Factcheck.org on the Healthcare Summit. Ryan's comments appear to be untouched by the red ink of a correction pen (at least so far). I'm curious to see if he is found to be 100% accurate. That would be a rarity for any politician, and an admirable rarity.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/02/hea...mit-squabbles/
EDIT: This is the only thing I've found so far that refutes (using the term loosely) any of Ryan's comments:
Quote:
Ryan overhypes Medicare Advantage hit
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) claimed that under the Democrats’ plan, millions of seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage plans.
Not quite.
According to health policy experts, it’s fair to say that if the Democrats have their way, the benefits provided by Medicare Advantage will be reduced — which means that a number of seniors might choose not to enroll in the program in the future. That doesn’t mean people are going to “lose” their plans, exactly — just that fewer are likely to enroll. Seniors would still be guaranteed their traditional Medicare benefits.
|
http://www.politico.com/news/stories...558_Page2.html
EDIT again: An interesting tidbit from the factcheck article
Quote:
|
One last point: Alexander said “taxes” would also cause premium costs to go up – but that’s not really the case, according to CBO. Paradoxically, CBO predicts that the Senate bill’s excise tax on high-cost health plans would actually bring premium costs down. That’s because the tax would induce employers and employees to choose lower-cost plans with less coverage, to avoid being hit by the tax. CBO said the average premium for those affected by the tax would be 9 percent to 12 percent lower.
|
So yes, premiums would be lower, but with a commensurate lowering in care to avoid a prohibitive tax. So it turns out that Republican claims about "rationing" healthcare aren't all that crazy after all. It's just that taxes are being used to ration instead of an obvious law.