Those who are tempted to embrace the long-term budget/deficit-reduction plan presented by Representative Paul Ryan and the House Republicans need to burrow beneath the published numbers and into the real reasons behind the “budget” bill they passed.

Their proposal is not to cut the costs of Medicare. It is to abolish Medicare and create a new program that puts future retirees at great risk of medical bankruptcy. In essence, it changes Medicare from a health insurance program to a grant maker that gives eligible seniors a block of money with which they can buy insurance in the private market.

The Republicans certainly have more faith in the medical insurance companies than I do. The industry’s track record is one of constant increases in premiums (and there is not a commitment in the Ryan plan to increase the amount of the grant to reflect rising premiums), higher profits and excessive executive pay.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, a Medicare recipient would pay nearly $7,000 more per year than for comparable coverage under traditional Medicare. The average Social Security benefit is just over $14,000 per year, so half of a recipient’s income would be spent on increased health premiums.

Why are they doing this? It is not to reduce the deficit, but to fund continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy, and to further cut the taxes of America’s richest people by lowering their rates to 25%. This will take $2 trillion out of the revenue side of our nation’s budget over the next 10 years.

As Charles M. Blow pointed out in his New York Times column, the spurious Republican argument that further tax cuts for the wealthy will “somehow stimulate economic growth is not borne out by data. A look at the year-over-year change in GDP and changes in the historical top marginal tax rates show no such correlation.

“This isn’t about balancing budgets or fiscal discipline or prosperity-for-posterity stewardship. This is open piracy for plutocrats. … (it is) about reshaping the government and economy to benefit the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the poor and powerless.”
I do not oppose this proposed alteration of America’s social contract for selfish reasons… my age group is exempt. That, in itself, is a clever political maneuver: The most active of voters are those over 55, and by holding us harmless the hope seems to be that we will ignore this radical shift in policy that threatens the retirement of our grandchildren.

I, in fact, support curtailing Medicare costs through tougher quality control, charging higher premiums and co-pays to those of us with good incomes, instituting President Obama’s proposal to establish a review panel empowered to make program changes, eliminating the Medicare Advantage program and tough enforcement of fraud and abuse regulations.
What I oppose is the disingenuous attempt to hide a major policy change under spurious rhetoric. Do your homework before signing on to the Ryan plan.