Differences between candidates' approach to entitlements?
Part 3 of the first presidential debate
- Duration 16:00
- Date Oct 3, 2012
Part 3 of the first presidential debate
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
All right right this is segment three the economy.
First first answer.
Goes do you two minutes.
Mister president did you see a major difference between interview on Social Security.
No I suspect that on Social Security we've got a somewhat similar position Social Security is.
Structurally sound it's gonna have to between the way it was by Ronald Reagan and speaker democratic speaker Tip O'Neill.
But it is the basic structure is sound.
But -- but I want to talk about the values behind social security and Medicare.
And then talk about Medicare because that's the big driver of our deficits right now.
-- my grandmother.
Some you know help to raise my grandparents -- my grandfather died a while back.
My grandmother died three days before -- was -- -- -- and she was fiercely independent she worked to whip only had a high school education start as a secretary.
Being the vice president the local -- And she ended up living alone by choice.
And the reason she couldn't be independent was because -- social security and Medicare.
She had worked all her life put in this money and understood that there was a basic guarantee -- floor under which she could not go.
And that's the perspective -- bring when I think about what's called entitlements.
-- -- that the name itself implies some sense of dependency on the part of these folks -- these are folks who worked hard.
Like my grandmother and their millions people out there were counting on us.
So my approach is to say how do we strengthen the system over the long -- And in Medicare.
What we did was we said.
We are gonna have to bring down the cost us if we're gonna deal -- our long term deficits.
But to do that let's look -- up some of the money is going.
Billion dollars we were able to -- it from the Medicare program by no longer -- Insurance companies.
By making sure that we weren't over paying providers.
And using that money we're actually able to lower prescription drug costs for seniors by an average of 600 dollars.
And we were also able to make make a significant -- in providing them the kind of preventive care that what ultimately save money.
Through this throughout the system so.
That the way for us to deal with the Medicare in particular is lower health care costs but -- -- -- Social Security.
As I said you don't need a major structural change in order to make sure that source -- there for the future.
We'll follow up on this first governor Omnia two minutes on social security and entitlements.
Our seniors depend on these programs and I nobody time.
We talk about entitlements people become concerned that something's gonna happen it's gonna change their life for the worst.
And the answer is neither the president or -- Are -- any changes for any current retirees or near retirees.
Either the Social Security or Medicare.
So if you're sixty -- around sixty or older you don't -- -- any further but for younger people when he did talk about what changes are going to be occurring or just thought about one.
And that is in fact I was wrong when I said the president is -- proposing any changes for current retirees in fact he is on Medicare and Social Security's not.
But on Medicare.
For current retirees.
He's cutting 716.
Billion dollars from the program.
Now he says -- not over paying hospitals and providers actually just going to them saying we're gonna reduce the rates you get paid across the board.
Everybody's gonna get a lower rate that's not just going after places where there's abuse that -- were cut in the rates.
Some 15% of hospitals and nursing -- say they won't take any more Medicare patients under that scenario.
We also have 50% of doctors who say they won't take more Medicare patients.
With that this we have four million people on Medicare Advantage that will lose Medicare Advantage because -- those 716.
Billion dollars in cuts.
I can't understand.
How you can cut Medicare 760.
Million dollars for current.
Recipients of Medicare now you point out what we're putting some back -- give a better prescription program.
That's one -- that's one dollar for every fifteen you've cut.
That there are Smart enough to know that's not a good trade.
I want to take that 716.
Billion dollars you've cut and put it back in a Medicare by the way we can include prescription program if we -- to improve it.
But the idea of cutting seven -- -- sixteen billion dollars from Medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of obamacare is in my opinion in the state.
With regards to young people coming along I've got proposals to make sure Medicare and Social Security are there for them without any question.
I think it's important for governor Romney to present this plan that he says.
Will only affect folks in the future.
And the essence of the plan.
As the he would turn Medicare into a voucher program.
It's called premium support but.
It's understood to be a voucher program.
-- running -- and you don't support that I don't and then let me explain why.
Again that's for future understate the right not for current retirees -- for this sort you're if you're you're 5455.
You might wanna listen.
Because this this will affect -- The idea which was originally presented by congressman Ryan your running mate.
We would you give a voucher to seniors.
And make -- go on the private marketplace and buy their own health insurance.
The problem is bad.
Because the voucher won't necessarily keep up with the health care inflation.
It was estimated that this would cost the average -- about 6000 dollars a year.
Now in fairness.
What governor Romney has now -- he'll maintain traditional Medicare alongside it.
But there's still a problem because what happens is those insurance companies are pretty clever at figuring out who are the younger.
And healthier seniors.
They recruit them leaving the older.
Sicker seniors in Medicare and everything -- economists -- -- that says over time what'll happen is the traditional Medicare system will collapse.
And then what you've got is folks like my grandmother at the mercy of the private insurance system.
Precisely the time when they are most in need.
Decent health care.
So I don't think vouchers -- the right -- ago.
And this is not my on only my opinion AARP.
He thinks -- -- these savings that we obtained from Medicare.
Bolster the system lengthen the Medicare trust fund by eight years benefits were not affected at all.
And ironically if you repeal obamacare.
And I have become fond of this term Obama here.
If you repeal it.
What happens is most -- right away are going to be -- 600 dollars more prescription care.
They're now that have to be paying co pays for basic checkups -- can he keep them healthier.
And the primary beneficiary.
That repeal our insurance companies.
Are estimated to gain millions of dollars back.
When they are making seniors any healthier and I and I don't think that's the right approach when it comes to.
Making sure that Medicare is stronger over the long term.
We'll talk about this specifically about his health -- moment -- what is -- do you support the voucher system governor.
What I support is no change.
For current retirees and near retirees to Medicare and the president supports taking 716.
Billion dollars out of that program.
-- -- -- -- so that's that's number one number two is for people coming along that are young what I do to make sure that we can keep.
Medicare in place for them.
Is to allow them to either to choose the current Medicare program.
Or private plan their choice.
They get to -- and they'll have at least two plans that will be entirely at no cost of the so that ought to pay additional money no additional 6000 dollars that's not gonna happen now that at least two plans and by the way.
If the government can be as efficient as a private sector.
And offer premiums that are as low as a private sector people will be happy to get traditional Medicare or -- be able to get a private plan.
I -- my own view is -- they have a private plan.
I'd just assume not have the government telling you what kind of health care I get I'd rather be able to have an insurance company if I don't like -- -- can get rid of them -- find a different insurance company.
But people make their own choice give -- -- we have to do to save Medicare.
We have to have the benefits high for those that are low income.
But for higher income people we're gonna have to lower some of the benefits we have to make sure this program is there for the long term.
That's the plan that I put forward by the way the idea came not even from Paul Ryan -- senator Wyden who's a co author of the bill with with Paul Ryan in the senate.
But also came from bill consists of -- Bill Clinton's chief of staff this is an idea that's been around a long time which is saying hey let's if we can't get competition.
Into the Medicare world so that people can get the choice a different plans that lower cost better quality I believe in competition.
-- if I if I can just respond very -- first -- -- every studies shown that Medicare has lower administrative costs than.
Private insurance us which is why seniors are.
Generally pretty happy with a and private insurers have to make a profit.
Mother -- without them that's what they do and so you've got a higher administrative costs.
On top of that and if -- -- gonna save any money through what governor Romney's proposing.
What has to happen is is that the money has come from somewhere.
And when you moved to a voucher system you are putting seniors at the mercy of those insurance companies.
And over time if traditional Medicare has decayed or fallen apart than their stock.
And this is the reason why AARP.
Has said that your plan would weaken.
And that's why they were supportive of the approach that we took that one last one I wanna make we do have.
To lower the cost of health care not just in Medicare are not about net net but but but overall they'll cut and so that's that's a big topic because we always -- caregivers of -- like Miguel I want it's good but all it is -- a bit what -- -- -- to -- -- time let's get back to Medicare you've got to go the president said the government can provide the service at lower cost and without profit by if that's the case.
Then it will always be the best product that people can purchase.
But -- -- -- my experiences the private sector typically is able to provide a better product to lower costs.
-- -- Can they do you agree that the voters have a choice a clear choice perhaps -- review on Medicare apps are self to finish quickly.
So it briefly on the economy.
What is your view about the level of federal regulation of the economy right now odds are too much.
And in your case Mr.
President is there should there be more begin with you.
-- this is not a new tend to minute segment to start and we'll go for a few minutes and we're gonna go to health care about it.
You can't have a free market work if you don't have regulation.
As a business person.
I had to have regular I need to know the regulations I needed them there.
You couldn't have people opening up banks in there.
In their garage and making loans I mean you have to have regulation so that you can have an economy work every free economy has good regulations.
The same time.
Regulation could become excessive is -- success kidnapping and in some places yes or place and you know it can become out of date.
And what's happened in there with some of the legislation that's been passed.
During the president's term.
You've seen regulation become excessive and it's hurt the it's hurt the economy the -- example.
That Dodd-Frank was passed and it includes within it a number provisions that I think has some unintended consequences that are harmful to the economy.
One is it designates a number of banks is too big to fail.
And they're effectively guaranteed by the federal government this is the biggest kiss has been given that the New York banks have ever seen.
This is an enormous boon for them.
About a 122 community and small banks have closest -- -- -- there's one example here's another.
In Dodd-Frank frank it's like a repeal Dodd-Frank what I would repeal and replace it would get a get rid of all regulation you have to have regulation and there are some parts -- Dodd-Frank.
That -- make all the sense in the world you need transparency in need to have level leverage limits for.
Is there a specific let's let's let's excitement and rich and the other -- let's look at the big an attitude and outlook cannot imagine let him respond to that that -- respond to this specific on Dodd-Frank and what the governor just ahead.
Whether this is a great example.
The reason -- have been in such a enormous economic.
It was prompted by reckless behavior across the board.
It wasn't just on Wall Street you head.
The loan officers were there were given loans and mortgages that.
Really shouldn't have been given because they're the folks didn't qualify yet people who were -- money to buy a house that they couldn't afford.
You have to credit agencies that were stamping these as they won -- great investments when they weren't.
But you also -- banks making money hand over fist churning out products that the bankers themselves and even understand.
In order to make big profits but knowing that it made the entire system vulnerable.
So what we do we stepped and have the toughest reforms.
On Wall Street since nineteen turns.
We said you've got the banks you've got a razor capital requirements you can engage in some of those risky behavior that is putting main street at risk.
We're gonna make sure that you've got to have a living well so so we can you know how you're gonna wind things down if you make a bad -- so we don't have.
Other taxpayer bailout in the meantime by the way we also made sure that.
All -- little help that we provide of those banks was paid back every single dime with interest.
Governor Romney has said he wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and -- I appreciate and it appears we've got some agreement that.
A marketplace to work has to have some regulation.
But in the past governor Romney said he just wants to repeal -- for a bullet back.
And so the question is.
Does anybody out there think that the big problem we had is that.
There was too much oversight and regulation.
Of Wall Street because if you do.
Then the governor Romney is your candidate but.
That's not sorry I'm.
Only -- that says that this is that the facts look we have to have regulation of Wall Street.
That that's -- I'd have regulation but I wouldn't designate five banks is too big to fail and give them a blank check.
That's one of the unintended consequences -- Dodd-Frank it wasn't thought through properly we need to get rid of that provision because it's killing regional and small banks they're getting hurt -- image another regulation Dodd-Frank.
You -- we were giving mortgages to people who weren't qualified it's exactly right it's one of the reasons for the great financial calamity we had.
And so Dodd-Frank correctly says we need to have qualified mortgages and if you give -- mortgage is not qualified they're big penalties.
Except they didn't ever going to just today -- define what a qualified mortgage was.
It's been two years we don't know what -- qualified mortgages yet so banks are reluctant to make loans mortgages trying get a mortgage these days.
It's hurt the housing market.
Because Dodd-Frank didn't.
Putting in place the kinds of regulations you have to have it's not -- -- frank always was wrong with too much regulation sometimes it didn't come out with a clear regulations.
I can't make sure we don't hurt the functioning part of our marketplace and our businesses -- I wanna.
Bring back housing and get good job -- I think we have another clear.
Difference between the two of you know.