At the GOP’s convention last week, Paul Ryan told even more lies regarding his plans for Medicare; this one the most blatant and most likely to delude those who aren’t paying attention:
“ Medicare is a promise, and we will honor it. A Romney-Ryan administration will protect and strengthen Medicare. ”
Watch as Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman and Rachel Maddow debunk the universe of Medicare lies from Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in five short minutes:
UPDATE: The transcript from the video clip follows:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RYAN: Medicare is a promise, and we will honor it. A Romney/Ryan administration will protect and strengthen Medicare.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: if you were running a son of a zillionaire, second generation zillionaire presidential candidate as your nominee this year, you would have a convention that was all about your party`s up from the boot straps story, right? Single moms, and poor immigrants working multiple jobs. And if you were running the kill Medicare guy as your vice presidential nominee, you too would have your convention about how much you love Medicare and want to protect it.
But as Paul Krugman writes today, quote, "The Republican Party is now firmly committed to replacing Medicare with what we might call voucher care. The government would no longer pay your major medical bills, instead, it would give you a voucher that could be applied to the purchase of private insurance. If the voucher proved insufficient to buy decent coverage, that would be your problem.
Over time, the Republican plan wouldn`t just end Medicare as we know it. It would kill the thing Medicare is supposed to provide: universal access to essential care."
That, I think, even Eric Cantor could remember.
Paul Krugman joins us for the interview next, in just a moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RYAN: Medicare is a promise, and we will honor it. A Romney/Ryan administration will protect and strengthen Medicare.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: Paul Ryan as the spokesperson for protecting Medicare.
Joining us now for the interview is Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist, Princeton professor of economics and international affairs, and, of course, a "New York Times" columnist. Mr. Krugman is a contributor to "The Occupy Handbook," which I own both in hardback and now in paperback because it`s just out in paperback.
Paul, thanks for being here.
PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: Hi, there.
MADDOW: Politically, the Republicans say they have fought the Medicare issue to a draw. They don`t have political liability on the issue because they have convinced people President Obama would hurt Medicare more than they would. On policy terms, what`s your reaction to that?
KRUGMAN: Well, yes, it`s amazing. I mean, they might be right on the politics, but in policy terms, of course not, right? I mean, Obama is proposing some cost saving measures, which are also exactly the same cost saving measures that Ryan assumes in his budget.
And then, of course, Obama is trying to preserve Medicare as what it is, which is something that guarantees essential health care to older Americans, which we should have for everyone, but anyway, at least for older Americans, it`s a right. Republicans are saying we`ll give you a voucher and you can deal with the insurance company. It`s your problem.
MADDOW: In terms of the political allegations back and forth, one man cost savings pressures are another person`s dastardly cuts. In terms of the substance of what President Obama is proposing, do you think there`s anything wrong with it?
KRUGMAN: No, I mean, if you actually look at it, the cost saving measures are not -- no benefits are cut. Benefits are expanded. They`re all reductions in payments to insurance companies and hospitals. On the insurance company side, it`s reducing overpayments. There`s a program that has turned out to be a huge boondoggle -- very small benefits, in return for a lot of taxpayer costs.
So they`re going to say we`re going to stop subsidizing that. And then the hospitals would be paid less, but they have agreed to that. The hospital industry said, you know, we`re going to have more patients because people will have insurance. We`ll have fewer uninsured people who have to be treated without being able to pay their bills, so we`re willing to accept slightly lower rates.
So, this was a perfectly reasonable way to save a fairly modest amount of money over the next 10 years. Amazing that this has become -- well, it`s because Republicans are so good alt making people think they`re going to take away your money and give it to those people. If you look at it on its own merits, it`s a totally reasonable set of modest cost reduction measures.
MADDOW: And they`re winning on the politics because what we`re talking about what Obama did on Medicare and not what Paul Ryan proposal, to voucherize it.
KRUGMAN: That`s right, and I don`t know if it will last. But in any case, the amazing thing, that statement, we`re going to keep the promise of Medicare.
The promise of Medicare is if you have a medical emergency, if you have necessary treatment, it will be paid for. And that promise is explicitly taken away. The promise instead is, we will give you some money that maybe will help you to buy an insurance policy from a private insurance company. That`s not the promise of Medicare.
MADDOW: In terms of the economics of a voucher proposal like that, in human terms it`s harm to imagine. I imagine myself 88 years old, and I`m going to get a coupon and go shop on the private market for insurance because I`ve got a discount coupon. So, then maybe somebody will want to pick me up as an 88-year-old pensioner, to get private of insurance.
It`s hard to imagine on human terms.
But in economics terms, is there any reason to believe that putting people into the private market with some sort of government subsidy like that would be more efficient and bring down costs in a big is sense?
KRUGMAN: This is amazing thing, because this is a case where conservatives and not just the extremes ones, but especially the extreme ones, just won`t take no for an answer. We have lots of evidence, we have lots of head to head comparisons of private insurance versus government programs. And the private insurance always ends up being more expensive.
You can see that we`ve got Medicare Advantage which is running Medicare through private insurance companies, turned out to be a money- losing proposition for the taxpayer. We have Medicaid versus private insurance. You have a lot of head to head comparisons. Medicaid is a lot cheaper.
And, of course, there`s the international thing. Every other advanced country relies much more on government provision of health insurance than we do. Every other advanced country has much cheaper health care than we do with no difference in quality or in some cases better quality.
So you look at -- it`s not like you have to go to Timbuktu to find this out. Go a couple hundred miles north to Canada. Over the last 40 years, Canada has had much lower growth in health care costs. They spend not much more than half as much per person as we do. Same health care outcomes as we have, socialized health insurance.
What more do you need?
MADDOW: Yes, this is -- it works country to country. It works comparing two different systems within the same country. It even works comparing the private part of Medicare to the public part.
KRUGMAN: There is not one example that I`m aware of that shows what Republicans insist we should be the belief on, which we completely overhaul our Medicare system.
MADDOW: The Democrats will have done their job next week if what we are talking about with regard to Medicare is the voucher idea of Paul Ryan`s.
