In his speech at The Villages yesterday, Paul Ryan attacked the President’s Medicare plan, while trying to convince seniors that his own plan was the solution to save Medicare. In doing so, he used a qualifier that I had not heard so far this campaign, and I decided to research and fact check Paul Ryan about that claim.
But in order to make sure we can guarantee that promise for my mom’s generation, for those baby boomers that are retiring everyday. We must reform it for my generation. To save it for this generation, you have to reform it for my generation so it doesn’t go bankrupt when we want to retire. The good news is there are bipartisan solutions to do this. The plan we support originally, the Clinton Commission plan to save Medicare in the late 1990s. It’s a bipartisan plan in congress today. It’s a plan that says, do not change benefits for people 55 and above and for those of us who are younger when we become Medicare eligible we get a choice of guaranteed coverage options. Guaranteed affordability including traditional Medicare. So we get to pick the plan for us when we retire and that means all those providers competing against each other for our business, and we don’t have to beg for the mercy of 15 bureaucrats, whether or not we get our healthcare.
--Paul Ryan Aug. 18, 2012 Speech at The Villages, FL (emphasis added)
The first mistruth about this statement is Ryan’s use of the words "Clinton Commission" to attempt to invoke the popular President, and to try to paint the commission as bipartisan. The commission he is actually referring to is the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. According to
Factcheck.org, this commission was:
created by Congress as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The New York Times reported that Clinton appointed just four of the 17 commission members, and all four of them voted against the report. Clinton himself opposed the final draft report. He issued a statement on the day of the vote that criticized the plan for, among other things, potentially increasing premiums for seniors who remain in the traditional government-run Medicare plan. Why? Clinton and other Democrats feared the subsidies would not keep pace with inflation.
So, the commission's plan was less than Bipartisan, and not even “The Clinton Commission” as Paul Ryan would like us to believe. In fact, without the refusal to support the plan by those Clinton appointees on the commission, the vote would have succeeded by a super majority. In a
report by PBS dated March 17, 1999, Margaret Warner explains that:
Falling just one vote shy of a needed super-majority, the bipartisan Medicare Commission failed last night to endorse a blueprint for reform.
Ms. Warner went on to explain:
But the plan failed to pass when only two Democrats, Senator Breaux and Senator Bob Kerrey, joined Republicans in voting for it. Shortly before the vote, president Clinton came out to criticize the plan for not providing adequate prescription drug coverage and not earmarking part of expected future budget surpluses to shore up the Medicare Fund. The president said he would submit his own alternative to Congress this year.
President Clinton followed through on this by submitting his own plan on June 29, 1999 for Medicare. That plan was opposed by Republicans as pointed out in the President’s speech. President Clinton explains in his
address to the nation that,
Today I asked you here so that I could announce the details of our plan to secure and modernize Medicare for the 21st century. My plan will use competition and the best private sector practices to secure Medicare in order to control costs and improve quality, and it will devote a significant portion of the budget surplus to keep Medicare solvent.
But securing Medicare is not enough. To modernize Medicare, my plan will also create a much better match between the benefits of modern science and the benefits offered by Medicare. It will provide for more preventive care and help our seniors afford prescription drugs. The plan is credible, sensible and fiscally responsible.
--Bill Clinton June, 29 1999
The Administration went further in its explanation of the differences between the plan in
this report obtained from The Clinton Library which states:
The Breaux-Thomas plan does not substantially extend the solvency of Medicare. At most, it adds 4 or 5 years to the program’s life--which by definition is not a “longterm” solution. In contrast, the President’s plan that includes the dedication of the surplus and and a much more meaningful prescription drug benefit, will extend the life of Medicare by a significantly greater time.
One interesting aspect of the Clinton plan in 1999 is that it includes one provision that we now see again in the Affordable Care Act-- Preventative Care. President Clinton explains:
Therefore, my plan will eliminate the deductible and all copayments for all preventive care under Medicare.
It makes no sense for Medicare to put up roadblocks to these screenings and then turn around and pick up the hospital bills that screenings might have avoided.
No seniors should ever have to hesitate, as many do today, to get the preventive care they need.
--President Clinton June 29, 1999 (emphasis mine)
What Paul Ryan is correct about, is his plan is similar to that Breaux-Thomas plan, and it has been critiqued as such. Both plans intended to use Medicare vouchers as a means of providing tax cuts to the wealthy. The NY Daily News
points out the Democratic response in 1999:
"We will not allow Medicare to be used for tax cuts," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) proclaimed. "No tax cuts for the wealthy and no cuts in Medicare and Social Security," echoed Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.)…. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) says the GOP wants to privatize Medicare by handing retirees vouchers that could be used to purchase health insurance. "Medicare can be fixed," he said yesterday, "but you will not make it work by telling people, 'Here's your voucher. Go out there and fight with the insurance industry on an individual basis.' "
Sound familiar? The only difference is this time around Republicans have gotten better at distorting the truth and heeding the 1999 warnings of Frank Lutz:
"Stop using the words 'privatization' and 'personal accounts.' Seniors are scared to death of the concept, even Republican seniors."
Note the absence of any of those terms in the Ryan budget proposal in 2011, and in any public discussion by the Republicans on this budget since.
So when checked, Paul Ryan’s claim does not hold up to scrutiny. President Clinton Opposed the plan put forth by the “Bipartisan” Commission, and the use of his name in calling it the Clinton Commission when only 4 of 17 members were appointed by the President, and all of those voted against the final draft is dishonest and disingenuous. Not a shock, I know.