Will Obama pay the price for cutting Medicare?
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
September 30, 2009
 |
|
You’re out: The federal Department of Health and Human Services denies Social Security benefits to anybody who refuses to enroll in Medicare. (Getty Images file photo)
|
In the health care debate, Barack Obama is getting away with the rhetorical equivalent of murder.
To pay for the bulk of his proposed remake of the health care system, the president has a two-part plan. Half the money would come from tax increases, and the other half from reduced spending on Medicare.
Obama proposes to come up with improvements in the vast Medicare system that will allow him to extend health care coverage to millions of currently uncovered people, make no cuts in existing Medicare benefits, and save money in the process. ÒWe will find the money through savings and efficiencies within the health care system,Ó Obama said at his July 23 news conference.
Unlike a number of experts, many of the presidentÕs Democratic colleagues apparently believe that. And in doing so, they are singing a far, far different tune from the last time Medicare was the subject of an all-out political battle.
Back in 1994 and 1995, the newly elected Republican majority in Congress concluded that MedicareÕs costs were spiraling out of control. Then-Speaker Newt Gingrich and then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole proposed to slow the rate of growth of Medicare expenditures Ñ not cut them, just reduce the speed at which costs were rising. Democrats, from President Bill Clinton down, beat the hell of out them for it. From mid-1995 through the 1996 presidential election, hardly a day went by without some Democrat accusing Gingrich, Dole, and the Republican Congress of plotting to slash Medicare benefits and throw AmericaÕs seniors on the streets.
Back in 1994 and 1995, the newly elected Republican majority in Congress concluded that MedicareÕs costs were spiraling out of control. Then-Speaker Newt Gingrich and then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole proposed to slow the rate of growth of Medicare expenditures Ñ not cut them, just reduce the speed at which costs were rising. Democrats, from President Bill Clinton down, beat the hell of out them for it. From mid-1995 through the 1996 presidential election, hardly a day went by without some Democrat accusing Gingrich, Dole, and the Republican Congress of plotting to slash Medicare benefits and throw AmericaÕs seniors on the streets.
ÒThe onslaught was unbelievable,Ó recalls J.D. Hayworth, who at the time was a backbench GOP lawmaker from the retiree haven of Arizona. ÒWe were ripped up one side and down the other. In my district, the AFL-CIO spent $1.8 million telling old people I was going to cut off their Medicare.Ó
In Washington, Democratic lawmakers grew increasingly shrill. Tom Daschle, then the partyÕs leader in the Senate, threatened to Òshut the place downÓ Ñ by that he meant the entire Senate Ñ if thatÕs what it took Òto stop the draconian and extraordinarily devastating consequencesÓ of the RepublicansÕ plan.
In the end, the Democrats succeeded. The GOP plan was beaten back and Dole was trounced in 1996. The lesson seemed clear: If you want to talk about, or even hint, or even suggest, slowing the rate of growth in Medicare spending, youÕll do it at your own risk.
And yet now, here is Obama, proposing to squeeze hundreds of billions of dollars out of Medicare, and Democrats who were apoplectic in 1995 are strangely quiet. ÒWhen we proposed it, it was called a Ôdraconian cut,Õ Ó recalls one veteran Republican Hill aide. ÒNow, itÕs called Ôsavings.Õ Ó ObamaÕs proposal Ñ no details yet on precisely how heÕll find all those ÒsavingsÓ and ÒefficienciesÓ Ñ is even more striking when you consider that during the campaign he attacked Sen. John McCain for allegedly planning reductions in Medicare spending. One Obama commercial dramatically concluded, ÒCutting Medicare Ñwe canÕt afford John McCain.Ó
WhatÕs more, the president insists his plan wonÕt hurt a bit. At his July 23 news conference, Obama was asked, ÒSpecifically, what kind of pain, what kind of sacrifice, are you calling on beneficiaries to make?Ó
ÒNo, no,Ó the president answered. He would not reduce anyoneÕs Medicare benefits, Obama promised, but rather Òchange how those benefits are delivered so that theyÕre more efficient.Ó
Be very, very skeptical. ÒItÕs not going to be painless,Ó says Sen. Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma Republican who is also a family-practice physician. ÒYou canÕt say thereÕs not going to be an impact from taking a half-trillion dollars out of Medicare in the next ten years, when large numbers of doctors wonÕt take new Medicare patients and weÕre going to have the retirement of the baby boomers.Ó
So far, the health care battle has not focused specifically on the proposed Medicare cuts. But older Americans are the most avid voters in the country, and the latest Gallup poll shows that just 48 percent of people age 65 or older approve of the job Obama is doing as president Ñ the lowest of any age group. Much of ObamaÕs problem with them can be traced directly to the health care issue.
The numbers are just one ominous sign for the president. Sooner or later, Obama will pay a political price for his plan to cut Medicare.
