A “Fair” Conversation about Medicare
Heritage Action is dedicated to having an honest conversation about health care policies that will ensure stability and success in our health care system now and in future generations. So when news breaks that certain liberal politicians are perfectly happy to use outdated analyses to advance their political goals at the expense of the American people, we’re displeased to say the least.
And that is precisely how the liberals are still approaching the healthcare debate. Take, for example, the blatant lies Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz spoon fed to a group of seniors in Boca Raton, Florida.
Wasserman Schultz hit below the belt saying:
“We know that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan unapologetically support an extreme budget plan that would end Medicare as we know it and turn it into a voucher program, shred the health care safety net that exists for our seniors and increase their premiums, your premiums, by more than $6,300 a year. That is unacceptable.”
Actually, it’s unacceptable to lie to people, Debbie. But for our Machiavellian liberal friends, the end justifies the means. At least according to Joe Biden:
“Well the reason I bring it up, I think it’s fair to bring it up. If Congressman Ryan felt so strongly about insisting that this plan become law and if Gov. Romney said he would have signed it into law, which he did, if he were president, then it goes to their motive. It goes to who you believe.”
Actually, it’s fair to tell the truth, not to manipulate the “truth” to advance your own selfish political goals. Just because the Obama administration cannot come up with innovative ideas does not mean others have to stand still. In fact Heritage’s Rea S. Hederman, Jr. explains that:
“In 2012, Ryan and the House Budget Committee made a major change in the House budget resolution that includes traditional FFS Medicare as a competing option in a future premium-support program. This change was also reflected in the Wyden–Ryan proposal, which shares many similarities with the 2012 proposal. Whereas the 2011 proposal increased some costs, the 2012 proposal would reduce costs to Medicare beneficiaries. With the retention of traditional Medicare, no Medicare beneficiary could be worse off with premium support.”
Hederman refutes the claim that premium support would cost future retirees $6,400 and explains that this figure is based on the outdated Congressional Budget Office (CBO) model. The CBO director, Douglas Elmendorf, has himself “publicly acknowledged that his agency does not have the methodological tools to accurately model Medicare premium-support plans and the impact of market competition.”
Yet, the liberals continue to belabor this moot point. This malarkey clearly demonstrates the disingenuous nature of liberal arguments. If they would at least bring factual information to the table, a real debate could ensue. We won’t hold our breath. Instead, we’ll continue to put forth factual information to navigate through all the liberal lies.