Newly-appointed DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz is having quite a week. First, she falsely claimed that if Republicans had their way, the whole country would be driving foreign cars -- then drove off in her Japanese-made Infiniti. Then she warned Americans that Republicans believe that illegal immigration "should in fact be a crime." Such nuance. Now, she's officially flunked virtually every political fact-check entity known to mankind because she just won't stop lying her ass off about the House-passed entitlement reform plan. If you don't want to take my word for it; just ask the Washington Post:
One can certainly raise serious questions about whether the Republican plan is adequately funded and, over time, would shift too much of the financial burden to beneficiaries. One could also question whether the elderly would be eager to navigate different choices for their health-care coverage, compared to the much simpler system that now exists. There are certainly details in the GOP plan, which has not been drafted as actual legislation, that need to be addressed. But Wasserman Schultz is jumping to conclusions — not to mention scaremongering metaphors — to describe provisions in the GOP Medicare plan that just do not exist. Three Pinnochios.
Or Politifact:
Wasserman Schultz is free to criticize the Ryan plan on any number of grounds, but in her comment, she went too far. Both the budget plan that passed the House and its predecessor, Ryan-Rivlin, specifically noted that coverage could not be prevented by a pre-existing condition. It may be easier to say you'll bar "cherry picking" patients than it is to put it into practice, but Ryan has made his intentions consistently clear. We rate her statement False.
Or Factcheck.org:
DNC Chair Throws Truth to 'Wolves:' Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz falsely claimed that seniors with preexisting medical conditions would be denied Medicare coverage under the GOP's plan. The House GOP plan specifically says insurance companies "must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries."
She also repeated a false Democratic talking point that future beneficiaries — those who are now younger than 55 — would be left on their own to buy insurance in the private market. The GOP plan, as we have written before, would provide subsidies for future beneficiaries to buy private insurance from a Medicare exchange set up by the government.
It may be impossible to cure Wasserman Schultz of her congential dishonesty, but still it would be fun to see how she might attempt to tackle this question: "You obviously oppose the Ryan plan so strongly that you're willing to make inaccurate statements about it in the press. Since you view the Republican proposal as unacceptable, where is your party's concrete, on-paper alternative to address a problem that President Obama has called unsustainable?" Wasserman Schultz may really struggle with that one.
