NYT: Dean Struggles With a Stance Over Medicare

[DrFunkenstein]

Dr. Dean's opponents, who have researched his past, assert that the record shows Dr. Dean did not stand with his party when it counted on an issue of critical importance to older voters, who loom large in early primary and caucus states like Iowa.

Several veterans of the budget wars of the mid-1990's noted that there were major differences between the Republican plans for Medicare in 1995 and the one that ultimately passed with bipartisan support two years later. For one thing, the spending reductions in Medicare. were smaller. (An estimated $260 billion over seven years in the Senate plan in 1995, compared with an estimated $200 billion a few years later.)

Chris Jennings, Mr. Clinton's health care adviser, said: "Dean is right that the Clinton Administration desired to constrain growth in the Medicare program and strengthen the trust fund. But we did not embrace the magnitude of cuts advocated by the Republican leadership."

Democrats on Capitol Hill, who were reluctant to speak publicly about a candidate at the top of the polls in Iowa, argued that 1995 was a searing time for their party, when it had just lost control of Congress and when signature Democratic programs like Medicare seemed on the brink of wholesale restructuring.

At stake was not just a reduction in spending in Medicare, but whether it should continue in its traditional form as a social insurance program, those Democrats said.

In that context, one veteran Democratic staffer said, anyone breaking ranks and saying positive things about the Republicans' spending goals was "extremely unhelpful."

Dr. Dean has also been haunted by comments he made about Medicare in 1993, when, according to an account by The Associated Press, he described it as "one of the worst things that ever happened" and a "bureaucratic disaster."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/01/politics/campaigns/01DEAN.html?ex=1065585600&en=0c7e260094bb5c21&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

In Dean's defense, there are rebuttals to these claims provided in the article. I'm sure Dean supporters will find them compelling, and non-Dean supporters will not.

<>

[indigo32]

1. for your reading pleasure

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=443445

[MercutioATC]

2. A dupe for a dupe (and literary credit to w4rma)

http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=141365#141414

[whirlygigspin]

3. nice pic! thanks

[quinnox]

6. Correction: this isn't a dupe

This is a separate forum. See response #4 in this thread for an explanation from a mod.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=51005#51041


For an example of a dupe in this forum, there are two threads - "Past haunts Dean on Medicare Issue" - one by Dr. Funkenstein, and one by Nicholas_J (which I believe was posted first by Nicholas).

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. The fear is palpable.

[quinnox]

5. Good article

It appears Dean is having some trouble with this issue.

[sandnsea]

7. Budget balancing through Medicare cuts

From 1995.

"Domenici said the measure, a revised version of a plan proposed by Senate Minority leader Thomas Daschle, R-South Dakota, would spend $300 billion more than Republicans have proposed through 2002. He and Kasich said it did not overhaul Medicare, welfare and other social programs enough....

The Clinton-Daschle plan, the president said, was a "sensible solution" that shows "that you can balance the budget in 7 years, and protect Medicare and Medicaid, education and the environment and provide tax relief to working families."

According to Democrats, the Clinton plan would cut taxes over seven years by $87 billion, much below the GOP's $240 billion proposal. It would cut some $102 billion from Medicare and $52 billion from Medicaid spending -- half the amount Republicans want. It would slash an additional $295 billion from other domestic programs, three-fourths of what the GOP had proposed...."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9601/budget/01-06/pm/

Actually, what it looks like this boils down to is Howard Dean's obsession to balance the budget, even if it harms people in the process. As opposed to Clinton, who refused to do it that way. Clinton did enact more cost saving measures in 1997, when he was sure they could be readily absorbed. In 1995, Dean supported just whacking away at the budget with no regard for consequences, just like he does now. THAT is the story here, IMHO.

[Punkingal]

8. Dupe....

I'm locking this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=51005



Punkingal, DU moderator