Skip to main content

NYT just published an article that says if Romney was to restore the $716 billion in Medicare savings from Obamacare that it would cause seniors to pay more than $300 a year in higher premiums.  Something tells me that Obama and the Democrats will use this article down the road when they do go after Romney and Republicans on their Medicare scheme.

http://www.nytimes.com/...

If the Democrats were not spending the rest of the week hitting Romney and the Republicans on their war on women, I would have predicted that this new NYT article out tonight would be topic number one tomorrow.  However, this tidbit will be saved for when Obama and the Democrats REALLY go after the Republicans and Romney on Romney's stupid plan to put back the $716 billion back into Medicare.  Not only will it cause Medicare to become insolvent in 4 years (instead of 12 years because of Obamacare), but it will also increase seniors' premiums by hundreds of dollars per year.

While Republicans have raised legitimate questions about the long-term feasibility of the reimbursement cuts, analysts say, to restore them in the short term would immediately add hundreds of dollars a year to out-of-pocket Medicare expenses for beneficiaries. That would violate Mr. Romney’s vow that neither current beneficiaries nor Americans within 10 years of eligibility would be affected by his proposal to shift Medicare to a voucherlike system in which recipients are given a lump sum to buy coverage from competing insurers.
It is such a bad idea that a health care specialist has this to say:
For those reasons, Henry J. Aaron, an economist and a longtime health policy analyst at the Brookings Institution and the Institute of Medicine, called Mr. Romney’s vow to repeal the savings “both puzzling and bogus at the same time.”
So how much more money would seniors have to pay per year?
Marilyn Moon, vice president and director of the health program at the American Institutes for Research, calculated that restoring the $716 billion in Medicare savings would increase premiums and co-payments for beneficiaries by $342 a year on average over the next decade; in 2022, the average increase would be $577.
Add that to the higher costs for seniors if the doughnut hole is reopened and wellness visits & preventative care are no longer free if Romney gets his way and Obamacare is repealed.
And those costs would be on top of the costs involved with a full repeal of the health care law, which would eliminate expanded coverage of prescription drugs, free wellness care and preventive checkups.
Health care specialists are questioning the smarts and the reasons why the Romney campaign is advocating this.
One can only wonder what’s going on inside their headquarters in Boston and among their policy people,” said John McDonough, the director of the Center for Public Health Leadership at Harvard. “But there are only two explanations: Either they don’t understand how the program works, which is hard to imagine, or there is some deliberate misrepresentation here because they know how politically potent this charge is.”
In conclusion, Chris Van Hollen says it best.
“The bottom line,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, which Mr. Ryan leads, “is that Romney is proposing to take more money from seniors in higher premiums and co-pays and hand it over to private insurance companies and other providers in the Medicare system.”
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Great quote: (7+ / 0-)
    One can only wonder what’s going on inside their headquarters in Boston and among their policy people....But there are only two explanations: Either they don’t understand how the program works, which is hard to imagine, or there is some deliberate misrepresentation here
    This after ten thousand stupid statements by Romney (like his 'Brits are ill-prepared to host the Olympics'. How'd those Olympics go, BTW?)

    From now on , that quote should be required to be posted to any new item whatsoever about Romney, as a sort of "Willard Duplicity Disclaimer Notice".

    Proud to be a Truth Vigilante

    by Calvino Partigiani on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 07:23:04 PM PDT

  •  This is the real deal. While the Obama (0+ / 0-)

    campaign has alluded to this, they haven't emphasized this one point, per se.  My guess is that this will be the roundhouse right from Obama at the first debate.  "Governor, your claims about the Affordable Care Act and Medicare are patently false.  In fact, as every independent analyst has confirmed, the very first consequence of its repeal would be the restoration of the doughnut hole for prescription drugs for seniors, costing each and every one of them hundreds of dollars beginning with the very first day your proposal was signed."

    Ultimately, the only thing that matters with respect to preserving choice is who will be nominating the next Supreme Court Justices.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:24:41 AM PDT

  •  Change your title-- it's misleading (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BitterEnvy

    Don't say seniors will pay more if Romney "RESTORES" Medicare savings.  It sounds like a Republican meme, that Romney plan would lead to more savings, when in fact it does the opposite; it would mean that we would no longer be eliminating waste and fraud from the system, as the ACA does, so the system would cost more with no increase in benefits to seniors.

    Instead, say "Seniors will pay more if Romney ELIMINATES Medicare COST savings."  Under repeal of ACA, the savings negotiated by Obama, without any loss in benefits to seniors, would be given away, as well as improvements to benefits like the closing of the donut hole.

  •  I try hard not to hate (0+ / 0-)

    but I really, really hate Romney and Ryan.

    Obama was not my first choice 4 years ago but I voted for him for 2 reasons: I couldn't vote for a Repugnant if someone paid me to; and Obama was my best hope of seeing affordable health care.

    If these 2 asshats have their way, I probably won't live to see any kind of health care.

    And one of the last things I need is for hubby's Medicare costs to go up.

    Re-elect Senator Debbie Stabenow (MI). Screw Pete Hoekstra.

    by BitterEnvy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 06:34:53 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site