FactChecking Trump’s Medicare Op-Ed

[FreeinChrist]

FactChecking Trump's Medicare Op-Ed - FactCheck.org

In an op-ed for USA Today, President Donald Trump made a series of false and misleading statements about Medicare and health insurance in general:

• The president claimed that the Medicare for All Act, one of several Democratic-sponsored health insurance bills, would “cost an astonishing $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years.” That’s an estimate of the cost to the federal government, but that ignores the offsetting savings in health care costs for individuals, employers and state governments.
• Trump wrote that the Medicare for All Act would “take away benefits” from seniors. The plan calls for adding new benefits to Medicare coverage, including dental, vision and hearing aids, and eliminating deductibles.
• The president overstates the consensus when he says “we have seen Democrats across the country uniting around” the Medicare for All Act. There are competing bills that would expand insurance coverage by increasing access to Medicare or Medicaid.
• Trump claimed he kept his campaign promise to “protect coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions.” But the administration supports a lawsuit that it says would lead to the elimination of the Affordable Care Act’s preexisting condition protections.
• The president also said he has kept his promise to “create new health insurance options” to lower premiums, “and we are now seeing health insurance premiums coming down.” But not all premiums are “coming down.”

and this is in the article:

In his editorial, Trump also claimed: “As a candidate, I promised that we would protect coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions and create new health care insurance options that would lower premiums. I have kept that promise, and we are now seeing health insurance premiums coming down.”

But the administration supports a lawsuit that it says would lead to the elimination of the Affordable Care Act’s preexisting condition protections. And not all premiums are “coming down.”

In the op-ed, there’s a link on “pre-existing conditions” to a Washington Post Fact Checker story that actually says Trump flip-flopped on his “promise.” Indeed, we also found that the president has misleadingly claimed in recent weeks that “preexisting conditions are safe” with him as president and that he “will always fight for … patients with preexisting conditions.”

The fact is, the Department of Justice, “[a]fter careful consideration, and with the approval of the President of the United States” decided not to defend the U.S. government in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act, as a June 7 letter from Attorney General Jeff Sessions explains.

Sessions said that the administration sided with the plaintiffs, but didn’t agree that the entire ACA would have to be eliminated, as the suit argues. The administration said two ACA provisions would need to be eliminated: those guaranteeing that people can’t be denied coverage by insurers or charged more based on certain factors.

Those provisions protect those on the individual market with preexisting conditions from being denied a policy or charged higher premiums.
​

The ACA's pre-existing conditions rule is very popular in America - 75% like it.
Poll: The ACA’s Pre-Existing Condition Protections Remain Popular with the Public, including Republicans, As Legal Challenge Looms This Week

 

[iluvatar5150]

BUTOBAMASAIDYOUCOULDKEEPYOURDOCTOR!!!!

 

[Sword of the Lord]

BUTOBAMASAIDYOUCOULDKEEPYOURDOCTOR!!!!

So he's as much of a liar like all politicians are liars and your liar isn't any better or worse than our liar.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Let's stick with the OP for discussion.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Let's flip the script and discuss the truthful statements Donald made in his op-ed...

Well, that was quick...

 

[Hammster]

ADVISOR HAT ON


The OP asked to stick with the OP for discussion. Trolling comments are not on topic.


ADVISOR HAT OFF

 

[expos4ever]

So he's as much of a liar like all politicians are liars and your liar isn't any better or worse than our liar.

All politicians do lie, but Trump lies far more than most.

From Fortune (hardly a bastion of the left):

President Donald Trump has told nearly six times more lies in the first 10 months of his presidency than former President Barack Obama did in his entire 8-year term, according to data collected and published Thursday in the New York Times.

The “Trump’s Lies vs. Obama’s” piece, featured in the opinion section of the publication, was a sequel of sorts to a list the NYT published over the summer titled “Trump’s Lies.” After the initial article’s publication, supporters pushed back against the newspaper with one common response: “if you made a similar list for previous presidents, it would be just as bad.”

And so newspaper set out to compare Trump and his predecessor.

The NYT says it applied the same standard to both presidents and counted “only demonstrably and substantially false statements.” It didn’t count repeated mentions of the same falsehood.

The NYT mentioned it was not able to make an comparison to former President George W. Bush because various fact-checking groups were not operating continuously when he took office in 2001. The NYT‘s study relied heavily on the work of fact-checking groups including Politifact, The Washington Post’sFact Checker, Talking Points Memo, FactCheck.org, and Snopes.

 

[FreeinChrist]

This from the OP bothers me:

In the op-ed, there’s a link on “pre-existing conditions” to a Washington Post Fact Checker story that actually says Trump flip-flopped on his “promise.” Indeed, we also found that the president has misleadingly claimed in recent weeks that “preexisting conditions are safe” with him as president and that he “will always fight for … patients with preexisting conditions.”

The fact is, the Department of Justice, “[a]fter careful consideration, and with the approval of the President of the United States” decided not to defend the U.S. government in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act, as a June 7 letter from Attorney General Jeff Sessions explains.

​

Coverage for pre-existing conditions is really important. Most Americans, including lots of Republicans, want that coverage to exist and not punished with higher premiums.

 

[USincognito]

As someone with a pre-existing condition it that lie that I particularly disturbing. If I really put my mind to it I can be rid of hypertension. My ankylosing spondylitis isn't going away.

 

[LostMarbels]

The president claimed that the Medicare for All Act, one of several Democratic-sponsored health insurance bills, would “cost an astonishing $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years.” That’s an estimate of the cost to the federal government, but that ignores the offsetting savings in health care costs for individuals, employers and state governments.

Is it fair to state as fact that this act will cost $32,600,000,000,000 over 10 years?

That would create a $3,260,000,000,000 $3.2 trillion dollar demand to fund this Act per year for the next 10 years. Where does that money to pay the $3.2 Trillion come from?

Tax Payers....

so that would be $26,734.16 a year. Or based on a 52-week year, and an the average of 2,087 work hours a year per American worker, you would see $512 every 40 hour week coming from your paycheck.

Well that wont work.... that's more than I make in a week. So where does the money come from? Deficit spending. Leaving us with a national debt of $53,000,000,000,000 $53 TRILLION DOLLARS!

I honestly want an explanation how you even see this as feasible?

 

[Sword of the Lord]

As someone with a pre-existing condition it that lie that I particularly disturbing. If I really put my mind to it I can be rid of hypertension. My ankylosing spondylitis isn't going away.

Living with Autism Spectrum Disorder, anxiety and the OCD form of it, I want to be selfish. I fully admit that voting Dem and being Dem would benefit me more. But that's selfish. And I can't kill babies and open my country to invasion and tax the daylights out of it when we fought a war over taxes.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

The article admits in the title that it's an Op-Ed (opinion).

 

[Speedwell]

Is it fair to state as fact that this act will cost $32,600,000,000,000 over 10 years?

That would create a $3,260,000,000,000 $3.2 trillion dollar demand to fund this Act per year for the next 10 years. Where does that money to pay the $3.2 Trillion come from?

Tax Payers.... View attachment 243254 so that would be $26,734.16 a year. Or based on a 52-week year, and an the average of 2,087 work hours a year per American worker, you would see $512 every 40 hour week coming from your paycheck.

Well that wont work.... that's more than I make in a week. So where does the money come from? Deficit spending. Leaving us with a national debt of $53,000,000,000,000 $53 TRILLION DOLLARS!

I honestly want an explanation how you even see this as feasible?

because you and/or your employer would no longer have to pay for medical insurance.

 

[LostMarbels]

because you and/or your employer would no longer have to pay for medical insurance.

Who is paying? Where is the money coming from? Reason dictates someone is paying for $3.2 TRILLION. So how am I not paying a single dime. Explain that to me...

 

[Speedwell]

Who is paying? Where is the money coming from? Reason dictates someone is paying for $3.2 TRILLION. So how am I not paying a single dime. Explain that to me...

Of course you're paying for it. You're paying for it now and you'll be paying for it then. Of course, being a conservative I imagine you would rather pay more to an insurance company than less to the government.

 

[LostMarbels]

Of course you're paying for it. You're paying for it now and you'll be paying for it then. Of course, being a conservative I imagine you would rather pay more to an insurance company than less to the government.

No, right now I'm just talking logic. Not left or right.

Yes, I agree, we tax payers are going to foot the bill, and we cannot afford it if we were taxed at 100%. You are talking about floating battleship in a bathtub.

 

[Speedwell]

No, right now I'm just talking logic. Not left or right.

Yes, I agree, we tax payers are going to foot the bill, and we cannot afford it if we were taxed at 100%. You are talking about floating battleship in a bathtub. This act requires almost 10 times our national revenue just to break even.

We're paying 3.3 trillion dollars per year for health care now--and many of us don't have access to adequate health care. You're saying we can't afford to pay 3.2 trillion dollars for everybody to have access to adequate health care?

 

[LostMarbels]

We're paying 3.3 trillion dollars per year for health care now--and many of us don't have access to adequate health care. You're saying we can't afford to pay 3.2 trillion dollars for everybody to have access to adequate health care?

No, were talking about $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years in addition to current budgeting. This cost is not yet included in our budget.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Is it fair to state as fact that this act will cost $32,600,000,000,000 over 10 years?

That would create a $3,260,000,000,000 $3.2 trillion dollar demand to fund this Act per year for the next 10 years. Where does that money to pay the $3.2 Trillion come from?

Tax Payers.... View attachment 243254 so that would be $26,734.16 a year. Or based on a 52-week year, and an the average of 2,087 work hours a year per American worker, you would see $512 every 40 hour week coming from your paycheck.

Well that wont work.... that's more than I make in a week. So where does the money come from? Deficit spending. Leaving us with a national debt of $53,000,000,000,000 $53 TRILLION DOLLARS!

I honestly want an explanation how you even see this as feasible?

You can cool it with the screaming caps.

I don't think Sanders' medicare for all is the answer as he has it. There is the fact that streamlining the administration of healthcare would greatly reduce costs. Healthcare costs are increasing and his plan might cut costs in other ways. Insurance company administration drive up costs. Meds would be less expensive. It is a plan but not the answer imho.

That said, there is also a report that costs would fall:
Did a study show big savings for Sanders' Medicare for All?

In this article, we’ll look at something much more narrow: whether Sanders is right that the Mercatus report says that single-payer would save the United States $2 trillion in health care outlays.

In a way, Sanders is right, though his assertion glosses over some caveats.

Where the $2 trillion estimate comes from
The Mercatus report included a table summarizing the financial effects of Sanders’ bill. With a minimum of arithmetic, it’s not hard to find the $2 trillion in question.

It’s the difference between the Department of Health and Human Services’ projection of the amount of total health care spending in the United States, and what Mercatus thinks that number would be under Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal. (See Table 2.)

Under Mercatus’ projection for Medicare for All, the total amount of health expenditures would actually fall compared to what is expected under a continuation of the current system.

Specifically, total health care expenditures would fall by $2.054 trillion over 10 years, according to Mercatus.

So there’s definitely something to what Sanders said.​

However, there are problems. Medicare for all as Bernie wants is an idea but it needs to be looked at closer. Trump was inaccurate when he said all Dems are united behind Bernie's plan. They are not.

I was more concerned about the way Trump flip-flopped on pre-existing conditions while he claims to support not denying coverage for those with them. In an actual lawsuit going on right now, there is this about it in the article in the OP:

Sessions said that the administration sided with the plaintiffs, but didn’t agree that the entire ACA would have to be eliminated, as the suit argues. The administration said two ACA provisions would need to be eliminated: those guaranteeing that people can’t be denied coverage by insurers or charged more based on certain factors.​

Not denying coverage for people with pre-existing conditions is mighty important to most Americans.

 

[USincognito]

Living with Autism Spectrum Disorder, anxiety and the OCD form of it, I want to be selfish.

Nice dishonest way to frame it. My condition has fused my spine and twisted my cervical vertebrae so that my head sits on my shoulders at a weird angle. It requires a very expensive biologic to treat that would be unaffordable without insurance. It's not selfish. It's trying to remain a productive citizen. Don't give me this selfish garbage.

I fully admit that voting Dem and being Dem would benefit me more. But that's selfish. And I can't kill babies and open my country to invasion and tax the daylights out of it when we fought a war over taxes.

Sorry, I don't take histrionic hyperbole like this seriously.