Sue Lowden: Campaigning On Lies

March 29, 2010 2:07 pm ET

On March 29, 2010, Sue Lowden's campaign used the same old GOP lies about health care reform to try and raise money.  The fundraising e-mail, sent through Human Events, is a blatant display of how disrespectful the Lowden campaign is of Nevadan citizens.

Team Lowden Lies To Nevadans About Abortion Funding

Lowden Campaign: "The Obama/Reid government run health care law uses our tax dollars to pay for abortions... Harry Reid's taxpayer funding of abortion...going to use our tax dollars for abortions... If elected to the U.S. Senate, I will help lead the fight against using our tax dollars to pay for abortions." [Lowden e-mail via Human Events, 3/29/10, emphasis original]

PolitiFact: There Is No "Public Funding For Abortion In This Legislation."  In an analysis of Rep. Stupak's statement on supposed funding of abortion in the Senate health care reform bill, PolitiFact.com concluded:

At the climax of the health care debate from the floor, House Republican Leader John Boehner said that even with the executive order from the president, the Senate bill would provide "taxpayer funding of abortions for the first time in 30 years."

We don't agree. It's understandable that abortion foes opposed a proposal that gives more people the opportunity to obtain insurance that cover abortions. But it's another thing to say those abortion services would be paid with federal dollars. The Senate bill states very clearly that public funding through tax credits and government subsidies for elective abortion services offered in the exchange is prohibited. But more than that, the bill sets up a mechanism to ensure that abortion services offered in the exchange are paid entirely from patient premiums, premiums paid by people who have chosen a private plan that covers abortion. The executive order puts the weight of the president's word behind providing a way to ensure two checks go to insurers every month, so that abortion dollars and federal dollars are not co-mingled.

We think that's enough to back up Stupak's claim that, "There will be no public funding for abortion in this legislation." But that's a conclusion we reached before the president promised an executive order, back when Stupak disagreed with us and insisted the bill would have had federal dollars subsidizing abortions. We don't understand how the executive order changes Stupak's logic on this issue, but no matter how he arrived as his conclusion, we think he's right now. And we rule his claim True. [PolitiFact.com, 3/21/10; emphasis added]

Lowden Falsely Claimed Health Care Reform Was A "Government Take Over"

Lowden Campaign: "If elected to office, a top priority will be to repeal Harry Reid's taxpayer funding of abortion and his government take over of health care... Reid and Obama's big government health care bureaucracy." [Lowden e-mail via Human Events, 3/29/10]

PolitiFact: Republicans Are "Wrong That Obama's Plan Offers Government-Run Health Care." Analyzing Sen. Tom Coburn's claim that President Obama's health care reform plan amounted to a government takeover of health care, PolitiFact.com wrote:

[H]e's wrong that Obama's plan offers government-run health care.

In fact, Obama's plan leaves in place the private health care system, but seeks to expand it to the uninsured. It increases eligibility for the poor and children to enroll in initiatives like Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and creates pools for individuals to buy their own cheaper insurance. It also outlines strategies to rein in costs for everyone, such as electronic medical records and preventive care.

[...]

That may be Sen. Coburn's opinion on what could happen, but it's definitely not part of Obama's plan. And Coburn was very specific in saying that "under the Obama plan, all the health care in this country is eventually going to be run by the government." That gives the incorrect impression that Obama is promoting a government-run health care system. He's not. We rate Coburn's statement False. [PolitiFact.com, 3/4/10]

Lowden Is Sticking To False Claim Regarding Health Care Reform's Effect Upon Small Businesses

Lowden Campaign: "Harry Reid's health care bill is already making it more difficult for employers to create new jobs." [Lowden e-mail via Human Events, 3/29/10]

Small Businesses Will Receive Tax Subsidy Under Democratic Health Care Reform.  The Christian Science Monitor reported that under President Obama's health care plan, "small businesses would get tax subsidies for offering insurance to their workers, low- and some moderate-wage workers will get their own subsidies to purchase coverage (and some may even be newly covered by Medicaid). Small firms would get access to exchanges that should make it less costly for them to insure their workers. And, perhaps most important, the bill would take some small steps to control future health costs." [Christian Science Monitor, 3/6/10; parentheses original]

  • Health Care Reform Will Create Up To 4 Million American Jobs In The Next Decade. According to the Center for American Progress, "Relative to baseline employment forecasts from the Employment Projections Program at the U.S. Department of Labor, we estimate that moderate medical savings from health care modernization as envisioned under the legislation now before Congress would lead to an average of 250,000 additional jobs created annually. Under the larger assumption about savings due to health care reform, 400,000 new jobs a year would be created on average." [Center for American Progress, New Jobs Through Better Health Care, January 2010]

Lowden Team Misrepresents The CBO

Lowden Campaign: "...will cause health care premiums to rise by as much as 13% according to the Congressional Budget Office..." [Lowden e-mail via Human Events, 3/29/10]

CBO: House Bill Will Result In Lower Costs For American Families.  The Congressional Budget Office estimated that in 2016, premiums will be $5,300 for an individual and $15,000 for a family of four in the Exchange.  Without reform, the average family premium is expected to grow to $24,000. [CBO, 11/2/09; House Education and Labor Committee, 11/2/09]

PolitiFact: "For Most People, Premiums Would Stay About The Same, Or Slightly Decrease."  According to PolitiFact.com: "The CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease. This was especially true for people who get their insurance through work. (Health policy wonks call these the large group and small group markets.) People who have to go out and buy insurance on their own (the individual market) would see rates increase by 10 to 13 percent. But more than half of those people -- 57 percent, in fact -- would be eligible for subsidies to help them pay for the insurance. People who get subsidies would see their premiums drop by more than half, according to the CBO. So most people would see their premiums stay the same or potentially drop." [PolitiFact.com, 1/27/10; emphasis added]

Print