The drive to put Medicare privatization on the Congressional agenda in the mid-1990s was not journalism’s finest hour. Whether that explains the absence of good—or sometimes any—reporting about how the Ryan plan will affect ordinary people is hard to say. Perhaps the press is gun-shy. A Wall Street Journal piece, based somewhat on an interview with Newt Gingrich, briefly mentioned Gingrich’s previous stands on vouchers but didn’t mention his role in shutting down the government in 1995-96, an event partly based on changes to Medicare. Ditto for an NPR blog post that didn’t give much historical background.
To help prevent a replay of how journalists reported on Medicare in the past, in an upcoming post, Campaign Desk will offer a Medicare timeline which can help give important meaning and context to the stories they write the next time Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Paul Ryan—or any Democrat, for that matter—claims they can build a better Medicare program.
For more from Trudy Lieberman on Social Security and entitlement reform, click here.
Yes, House Speaker Gingrich and congressional Repubilcans passed a Medicare privatization/voucherization/spending cap plan in 1995, similar to this year's Ryan Medicare plan. Amazingly, no one in the media mentioned this when reporting on Gingrich's criticism of the Ryan plan. Medicare voucherization has been the default position of Gingrich and the Republicans for many years now, as Trudy points out. That's important to remember. The Ryan plan is not an aberration in the Republicans' Medicare policy.
#1 Posted by HarrisMeyer, CJR on Wed 25 May 2011 at 01:56 PM
Maybe they don't report it because even the left-leaning mainstream media knows and no one disagrees that the Conservaitves led the fight to change the awful one-size-fits-all, no-choice-but-the-bureaucrats'-choice, high co-pay, lifetime-limited Medicare Parts A and B with the reforms that are known today as Parts C and D.
Strangely -- not, I guess -- I don't see CJR reminding its Journolisters to report on what a success C and D are. Seniors love them. C has doubled in size since the 2003 refirns took effect in 2006. Instead you demonize us C users as stupid dupes of the Republicans giving taxpayer money to for profit insurers when in fact --- fairly or not, and that is a worthwhile debate -- it is we seniors that get the financial benefits of C, not the insurers (not al of whom are for profits by the way.
Similarly, you never tell your Journolister crew to report that Parts A and B are just as private -- and public -- as C and D and ithat more for-profit insurers are involved with A and B than C.
#2 Posted by dennis byron, CJR on Thu 9 Aug 2012 at 09:23 AM