Zeb, How about trying to refute what was said instead of whining about who said it.
On Mar 17, 2:44 pm, Zebnick <zebn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Krugman is a boob. He's a tool for the Democrat party and couldn't be > non-partisan if his life depended on it. > > On Mar 15, 11:46 pm, Biff <jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > “Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate > > cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So > > declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent > > op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National > > Center for Policy Analysis. > > > And irony died. > > > Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. Furious > > denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — death > > panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health > > reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away with it. > > > Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are now > > posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since > > the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy > > America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. > > Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — and, > > in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an > > attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts. > > > After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that > > Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally > > realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, > > I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy. > > > No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce > > modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, > > themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of > > dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over > > the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than the > > roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected > > for the Democratic health bills. > > > What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” the > > budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking > > Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading > > Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of > > this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, in > > fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to > > power. > > > The broad picture that emerges from the “roadmap” is of an economic > > agenda that hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic > > failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for > > Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush > > proposals of five years ago. > > > But what’s really worth noting, given the way the G.O.P. has > > campaigned against health care reform, is what Mr. Ryan proposes doing > > with and to Medicare. > > > In the Ryan proposal, nobody currently under the age of 55 would be > > covered by Medicare as it now exists. Instead, people would receive > > vouchers and be told to buy their own insurance. And even this new, > > privatized version of Medicare would erode over time because the value > > of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind the > > actual cost of health insurance. By the time Americans now in their > > 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn’t be much of a > > Medicare program left. > > > But what about those who already are covered by Medicare, or will > > enter the program over the next decade? You’re safe, says the roadmap; > > you’ll still be eligible for traditional Medicare. Except, that is, > > for the fact that the plan “strengthens the current program with > > changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure long- > > term sustainability.” > > > If this sounds like deliberately confusing gobbledygook, that’s > > because it is. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which has > > done an evaluation of the roadmap, offers a translation: “Some higher- > > income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments > > would be reduced.” In short, there would be Medicare cuts. > > > And it’s possible to back out the size of those cuts from the budget > > office analysis, which compares the Ryan proposal with a “baseline” > > representing current policy. As I’ve already said, the total over the > > next decade comes to about $650 billion — substantially bigger than > > the Medicare savings in the Democratic bills. > > > The bottom line, then, is that the crusade against health reform has > > relied, crucially, on utter hypocrisy: Republicans who hate Medicare, > > tried to slash Medicare in the past, and still aim to dismantle the > > program over time, have been scoring political points by denouncing > > proposals for modest cost savings — savings that are substantially > > smaller than the spending cuts buried in their own proposals." > > > Paul Krugman > > > On Mar 15, 4:47 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&mo...- > > >Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
