Thursday, September 9, 2010

Kanjorski Vote On Healthcare To Raise Price For All is reporting that new government figures show Obamacare under Barack Obama's costly healthcare overhaul that Paul Kanjorski voted for will increase the tab for everyone.

The nation's health care tab will go up -- not down -- as a result of President Barack Obama's sweeping overhaul. That's the conclusion of a government forecast released Thursday, which also finds the increase will be modest.

Here's what Paul Kanjorski had to say on March 21, 2010 about his vote for the healthcare overhaul.

"Today I will vote for legislation designed to improve the affordability and accessibility of health care. Americans already spend more on health care than the people of any other nation. If we take no action, health care costs are expected to double over the next ten years, just as they have over the last ten years.

The 60 Plus Association, as reported in the Times-Tribune, started television commercials attacking Paul Kanjorski for his misguided vote on the healthcare overhaul.

A conservative-leaning, nonprofit issues group will launch close to a $500,000 television advertising campaign locally today portraying U.S. Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski as a Washington liberal who voted for a costly health care reform bill that cuts Medicare by $500 billion.

Ed Mitchell, Kanjorski media consultant said. "Who in their right minds believes that he(Kanjorski) would (have) voted to cut Medicare by $500 billion?" The answer Mr. Mitchell is the Congressional Budget Office back in 2009.

Congress’ chief budget officer on Tuesday contradicted President Barack Obama’s oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn’t see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.

The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators that seniors in Medicare’s managed care plans could see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee.

The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100 billion over 10 years.

Elmendorf said the changes “would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans.”

SHAWN BISHOP, SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBER: “The $113 billion dollars is a reduction in the extra benefits, the added, additional benefits that Medicare Advantage enrollees have available to them. And those benefits come in the form of vision, dental, reduced hospital deductible. It’s unstatutory, it’s unlawful for any Medicare Advantage plan to reduce the AB covered benefit that they provide. That’s by statute. They have to provide that. They are going to have a reduction in the added benefits that they have in Medicare Advantage. So there’s a reduction in benefits but its additional extra benefits that they have above what they’re entitled to by law on the fee for service side.” (Finance Committee, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/22/09).

Ed Morrissey states in his article "Only an idiot would conclude that $500 billion in cuts to Medicare over 10 years would mean no reduction in benefits". Elmendorf is speaking not just from hard data but also common sense. Any attempt to get that level of “savings” from Medicare will necessarily cut the benefits going to its recipients. Trying to cast that as a myth is either an indication of mathematical incompetence, political dishonesty, or both.

I guess that answers Mitchell's question.


Anonymous said...

What is this group afraid of, Kanjorski must be ahead if they are using these tactics. I read in the paper they are not telling the truth. Why are they supporting Barletta? Makes me wonder what he promised them. Have you checked them out or do you just believe it all?

McGruff said...

When groups such as this one or those who supported Kanjorski spend money on this type of advertising it is against federal election laws for them to be tied to the campaign or coordinate the effort. Barletta can have no contact with this group. Mitchell knows that but he is not being honest with the voters in his attacks. This groups' ad buy in no way signals that Kanjorski has been up in any poll. It simply means they are spending money against Kanjorski. If you go to and look at campaign reports you will see and item marked "INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE AGAINST A CANDIDATE". Here is Kanjorski's from the last election. Likewise you will see an item "INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE ON BEHALF OF THE CANDIDATE" NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE is one of them. Take a look at the amount of money they spent on Kanjorski. Independent expenditures are exactly what they say. These groups can come in for or against a candidate but it cannot be coordinated with the candidate's campaign committee.