Smith Will Be Silent On His Real Senior Health Care Record
What will U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) hide from his audience today?
That he’s voted against their best interests.
As Smith touts his health care record at a health conference for seniors in Eugene today, don’t expect him to expound on his votes against low-income drug subsidies for seniors, against “fallback” plans to make drug coverage more available and against Medicare price negotiation.
“For Gordon Smith to boast about his record on senior health care is like President Bush bragging about his record on Katrina,” DPO Chair Meredith Wood Smith said. “Smith’s votes don’t match his quotes.”
Read the facts on the jump.
The facts Smith won’t mention today:
Smith Voted to Kill an Amendment that Would Require “Fallback” Drug Coverage for Two Years In Areas Not Served by Two Private Plans.
In 2003, Smith voted to kill an amendment that would require any federal “fallback” drug coverage plan used in an area not served by two private plans to allow those eligible to enter into two-year contracts.
[Vote 238, 6/24/03]
Smith Voted Against Requiring a Medicare Fallback Plan for Retirees That Lost Prescription Drug Coverage Because of New Medicare Benefit.
In 2003, Smith voted against an amendment to the prescription drug benefit bill. The amendment would require the Health and Human Services secretary to retain or designate one or more Medicare fallback plans for those retirees who had prescription drug coverage and lost it as a result of the enactment of the underlying bill.
[Vote 259, 6/26/03]
Smith Voted Against A Democratic Proposal That Would Have Provided Low-Income Drug Subsidies for More Seniors.
In 2003, Smith voted against an amendment that would provide low-income subsidies for prescription drugs for more seniors. The amendment would cover 50 percent of drug costs for beneficiaries with incomes between 160 and 250 percent above the poverty line after the beneficiary has reached the initial coverage cut-off.
[Vote 240, 6/24/03; AP, 6/24/03]
Smith Voted to Kill Amendment that Would have Required Part-D Enrollees to be Made Aware of Doughnut Hole.
In November 2005, Smith voted to kill an amendment to the Budget Reconciliation bill that would have required enrollees in the Medicare Part D to be made aware of possible coverage gaps. The amendment would have required enrollees to sign a statement before enrolling that stated they were aware of the potential gap in coverage created by the “doughnut hole” in between levels of coverage, causing many enrollees to shoulder the full burden of the prescription drug costs.
[Vote 297, 11/3/05]
Smith Voted To Kill An Amendment That Provided $60 Billion to Eliminate Gap in Coverage for Drug Costs Between $4,500 and $5,800 Annually.
In 2003, Smith voted to kill an amendment that aimed to eliminate a feature of the prescription drug bill that denied coverage for drug costs between $4,500 and $5,800 annually. The amendment would extend prescription drug cost sharing between Medicare and beneficiaries up to $5,800, when full catastrophic coverage would take over. “We should not have a plan that stops and starts,” Boxer said, advocating an extra $60 billion to close the gap.
[Vote 236, 6/24/03; AP, 6/24/03]
Smith Flip-Flopped on Medicare Price Negotiation, Opposing it Twice in 2005.
Before voting in April to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate with drug companies for prices under the Medicare prescription drug program, Smith had twice voted against allowing such negotiation.
[Vote 132, 4/18/07; Vote 60, 3/17/05; Vote 302, 11/3/05; AP, 4/13/07]
Posted August 8, 2007 Health Care, Smith vs. Smith 0 comments
Comments
Post a comment