Progress Illinois

On multiple occasions this month, Fox Chicago has parroted conservative talking points about the health care bills circulating in Washington and their purported effect on Medicare. So it probably should come as no surprise that the station's anchors would fail to rebut such claims when put forward by their guests.

Still, it's irritating to watch this exchange between GOP Rep. Peter Roskam and Fox Chicago Sunday host Jack Conaty yesterday. In the first minute of his appearance, Roskam asserts that the House health care bill "goes after seniors" because it cuts "Medicare by $500 billion." Watch it:

Democrats have proposed reforms that will slow or eliminate some Medicare spending overtime. These include a number of measures, such as changes to the flawed physician payment system and the elimination of unnecessary subsides to the wasteful Medicare Advantage program. By ironing out inefficiencies, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this policy change could achieve $500 billion in gross savings over ten years. That money would be plowed back into the system to expand care to those who lack coverage. But benefits for most seniors will not be cut be cut as a result. And for those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, the program that allows private providers to compete for Medicare patients, all they would lose would be extraneous add-ons like vision care or gym club memberships, not standard coverage. Conaty should have these facts at his fingertips.

More to the point, most senior advocates agree that if health care reform passes in its current form, Medicare will actually be strengthened. The so-called donut hole in Medicare drug coverage will be eliminated. Deductibles and co-insurance for preventive care will be waived. Access for low-income Medicare beneficiaries will increase. Of course, Roskam omits all of these developments.

Not suprisingly, Roskam's false claims during the interview extended well beyond the issue of Medicare. He asserts that small businesses will be hit with an 8 percent payroll tax if they don't offer insurance to their employees (those with payrolls under $500,000 -- 86 percent of businesses -- would be fully exempt), he calls a public option a "middle class entitlement" (it's not), and he suggests that people who "enjoy" their private coverage will be forced into the public plan (they won't).

If no effort is going to be made to verify Roskam's claims, why even have the guy on?