The demagoguery of Paul Ryan by the media continues.
On Friday, the New York Times' resident Nobel laureate Paul Krugman called the Wisconsin Congressman a liar and a sore loser:
Yes, Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, is a sore loser...To be sure, Mr. Ryan had reason to be upset after Tuesday’s special election in New York’s 26th Congressional District. [...]
If anyone is lying here, it’s Mr. Ryan himself, who has claimed that his plan would give seniors the same kind of coverage that members of Congress receive — an assertion that is completely false.
And, by the way, the claim that the plan would keep Medicare as we know it intact for Americans currently 55 or older is highly dubious. True, that’s what the plan promises, but if you think about the political dynamics that would emerge once Americans born a year or two too late realize how much better a deal slightly older Americans are getting, you realize that this is a promise unlikely to be fulfilled.
So, although the "plan promises" to only impact people below the age of 55, it's "highly dubious?"
Well, here's what's not "highly dubious" and what shameless shills like Krugman are intentionally hiding from the American people: the Medicare Trustees exactly two weeks ago gave the program in its current form thirteen years until it goes bankrupt.
What that means is there are currently two Medicare plans on the table.
The first is the one being offered by the President, his Party, and shills like Krugman throughout the media: Medicare stays in its present form without any alterations whatsoever and in roughly thirteen years goes bankrupt forcing every senior citizen except for those that qualify for Medicaid to pay 100 percent of their health insurance and/or medical expenses. This would be true for today's seniors as well as folks currently under the age of 55.
The second is Ryan's plan whereby everyone 55 and over continues to receive Medicare benefits in exactly the same way as seniors have since the program began with the exception of an additional prescription drug benefit added in the previous decade. Folks under 55 when beginning to receive benefits in the future would have to contribute some money of their own depending on their level of income.
Regardless of your current age, which plan do you prefer?
If laid out in this logical fashion, there's likely no one in this country including Paul Krugman that would opt for plan number one, for he was born in 1953. This means that under the plan he currently supports, Medicare is gone when he turns 71.
If Krugman along with his colleagues and the Party they dishonestly support were forced to publicly make a choice between these two distinct options, they would all have to agree the Ryan plan is better - unless, of course, they're all good with losing their own Medicare benefits thirteen years from now.
I therefore officially and quite publicly ask the distinguished Mr. Krugman: Do you want to keep the current plan whereby you have to pay 100 percent of your health insurance and/or medical bills in thirteen years, or the Ryan plan where your care is completely covered and those under 55 have to contribute a bit more than they currently do?
I don't expect the distinguished Mr. Krugman or any of the other dishonest media members to answer this question, but isn't it at least incumbent upon them to properly lay out to the citizenry exactly what the choices are today so that the public can make an informed decision?
I would normally end with my characteristic "Or would that be too much like journalism?"
But given what's at stake, that's far too wimpy.
So let's try this: Wouldn't that be the moral and ethical thing to do, or is it really more honest and humane to convince the public - seniors and youngens alike - they're actually better off completely losing all Medicare benefits in the next decade?