State Rep. Antonio Addresses The Romeny/Ryan Budget

[Justine Cooper]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/opini ... /c7p/xvS6w

"Republican attacks on President Obama’s plans for Medicare are growing more heated and inaccurate by the day. Both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan made statements last week implying that the Affordable Care Act would eviscerate Medicare when in fact the law should shore up the program’s finances.

Both men have also twisted themselves into knots to distance themselves from previous positions, so that voters can no longer believe anything they say. Last week, both insisted that they would save Medicare by pumping a huge amount of money into the program, a bizarre turnaround for supposed fiscal conservatives out to rein in federal spending.

The likelihood that they would stand by that irresponsible pledge after the election is close to zero. And the likelihood that they would be better able than Democrats to preserve Medicare for the future (through a risky voucher system that may not work well for many beneficiaries) is not much better. THE ALLEGED “RAID ON MEDICARE” A Republican attack ad says that the reform law has “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, with the money used to expand coverage to low-
income people who are currently uninsured. “So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that’s not for you,” the ad warns.

What the Republicans fail to say is that the budget resolutions crafted by Paul Ryan and approved by the Republican-controlled House retained virtually the same cut in Medicare.

In reality, the $716 billion is not a “cut” in benefits but rather the savings in costs that the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next decade from wholly reasonable provisions in the reform law.

One big chunk of money will be saved by reducing unjustifiably high subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans that enroll many beneficiaries at a higher average cost than traditional Medicare. Another will come from reducing the annual increases in federal reimbursements to health care providers — like hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies — to force the notoriously inefficient system to find ways to improve productivity.

And a further chunk will come from fees or taxes imposed on drug makers, device makers and insurers — fees that they can surely afford since expanded coverage for the uninsured will increase their markets and their revenues.

NO HARM TO SENIORS The Republicans imply that the $716 billion in cuts will harm older Americans, but almost none of the savings come from reducing the benefits available for people already on Medicare. But if Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan were able to repeal the reform law, as they have pledged to do, that would drive up costs for many seniors — namely those with high prescription drug costs, who are already receiving subsidies under the reform law, and those who are receiving preventive services, like colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations, with no cost sharing.

Mr. Romney argued on Friday that the $716 billion in cuts will harm beneficiaries because those who get discounts or extra benefits in the heavily subsidized Medicare Advantage plans will lose them and because reduced payments to hospitals and other providers could cause some providers to stop accepting Medicare patients.

If he thinks that will be a major problem, Mr. Romney should leave the reform law in place: it has many provisions designed to make the delivery of health care more efficient and cheaper, so that hospitals and others will be better able to survive on smaller payments.

NO BANKRUPTCY LOOMING The Republicans also argue that the reform law will weaken Medicare and that by preventing the cuts and ultimately turning to vouchers they will enhance the program’s solvency. But Medicare is not in danger of going “bankrupt”; the issue is whether the trust fund that pays hospital bills will run out of money in 2024, as now projected, and require the program to live on the annual payroll tax revenues it receives.

The Affordable Care Act helped push back the insolvency date by eight years, so repealing the act would actually bring the trust fund closer to insolvency, perhaps in 2016.

DEFICIT REDUCTION Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan said last week that they would restore the entire $716 billion in cuts by repealing the law. The Congressional Budget Office concluded that repealing the law would raise the deficit by $109 billion over 10 years.

The Republicans gave no clue about how they would pay for restoring the Medicare cuts without increasing the deficit. It is hard to believe that, if faced with the necessity of fashioning a realistic budget, keeping Medicare spending high would be a top priority with a Romney-Ryan administration that also wants to spend very large sums on the military and on tax cuts for wealthy Americans.

[Justine Cooper]

I'm curious, before many of you come on the Deck ranting or making snarky comments about one side or the other, how many of you have read the actual budget proposal?

There are some Thealexa who aren't the least intersted in the facts but much more focused on blaming/hating/polarizing in this country. We ALL need to depend on SS one day and most of us have aging parents who have worked their whole lives and paid into this system so we have that in common. It is time to separate the party line and read the actual facts and figures and focus on issues, not D or R. S

Seniors paying higher deductibles and much more in prescriptions should not be an option any of us would choose. Politics aside, this is everything that matters in life, the care of the elderly, which we all hope to be one day.

[Roy Pitchford]

Social Security was only doomed to fail if the people who ran it didn't want to adapt it to the changing demography, which they didn't, so I guess you're right in a sense. However, in theory, Social Security is a solid idea.

Kate is right, do you hear what you're saying?

Why trust these same people, who have failed to adapt to changes in the country, with health care in addition to this mis-managed Social Security? This was one of the core arguments against Obamacare.

The government is a bureaucratic mess, it doesn't adapt. We the people are the one's stuck conforming to the government, not the other way around. Maybe if the government wasn't so big it would stand a chance of being able to adapt as needed.

We ALL need to depend on SS one day and most of us have aging parents who have worked their whole lives and paid into this system so we have that in common.

Social Security was not formed to serve as the end-all be-all of a senior's financial support. It was formed as a backstop for worst-case scenarios, like the loss of all savings through something like the Great Depression. The people were expected to have saved some on their own as well.
However, over the course of the last 80 some years, it has morphed. The people have, irresponsibly, shifted to greater dependence on the government. "Why save for retirement when the government's been doing it all for me through social security." and when they get there, its not enough to live on.

I have said it before, I'll say it again, I do not pay into Social Security as a public employee. I pay into OPERS which people say is one of the better run state pension systems in the country. But you know what? I look at that 10% take from every paycheck as gone and I save part of the remaining 90% (well, more like 65% - 70% after the government gets through) on my own for my own retirement. I consider it my responsibility, no one else's, to provide for myself at this point.
Somehow, I feel the oddball for wanting to be responsible for myself.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Why trust these same people, who have failed to adapt to changes in the country, with health care in addition to this mis-managed Social Security? This was one of the core arguments against Obamacare.

The same is true no matter who gets in. We must watch them like hawks, sad but true.

But "the same people" are not the people you are talking about, this is my problem Social
Security is not broke, and if left alone will be every bit as good and solvent as any program.

Really, change it, break it now, we have so many things to fix, leave it, make it better.

Somehow, I feel the oddball for wanting to be responsible for myself.

Roy, everyone is glad you want to be responsible for yourself, that's great. But what about the person that through no fault of his own needs a little help themselves? I am not talking about the lazy welfare mother of 35, I am talking about very real cases of people not having it as good as you do, how as humans do we help them?

What you are saying is we do not have to. That is a suicidal path. Desperate people do
desperate things, and if they are dumb, it gets ugly very quickly. So education, health care, and a modicum of a safety net is not a bad thing.

When you say "We all need to be responsible for ourselves," the liberal mind hears, "Let
the poor the downtrodden, those down on their luck, the unwashed fend for themselves."


.

[Grace O'Malley]

You know what? If you abhor spending money to help others, then let's look at it from a strictly economic perspective. Would you rather pay a small amount to provide food, housing and health care for those who cannot or will not do it for themselves, or would you prefer to spend an even larger dollar amount on police, prisons, courts, and personal protection?

You are going to pay one way or another. That's the cost of living in a society. Even if you are not like me and would be willing to spend money to help others only for the sake of helping my fellow man, then look at your own pocket and understand you ARE going to pay for others whether you like it or not; it is inevitable.

So, would you prefer to help people maintain some shred of dignity or do you want the every man for himself and the resultant free for all that will cost you even MORE money?

[Roy Pitchford]

But what about the person that through no fault of his own needs a little help themselves? I am not talking about the lazy welfare mother of 35, I am talking about very real cases of people not having it as good as you do, how as humans do we help them?

Jim, there are plenty of people that do genuinely need help, I acknowledge that. Why is it a requirement that anyone on support get government aid? I read an old statistic a few months ago...

When you contribute to your local charities, you must give $1.10 for every $1 that is to be spent in good works. County welfare sees an increase in this overhead to where $1.23 must be raised for every $1 actually spent on welfare. At the state level it takes $1.49 and the federal government must raise $2.10 for every dollar it will spend on the recipients of federal welfare a $1.10 overhead for each $1.

These numbers are from 1960! Imagine where they are now.
If dollars were given, 1:1, to charity instead of the government, think of all the good that could be done simply by reducing that overhead waste.

So education, health care, and a modicum of a safety net is not a bad thing.

A safety net is a very different thing from the trampoline the government seems to have built.

Would you rather pay a small amount to provide food, housing and health care for those who cannot or will not do it for themselves

Grace, "cannot": yes. "will not": no.
People who "will not" work for themselves should be ashamed of themselves. There used to be a stigma attached to going on government assistance. It was bad. Now, you've got commercials telling us how great they are:


On another point, what makes you think we're paying "a small amount" for those services and "even larger dollar amount on police," etc.? My paycheck has a much larger federal withholding than a city one.

In fact, since I mention that, let me share a thought I've had for a while. If the withholdings from paycheck were reversed and the federal withholdings were the lowest and my local were the highest, but the total amount was the same, I'd be cool with that.

Grace, you paint an interesting economic picture: "Pay for welfare or pay for police" because those people without welfare will resort to crime.
First, you seem to have a very low opinion of people on welfare. You seem assume they will turn to crime.
Second, you present a very narrow-minded argument. That picture you've painted, only has white and black. There are some other colors in the spectrum. Private charity, taking a job you might not like, cut back on your own spending, making a job for yourself...