In its comparison of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (PPACA's) effect on Medicare versus the Wyden/Ryan/Romney plan for Medicare reform, the New York Times tells two major lies in the first paragraph (in addition to purposely confusing the definitions of fee for service and premium support as described here). The Times says:
"... the government would contribute a fixed amount for beneficiaries based on income, age and health status to purchase traditional Medicare or private plans through new exchanges. Would repeal the 2010 health care law, including the Medicare cost control board and expanded drug coverage subsidies.."
The Democrats, for whom the New York Times are carrying water, want you to think the amount of premium support in the Wyden/Ryan/Romeny Medicare reform plan is fixed FOREVER.
But the premium support under Wyden/Ryan/Romney is no more fixed than the government's Medicare premium support is fixed today. And it is no more fixed than your employer's contribution to your health care insurance is fixed today. In fact, under the Wyden/Ryan/Romney plan for Medicare reform, the premium support changes every year for every county in the United States.
Also the Wyden/Ryan/Romney plan for Medicare reform would not specifically repeal PPACA but that is part of both Romney's propsals and Ryan's budget. But neither has anything to do with the Donut Hole or the 2010 healthcare reform law for non seniors. The New York Times itself exposed the story that the donut hole discounts from drug companies were part of a 2009 secret deal between Obama and the drug companies. (And of course--as documented on this blog often--the donut hole affects relatively few U.S. seniors. And none of the money comes from the government.)
-- Dennis Byron