Obama, Romney run misleading Medicare ads
The Obama campaign's new ad tells voters that the new AARP voter guide "is out with facts you need on Medicare."
The ad makes assertions about the president's position on Medicare, as well as Mitt Romney's positions, and suggests that AARP backs up these assertions as "fact."
"Fact: Barack Obama will protect your guaranteed benefits and will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program," a narrator says while the ad highlights part of the senior citizen interest group's voter guide. "Fact: Mitt Romney would take away Medicare as guaranteed benefits and instead give future retirees 'premium support' or vouchers."
The AARP voter guide, however, does not state that President Obama will protect Medicare's guaranteed benefits -- it simply quotes the president making that promise.
Similarly, the voter guide doesn't draw any conclusions about whether Romney's Medicare plan would "take away" benefits. It quotes the Romney campaign, which said, "Mitt's proposals would not affect today's seniors or those nearing retirement and...would not raise taxes...he proposes that tomorrow's Medicare should give beneficiaries a generous defined contribution, or 'premium support,' and allow them to choose."
It is true, though, that the AARP opposes the "premium support" plan that Romney and his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan have endorsed. When Ryan introduced the plan in the House last year, AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond wrote in a letter to Congress, "By creating a 'premium support' system for future Medicare beneficiaries, the proposal will increase costs for beneficiaries while removing Medicare's promise of secure health coverage--a guarantee that future seniors have contributed to through a lifetime of hard work."
Nevertheless, the AARP regularly stresses that it is nonpartisan and does not support any candidates.
When the Obama campaign cited the AARP in a similar ad last month to defend its Medicare plan, the lobbying group distanced itself from the ad.
"The next president and Congress will decide the future of Medicare, and the candidates owe voters straight talk - not just 30-second ads - about what their plans will mean for today's seniors and future retirees," AARP senior vice president John Hishta said in a statement. "We were not aware of nor have any involvement with this campaign ad. AARP is a nonpartisan organization and we do not endorse political candidates."
The new ad was launched Wednesday and will air in the key swing states of Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia.
"For years, we have paid into Medicare with our work," a narrator says in Spanish. "Now, when we need it...Obama has cut $716 billion from Medicare to pay for his Obamacare."
The Romney campaign has regularly charged that the significant cuts to Medicare that Mr. Obama oversaw will undermine the program. The cuts, however, do not limit access to benefits for Medicare recipients, and Mr. Obama's health care law actually gives more benefits to seniors -- including new preventive care benefits and increased prescription drug coverage.
The $716 billion in cuts to Medicare do indeed help pay for parts of the Affordable Care Act, but instead of restricting benefits, the cuts target hospital reimbursements and payments to other providers, as well as Medicare Advantage plans. In fact, Ryan's 2012 budget would have included many of the same Medicare reductions.
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 275 Comments
- Ousted IRS chief: "I did not mislead" the American people 252 Comments
- Where is the Benghazi cover-up Republicans promised? 343 Comments
- FBI seeks anonymous source behind Menendez allegations
- Why Obama should worry that current scandals might impact 2016 216 Comments
- Immigration deal reached in House
- First lady: "Reject the slander" that educated blacks are "trying to act white"
- House GOP to vote on Obamacare repeal - Vol. 37 928 Comments
Think about this. The GOP wrecked the economy and put millions of people out of work. They have the guts to blame Obama because a lot of this people had to go on food stamp. The GOP will be much happeir if these Americans were eating out of garbage cans. Don't forget, these people are our neighbors, friends, brothers and sisters, mothers, fathers who the GOP policies put out of work. Do we need to insult them for going on food stamp as if they will rather be on food stamp than have their jobs the GOP policies eleminated back.
No question about it, a vote for the GOP is a vote for self centered people, alot of which are driven by hate. Anyone who will vote against a law that do away with pre-existing condition for children just because they are driven by hate to defeat Obama, walks in darkness with the devil in my book.
A vote for GOP is a vote against the least amoung us, and yest it is a vote against the moral concience of America. Certainly, a vote for the GOP is a vote against the teachings of Christ- standing up for millionares and billionaires against the least amoung us is not a moral courage, nor is it the type of principle we want our children to copy.
Simply put, Romney/Ryan are bad for America.
Also, look at Romney. His experience in the private sector is that of fairing people and shipping American jobs overseas. We need someone who have experience creating jobs not shipping American jobs overseas.
Why will anyone vote for a guy that hides his money oversea so as to avoid paying taxes? He wants the middle class to pay more taxes, yet, he hides his money overseas to avoid paying taxes.
Now Romney is playing politics with the death of An American embassordor. What kind of a cold hearted man is Romney? The sad thing is that he can't even wait to get the facts before he start to criticize. If he does not have the facts, Romney just make him up as he goes. Today's republicans don't let the truth get in their way.
EMPLOYERS switched from defined-benefit to defined-contribution retirement plans like 401(k)s because defined-contribution plans move ALL of the investment risk from the employer to the employee. Instead of the employer having to contribute more if investment returns are poor, employees are "on their own" (a familiar phrase!): if they're very good (or very lucky) in investing their account, they do well in retirement; if they're not so good (or not so lucky) in choosing investments, they'll rely on Social Security.
The GOP wants to do the same thing with Medicare: shift it from defined-benefit to defined-contribution. And just as with 401(k)s, all the risk is shifted away from the government and onto the shoulders of the individual senior ("You're on your own" again!) Yes, under Ryan's most recent version, Medicare would still be an option, but the likelihood is that it will draw the sickest seniors and will quickly become more expensive than the other options, putting it in a "death spiral" that will finally kill it off, just as some Republicans have been trying to do since 1965.
If "competition" is so effective in controlling health care cost inflation, why hasn't "competition" restrained the insane rate of inflation for health insurance rates in the employer/employee market over the past 30 years?
The famous $716 billion is NOT money Obama extracted from the Medicare trust fund; it's money that will NOT be paid, in the future, to insurers (for Medicare Advantage) and hospitals (because they'll be offering less uncompensated care) and drug companies and medical device manufacturers (because they'll have lots more insured potential customers).
And you're wrong about the payroll tax cut, too. Individual workers save 2% of their income ($2,000 for someone who makes $100,000), but the Social Security trust fund is credited with your full 6.2% deduction, even though you only paid 4.2%.
As regards to the 2% reduction in payroll tax, where is the 2% being cut, from retirement benefits of from Medicare? Additionally, it's a curious mathematics that cuts 2% and still manages to include it for the Social Security trust fund. Perhaps, muddled mathematics by the government also contributes to our economic problems.
The voucher plan DOES NOT give all seniors a free choice. It only gives private insurance companies the power to cherry pick those seniors they want, and force others to either go without insurance or stay with the original (but weakened) medicare.
Insurance companies will be allowed to deny anyone they choose (especially those with preexisting conditions)and/or charge much higher rates and larger copay's. This will eventually destroy medicare, which is exactly what republicans have been trying to do since it's inception. The same goes for S