The New York Times’ editorial board—famous for its criticism of President Trump—likely surprised some readers Monday after it published an editorial titled, "Not All Medicare Cuts Are Bad."
The editorial, which also pointed to some of Trump's proposals it disagrees with, claimed that Democrats-- including some running for president-- are currently engaged in "indiscriminate attacks" on Trump's 2020 budget, but are "ignoring some worthy ideas."
Trump introduced a budget that calls for deep cuts in Medicare. The administration insisted that the cuts do not affect seniors but makes better use of taxpayers’ dollars and helps reduce Medicare spending by lowering prescription drug costs.
As outlined in White House documents, the budget calls for $845 billion in total, or gross, spending reductions to Medicare over 10 years, mainly by cutting future payments to hospitals and other service providers.
The Times wrote, “When Americans with Medicare visit a doctor’s office, the federal government pays a higher fee if that office happens to be owned by a hospital. This bonus payment serves no obvious purpose. A federal advisory board created to monitor Medicare spending has called for its elimination. And this month, the Trump administration proposed the change in its 2020 budget, along with several other measures recommended by nonpartisan experts to reduce payments to service providers without directly affecting the cost or availability of care."
The Times' editorial board wrote that Trump’s campaign promise of not cutting Medicare was “irresponsible,” not the budget proposal itself. It went on to say that Democrats are not "debating the details."
"Instead, a proposal to improve the efficiency of health care spending is being treated as an attack on the availability of health care," the editorial read.
The Associated Press contributed to this report