Bachmann: Obama to privatize Medicare

[Greenbeard]

It's very common in certain quarters to assert (and perhaps even believe) that the ACA is some sort of "Trojan horse for single-payer." Despite expanding private coverage, it's supposedly also ultimately designed to end it somehow. So it was fascinating to see the face of the Tea Party--or at least the presidential candidate trying hardest to make herself the face of the Tea Party--asserting exactly the opposite: the ACA is a Trojan horse for ending the existing single-payer programs and transitioning to a private-only health insurance system in the United States.

As reported in Ezra Klein's WonkBook this morning:

On Friday evening, the Republican primary took a turn I hadn't expected. Michele Bachmann, speaking at the Republican Leadership Conference, accused the president of being insufficiently committed to socialism -- or at least to single-payer health care. “The president’s plan for senior citizens is Obamacare,” Bachmann said. “I think very likely – and I’m speculating – I think very likely what the president intends is that Medicare will go broke, and ultimately that answer will be Obamacare for senior citizens.”

Even more puzzling, Bachmann had already cast a vote for the House GOP budget, which Speaker John Boehner said "transforms Medicare into a plan that's very similar to the President's own healthcare bill." That's not quite true, as the key feature of the GOP's budget isn’t the Medicare exchanges, which do mirror a core feature of the Affordable Care Act, but the vouchers that grow much more slowly than the cost of health care. Nevertheless, by Boehner's logic, Bachmann is accusing Obama of abandoning single-payer health care in favor of the Medicare reforms that Republicans support. Wouldn't this make Obama essentially the greatest Republican ever?

Ironically, bringing ObamaCare to Medicare is an obvious long-term compromise on health care. If Republicans can make their peace with the Affordable Care Act and help figure out how to make the Affordable Care Act's exchanges work to control costs and improve quality, it'd be natural to eventually migrate Medicaid and Medicare into the system. Liberals would like that because it'd mean better care for Medicaid beneficiaries and less fragmentation in the health-care system. Conservatives would like it because it'd break the two largest single-payer health-care systems in America and turn their beneficiaries into consumers. But the implementation and success of the Affordable Care Act is a necessary precondition to any compromise of this sort. You can't transform Medicaid and Medicare until you've proven that what you're transforming them into is better. Only the Affordable Care Act has the potential to do that.

So Bachmann is perhaps right to say that the president is moving us towards a day when ObamaCare -- or, to put it more neutrally, "premium support" -- might come to Medicare. He's seeing whether it works in the private health-care market first and, if it does, there's little doubt that the political pressure to extend it to other groups will be intense. The question is why Bachmann and her party are doing so much to stand in his way? The corollary to Bachmann's accusation that the president has a realistic plan to privatize Medicare is that the Republicans, for all their sound and fury over the Ryan budget, don't.

I found it a bit difficult to believe that Bachmann had actually reversed the rightwing argument that Obama's is trying to expand single-payer and instead claimed his aim is to end it so I had to actually watch her speech. Turns out she did indeed make that argument (at the beginning of this clip):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfUg5yVwf7I]Bachmann at the RLC[/ame]

So there you have it. The founder of the House Tea Party Caucus thinks Obama's goal is to end the U.S.'s limited experiment with single-payer and funnel seniors into private insurance (i.e. privatize it). Granted, she did admit she was "speculating" that it's "very likely" this is his intent.

Of course, if he were to come out and endorse that notion, that would be the quickest way imaginable to forever turn the rightwing faithful against the idea of Medicare privatization.

 

[Polk]

They change positions more often than they change socks.

 

[dblack]

So there you have it. The founder of the House Tea Party Caucus thinks Obama's goal is to end the U.S.'s limited experiment with single-payer and funnel seniors into private insurance (i.e. privatize it). Granted, she did admit she was "speculating" that it's "very likely" this is his intent.

Can't say I really care about the hypocrisy of the politics - or any particular 'spin' people might want to put on this - but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable concern. Obama is doing virtually nothing to get health care inflation (and thusly Medicare costs) under control. He and the Democrats are far more interested in herding us into the insurance industry's pens, which will mostly likely fuel even more health care inflation. He seems to be leaving Medicare to flounder while chaining everyone to corporate health insurance.

I can even understand speculation that Obama's intent might be to let Medicare collapse and push seniors into corporate insurance with the rest of us.

 

[Polk]

So there you have it. The founder of the House Tea Party Caucus thinks Obama's goal is to end the U.S.'s limited experiment with single-payer and funnel seniors into private insurance (i.e. privatize it). Granted, she did admit she was "speculating" that it's "very likely" this is his intent.

Can't say I really care about the hypocrisy of the politics - or any particular 'spin' people might want to put on this - but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable concern. Obama is doing virtually nothing to get health care inflation (and thusly Medicare costs) under control. He and the Democrats are far more interested in herding us into the insurance industry's pens, which will mostly likely fuel even more health care inflation. He seems to be leaving Medicare to flounder while chaining everyone to corporate health insurance.

I can even understand speculation that Obama's intent might be to let Medicare collapse and push seniors into corporate insurance with the rest of us.

That's a perfectly legitimate position. The problem is that Bachmann supports Ryan's plan to turn Medicare into a voucher. So, in effect, her claim is that a potential voucher that would be keep pace with cost is bad for seniors, but one that would give them higher out-of-pocket costs is good.

 

[oreo]

It's very common in certain quarters to assert (and perhaps even believe) that the ACA is some sort of "Trojan horse for single-payer." Despite expanding private coverage, it's supposedly also ultimately designed to end it somehow. So it was fascinating to see the face of the Tea Party--or at least the presidential candidate trying hardest to make herself the face of the Tea Party--asserting exactly the opposite: the ACA is a Trojan horse for ending the existing single-payer programs and transitioning to a private-only health insurance system in the United States.

As reported in Ezra Klein's WonkBook this morning:

On Friday evening, the Republican primary took a turn I hadn't expected. Michele Bachmann, speaking at the Republican Leadership Conference, accused the president of being insufficiently committed to socialism -- or at least to single-payer health care. “The president’s plan for senior citizens is Obamacare,” Bachmann said. “I think very likely – and I’m speculating – I think very likely what the president intends is that Medicare will go broke, and ultimately that answer will be Obamacare for senior citizens.”

Even more puzzling, Bachmann had already cast a vote for the House GOP budget, which Speaker John Boehner said "transforms Medicare into a plan that's very similar to the President's own healthcare bill." That's not quite true, as the key feature of the GOP's budget isn’t the Medicare exchanges, which do mirror a core feature of the Affordable Care Act, but the vouchers that grow much more slowly than the cost of health care. Nevertheless, by Boehner's logic, Bachmann is accusing Obama of abandoning single-payer health care in favor of the Medicare reforms that Republicans support. Wouldn't this make Obama essentially the greatest Republican ever?

Ironically, bringing ObamaCare to Medicare is an obvious long-term compromise on health care. If Republicans can make their peace with the Affordable Care Act and help figure out how to make the Affordable Care Act's exchanges work to control costs and improve quality, it'd be natural to eventually migrate Medicaid and Medicare into the system. Liberals would like that because it'd mean better care for Medicaid beneficiaries and less fragmentation in the health-care system. Conservatives would like it because it'd break the two largest single-payer health-care systems in America and turn their beneficiaries into consumers. But the implementation and success of the Affordable Care Act is a necessary precondition to any compromise of this sort. You can't transform Medicaid and Medicare until you've proven that what you're transforming them into is better. Only the Affordable Care Act has the potential to do that.

So Bachmann is perhaps right to say that the president is moving us towards a day when ObamaCare -- or, to put it more neutrally, "premium support" -- might come to Medicare. He's seeing whether it works in the private health-care market first and, if it does, there's little doubt that the political pressure to extend it to other groups will be intense. The question is why Bachmann and her party are doing so much to stand in his way? The corollary to Bachmann's accusation that the president has a realistic plan to privatize Medicare is that the Republicans, for all their sound and fury over the Ryan budget, don't.

I found it a bit difficult to believe that Bachmann had actually reversed the rightwing argument that Obama's is trying to expand single-payer and instead claimed his aim is to end it so I had to actually watch her speech. Turns out she did indeed make that argument (at the beginning of this clip):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfUg5yVwf7I]Bachmann at the RLC[/ame]

So there you have it. The founder of the House Tea Party Caucus thinks Obama's goal is to end the U.S.'s limited experiment with single-payer and funnel seniors into private insurance (i.e. privatize it). Granted, she did admit she was "speculating" that it's "very likely" this is his intent.

Of course, if he were to come out and endorse that notion, that would be the quickest way imaginable to forever turn the rightwing faithful against the idea of Medicare privatization.

Bachmann is right. Obama and the democrat lead senate HAVE NO PLAN to deal with this financial crisis.--They prefer to sit back and criticize Paul Ryans plan--while doing their typical MEDISCARE rhetoric.

Therefore, she correctly speculates that since Obama has no plan to deal with Medicare that it will go bankrupt--and at that time seniors would be FORCED into private insurers. She is also correct in stating that Obama took 500 billion out of Medicare to fund Obamacare--which would provide medical benefits to younger people. That's exactly what he did.

We currently have 18,000 babyboomers entering medicare/social security DAILY which will continue for the next 15 years. This results in 64 trillion in unfunded liabilites--or the equivalent of each household in America owing $534,000.00 to the Federal Government to fund this liability.

Democrats are completely ABSENT on addressing this oncoming train wreck.



1 billion dollars ($100.00 bills stacked on palets)



1 trillion dollars ($100.00 bills stacked on palets)--note--how small the man is in this chart.

14.3 trillion in red ink right now--with another 64 trillion in unfunded liabilites--and Democrats and Obama have no plan of their own to address it--they just criticize Ryan's plan.

 

[Polk]

It's pretty absurd to claim Obama is going to force seniors in the arms of private insurance while also voting for a proposal that does exactly that.