I have a feeling that the following information is not being widely disseminated in Congressman Joe Heck’s district, Nevada Congressional District 3. Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Frank Pallone (D-NJ) have created an interactive map showing the impact of the Ryan Plan to eliminate Medicare in all but name on every Congressional District in the Country. What’s on the GOP agenda for Congressional District 3?
“This analysis shows the immediate and long-term impacts of these changes in the 3rd Congressional District in Nevada, which is represented by Rep. Joseph J. Heck.
The Republican proposal would have adverse impacts on seniors and disabled individuals in the district who are currently enrolled in Medicare. It would:
• Increase prescription drug costs for 9,500 Medicare beneficiaries in the district who enter the Part D do-nut hole, forcing them to pay an extra $94 million for drugs over the next decade.
• Eliminate new preventive care benefits for 120,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the district.
The Republican proposal would have even greater impacts on individuals in the district age 54 and younger who are not currently enrolled in Medicare. It would:
• Deny 780,000 individuals age 54 and younger in the district access to Medicare’s guaranteed benefits.
• Increase the out-of-pocket costs of health coverage by over $6,000 per year in 2022 and by almost $12,000 per year in 2032 for the 155,000 individuals in the district who are between the ages of 44 and 54.
• Require the 155,000 individuals in the district between the ages of 44 and 54 to save an additional $36.2 billion for their retirement – an average of $182,000 to $287,000 per individual – to pay for the increased cost of health coverage over their lifetimes. Younger residents of the district will have to save even higher amounts to cover their additional medical costs.
• Raise the Medicare eligibility age by at least one year to age 66 or more for 89,000 individuals in the district who are age 44 to 49 and by two years to age 67 for 624,000 individuals in the district who are age 43 or younger. ”
What would happen in Nevada Congressional District 2?
The Republican proposal would have adverse impacts on seniors and disabled individuals in the district who are currently enrolled in Medicare. It would:
• Increase prescription drug costs for 8,600 Medicare beneficiaries in the district who enter the Part D donut hole, forcing them to pay an extra $85 million for drugs over the next decade.
• Eliminate new preventive care benefits for 123,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the district.
The Republican proposal would have even greater impacts on individuals in the district age 54 and younger who are not currently enrolled in Medicare. It would:
• Deny 610,000 individuals age 54 and younger in the district access to Medicare’s guaranteed benefits.
• Increase the out-of-pocket costs of health coverage by over $6,000 per year in 2022 and by almost $12,000 per year in 2032 for the 130,000 individuals in the district who are between the ages of 44 and 54.
• Require the 130,000 individuals in the district between the ages of 44 and 54 to save an additional $30.4 billion for their retirement – an average of $182,000 to $287,000 per individual – to pay for the increased cost of health coverage over their lifetimes. Younger residents of the district will have to save even higher amounts to cover their additional medical costs.
• Raise the Medicare eligibility age by at least one year to age 66 or more for 69,000 individuals in the district who are age 44 to 49 and by two years to age 67 for 480,000 individuals in the district who are age 43 or younger.
Perhaps candidates for the now vacant 2nd Congressional District seat should be asked if they support the Ryan Plan, and voters would be well advised not to accept generalized, talking point responses which glibly try to gloss over the specific impact the Ryan Plan would have.
A pertinent question might be: Do you (the candidate) support a plan that would require 130,000 people in this district have to save an additional $182,000 to $287,000 per person to cover increased costs of health care insurance coverage? Or, do you support a plan that would increase out of cost expenses for senior citizens by an average of $6,000 per year?
Representative Shelley Berkley (D-NV1) has already made this information available to her constituents in Nevada Congressional District 1.
The Republican proposal would have adverse impacts on seniors and disabled individuals in the district who are currently enrolled in Medicare. It would:
• Increase prescription drug costs for 6,500 Medicare beneficiaries in the district who enter the Part D donut hole, forcing them to pay an extra $64 million for drugs over the next decade.
• Eliminate new preventive care benefits for 90,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the district.
The Republican proposal would have even greater impacts on individuals in the district age 54 and younger who are not currently enrolled in Medicare. It would:
• Deny 650,000 individuals age 54 and younger in the district access to Medicare’s guaranteed benefits.
• Increase the out-of-pocket costs of health coverage by over $6,000 per year in 2022 and by almost $12,000 per year in 2032 for the 114,000 individuals in the district who are between the ages of 44 and 54.
• Require the 114,000 individuals in the district between the ages of 44 and 54 to save an additional $26.6 billion for their retirement – an average of $182,000 to $287,000 per individual – to pay for the increased cost of health coverage over their lifetimes. Younger residents of the district will have to save even higher amounts to cover their additional medical costs.
• Raise the Medicare eligibility age by at least one year to age 66 or more for 66,000 individuals in the district who are age 44 to 49 and by two years to age 67 for 541,000 individuals in the district who are age 43 or younger.
[House Energy and Commerce pdf]
Why are we talking about this?
And, why are we discussing a plan to eliminate the guaranteed Medicare benefits for 650,000 Nevadans in Congressional District 1, approximately 610,000 in Congressional District 2, and yet another 780,000 in Congressional District 3?
We are discussing this because for the adherents of the Republican Party it is obviously more important to (1) protect tax havens for domestic corporations, (2) leave tax loopholes available for corporations, (3) continue taxpayer subsidies for major oil companies, (4) protect the estates of billionaire hedge fund managers, (5) keep effective tax rates on millionaires and billionaires at a lower level than their secretaries, (6) maintain artificially low rates of taxation on the profits from hedge funds; and (7) advocate for tax schemes that will continue to shift the overall tax burden from the Have-It-All’s to the shoulders of the American middle class.
These things are more important to the Republican Party than protecting the interests of and the programs for middle class Americans.
How, in Heaven’s Name, does a Republican in the 2nd Congressional District argue that it is more important to protect the income of ExxonMobil’s CEO who earned $29 million in 2010 than it is to protect the guaranteed Medicare benefits for constituents in the district with a median income of $43,879 annually?
How does Representative Heck argue that it is more important to secure tax havens, loopholes, and subsidies for Chevron-Texaco which is projected to earn profits of approximately $19.8 Billion this year, than it is to protect the Medicare benefits of the 780,000 constituents in his district who are reported to have median annual earnings of $50,789?
How does it make any sense at all for anyone in the 1st Congressional District to contend that it is more important to further reduce corporate taxation, eliminate capital gains taxes, and protect the income of the JPMorganChase CEO who received a compensation package worth $20.8 million in 2010, than it is to protect the Medicare program for constituents with median annual earnings of $39,480?
How does any Republican offer that his or her philosophy “helps” small businesses when most small independent businesses provide incomes for their proprietors much closer to the median income earnings in the area than they are to the ethereal reaches of CEO pay for Wal-Mart, for IBM, for JPMorganChase, for ExxonMobil, and for the Bank of America? The CEO’s of these corporations don’t need Medicare — the “ceo” of the hypothetical “Walt’s Auto Body” may very well be counting on it.
Once more, the fundamental question becomes — Who is protecting Wall Street and who is serving Main Street? The Ryan Plan to eliminate Medicare in all but name should answer that question succinctly in all three Nevada Congressional Districts.
Desert Beacon 