PAC ads on Medicare cuts are not true.

Arm yourself with the facts. The Trump administration is not proposing cuts to Medicare in the middle of the pandemic. In fact, it is not proposing any cuts. Just as the Obama administration did in 2010, the idea is to reduce future spending on Medicare over a ten year period.

The political ads you will see are false and intentionally misleading.

Cuts Or A Reduction In Spending? An Argument That’s Been Around In fall 2010, a few months after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, Republicans aired midterm campaign ads attacking Democrats for “cutting” or “gutting” Medicare. The reason was the law included a $500 billion reduction in projected spending for Medicare over 10 years, which would be used to help fund the ACA. The Obama administration said the reductions in spending would come from lowering payments to Medicare Advantage plans and providers and would not affect the level of care that Medicare beneficiaries received. They also said it would help make the Medicare system more financially stable.

Now, almost 10 years later, Democrats are using the same language to criticize the White House’s long-term plan for Medicare spending. “‘Cuts’ is a term that has been thrown around for many years,” said Tricia Neuman, executive director of the Program on Medicare Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “This is a semantic issue that often gets politicized, often in an election year.” (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

Neuman explained that what is being considered here is a reduction in the projected increase in spending over a certain period. This reduction is based on estimates of how much the government is projected to spend on programs — factoring in proposed policy changes — for the following 10 years, taking into account current levels of spending, assumptions about economic growth and trends in the use of Medicare coverage, said Neuman.

Source: Democratic Super PAC Uses Familiar Political Play To Hit Trump On Medicare | Kaiser Health News


  1. This has been a gripe of mine for probably 40 years, when I first became aware of how this works. Some bureaucrat sticks his/her finger in the wind, and decides on a budget. Then everything that is talked about spending is compared to the budget amount, not what was actually spent in the past. So it has no relationship to any actual spend, but instead refers to “cuts” to an imaginary number, not to reality. It is incomprehensible how this seems to be what drives our monetary policy.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Sorry. A “reduction in spending” is a cut, as is “a reduction in the increase of spending.” However it is phrased, it means that less money will be spent, ie. a “cut.” This was true under the Obama administration and it is also true under the Trump administration. Whether it is wise or not is a separate question.


    1. That’s like saying a raise less than expected is a cut in pay. Less money being spent than otherwise projected without cutting benefits is management of expenses is it not? What is the alternative?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s