Reports Tie GOP Medicare Plan To Upset Democratic Victory In NY-26

Wash. Post: Hochul Won “After Tying” Her Opponent To Ryan's Medicare Changes. On May 24, Democrat Kathy Hochul defeated Republican Jane Corwin in a special election for the conservative-leaning 26^th district in New York. As the Washington Post's The Fix blog reported, Hochul won “after tying Corwin to the controversial GOP budget plan that included a provision to turn Medicare into a voucher program.” From The Washington Post:

Republicans lost a House seat in a Western New York special election on Tuesday, dealing what could be a significant blow to the party's efforts to reform Medicare.

Erie County Clerk Kathy Hochul (D) upset Republican state Assemblywoman Jane Corwin (R) in the special election in the conservative-leaning 26th district after tying Corwin to the controversial GOP budget plan that included a provision to turn Medicare into a voucher program.

[...]

In New York, the Democrats ran ads early and often on the issue, seeking to overcome a significant registration disadvantage in the Buffalo-area district, which Democrats haven't held since the 1960s.

In the end, it appeared to have worked, with Hochul winning 48 percent of the vote and Corwin winning 42 percent of the vote with 75 percent of precincts reporting. The Associated Press called the race in Hochul's favor just more than an hour after polls closed. [The Washington Post, 5/25/11 emphasis in original]

NYT: Special Elections “Can Be Shaped By Local Dynamics And Personalities” Though Hochul's Tide Turned After GOP's “Embrace” Of Ryan's Plan. From The New York Times:

Two months ago, the Democrat, Kathy Hochul, was considered an all-but-certain loser in the race against the Republican, Jane Corwin. But Ms. Hochul seized on the Republican's embrace of the proposal from Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, to overhaul Medicare, and she never let up.

On Tuesday, she captured 47 percent of the vote to Ms. Corwin's 43 percent, according to unofficial results. A Tea Party candidate, Jack Davis, had 9 percent.

Voters, who turned out in strikingly large numbers for a special election, said they trusted Ms. Hochul, the county clerk of Erie County, to protect Medicare.

[...]

The district, which stretches from Buffalo to Rochester, has been in Republican hands for four decades, producing influential figures like Representative Jack Kemp and siding with Carl P. Paladino, a Republican, over Andrew M. Cuomo in the governor's race last year.

The campaign drew intense interest, with both major parties in Washington and their allies flooding the district with radio and television advertising. Total spending exceeded $6 million.

Of course, there are limits to how much broader meaning can be extrapolated from a special election, which can be shaped by local dynamics and personalities.

Still, on Tuesday, Republicans were examining the results and debating how the party lost the seat, despite outspending the Democrats. [The New York Times, 5/24/11]

Right-Wing Media Revive Rationing Falsehood, In Part In Response To NY-26 Loss

WSJ Advises GOP To React To NY-26 Loss By “Attacking The Democratic Plan To Cut Medicare Via Political Rationing.” In a May 26 editorial, The Wall Street Journal claimed the GOP “lost [NY-26] because Democrats ran a Mediscare campaign, and the GOP candidate lacked an adequate response.” The Journal recommended the GOP respond by “attacking the Democratic plan to cut Medicare via political rationing.” From The Wall Street Journal:

All but four House Republicans have already voted for [Ryan's] plan, and they will see Mediscare ads from here to November 2012 no matter what they say. They need a better explanation for the Ryan plan, but more than that they need a strategy to go on offense.

One place to start is by attacking the Democratic plan to cut Medicare via political rationing. Mr. Ryan's budget had the virtue of embarrassing President Obama's spend-more initial budget, and the White House responded by proposing to increase the power of the new Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to decide what, and how much, Medicare will pay for. The ObamaCare bill goes to great lengths to shelter this 15-member, unelected board from Congressional review, with the goal of letting these bureaucrats throw granny over the cliff if Medicare isn't reformed. Yet few Americans know anything about IPAB or its rationing intentions. [The Wall Street Journal, 5/26/11]

Tantaros: Democrats “Put In Place A Rationing Panel.” On the May 26 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Juan Williams and Fox News contributor Andrea Tantaros discussed former President Clinton's recent remarks on Medicare, in which Clinton reportedly claimed, in part, that "[y]ou shouldn't draw the conclusion that the New York race means that nobody can do anything [to] solve the rising Medicare costs." Clinton went on to reportedly say, “I'm afraid that the Democrats will draw the conclusion that because Congressman Ryan's proposal, I think, is not the best one, that we shouldn't do anything and I completely disagree with that.”

Discussing Clinton's criticism of Ryan's proposal, Tantaros said, “Guess what else Democrats did? They put in place a rationing panel. Juan -- 15 unelected bureaucrats that can't be sued. This is Obama's rationing board, and they get to make decisions on end-of-life care. It's just like the National Institute for Clinical Excellence -- which isn't so nice, that's an oxymoron -- in England which limits drugs and keeps costs down.” Williams later noted the role he believed Medicare played in the NY-26 race:

STEVE DOOCY (co-host): But the Democrats so far, they realize, it's to our political advantage --

WILLIAMS: Correct.

DOOCY: -- So let's just, let's go ahead and put this on the Republicans. They're trying to get rid of -- you know, they're trying to throw grandma under the bus -

WILLIAMS: Well, I think they're --

DOOCY: -- to their advantage:

WILLIAMS: Look, I think -- clearly what happened in that New York congressional race proved that it is to the Democrats' advantage. The Democrats can make hay on this --

DOOCY: Well, plus it was that third party.

TANTAROS: They would just ignore the problems.

WILLIAMS: -- but I think Medicare was clearly the issue, Steve. I don't think there's any doubt about it. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/26/11; ABCNews.com, 5/25/11]

In Fact, Experts Reject The Idea That IPAB Is A “Rationing” Board

Politico: “One Hundred Health Economists” Sent A Letter To Congress Defending The IPAB. A May 25 Politico article reported:

The much-maligned Independent Payment Advisory Board finally has some champions.

One hundred health policy experts and economists sent a letter, obtained by POLITICO, to congressional leaders early this week urging legislators to back off their many attempts to repeal the health reform provision.

“We believe that an independent board is essential to promote, monitor and implement reforms that improve Medicare and the nation's health care system,” they wrote.

The signers include notable centrist health economists, including Alice Rivlin of the Brookings Institution, along with many liberal health policy scholars.

“There are a lot of unreasonable fears about the IPAB. It's been associated with death panels and stuff like that,” Rivlin told POLITICO in an interview. “I view it as a much more benign device to improve the efficiency of delivery systems in a lot of different ways. I don't think it's going to be some technocratic horror.”

The economists and health care experts who signed the letter argued that the board will encourage providers to deliver health care more efficiently.

The article further noted, “The law says the board can't 'ration health care,' raise taxes or premiums, change benefits or make eligibility more strict.” [Politico, 5/25/11]

IPAB Is Specifically Prohibited From Making “Any Recommendations To Ration Care”

Law Specifically Prohibits Advisory Board From Making “Any Recommendations To Ration Health Care ... Or Otherwise Restrict Benefits.” As Media Matters has noted, the health care law specifically prohibits the IPAB from making “any recommendations to ration health care ... or otherwise restrict benefits.” [Media Matters, 10/12/10; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, accessed, 4/21/11]

White House: “IPAB Is Specifically Prohibited By Law From Recommending Any Policies That Ration Care.” In an April 20 blog post on the White House website, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy-Ann DeParle wrote that the "IPAB is specifically prohibited by law from recommending any policies that ration care, raise taxes, increase premiums or cost-sharing, restrict benefits or modify who is eligible for Medicare." [WhiteHouse.gov, 4/20/11]

Kaiser Family Foundation: Board Cannot “Ration Care, Increase Taxes, Change Medicare Benefits Or Eligibility, Increase Beneficiary Premiums And Cost-Sharing Requirement, Or Reduce Low Income Subsidies Under Part D.” From a May 2010 publication from the Kaiser Family Foundation, “Explaining Health Reform: Medicare and the New Independent Payment Advisory Board”:

The Board is prohibited from submitting proposals that would ration care, increase taxes, change Medicare benefits or eligibility, increase beneficiary premiums and cost-sharing requirements, or reduce low-income subsidies under Part D. Prior to 2019, the Board is also prohibited from recommending changes in payments to providers and suppliers that are scheduled to receive a reduction in their payment updates in excess of a reduction due to productivity adjustments, as specified in the health reform law. The law establishes specific rules and deadlines for Congressional consideration of the Board's recommendations, and specific timelines and procedures for Congressional action on alternative proposals to achieve equivalent savings.[Kaiser Family Foundation, Explaining Health Reform: Medicare and the New Independent Payment Advisory Board, 5/10/10]