On March 29, 2012, for the second time in less than two years, Congressman Joe Heck voted for a radical budget that puts the Washington special interests ahead of Nevada seniors and families. Just today, there is a report detailing how much people in Nevada would lose in federal Medicaid money, health insurance subsidies, Medicare drug assistance, and Medicare benefits under the budget blueprint Joe Heck supports.
"In these challenging and uncertain economic times, Washington politicians like Joe Heck prove again and again they have the wrong priorities," said John Oceguera. "Joe Heck shouldn't give Big Oil companies and companies that ship American jobs overseas special tax breaks, while seniors on Medicare get more bills."
Under the Heck-supported budget plan, the Nevadans would lose more than $17.2 billion in federal funding for Medicaid, Medicare, and Premium Tax Credits between 2013 and 2022, including nearly $7 billion for taxpayers in tax credit dollars. By opening the Medicare Part D gap, this budget would force Nevada's seniors to pay more. In fact, if the budget had been law in 2011, Medicare beneficiaries would have lost $12,946,000 in Medicare Prescription Drug Savings. That would have meant another $550 each Nevada senior on Medicare would have had to pay out of pocket for prescription drugs.
"This budget is reckless with Nevada's future, and shows once again Washington politicians like Joe Heck don't have the right priorities," said Oceguera
http://familiesusa2.org/assets/pdfs/budget-battle/Republican-Budget-and-Medicare.pdf Explains that House Republicans would harm both current and future Medicare beneficiaries by replacing the program with a voucher system and making substantial benefit cuts. The report also provides state-level data on the prescription drug savings that enrollees would lose under this proposal.
http://familiesusa2.org/assets/pdfs/budget-battle/Republican-Budget-Slashes-Health-Programs.pdf Explains how the Republican proposal would affect the states. It provides state-level data on the federal funding each state would lose, the additional burden on taxpayers, and the rise in the number of uninsured residents.