Tweet
Brian Beutler got to this today, but I noticed it last night and wanted to address it as well. Politifact is held up as a noble organization, dedicated to telling the truth about politics and the back-and-forth charges politicians make. But they seriously whiffed on this one.
Discussing a DCCC ad, one I didn’t particularly like, Politifact writes that the claim that Republicans “voted to end Medicare” is false. Here are their arguments:
1) “Seniors would continue to be offered coverage under the proposal”
2) The ad doesn’t include the qualifier that Republicans want to end Medicare “as we know it”
3) Seniors would have to pay $12,500 for medical coverage under the plan, but it doesn’t mention that they would pay $6,000 under Medicare by 2022 without changes
4) People 55 and older wouldn’t see changes under the plan
5) The vote was on a budget resolution that did not actually change Medicare yet
Let’s take these in kind. Seniors would be “offered” coverage under the Republican plan in the sense that they’d have to buy it. And it would cost twice as much by 2022 than traditional Medicare, and more after that, because the vouchers that the government offer would decrease in relative value over time. So I don’t see how #1 or #3 are false at all. The payment expectations come from CBO numbers. Who cares if Democrats left out what seniors currently pay under Medicare? They would have to shell out $12,500 a year under the Republican plan. That’s totally factual based on the estimates.
Why Politifact thinks that a qualifier like “as we know it” has to be included is puzzling. Medicare is a government-run health insurance program. It has various mandatory features, like hospital stays and other specific services. The Republican plan puts seniors on the open market. There are no such mandatory services and there is no such thing as a government-run Medicare program under their plan. Why do you need “as we know it?”
The complaint in #4 assumes that the footage represents next year rather than a point – only 10 years off – when Medicare is gone under the plan. The fact that seniors are currently exempted is immaterial. In addition, the lack of healthier seniors added to the Medicare rolls every year will have a definite impact on the quality and cost of Medicare for those grandfathered in. But put that aside – this is a silly complaint. At some point in the near future under the Republican plan, seniors would have to find lots of money for health insurance.
And #5 is absolutely ridiculous. Is this the new standard, that budget resolutions don’t count? That votes which, if put into action, end Medicare, don’t count until the vote succeeds? You have to be kidding.
My ruling: Politifact’s supposedly rigorous study makes all sorts of weird assumptions and qualifiers. Their pants are on fire.
3 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Right on! Here’s what I wrote to PolitiFact… you can email them at this link:
http://www.politifact.com/contact
“I must disagree with your analysis that the Democrats have their ‘pants on fire’ in saying that the Republicans ‘voted to end Medicare’ in the strongest possible terms. If the Ryan budget proposal wasn’t a vote to end Medicare, even though it completely transforms the existing social compact with seniors to one in which, instead of being guaranteed a certain standard of care, they have to spend all of their social security income (assuming it isn’t ended, too) in a potentially futile attempt to buy insurance isn’t ending Medicare, then in my opinion, words have no meaning. War is peace, black is white, up is down. It is fundamentally ludicrous to argue that ‘as we know it’ has to be applied to every statement about ending Medicare in order for it to be even remotely accurate. If a bank used a change in accounting rules to report toxic assets as being worth 100 cents on the dollar, would it be a lie to say that they ended accounting standards? Or must I say, ‘they ended accounting standards as we know them’? If a dictator took over a democracy, and rigged the vote so he could always win, would it be a lie to say he ended democracy? Or do I have to say, ‘he ended democracy as we know it’?
Frankly, I think you’ve severely damaged your hard-won credibility with this careless analysis. I don’t presume to know your motivations, but I think you should apologize.”
This seems to be the standard argument in the media whenever the idea that this plan hurts seniors is brought up. Everywhere I’ve heard or seen a Repub asked about this plan, “Seniors today won’t be affected” is their standard answer.
And to prove our understanding of how stupid the press is these days, the interviewer lets them get away with the statement.
Idiots.
I’ve been complaining to Politifact for some time about their new rating for the GOP. The Obama “pledge-o-meter” has a “broken promises” rating classificationn. But look at the GOP- no such rating exists. For the GOP, every promise, include items that have been brought as bills and denied, still rate as “in the works”.