to beneficiaries.

How the Ryan plan would work

Under the current Medicare system, the government pays the health care bills for Americans over age 65. Under the Ryan plan, future beneficiaries would be given a credit and invited to shop for an approved plan on a Medicare health insurance exchange. It received overwhelming support from Republicans in a House vote on a budget blueprint.

Starting in 2022, beneficiaries would receive "premium support payments" from the government to help pay for the private insurance. People who need more health care would get a little more money, and high earners would get a little less.

The plan has some guarantees for coverage, although seniors would have to pay more to get the benefits they receive today, according to an analysis completed earlier this year by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The guarantees: Ryan's plan requires private insurers to accept all applicants and to charge the same rate for people who are the same age. The plans would comply with standards set by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which administers the health plans of federal employees. The Medicare eligibility age would rise from 65 to 67, an idea that has received some bipartisan support in the past.

The CBO found that it would save the government money. But it does so by asking future Medicare beneficiaries to pay more for the same benefits.

Ryan says the plan would offer more choice for Medicare participants and increase competition among private insurers to drive down cost.

"I’m a big believer in patient-centered choice, where the beneficiary is the prime decision-maker, which drives competition and innovation, and that’s missing from the status quo, to a large degree," he said.

It’s not the first time it’s been suggested that Medicare be changed from its current fee-for-service, where the government pays all the bills, to one that uses private insurers. In the past, some Democrats have even favored such proposals, especially if -- unlike the Ryan plan --  the support was linked to medical inflation, or there were an option for traditional Medicare, or there were more explicit protections for consumers.

Just last week, Ryan agreed to a new framework with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. Their proposal uses Ryan’s idea for private insurers and exchanges, but it leaves traditional Medicare as an option.

Private insurers already offer Medicare plans under the program Medicare Advantage, though those plans have proven more expensive than traditional Medicare, not less.

The partisan split on health care reveals the contradictions of congressional debate. Republicans were staunchly against the insurance exchanges in the federal health care law. But they endorsed them in the Ryan proposal, even as Democrats switched to oppose the plan.

"Ryan basically proposed the Affordable Care Act for future seniors," said Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who advised both President Obama and Republican Mitt Romney on health care. "I don't understand how you can like it for future seniors but not like it for today's needy uninsured. That doesn't make any sense."

'Scaring 85-year-olds'

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an expert on campaign advertising who directs the Annenberg center at the University of Pennsylvania, says Democrats have been using falsehoods and exaggerations about Medicare and Social Security since at least 1952. She calls it the longest-running "Democratic deception."

It fits with a core theme from Democrats that they will use government to protect seniors and needy people, while Republicans supposedly want to cut those programs, she says. It is a scare tactic that works.

"If you're reliant on Medicare, a suggestion your benefits are going to be cut in any way is a direct, visceral threat," said Jamieson.

Republicans actually used a version of the attack in 2010, claiming Democrats cut $500 billion from Medicare to pay for Obama's health care law; the law actually sought to reduce the growth of future spending with a series of efficiency measures. But historically, attacks about Medicare have come from Democrats.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Democrats used images of Social Security cards being torn in half to suggest that Republicans wanted to cut the program. In 1995, Democrats said House Speaker Newt Gingrich's plan to restructure Medicare would force seniors to pay more and would "wreck" Medicare.

President Bill Clinton vetoed the Republicans' Medicare bill, and used the issue to pummel GOP nominee Bob Dole in the 1996 campaign.

Gingrich complained at the time that "Medicare is the one issue the left believes they can lie about and demagogue." He described the Democrats as "totally morally bankrupt" and said, "They are reduced to scaring 85-year-olds."

The scare tactics are effective because seniors worry about being able to pay their medical bills and Medicare is a vital program for them. Also, seniors represent a large, up-for-grabs voting bloc.

Jonathan Oberlander, a health policy professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, said, "If you can scare seniors that something is going to happen to those programs, there is potentially a huge payoff in votes."

View the original article here

Democrats persist with false Medicare claim

Sources:

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, DCCC launches "Accountability August," Aug. 4, 2011.

House of Representatives,Roll call vote on H. Res. 34, April 15, 2011.

U.S. Senate,Roll call vote on H. Res 34, May 25, 2011.

PolitFact Virginia, DCCC says Hurt voted again to end Medicare, June 1, 2011.

PolitiFact Rhode Island,Cicilline says he fought Republican budget that ends Medicare, May 1, 2011.

PolitiFact,Democrats say Republicans voted to end Medicare and charge seniors $12,000, April 20, 2011.

FactCheck.org, Medicare Misrepresentation, July 25, 2011.

THOMAS,2012 Budget Resolution, April 15, 2011

Congressional Budget Office,  Analysis of Paul Ryan budget proposal, April 5, 2011

House Budget Committee,The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America’s Promise (Republican budget proposal), accessed April 20, 2011

Researchers: Warren Fiske

Names in this article: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Robert Hurt, Scott Rigell, Paul Ryan

We want to hear your suggestions and comments. Email the Virginia Truth-O-Meter with feedback and with claims you'd like to see checked. If you send us a comment, we'll assume you don't mind us publishing it unless you tell us otherwise.

View the original article here

We must find an alternative to Medicare

(PNI) To all you folks out there that keep saying, "Leave Medicare alone": That is not an option.

The country made a mistake with this program many years ago and we cannot support it in its current form. Open your minds to alternatives.

--Dominic Foanio, Gilbert

Benson followed herd on Biden

I either laugh at Benson's cartoons or ignore them. Either way, I respected his cleverness. But his Aug. 17 cartoon on Vice President Joe Biden was disappointing.

Benson is usually creative. It was sad to see him following the media script that the vice president's recent comment about chains was anything more than a simple play on words.

--Dwight Snider, San Tan Valley

Obama should leave Biden behind

Can Barack Obama afford to have Vice President Joe Biden as a running mate in 2012?

Joe Biden is a nice, likable person but is not an asset to the Democratic Party. He continues to put his foot in his mouth and recently offended the party's constituents in Virginia.

If you are politically minded you could envision pressure forcing Joe Biden to resign his position and return to private life. This would allow the president to pick a stronger running mate and improve his chances of re-election.

It's just a thought from someone who spent 10 years in Washington, D.C., observing the clowns.

--Dess Chappelear, Sun City West

Pension reform is all about math

Regarding "Cutting pension benefits for state workers a misguided idea driven by greed," (Letters, Tuesday):

The letter writer takes issue withRepublic columnist Robert Robb's prescription for strengthening the state's public pension system.

Arizona's largest pension plan has half the amount of assets that it needs to fulfill its obligations to current state workers and retirees. While this is a sobering statistic, Arizona has time to emerge from its $37billion hole and avoid the fate of European Union nations buried under unsustainable pension and entitlement programs.

This means we have to stop making the same unfulfillable retirement promises to new hires and younger members of the current state workforce.

Finding a path to transition workers to a 401(k)-style plan will prevent the predictable scenario where spending on pensions crowds out spending on education and public safety, leads to tax increases, or, if we kick the can far enough down the road, Arizona defaults on benefit payments to the next generation of retirees.

It's not, as the letter writer asserts, greed that drives those who seek to prevent this devastating scenario; it's math.

--Chris McIsaac, Phoenix

The writer is the research director for the Arizona Chamber Foundation and the author of the paper"Pension Tension: Understanding Arizona's Public Employee Retirement Plans."

Voters, remember what Joe forgot

Joe Arpaio's commercials proclaim him to be the biggest protector of children because he goes after deadbeat dads.

It's a shame he didn't take the same stand when his department fell down on the job in investigating dozens of sex-crimes cases, most of them involving children, in El Mirage. That sure doesn't sound like he's doing much to defend children.

And before anyone tries to defend him, please remember, he not only isn't contesting these accusations, he isn't even contesting the numbers. And we all heard his apology to the victims "if there were any" (his words not mine).

It scares me that people will still vote for him. Voters, please remember him ignoring over 400 sexual assaults when you vote for Maricopa County sheriff. Please.

--Tim Hunt, Phoenix

Who should sheriff be targeting?

It is curious that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is being accused of racial profiling primarily on the basis that the majority of illegal immigrants being arrested are Mexicans.

According to the American Immigration Council, an advocacy group for Latinos, roughly 70 percent of illegal immigrants applying for legal residency under the new Obama executive order are in fact from Mexico. So exactly who should Sheriff Arpaio be looking for?

--R. Peters, Phoenix

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Mixed Message as Republicans Claim Health Law Cuts Medicare

Yet since the Supreme Court upheld the Democrats’ 2010 health care law, Republicans, led by Mitt Romney, have reversed tactics and attacked the president and Democrats in Congress by saying that Medicare will be cut too much as part of that law. Republicans plan to hold another vote to repeal the law in the House next week, though any such measure would die in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

“Obamacare cuts Medicare — cuts Medicare — by approximately $500 billion,” Mr. Romney has told audiences.

That is a reprise of Republicans’ mantra of the 2010 midterm elections, which gave them big gains at both the state and federal levels and a majority in the House. Yet the message conflicts not only with their past complaint that Democrats opposed reining in Medicare spending, but also with the fact that House Republicans have voted twice since 2010 for the same 10-year, $500 billion savings in supporting Mr. Ryan’s annual budgets.

The result is a messaging mess, even by the standards of each party’s usual election-year attacks that the other is being insufficiently supportive of older people’s benefits.

And in this year’s contests, which both parties describe as a referendum on who can best correct the nation’s economic course, such talk underscores how far Republicans and Democrats are from truly squaring with the public about curbing the growth of the major entitlement programs: Medicare, Medicaid and, to a lesser extent, Social Security. That growth is driving the projections of a federal debt that is mounting unsustainably as the population ages and health care costs rise.

“A pox on both their houses,” said Ron Haskins, a former Congressional staff member who is now a scholar of social programs and budgeting at the Brookings Institution. Democrats and Republicans “know they have to do something about Medicare, and then they harass each other about cutting Medicare. It’s so discouraging to me, but I’m a Republican, so I’m much more distraught about Republicans.”

And, Mr. Haskins added, “$500 billion is modest compared to what Ryan would do.”

Under Mr. Ryan’s budget, which Mr. Romney has supported but which has been blocked each year in the Senate, Medicare would not pay for the medical fees of future beneficiaries, as it currently does. Instead it would provide “premium support,” limited payments — vouchers, Democrats say — that beneficiaries could use to buy insurance policies in the private sector. And Medicaid, which increasingly goes toward nursing home care for older people, would become a capped block grant to states, forcing them to make significant cuts.

In their attacks, Republicans have said in speeches and in television advertisements that the Democrats’ projected $500 billion in Medicare savings will “strip,” “gut,” “rob” or “raid” older people’s benefits.

“Ron Barber will hurt Arizona seniors,” said an ad this spring from the House Republicans’ campaign committee in support of the Republican who ultimately lost to Mr. Barber, a Democrat, in a special election to replace Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

Objecting to such attacks, Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in an interview: “There are two issues here: One, there were no cuts to Medicare benefits. And in fact, benefits were strengthened.”

Independent fact-checking groups have repeatedly knocked down the Republicans’ claims. “A discredited claim is making a comeback following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding most of the national health care reform law,” PolitiFact recently wrote in one such analysis.

Republicans stand by their attack. They say the problem with the Democratic approach is that the reductions do little to bolster Medicare’s stability, with the money diverted to initiatives in the health care law.

“Democrats are still the only party in Washington to cut $500 billion from Medicare in order to help pay for Obamacare,” said Paul Lindsay, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “It’s a fact that did not go unnoticed among seniors in 2010, and one that we will continue holding Democrats accountable for in our ads this fall.”

But the $500 billion in reductions would come through cuts in the projected growth of Medicare and would mainly affect hospitals and other providers of medical care, some of whom supported the health care measure nonetheless because it would extend coverage to up to 30 million uninsured Americans, raising the number of paying customers. Other savings would result from lower subsidies for private insurers selling Medicare Advantage plans, which offer older people extra features like vision care and gym memberships. The insurers could not cut basic Medicare benefits.

Democrats used the projected $500 billion in savings to help pay for expanding older people’s benefits. The health care law says that some preventive care services like mammograms must be free to patients, and it closed the “doughnut hole” in the Medicare prescription drug program, which had left many older people paying full price for prescriptions above a certain level.

While Republicans have backed the spending reductions, even as they have attacked Mr. Obama and the Democrats for enacting them, they would end the new benefits.

Mr. Ryan, of Wisconsin, was unavailable for comment, but, pressed on the issue on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, he said: “Well, our budget keeps that money for Medicare to extend its solvency. What Obamacare does is it takes that money from Medicare to spend on Obamacare.”

Robert Greenstein, the executive director of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, called Mr. Ryan’s claim “somewhere between a misstatement and a flat-out untruth.”

Mr. Greenstein, among others, said that Democrats were not double-counting the $500 billion in savings — by claiming that it both improves Medicare’s financial outlook and helps finance new benefits — any more than were the Republicans, who say they would use the savings both to shore up the Medicare trust funds and to reduce the federal debt.

The Congressional Budget Office and the chief actuary for the Medicare and Medicaid programs, Richard S. Foster, have concluded that the $500 billion in savings would extend the solvency of Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund. Since the passage of the health care law, known as the Affordable Care Act, the Medicare trustees have shifted the projected date of insolvency to 2024 from 2016.

Mr. Foster, in this year’s report by the trustees, wrote that “the Affordable Care Act makes important changes to the Medicare program and substantially improves its financial outlook.”

View the original article here

Medicare premiums up — but not as much as expected (AP)

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press – Thu Oct 27, 4:16 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Good news for seniors: The government says Medicare's basic monthly premium will rise less than expected next year, by $3.50 for most.

It could be good, too, for President Barack Obama and Democrats struggling for older Americans' votes in a close election.

At $99.90 per month, the 2012 Part B premium for outpatient care will be about $7 less than projected as recently as May. The additional money that most seniors will pay works out to about 10 percent of the average Social Security cost-of-living increase they'll also be due.

Some recently enrolled younger retirees will actually pay less. They were charged $115.40 a month this year, and they'll see that go down to $99.90.

The main reason for lower-than-expected premiums seems to be the connection between Social Security COLAs and Medicare. Some also cite a moderation in health care costs.

But the Obama administration is hoping seniors will get a simpler takeaway message: Medicare is under sound management.

Older voters went for Republicans in the 2010 elections, after Obama's health care overhaul law cut Medicare spending to help finance coverage for the uninsured. Since then, the administration has worked hard to reverse any perception that Obama is steering Medicare into decline.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said it's "pretty remarkable" that premiums will stay in check. She reassured seniors that they have nothing to fear from the health care law.

"Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Medicare is providing better benefits at lower cost," said Sebelius.

Republicans weren't buying it.

A spokeswoman for Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said the brunt of the health law's Medicare cuts are still to come. "More importantly," added Antonia Ferrier, "lower Medicare premiums are being driven by lower than average Medicare spending due to the slow economy" — not the health care law. Hatch is the ranking Republican on the Senate panel overseeing Medicare.

A spokeswoman for House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., said premiums are more affordable because seniors on tight budgets are spending less on health care in a troubled economy.

Medicare's Part B annual deductible, the amount beneficiaries pay before their coverage begins, will also drop next year to $140, a decrease of $22. The hospital deductible, however, will increase by $24, to $1,156, for those admitted as inpatients. One doesn't cancel out the other since a minority of beneficiaries are hospitalized in any given year.

AARP, the seniors lobby, reacted warily to Thursday's announcement. Policy director David Certner said there's still a chance Congress could cut Medicare and Social Security as part of a budget deal. "These changes would far outweigh today's good news," he said.

For the average retiree, the Medicare news means they will have to fork over only a small part of a long-awaited Social Security increase next year for premiums.

Premiums have been frozen at the 2008 level of $96.40 a month for about three-fourths of Medicare beneficiaries. That was due to the lack of a Social Security COLA during the depths of the economic downturn. But Social Security recently announced a raise averaging $39 a month for 2012.

The Part B premium is one number that most of the 48 million people on Medicare can connect with. Average premiums for prescription coverage and for popular Medicare Advantage plans will stay flat or dip slightly for 2012, but fewer beneficiaries opt for those benefits.

A leading nonpartisan expert on Medicare said she doubted election-year politics were behind the lower-than-expected premiums for 2012.

"Changes in premiums are obviously important to seniors, but the numbers are based on what the law requires and determined by independent actuaries rather than politics," said Tricia Neuman of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Neuman said the explanation probably concerns the relationship between Medicare premiums and Social Security cost of living adjustments.

By law, the Part B premium is set to cover 25 percent of the cost of Medicare's outpatient care benefit.

But premiums have been frozen for most beneficiaries because federal law also says that an individual's Medicare premium cannot go up more than his Social Security COLA, with some exceptions.

That left a relatively small share of beneficiaries, including recent enrollees, bearing the brunt of higher Medicare costs. Indeed, the "standard premium" for 2011 rose to $115.40, and new enrollees were charged that amount. Upper-income retirees pay even more, but premiums for the poor are covered by Medicaid.

Back in May, government experts were forecasting a Medicare a premium of $106.60 for 2012. At that time, they were also projecting a Social Security COLA of just 0.7 percent. But the final COLA increase turned out to be much bigger, a 3.6 percent raise. And that meant rising Medicare costs could be spread among many more people, resulting in smaller individual increases.

"More people are sharing the smaller-than-expected increase, so that is spread over a larger number of people," said Medicare chief Don Berwick. Administration officials say they've also seen a slow-down in the use of health care services throughout the economy, not just among seniors.

___

Associated Press writer Stephen Ohlemacher contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Pelosi: Dems oppose Social Security, Medicare cuts (AP)

WASHINGTON – The top House Democrat says she and fellow Democratic lawmakers will oppose including cuts in Social Security or Medicare benefits in any package aimed at reducing huge federal deficits.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi made the remark to reporters Thursday after returning to the Capitol from President Barack Obama's budget talks with congressional leaders. The leaders are looking for a compromise package that would extend the government's borrowing limit while also slicing trillions off future budget deficits.

Signals have emerged that the White House would consider culling savings from Social Security and Medicare. But Pelosi, a California Democrat, says Democrats believe those two programs should not be used to pay for tax breaks for the rich.

Republicans have opposed ending some tax loopholes for the wealthy.

View the original article here

Democrats launch campaigns by blowing up GOP Medicare plan - Washington Post

Democratic House candidates across the country are signaling a desire to make the GOP’s plan for Medicare reform a real issue — early and often — in the 2012 election.

From California to New Hampshire, Democrats are launching their campaigns with a united message on Medicare and hoping it will pay off next year.

That message? “Your Republican member of Congress voted to end Medicare as we know it, and it’s time for someone new.”

In Colorado, state Sen. Brandon Shaffer (D) launched his campaign against freshman Rep. Cory Gardner (R) this week by laying into Gardner for his vote in favor of the House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget that would turn Medicare into a voucher program.

Shaffer made the attack the keynote of his announcement, saying Gardner “just gutted Medicare with his vote on the Ryan budget.”

Other Democratic candidates who have made the Medicare plan a key part of their rollouts include activist Ann McLane Kuster, a repeat challenger to Rep. Charlie Bass (R-N.H.); Colorado state Rep. Sal Pace, who faces Rep. Scott Tipton (R); Dr. Ami Bera, who is running against Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) for the second straight cycle; Illinois state Sen. Dave Koehler, who is challenging Rep. Bobby Schilling (R); and Wisconsin state Sen. Pat Kreitlow, who is running against Rep. Sean Duffy (R).

Kuster railed against Bass’s vote in an op-ed, Bera held a town hall devoted to the GOP’s Medicare plan, and the rest all mentioned Medicare as a motivating factor for their campaigns.

The man who got the ball rolling, of course, was businessman Rob Zerban, who took the fight directly to the man responsible for the Medicare proposal, Ryan. Zerban’s challenge to Ryan instantly became a cause celebre for national Democrats earlier this year when it began to look like the GOP’s Medicare proposal would be a real liability.

Ryan, despite coming from a swing district, is a second- or third-tier target for Democrats. The others, though, are all among the most targeted Republicans on the map.

Medicare continues to poll well as an issue for Democrats – a recent Bloomberg poll showed that 57 percent think they would be worse off under Ryan’s plan, while just 34 percent think they would be better off – so it’s no surprise that they keep going back to the well.

Democrats have won a special election in upstate New York where the Medicare proposal was cited as the main reason for the upset, and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.) stated publicly that the GOP’s Medicare proposal gave him new hope for winning back the House in 2012.

The question for Democrats is whether the issue is as relevant in November 2012 as it is in July 2011.

People tend to be pretty passionate about entitlement programs, and Democrats are banking on them continuing to be strongly against the GOP plan next year.

At the same time, when Rep. Anthony Weiner’s (D-N.Y.) scandal broke, much of the Democrats’ messaging momentum on Medicare was thwarted. And, with President Obama floating the possibility of cuts to Medicare in a grand bargain on the debt ceiling there is some concern in Democratic strategist circles that the party will lose its political high ground on the issue.

Republicans, for their part, have struggled to justify the vote, and are hoping the issue doesn’t ruin their 2012 election prospects in the same way the Democratic health care bill swamped that party’s 2010 efforts.

There is anecdotal evidence that people don’t quite know what to think about Medicare. Results of a focus group of independents released today by Resurgent Republic, a conglomerate of GOP consultants and pollsters, shows that they are strikingly unfamiliar with the the Republican budget plan.

Of course, what they do know about the plan makes them not like it, and explaining the finer points is difficult to do. Democrats have a much simpler message to sell, and they are — quite literally — running with it. Look for them to keep running with it until they have a good reason not to or it stops paying dividends.

???initialComments:true! pubdate:07/08/2011 12:18 EDT! commentPeriod:3! commentEndDate:7/11/11 12:18 EDT! currentDate:7/10/11 9:43 EDT! allowComments:true! displayComments:false!

View the original article here

Medicare Cuts Go on the Table in Debt Talks (The Atlantic Wire)

The White House is putting tens of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid on the table as it negotiates with Republicans on cutting the federal deficit as part of a vote to raise the debt ceiling, The New York Times' Robert Pear reports. Democrats hope that Republicans will accept the entitlement cuts in exchange for increasing revenue. Before debt limit talks led by Vice President Joe Biden broke down almost two weeks ago, both sides had "reached substantial agreement" on cutting the programs.

Lobbyists are furiously pushing back against the proposals, Pear reports. They include eventually stopping reimbursement of hospitals when patients don't pay their share of their bills; shrinking payments to teaching hospitals for training doctors, taking care of the sickest patients, and providing specialized care; and cutting the portion of the cost of treating low-income people and kids that the federal government pays, putting a larger burden on the states.

Related: Moving Closer to a Debt Deal by Delaying a Medicare Debate

Think Progress' Igor Volsky says the latter proposal "is possibly the most troubling of the three provisions" as it shifts the costs to states and patients. "As for the first two: the hospitals have launched a massive ad buy to forestall the cuts, but it’s difficult to feel much sympathy for providers who will see an increase of revenue as a result of the coverage provisions in the Affordable Care Act."

Change in Tone Do the concessions on entitlements mean a deal on the debt ceiling could be closer? Business Insider's Zeke Miller notes that on the Sunday talk shows over the weekend, Republican Sens. John McCain and John Cornyn indicated they would support some methods to increase government revenue, like eliminating tax subsidies.

Related: Kyl and Boehner Are Officially Not So Stressed About the Debt Limit

Who Has the Upper Hand? NBC News' First Read observes that swing voters want a deal done, which helps the White House, but they don't want taxes raised, which helps Republicans. "Bottom line: Republicans believe that on the SUBSTANCE, the middle is with them (if they sell it properly), even if on PROCESS, the middle might be more on the side of the president." Republicans, First Read says, don't want to give Obama a victory, but they "can already be granted a measure of victory for dictating the terms of the debate--all about spending cuts."

Related: Boehner Wants a Debt Ceiling Deal Sooner Rather Than Later

Is a Deal Possible? The Washington Post's Ezra Klein says cutting "tax expenditures" gives Republicans "an out" so they can tell their base they're streamlining the tax code instead of raising taxes. "But there's little evidence, at least as of yet, that Republicans are going to take the deal--or even that they can take the deal. That raises the question of whether they've gotten here by being savvy, tough negotiators, or whether the reason they keep saying 'no' is that they've lost the ability to say 'yes.'"

Related: The Many Images From Obama's Testy Press Conference

No Choice But to Compromise But The New York Times' David Brooks argues that Republicans have to strike some kind of deal, otherwise "independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern."

View the original article here

Delay Medicare eligibility: Coburn and Lieberman (AP)

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent – Tue Jun 28, 5:24 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Two Senate rebels jumped into Congress' cut-the-deficit competition on Tuesday, proposing to raise the age of Medicare eligibility to 67 and increase monthly premiums for millions of current beneficiaries.

"We can't save Medicare as we know it," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., who authored the plan with Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. "We can only save Medicare if we change it," he added in an apparent jab at President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats.

Democrats reacted with criticism of the proposal, which Coburn said was designed to rescue the financially imperiled program and help the nation confront a "wall of debt." Republicans betrayed no sign of support either.

If nothing else, the response underscored the difficulty of legislative free-lancing at a time the Obama administration and congressional leaders are struggling to negotiate a compromise that cuts future deficits and clears the way for an increase in the nation's $14.3 trillion debt.

Without a debt limit increase by Aug. 2, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned, the government could default, risking calamity for the U.S. economy and serious effects worldwide.

Republicans walked out of bipartisan talks last week but nevertheless said negotiations had been fruitful. In the days since, Obama has stepped up his personal involvement in the effort.

After meeting separately with the Senate's Republican and Democratic leaders on Monday, he invited the Democratic leadership to a White House meeting on Wednesday.

In the earlier talks, led by Vice President Joe Biden, key lawmakers had outlined a series of proposals to cut several hundred billion dollars over the next decade.

Other proposed cuts were on the table, including nearly $1 trillion from the assumed end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Officials familiar with the negotiations say Republicans are reluctant to count that money toward any agreement, saying they want more tangible cuts in domestic programs before agreeing to vote for an increased debt limit.

Also in the way of an agreement is a partisan dispute over taxes, which Republicans don't want raised, and Medicare benefits, which Democrats don't want cut.

Lieberman and Coburn were not nearly as reluctant, including both in their prescription for Medicare.

"Nobody's going to like this plan, we understand that," said Lieberman, who was the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2000 but is now an independent who regularly picks spots to challenge his former party.

His statement that Medicare can't be saved in its current form seemed a direct rebuttal to Obama, who said earlier this year that a House Republican proposal would "end Medicare as we know it" — something he vowed would not happen while he was in the White House.

Coburn is a conservative Republican. But he challenged his party orthodoxy earlier this year when he said he was willing to include higher revenues as part of any deficit-reduction deal.

The plan the two men outlined includes a gradual increase over the next five years in the monthly premium that seniors pay for doctor and other non-hospital services. Aides said it would translate into a monthly increase of $15 to $20 initially.

The age of eligibility would rise gradually from 65 to 67.

For the first time, better-off seniors would be charged more money for Medicare Part A, which covers hospital care.

The same group already pays more for doctor visits as well as for prescription drug coverage and, under the plan, would face even higher monthly premiums.

A major source of savings would come from making sure seniors pay out of pocket for at least a portion of their care. To accomplish that, Lieberman and Coburn proposed barring insurance companies from selling Medigap policies that offer first-dollar coverage.

The plan by Lieberman and Coburn would preserve Medicare as a government program, unlike a House GOP proposal that would require millions of future beneficiaries to purchase coverage from private insurance companies.

Additionally, the plan includes a $7,500 limit on out-of-pocket costs for doctor or hospital coverage, a provision designed to protect seniors who face potentially catastrophic costs.

According to the most recent report by the Medicare trustees, the giant program's insurance fund is projected to run out of money in 2024, five years earlier than last year's estimate.

___

Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this story.

View the original article here

Democrats launch massive ad campaign against Republican Medicare position (Daily Caller)

The Democrats’ “super” PAC launched a six-figure ad campaign Monday, just months after accepting sizable donations from wealthy liberals including that scorn of the right, George Soros.

The House Majority PAC’s radio ads will cover familiar ground for Democrats: attacking Republican congressmen for their votes in favor of Paul Ryan’s controversial budget plan that would significantly overhaul Medicare. The ads will also focus on Republicans’ personal spending and tax cuts for corporations.

The ads will target two Republicans in Arkansas, as well as Rep. Steve King in Iowa, New Hampshire’s Charlie Bass, and House members in Nevada, Illinois and Minnesota. The 30-second spot against Colorado’s Scott Tipton offers a glimpse of continued nationwide attacks on vulnerable GOP lawmakers, as Democrats hope to win back the House majority they lost in 2010.

Listen:

This is the second round of attacks from the super PAC, which recently received some hefty backing from Soros and others during last month’s special election in New York. The billionaire liberal philanthropist gave the group $75,000, which contributed to the $800,000 the House Majority PAC raised in the two months before Democrat Kathy Hochul won the seat, according to Politico. Formed after the recent Citizens United Supreme Court decision, super PACs allow for the raising of unlimited funds.

Extensive as the liberal PAC’s financial prowess is, it pales in comparison to Karl Rove’s conservative American Crossroads, which launched its $5 million dollar campaign today. The conservative ads focus on Obama’s biggest Achilles’ heel: his stay-the-course policies amidst a still-floundering economy.Read more stories from The Daily Caller

In budget debate, one senator sees pattern of secret negotiations

Bristol Palin: I did not 'accuse Levi of date rape'

Democrats launch massive ad campaign against Republican Medicare position

Obama jokes about Biden f-bomb in video about dinner contest

TSA didn't do anything wrong by making 95-year-old woman take off adult diaper, says TSA

View the original article here