Two Options On Entitlement Battles
Item 1: In the Miami Herald, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fl., doubles down in support of Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal.
Either show us how Medicare survives without any changes or show us what changes you propose we make. Anyone who supports doing nothing is a supporter of bankrupting Medicare. Where is the House Democrat plan to save Medicare? Where is the Senate Democrat plan to save Medicare? Where is President Obama’s plan to save Medicare?
They have no plan to save it, and they do not plan to offer one. They have decided that winning their next election is more important than saving Medicare for my mother and retirees like her.
Item 2: The Washington Examiner argues:
[T]he GOP argument should be: "Both sides have proposed ways to save money on Medicare. President Obama wants to have 15 Washington bureaucrats decide how best to spend Medicare dollars, but Republicans believe individuals should be given the money directly so they can choose how they want to spend it."
Which argument is better? We're arguing semantics here, but semantics matter. Is it better to say that the Dems have "no plan to save Medicare" or to say that everyone has a plan to change Medicare but that the Dem plan is awful? I'm inclined to support the latter (although I'm thankful that Rubio is standing strong here).
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Two Options On Entitlement Battles
And when Obamacare bureaucrats make you wait 15 months to treat a heart condition that will likely kill you in less than a year, DON'T call them "death panels." It hurts their feelings.
On second thought, they (personally) will have excellent health coverage, to cover every kind of psychological counseling, so, what the heck, call them names. They'll recover--not like you.
Oct '10
Re: Two Options On Entitlement Battles
I greatly prefer Rubio's approach because the Examiner's approach is one of "he said, she said" and that never works. Rubio's is far superior because it forces the Democrats' hand. Democrats have NO rational argument on just about every subject, and it's important to make that plainly evident. Rubio does that, the Examiner doesn't. By explicitly asking them questions, Rubio makes them have to give answers. It pre-empts them just giving their talking points against our talking points (which is how much of the electorate views these things, I'm guessing; that's what I meant by the he said, she said thing).
Nov '10
Re: Two Options On Entitlement Battles
Personally, yes, Mollie, option 2 is preferable. To *me*. But what approach do I think works with most American voters? Option 1. I hate to say it, but the alarmism in that Rubio quote gives me some hope for the GOP. We keep trotting out bureaucratese, and the statists are running ads in which a Ryanesque figure actually physically throws Granny over a cliff. It's time to take the gloves off and talk to this soundbite, emotion-driven culture in language it understands.
Wow. Turns out I'm an elitist.
Caveat: Paul Ryan *himself* somehow makes the slides and graphs work. He's just... Mr. Smith Goes to Washington redux. One believes him. But other folks in his corner should follow Rubio's lead.
May '10
Re: Two Options On Entitlement Battles
There is a third option: Go Wobbly. We don't like to say this, and as noted, I don't think NY-26 proves much of anything. But...
If Medicare reform should prove an insurmountable albatross, we have to make a choice. My choice would be to trim our sails and ensure that Obama does not get another term, while balancing the budget short-term with the Toomey plan. Not the preferred option, but if this looks to be an electoral loser, it's our only option. There is no alternative.
Feb '11
Re: Two Options On Entitlement Battles
As the unofficial pointer-outer-of-the-obvious around here, let me be the first to say that both of these solutions (To a problem best described as the right's version of Global warming scare tactics.) operate on the demand side of the equation.
Perhaps St. Paul of Wisconsin could spend a few moments looking at the supply side of the equation, since price is a function of not just demand but supply.
Here's a hint at what the future of medicine could be if conservatives could set aside their obsession with making sure that Mrs. Slayton from the 5th grade doesn't have too cushy a retirement long enough to examine a healthcare regulatory environment designed to conserve the wealth of the wealthy.
Jul '10
Re: Two Options On Entitlement Battles
They're both ill-crafted. Neither defines the problem nor reassures elderly voters.
Edited on May 26, 2011 at 7:55amOct '10
Re: Two Options On Entitlement Battles
the difference between wisconsin's supreme court election (that could have been disastrous for gov. walker and the Republicans) and this NY-26 election is that the former had ann althouse to cover the madness in wisconsin and alert the GOP to the potential disaster of a prosser defeat (that will be nationalized by the MSM).
The WI Supreme Court election was supposed to be a referendum on scott walker's budget repair bill, and NY-26 a mini referendum on Ryan's Medicare. Imagine if the republicans lost in BOTH Wisconsin and NY-26...
Oct '10
Re: Two Options On Entitlement Battles
Doesn't Obama have his own Medicare reform plan alongside obamacare? Will his cut benefits for people 55 yrs old and over?
Mar '11
Re: Two Options On Entitlement Battles
The first statement is true. When one says they have a plan it is a detail plan that could be made law as is and would fix the problem. An outline is not a plan or saying we will pay people to make a plan a year form now is not a plan it is a goal.
May '11
Re: Two Options On Entitlement Battles
It looks like some of our Republican political "leaders" need a backbone transplant. Either say you're for Paul Ryan's plan or come up with your own alternative. Hanging in the back, hoping to weather the storm in order to get re-elected is the Democrat's strategy and one that I will not tolerate from my party.
Dec '10
Re: Two Options On Entitlement Battles
The proper approach is a synthesis that lets both arguments be made.
For argument #2, "ObamaCare robs Medicare of a half-trillion dollars and sets up a 15-member 'death panel' to ration the care you are allowed to get. Republicans want you, not unelected bureaucrats, to control your own health care choices."
For argument #1: "ObamaCare has put Medicare on an even steeper path to failure than it was on before. Republicans know that without changes from the post-ObamaCare status quo, Medicare will cease to exist. We challenge the Democrats: either show us how Medicare survives without any changes or show us what changes you propose we make. Anyone who supports doing nothing is a supporter of bankrupting Medicare."
May '10
Re: Two Options On Entitlement Battles
Rubio has the more politically effective argument. But I would put it this way:
"Paul Ryan's plan offers Americans the same choices that members of Congress currently enjoy. What's the problem?"
Jan '11
Re: Two Options On Entitlement Battles
You say "argument" here as though that's the nature of the discourse. The only response to the Ryan plan from the Democrats is that they sense in the distance the presence of flying pigs.
Edited on May 26, 2011 at 4:56pmNov '10
Re: Two Options On Entitlement Battles
I prefer the Examiner option, if only because the Rubio option is easily refuted. He says the Dems don't have a plan, but they do. Their plan is awful and will probably make things much much worse, but denying that they have one is no different from what they did which infuriated so many of us during the Obamacare debate.