Dean avoids explanation why he supported cuts on Medicare

What makes me iffy about Dean is that he dodged an explanation why he supported cuts on medicare and social security.

When Gephardt brought up in the last two debates that Democrats in congress were fighting against Republicans, and that Dean was in agreement with the Republicans in making deep cuts on Medicare and social security, Dean chose to take that as personal accusation from Gephardt as if Gephardt was trying to compare Dean to Gingrich.

In the last debate Dean responded with a "...first I'm compared to McGovern and I couldn't win and now I'm compared to Gingrich and I couldn't win..." instead of giving us Democrats a real explanation why he, at one point, supported making deep cuts on medicare and social security.

Dean says that people are not voting because Democratic candidates are no longer representing real Democratic values when Dean himself supported deep cuts on medicare and social security.

The answer that I'm want from Dean is something like, "that's not true and I didn't support that..." or "It was a mistake...{explanation}..." or "Yes I did and I think I was right because...{explanation}" and not a victimized "I'm upset that you are comparing me to Republican so and so".

Dean likes to say he is a true Democrat but he is dodging an explanation to Gephardt's "accusations". Why is that?

Howard Dean has the rights to dodge that question as long as he stops saying that he is more of a Democrat than the other candidates. Because is not!

<i>BTW, I'm pretty new here and I'm really glad that I found this forum. This is the best one by far! The level of discussion here is much higher than most Democrat/Liberal discussion groups. It's really nice to be able to exchange thoughts with supporters for every Democratic candidate. </i>

He capitalized early on the anti-war setiment and rose to popularity once the troops started dying in Iraq.
On social policy issues, from the environment - to the economy he is far more conservative than Kerry, Gephardt and Kucinich.

As Clark comes out with more details it may be possible... If Clark ends up on Dean's left--it could get interesting.

Now to comment on Dean's response to the medicare attack.. I liked the indignation over being compared to Gingrich..however, a response repeating his position on medicare would have been more productive. Not everyone goes to his website and reads his stance on the issues.

However, you're the first Gephardt supporter I've seen here. We haven't seen a Liberman supporter as of today.

Let me just give you an introduction.

We are pretty anti-war on here.

There are people called "Freepers" who are people from the freeamerican website who try to mess us up. Sometimes, neo-con people try to do Denial of Service attacks on our website.

There are a lot of Kucinich people on here. There are a lot of Dean people on here. There are a lot of Clark people here. And quote a bit of Kerry people too.

So you're the first Gephardt person I've met. We sometimes get posted by the Wall Street Journal in their editorial pages, so watch what you say. However, we are hardly a credible source to cite, but that's a problem with their journalistic integrity and ethics.

Cheers.

lower than Gephardt? give me a break..Gephardt wants to open ANWR and wants to maintain the fuel efficiency standards. however, I can understand the Kerry and Kucinich statement.

But Dean would keep much of Clinton's environmental policy.

I'm a Kerry supporter. Just because I'm using Gephardt's point as an example doesn't mean I support him. I have never really met a Gephardt supporter myself... :-)

Thanks for the welcome!

LOL...I THOUGHT THAT WAS A PICTURE OF GEPHARDT

LOL

playing games.

The devil is always in the details

The 97 change to rules that were to reduce Medicare cost growth to 7% from 10% were signed by Clinton because they were designed so as to minimize harm to old folks. The similiar rule change to reduce yearly growth in cost from 10% to 7% in 1995 used much harsher rule changes - and did not become law.

Dean can be faulted for not being as smart as Clinton in 95 and not finding better rule changes, but the need to cut back on Medicare costs - which was to occur via the savings in National health by cutting Ins co profits and overhead and cost of capital for financial reserves in 93 - but never passed - was a large problem. Dean just joined the crowd in saying the obvious. Gep says he was against the 95 rule changes - OK - why - and what was he in favor off at that time?

The $270 billion savings - or cut if you like - was bogus as the the Congress would have paid whatever was required for the entitlement via a suplimental appropiation - for God's sakes - it was an "ENTITLEMENT" - and not about to be cut out - in any way.

So to Gep (and Kerry) what was the rule change you were for in 95?

Did you push the Clinton 97 rule change in 95?

And why make this a big deal - what you will do in the future is the important piece of info that I want.

So to our Fab 9 - please do not rip each other appart for being - or more likely just having a few facts that can be twisted to make someone look like - a less generous benefit giver to folks.

so many times. Dean said he would support holding the growth rate of Medicare to between seven and ten percent, per year. I've seen this reappear as everything from he advocated lowering the growth rate from ten to seven percent--to he advocated cuts in the Medicare budget of ten percent per year. Big difference.

Dean is a fiscal conservative. Bottom line is--if we're going to spend the money, we have to have a way to pay for it. This is not anti-Medicare, this is pro-responsibility.

By the way, when you want to insert HTML use brackets instead of <> (don't ask me why).

more like: he said something really dumb and figured out he better change the statement even though the original reflected his true feelings on the issue at the time.
Dean reacts to the firestorms he sees. the anti-war position clearly reflects that reactionary MO.

And if you would prefer fiscal insolvency to raising the retirement age then we have no discussion.

budget? Or in order to support the occupation force in Iraq? Or what?

MR. RUSSERT: In ’96 you told The Globe you would look at raising the retirement age. You—no?

SEN. KERRY: I would not—I said that was one of many options that were out there that people would put on the table. Back then we were talking about putting everything on the table. I would not do that, period.
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/960385.asp


So in '96 he brought it up, said it was an option, but now he wouldn't do it. Sound familiar?


Get off your high horse.



Edit to add: "more like: he said something really dumb and figured out he better change the statement even though the original reflected his true feelings on the issue at the time."---NYM

It's the hypocrisy factor. Anyone who makes it a point to call everyone a else Washington insiders and poor representatives of the democratic party has opened themselves up to criticism. Haven't you noticed yet that positions and quotes of Dean's, that people point out, are often similar to other the candidates.

Also, if you call yourself the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" and then we find out that you are a fiscal conservative, have supported every war except this one, made ambiguous Iraq statements, did not serve in the Vietnam war when you had a chance (bad back, skiing), previously advocated medicare and social security cuts, etc., you are asking for a hurtin. It's like Bill Bennett advocating morality and it turns out he is gambler, or Rush saying drug users belong in jail and you see where I'm going. I am in no way comparing Dean to these men, he is far above them on the chain of life. I am just using the logic comparison.

No on is above questioning. That includes Kerry and Clark. Kerry should have to explain his Iraq vote and Clark should have to defend his past. It gives you more credibility. Dean could use more credibility with people other than the converted. it will help him if he gets to the general.

:)

And there is nothing hypocritical about being a Democrat and being fiscally conservative, supporting military action as a last resort, and not serving in Vietnam (he showed up for a physical and without requesting one was given a deferrment).

OK, there's an ounce--there's his support of Biden/Lugar. Still checking into that one...

saying he had a back problem that disqualified him from military service. He was also carrying X-rays. He was requesting a medical deferment, else he wouldn't have shown up with X-rays and a doctor's letter.

As for "supporting military action as a last resort" -- was it a "last resort" when Reagan invaded Grenada? when Bush I invaded Panama to capture Noriega? when Bush I launched Desert Storm? Have ANY of our military actions of the past forty years truly been taken as a last resort?

Dean has always, I repeat, always, claimed to be a fiscal conservative. Therefore, it is completely consistent to maintain that medicare can only grow at the rate at which it can be sustained. The actual hypocricy occurs when a Kerry supporter attacks Dean for bringing up raising the SS age when Kerry did it himself. It occurs when a Kerry supporter accuses Dean of draft-dodging(and then going skiing) and yet Kerry protests the Viet Nam war by throwing someone else's medals over a fence. It occurs when Kerry blasts Dean for wanting to cut the V-Script program in a state that has the highest health care coverage of any state, yet blasted Clinton and Kennedy for trying to pass Health Care Reform in the 90's (‘The Democrats have articulated in the last two years a very poor agenda. It’s hard for me to believe that some of these guys could have been as either arrogant or obtuse as to not know where the American people were coming from.’ Kerry deliberately set himself apart from Kennedy...He said Kennedy and Clinton’s insistence on pushing health care reform was a major cause of the Democratic Party’s problems at the polls..." http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/960385.asp)

That is the dictionary definition of hypocricy.

The first suggests that Dean was disingenuous about his back injury.
The second suggests that Kerry was disingenuous about his "protest."

Surprised that I have to spell it out for you.

"By the time Senator Kerry returned home from Vietnam, he felt compelled to question decisions he believed were being made to protect those in positions of authority in Washington at the expense of the soldiers carrying on the fighting in Vietnam. Kerry was a co-founder of the Vietnam Veterans of America and became a spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- Morley Safer would describe him as "a veteran whose articulate call to reason rather than anarchy seemed to bridge the gap between the Abbie Hoffman's of the world and Mr. Agnew's so-called 'Silent Majority.'" In April 1971, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he asked the question of his fellow citizens, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Sen. Claiborne Pell, (D-R.I.) thanked Kerry, then 27, for testifying before the committee, expressing his hope that Kerry "might one day be a colleague of ours in this body."

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john.html

Here is Kerry's speech in 1971 before the Congress:

http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html

to listen and read.

The real point is that Kerry had misgivings about his VN experience and that Dean has a bad enough back that it kept him from being A-1 in the draft. Occam's razor.

As for the original question of this thread, it has been answered a 100 times. A few times in this very thread.

You are severly marginalizing his role in bringing that war to a close and you know that. You also missed my point. Dean democratic wing statement is an attack against the idea of centrism. It appeals to the green and Wellstone sentiment. I agree that dems can be fiscal conservatives. You can't take a swipe at the DLC and then defend yourself for advocating their positions.

I'm tired of this same old sh*t being recycled again and again and again about everybody, not just about Dean! :grr:

No one's perfect, especially political candidates, and most especially Presidential candidates. However, of all of them, Howard's by far the most inconsistent and easily painted as moving around on the issues. In fact, recognizing this fault, Howard is now spinning his inconsistency as "proof" that he is open minded to change. :shrug:

as leader in contributions and polls in NH. King of the Hill syndrome.

I can go inconsistency for inconsistency with you on Kerry. Care to try?

Russert on MTP, Kerry said no, I didn't then and do not now support raising the retirement age, while Dean said no, I no longer support raising the retirement age to 70 but would entertain raising it to 68, yes, I would look at raising it to 68.

About six weeks later, at the AFL-CIO debate on August 5, Dean flatly denied having ever favored raising the retirement age to 68 or 70. The next day Dean issued a statement that he had misspoken about that.

That's quite a difference between Dean and Kerry on this question. If Dean had supported raising the retirement age in 1995 but now opposed it, I wouldn't worry about this issue. But in June of this year he made not one but two statements suggesting he'd support raising it to 68. What are we suppposed to make of this?

And he either lied on August 5, or he has a serious problem with short term memory loss.

It's amazing that Dean supporters continue to try to say that Dean hasn't supported raising the retirement age since 1995. I've posted the transcript from Dean's MTP interview here several times yet Dean supporters continue to use that line of reasoning. I hope you'll go to google, do a search for the MTP interview (date was June 22, as I recall), and read the whole interview for yourself. You'll see that I'm correct about what Dean said about raising the retirement age.

My perception is that Gephardt was trying to say that Democrats were fighting Republicans led by Newt Gingrich who were trying to make deep cuts on medicare and social security. Gephardt was saying that Dean agreed with the Republicans at that moment in time.

I would have a lot of respect for Dean if he came out and said, "that's false because..." or "that's true and I think I was right because...".

My perception is that Dean was trying to avoid a direct answer to the "accusation" by reacting as if he was being called a name. I want Dean to be a REAL straight shooter. I don't want Dean to perceived Dean as shady because if he wins the nomination I will have to campaign for him.

This would, in fact, result in a cut of 3%--in the growth rate.

This is called playing hardball with balancing the budget. This is called not spending money you don't have.

BTW, Dean did not advocate this cut--he merely said he would support it (the implication being if necessary) to balance the budget.

In a debate situation what appears to Dean to be obvious is not to others, and he could have done a better job of explaining why Gephardt's charges were misleading.

the substance of the accusation is because the reason he was FOR the cutbacks (and not keeping up with the needs of a growing aging class and higher medical costs IS a cutback, regardless of how folks "spin" it around here) was to balance the budget which was in crisis. It's in crisis now, too, eh? So what exactly IS Dr. Dean willing to cut to balance this budget? He has said that he will NOT cut the Defense Department's budget. What WILL he cut?

However Dean's record in VT speaks for itself. As a doctor he has better insight into the system and the needs of patients than any of the other candidates. He's the only person I would trust to cut Medicare and still provide adequate benefits to people who need them.

I want to see our budget balanced. Once the country isn't bleeding like a stuck pig we can talk about where our wealth should be appropriated. I actually was surprised by Dean's comment on MTP about not cutting defense...I think that one's going to come back to haunt him.

If Dean feels the need to cut medicare then he should come out and say it and give us an explanation why it should be done. I would respect that and if he could convince me with his explanation he would get my support.

than from the Pentagon? What kind of Democrat supports that? I know you're young and you see Medicare as something remote but you really need to get out and talk to some people who need Medicare and Social Security, people who paid into these programs from their first day of work and are now entitled to the benefits they contracted for.

was that Dean said he'd threatened to cut spending for seniors to get the VT legislature to pass a tobacco tax. It was a political move.

... could curbing the rate of GROWTH be described as a 'cut'; outside the Beltway, 'cut' means fewer dollars in the future than in the present. :eyes:

When the "growth" rate is slowed, what happens. Obviously it was for balancing the budget, but what effect does this have on Medicare. Does this mean that payments do not go up with inflation. Doctors get a lower return and accept less Medicare patients? Why was Medicare in Vermont growing at a rate higher than 10%? Is there excessive waste in Medicare? I can see how you would hold the line on defense spending. The more money the military gets, the more weapons they can imagine, but where is the waste in Medicare. Can anyone give me an a practical answer and not a balanced budget answer?

It explains in great detail what all the terms Beltway politicians use REALLY mean, in real-world English.

I'd like someone to tell me in real terms. I am all on the government waste program. I just want to know what it means in real terms when you slow growth in Medicare. What is Medicare growth? Aren't payments already historically low?

If the Medicare budget was $300 billion this year a 10% rate of growth would mean next year it would $330 billion.

... perversely, if one propsed slowing the rate of growth to, say, 5% )$315 million next year), people in Washington would call that a '5% cut'.

If your boss only gives you a 5% raise, instead of the 10% one you thought you would get, do you tell your family he cut your wages? :hi:

BTW, 'Parliament of Whores' is EXTREMELY funny, as well as informative. :P

Will check it out! :-)

When it comes to health care this example you give does not apply. A better way of understanding my point is this.... if this year my drugs cost 100 dollars a month and insurance kicks in 60... next year they will be 150 and insurance in the interest of holding the line of medicare costs, will only "grow" by 10 dollars instead of the 50 dollar "growth".......My costs go up by 40 dollars. The health care industry passes along all costs of growth to the consumer. The savings are not passes on. Or services are denied.

But isn't the real issue that the cost of the drugs went up 50%?

The answer is that to cut spending on Medicare spending unfairly punishes seniors without addressing the root problem. If you do not address the problems behind the rise in costs or recognize that the "growth" is justified, then you are balancing the budget on the backs of seniors or the sick. Wouldn't you agree? Where was the balance for that in his proposals?

care it is FAR MORE EFFICIENT.
It has been shown that extending medicare to EVERYONE in the country would REDUCE OVERALL costs.
I don't know why we aren't doing it. :shrug:

The availability of treatments for ailments was increasing, but they were expensive and high tech, either machinery (MRI, Catscans, etc.) or medicine (new rx drugs). People living longer, means higher costs. If 10% was what it was going to cost to maintain the same level of insurance, cutting the rate of growth would mean that something needed to give - either higher co-pays, less reimbursement for expenses, etc.

It always concerns me that when we talk about curbing "growth" as opposed to cuts we are erasing the human face of this. There have been amazing breakthroughs lately in technology, quality of life care and new medical treatments for diseases. Medicare is essentially insurance and as someone who benefits from emerging science, it would be devastating if I could not get my treatment because "growth" had to be curbed. I myself have been denied access to drugs that work for other cheaper drugs that didn't. This is how insurance companies balance their budgets. I worry that since Dean defends this action he advocated, he would do it again. In terms of Medicare, if curbing "growth" means less pain meds, no in home nursing care and denial of physical therapy for seniors. I think it is wrong.

3. Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit

Medicine has changed dramatically over the past 30 years. Now, more and more medical care can be provided by prescription drugs rather than through inpatient hospital procedures, yet Medicare still lacks a basic prescription drug benefit for all seniors. A fair and affordable Medicare drug benefit must be provided for all seniors as part of a Seniors Agenda.

That’s why Howard Dean supports a prescription drug benefit that allows choice, provides for a level playing field between Medicare and the private sector, and includes assistance to low-income beneficiaries. A Medicare prescription drug benefit that is fair and affordable will provide health security for millions of seniors who currently lack that security.

4. Medicare

Medicare is the primary source of health care coverage for seniors. Present estimates by the Medicare Board of Trustees state that Medicare has sufficient funding to pay full benefits until 2026. Seniors want to strengthen Medicare, not dismantle it. To paraphrase a recent statement by one prominent Member of Congress, “you couldn’t pull my mother away from Medicare even with a bulldozer.” We have to work to ensure that Medicare continues to play such an important role for seniors for generations to come.
That’s why Howard Dean will work to improve Medicare and ensure its financial security. In addition to adding a prescription benefit, Howard Dean wants to improve the way the program is run, specifically by putting someone who has actually worked with patients in charge of the program. He’ll oppose any effort to turn the whole program over to managed care or to provide vouchers to seniors efforts that would dismantle it in the name of modernization and reform.

5. Long Term Care

We need a new partnership to take on the challenge of long-term care. Millions of American families are struggling to care for an aging parent who needs help with the most basic, daily activities. The aging of the baby boom generation means tens of millions more families will join their ranks. Howard Dean will give these families a better deal, providing new long term care options: More and better care at home or in the community, support to family caregivers, more reliable and less expensive private, long term care policies and more information for consumers of nursing home care to allow them to choose a safe environment for their loved ones. He will establish a national registry of long-term care workers with a history of patient abuse. At the same time, he will improve training and pay for workers providing long-term care. As a doctor, Howard Dean will see that emerging medical knowledge is applied in our communities to prevent and treat disability in the aging population.

6. Alzheimers, Parkinson’s Disease and Cancer

We need to redouble our commitment to research that might help eradicate some of the most debilitating diseases facing seniors such as alzheimers, parkinson’s disease and cancer. Funding for research at the National Institute of Health must continue to increase to seek cures to these and other diseases. Furthermore, we need to expand the use of stem cell research which shows great promise to unlocking many of the medical mysteries of these and other devastating diseases. In addition we need to support research and development on how we can better serve these patients with these debilitating diseases to improve caregiving and the overall quality of life. We also need to support programs to help with mental health, arthritis and other serious health issues that impair day-to-day living of seniors.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_health_seniors

while the POPULATION of seniors is INCREASING at a greater rate, this IS a cut for the individual.

I suspect there's an age gap here and that those saying Dean cutting Medicare would be alright with them are on the young side.

Gephardt's Attacks: Out of Context and Out of Line (Sept 24, 2003)

Dick Gephardt has turned his negative campaign machine on fellow Democrat Howard Dean, blatantly misrepresenting Dr. Dean's positions on the vital issues of Medicare and Social Security. The Governor believes that Americans deserve a campaign based on a real discussion of ideas, and that only by providing hope in the face of the Bush administration's campaign of fear will a Democrat be able to lead the Party to take our country back.

Gephardt's Empty Claim: The Rest of the Story

ACCUSATION: Gephardt Compared Dean to Newt Gingrich

TRUTH: In 1995, Governor Dean endorsed President Clinton's plan to balance the budget - not Newt Gingrich's.

"All 19 Democratic governors endorsed his (Clinton) plan, which he says would eliminate the deficit in 10 years."

TRUTH: Governor Dean actually helped lead the attack against the Republicans' Contract with America.

"Dean led the attack today, using figures gleaned from the analysis during his testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee's hearing on the contract. Later, Mr. Dean joined Mr. Gephardt and the Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, at a news conference to press the issue."

ACCUSATION: Gephardt builds case on a decade old, out of context quote uttered by Dean when he was frustrated with the bureaucracy of Medicare (he said: "I think it's one of the worst federal programs ever").

TRUTH: Trust The Experience of a Doctor.

Governor Dean is a doctor who has experienced Medicare as a state executive, a health care provider, and as the son of a Medicare patient. His personal experience with the system (and its flaws) from all sides makes him eminently qualified, in a way the other candidates simply aren't, to understand and tackle this problem.

TRUTH: Dean Shares Physician's Frustrations with Bureaucracy.

Governor Dean's comments on Medicare reflected his frustrations as a medical doctor with the program's bureaucracy, not the invaluable services provided to seniors.

TRUTH: Dean Wants to Improve Medicare.

While the Medicare program serves seniors well it is a difficult program for doctors, nurses and health professionals to administer. The program clearly needs to be modernized and made more patient and doctor friendly. Governor Dean's comments reflect his desire for a better, stronger Medicare system.

ACCUSATION: Gephardt Employs Scare Tactics, mis-using quotes that paint Dean as an opponent of Medicare.

TRUTH: Gephardt Fails to Recognize Historical Context.

Dean's statements were made in the context of the debate over closing enormous budget deficits and saving both Social Security and Medicare for future generations. In 1993, the Medicare trustees were predicting that the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (Medicare) would be insolvent by the year 1999.

TRUTH: The Clinton Administration Made Moves to Save Medicare-Where Was Gephardt?

In 1997, Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act, which is part of the reason that today - in 2003 - Medicare remains solvent to serve another generation. Gephardt voted against the measure. .

http://www.doctorsfordean.org/gephardtAttack.html

misrepresentations, scare tactic, by Loser Gephardt. Gephardt is soooo phony. What is he so desperate and COMMITTED to providing national health care now??? Why wasn't he fighting for national health care in 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 (oops that's right running fa de president!!) Maybe Gephardt wants health care for ALL Americans he just hasn't been effective as a leader for all these years.

Dean '04...

..

Balanced Budget Act - Passage

Bill Number: HR 2015
Issue: Health
Date: 06/25/1997
Sponsor:


Roll Call Number: 0241
Bill passed
Full Member List


Representative Richard Andrew 'Dick' Gephardt voted NO.

Vote to pass a bill to provide for a balanced budget by 2002. The bill reduces spending by $289 billion over five years, including reductions of $115 billion in the rate of growth of Medicare spending. The bill includes a $16 billion block grant to the states to provide health insurance to low-income children, allows Medicare recipients to chose alternative payment programs, and restores SSI and Medicare benefits to legal immigrants who arrived before 8/23/96, among other provisions.

HR 2015: The Balanced Budget Act

Vote to pass a bill to provide for a balanced budget by 2002. The bill reduces spending by $289 billion over five years, including reductions of $115 billion in the rate of growth of Medicare spending. The bill includes a $16 billion block grant to the states to provide health insurance to low-income children and $9 billion to restore Supplemental Security Income and Medicare benefits to legal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. before 8/23/96. Other provisions of the bill provide $1.5 billion to help low-income Medicare recipients pay their premiums, expand Medicare coverage of some additional medical procedures and allow Medicare recipients to choose from alternative programs, including Medical Savings Accounts, among other provisions.

(Bill passed 270-162 on 6/25/97)

Bill Status:
Bill Number: HR 2015 - 105th Congress (1997-98)
House Passage Vote: 06/25/97 - Outcome: Passed
Senate Passage Vote: 06/25/97 - Outcome: Passed
House Conference Report Vote: 07/30/97 - Outcome: Passed
Senate Conference Report Vote: 07/31/97 - Outcome: Passed
Presidential Action: Signed on 08/05/97
Public Law Number: 105-33 111 Stat. 251

http://vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=1369&can_id=H2180103