9:06 pm - Thursday August 17, 2017

Romney sigue con los ataques falsos sobre el Medicare

DECLARACION: En la Florida, Romney sigue con los ataques falsos e hipócritas sobre el Medicare

 

“Mitt Romney miente con respecto a los ahorros de Medicare bajo la reforma de salud. El presupuesto Ryan, que Romney prometió aprobar, incluye los mismo ahorros que Romney atacó el día de hoy—ahorros que incluyen eliminar subsidios a las empresas de seguro médico; eliminar los gastos excesivos y el fraude; y llevar a cabo reformas que ayudan a que los estadounidenses de la tercera edad se mantengan sanos. La verdad es que el presupuesto Romney-Ryan acabaría con Medicare en su estado actual al encauzar a las personas de la tercera edad al mercado privado y aumentar sus costos médicos por miles de dólares al año. Desafortunadamente, Mitt Romney prefiere distorsionar la verdad en lugar de entablar un debate honesto sobre el devastador impacto que su plan tendría para los floridenses de la tercera edad.” – Gabriela Domenzain, vocera de la campaña

 

PAUL RYAN’S BUDGET RETAINED THE SAME MEDICARE SAVINGS REPUBLICANS HAVE CRITICIZED

 

Washington Post’s Fact Checker: Paul Ryan’s Budget “Repealed The Obama Health Care Law But Retained All But $10 Billion Of The Nearly  $500 Billion In Medicare Savings, Suggesting The Actual Policies Enacted To Achieve These Spending Reductions Were Not That Objectionable To GOP Lawmakers.” Washington Post’s Fact Checker examined Romney’s claim that “Obamacare takes $500 billion out of Medicare and funds Obamacare.” It found his “comments are an echo of the politically effective — but misleading — charge the GOP made against Democrats in 2010 midterm elections — that the health care law ‘cut’ $500 billion from Medicare. In this case, the candidates are suggesting President Obama is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Several readers have also asked us to explain why the House Republicans retained these $500 billion in ‘savings’ in their Medicare reform bill, and how that would be different than Obama’s plan… First of all, under the health care bill, Medicare spending continues to go up year after year. The health care bill tries to identify ways to save money, and so the $500 billion figure comes from the difference over 10 years between anticipated Medicare spending (what is known as ‘the baseline’) and the changes the law makes to reduce spending. (Look at slide 15 of this nifty tutorial on the law’s impact on Medicare by the Kaiser Family Foundation to see a chart of the year by year savings.) The savings actually are wrung from health-care providers, not Medicare beneficiaries. These spending reductions presumably would be a good thing, since virtually everyone agrees that Medicare spending is out of control. In the House Republican budget, lawmakers repealed the Obama health care law but retained all but $10 billion of the nearly  $500 billion in Medicare savings, suggesting the actual policies enacted to achieve these spending reductions were not that objectionable to GOP lawmakers.” [Washington Post Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, 6/15/11]

 

Washington Post’s Fact Checker: Republicans Attacking Medicare Savings In Obamacare Is “Surely An Example Of Having Your Cake And Eating It Too” Since The Ryan Budget Includes “Virtually The Same $500 Billion In Medicare Savings.” “This brings us to the House Republican budget and its use of virtually the same $500 billion in Medicare savings. Spokesmen for Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the chief architect, insist there is a difference because Obama was using the savings for a new entitlement program (universal health care) and instead Ryan would use the money to help fund reforms in Medicare. ‘The defenders of the new law explicitly say that the law reduces Medicare spending (and raises taxes) so that the government may spend an equivalent amount of money on something else,’ said House Budget Committee spokesman Stephen Spruiell. ‘By contrast, we think that any current-law Medicare savings should actually go toward preserving the program and putting the government in a better position to fund Medicare for today’s seniors and to save it for future generations.’  Under the unified budget, this line of argument doesn’t make much sense. The Medicare savings will be spent however the government deems to use it; it will not be earmarked for Medicare… This is surely an example of having your cake and eating it too. The Republicans had a chance to repeal those cuts when they voted to repeal the health care law, but instead they adopted ‘current law’ (ie, the Medicare cuts) in their budget. Technically, we guess, that means they did not vote for them but, as we have documented, Republicans in the past have voted for similar Medicare cuts.” [Washington Post Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, 6/15/11]

 

Washington Post’s Fact Checker: “It’s Rather Rich For Republicans To Complain About $500 Billion In Supposed Cuts To Medicare That They Themselves Would Retain, Even Under The Cover Of Helping Medicare.” [Washington Post Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, 6/15/11]

 

Wall Street Journal Headline: “Ryan Budget Keeps Medicare Cuts GOP Once Criticized.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/6/11]

 

Wall Street Journal: Republicans Have Attacked Democrats For Reducing Medicare Reimbursements By $500 Billion, But The Ryan Budget “Keeps In Place The Medicare Reductions.” “Last fall, Republicans spent millions on TV ads attacking Democrats for cutting Medicare. Those cuts—which reduced reimbursements to drug companies, hospitals and insurance companies and totaled about $500 billion over 10 years—were made to pay for the new subsidies to younger, uninsured Americans… But Republicans may not be all that hostile to those reductions after all. This week, Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, released his budget proposal. It included a major restructuring of the Medicare program, and repealed much of the Democratic health care law. But his plan keeps in place the Medicare reductions. That annoyed several health industry groups, who agreed to the cuts in exchange for more insured Americans who would be able to pay their health care bills. A spokesman for the House Budget Committee said that the Ryan plan allocates $10 billion to preserve the Medicare Advantage program for seniors. The health care law cut $136 billion over 10 years from that program, which allows seniors to enroll in private managed-care plans. The spokesman also noted that under the Ryan plan the Medicare spending cuts would go toward deficit reduction, rather than creation of a new spending program, as the Democratic health law creates.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/6/11]

 

ROMNEY SAID HE WOULD SIGN PAUL RYAN’S BUDGET THAT WOULD END MEDICARE AS WE KNOW IT AND SHIFT COSTS ON TO SENIORS

 

Romney Said “Yes” He Would Sign The House Republican Budget. “On health care, Romney responded ‘yes’ when asked if he would sign the plan written by Rep. Paul Ryan that would restructure Medicare if it reached his desk as President, but quickly added that he would be offering his own plan.” [ABC News, 6/2/11]

 

The Ryan Plan Would End Medicare As We Know It And Raise Seniors Health Costs By Thousands Of Dollars Per Year. “The budget resolution developed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) would make significant changes to Medicare. It would replace Medicare’s current guarantee of coverage with a premium-support voucher, raise the age of eligibility from 65 to 67, and reopen the ‘doughnut hole’ in Medicare’s coverage of prescription drugs. Together, these changes would shift substantial costs to Medicare beneficiaries and (with the simultaneous repeal of health reform) leave many 65- and 66-year olds without any health coverage at all.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “Medicare in the Ryan Budget,” 3/28/12]

 

The Ryan Plan Raises The Eligibility Age For Medicare From 65 To 67, And Puts In Place Caps On Spending That Could Shift Costs To Seniors As Health Care Costs Rise. “Under Ryan’s blueprint, the Medicare eligibility age would rise over time beginning in 2023 from 65 to 67. In the future, seniors would be given government assistance to purchase private health-insurance plans or could continue to take part in the current fee-for-service model. Spending would be capped, meaning risks and costs could shift to seniors as health-care costs rise.” [Washington Post, 3/29/12]

 

Congressional Budget Office: Under The Ryan Plan, “By 2030, 29% Of Medicare Beneficiaries Would Be Subject To The Spending Constraints Established For The Program…That Share Would Rise To 91% By 2050.” “Under the specified paths, by 2030, 39 percent of Medicare beneficiaries would be subject to the spending constraints established for the program (that is, they will have entered the program in 2023 or later); that share would rise to 91 percent by 2050. Net federal spending on Medicare—including offsetting receipts, which are mostly payments of premiums—would be 4¼ percent of GDP in 2030 and 4¾ percent in 2050, CBO calculates (see Table 2).4 In contrast, by 2050, net Medicare spending would grow to 6½ percent of GDP under the baseline scenario and to 7¼ percent of GDP under the alternative fiscal scenario.” [Congressional Budget Office, “The Long-Term Budgetary Impact of Paths for Federal Revenues And Spending Specified by Chairman Ryan, 3/20/12]

 

Wyden Voted Against Ryan Budget. In 2012, Wyden voted against the motion to proceed to Rep. Ryan’s budget proposal. [Senate Vote #98, 5/16/12]

Comments

comments

Filed in: politics / política