Factcheck: Obama's False Medicare Claim

[Zguy28]

Unless, I misread or misunderstood the fact check the problem is that Obama is claiming the samething w/ respect to recouping money via making undisclosed cuts.

The inaccuracy is really that Obama is saying that McCain WILL have to cut benefits, but that in other places that he will somehow cut the expenses, while not cutting benefits.

Exactly!

From the article:

The fact is that McCain has never proposed to cut Medicare benefits, or Medicaid benefits either. Obama's claim is based on a false reading of a single Wall Street Journal story, amplified by a one-sided, partisan analysis that piles speculation atop misinterpretation. The Journal story in turn was based on an interview with McCain adviser Holtz-Eakin. He said flatly in a conference call with reporters after the ad was released, "No service is being reduced. Every beneficiary will in the future receive exactly the benefits that they have been promised from the beginning."

.

.

.

But achievable or not, "savings" are what McCain is proposing. It's a rank distortion for Obama's ad to twist that into a plan for "cuts in benefits, eligibility or both," and for Obama to claim in a speech that seniors will "receive fewer services, and get lower quality care."

Update, Oct. 21: The Center for American Progress Action Fund issued a rebuttal to this article, claiming our analysis is “flawed,” that this article “relies solely on the denials of McCain senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin” and that we failed to conduct a “thorough analysis of the implications” of McCain’s health care proposals.

We disagree. Our criticism of both Obama and American Progress is that they themselves misinterpret and misrepresent what Holtz-Eakin said to the Wall Street Journal in the first place. He was quoted in the Journal, and stated again to reporters in a conference call, that what McCain is proposing is to reduce the costs borne by Medicare and Medicaid, and that benefits will not be reduced. American Progress simply ignores that clear statement in its analysis, and the Obama ads take the extra step of telling seniors that McCain plans to cut benefits, when McCain says the opposite.

The American Progress argument rests on the idea that because McCain has also promised to make his health care plan budget neutral – neither raising nor cutting total federal spending – and that because American Progress' analysis concludes that he cannot achieve the savings that he claims, that McCain therefore must be forced to break his promise not to cut benefits.

We are also skeptical that McCain can achieve such savings, and we said so at the outset of our article. And we've twice called into question the campaign's claim that its plan is budget neutral. But it is false logic to conclude that Medicare benefit cuts would be McCain’s only option should his promised savings fail to materialize. McCain could simply run up the deficit. Or he could choose to water down his health care plan to make it less expensive.

It is certainly possible that McCain will break his promise not to cut benefits, just as it is possible that Obama will break his promise to raise taxes only on families making over $250,000 a year. We have no crystal ball, and we don't pretend we can predict the future. But for Obama or American Progress to state as a matter of fact that McCain will be forced to cut benefits, or that he is proposing any such thing, is simply a falsehood designed to frighten elderly voters.

That last line was brutal.

[dockeryfan]

Unless, I misread or misunderstood the fact check the problem is that Obama is claiming the samething w/ respect to recouping money via making undisclosed cuts.

The inaccuracy is really that Obama is saying that McCain WILL have to cut benefits, but that in other places that he will somehow cut the expenses, while not cutting benefits.

Where is the link stating Obama will cut Medicare?

And in terms of benefits, Obama has been very supportive of Veterans benefits, while McCain has not been. McCain is not considered a friend of veterans, even though he claims to be. We have every reason to believe that McCain will cut medicare benefits in the same way he has cut veterans benefits.

[dockeryfan]

Yes. Several in fact.

Yes, I know several as well. But they are overwhelmingly in the minority, and are usually tied to former government jobs. Or ex-teachers in some cases. Seniors use Medicare predominantly as the primary insurance. They get riders to cover the co-insurance for medicare approved benefits.

It would be interesting if we could find some more statistics on this.

Well, being that I work in healthcare, you can either take my word on it or just do in informal poll.

More and more docs are opting out of Medicare because of the reduction in benefits. I have plenty of colleagues that opt out completely. Myself personally, I will treat a patient out of network, meaning they have to pay me up front for services, and Medicare can reimburse them directly. Medicare will reimburse them for the allowed amount they will pay, so if they pay me X, they only get reimbursed (0.75X) or whatever the allowed amount is.

[Hersh]

See the tags below.

Obama Haters Unite?

I don't pay attention to tags on any threads, only what posters actually say. Just don't lump us all in together. I'm as big an Obama supporter as there is, but I know he isn't perfect.

[PeterMP]

Where is the link stating Obama will cut Medicare?

And in terms of benefits, Obama has been very supportive of Veterans benefits, while McCain has not been. McCain is not considered a friend of veterans, even though he claims to be. We have every reason to believe that McCain will cut medicare benefits in the same way he has cut veterans benefits.

1. In the OP:

"Obama himself proposes some of the same cost-saving measures. We're skeptical that either candidate can deliver the savings they promise, but that's no basis for Obama to accuse McCain of planning huge benefit cuts."

2. Can you demonstrate somewhere the McCain voted to CUT veteran benefits (not a vote against expanding them)?

3. (assuming you are right about veterans) So a vote to cut some program is evidence that he will support a vote to cut some other program? Wouldn't it make more sense to judge his likely actions on Medicare from his votes on Medicare.

4. I think McCain actually might change Medicare benefits, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing:

http://seniorliving.about.com/od/presidentialcampaign2008/a/obama_mccain_pd.htm

Under the McCain proposal, Medicare beneficiaries with annual incomes of more than $82,000 for an individual or $164,000 for a couple would pay higher premiums for prescription drug coverage. Seniors at about those income levels already pay more for physician services under Medicare Part B, thanks to the 2003 Medicare bill championed by President Bush, and McCain argues that it’s only fair and logical to expect them to pay more for prescription drug coverage as well.

"People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett don't need their prescriptions underwritten by taxpayers," McCain said. "Those who can afford to buy their own prescription drugs should be expected to do so."

[Thiebear]

What the heck are tags? why would you even bother? Get off my lawn.

[dockeryfan]

1. In the OP:

"Obama himself proposes some of the same cost-saving measures. We're skeptical that either candidate can deliver the savings they promise, but that's no basis for Obama to accuse McCain of planning huge benefit cuts."

2. Can you demonstrate somewhere the McCain voted to CUT veteran benefits (not a vote against expanding them)?

3. (assuming you are right about veterans) So a vote to cut some program is evidence that he will support a vote to cut some other program? Wouldn't it make more sense to judge his likely actions on Medicare from his votes on Medicare.

4. I think McCain actually might change Medicare benefits, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing:

First, Obama may be proposing cost saving measures, but he isn't funding his healthcare proposal with Medicare cuts. McCain is to the tune of 1.4 trillion, and he won't say exactly how.

Second, I'll look up the veterans benefits question. When you vote to suspend an increase, you in effect decrease benefits. Inflation and cost of living are factored in those increases. So when the benefit stays the same for 10 years, your financial responsibility could go up as a result.

Third, I'll give you some anecdotal evidence. I went camping in Shenandoah to see skyline drive last weekend. We had some pasta at a local intalian joint in Front Royal. The local paper had three letters to the editor of vets pleading their case that McCain was NOT a friend to veterans.

This is Front Royal, where 63% are registered republicans. http://www.bestplaces.net/city/Front_Royal-Virginia.aspx

Here's how Warren County voted in the 2000 Presidential (first thing I found)

http://www2.sbe.virginia.gov/web_docs/election/results/2000/nov/nov2000/187.htm

The paper was the Warren County Report, just a little local paper that was free in a stand. http://wcrnews.wordpress.com/

It's available online, you can read the letters yourself.

http://warrencountyreport.com/2008oct16.pdf

Now, this is just a snapshot, but this paper is in a republican county. Those letters are coming from actual veterans that live in that county. They are veterans, and they are not happy with McCain. Use this as a predictor for medicare benefits, because that's all we have is a voting record to go on. I have to believe that McCain will do the same for Medicare benefits that he has done with Veterans benefits.

[desioreo87]

Medicare is gonna be a huge issue in this election. If you ddidn't know, medicare is on the verge of collapse with about 2-3 billion dollars in fraud and a severe shortage of doctors. Old peope are gonna be SOL very soon if this stuff isnt fixed.

Wow seems to me that George Bush has ****ed this country over royally.

****ing hate that guy and would punch him in the face if someone gave me a chance. Tried his very best to ruin this country thinking he can paper over the craters just long enough for the next guy to run the country.

[PeterMP]

First, Obama may be proposing cost saving measures, but he isn't funding his healthcare proposal with Medicare cuts. McCain is to the tune of 1.4 trillion, and he won't say exactly how.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf

"Q. How will we pay for the Obama plan?

The Obama plan will realize tremendous savings within the health care system to help finance the plan...."

The basis of his plan is that somehow as a result of his plan that healthcare costs are going to drop (which would include medicare) and those savings will be passed onto paying for the coverage for people that currently aren't covered.

It isn't $1.4 trillion dollars because he can't (or won't) specifically state how much he's going to get from anything or anywhere else so there's no value that has to be placed on this savings from the healthcare system, which includes medicare.

Second, I'll look up the veterans benefits question. When you vote to suspend an increase, you in effect decrease benefits. Inflation and cost of living are factored in those increases. So when the benefit stays the same for 10 years, your financial responsibility could go up as a result.

Don't bother. There aren't any. He hasn't voted to suspend increases to my knowledge or anything pegged to inflation. He has voted against what would be just new made up spending. In some cases, you could argue they would have been good, but they didn't really represent a decrease in benefits.

Use this as a predictor for medicare benefits, because that's all we have is a voting record to go on. I have to believe that McCain will do the same for Medicare benefits that he has done with Veterans benefits.

You're telling me McCain has never had to make a vote directly related to Medicare?

I was in Shanandoah last weekend to. Went through Front Royal and spend the weekend camping at Mathews Arm. It was nice. Not to cold yet.

[JMS]

Unless, I misread or misunderstood the fact check the problem is that Obama is claiming the samething w/ respect to recouping money via making undisclosed cuts.

Actually that's not true. Obama has specific cuts to the program which he has detailed. Obama wants to cut subsidies to HMO's which he says are not productive, He wants to lift the ban on Medicare and Medicaid negotiating prices with the drug companies as the military system and Canada collectively does (*), and he wants to make sure seniors can access home-based care to avoid expensive emergency room and hospital visits.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-17-obama-mccain_N.htm

(*) Canada and the US Military save roughly 50% of their medication costs in this way. This alone proposal represents a significant savings.

The inaccuracy is really that Obama is saying that McCain WILL have to cut benefits, but that in other places that he will somehow cut the expenses, while not cutting benefits.

Obama doesn't favor giving every man woman and child a 5k credit for healthcare. Obama's plan is just to try to hold down costs by enforcing existing regulations and passing new laws and oversite. A much more fiscally modist proposal.

[PeterMP]

Actually that's not true. Obama has specific cuts to the program which he has detailed. Obama wants to cut subsidies to HMO's which he says are not productive, He wants to lift the ban on Medicare and Medicaid negotiating prices with the drug companies as the military system and Canada collectively does (*), and he wants to make sure seniors can access home-based care to avoid expensive emergency room and hospital visits.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-17-obama-mccain_N.htm

(*) Canada and the US Military save roughly 50% of their medication costs in this way. This alone proposal represents a significant savings.

Well, if that's your requirement for describing cuts so has McCain. In this thread I posted a link, where McCain talked about linking the cost of drugs via medicare and medicaid to the income of the individual.

Obama doesn't favor giving every man woman and child a 5k credit for healthcare. Obama's plan is just to try to hold down costs by enforcing existing regulations and passing new laws and oversite. A much more fiscally modist proposal.

If that was the extent of the Obama plan I'd agree with you, but you forgot the part of letting people buy their insurance from the goverment and basing how much they have to pay on how much they can afford to pay, and the fact that in EVERY western country I know, including ones with socialized medicine, the cost of healthcare is going faster than the rate of GDP and inflation.

I don't consider passing on a cost that is going faster than the rate of inflation and GDP onto the goverment fiscally conservative.

[dockeryfan]

[quote name=PeterMP;5726426

Don't bother. There aren't any. He hasn't voted to suspend increases to my knowledge or anything pegged to inflation. He has voted against what would be just new made up spending. In some cases' date=' you could argue they would have been good, but they didn't really represent a decrease in benefits.

[/quote]

McCain's track record is horrible with regard to veterans benefits. If you want to propose that he is voting against bad bills, then why isn't he drafting legislation that addresses those needs?

Here's a few votes, just so people don't think I'm making things up.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00343 voted against mental health benefits

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00055 voted against increased spending

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00007 voted against

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00315 against a measure that would limit using outside contractors for benefits

McCain wants to privatize veterans benefits, because he thinks it's a good idea. It's a horrible idea, because vets will find themselves fighting against third party payors, just like people in HMOs do right now, and they will have no recourse. None whatsoever. Is the veterans Administration horribly run? Yes. But vets deserve the benefits they receive for getting wounded serving our country. McCain does not agree with this sentiment, and that is entirely clear if you look at his voting record.

[PeterMP]

McCain's track record is horrible with regard to veterans benefits. If you want to propose that he is voting against bad bills, then why isn't he drafting legislation that addresses those needs?

Here's a few votes, just so people don't think I'm making things up.

I didn't say he was voting for good or bad bills. I, in fact said that you could argue that they would be good, BUT you said he had voted to CUT benefits. Your finding links where he voted against expanding benefits. I'm not necessarily against expanding benefits for veterns, especially those that were involved in active combat, but those aren't votes for cuts in benefits.

[JMS]

You're telling me McCain has never had to make a vote directly related to Medicare?

In the Obama speach yesterday in Richmond where OBama openned up the new medicare/ medicade offensive he said McCain had failed 40 times to stand up for medicare

CNN fact cheched that number and found it to be misleading. McCain did vote to slash medicare; but some of the 40 votes had to do with more than just medicare, and some were revenue neutral votes against medicare.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/18/fact-check-did-mccain-vote-40-times-against-medicare/

I was in Shanandoah last weekend to. Went through Front Royal and spend the weekend camping at Mathews Arm. It was nice. Not to cold yet.

Did you have to take precautions from Bears? We've got cayotte's, foxes to worry about and now supposedly mountain lions are making a come back too(*).

(*)Animal control in Northern Virginia started to get reported sitings back in the early 1990's. Which they laughed off, their hadn't been a confirmed mountain lion in the DC area since 1882. But in 1998 a jogger in McLean came face to face with one a few miles from my house. Animal control was called and found couger tracks. They eventually decided that it was somebodies exotic pet which had escaped. Living high on the hog off of all the deer in the region.

Since that time however their have been sitings all over the state, and their are a number of studies going on to try to confirm all these reports.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

What I don't understand is, if McCain's not going to cut Medicare, how is he going to save money?

[PeterMP]

In the Obama speach yesterday in Richmond where OBama openned up the new medicare/ medicade offensive he said McCain had failed 40 times to stand up for medicare

I'm not going to argue that McCain is going to increase the size of medicare, and I can see where people would argue, especially w/ healthcare going up the way it is, that should be done.

I'd rather see something actually done to directly address healthcare cost.

Did you have to take precautions from Bears? We've got cayotte's, foxes to worry about and now supposedly mountain lions are making a come back too(*).

Put all of the food and otherthings in the car before we go to bed, but other than that no. Big Meadows as bear boxes, which are nice, but no such thing at Matthew's Arm.

I've seen bears up there several times, including this weekend. It seems to me the number of them (or at least the frequency that we see them) is increasing too. Two years ago I saw a bobcat on the drive at like 2 am. Never seen a coyote or a mountain lion there.

[PeterMP]

What I don't understand is, if McCain's not going to cut Medicare, how is he going to save money?

He's going to to cut medicare, but not benefits (at least that's his claim). The cuts are going to mostly be undisclosed decreases in fraud and increases in effeciency.

[dockeryfan]

---The Skyline Drive aside---

Put all of the food and otherthings in the car before we go to bed, but other than that no. Big Meadows as bear boxes, which are nice, but no such thing at Matthew's Arm.

I've seen bears up there several times, including this weekend. It seems to me the number of them (or at least the frequency that we see them) is increasing too. Two years ago I saw a bobcat on the drive at like 2 am. Never seen a coyote or a mountain lion there.

Here's the circuit hike we did on Saturday. The last stretch of AT is all downhill, so once you make it to the AT you are home free. http://www.nps.gov/archive/shen/2b.htm

It's on the Matthew's arm map. Park at ~mile 25. Take the Thorton River trail to the Hull school trail, work you way back toward Skyline drive, cross it, get on the AT north, back to the Thorton River trail to your car.

I never worry about black bear, but just so people know, you can't store food in cars. Bears can smell it, and break into your car. In places like Smokey Mountains, where bear are a little desensitized to humans, and Yosemite, it happens every year.

[PeterMP]

I never worry about black bear, but just so people know, you can't store food in cars. Bears can smell it, and break into your car. In places like Smokey Mountains, where bear are a little desensitized to humans, and Yosemite, it happens every year.

I've done it there many times and never had a problem. I think, in Matthew's Arm, they actually suggest it. Certainly out west, its a different story.

[JMS]

Well, if that's your requirement for describing cuts so has McCain. In this thread I posted a link, where McCain talked about linking the cost of drugs via medicare and medicaid to the income of the individual.

I think you are confusing cost savings, with cost generating.. Or am I misunderstanding McCain's idea? Is he saying wealthier people will have to pay more for their drugs and he's actualy going to generate revenue from them?

If that was the extent of the Obama plan I'd agree with you, but you forgot the part of letting people buy their insurance from the goverment and basing how much they have to pay on how much they can afford to pay, and the fact that in EVERY western country I know, including ones with socialized medicine, the cost of healthcare is going faster than the rate of GDP and inflation.

Medicare's administration fee is like 2% overhead. For profit insurance companies administration fees run closer to 30%.

http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/

It makes sense that the government could better compete at the lower end of the insurance industry. Likewise giving government subsidies for just the working poor, is still more modest an idea than giving subsidies to everybody.

I don't consider passing on a cost that is going faster than the rate of inflation and GDP onto the goverment fiscally conservative.

Well, the government is the single largest healthcare purchaser and provider in the country so that is exactly what Bush McCain are adivisiong. They define fiscal conservative not on what the government does, but rather on whether folks can make a profit on the policy.

From Obama's stand point there are two problems. (1) Improving the existing system and coverage while you are (2) trying to implement a better system.

Putting a floor under insurance costs in the way of a competing public system, would put a lot of preasure ( competition ) into the insurance industry. If they cut services or increase costs they will always have to justify the move against the competition from the public concern. Likewise their overhead and profits which is the fastest part of their growth, will come under market pressures to stay in check.

[JMS]

I've done it there many times and never had a problem. ( keep food in the car).. I think, in Matthew's Arm, they actually suggest it. Certainly out west, its a different story.

I always tie the food in the trees removed from the camp site. That seems to work pretty well too.

[PeterMP]

I think you are confusing cost savings, with cost generating.. Or am I misunderstanding McCain's idea? Is he saying wealthier people will have to pay more for their drugs and he's actualy going to generate revenue from them?

Wealthy people will pay more for their drugs then they currently are so the cost to medicare will go down.

Medicare's administration fee is like 2% overhead. For profit insurance companies administration fees run closer to 30-35%. It makes sense that the government could better compete at the lower end of the insurance industry. Likewise giving government subsidies for just the working poor, is still more modest than giving subsidies to everybody.

The insurance companies don't compete at the lower end. They don't want to.

The subsidy to everybody is partly balanced out by essentially a tax increase on many, especially the wealthy who presumably have the best health insurance.

[PeterMP]

I always tie the food in the trees removed from the camp site. That seems to work pretty well too.

Out west do that or use a bear box. In the camp grounds in Shenandoah it isn't necessary.

[JMS]

Out west do that or use a bear box. In the camp grounds in Shenandoah it isn't necessary.

I've been camping out on scenic veiw for a few decades, we always tie up the food. Virginia bears are like medium sized dogs ( labs or retrievers) rather than small cars/ elephants then have out west; but they still are agressive around food and will come right into camp if they smell food.

I've had friends who were suprised in their camps by bears... Don't know about the park camp sites.

[JMS]

Wealthy people will pay more for their drugs then they currently are so the cost to medicare will go down.

McCain's such a socialist...

The insurance companies don't compete at the lower end. They don't want to.

I would argue they don't compete at the higher ends much either cause what they cover, their services, and rate increases are not well defined for the consumer.

Point is if you put a floor under the insurance companies at the low end, it effectively puts a floor under all the companies. If the low end federal program covers baby deliveries without out of pocket costs; The folks who have private insurance who get soaked for 1-2k for stupid out of plan expenses will have something to compare their service to.

The subsidy to everybody is partly balanced out by essentially a tax increase on many, especially the wealthy who presumably have the best health insurance.

Yeah taxing insurance benifits and giving insurance companies checks in the form of tax rebates on the consumers... The consumer get's it coming and going.