Yesterday, I asked Sen. Pat Toomey why his balanced budget plan didn't enact the Medicare reforms that are central to Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity." I quickly said that the Ryan plan "voucherized" Medicare; Toomey quibbled with that.
"I wouldn't describe it as voucherizing," said Toomey. "It's more of a support model."
Apropos of that, earlier today some Republican members of the House criticized Democrats for resurrecting "MediScare" -- the horrifying campaign tactic of claiming that Republicans, by voting for the Path, want to end Medicare. Quoth Rep. James Lankford, an Oklahoman who's not in much electoral danger:
All the statements being put out there about vouchers – the Democrats know full well this is not vouchers. ... It is very different than that. They know very well these are issues that we’re trying to resolve in the Budget Committee and that it’s not some radical and extreme proposal,
This is what the Path for Prosperity says. "This is not a voucher program," it says on page 46, "but rather a premium-support model. A Medicare premium-support payment would be paid, by Medicare, to the plan chosen by the beneficiary, subsidizing its cost."
So who does think it's a voucher plan? Aha:
TODAY IN SLATE
Meet the New Bosses
How the Republicans would run the Senate.
It Is Very, Very Stupid to Compare Hope Solo to Ray Rice
The U.S. Is So, So Far Behind Europe on Clean Energy
Even if You Don’t Like Batman, You Might Like Gotham
Friends Was the Last Purely Pleasurable Sitcom
This Whimsical Driverless Car Imagines Transportation in 2059
Did America Get Fat by Drinking Diet Soda?
A high-profile study points the finger at artificial sweeteners.