Powered by Topple

The wind at his back! New York Times just chastised Dems for ‘indiscriminate attacks’ Trump’s Medicare cuts

IOWA CITY, IOWA - FEBRUARY 10: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) speaks at a campaign rally at the University of Iowa on February 10, 2019 in Iowa City, Iowa. Warren is making her first three campaign stops in the state since announcing yesterday the she was officially running for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
(FILE PHOTO by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Powered by Topple

After years of spouting anti-Trump nonsense, The New York Times finally appears to be talking some sense. It started earlier this month when the left-wing paper admitted that the southern U.S. border is at a “breaking point” and continued Monday when the paper’s far-left editorial board published an astonishing op-ed defending some of President Donald Trump’s proposed cuts to Medicare.

Measuring slightly over 1,000 words, the op-ed chastised congressional Democrats for their “indiscriminate attacks” against the president’s plan to cut Medicare by $845 billion over 10 years.

Attacks like this:

“But some cuts to Medicare make sense,” the board wrote, adding that some of Trump’s cuts closely mirror those proposed by former President Barack Hussein Obama, a Democrat.

The Times noted that the “largest chunk” of the proposed cuts would come from a problematic “bonus payment” scheme that forces the federal government to issue a “higher fee” to doctors’ offices that are owned by a hospital versus doctors’ offices that are run independently.

Why are hospitals paid a higher fee? For legitimate reasons.

“The two-rate system has its roots in the real differences between a hospital and a doctor’s office,” the Times pointed out. “Hospitals tend to treat less-healthy patients; they provide a safety net of related services if something goes wrong, and they must comply with more stringent rules.”

But in recent years hospitals have tried to exploit this rule to their advantage by purchasing private doctors’ offices and then using their ownership to demand higher fees for the offices as well.

Fast-forward to 2015, when the GOP-led Congress reportedly “sought to stem the trend by barring higher payments to any new offices acquired or established by hospitals.”

The problem is that previously established hospital-owned doctors’ offices “were grandfathered in,” meaning they could and continue to collect higher fees for no legitimate reason whatsoever.

According to the Times, the 22-year-old Medicare Payment Advisory Commission has recommended this exemption be revoked, and lo and behold, the Trump administration agrees. And because the administration supports this sensible reform measure, Democrats oppose it.

Remember, #OrangeManBad, and anything #OrangeMan likes is bad too!

This isn’t to say Trump’s proposal couldn’t be tweaked a little.

“[I]n some cases, the federal government should pay higher fees to private practices rather than pay lower fees to hospital affiliates,” the Times noted, adding that the proposal “contains only a thumbnail sketch of its own ideas,” meaning more talks and more negotiation is needed.

Except the Democrats have no interest in talking.

“Democrats are not debating the details,” the Times rightly noted. “Instead, a proposal to improve the efficiency of health care spending is being treated as an attack on the availability of health care.”

As usual, the Democrats appear to only be interested in playing politics versus resolving issues. That the Times would admit this is stunning. Granted, because it’s the Times, it, of course, accused Republicans of behaving similarly during discussions over the Affordable Care Act.

While this may be true, it should be kept in mind that Obamacare, as it’s known, was a far larger proposal with a much greater impact, much of it demonstrably negative.

The Times also dinged Trump for promising to not cut Medicare spending:

“Mr. Trump is guilty of contradicting his campaign promise that he would not seek to cut Medicare spending. But it is the promise that was irresponsible, not the budget proposal.”

Fair enough …

And the left-winger paper admitted that not every proposed cut is such a great idea before adding that “a president’s budget is just a list of ideas. It’s up to Congress to pick the good ones.”

The problem is that the Democrat-controlled half of Congress refuses to do its job. It’s too busy dismissing the results of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian collusion.

HERE’S WHAT YOU’RE MISSING …

In concluding its piece, the Times’ editorial board rightly pointed out that “[m]aintaining tight control of Medicare spending is good government in its own right” and took a final parting shot at congressional Democrats — particularly those running for president — for their games.

“Ms. [Kamalas] Harris, Ms. [Elizabeth] Warren and other Democratic presidential candidates — including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont — have become vocal proponents of expanding Medicare eligibility”

“The case for such an expansion would be strengthened if proponents showed greater concern not just for broadening the availability of health care, but also for managing the cost of care.”

In other words, the public would take their claims more seriously if they themselves took Medicare more seriously instead of acting like money grows on trees.

Not surprisingly, the Times is being savaged by some members of its left-wing base on social media:

HERE’S WHAT YOU’RE MISSING …

Vivek Saxena

Comments

Latest Articles