Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Democrat lies on display

This Sunday on Face the Nation, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., claimed that House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan’s, R-Wis., budget would, “throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for pre-existing conditions.”
The Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler posted a response this morning:

Wasserman Schultz did not say voucher, but her statement suggests that people would be handed a check (“X number of dollars”) and then have to go out and find a plan that they can afford. She also said the plan would “allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for pre-existing conditions.”

Neither of those claims are true. The system as envisioned by Republicans would operate much like the Medicare prescription drug plan currently does. The government would not give people a check or anything like that; the government would handle the funds, just as they do under the drug plan. As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said when it examined the plan, “The premium support payments would go directly from the government to the plans that people selected.”

Meanwhile, different plans approved by Medicare would compete for business, as under the drug plan. Moreover, the GOP proposal specifically says that to participate in the Medicare exchange, insurance companies would have to accept all retirees.

Wasserman Schultz is jumping to conclusions — not to mention scaremongering metaphors — to describe provisions in the GOP Medicare plan that just do not exist.

And from FactCheck.org:

She is simply wrong to say that the GOP plan would allow insurance companies to “throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for preexisting conditions.”

It’s fair game to debate whether the subsidies are adequate to cover insurance costs. But it’s wrong to say that the GOP plan would “throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage.”

No comments: