Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney Loves Medicare Very Much And Won't Ever Let Anyone Take It Away, No Matter What

|

At a Friday speech in Washington, Mitt Romney complained once again that "President Obama is the only president in history who has cut Medicare for seniors" and promised with a straight face to "Protect Medicare. Improve the program. And keep it sustainable for generations to come."

His plan to save the program from eventual bankruptcy? As is so often the case with Romney's policy proposals, the details are still vague. Even still,  there's an easy way to describe the basic framework: It's ObamaCare for seniors—but with the addition of a government-run "public option," also known as traditional Medicare.

The plan bears all of the now-familiar hallmarks of a Romney policy proposal. It's vague. It's designed for maximum pandering. And Romney was against it before he was for it.

Now, one might point out that Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to overhaul Medicare also resembled ObamaCare for seniors. That's true enough. Under both plans, seniors would be able to use a taxpayer-funded premium support payment to subdisize their insurance premiums and then allowed to purchase a plan of their choosing from a regulated exchange—much like the system of subsidies and exchanges ObamaCare uses to expand individual insurance to the middle class. Ryan's subsidy formula is designed to cap and restrain the growth of Medicare; Romney has yet to say how he'll calculate the subsidies, or even roughly how generous they would be. 

But there's another important difference. Ryan proposed improving the current system by transforming the current system's essentially unlimited benefit—and thus its ever-expanding cost to taxpayers—into one in which spending is capped per beneficiary. Romney, on the other hand, wants to add a layer of private insurance on top of the existing government-run Medicare insurance system, which would continue to operate alongside the newly subsidized private plans. He not only wants to preserve today's Medicare system for current seniors, he appears to want to preserve it—and its unlimited benefit—for anyone and everyone going forward.

Here's my question: Hey Mitt! WTF?!!

The political advantages should be obvious. On the one hand, unlike Ryan, he can't be accused of "ending Medicare as we know it." He gets to position himself as a protector of Medicare (the entitlement section of his proposal is titled "Preserve Entitlements.") On the other hand, he gets to talk about Medicare using key GOP buzzwords like "choice," "competition," and "private insurance."  

On a policy level, the idea, Romney explains, is to "encourage insurers to lower costs and compete on the quality of their offerings." But as Ezra Klein has already explained, that was the oft-stated idea behind the liberal proposal to include a government-run "public option" in ObamaCare's insurance exchanges. What liberal supporters of the public option said less often was that many, including the idea's designer, hoped it would provide a slow-but-steady path to single-payer, as private insurers slowly dropped out of the market unable to "compete" with a heavily subsidized, artificially low-priced government-run insurance plan. (Read how a public option for property insurance has displaced private offerings in Florida.)

Romney's plan, limited to seniors, probably wouldn't lead to nationwide single payer system, except perhaps the one we already have: Medicare. In other words, it might lead to a seniors' health care system once again dominated by a government-run insurance—essentially canceling itself out.

Romney is at least aware of the potential for problems with leaving a government-run insurance in place. He's defended his own Massachusetts health care overhaul against Republican criticism by insisting that "we don't have a government insurance plan. We rely on private insurers"—the clear implication being that this is a good thing. And in 2009, commenting on the president's proposed national health reform, he told CNN that "You don't have to have a public option. You don't have to have the government getting into the insurance business to make it work." With Medicare, the government has been getting into the insurance business for decades. And Romney, under the guise of reform, wouldn't do a thing to stop it.

NEXT: The Sarah Palin Candidate Profile

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Based on that first pic, I’m assuming Mitt is a big fan of Tagalogs.

    1. I don’t get it. Are Tagalogs known for their affinity for fudge? Or getting their fudge packed?

      1. Go to last night’s High Speed Rail story for a little context.*

        *But beware pics of Steelers fans.

        1. Shit! Got here late… *huff*puff*

          What’d I miss?

    2. That first pic makes Romney look a little too eager to do a cavity search on someone. Possibly someone going through airport security.

      We have some sick minds here at Reason. 🙁

      1. I guess the fudge sign is a clue to something.

        1. If the clue is “Get out. Fast”, yes it is.

    3. That pic is an old standby for Romney posts. I’ve seen it maybe half a dozen times now. It’s probably been used more often than Lobster Girl, sadly.

      1. Only the Ayn Rand as Dominatrix gag has been abused more often.

        1. That’s a fun game: name the most common pics.

          There’s also the failed states cover with the ex-Governator.

          1. Beat-up-and-in-a-coma-Homeless-Schizophrenic-Anti-Cop Guy was always a treat.

    4. that fudge picture always cracks me up

      romney would have won the nomination last time if huckabee had not split the vote of the republican wing of the republican party, and he would have done better in the general election than mccain did

      romney in 2012: he’s the best we can do under the circumstances!

  2. Someone needs to tackle that man and shave his eyebrows off, completely.

  3. This guy is a joke. No way he gets the nomination.

    1. Who the Repub establishment wants as the nominee, is who gets the nomination.

      And right now, that’s ROMNIAC.

      It would be a major, major break with the past for him to not be the nominee.

      I’m hoping the Tea Parties are laying in the ammunition now to beat him in the primaries.

      Here’s a dilemma for you: Gingrich, or ROMNIAC?

      1. Ugh. Newcular Titties, I guess. He’s less likely to get too bipartisany. And he’s more likely a carbon-based life form.

        1. The problem with carbon-based life forms is that they’re getting geometrically worse as time goes on. Maybe we should put a robot in charge for a while, what’s the worst that could happen?

          1. Every heard of Skynet?

          2. “”Maybe we should put a robot in charge for a while,””

            Bender?

      2. While I will heartily support ABR in the primary, in the general election I’m still going to vote loon LP.

      3. Romney/Gingrich, Romney/Cain, Romney/Perry, Romney/Bachmann, Romney/Paul, Romney/Anyone. Or this: Any GOP nominee/ Any choice of theirs…

        Any of these would be better than the dupes we have now. Huckabee and McCain ruined last election.

        Vote your favorite in the primary, then get behind the nominee –100% ($ +time),regardless of who it is, in the general.

        If not, you have only yourself and those like you to thank for the complete bulldozing of the United States.

    2. It’s precisely because he’s such a joke that he’s going to be the candidate, and that seriously depresses me.

      1. I’m officially predicting that he will fail to get the nomination. In fact, I’ll go out further on the limb and predict that my home state of Florida will put the stake in his hopes.

        I’m the Kwittheshitz Hadenough and am deep in the spice trance, so don’t bet against me.

        1. am deep in the spice trance

          I think that means plowed on margaritas before noon, so I’m not sure that’s a ringing endorsement of your veracity.

          1. No, it’s the spice, enrage.

            1. Tequila is not a spice.

              1. It’s made from a desert plant. Close enough.

    3. Because he is a joke he will probably get the R nomination. He is the McCain of 2012.

  4. His plan to save the program from eventual bankruptcy

    The Health Care Fairy?

  5. No way he gets the nomination.

    In other words, it’s a done deal; he’s a shoo-in.

  6. How sweet of Mitt, and politically courageous too! Is this man single?

  7. The Romney “Fudge” picture is great on many levels.

  8. I said McCain would get the nomination about the 12th of never, so my prognosticator is obviously on the fritz. But I just don’t see Republican primary voters pulling the lever for Romney.

    But then, it don’t get much more red than where I live. I may be biased by my surroundings.

  9. I don’t get it. Are Tagalogs known for their affinity for fudge? Or getting their fudge packed?

    The Tagalog Fudge Mystery revealed, Zeb.

  10. Ugh. Newcular Titties, I guess. He’s less likely to get too bipartisany. And he’s more likely a carbon-based life form.

    Nope, he’s a silicon based life form: he has acid for blood.

  11. Anyone else a little disturbed by the look on Romney’s face as he puts that glove on? It looks more like he’s about to perform a full cavity search than serve fudge.

    1. Thus the joke.

  12. Show me a GOP nominee who doesn’t say he wants to preserve Medicare, and I’ll show you a second term for Obama.

    1. Yeah. I believe that, in politics, the object is to win. Unless you’re a Libertarian. But that goes without saying.

      1. If you’re a pragmatic libertarian, the object isn’t to win either, since that’s usually not an option. The object is to limit the damage done by the person/group who does win.

        Despite accusations to the contrary I’m really not a fan of Romney.

        1. The object if you’re a pragmatic libertarian (which is a redundancy, as libertarianism famously lacks a coherent, consistent politics) is to limit the damage.

          Aim high!

        2. Despite accusations to the contrary I’m really not a fan of Romney.

          You sure do sound like an apologist for him below.

          1. Yes, because imho he’s the least bad option that has a chance of actually winning.

            1. Elucidate his differences with Obama. I fail to see anything significant.

  13. Romney has no chance of winning the general election.

    I think at this point the only Republicans who can win against Obama are Cain, Paul or Johnson, because the others are insiders from the disasters of the Bush years.

    With that having been said, I actually hope that the Republicans lose in the next cycle: the Republican establishment will not support serious reforms, but will rather engage in unserious half-measures. Then, much as they did with Bush’s faux-small-government policies, the Democrats will say that the failure of the ineffective half -measures prove that free markets/small government doesn’t work.

    To date, Obama has gotten away with blaming everything on Bush. His next presidency won’t afford him that excuse.

    So a bitterly contested primary season, with a flawed establishment Republican losing to Obama is the best we can hope for:
    1) It will discredit the Republican establishment further with the Tea party types leading to its reform/dissolution as a major party.

    2) It will discredit Obama/Bush’s Hooverite policies.

    I hate to say this: my kids will be coming of age into the final stage of a major depression if things go the way I “want”.

    1. Just about any GOP nominee can win. Obama is perceived as prolonging the economic downturn. That alone is death.

      1. A lot can change after a year and upwards of $2B worth of focused character assassination against the GOP nominee.

        The downturn probably won’t change but plenty of other shit can happen. And remember, as bad as the Obamarrhoids are at governing, they’re good at campaigning.

        1. A lot can change after a year and upwards of $2B worth of focused character assassination against the GOP nominee.

          Wow! And you called me delusional for making a similar point! 😀

          1. I call you delusional for thinking Cain, Paul, or Johnson would be somehow immune.

            Johnson would be fucked on drug legalization.

            Paul would be fucked on drug legalization and the newsletters.

            Cain would be fucked on his sexual harrassment escapades and God knows what else is in his closet.

            1. I didn’t say they would win, I said they had a chance. From my perspective, insiders like Romney have no realistic chance, since they come with even more baggage (the dumb things they did/said during the Bush years).

    2. Romney has no chance of winning the general election.

      I think at this point the only Republicans who can win against Obama are Cain, Paul or Johnson, because the others are insiders from the disasters of the Bush years.

      They have some really great medicine for your delusion problem these days.

      Very few people outside of the leftie echo chamber accept Obama’s blaming of Bush at this point. The current damage he’s doing, and that he’s been doing since 2010, has been without the consent of the American people or the cooperation of Congress. And he’s done plenty, and will do a great deal more with a second term. Saying that giving him a second term is “putting him right where we want him” makes you sound like a cartoon villain.

      1. Gaaah! Tulpa, I can forgive people who are rude, but can read. I can forgive people who struggle with reading comprehension, but are polite.

        But combine the two as you repeatedly do, and it becomes unforgiveable.

        1) I don’t want Obama to have a second term as I’ve made repeatedly clear.

        2) I am arguing that an establishment Republican will be a bigger disaster than Obama, in that they will not significantly alter the trajectory of the government, but that the inevitable failure of their half-measures will be blamed on the classical liberal/libertarian constellation of policies.

        There is absolutely nothing optimistic about what I am saying. I think it’s the least bad option with a realistic chance of happening in the long term.

        1. 1) I don’t want Obama to have a second term as I’ve made repeatedly clear.

          ahem?

          I actually hope that the Republicans lose in the next cycle

          1. Tulpa,

            A person can not want something to happen, but still realize it’s the best option of a bad set of choices.

            1. Sort of like when I push a fat girl in front of me off a cliff, it’s not that I want her to fall to her death, it’s just that I want an unobstructed view.

          2. Keep pretending that I never made point 2, commodore. It rally does wonders for the esteem people give you. 😀

            1. Explain how point 2 makes point 1 not contradict your other statement.

  14. Show me a GOP nominee who doesn’t say he wants to preserve Medicare, and I’ll show you a second term for Obama.

    This premise is contingent on mutual exclusivity, which I fail to see.

    The Zero and Shit Flopney have the exact same johns to whom they wish to cater but rely on different prostitutes who happen to have the same pimp.

    I will submit Obama is more honest and predictable than Shit Flopney, and I would sooner vote for Obama outright than the Flopster.

    1. Leaving aside the significant policy differences between the two that you seem dead set on obscuring, one big difference is that Romney would have the media at his throat rather than giving him deep throat.

      1. One other difference would be that as soon as there was a GOP President, the GOP figures in Congress currently worried about cutting spending would…stop.

        The GOP’s current fascination with small government is an artifact of the fact that they don’t have the White House.

        If there’s any Republican alive with the potential to be worse than Obama, it’s Romney. And he’d make (almost) all other Republicans worse right along with him.

        1. Even at the height of the Bush years (2004-06) spending didn’t come close to matching what Obama and the Dems have done. And there were very few among the GOP caucus at that time who’d been thrust into office on a platform of reducing spending, and those who had had done so over a decade before.

          1. Yeah, I remember when I thought the Republican congress was going to spend “all the money” and leave the Dems with nothing.
            I feel rather stupid now…and I long for the days of deficits in the mere billions instead of trillions.
            sigh

      2. “Leaving aside the significant policy differences between the two that you seem dead set on obscuring”

        Okay I’ll bite, what are significant policy differences between Obama and Romney?

        Why is it better to trust a Republican President Mitt Romney with a Republican Congress, than An Impotent Democratic President Obama who can’t get any of his policies through a Republican Congress? Barack Obama with a Republican Senate and House Means gridlock, what does Unified Republican Government behind Mitt Romney equal? Real Spending cuts? A Flat Tax? Entitlement Reform? Cuts to Subsidies? Or none of the above?

  15. +100 points to Suder-mann for the second pic alt-text.

    1. ASK MITT ANYTHING

      Mr Romney, why do you go by “Mitt” instead of “Willard”?

  16. I’m the Kwittheshitz Hadenough and am deep in the spice trance, so don’t bet against me.

    I won’t Pro’L Dib, but CHOAM and the Guilds are going to make life very, very difficult for you (us).

    1. He who can destroy a thing controls a thing.

  17. Obama is perceived as prolonging the economic downturn.

    I hate to say this, but I think a lot of people actually believe him (and his cheerleaders at MSNBC, et c) when he says, “And I would have saved the economy, too, if it hadn’t been for those meddling teabaggers!”

    1. The polls don’t agree with your conjecture.

  18. Right now, Romney is making Clinton look honest. “We don’t have a government insurance plan…”? I’d call forcing people to buy something a “government” plan.

  19. Yeah. I believe that, in politics, the object is to win.

    Yes, but winning with what object is the question here. No primary votes have been cast, and I resent greatly this “inevitability” meme with the scare tactic of “But he’s not Obama!” It’s elitist, disingenuous and disgraceful. Last time I checked individuals select a nominee, not Bill fuckin’ Kristol.

    1. I don’t see how you can find fault with Obama loaning $500M to Solyndra if you think it’s elitist to make predictions based on known evidence.

      I mean, if the price of silicon stayed high forever, Solyndra actually might have been a moderate success. Of course, an elitist like myself would say that that’s extremely unlikely to happen and you shouldn’t even be seriously considering it, but a person guided by exuberant hope such as yourself should have no problem with it.

    2. What percent of people actually vote in a primary? Ten maybe?
      It’s the hardcore party folks who will determine who is the nominee.
      These are the partisan folks who want a Republican, not a libertarian in Republican clothing.
      Whoever wins must be pro drug war, pro war on terrorism, and give lip service to cutting government without saying anything specific, because that’s what the ten percent who decide the primary elections want to hear.

  20. The object is to limit the damage done by the person/group who does win.

    I truly don’t believe that Flopney will do less damage than Obama, Tulpy. This is 1/7 of GDP we’er talking here, and as Suderman has pointed out over and over, Flopney’s (TEAM RED) and Obama’s (TEAM BLUE) and goal are virtually dissimilar, and I believe Obama more than I ever will Flopney.

    Despite accusations to the contrary I’m really not a fan of Romney.

    I believe you, Tulpy Poo, but what appears to be and can be construed as full-throated support of Grand Coif Tarkin makes it difficult to discern otherwise.

    1. All that Suderman has done is point out that the same people who advised Romney advised Obama.

      He has not shown that the programs are virtually the same (“dissimilar” is not what you meant, I assume). He’s shown nothing but a vague guilt by association.

      And while I don’t claim the health care policy expertise of our friend Peter, I do note one set of stark differences: MassCare was (a) consistent with the constitution of the jurisdiction where it went into force, and (b) popular among the people of said jurisdiction.

      Obamacare has neither of those attributes.

      1. MassCare was (a) consistent with the constitution of the jurisdiction where it went into force, and (b) popular among the people of said jurisdiction.

        Neither of which is relevant to the question of whether it will result in a better health care system, which is what all those advisers shared by Mitt and Barack have been saying.

        The mere fact that Mitt Romney supported, signed, and supports to this day MassCare means that he is not fit to be President. Because MassCare/OCare is a fiscal train wreck, a health delivery disaster, and top-down technocratic micromanagement at its worst.

        1. The advisors aren’t running for office last I checked.

          The mere fact that Mitt Romney supported, signed, and supports to this day MassCare means that he is not fit to be President.

          Wow, you’re a picky one! Tell me who you support and I’ll get up on my soapbox and explain why they’re not fit to be President.

          The unfortunate reality of the process we have for selecting presidents is that anyone who is fit to be president is never going to have a shot at being president.

          1. Wow, you’re a picky one! Tell me who you support and I’ll get up on my soapbox and explain why they’re not fit to be President.

            So you admit that you want a person who is unfit to be president to hold the office?

            Have you ever considered Abilify?

          2. Earlier today, you were calling someone out for complaining about Solyndra but ignoring the military industrial complex. Meanwhile, you’re willing to ignore RomneyCare.

  21. (Yes, this is a re-post. I’d like to get the word out. If you agree, feel free to copy/paste, modify ect.. this throughout the threads for the next few days.)

    Regarding White Indian.

    We are libertarians and for the most part believe people can solve problems by themselves with minimal authority/rules. We constantly claim that people will band together to act in their own best interests. Here is an idea…let’s prove it.

    Instead of pushing for moderators or registration… let’s treat this WI situation as a libertarian experiment. Let’s stand by our libertarian ideals and solve the problem on our own. Let’s ALL agree to NOT interact with WI at all. Would you post all day, every day if no one would respond to you? I doubt it.

    Let’s all agree to NOT FEED THE TROLL!

    Problem solved…in a libertarian manner.

    1. Can’t we just track down where he lives and gouge his fucking eyes out with our thumbs instead?

      1. Plan B

      2. Multiple thumbs on a right hand? You should probably get that checked out.

        1. Have you heard the palm muting on Dante’s Inferno? You have to have nonstandard anatomy of some type to play that way.

        2. Have you heard the palm muting on Dante’s Inferno? You have to have nonstandard anatomy of some type to play that way.

  22. I don’t see how you can find fault with Obama loaning $500M to Solyndra if you think it’s elitist to make predictions based on known evidence.

    Government should not be in the business of selecting winners and losers, regardless of the evidence. Full stop.

    1. Nice try. There are much bigger govt payments out there — look at defense contractors for instance — yet you don’t like Solyndra for some reason. Why?

      (I agree with your dislike, but I’m just helping you clarify your ratiocination)

      1. Nice try. Being critical of Solyndra does not automatically make a person a supporter of defense contractors.
        Though it does make for a nice straw man.

        1. Ah, but when one focuses hatred on Solyndra rather than much larger winner-choosing schemes in other areas, it is a just question to ask why, is it not?

          1. Focusing hatred? I don’t see this as an expression of emotion.
            Why Solyndra? Gee. What’s been in the news lately? I wonder…

            Again, nice straw man.

            Bravo!

            Superb!

            What do you do for an encore?

            1. The owls and mice in the graveyard are requesting you whistle Dixie next.

      2. Defense contractors are supplying a product to the DoD. Solyndra and the other “winners” picked by DoE are not actually doing business with the government.

        There is no comparison between the two.

  23. I can’t believe I’m the first to say this:

    Two by two, hands of blue!

  24. Maybe we should put a robot in charge for a while, what’s the worst that could happen?

    It would probably be a significant improvement.

    1. Unlike the members of Fathers Against Rude Television, I think this is a dandy idea.

  25. How is this proposal any different from the current system? Seniors can already choose between traditional Medicare and subsidized private plans- it’s called Medicare Advantage/Medicare Part C. It’s been around for years.

  26. The polls don’t agree with your conjecture.

    Bah!

  27. He has not shown that the programs are virtually the same (“dissimilar” is not what you meant, I assume). He’s shown nothing but a vague guilt by association.

    Correct, I forgot a not; those pesky negatives are important.

    MassCare was (a) consistent with the constitution of the jurisdiction where it went into force, and (b) popular among the people of said jurisdiction.

    Statement a) is true, and coupled with Shit’s admitted mastery of the subject, is why no other nominee has been able to lay a glove on him WRT to this issue. And effectively taking a major campaign issue off the table, which is what TEAM RED wants.

    Statement b), OTOH, is troubling. Just because a given policy is popular doesn’t make it fiscally sound and wise policy.

    Obamacare has neither of those attributes.

    SCOTUS will decide a) and with b), it’s only unpopularity with both TEAMS is for how it is paid. The idea itself has great appeal.

  28. There are much bigger govt payments out there — look at defense contractors for instance — yet you don’t like Solyndra for some reason. Why?

    What, aside from the voices in your head, leads you to believe anybody here *supports* shoveling billions into the coffers of Northrop, General Electric, General Dynamic, Boeing, et al, while containing their outrage to the mere piddling millions slathered on Solyndra?

    I cannot speak for anybody else, but I am nowhere near peak hate.

    1. Already addressed this attack. If you’re only concerned about govt selecting winners and losers, why focus on a relatively small case of this when there are much bigger fish to fry?

  29. Ah, but when one focuses hatred on Solyndra rather than much larger winner-choosing schemes in other areas, it is a just question to ask why, is it not?

    If you asked the question in better faith, Tulpy, I would respond to it.

    Nowhere did I mention Solyndra (and its bastard eco-theological spawn). I also fail to see where funding these eco-theological projects, based on questionable science, is under the purview of limited government, except to propel Crapitalism, social engineering and influence peddling.

    Defense of the nation, OTOH, while exceptionally bloated, is an enumerated responsibility of government.

    1. If you asked the question in better faith, Tulpy, I would respond to it.

      lololololololololololol

      I think the white house has an opening for you to vet incoming subpenas.

  30. Already addressed this attack. If you’re only concerned about govt selecting winners and losers, why focus on a relatively small case of this when there are much bigger fish to fry?

    Goes towards credibility, Your Honor.

    1. why focus on a relatively small case of this when there are much bigger fish to fry?

      The small case is egregious and relatively easy to understand, laying the groundwork for a general offensive.

  31. why focus on a relatively small case of this when there are much bigger fish to fry?

    Bored, now.

  32. He who can destroy a thing controls a thing.

    Is that a green light for the Stone Burners?

    1. You and your stone burners. You’re a secret ophthalmologist, aren’t you? With thousands of cloned eyes sitting in a freezer somewhere.

  33. You’re a secret ophthalmologist, aren’t you? With thousands of cloned eyes sitting in a freezer somewhere.

    I AM RAND PAUL!

    1. Which explains almost everything!

  34. I think this weekend when the OW Trolls attack again I’m just gonna come back to this thread.

  35. I expect campaign ideas to be vague. They can only give us a broad outline of what they plan to try and do. But we should all realize that until they get that final brief of how things really work in that first 30 days of their new presidency, they only have part of the picture.

    1. Yes, they’ll be told what to do by the ivy league “experts” they pull in for their cabinet appointments. Which is why nothing except the rhetoric will change.

  36. Romney recognizes problems and has the courage to present real solutions. Dissenters create distractions by attaching excessive meaning to political terminology. I trust Romney’s judgment as a proven problem solver. Medicare will be preserved under his watch and people will be given the option to choose based on their individual needs.

  37. I read the title of this article but didn’t read further, so this is just a thought about the title. Assuming you want people to take you seriously, why give your article such a juvenile and unprofessional title?

    1. I agree with asdfasdf. I also notice the composite image at the top and I’m sad to see this type of article on a website entitled “reason”.

  38. Wow. Romney adopts 75% of the Ryan plan. Ryan comes out and praises him for his political courage. All commentators agree that he has handed Obama a fat target to use against him in the swing state of Florida, on principal. This plan does not get him any voters who would not have voted for him eventually anyway and he knows that. And Suderman trashes him for pandering? I’m guessing your hatred of Romney would have required this response, even if he had called for the immediate abolition of Medicare.

  39. So, where was/is this sort of article for Obama? His jobs plan has yet to materialize, and his hope for change ideas were never vetted. Still aren’t. Where’s the balance in this coverage?

  40. It is amusing to see Reason take issue with the vagueness of a proposal of a POTENTIAL republican nominee, yet see no remorse for the election of President Obama whose entire campaign in 2008 was based on rhetorical flights of fancy that bore absolutely no details beyond soaring hope and change. Where, oh where, was this desire to hold to account when a candidate that accomplished absolutely nothing was running in 2008? Where was the reasonable approach when a candidate that had never accomplished a single thing, in any of his previously held (albeit oh so briefly) elected offices?

  41. So how does he differ from Obama. Obama promised to bring the troops home, close Gitmo, repeal the Patriot Act…..no pandering there….nice objective reporting.

  42. http://www.newerahatfactory.com/ That is not the tree does not retain, but the pursuit of the wind; it is not yellow leaves of fall, but the triumphant victory!

  43. The entire program needs restructuring in order to become sustainable. Heritage’s Saving the American Dream made a proposal where individuals could choose premium-based Medicare fee-for-service. Contributions would be income-adjusted (like in Part D), restoring Medicare to its original function as a genuine social insurance program. If it could work for Part D, it could work for all of Medicare. In this way, very wealthy seniors would benefit from access to an insurance marketplace where they could not be denied coverage, but they would no longer receive taxpayer subsidies to purchase coverage. At the same time low-income seniors would continue to receive additional aid under Medicaid if they remain in traditional Medicare; if enrolled in a private plan, states could “top off” the federal contribution with further financial assistance. Furthermore, costs would be controlled in part through competition. The federal contribution for premium support would be based on bids submitted by participating plans to cover traditional Medicare benefits, as well as a new catastrophic care benefit. Bids would be weighted based on enrollment and once fully implemented, the government contribution would equal 88% of the lowest premium bid. This would put pressure on insurers to bring costs below their competitors (http://eng.am/mXvu4b).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.