The 2012 fight is on . . . and it's over Medicare !!!

The Republicans have made a major blunder, and Obama waded right in and called it.

The budget drafted by Paul Ryan (R-WI) calls for Medicare to be privatized -- true, as he says, it won't affect anyone currently 55 or older; and it will happen gradually; but that's what it is.

Beginning in 2022, by a combination of subsidies and competing insurance plans, Medicare will be phased out as we know it in favor of private plans, similar to the Medicare Advantage plans that are optional now and that, incidentally, cost the taxpayers 13% more than the regular Medicare. How is that going to save money over our current single-payer plan with the lowest administrative costs in the industry (Medicare)?

Ryan claims that competition among plans will keep costs down, but HERE's THE HOOK: the federal subsidy will gradually decline and be eliminated. That means seniors will progressively have to pay more of it themselves. So, sure, the cost to the government will go down; but it's been estimated that it will eventually cost each individual senior about $6,000 more per year than if we kept our single payer plan.

So it does nothing to reduce health care costs; it just shifts the burden to individual seniors. Want to predict the polls on that one?

In contrast to this plan, which claims to reduce the cost of Medicare by reducing how much of it the government pays for, Obama's plan reduces the cost of Medicare by actually reducing the cost of medical care.

One way is by freeing up the bargaining power of Medicare for lower prescription drug costs in Medicare Part D. Making that illegal was Bush's payback to BigPharma. But it must be eliminated, and will be in Obama's plan.

The best comparison is with the VA, a single payer, drug-price-negotiating, large consumer -- and they pay about 40% less than the private plans in Medicare D currently pay for drugs.

Now, why was this such a mistake for the Repubs? Remember what even the Tea Party crowd insists: get rid of "socialized" government. "BUT DON'T YOU TOUCH MY MEDICARE !!!"

And Obama seems ready to make a campaign issue of it. In his budget speech he said:

There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. And I don't think there's anything courageous about asking for sacrifices from those who can least afford it and don't have any clout on Capital Hill.

So much for Paul Ryan's moment of media stardom, with pundits falling all over themselves to call him "courageous" and his plan "serious." Well, Obama made mince meat of that in two sentences.

The 2012 fight is on . . .

Ralph

Doing something right . . . . at last

Coming on the heels of Obama's muscular speech on the budget yesterday is an announcement today of something else that feels like the Dems finally getting it right.

A new Health Care Advocacy Group has been formed to raise money and then use it to promote understanding and truth-telling about the health care reform act. Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA) and Gov. Jim Doyle (D-WI) are among the board members, along with health care planners and advisers, labor leaders, communications experts, and political figures.

Gov. Doyle said: “Our efforts here are really to make sure that this is a factual debate and that the facts are out there. It is critical that people understand what the benefits of this act are, and I look forward to making sure those facts are known across the country.”

One person associated with the campaign said that the Massachusetts health care reform plan was "the intellectual foundation of the Obama administration's own law," and the current MA governor Patrick praised former governor Mitt Romney's role in its passage. In fact, if people attack Mitt Romney for his health care plan, they will defend him and it.

So, along with getting out the truth about what the plan does, they're going to apply some political heat as well, it seems. If Romney winds up as the GOP nominee, won't that be a hoot: him trying to run away from his MA plan, and the Dems praising him for it and pointing out that it works and that people like it.

It all sounds encouraging -- just when we needed it.

Ralph

Obama on preserving the social network

President Obama has just finished his speech at George Washington University on his plan for reducing the deficit. Previews of the speech had focused only on his proposed numbers and had not hinted at the real importance of this speech -- from my perspective -- which was the moral tone and the framing it in the cherished American principles of compassion and caring for each other.

He began by reminding us that America has always had two important threads in its national character: rugged individualism but also coming together to take care of each other. He embraced the idea of government as doing for its citizens what they cannot better do for themselves -- like national defense, medical research, education, and taking care of seniors.

He put the blame for our present unsustainable deficit on the irresponsibility of our government during the last decade when we went from a budget surplus to this huge deficit. And it happened because we were fighting two wars and started a prescription drug program for seniors without paying for either; and in addition gave the wealthiest Americans a huge tax cut -- without paying for that either.

Now Republicans are wanting to reduce the deficit by putting the burden on the middle class and those who most need government services, while giving even more tax cuts to those who least need them. "As long as I am president, I will not let that happen." We're not going to give even more tax cuts to the top level while telling seniors that they will have to pay $6,000 more for Medicare or taking health care insurance away from 50,000,000 Americans.

He was pointed in his criticism of the Republican House plan (the Ryan plan), pointing out that it reduced government spending on health care by limiting services, whereas his plan reduced health care spending by reducing the cost of health care itself. Quoting Sam Stein of HuffPost:

Obama took on the Ryan approach in harsh terms, calling it a vision that would see "roads crumble and bridges collapse," young Americans unable to go to college, seniors left uncared for, Medicare ended, and 50 million Americans left without health insurance.

"The fact is," said Obama, "this vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America."

The speech was too long -- I would have cut much of the last 15 minutes. But it was forceful and put Obama squarely back in a strong position as a leader. Good job !!

Ralph

My inner curmudgeon speaks #1

curmudgeon: n. a bad-tempered, cantankerous old man. (Webster).

I plan to become a curmudgeon. It's been a long-held, secret desire that I've been saving for old age. Having spent my life being the anti-curmudgeon, it will be a nice change of pace. I immodestly declare that I've earned the privilege to be difficult.

Hence, I start off a new thread, calling this post "My inner curmudgeon speaks #1," indicating that there will be more. Think Lionel Barrymore, sitting in his wheelchair, snarling and shaking his cane at people.

What prompted me to begin this today was overhearing a conversation at the next table in a restaurant. Two young women were giving their order to the waiter. "I can't decide whether to do the Cobb salad with tofu or . . . no, I think I'm going to do the burrito," one said.

I'm going to do the burrito? What the hell does that mean?

Thirty minutes later, the waiter will check back, glance at their plates and ask, "Are you still working on that?" Arrrggggghhhhh. When did enjoying a meal become work? And if it's work, why are we paying for it instead of being paid?

This, by the way, is a moderately upscale vegetarian restaurant, white tablecloths, heavy flatware; upper middle class neighborhood; educated, successful clientele.

My inner anti-curmudgeon tells me that I may be showing my ignorance of pop culture (aka television). This may be the way people talk on some wildly popular tv series that I never watch. Or maybe it's chic chat among the hard-working political aides on Capitol Hill.

So be it. I don't care if I am the Troglodyte of Sandy Springs. It is an affront to my language sensibilities to "do" a burrito and to "work" on my lunch.

Bah, humbug !!

Ralph

NOM defection

The National Organization for Marriage conducted a multi-state bus tour last summer, holding rallies across the country to rev up opposition to same-sex marriage. NOW was also the group behind the successful recall vote of the Iowa Supreme Court judges, in retaliation for their having struck down Iowa's laws against gay marriage. Maggie Gallagher is one of NOW's organizers and leaders. Maggie's column used to run in the AJC, and I thought then that she was a silly, ignorant woman. She still is, from her brief TV appearance I saw last summer.

On this national tour of the NOW caravan, their events were matched by counter rallies organized by gay activists. And the gay activists often had the larger crowds. By accounts I have read, the NOW tour was largely a bust -- drawing poorly in crowd numbers and generating little enthusiasm. Their turn-outs near the end were described as "dismal."

Now there has been a major defection from their ranks. Louis Marinelli, a key strategist for the summer tour and organizer of their online movement, traveled with the tour. Now -- a few months later -- he has undergone what he calls a "transition" to becoming a supporter of civil marriage equality.

What happened? Here it is in his own words:

"Ironically, one of the last tour stops added to the itinerary was Atlanta and I bring this site up because it was in Atlanta that I can remember that I questioned what I was doing for the first time. The NOM showing in the heart of the Bible-belt was dismal and the hundreds of counter-protesters who showed up were nothing short of inspiring.

"Even though I had been confronted by the counter-protesters throughout the marriage tour, the lesbian and gay people whom I made a profession out of opposing became real people for me almost instantly. For the first time I had empathy for them and remember asking myself what I was doing."

This doubt was the first transition step for Marinelli. But he continued writing his blog from a conservative point of view about "the homosexual agenda." Then RJ, a blogger, responded to an article with one of his own addressed specifically to Marinelli, which further opened his eyes to the fact

"that gays and lesbians were just real people who wanted to live real lives and be treated equally as opposed to, for example, wanting to destroy American culture. No, they didn’t want to destroy American culture, they wanted to openly participate in it. I was well on my way to becoming a supporter of civil marriage equality."

The final step came when he looked at the anti-gay responses he had been getting to his blog and realized that

"I was surrounded by hateful people."

Marinelli still supports the rights of religious groups to define religious marriage for themselves and to withhold their own religious rites from same-sex couples.

So do I. But civil marriage -- regulated and performed by the state -- is another matter. Our law and government is secular, not religion-based; and access should be equal. Both Marinelli and I support civil marriage equality.

I wonder what silly Maggie has to say about her former colleague?

Ralph

A house of cards

What a waste and a tragic, wrong direction.

So much time and angst and political capital spent on whether we're going to cut this or that spending program from the budget . . .

. . . when the economists that I respect all say that we shouldn't be cutting spending at all.

We should be spending even more to create jobs, and don't worry about the deficit right now. Cutting spending in the way that they're doing it -- Repubs and Dems alike; they're just arguing about what and how much -- is going in increase unemployment, possibly trigger another recession, and only increase the deficit, because tax revenue from sales tax and income tax will drop.

And then the Repubs will say we didn't cut enough. And the people will believe them, instead of the wiser and more economically sound progressives who know that the most effective way to deal with high unemployment is for the federal government to create jobs.

Last year's stimulus package should have been about twice as large -- more jobs would have been created, and we'd be much further along toward the elusive recovery. Instead, we have a soiaring Wall Street and CEO recovery and stagnated middle class jobs recovery.

This being Ronald Reagen's centennial birth year just makes it worse, because even liberal voices like PBS are celebrating The Great Communicator -- who, truth be told, is the one who started us on this downhill slide -- tax cuts for the rich, trickle down economics, blah blah blah. It's the Big Lie; it doesn't work.

Ralph

"Not intended to be a factual statement."

In the heated floor debate over the budget -- which came down to a fight over funding Planned Parenthood -- Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) took to the podium, with CSPAN cameras broadcasting it to the world, and said:

"Abortion is well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does."

Actually that's about as wrong as he could get. Here are the real stats on their activities:

1. Testing and treating STD's 35%
2. Contraception 35%
3. Cancer screening & prevention 16%
4. Other women's health services 10%
5. Abortion 3%

So, when called on this obvious misstatement of fact, Sen. Kyl's office responded that

"his remark was not intended to be a factual statement."

So here is a question for the Republican party: When your #2 leader in the Senate makes a speech on a major controversial bill, broadcast live for the world, should not we expect that what he says could at least be within the ball park of truth? Exaggeration, yes. Everybody does that. Genuine mistakes, not unforgivable in the heat of argument.

But saying something is "over 90%" when it's really only 3%??? It makes him look stupid and your party look sloppy and incompetent. Why should we believe a word you say about the budget then?

Ralph