Obama’s $716 billion Medicare cuts

Romney for President

Three years ago this week, President Obama promised to ensure Medicare would “be there for the next generation.”

Yet, ironically, President Obama, with the help of his liberal allies, cut Medicare by over $716 billion to pay for Obamacare — a travesty his campaign now is touting as an achievement.

Seniors will be hit with higher costs and fewer benefits because of Obamacare’s Medicare cuts. Beginning in 2013, Obamacare will cut over $100 billion from Medicare Advantage, a vital program that benefits one in four seniors.

And Obamacare created the Independent Payment Advisory Board to create even steeper cuts in Medicare benefits, which could lead to reduced access to care.

All of this is just wrong — and the Romney-Ryan and Republican team’s plan to preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare would make things right.

Learn the truth about Medicare under Obama and how he’s failing seniors in this video:

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in 2012 Presidential Election, Health Care Reform | 18 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • ardbeg

    Is OC a political blog or a Fox News affiliate? Or just a Romney campaign website?


    • jest sayin’

      Perhaps, your sign-in be missing b capital L to begin with?

      • jestus

        a ha!

    • 3H

      LOL. and notice Jest immediately launches into a personal attack… and doesn’t counter you with any factual information. A sure sign that you hit the nail on the head when they go for distraction.

      • jest assaying

        ‘Peers 3H, you are a d’oh bawl in need of medication found simple piimple green fronts, aka, what’s available at you loco mj dispensary. Oy!

        • ardbeg

          Your reply is incomprehensible….are you 12? Let the grownups speak please. piimpl? oy? loco? d’oh? bawl? Go away!

  • valley person

    You can fool some of the people some of the time, but the more Republicans talk about Medicare the more they are going to regret it. Obama “cut” spending on private Medicare Advantage providers who were ripping off the taxpayer by charging more for the same service already provided. And he cut reimbursements to hospitals, with their agreement by the way, because the money saved would be used to reduce their unpaid for emergency room costs for uninsured people.

    Senior on Medicare got Icreases in money spent on their care, not decreases. Given the Republican history on Medicare, and the ROmney =Ryan position that really does cut spending on health care for seniors, I think they had better leave this one alone and move on to something else.

    • 3H

      “We’re saving you money and providing the same service” would make Obama look good, so they can’t say that.

      • valley person

        The real point is this is a debate Republicans are better off not having. Positioning themselves as the defenders of Medicare, given their long history of trying to kill it, and given’s Ryan’s plan, which would kill it, they should talk about other things.

        But these guys are not the brightest bulbs in the hardware store, so let them talk.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    There isn’t a lot of point in going on with this. Obama has already lost the fight on Obamacare – since it’s passage it still remains one of his most unpopular actions. Romneys biggest hurdle with the issue has never been is the program bad, but convincing voters he truly meant it when he said he would end it. I guess it makes some since to keep the issue alive, it is something Obama prefers not to refer to on the campaign trail. Saddling us with a big new expensive entitlement in the middle of running up gigantic deficits already was totally irresponsible. However there are bigger fish to fry.

    • valley person

      Lets see. Obama is a socialist who wants to harm Medicare, the government’s most socialistic program, but cutting it. THe republicans, who have hated Medicare for 50 years and tried time and again to end or shrink it, the latest version being the Ryan budget, want to save Medicare from Obama.

      A new definition of Chutzpah is in order.

      • ardbeg

        The GOP is against whatever the Dems are for no matter what. It’s the fail of a 2 party system.

  • RHarris

    Yes the affordable care act makes some changes that include eliminating the private health insurance subsidy known as medicare advantage and reducing some payments to hospitals since they won’t have to privately subsidize so many uninsured. This will bend the rising healthcare costs over the next 10 years from a pre Obamacare projection of 8%/ year increases to “only” 6% per year. This will cause the cost of medicare costs to go up 700 billion less than it otherwise would without Obamacare. That’s the “Cut” Romney is talking about.

    So, is a 6% increase annually over the next 10 years really a “cut”?

    • valley person

      You can fool some of the people some of the time. The Republicans are attempting to fool just enough of the people one more time that they have suddenly become the defenders of Medicare. Then they can finally dismantle it. What a crock.

  • Shane Y.

    “…and the Romney-Ryan and Republican team’s plan to preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare would make things right.”

    Preserve, protect *and* strengthen Medicare? What political party is Romney running under again? It’s pretty sad that both political parties are essentially just arguing over how to take more money from individuals and increase their own power through coercion and distribution.

    And the idea that either Obama or Romney will actually cut anything is ridiculous and dishonest. It’s like the old example of weight loss. If my doctor predicts that I will gain 20 pounds over the next year, and I only gain 19.8 pounds, both Obama and Romney would jump at the gun and say “Hey, you LOST weight”!. This country desperately needs a true decrease in governmental force, not just rhetoric from two men who plan to do the exact same thing if elected.

  • Nyha4

    Democrats Target the Wrong Part of Medicare for Cost Savings

    The future of Medicare has proven a lightning rod in this fall’s
    presidential campaign.

    President Obama claims that he has strengthened the program, while Governor
    Romney has pointed out that the president has robbed the entitlement of $716
    billion to pay for his signature healthcare reform law.

    The voting public has long trusted Democrats to be faithful stewards of
    Medicare. They created the bulk of the program, after all.

    But the Democrats didn’t create Part D — the Medicare prescription drug
    benefit. And coincidentally, Part D is the only portion of the program
    that’s costing less — and delivering more — than projected. With Medicare
    careening toward bankruptcy, Part D’s record of high-quality benefits and
    lower-than-expected costs offers a reform model for the rest of the program.

    Medicare Part D was designed by a Republican Congress, signed into law by
    President Bush in 2003, and went into effect in 2006.

    Under the program, seniors, armed with federal subsidies, choose from among
    privately administered prescription drug plans. Insurers must compete with
    one another for seniors’ business. So they face strong incentives to offer a
    wide variety of plans that can meet the needs of a diverse population of
    beneficiaries — just as in the marketplace for other goods.

    Seniors here in Washington have 30 unique plans to choose from, with a range
    of monthly premiums, co-pays, and deductibles.

    And since seniors control their own healthcare dollars, insurers must vie to
    deliver the best drug benefits at the lowest possible price. Those
    competitive forces have kept Part D costs low — even as costs in the rest
    of the healthcare marketplace have risen.

    Indeed, Part D is costing 41 percent less than initially projected. That’s
    unprecedented in the history of large-scale entitlement programs.

    By contrast, look at the whole of Medicare. In Washington, program spending
    has actually increased an astonishing 8.2 percent annually between 1991 and
    2009. Spending in the Evergreen State has reached nearly $8,500 per

    The Part D trust fund, on the other hand, has ended every fiscal year in the
    black. Federal officials expect its year-end cash balance to increase
    annually through 2018 — at the very least.
    Part D also saves money for the rest of Medicare. With seniors now able to
    afford the medications they need, they’re better about following their
    prescribed treatment regimens. As a result, they’re staying healthier. A
    Harvard study found that Part D saves Medicare $12 billion a year by
    reducing the need for hospital and nursing home admissions.

    Equally importantly, seniors enrolled in Part D are happy. Surveys have
    found beneficiary satisfaction to be upwards of 85 percent. It’s hardly a
    surprise, then, that nearly a million of Washington’s residents take
    advantage of Part D.

    But for some reason, Democrats have not been impressed. They’ve launched a
    misguided campaign to scrap the components of Part D that have held costs
    down — all in the name of deficit reduction, oddly enough.

    President Obama and his allies in Congress are trying to implement de facto
    price controls on drugs sold to so-called “dual eligibles” — seniors who
    qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid, the government healthcare program
    for the poor. Their proposal would require drug-makers to pay “rebates” to
    the federal government for all drugs sold to this segment of the patient

    The idea is to put the squeeze on one of the left’s favorite bogeymen — the
    pharmaceutical industry.

    But drug-makers won’t simply swallow the feds’ request for kickbacks.
    They’ll raise prices elsewhere. And so everyone else will pay more.

    Indeed, former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin
    estimates that the proposed rebate requirement would collectively increase
    American seniors’ prescription drug costs by at least $1.5 billion — and
    perhaps as much as $3.7 billion.

    In other words, the Democrats are looking to reduce the deficit on the backs
    of average seniors — and undermine Part D’s money-saving competitive
    structure in the process. Quite a combo.

    Seniors — and Americans in general — shouldn’t buy it. Part D’s
    cost-cutting competitive structure offers a model for Medicare reform — one
    that the GOP should embrace and expand.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)