Hey! This bullshhit worked in 2010, and the Democrats refused to defend against it. Are the Democrats going to be as spineless this time? Will they go on the air and call it what it is: a fu king lie? They better.

Democrats and the Obama campaign should have known this was coming and got out ahead of it. They didn't.

This is just the latest wholesale falsehood the Romney campaign is putting millions of dollars behind, and we should be rightly outraged by this behavior. But what is most worrisome about his consistent disregard of the truth is that Romney may become President and his campaign team would be key advisors. Does anyone think that their duplicity will stop come November 6? No, they will be in the habit of, and will think they have been rewarded for, a consistent pattern of lies. This means that Romney and his team will govern with a continuing reckless regard for the truth, for facts, for reality. The "facts" that will guide their governing will be as made up as they are for the campaign. For example, they make up a fact that, say, a third-world dictator is hiding weapons of mass destruction, and therefore a full-scale invasion of his country is justified. Sound familiar? So his campaign lies are not just unfair and outrageous; they are very, very scary.

Romney just partnered with the "kill Medicare" guy, so he has to lash out with a massive deception in the hopes that voters are fools.

He isn't relying on foolish voters. He's relying on foolish news coverage. As long as he can fool the media into reporting his attack as being equivalent to the inevitable Democratic attacks on Ryan's plan then it will be a wash.

We know Romney's attack is based on a lie, but we're political nerds.

Well, of course the Republicans are going to lie, but look how the terms of debate have shifted. Do they really want to be talking about Medicare? I'd say the ascension of Paul Ryan has forced them to play defense here, which they are of course playing with all the ferocity of a cornered herd of rabid weasels. But they're still on the defensive.

Romney just partnered with the "kill Medicare" guy, so he has to lash out with a massive deception in the hopes that voters are fools. But the ridiculous attack ad not only treats seniors like idiots, it also keeps the Medicare issue right where Democrats want it: up front and center.

I believe Romney.voters are idiots.till further notice i still think the Dems won't respond to this, the way they ought to.Romney has studied the Media for 6years now and he understands the limitation of our gullible MSM.

He feel comfortable in his strategy--use the media to get to your targeted groups.

Chutzpah is one of the GOP middle names.

For a local example, here in the capital city of The Mississippi of the Midwest Indiana, our republican mayor just released his 'budget' for the next year. It calls for reduced spending by eliminating pay increases previously negotiated with police and fire department unions and by reductions of city services. The 'Chutzpah' factor is that this takes place less than 2 weeks after information was released that the mayor's staff was given pay raises averaging 18% this year (because the city needs to retain the best talent).

the lyingest liar who ever lied in the history of liars, Well said

And yet He approved of the ad

Damn you Colbert . Truthyness has evolved into truthlessness

That ad by Romney is just more of the same lie the republicans have been pedaling all weekend.

Obama released an ad today responding to the welfare claims. Major strike back and a great ad -->> http://youtu.be/aWFAHbEUKtA , hopefully the Obama team gets another one going with this medicare claim.

May this nightmare ever end! Can TRMS find a way to educate every single person and his or her pet about this 7hundred whatever Billion dollars and from where Obama is "stealing" it, exactly why he is doing that, and that this is not an idea reserved for Obama, but has been endorsed/recommended by Paul Ryan's budget plan. I absolutely, positively can't take any more of this. Write a song, give away t-shirts, put it on SNL, or all of the above. Let's collectively move on from this.

lying sack of mitt

I hope one day you have to watch the person you love actually dies of AML Leukemia, then spend over 2.21Million dollars on their health care in less than 6 months...and then be asked to clean up the financials afterwards...Your callous betrayal of a friendship is making me not like you at all...I am saying the amount the Social Security Administration kept/stole from his life time account belonged

to the Estate..A community property agreement says clearly all accounts all amounts...apparently you do not understand legal documents...The lifetime benefit money earned should have been applied towards the tax burden it created thus leaving the Social Security administration at least at $39,000 from his earned benefits! Having to adjust your yearly income tax by $62,000.00 is not normal in any ones world..let alone watching alot of Callous @!$%#tards sitting by that are not able to understand it! The balance of the situation is the money that is withheld from the persons' lifetime earnings is the actual money that belongs to the estate of the deceased and should be made available to those who are compromised by the sudden death of the wage earner. DOMA restricts this type of fiscal responsibility to the dependents of a deceased partner or loved one that is regarded as the head of household upon their death. They simply take back the money without any fiscal regard of the harm it causes to the household after a person dies...The lifetime earned money belongs to the estate of the deceased..not the Social Security Administration.

If we trap the methane coming off that ad we could power all the electric plants in the US for months.

the truth doesn't do well against infinite lies and infinite money

The President and his campaign staff have already shown they are willing to strike and strike hard, unlike Democrats in the past. They will not sit back and take it as others have done. As Romney has already admitted, President Obama is out to "destroy" Romney and his boy wonder. Why do you think Mittens was begging to come off the attack ads over the weekend?

for the record BBC news last night when talking about this, didn't mention that it was a lie just said that it was wrong. hey at least that's a start. Don't you find it funny that a non US news program shows the mirror to Romney but US news sources don't. And they call it the liberal media. yeah right

As someone who is actually on Medicare, I can tell you it as arcane as the Aramaic in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

When you reach the age of eligibility the postman brings you a fat gummint envelope, filled with gummintspeak, and you a required to read, understand (HA!), and chose a plan. Which varies from state to state.

So, most of the Geezer Class really don't know what their coverage covers, how much it costs, who pays what part, and why do these dang pills cost so much?

So, when the TeeVee says "Obama wants to kill you", you crank up the hearing aid and say, "At last! Some simple language I can understand."

This is Swift Boating 2012. Good on you, Rachel, for spotlighting this lie and please keep shining that light on this outrageous upending of the truth. But it would be even more effective if you could, every time, briefly spell out -- as Ezra Klein has been doing on your show and others on MSNBC -- exactly what those $716B in cuts were for -- mostly to cap excessive insurance premiums and trim admin. costs of the system -- and how those savings were to be re-applied as tax cuts for the middle class. This is an argument that can be won on its merits -- but only if we keep plugging away at it with the truth!

"so he has to lash out with a massive deception in the hopes that voters are fools". The thing is, only a minority of voters have to be fools for this ad, and others of its ilk, to work. They are fools, and the ads do and will work. They're not aimed at informed, thoughtful voters, or anything like that. Voters who are anything like informed or thoughtful have made up their minds. This ad and the like are aimed at those who vacillate from election to election, following their blind, unprincipled frustration wherever it guides them: first to Obama in '08, then to the Tea Party in '10. They ARE fools. And they will be duped. And the adsters know it. The rest of us can only look on in anguish, as if at a slaughter of baby seals, as the manipulators mold the minds of the malleable.

Anti-Medicaid states: Earning $11,000 is too much

Loading... Share
No Thanks Must Read?Thank YouYes 115

Email
Story Print

By CARLA K. JOHNSON and KELLI KENNEDY, AP
5
hours ago

In a Thursday, July 26, 2012 photo, Sandra Pico, 52, holds
medications she t...

MIAMI — Sandra Pico is poor, but not
poor enough.

She makes about $15,000 a year, supporting her daughter and unemployed
husband. She thought she'd be able to get health insurance after the Supreme
Court upheld President Barack Obama's health care law.

Then she heard that her own governor won't agree to the federal plan to
extend Medicaid coverage to people like her in two years. So she expects to
remain uninsured, struggling to pay for her blood pressure medicine.

"You fall through the cracks and there's nothing you can do about it," said
the 52-year-old home health aide. "It makes me feel like garbage, like the
American dream, my dream in my homeland is not being accomplished."

Many working parents like Pico are below the federal poverty line but don't
qualify for Medicaid, a decades-old state-federal insurance program. That's
especially true in states where conservative governors say they'll reject the
Medicaid expansion under Obama's health law.

In South Carolina, a yearly income of $16,900 is too much for Medicaid for a
family of three. In Florida, $11,000 a year is too much. In Mississippi, $8,200
a year is too much. In Louisiana and Texas, earning more than just $5,000 a year
makes you ineligible for Medicaid.

Governors in those five states have said they'll reject the Medicaid
expansion underpinning Obama's health law after the Supreme Court's decision
gave states that option. Many of those hurt by the decision are working parents
who are poor — but not poor enough — to qualify for Medicaid.

Republican Mitt Romney's new running mate, conservative Wisconsin congressman
Paul Ryan, has a budget plan that would turn Medicaid over to the states and
sharply limit federal dollars. Romney hasn't specifically said where he stands
on Ryan's idea, but has expressed broad support for his vice presidential pick's
proposals.

Medicaid now covers an estimated 70 million Americans and would cover an
estimated 7 million more in 2014 under the Obama health law's expansion. In
contrast, Ryan's plan could mean 14 million to 27 million Americans would
ultimately lose coverage, even beyond the effect of a repeal of the health law,
according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation of Ryan's
2011 budget plan.

For now, most states don't cover childless adults, but all states cover some
low-income parents. The income cutoff, however, varies widely from state to
state.

Most states cover children in low-income families. Manuel and Sandra Pico's
15-year-old daughter is covered by Medicaid. But the suburban Miami couple can't
afford private insurance for themselves and they make too much for Florida's
Medicaid.

Manuel Pico, a carpenter, used to make more than $20,000 a year, but has
struggled to find work in the last three years after the real estate market
collapsed. He occasionally picks up day jobs or takes care of the neighbor's
yard. Sandra Pico would like to work full time, but can't afford to pay someone
to watch her 34-year-old sister, who has Down syndrome.

"No matter how hard I work, I'm not going to get anywhere," Sandra Pico said.
"If you're not rich, you just don't have it."

In San Juan, Texas, 22-year-old Matthew Solis makes about $8,700 a year — too
much to qualify for Medicaid in that state. Solis, a single father with joint
custody of his 4-year-old daughter, said he works about 25 hours per week at a
building supply store making minimum wage and is a full-time college student at
the University of Texas-Pan American. He aspires to be a school counselor.

He recently sought medical care for food poisoning, visiting a federally
funded clinic. But he doesn't see a doctor regularly because he can't afford
private insurance. The new health law allows young adults to remain on their
parents' insurance until age 26. But that doesn't help Solis, whose father is
uninsured and whose mother died of leukemia when he was 8.

"I voted for him (Obama) because he promised we would have insurance," Solis
said. "I'm pretty upset because I worked for Obama and I still don't have
coverage."

His governor, Rick Perry, like Pico's governor, Rick Scott, is rejecting the
Medicaid expansion. So Solis too is out of luck unless his circumstances
dramatically change.

In most of the states where governors are rejecting or leaning against the
expansion, the income level that disqualifies a parent from Medicaid is
stunningly low. Only in New Jersey, where Gov. Chris Christie has said he's
leaning against the expansion, is Medicaid available to parents with incomes at
the poverty line and slightly above. New Jersey will cover a parent making
$24,645 in a family of three.

Most states base Medicaid eligibility for parents on household income and how
it compares to the federal poverty level, which was $18,530 for a family of
three in 2011, the year being used for easier state-by-state comparisons.

In Louisiana, the eligibility cutoff for a working parent is 25 percent of
federal poverty, or $4,633 for a family of three. In Nevada, it's 87 percent of
the federal poverty level, or $16,121 for a family of three.

That's been the range in states where governors are likely saying no to
expanded Medicaid.

In contrast, states where governors have said they'll expand Medicaid are
more generous with working parents. The Medicaid eligibility cutoff ranges in
those states from Washington's $13,527 to Minnesota's $39,840.

To be sure, some states with generous coverage for parents have been forced
to cut back. Illinois, facing a financial crisis, ended coverage last month for
more than 25,000 working parents. Even so, the state still covers working
parents with incomes slightly higher than the poverty line.

The national health law's Medicaid expansion would start covering all
citizens in 2014 who make up to roughly $15,400 for an individual, $30,650 for a
family of four.

The federal government will pay the full cost of the Medicaid expansion
through 2016. After that, the states will only pick up 5 percent of the cost
through 2019, and 10 percent of the cost thereafter.

So why would any governor say no to such a great deal?

These governors are in favor of smaller government. In principle, they don't
want the federal government to expand — even if that expansion would help their
own citizens. And they say they don't want their own states paying any more of
the Medicaid tab even if it's years down the road.

"We don't need the federal government telling us what to do when it comes to
meeting the needs of the citizens of our states," Florida Gov. Rick Scott wrote
recently in an opinion piece for U.S. News and World Report. "And we don't need
Washington putting states on the hook for future budget obligations."

Also, many conservatives view Medicaid as a wasteful, highly flawed program,
akin to no health coverage. Many doctors across the country won't treat Medicaid
patients because the payments they receive are so low.

When the Supreme Court ruled that states could opt out of the health law's
Medicaid expansion, it raised the chances for inequity at a time when more
Americans have fallen from the middle class into poverty, said Isabel Sawhill, a
senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

"Why should a sick person in Connecticut have access to health care when they
don't in Mississippi and Texas?" Sawhill asked. "We really do have a very high
level of poverty as a result of the recession. And the safety net is weaker than
ever."

Medicaid, the nation's single largest insurer, is a state and federal program
created in 1965 as a companion program to welfare cash assistance to single
parents. Today, the elderly and disabled cost nearly 70 cents of every Medicaid
dollar, not the stereotypical single mother and her children.

What's largely unknown to many Americans is who is left out of the safety
net, said Cheryl Camillo, a senior researcher at Mathematica Policy Research. "A
huge chunk of the populace is not covered, even by Medicaid," she said.

The political rhetoric during a presidential campaign focuses on the middle
class and leaves the uninsured working poor largely invisible, said Rand Corp.
researcher Dr. Art Kellermann.

"We hear a lot of talk about unemployment and the aspirations of middle-class
Americans. But we don't hear about the consequences of unemployment and the
consequences of the collapsing middle class," Kellermann said. Losing health
insurance is one of those consequences.

"It's like the public just doesn't want to believe anything else until it
hits home," he said, "Until it's their own child, brother or parent that got
laid off when they were 58, until then, it's not real."

___

AP Medical Writer Carla K. Johnson reported from Chicago. AP Writer
Christopher Sherman contributed to this report from San Juan, Texas.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

@sadoldvet no self respecting Republican would have Chutzpa as a middle name, after all that club is restricted. I heard this attack yesterday and almost crashed my car. These guys are desperate. Pants on fire doesn't begin to cover it, more like a trouser inferno.

They lie so much. they spin the truth and expect people to support that. Here are 2 guys that are suppose to be so religious but lies are at the foundation of their existence. Ryan is catholic but said Iyan Rand was his hero. She didn't believe in GOD, now he is trying to distant himself from that statement. Romney won't talk about his belief because he is ashamed in his belief and/or afraid of loosing support of the Tea Party. I thought that you belief was not to be swayed by man or their opinion of your belief bcuz GOD is the decider and you are to fear only him. But this dude has no core or balls for that matter so he will reject his GOD and belief to win the praise of men. Such a coward, how could anyone support a dude like that? If he will turn on his GOD what make you think he won't turn on you?

When Obama released the "Mitt Romney Killed my wife" ad, which, I thought was brilliant myself, Romney had no choice. Now with Ryan on the ticket, the best is yet to come. I'm an ass kicking liberal and I say, this time we stop barking and we start biting. If you are a Democrat that doesn't like the sight of blood, please step back and let us, with our sharp teeth, into the scrum.

Shawn love it!

Horse@!$%# Mitt.. and more rubber/glue nonsense.. Same mitt, different lie!