Washington Post Editorializes for Medicare Cuts on Page 3

The Washington Post long ago ended the separation of its news and editorial departments, therefore it was not surprising to see the page three article complaining that "experts" are worried that the rhetoric of the presidential campaign will make it harder to find a "solution" for Medicare. As is standard practice, the Post's corral of experts were exclusively people who largely agree with its editorial position on Medicare: that there have to be large cuts to the program.

The three people presented as experts in the piece are Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Peter Peterson funded Concord Coalition, Steve Bell, economic policy director at the Peter Peterson funded Bipartisan Policy Center and a former Republican congressional staffer, Dougas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and the top economic advisor to John McCain in his 2008 campaign. All three present views of Medicare and budget deficits that are very similar to the views expressed in the Post editorials.

It would have been easy to find experts presenting a broader range of views if the Post had wanted to write this piece as a real news story. For example, they could have spoken to Henry Aaron at the Brookings Institution who has written extensively on health care policy for decades. Or, they could have talked to M.I.T. economist Jon Gruber who played a central role in designing both Governor Romney's health care plan for Massachusetts and President Obama's health care plan.

A broader group of experts could have explained to readers that most of Medicare's projected shortfall has already been eliminated by the cost control measures that President Obama put in place in the Affordable Care Act. The projected shortfall over 75 years fell from 3.88 percent of taxable payroll in the 2009 Medicare Trustees Report to 1.35 percent of taxable payroll in the 2012 Medicare Trustees Report. The experts the Post relied upon apparently neglected to mention the sharp reduction in the projected deficit as a result of President Obama's policies.

A broader group of experts might also have reminded Post readers that the underlying problem is not the cost of Medicare but rather the cost of health care more generally in the United States. If we paid the same amount per person as people in any other wealthy country, there would be no Medicare problem whatsoever and the long-term projections would show huge surpluses rather than deficits. Readers of an article that purports to give the view of experts should know this information.

Trees, Forests and Truth
written by Last Mover, August 16, 2012 9:35

A broader group of experts might also have reminded Post readers that the underlying problem is not the cost of Medicare but rather the cost of health care more generally in the United States.

When trees tell the truth, report lies from the forest. When the forest tells the truth report lies from the trees.

When trees and forest are both getting the truth out do some clearcutting with appropriate experts to see which sounds are made by trees or the forest. Then make sure no one is there to hear it when they fall.

...
written by Ryan, August 16, 2012 10:24

Well stated, yet again. What I don't understand in this entire debate is why no one publicly asks the question, "What about people who are on not-Medicare now and will be on not-Medicare 10 or 20 years from now? They're not going to care about solving a federal obligations issue, they're going to care about the increasing chunk of their paychecks on insurance."

Perhaps we can try and solve both problems at once?

-1

Bipartisan
written by Long Ago, August 16, 2012 11:07

Just go back to early 1920s where powerful oligarchy dominate and as potrayed in the mob movies and the saying: "We own the papers. Tell them what to write."

Yep, we are bipartisan groups incl. Tax Foundation, OPESEC and we got our funding from generous folks like Adelson, Peterson, Murdoch, Walton Family, etc.

Our goal is to promot society welfare: for the 1%.

Jon Gruber expert? An insider, yes. But a person of vision on health matters? I think not
written by Rachel, August 16, 2012 7:59

One of Gruber's main objectives in a health plan was (I believe he told Vermont this) that doctors should be no less rich. There's a problem right there. Too political (not to say looking out for his buddies).

A more fundamental failure of his health plans is that they do not account for the problem of the big hospital chains, who have the power to cut back on care and raise prices in ways that his plans can do little to control. And now the private equity funds are coming in and buying up hospitals, and young doctors join hospital chains instead of smaller practices. And people still expect prices increases to moderate, without major cutbacks in service?

Washington Post Editorializes for Medicare Cuts on Page 3

About Beat the Press