Seed Newsvine
Franken v. Coleman re Medicare Part D
Posted by draabe on 10 September, 2008
In yet another misleading television ad created by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, senate candidate Al Franken (D-MN) is being portrayed as an “angry partisan” who would deny prescription drug coverage to seniors if he could. The ad implies that incumbent Norm Coleman (R) cares more about prescription drug coverage for seniors than Franken does. But where do the candidates really stand on the issue of Medicare Part D?
Franken has said he would have voted against the measure which allowed for Medicare Part D, apparently because he is in favor of prescription drug coverage and affordable health care for seniors. The Pioneer Press article used in the NRSC’s ad reads:
“Unlike Coleman, Franken said he would have voted against the measure that created Medicare Part D, which provided seniors prescription drug coverage, and the 2005 bankruptcy reform bill. Both, Franken said, were written by industry lobbyists…”
What the NRSC fails to mention is that under Medicare Part D, once total drug spending hits $2,250, coverage ends and seniors must pay for their medicine themselves. Their benefits resume only after they have spent $5,100 on prescription drugs.
beryl singleton bissell said
I am so sick of seeing the way political party ads take words out of context and misuse them against the opposing party.
I value articles like these which keep us abreast of such abuses here locally and like those posted by Factcheck.org for national abuses of truth.
Franken V. Coleman: Just the Facts « The Raabe Review said
[...] Coleman favors a free-market approach to healthcare which utilizes Health Savings Accounts and Medicare Part D. Franken supports universal healthcare coverage and opposes Medicare Part D because it [...]