FACT CHECK: Democrats distort GOP Medicare plan

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats are distorting the fundamentals of a Republican plan to reshape Medicare, falsely accusing the GOP of pushing a proposal that tells the elderly “you’re on your own” with health care and that lets insurers deny coverage to the sick.

Medicare always pushes hot buttons with voters. Both parties know this and spare no effort to exploit the issue, with truth as the frequent casualty. That’s the case now as Democrats go after a far-reaching plan introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and largely embraced by congressional Republicans.

The new chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., led the charge this week in an appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” The DNC and its Republican counterpart are the primary money-raisers in politics and often temples of exaggeration as they convert controversy into cash for the campaigns.

A look at Wasserman Schultz’s statements and how they compare with the facts:

———

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: “They would take the people who are younger than 55 years old today and tell them: ‘You know what, you’re on your own. Go and find private health insurance in the health care insurance market; we’re going to throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for pre-existing conditions. We’re going to give you X amount of dollars, and you figure it out.”’

THE FACTS: First, the Ryan plan explicitly forbids insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone who qualifies for Medicare, including those who have pre-existing illnesses. Second, it does not merely send money to the elderly and leave them to their own devices in arranging for medical care.

The plan calls for Medicare to stay the same for people 55 and older. But starting in 2022, new beneficiaries would get their health insurance from competing private insurers instead of from the government. The government would offer subsidies to pay for the coverage and set standards that insurers must follow. One condition, says the plan, is that participating insurers “agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.”

Nor would the government merely send “X amount of dollars” to the elderly and let them figure out whether they can afford coverage. The subsidies would go to the plan selected by the beneficiary. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in analyzing the plan, said it would not let insurers charge more to sick people. Premiums would be the same for everyone of the same age.

The Ryan plan raises plenty of questions about costs to the elderly over time and the adequacy of care. The Congressional Budget Office said future retirees would pay more under Ryan’s plan than if they went into traditional Medicare. By 2030, a typical 65-year-old would be paying two-thirds of his or her health costs.

But Wasserman Schultz and some other Democrats who accuse the GOP of wanting to “end Medicare” have skipped past the complicated crux of that debate, instead attacking provisions that do not exist.

Comments

Rich_Deleon 2 years ago

So basically the Repubs thought it was fine to keep giving billions in subsidies to rich oil tycoons that are already making billions, but think that its fair for future American retirees to pay MORE for health coverage. The GOP proves once again that they are the Party of the Ridiculous! How about this - how about the republicans show us that they are willing to make the wealthiest individuals in the country sacrifice a little before they come requesting that of the average American citizen? What a bunch of clowns.

0

Rich_Deleon 2 years ago

The only thing I am demanding is that the right wing obsession with trickle down theories when it comes to economics be applied to sacrifice. Perhaps if the GOP chose to stop the $2 billion in subsidies to these very wealthy men WHO HAVE ADMITTED IN THE PAST THAT THEY DO NOT REALLY NEED SUCH SUBSIDIES the idea that our future retirees ( by the way I believe "retirees" by its very definition implies those that HAVE worked ) would have to sacrifice more would seem more palatable. And the top one percent of Americans DO NOT pay 60% of the taxes in this country - not that I would expect minor obstacles like FACTS to ever get in the way of good ol' right winged agenda. That number is closer to 37%. The top ten percent pay a little more than 60%. How about you do some actual research before spewing your nonsense?

0

Rich_Deleon 2 years ago

The top 10% pay more because they CAN...I dont care if you call it socialism. I call it right. And please do not attempt any of your right-winged political profiling...I pay PLENTY and would gladly pay more - I AM my brother's keeper. You and your "every man for himself despite a non-level playing field" philosophy better hope for a GOP White House - and with that field of current clowns - GOOD LUCK! You think you're mad now? See you in 2012 when we not only retain power at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue but take back The House as well. So pace yourself friend - your pain has only begun.

0

yonomo 2 years ago

Time spent fighting between REP and DEM about the problems - 95% Time spent discussing together and trying to fix the problems - 5%

% of people that have a crystal ball and know what happens in 2012 - 100% NT posters

0

Rich_Deleon 2 years ago

Yonomo: You are right. It is counter-productive and I'm done here. Thanks for being the voice of reason.

0

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting