Now that Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan is Mitt Romney’s running mate, the claims about Ryan’s Medicare plan are flying. We give the details on what the plan will do, and debunk Democratic claims that it would raise seniors’ costs by $6,000. That pertains to an outdated plan.
See “Outdated Attacks on Ryan” (Aug. 14) for more on misleading claims about his past proposals.
Issues: medicare
Outdated Attacks on Ryan
The Obama campaign points to old proposals by Rep. Paul Ryan in saying that Mitt Romney would pay “less than 1 percent in taxes” under Ryan’s plan and that seniors would pay $6,000 more for Medicare. Ryan’s 2010 budget proposal would have eliminated capital gains and dividend taxes — which were indeed the bulk of Romney’s tax burden for 2010 — but Ryan dropped that specific measure from subsequent budgets. The Medicare claim, too, pertains to a less generous plan Ryan released last year,
No End to ‘End Medicare’ Claim
Democrats are still hammering an old, and since replaced, GOP proposal, claiming it would “end Medicare,” and cost seniors $6,000 more a year for their health care. The newest Republican budget, proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, keeps traditional Medicare — unlike his plan from 2011 — and the increased cost claim is no longer applicable to it.
The latest string of “end Medicare” claims comes from the liberal Patriot Majority, a 501(c)(4), a nonprofit advocacy group,
Viral Claims, Part II
A long-running chain email claims that Medicare premiums are going to shoot up to $247 per month in 2014 because of the health care law. That’s not true no matter how many times this email is forwarded.
See our April 30 Ask FactCheck — “Realtors, the 3.8% ‘Sales Tax’ and $247 Medicare Premiums” — for more.
Obama Misrepresents Ryan’s Plan
The president got a key point wrong when he attacked Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan for Medicare.
Read more about Obama’s claims in “Fall Preview: Obama vs. Romney (and Ryan),” April 6.
‘The Life of Julia,’ Corrected
The Obama campaign depends on some false or dubious assumptions in its “Life of Julia” slide show. The infographic depicts a fictional woman whose life from age 3 to 67 is better under the president’s policies than under those of Republican Mitt Romney. But in reality …
Truth-Twisting Tweets
In tweets to her followers, Nevada Rep. Shelley Berkley claims her Republican opponent for U.S. Senate voted to “kill Medicare” and to “effectively ban contraception.” Both statements are untrue.
Sen. Dean Heller supported failed Republican legislation that would have substantially changed Medicare — in 2022 — to a program that subsidizes private insurance plans for seniors. But the entitlement would not have ended. Heller also voted for the so-called “Blunt amendment,” which would have allowed an employer to deny coverage of specific items or services contrary to the employer’s religious beliefs or moral convictions.
Democrats’ ‘End Medicare’ Whopper, Again
Can the “Lie of the Year” still be used to defeat Republicans? Democrats hope so, and a super PAC is using an Iowa congressional race to retest the claim that House Republicans voted to “end Medicare.” But we find the Iowa ads to be little improved from last year, when …
The Gingrich Counterattack in Florida
Now comes the counterattack.
After weeks of taking it on the chin in Florida without throwing a punch, the Gingrich side has finally begun to fight back with TV attack ads of its own.
Among the new ads is one from a pro-Gingrich super PAC that takes the personal attacks to a new level, suggesting Romney was associated personally with “illegal activity” in a massive Medicare fraud in the 1990s. The fact is Romney was never accused of wrongdoing in that case.
Disgrace, Influence Peddling and Other Debate Charges
Newt Gingrich complained that in one early burst at the first Florida debate, Mitt Romney said “at least four things that are false” about him. Now Gingrich has specified which claims he was talking about, and we’ve checked the evidence he promised he would — and did — post on his website.
We conclude that two were not false; one was (mostly); and one is a matter of interpretation. In all cases, the claims are in need of further explanation and context.