As the debate over how to preserve Medicare hardens into gridlock — with Paul Ryan’s “premium support” plan on one side and President Obama’s “don’t worry, my ‘panel of experts’ will take care of it” approach on the other — Sen. Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.) is trying to find some middle ground. He outlines his plan in a Washington Post op-ed: “How Medicare can be saved.”
Medicare is “hurtling toward its demise,” Lieberman writes. But instead of working together toward a solution, lawmakers are “busy posturing for the next election” and have turned the issue “into another excuse for partisan pugilism.” Indeed, Lieberman seems to chide Democrats for their failure to take Medicare’s funding crisis seriously. His implied criticisms of the Republican approach — that it would “privatize” Medicare — come off as forced, not least because they are simply false (the Ryan plan does no such thing).
Lieberman’s plan, which he is drafting into legislation, will save “at least $200 billion” over the next decade and extend Medicare’s solvency by about 20 years. Here’s how he proposes to do it:
-
Raise the Medicare eligibility age. Lieberman proposes, starting in 2014, to gradually raise the eligibility age from 65 to 67 by 2025 (a rate of two months per year). “That’s a small sacrifice to ask for the benefits you will receive from a healthy Medicare program for the rest of your life,” he writes.
-
Reform the benefit structure. Essentially, he wants to simplify the “complex Medicare benefit structure” by combining the Part A and Part B deductibles, requiring a co-pay on all Medicare services while imposing a limit to the amount of out-of-pocket costs seniors must pay in a given year.
-
Reform the premium structure by raising premiums for all new Medicare recipients in Part B and Part D from 25 percent to 35 percent, beginning in 2014.
-
Change the rules for ‘Medigap’ coverage. Lieberman points out that Medicare patients with supplemental coverage use substantially more services that traditional Medicare enrollees, which drives up overall costs. He doesn’t, however, propose a solution to the problem.
-
Raise revenue by imposing a 1 percent surtax on personal income over $250,000 to go towards saving Medicare.
Note that Lieberman’s plan, like Obama’s “plan,” would impose changes on current seniors, starting in 2014, in marked contrast to the Ryan plan which preserves Medicare in its current form until 2022. In fact, the Lieberman’s proposal is in a way quite similar to what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) has proposed, which is to do nothing (“We have a plan. It’s called Medicare.”). The changes Lieberman recommends are exactly the sort of emergency measures a “panel of experts” would be forced to impose — within the framework of the current system — in the midst of a debt crisis. This is precisely the scenario that Ryan’s plan aims to prevent. As Yuval Levin writes in The Weekly Standard, given the likely alternatives, Ryan’s plan is anything but radical. Lieberman’s proposal highlights the clear choice facing American voters regarding how Medicare can be preserved: Cut benefits now or wait 10 years? Control costs through rationing or market forces? Extend solvency for 20 years or permanently? Do it by raising taxes or not?
Aside from the part about higher taxes, Lieberman’s ideas are not going to excite many liberals. As such, it also indicates the extent to which the Left is becoming increasingly isolated in the debate over entitlements. By forcing the issue, Ryan has provided cover for sensible Democrats like Lieberman to admit what everyone knows to be true: Medicare “as we know it” is unsustainable. For example, see Democratic pollster Charlie Cook’s column in today’s National Journal, “Too Good To Last.” Most realize that fixing this would be the most meaningful action Congress could take to reassure financial markets that the United States is serious about confronting its long-term debt problem. Even President Obama has been forced to admit as much. Of course, the Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid faction of the party will be content to demagogue all the way to November 2012, but Lieberman’s effort is perhaps a sign of political momentum on the side of fiscal seriousness when it comes to Medicare. Then again, there’s a reason Lieberman was forced to leave the Democratic Party, and he doesn’t have to run for reelection.
This plan is another boon for Ryan. Given it's position of affecting current and soon-to-retire seniors, its full impact will be felt immediately. And yet, Lieberman himself admits these measures only buy time. Ryan, on the other hand, will allow all individuals 55+ to remain in the current system without change, will allow those younger than 55 to begin collecting his restructured benefits at 65, and provides the program with long-term stability (meaning Ryan isn't just buying 20 years after which we will need to find new reforms or further "cost savings" in order to keep the program running). In the face of a Liberman-style plan, Ryan's plan starts to look like the more "moderate" choice - these new "plans" are the ones that look radical.
Thanks Sen. Lieberman for further undercutting the entire rationale behind Democratic attacks on the Ryan plan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't suppose Mr. Stiles would consider the Republicans' categorical rejection of any tax increases to fix the deficit or Medicare a form of demagoguery at all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo more than the Democrats insistance the tax increases MUST be on the table is demagoguery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMarkW: Agreed; if what the Democrats are doing with respect to insisting on tax increases is demagoguery, so is the Republican categorical rejection of tax increases. For Mr. Stiles or anyone else to pretend otherwise is hypocrisy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOn the other hand, the Republican's demagoguery comes because of the recognition that tax levels are already too high and increasing them further will not help this problem or any other.
The Democrat's demagoguery comes because they are addicted to spending other people's money to the point where demanding tax increase has become a Pavlovian reflex.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTax levels 'too high?' They are at the lowest level of YOUR ENTIRE LIFE and the lives of practically everyone who is currently alive!
Coincidentally, our government is facing gigantic deficits right now and the debt has been run up dramatically during the decade in which these tax rates have been in effect. And you pretend there is no connection between the two?
I think you're a great representative of the fact-ignoring, reality-challenged segment of the GOP base, Mark. It does us no favors in the long run to repeat such tripe as you have above; your position is false and ill-considered.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMan, you are big with the lies today.
I've dealth with this particular lie at least 5 times in the last two weeks.
Tax rates are marginally lower than they were a few years ago, however they are much higher than they were 20 years ago.
Tax collections have fallen a litle bit because of the recession, however they are higher than at any time since the peak of WWII, and they are about 5 times what they were prior to FDR's reign of terror.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Tax rates are marginally lower than they were a few years ago, however they are much higher than they were 20 years ago."
Factually wrong. I mean, you're just totally incorrect with this statement. It's almost as if you have no idea what you're talking about, and just like to spew talking points over and over.
Educate yourself:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe highest federal marginal tax rate on earned income was 28% in the wake of the 1986 tax reform bill. The highest rate now is higher than that. Whether the highest rate is "much" higher now is open to one's interpretation of much. However, make no mistake. The highest marginal tax rates are higher than 24 years ago.
Get off your high horse.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy would you think that income taxes are the only taxes, or that the marginal rates on the highest earners are the only ones that matter?
Read the piece I linked to. There's wide-spread agreement amongst those who study taxes for a living that the current rates, including deductions and ALL taxes, are the lowest in our lifetimes. So it's absolutely false to say that we are 'over-taxed.' We most certainly are not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI did read the article. I was expecting to see charts, graphs, detailed analysis, but it was more of an opinion piece that was over-simplified. If that is the best documentation for your claim, it is pretty weak. It was an OC article that in theory looked at research. But did it study the subject exhaustively and look at all available research or did it stop after finding a few sources that squared with the author's worldview? Who knows, but I thought your link was going to be to actual research.
By contrast, I was very precise in my statement about taxes. You should be precise as well.
Back on point, one should construct 20 different hypothetical tax-paying entities, varying by marital status, split of income between earned and unearned, level of income, number of children, renter or homeowner, etc and compare the tax burden now versus 20 years ago. Obviously, adjust for general income differences over 20 years. I suspect some would be paying higher taxes now than then and others less. It all depends on one's circumstances and the idiosyncrasies of the tax code.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe cannot fix the deficit or Medicare via tax increases. It's mathematically impossible, and it is demagoguery on the part of the Democrats to keep suggesting otherwise.
Eventually we'll pass some legislation to address these problems. That legislation will consist mostly of cuts to programs, because that's what reality calls for, along with some tax increases, because that's what politics calls for. Why don't we cut to the chase and do it now? Because the Dems think that they can demagogue the issue for the 2012 elections.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen history tells you politicians spend the additional revenue (and then some), no, he doesn't.
Neither do I.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can't "save Medicare". The time to "save Medicare" was two decades ago using some form of long term insurance (money invested which paid premiums into old age), that ship has sailed.
Now the questions are about how to distribute the cost.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile I like the fact that Ryan's plan gives a "ten year warning," I think that is unrealistic. By that time, we will have the first ten years of boomers in the old system. Also, I do not see it as fair to tax my grandkids to give me care when they won't get it so I am willing (at 72) to have the changes affect me as well. I am almost certain that both Medigap insurance and retirement increase the number of trips to the doc. Raising the Medicare age to 67 is not a big deal for those who are working - 65 and 66 aren't the big spenders anyway. Getting grouped with people who die (and the pre-death cost) is what runs up the cost of insurance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat post..I agree. I am 56 with 3 kids..I don't want them buried in debt...My thinking is this..for all of us...wait longer...pay a little more...receive a little less so basic are for the truly deserving is accomplished, and we don't go the way of Europe.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGAAAHHH. Lieberman hates old people. He wants to kill granny, only more slowly than Ryan. AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
Just kidding. It's nice to see a Democrat in DC act like an adult regarding entitlement reform. Oh, wait. He's not a D anymore. I think his proposal is elegantly designed kicking the can down the road. But he gets kudos for opening his mouth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHonestly this is a good starting point on Medicare. Yes, medicare taxes need to be raised. Yes, we need to bring costs down and raise more money. I do not like the voucher plan, too similar to Obama's plan, and medicare is a security blanket that gives peace of mind, not a grant that gives none.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Note that Lieberman’s plan, like Obama’s “plan,” would impose changes on current seniors, starting in 2014, in marked contrast to the Ryan plan which preserves Medicare in its current form until 2022."
And somehow, all of us conservatives are supposed to be thrilled with Ryan's solution of giving those over 55 everything and those under 55 nothing.
Btw, if 'preserving' Medicare = not changing anything - as you clearly believe above, then you have to agree with Pelosi's that to have a plan to "save Medicare" is to simply not change anything about Medicare. You cannot simultaneously congratulate Ryan for "saving" Medicare for those over 55 by not changing anything and for "saving" it for those under 55 by changing everything.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI prefer the Lieberman plan to the Ryan one, except that I'd raise the eligibility age from 65 to 70.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse