Krugman: Republican Medicare Cuts

[FourScore]

Republican Medicare Cuts
Paul Krugman
February 11, 2010, 12:09 pm

So, Newt Gingrich and John Goodman say,

Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.

Leave aside the mind-killing irony of Newt Gingrich — New Gingrich! — denouncing Medicare cuts. What are Republicans themselves proposing?

Well, Rep. Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America’s Future calls for the eventual elimination of Medicare as we know it, replacing it with a system of vouchers that would, eventually, account for a steadily declining share of GDP. But what about the next decade? Mr. Ryan’s release says that it

Strengthens the current program with changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure long-term sustainability.

What does that mean? The CBO, helpfully, translates (pdf):

People who are age 65 or older in 2020 and other existing enrollees at that time would continue to be covered by the current program, although some higher income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced.

In other words, Medicare would face cuts. And the CBO’s detailed analysis provides an estimate of those cuts. I’ve taken the table comparing projected spending with baseline as a share of GDP (xls), and scaled it up using the CBO’s projections of GDP. What I get is an estimated cut in Medicare spending over the next decade of about … $650 billion.

So, cutting Medicare by $500 billion is wrong — support Republicans, who want to cut it by $650 billion!

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/republican-medicare-cuts/

[Jim__]

1. The thing is, Gingrich can go on TV and lie over and over again, and the media will not call him ...

... on it. The word needs to get out somehow.

[blueworld]

2. Do the vouchers guarantee coverage? I doubt it.

"other existing enrollees..." so the young folks of today wouldn't be covered necessarily? "Some program payments would be reduced"? What does that mean? Some treatments would be unavailable? Payment to doctors would be cut further?

Paul Krugman used to be as concerned with people as numbers, and had a talent for translating government-speak into English. After a few visits to the WH, IMO that's changed. I rarely understand what the hell he's talking about anymore & it usually involves cutting government programs to save money & "GDP" as if that's "the god".

He's a lot smarter than I, so I'll wait to see other DUer's responses, but personally I prefer budget cuts to the Pentagon over budget cuts to Medicare.