Not a single question about the substance of the GOP's plan to eliminate Medicare
during their 37-minute press conference unveiling their 2012 budget proposal
So a short time ago, Republicans, led by Paul Ryan, held a news conference unveiling their budget plan for 2012—including their proposal to eliminate Medicare and replace it with voucher-like subsidies for private insurance.
But despite proposing the repeal of the most important health care program for senior citizens, the press didn't ask a single question about what the plan would mean for the elderly. Sure, they asked about the political feasibility of passing it into law—but they never once asked about the impact it would have on the American public.
So, to help our friends in the press corps, here's a partial list of questions that would have been worth asking:
- This plan would save money by limiting the rate of increase in subsidies, but it wouldn't control health care costs. If, as is likely, the cost of health insurance rises faster than subsidies, how will seniors be able to afford health care coverage?
- Health care costs are higher for seniors than any other age cohort for obvious reasons. Before Medicare, private insurers didn't want to provide coverage to seniors because end-of-life care can be phenomenally expensive—there's no outliving old age. Why should we expect things to be any different now?
- Under this plan, subsidies for private insurance would be means-tested. Wouldn't that turn the subsidies into a welfare program, subject to the the budget axe just like Medicaid?
- You claim that eliminating Medicare and replacing it with subsidized private insurance will save costs without lowering the quality of or access to health care for seniors, but you also say that you won't actually eliminate the current system before 2021. If your plan is such a good idea, why wait so long to implement it?
- This proposal replace Medicare with a health insurance marketplace nearly identical to the health insurance exchanges in the Democratic health reform bill, yet you oppose those vigorously. Why do you oppose health care exchanges for younger Americans but support them for seniors who will face much higher health care costs and are much more difficult to insure?
- During the 2010 campaign you accused Democrats of cutting Medicare by $500 billion, but now you are proposing its elimination in order to save trillions. Isn't that hypocritical?
Again, that's only a partial list—please feel free to add yours in the comments. Bottom-line: Part of having an "adult conversation" is asking serious questions about the impacts of spending cuts. The press corps needs to step up its game. And in the face of this radical proposal, so do Democrats.