Tweet
If a candidate other than Rand Paul were nominated in Kentucky, given the rightward tilt of the state and the current electoral environment, they would have probably sailed to victory. But Paul’s past statements are really catching up with him and giving Jack Conway an angle to win.
The big issue for Paul recently is his professed support in June 2009 and on other occasions (as you can see from the video) for a $2,000 deductible for Medicare, essentially burdening seniors with more of the costs of the program. Despite this being entirely in line with Paul’s worldview of making customers “smarter shoppers” of health care, and letting the free market rather than the government bring down costs, he knows this would be a poisonous position in a political campaign. In fact, he said just that back in June, to “try selling that one in an election.” Which is why he put up a campaign ad saying he never supported such a deductible.
But when Jack Conway released the footage you see in the video to the right, showing that Paul advocated for this time and time again, and when Paul just this week went on Neil Cavuto and said that he absolutely did support it for people under 55, Paul had to change his ad:
That (first) ad featured this image:
Busted with their lies (do they still not realize video exists?), the Paul camp quickly remixed the ad. It no longer accuses Conway of lying (because he wasn’t). And rather than claiming Paul never supported higher deductibles, it does this:
Conway has also tried to make hay out of a statement by Paul that drug abuse is not a pressing issue in Kentucky. But this Medicare thing, which shows complete and total duplicity on the part of Paul, could actually resonate, especially if the traditional media picks up on it. It illustrates why Democrats still think they can steal this seat, when they really have no business thinking so in this cycle.
19 Comments
It would be sweeeet if he lost that race. I don’t live there, but still, a guy can hope can’t he?
Or another reading would be he supports opening up Medicare to everyone with those 55 and under with a $2000 deductible (which could be prepaid as a $167 a month premium, then what isn’t spent under $2000 is refunded as a tax credit). Hmm, perhaps he should close the “doughnut hole” between 55 and 65 while he’s at it.
Ha ha, I’d actually support that (after closing the doughnut hole, of course). Its basically the “Mega proposal” that Elliott Richardson drafted just before Nixon moved him from Sec. of Health, Education and Welfare over to Pentagon (Mega also included revenue sharing, student aid and a negative income tax with public jobs for the unemployed; astonishing today that a Republican would come up with something so… awesome). The only difference is that Mega didn’t use a sum certain for the deductible but rather made it a percentage of income–0% to 15% of income (with the percentage itself scaling up with income, a clever inside-out progressive tax increase to fund universal coverage).
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED080148 (page 23 of pdf)
The Lexington Herald-Leader‘s political blog did have this a couple of days ago (and I believe it hit the paper itself yesterday)
Thanks David, glad to see Paul The Loon get some blowback.
I don’t understand why this is so controversial for Paul. It sounds to me like he’s just stating exactly what almost every Republican believes. In fact, I’d bet an honest poll of Republicans would reveal they would be willing to go further than raising the deductible to $2000. They’d be fine with raising it to infinity, i.e. ending Medicare. After all, didn’t they pretty much vote against Medicare when it was proposed?
It’s just so hypocritical of the “mainstream” Republicans (HA! whatever the hell that is) to be criticizing Paul for saying exactly the same thing they believe.
Assholes.
Ah yes! The old trying to keep the ‘baggers happy while being electable in a general. Heckuva job Randy.
But, if one were to create a graph with FDR’s New Deal high on the left side and Rand Paul’s No Deal low on the right, the trajectory in which the Neoliberal Democratic establishment has had a huge impact in the last 30 years would inform us that the Neoliberal dream is also Rand Paul’s dream. Of course that should come as no surprise to anyone willing to read as little as the Wikipedia entry for Neoliberalism.
Just reminding people that, in addition to a 3% payroll tax for Medicare through out working life Seniors pay about $2500 per year for Medicare part B. About half that for Medicare D and most have private supplemental insurance of about $2500 per year. IOW a single senior still pays over $5000 in insurance premiums. This is certainly a bargain at the current rates for private insurance but it is not free.
I think that part b is more like $100 a month. That is what Ron pays anyway.
It’s $110.50 IIRC.
I suppose TS was merely stating the costs of a couple on Medicare.
I thought I paid something over $120 per month but I concede to your documentation. I was just speaking off the top of my head. I do over all pay over $5000 per year in insurance.I just calculated it for a financial statement.
But the real issue is it is insurance with premiums largely paid many years before eligibility and not pre-paid care. That would be an HMO.
Paul is polling well ahead – we will see if this will close the gap..
The throw the Dem out is working around the country, and with much of the left sending a message about betrayal on items like the public option, it may be hard to close the gap.
The standard Medicare Part B monthly premium will be $110.50 in 2010.
The Medicare Part B premium amounts for 2010 are determined by the Department of Health and Human Services… For most beneficiaries, the government pays a substantial portion-about 75 percent-of the Part B standard premium and the beneficiary pays the remainder.
Most beneficiaries will continue to pay the standard premium. Since 2007, higher income beneficiaries have been paying a larger percentage of their Part B premium based on income they reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In 2010, a small number of beneficiaries with higher incomes (individuals with income exceeding $85,000 and married couples with income exceeding $170,000) will pay a monthly premium equal to 35, 50, 65 or 80 percent of the total cost, depending on what they reported to the IRS…
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1581/~/medicare-part-b-monthly-premium-for-2010.
Raising the deductible will force more people into buying the medicare supplemental insurance policies. If the deductible is only $1,000 you have a reasonable shot at having enough savings to pay it, but not so at $2,000. More money is to be made by the insurance companies with Paul’s proposal, a fact that I imagine crossed his mind (or has been pointed out to him, most likely by a lobbyist).
That explains my memory. I cashed out a stock fund in 2009 for a one time higher income that year. The only good news this year is I will have only a small extra to the social security income. The bad news is that’s it for as long as I can live.
Rasmussen (which leans R) has Paul up significantly
But SurveyUSA has them within the margin of error – and this was taken before the ads running where Paul is quoted as saying he wants the large deductible – statements and quotes he’s trying to deny ever having said as noted above.
If Conway was doing anything at all he’d be leading. I have never seen such an inept campaign, he is nearly the invisible man. No yard signs, no bumper stickers, no billboards. I have yet to hear his voice on any ad other then “He approves this message”.
Conway needs to hit Paul hard on abortion extremism (not even for rape or incest). He needs to ask the voters to vote for him, he has to do something.
I hope he loses BIG!
Who cares about his postion on Medi-care. He is against our war mongering all over the world. He wants to bring all our soldiers home from the 147 different countries where they can be found.He wants us to quit sticking our nose in others affairs. He does not want to see flag draped coffins being unloaded weekly at Dover Air Force base. If you are a real liberal who wants us to live up to our basic precepts of liberty and the avoidance of over seas entanglements, how can you not support him. If you oppose him that means you care less about the horrible pain mothers go through on a dailey basis as they clean out the toys of their dead 19 year old kid`s room than a democratic seat in the senate. This is no gray issue. Rand for peace, all others for constant warfare.
Charles B. Tiffany
Kissimmee, Florida