New Romney/Ryan ad plays offense on Medicare. Will that work?
Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate means the team has to play defense on Ryan's past Medicare reform proposals. It's doing that by trying to get in the front foot.
(Page 2 of 2)
(They might also add that both Ryan’s and Obama’s Medicare budgets foresee the same general financial path for the system. Both foresee per-person benefits rising at the rate of increase of the gross domestic product (GDP), plus 0.5 percent. The difference is in how the respective budgets plan to get to that financial goal.)
Skip to next paragraphWashington Editor
Peter Grier is The Christian Science Monitor's Washington editor. In this capacity, he helps direct coverage for the paper on most news events in the nation's capital.
-
In Pictures: On the Campaign Trail with the Romney-Ryan ticket
Recent posts
-
05.21.13
IRS deliberately harassed conservatives, majority say in poll -
05.21.13
Why Rand Paul thinks Senate is 'bullying' Apple Inc. (+video) -
05.20.13
Might Obama fire Attorney General Eric Holder? -
05.20.13
Ted Nugent's brother slaps Ted on gun background checks. Family feud? -
05.20.13
North Korea missile launches: Pyongyang toying with foes? (+video)
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
The second point the ad makes is simple, though made in a subtle way: Current recipients would not be affected by the Romney/Ryan team’s proposed changes. That’s why the ad says the pair would “protect Medicare for today’s seniors.”
That’s true. The Ryan-produced budget passed by the House earlier this year draws the line at age 55. Those 55 or older would not see any change in the Medicare system. Those under 55 would participate in Ryan’s “premium-support” model for the giant government health-care system.
“No one over the age of 55 would be affected in any way,” wrote Mr. Biggs.
But for people under age 55, Medicare would fundamentally change. “Premium support” means “voucher,” in the view of Democrats. Beneficiaries would receive a fixed sum of money from the government to buy private insurance from a Medicare Exchange. (The traditional fee-for-service would be one of the exchange’s options, and the premium would be adjusted for different regional costs and the health of the beneficiary.)
Democrats charge that under this system seniors would inevitably end up paying an increasingly large percentage of their health-care costs. Ryan’s proponents proclaim that’s not true. Competition for customers between private plans on the exchanges would effectively keep prices down, they say.
“Overall the Ryan budget represents real progress toward tackling the nation’s fiscal and economic challenges,” says a Heritage Foundation white paper on the subject.
But is the Romney campaign smart to confront the issue in such a direct manner? After all, many GOP operatives worry that focus on Medicare diverts attention from the issues on which Obama fares worst among voters, the overall state of the economy and jobs.
Plus, Democrats have long “owned” Medicare, in the sense that polls show voters trust them rather than Republicans when it comes to the big program’s fate, notes George Washington University political scientist John Sides on the Monkey Cage political blog.
Such stereotypes are remarkably persistent, according to Mr. Sides. Political scientists’ research shows that when candidates try to “trespass” on the other party’s turf – when a Republican runs as pro-education, say, or a Democrat runs as tougher on defense – voters don’t really pay much attention.
Thus the Romney/Ryan ticket’s attempts to portray itself as the savior of Medicare “will be an uphill battle for the GOP,” he concludes.
IN PICTURES: On the Campaign Trail with Mitt Romney

Previous





These comments are not screened before publication. Constructive debate about the above story is welcome, but personal attacks are not. Please do not post comments that are commercial in nature or that violate any copyright[s]. Comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence will be removed. If you find a comment offensive, you may flag it.