Obama Attacks Romney On Medicare

Political Realities ^ | LD Jackson09/10/12

[LD Jackson]

I never cease to be amazed at the hypocrisy that is in the Obama campaign. I wrote yesterday about a new pilot program for Medicare that was crafted under the direction of the Department of Health and Human Services. For all intents and purposes, it is similar to the plan proposed by Paul Ryan, with one major difference. Ryan's plan is voluntary, whereas the pilot programs being approved by the HHS has an opt-out feature. In other words, senior citizens would be automatically enrolled in the program, but could stay in the standard Medicare program, should they choose to do so. With Ryan's plan, they have to opt-in to get in the new program. In the HHS plan, senior citizens would have to opt-out, in order to stay in the original Medicare plan.

With that out of the way, let's look at the new plan of attack the Obama campaign is using on Mitt Romney. They seem to believe they will be better off discussing Medicare than the economy, as they have doubled down on their attacks on Romney's plans for Medicare. Citing a new study, they are claiming Romney's plan will raise the cost senior citizens have to pay for Medicare coverage.

(The Hill) President Obama on Sunday turned his attention to Medicare, telling voters in Florida that Mitt Romney and Rep. Paul Ryan’s plans to reform the program would mean higher costs on seniors and more profits for insurance companies.

Obama cited a new study from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal advocacy group with ties to the administration, claiming that the GOP ticket’s plans for Medicare mean “would mean as much as $16 billion to $26 billion in new profits for insurance companies.”

“Your costs would rise by the thousands and the insurance companies' profits would rise by the billions,” said the president at a rally at the Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne.

“No American should have to spend their golden years at the mercy of insurance companies. They should retire with the dignity and the respect and the care that they have earned,” he added.

Obama said that the Republican proposal which he characterized as a “voucher plan” would “bankrupt” the program, while he touted his own reforms.

“We will reform and strengthen Medicare for the long haul -- but we’ll do it by reducing the cost of healthcare, not by dumping those costs on to seniors,” he said.

Did I mention the hypocrisy that is so prevalent in the Obama campaign? I know they are desperate to remove the focus of the campaign from the economy. Mitt Romney has been more than a little successful at keeping the campaign centered on the economy and the poor job President Obama has done to strengthen the economy, but do they really want to focus on Medicare? They must believe they have a winning strategy, otherwise they would try something else. But do they really want to go to Medicare?

Do they believe Americans are so blind and ignorant that we will not see the comparison between the two plans? Do they really believe we can not see the lies they are telling about the Romney/Ryan plan for Medicare, without mentioning their own plan that is in the process of being implemented? Do they really believe removing the focus from the economy and putting the blinders on Medicare will produce a win for Obama in November? Especially considering the way they are going about it? I say let them try.

This is one reason I believe Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan need to be hammering on Medicare in their speeches. It's doubtful they would ever read Political Realities, but if I could tell them one thing to do, it would be to keep talking about the economy, but to also begin highlighting the Medicare pilot program being implemented by the HHS. Americans, I believe, are smart enough to see what is going on, if they are given the facts. The mainstream media will not be talking about this, but Romney and Ryan can. When they do, it is up to those of us who do care about these things to report on what they say.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan should break out their charts and show the similarities and the differences between their plan and the HHS plan. They should explain how the HHS plan has an opt-out provision, not an opt-in. They should explain how hypocritical it is of President Obama to be attacking their plan, while implementing a similar plan. They should show how biased the new study is that Obama is relying on for his facts. It was produced by David Cutler, a Harvard professor who was the top healthcare adviser to Obama during his 2008 campaign.

There is plenty of fodder in this for the political cannons. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan needn't be shy about using it.

[Diogenesis]

This is no surprise.

Candidate Romney supported ObamaCARE and especially
RomneyCARE yesterday.

Socialized Medicine, HATED BY AMERICANS, is now
one of the themes of the GOPe.

[scooby321]

If they don’t attack Obama its over

[TomGuy]

Color me ‘suspicious’. [Is that racist???]

Obama recently came up with the idea of a new pilot Medicare program that basically gives vouchers to seniors to purchase medical insurance via private firms.

Obama tried the kill the current Medicare Advantage programs, a program that many seniors like because it gives them a bit more preventive and diagnostic care than regular medicare, and it operates through private insurance companies who have contracted with Medicare to provide some additional services and benefits.

Obama only extended the Medicare Advantage for a year, because seniors were irate at it being killed. Conveniently, that one year extension keeps Medicare Advantage through this election and the end-of-year Medicare Advantage selections this October through December.

This smacks of politics: Kill Medicare Advantage after the election, while Obama promises a new [better????] voucher program to purchase insurance outside of regular medicare.

It sounds like Obama is promising to replace one insurance program with another, and Obama has a SORRY history of keeping political promises.

[kitkat]

BUMP

[napscoordinator]

If they don’t attack Obama its over

Why would Romney attack his twin brother in beliefs? That is just silly. I can’t understand why people don’t understand that we are screwed regardless of who wins this election. The only good news is that we are going to make significant gains in the Senate this round.

[TomGuy]

I can’t understand why people don’t understand that we are screwed regardless of who wins this election. The only good news is that we are going to make significant gains in the Senate this round.

The flaw in your assessment is this:

If Obama gets reelected, he will bypass Congress [Republican House/Republican Senate] and govern via Executive Orders, edicts and dictums. He already is, to a certain extent.

Roberts and many other judges have neutered the courts from have much impact.

The House and Senate have little direct power to counter the edicts, Executive Orders, dictums. At most, the House can cut off funding, but probably does not have the leadership to do so.

==

Summary:

It makes a huge difference whether Obama or Romney is elected. Romney might be pressured enough to govern from the center and center-right. Obama, facing no further elections, will do as he darn well pleases -- and we have already seen the direction and cost of his first 4 years.