I Get Emails: Why Fiscal Conservative Shouldn’t Support The Medicare Cuts In Obamacare

Written By : John Hawkins

Here’s a question I received from a RWN reader this week-end:

As a fellow right wing nut, could I ask why we Republicans are not supporting the proposed Medicare budget cuts?

As a fiscal conservative, you know that a balanced budget will require modifications to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and, probably, defense. No way around it, we must tackle these social programs someday. So why don’t we support the Democrat’s proposal to reducing them today? I can only conclude that the Republicans would rather win points with a specific voting group than address the larger national issues.

And that’s why some of us don’t think that changing parties will make much difference.

Keep up the good work

Here’s the thing: Were I in Congress, I wouldn’t support the Medicare cuts in Obamcare either despite the fact that I agree that we do need to do what we can to reduce spending on Medicare.

Why is that?

Well, you have to understand this isn’t a standalone cut to Medicare. Instead, we have one of two possibilities:

The first is that Republicans go along with these extremely unpopular cuts to Medicare and despite that fact, Obamacare fails. If Obamacare fails, then there will be no cuts. Then, in 2010, even Republicans who opposed Obamacare have to defend cutting Medicare when they run for reelection while Democrats can claim it was a bipartisan decision. In other words, the cost of Medicare wouldn’t be reduced by a single penny and yet, the GOP would pay a political price for it.

On the other hand, Republicans could go along with these unpopular cuts and it could very well help pass Obamacare. I have to ask you: does it really make sense to cut 500 billion from one entitlement program to help get another huge, new entitlement program passed that will end up adding much more to the deficit? What’s conservative about moving money from an old budget busting program to a new budget busting program — and that’s assuming that the Medicare money isn’t simply added back in before the next election, which it very well might be.

Long story, in this situation, there is no reason for fiscal conservatives to support these Medicare cuts because no matter how it turns out, it’ll do nothing to reduce the size of the deficit over the long haul.

0

http://conservativebootcamp.com martinhale

I think the short answer to the writer’s question is that supporting the Medicare cuts is so thoroughly intertwined into Obamacare that it’s fair to say that proposal has no life outside of Obamacare. And Obamacare is a horrible idea which will expand the deficit dramatically when all is said and done. Seizing on one benefit in the midst of a vast array of bad elements is a horrifically bad strategy, one ripped from the Pollyanna school of political philosophy. The bad outweighs the good by such a large margin that it’s not worth the effort.

Said another way, the only way to get to that one kernel of goodness, is for one to eat buckets of sh*t.
happirick

of course if you believe democrats will EVER vote to cut medicare in the future, as the plan calls for, … well, there’s a bridge on sale for you!
CoolCzech

Here’s the thing about cutting Medicare:

Medicare is an abominable ponzi scheme that should NEVER gave been foisted on America to begin with. BUT – it WAS foisted on the American public, and tens of millions of people that WOULD have set money aside for private funding of their retirement needs were FORCED to participate in Ponzicare, instead.

So NOW we’re going to suddenly cut Ponzicare?

We may ultimately have to because obviously Ponzicare will collapse of its own weight. BUT, it’s an injustice all the same to first hook people on Ponzicare and then screw them on their benefits. An injustice that originated with the onset of Ponzicare to begin with.

Happily, Obama’s Sovietcare plans are going down like the Hindenburg so at least Ponzicare will not be foisted on even more victims.
Mike_M

Easy. The benefit cuts and expansion of eligibility to age 55 takes Medicare from a socialist plan to a Cloward-Piven plan.

The benefit cuts do nothing to reduce the cost of the program since the “savings” are used to enroll more people into a now-crappier plan. The additional people will stress the system, and since we all know costs will rise faster than the cuts take into account, it brings us to the insolvency of the plan and the entire Federal budget much faster (thats the Cloward-Piven part). Also, Medicare recipients are incapable of getting other insurance so it is a moral imperative that we keep the promise of Medicare to them.

This liberal scheme fails every conservative test you care to throw at it. Economic, ethical, political.

What is the conservative answer? Federal Medicaid (welfare to able bodied members of the workforce) should be gutted, people under the age of 40 should be put on notice to start making other plans for retirement, and *private* insurance should be strengthened through national competition, portability, tax breaks, and tort reform.
http://guardian.blogdrive.com/ CavalierX

This is the problem with all entitlements: you can’t just cut them now without some sort of alternative. Even the most fiscally conservative Republicans rarely, if ever, tried to actually cut Medicare funding; they mostly tried to stop it from expanding further (which Democrats invariably portrayed as a cut). The best way to eliminate Medicare would be to stop people not yet on the program from becoming dependent on it in the first place, and the problem will sort itself out eventually.
wylie_e_coyote

Here is a good article about the core elements of the takeover – much more then simply medicare/medicade expansion and a new government insurance entitlement:

http://healthcare.nationalrevi…NzhhYTVjY2QwNTViMWI=

“What is fascinating (to me anyway) is that the Left could have had health-care socialism passed on a bipartisan basis months ago, if only they had suppressed their hubris. Republicans were (and remain) perfectly willing to approve community-rating and guaranteed-access regulations for private insurers; and if those were implemented, no one would need a government option or any of the other nostrums: Coverage would be transformed into a public-utility-type service, the insurers would remain “private” in only the most superficial of senses, and the government control and wealth transfers that represent the Holy Grails of the Left would be achieved.

But . . . no. Nancy and Harry and the others simply couldn’t stomach a few compromises that would have proven meaningless in the larger context of massive adverse selection and government takeover. They had 60 votes, and they just could not resist the temptation to shove it all down our throats. Now they may get nothing except collapsing prospects for the 2010 elections. Life is wonderful.”

I think the author and many others are far to premature in celebrating CrappyCare’s demise!

Yes, I think there is much drama going on – right now its to fuel the KOSer left into think that the D leadership did “all the can” before all variations of the government option is dropped!

Look for a “dramatic leadership” by Obama telling the libs to take “half-a-loaf” to “help” the american people ie individual mandates only – then a quick ping pong!

I dont trust the ultra libs at all when they say “Government Option or Nothing”

Nor do I trust Nelson, Liberman not to drop opposition once the government option charade is played out…

Lieberman is serving as the token “villian” to channel the lefts hate so he is the pretext for dropping the government option – ie the claim of NO CHOICE!

I hope I am wrong but its lining up all too strangely right now to what I predicted – at least its worth a “shout out” fax or email tonight to all these Senators to keep the heat on – tell them NO INDIVIDUAL MANDATE!
FranklinR

Why can’t they just fix Health Care one issue at a time? Wouldn’t Obama have and maybe two or three done by now?

Debbie Spend-it-now is selling America’s future to the Chinese

Ads