Flashback: Dems Claims That Ryan Would End Medicare Named "Lie of the Year"

August 12, 2012 at 10:03 am (Bill Nelson, David Axelrod, Democrats, End Medicare, Harry Reid, Julian Schreibman, Lie of the Year, Lying, Medicare, Paul Ryan, Paul Tonko, Politifact)

The question is, how do they sort through all of the lies coming out of the Democrat party during the course of an entire year?

The first line of attack against Paul Ryan out of the Democrat party has clearly been the claim that he wants to end Medicare.

Paul Tonko (D-NY):

Governor Romney’s pick of Congressman Paul Ryan confirms his commitment to the radical Republican budget. As the lead author of this extreme thinking, Paul Ryan proposed and Tea Party House Republicans passed a budget that would end the Medicare guarantee as we know it and shift costs onto the backs of seniors….

Julian Schreibman (running against Chris Gibson):

Congressman Chris Gibson’s embrace of that agenda – including supporting Ryan’s budget plan to end Medicare as we know it …

Bill Nelson (D-FL):

Romney VP pick bad for seniors. Signals an end to Medicare as we know it.

David Axelrod (Obama adviser on lying):

President Barack Obama’s senior campaign adviser David Axelrod says the Medicare changes supported by Rep. Paul Ryan, the likely Republican vice presidential candidate, would put the popular health-care plan for the elderly in “a death spiral.”

Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader on lying):

By picking Rep. Paul Ryan, Gov. Romney has doubled down on his commitment to gut Social Security & end Medicare as we know it. 

The problem with these claims is that they’re simply untrue.  Left-leaning Politifact even had to squash the Democrat claims back in 2011, naming it the biggest “lie of the year” (h/t Weasel Zippers).

Republicans muscled a budget through the House of Representatives in April that they said would take an important step toward reducing the federal deficit. Introduced by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the plan kept Medicare intact for people 55 or older, but dramatically changed the program for everyone else by privatizing it and providing government subsidies.

Democrats pounced. Just four days after the party-line vote, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released a Web ad that said seniors will have to pay $12,500 more for health care “because Republicans voted to end Medicare.”

Rep. Steve Israel of New York, head of the DCCC, appeared on cable news shows and declared that Republicans voted to “terminate Medicare.” A Web video from the Agenda Project, a liberal group, said the plan would leave the country “without Medicare” and showed a Ryan look-alike pushing an old woman in a wheelchair off a cliff. And just last month, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sent a fundraising appeal that said: “House Republicans’ vote to end Medicare is a shameful act of betrayal.”

After two years of being pounded by Republicans with often false charges about the 2010 health care law, the Democrats were turning the tables.

PolitiFact debunked the Medicare charge in nine separate fact-checks rated False or Pants on Fire, most often in attacks leveled against Republican House members.

Now, PolitiFact has chosen the Democrats’ claim as the 2011 Lie of the Year.

In fact, if you click on the Poltifact article you’ll see nine different ways the Democrats have made the same claim laid out on the right side of the page.  Each claim that Ryan’s plan would “end Medicare” has been labeled as false, or with the more subtle “pants on fire”.

Here’s video of Paul Ryan actually explaining his plan for Medicare (h/t Twitchy):

Permalink Leave a Comment

Study Says Obamacare Will Add $340 Billion to Deficit

April 10, 2012 at 11:07 am (Budget, Conservative, Deficit, Healthcare, Medicare, Obamacare, President Obama, Republican, Social Security)

To the brainwashed Obamabot, it’s just free healthcare.  To the rest of the country, it’s an unaffordable monstrosity.  Glad we passed it so we could see what was in it…

From the Washington Post:

President Obama’s landmark health-care initiative, long touted as a means to control costs, will actually add more than $340 billion to the nation’s budget woes over the next decade, according to a new study by a Republican member of the board that oversees Medicare financing.

The study is set to be released Tuesday by Charles Blahous, a conservative policy analyst whom Obama approved in 2010 as the GOP trustee for Medicare and Social Security. His analysis challenges the conventional wisdom that the health-care law, which calls for an expensive expansion of coverage for the uninsured beginning in 2014, will nonetheless reduce deficits by raising taxes and cutting payments to Medicare providers.

The 2010 law does generate both savings and revenue. But much of that money will flow into the Medicare hospitalization trust fund — and, under law, the money must be used to pay years of additional benefits to those who are already insured. That means those savings would not be available to pay for expanding coverage for the uninsured.

“Does the health-care act worsen the deficit? The answer, I think, is clearly that it does,” Blahous, a senior research fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, said in an interview.

Ed Morrisey at Hot Air reports on the administration’s response to the study – which is to say, they have no real response at all.

What does the administration have to say in response? An OMB official told the Washington Post (without going on the record) that Blahous was using “new math” to undermine the credibility of Obama’s reforms, in an attempt “to refight the political battles of the past.” However, this isn’t about the past at all; it’s about the future of Medicare andthe deficit. The White House response appears to fall into the Pelosiesque “we had to passit to see what’s in it” category, with the addendum of “and now it’s too late to argue about it.” We’ll see if that’s true.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Obamacare to Cost Nearly Twice Than Originally Projected

March 14, 2012 at 7:18 am (CBO, Conservative, Democrat, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Fiscal, Healthcare, Medicare, Obamacare, President Obama, Scott Murphy)

In a column for the Times Union in 2010, I wrote the following about the Obama healthcare bill that then-Congressman Scott Murphy was pitching as ‘fiscally conservative’.

Associating conservatism with a law that will hijack roughly a sixth of the U.S. economy can only be explained by political naivete and a reliance on the Congressional Budget Office’s mathematical wizardry to surmise that the legislation will reduce the deficit by $138 billion.

There were two reasons that the CBO numbers were absurdly misleading:

First, the CBO is required to take the written word in the bill before it at face value. For example, the law includes a $463 billion cut in Medicare, an impossible feat for a program already hemorrhaging red ink. Because this amount is in the law, it is assumed to be true for the sake of the CBO report. This is the equivalent of setting up a personal budget and including a winning lottery ticket in the bottom line. Yes, it puts that Florida vacation within reach, but no, it’s not going to happen. The CBO report emphasizes that its findings were preliminary and did not reflect the actual bill that would pass.

Second, former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, in a March 20 New York Times commentary, offered a peek at the shell game being played by his former agency and the Obama administration:

“In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.”

And now, the curtain is being pulled back on those CBO calculations from two years ago, and there really is no great wizard being revealed.  In fact, the opposing disappointment is epic, as the cost of Obamacare is now being estimated at nearly twice the original amount.

Via Beltway Confidential:

President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.
Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO’s standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama’s pledge that the legislation would cost “around $900 billion over 10 years.” When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.
Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law’s core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That’s because we now have estimates for Obamacare’s first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn’t overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we’re likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.

But hey, we can afford that kind of miscalculation right?  Surely it would have passed if voters knew the real cost, right?

Obamacare and Obamanomics – just a shell game, and we’re the losers.

Permalink Leave a Comment

« Previous page