Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Who knows something about RW "17% Medicare" claim?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Jeebo Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-10-04 01:45 PM
Original message
Who knows something about RW "17% Medicare" claim?
My mother gets lots of right-wing e-mails and forwards them all to me. Here's one that showed up today that I know absolutely nothing about. Do any of you, my friends at DU, know anything about it? So I can respond to her and everybody she sent the e-mail to. I don't want to let ANY of this stuff go unanswered with the election so close.

<< VP Cheney rebutted with this answer on the debates last night. I didn't know the story behind it, but I knew that bush wouldn't be stupid enough to increase Medicare by 17% in an election year.. It just made plain sense to me.. Z

Recent 17% Increase in Medicare

Before you jump to conclusions read this. and have a great day! Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to help Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium increase - the biggest in history"? That ad is a stoke of genius on Kerry's part and will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed.
++++
I found it so amazing that I did some homework on the issue. As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton, voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into effect during the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to reverse what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton administration.
++++++
Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people. Don't be duped by his mendacity.
++++
Please keep it going !!! >>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kammer Donating Member (96 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-10-04 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. Propoganda
If President Bush had not given the wealthy their huge tax break, been a better steward of the publics money and not taken a 250 billion dollar surplus and turned it into a 420 billion dollar deficit, there would not have been a 17% increase in the premiums for our retired and disabled citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-10-04 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. desperation
can't run against the republican congress, he has to go back to the last administration.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sherilocks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-10-04 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. Send the email to
Editor@FactCheck.org

Maybe they can research it for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teach1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-10-04 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
4. Depends
Depends on how you look at things, I think. In any event, the increase was called "the most ever" and the Balanced Budget Act was passed in 1997, which, I assume, would have put it in play for at least some of the previous increases, wouldn't it have? So wouldn't it be true that the increase is indeed the increase is the biggest ever, even among increases affect by the Balanced Budget Act?

Fact Check

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=257.html

(This) refers to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), which made the 25% formula permanent so that Congress would not have to continually renew the rate.

It passed overwhelmingly, 85-15 , with most Republicans in favor.

It is true that premium costs would have fallen had Congress allowed the 25% formula to lapse, reverting to a formula that would have decreased premiums and increased the expense to taxpayers....Jeff Lemieux, founder and executive director of Centrists.org and a former health analyst at the Congressional Budget Office, told FactCheck.org:

Lemieux: Technically, they (the Bush campaign) are right. Premiums would have been lower if they didn't pass BBA '97 . However, no one expected this to happen.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5908315/

The increase reflects rapidly rising health costs and last year’s Medicare overhaul, said Dr. Mark McClellan, administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. For example, the law blocked a planned 4.5 percent cut in Medicare payments to physicians and replaced it with a 1.5 percent increase.


http://www.hillnews.com/business/091504_medicare.aspx

At a Senate Finance Committee hearing yesterday on the new Medicare drug benefit, Republicans hammered home the point that premium rates are set according to a predetermined formula and not at the discretion of the current administration.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) pointed out that President Bush was not responsible for the 17 percent increase, noting that the formula that determined the new premiums was part of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.

“We all voted for it in 1997,” Frist said.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sundancekid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-10-04 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. this link from factcheck.ORG will be helpful to you ... she's just running
the RW and B/C04 negative ads talking points ... get yourself fully informed on this so you can simplify your answer and still have it be accurate ... and BTW, it certainly wasn't Clenis fault either ... jeeze these people!!!!

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=257.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC