At this point in the presidential race, there isn't just one controversy surrounding Medicare; there are two -- and Mitt Romney's campaign hopes one completely obscures the other.
The first is Romney's effort to take the offensive, launching a series of blatantly dishonest -- and common-sense defying -- attacks on President Obama. Consider this ad released this morning.
If there's literally anything accurate in this ad, I can't find it. The spot says, "Some think Obamacare is the same as free healthcare," but no one thinks that. The ad says Obama is "raiding $716 billion from Medicare," but that's simply not true. The ad says the Affordable Care Act is "raising taxes on families making less than $120,000 a year," but that's a lie, too. (This last one is especially amusing, since if Romney thinks it's accurate, it means he raised taxes, too.)
So why bother airing such garbage? In large part because of the second controversy: Romney/Ryan has a plan to end Medicare altogether, replacing it with a voucher scheme, and if voters understand the policy, President Obama is going to win re-election fairly easily. The Republican ticket has to obscure reality, kicking up a dust cloud that makes it seem as if Obama, whom they accuse of supporting socialized medicine, is actually a far-right brute who's trying to undercut Medicare's socialized coverage.
As a result, we're left with an exceedingly odd dynamic: Romney/Ryan wants desperately to talk about Medicare, without making any effort whatsoever to defend their own Medicare plan.
And why not? In part because it's very unpopular, in part because it would cut benefits for current and future retirees, and in part because, as the New York Times reported today, the Romney-Ryan plan would force Medicare into insolvency by the end of their first term.
By any sane standard, this is one of Romney's single most important vulnerabilities, which he's pushing to the forefront, on purpose, because he suspects ignorance can propel him into the White House.
Leave a Comment:
....but we are OK with Harry Reid lying (Romney no taxes in 10 years), and also linking Romney to a woman dying of cancer? The left has entered the Twilight Zone.
Lying? How can you possibly know Harry Reid is lying?
They saw Obama's birth certificate and still rant the lie about him being born in Kenya, but there is no need for Mitt to prove he paid any taxes?Well then I guess the story about Mitt being born in Mexico is a non-starter.
First!I don't think any thinking person can say Sen.Reid is lying--no one has proven that Romney paid federal income taxes for the number of years that he alleged.
Second!It's a fact that the old guy in the ad lost his job because of Romney's practice and in the course, lost his healthcare.It's also a fact that his wife died of cancer.So, you can stretch it and insinuate that Romney is accused of killing her,that's in your head.
Truth,facts and reality are known to have a liberal bias,just like Lies,distortion,ignorance and fear mongering have a conservative bias.
And how is destroying a job that would have provided a means of insuring the woman even after she lost her own job and insurance not a contributing factor in her eventual death?
You cannot argue that Bain's destruction of his employer's business was not a causal factor, because it clearly was. You can only argue whether the causal chain between Bain and the death is too attenuated to hold Bain, in some measure, morally responsible for the consequences of its actions to the former employees of the businesses it looted.
In law, that's the difference between the concepts of actual causation and proximate causation. Both have to exist to establish liability at law, but in the court of public opinion, each of us gets to make our own judgments about whether the causal chain between the man's loss of his job and his wife's eventual death has too many links in in it to hold Bain in some degree morally responsible.
And from where I'm sitting, the point here is that the Romneys and Bains of the world want everyone to just give them a free pass for the moral, economic and social consequences of everything they do, as long as they and their investors manage to squeeze a buck out of it somehow. They want us to say, "yeah, that's great because, hey, it's not like the actual lives of actual people are at stake in your little rigged game." I for one, will not do that.
I've heard both Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart critisise Harry Reid. The dying wife ad was NOT produced by the Obama campaign but by a superPAC, and Obama critisised it.
How is that the same as Romney's campaign over and over and over again saying things that aren't true?
Romney's very first ad, taking the McCain quote out of context, was the first salvo. In the UK, that would be illegal and the add taken down.
1. Democrats and Republicans have criticized Harry Reid for his accusations against Mitt Romney. However in order to state that Harry Reid is lying (by definition of the term lie) you must have knowledge of what is true and therefore what is not true. Since we do not have knowledge of what is true you cannot state that Harry Reid is lying. You can state that his accusations are specious, dangerous, and immature. But you cannot state that it's a lie.
2. By Democrats denouncing Harry Reid this proves the opposite of the argument you are making. OK so is there some reason for why both Eric! and Shooter seem to favor contradicting themselves in one sentence??? I do not understand.
3. The argument provided with the advertisement you're referring to was NOT that Romney is directly responsible for the woman dying of cancer. This is a misinterpretation of the advertisement, although I am sympathetic as to how this misinterpretation has came about (since the advertisement didn't exactly go out of it's way to clarify). The ad is attempting to express how venture capitalism destroys lives- not necessarily Romney, but the type of capitalism he participated in. The link the advertisement is attempting to make is that all of these horrific things happened because of venture capitalism and then the advertisement attempts to link this to Romney since he participated in this type of capitalism. This is playing off an argument the White House made earlier this year that venture capitalism is a destructive, anti-market force that is harmful to our economy. The accusation here is that venture capitalism destroyed this man's life and that Romney has been the leader of this type of enterprise. But, again, they did not overstate the issue to make it blatantly clear. Additionally this advertisement was aired by a SuperPac, not the Obama re-election campaign, and Obama has spoken out against the ad. The advertisements in question from Mitt Romney actually feature Romney stating that he approves the ad. There is a huge difference.
Sorry - the fact that Romney is so willing to invite controversy about his tax returns tells me there's plenty of there there. What's in those tax returns is worse than the controversy. He's hiding something.
Romney lies every time he opens his mouth. I mean every time. Biden and Reid haven't scratched the surface of the massive lying that Romney does.
When he lies in office, don't be surprised. Romney = Bush on Steroids.
A pivotal and ignored fact is that GST was already on fire when Bain stepped in to try and save it.
Imagine a fireman rushing into a burning house to try and save the inhabitants. Let's say unfortunately that the rescue failed. Does that make the fireman responsible for their deaths ? Seriously ? This is what the ad ask us to believe.......this is not rational.
And again you misinterpret the issue here. The ad- using your analogy- is stating that venture capitalists started the fire and that Mitt Romney is a proponent of those who started the fire. Not only that but he lead the organization that started the fire at one point in time in his life. The ad was not directly accusing Mitt Romney of killing the man's wife- but again I am sympathetic to the misunderstanding because there was no narrator to clarify the objective of the ad. They wanted to play on people's emotions and the best way to do that was to allow the man to speak freely, but the downside to this is that the ad doesn't then get to clarify the messaging. Stupidity on their part for certain. The ad is attempting to state that Mitt Romney is a proponent of the type of capitalism that caused this man's life to collapse. He never states in the ad that he blames Romney for his wife's death, but he does state that he wishes Romney and Bain had thought about the consequences of their type of capitalism. Being unable to distinguish the difference is equally not rational.
Got two years of taxes from Romney, which is the requirement, and none of Obama's college grades. Suppose we can negotiate a trade??
What am I saying! We can't even get an Obama birth certificate - long or short form - that hasn't been "manipulated" and doesn't wind up in court.
Lol @ tpaine - who set the precedent for providing college transcripts? I believe it was Willard's dad who released 12 years of tax returns and said "One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show, and what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted himself over the long haul."
Indeed.
When did Romney's father run for President?
Look, you already called Romney sequentially "a bully, felon, tax cheat, molester, murderer, racist, slave holder," and most recently, a "rapist." Not sure why you need tax returns to add to the fodder.
1968
When he ran for office he released over a decades worth of tax returns which has now became the precedent. Mitt Romney is the first modern presidential nominee to not release at least 10 years of tax returns since his father, George Romney, ran for office.
No one that represents the Democratic Party has called Mitt Romney a molester, a murderer, a racist, or a slave holder. This is a fallacy of your interpretation; this is not a fallacy of communication. I will give you that many have called him a bully (since he did bully a kid in school) and a tax cheat and some Democratic representatives have floated the idea that he may have committed a felony in order to dodge taxes. These are the only attacks you levied that actually have merit.
There is no legal requirement that a presidential candidate release tax returns- it is instead a formally established precedent put into place by his father. The standard is to release 10 years at least although sometimes candidates will release 20 or more years.
There is absolutely no need to see President Obama's college transcripts. First and foremost this is a red herring argument. This conversation was not about President Obama it was about the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. By bringing up President Obama you are attempting to divert the conversation to a different position that you feel is more defensible. This is a logical fallacy and it would behoove you to not pander to fallacies when attempting to make a counter-argument on a liberal blog. There is no precedent for presidential candidates to release their college transcripts and the origins of the myth about President Obama's transcripts come from racists who do not believe that a black person could in fact chair the Harvard Law Review. By pandering to this stupidity you are inadvertently inviting those origins to be connected with your character.
The myth about President Obama's birth certificate has been roundly debunked. The only people who believe that President Obama's birth certificate is not real are the same people who believe that we've never landed on the moon and that aliens are abducting people to probe their behinds (because apparently even though aliens have mastered FTL travel the human ass is a far more perplexing mystery to them).
Presumably if you're defending Romney you would prefer that people question his tax returns and NOT spread rumors that he's a child molester and rapist??? I am not even sure how you thought this was a defensible argument.
In Pennsylvania, Paul Ryan finally gets the obvious questions in regards to his connection to Akin. And surprise, surprise. He dodges the question.
In Exclusive Interview, Paul Ryan Distances Self From Todd Akin
Change his name from MudCat Ryan to Crawfish.
Too bad Akin didn't say the same thing. Ryan understands we don't have a "liberal" media, we have a Democrat American media. I've stopped all my advertising on ABC, CBS and NBC as a result.
Why would I want to support someone who wants to destroy my business like Democrats have so many others?
And the Republicans might be right to think that they can deceive the American public with hundreds of millions of dollars spent to support these lies in advertising, especially with the assistance of people like Eric who doesn't know what a lie is.
Is that why Romney keeps moving up in the polls?? You realize Obama has outspent him 2-1??
Good god- Republicans can't do math! In what universe is $499M double $323M?
It will be impossible for R&R to scrub the internet, media archives and the Congressional Record as the party does with twitter accts. Their tactics target fools, and are desperate as evidenced by the trolls who so feebly try to support them show.
Only thing factual I've seen on this post are two "sourced" articles by two Republicans!! Go figure?
Obama has to attack Romney on Medicare otherwise; Romney can
change the conversation by lying that he is then one who will save Medicare and
all that nonsense. The recent polls suggest his lasted lies are working: http://www.pollheadlines.com/electoral-map.php
Daniel Wong:
Please provide the Proof.
And if you are talking about LIES, why is it that obama keeps refering to 2011 plan instead of the 2012?
The Obama campaign would like voters to believe that Paul Ryan's Medicare plan would "end Medicare as we know it" -- privatizing the whole system and costing seniors more than $6,000 extra a year.
But the campaign, even before Ryan was selected as Mitt Romney's running mate, has effectively been running against the wrong Ryan plan.
The president's accusations largely refer to Ryan's 2011 plan, ignoring the fact that the House Budget Committee chairman rolled out a different version in 2012 -- taking into account Democratic critiques. Though the 2012 plan is more moderate, Obama and his surrogates have all but ignored the newer version as they amp up their accusations against the Romney-Ryan ticket.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/20/fact-check-obama-campaign-running-against-outdated-ryan-medicare-plan/#ixzz24Llm22b9
The PARROT Strikes Again
"...because he suspects ignorance can propel him into the White House."
Well "American ignorance" worked well to keep W., in the White House, Mittens is hoping lightening will strike twice...
Didn't work out very well for McCain, though. For that matter, it didn't really work for Bush. It took the Supreme Court in 2000 and a lot of war hysteria and fear-mongering in 2004 to get him over the top.
Don't forget the "hanging chads". Gore won the election but ceded.
Well I think enlightening will strike this election now we know more about who Obama really is
I would think the Dems should be targeting those people under 55 who are going to end up in the voucher system. This voting group is near enough to retirement and there is a large block of Republican voters in this group. The Dem message should be that Republicans are robbing that age group to pay for the huge tax cuts that Romney and Ryan want in their budgets. In addition, Dems should be using the idea that voters in the under 55 group are going to be facing large premium increases over and above what they are paying now for health insurance. Any person who currently has health insurance is already facing high premiums, particularly for family coverage. If Dems can work on the message for this age group, it will stop Republicans from making or promising to make any major changes in Medicare for at least another decade. At the end of the decade, this near retirement age group will be retiring making any significant change in Medicare impossible.
Most Americans know both MediCare and Social Security are ALREADY IN THE RED. See actual Ryan Plan below to SAVE MediCare.
Mike Paganucci
"huge tax cuts that Romney and Ryan want in their budgets"
At least you admit they are trying to CUT the budget not GROW it.
Thank you for that.
I don't understand why Dems keep bringing up this toxic issue while Barack Obama already defunded it by $716B - he can't explain his way out of it and current Seniors are completely outraged over it. Please, stop the insanity, Obama already lost Florida.
Gosh, I'm British, does this sort of thing work in the States? Because it's quite funny. Who are you hoping to win over to your arguement?
It's kind-of cute, actually.
I was going to argue the facts (as I have researched them from afar, not just on this blog) but I just can't, carry on, enjoy yourself.
Lincoln had little saying about it that explains how well it works. You've probably heard it but it goes like this "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
The people you can fool all of the time, like Cindy here, are the Republican base and the target demographic of Fox News.
@tweed.girl
The Fox audience has no use for facts, reality or truth because they get in the way of ideology and opinions.
This is an unsubstantiated theory, by you.
Current Seniors have saved an average of $700 on their prescription drugs since the ACA became law. This is something that they know for a fact. My grandmother is one of those people. She knows it to be true.
It's not a theory of what might happen one way or the other. It's a fact.
Seniors have more benefits, right now, because of the bill President Obama signed into law.
Is anything I said incorrect?
OK first and foremost $700 billion has not been taken out of Medicare. That is impossible considering that if you took $700 billion out of Medicare in one year you'd eliminate the program. What you mean to say is that $700 billion has been allocated from Medicare and that this will take place over the next 10 years. Which means that only roughly $70 billion has been taken out of the program if you want to be factually accurate. Additionally the money that we are talking about is money going to insurance companies and other waste and abuse extensions. What this means is that the PPACA has actually saved $70 billion this year and will save us an additional $700 billion over the next 10 years. You just complained on another thread that you are worried about the deficit and debt. Here is a measure to fight against the deficit and debt and yet you are decrying it? Mind you these savings have not affected the viability of Medicare or changed the promised care to current or future seniors. But in addition to this you are arguing in favor of Mitt Romney's plan which contains the exact same cuts as has been currently allocated by Obama.
OK why is it that people believe that postulating hypotheticals is somehow evidence in the real world? Do people not understand what a hypothetical is??? You cannot state that Obama has lost Florida on the basis of your own belief about Obama. You can only make statements like this if they are factually true. As in they happen in the real world. This hasn't happened in the real world therefore it is ONLY a postulation. So why are you presenting a belief as if it were a fact? I do not understand.
@Tweed.girl: We have a lot of really, truly stupid people in the United States. Most of them are wingnuts. Cindy is one.
You're an idiot, can't you read?
Rollo-5302374 & Cartoonthenews!
Outdated Medicare Claims
(Disclaimer, Do Not Read if you are afraid of FACTS.)
The Obama camp also repeats the old claim that Ryan’s Medicare plan would have seniors pay “up to $6,000 more for their health care,” as Cutter put it. On “Fox News Sunday,” Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz had even more misleading things to say, claiming that seniors would “no longer have a guarantee for health care” and that Ryan’s plan would “make you pay about $6,300 more in premiums in order to be able to pay for that health care and essentially leave you with a gap between what the voucher provides and what the insurance company that you ultimately get coverage from charges you.”
We’ve been over this $6,000 claim a few times. It pertains to Ryan’s old plan that he released last year, which was less generous in terms of how the premium-support payments would increase over time. In a nutshell, Ryan’s plan would keep traditional Medicare as it is for those who are now receiving Medicare benefits. But for new beneficiaries, beginning in 2023, they’d choose a health plan from a new Medicare exchange, which would offer both traditional Medicare and private plans. And they’d get a government subsidy to cover, or partially cover, the cost of the policy.
It’s true that an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicated that under the plan Ryan released last year, seniors on the private plans would pay more than they would under traditional Medicare – about $6,000. But that plan had the premium-support payments, or subsidies, growing with the rate of inflation, and health care costs have risen much faster than that for years. Under the new Ryan plan, that premium-support payment would be tied to the second-cheapest health care plan, which can’t grow more than gross domestic product plus 0.5 percentage points. So, Ryan’s plan says the premium support would always be enough to cover the two cheapest plans. However, if the costs do grow faster than GDP plus 0.5 percentage points, the plan says Congress would have to step in and take some unspecified action to keep costs down.
CBO hasn’t conducted a detailed analysis of the latest plan, which is more generous but still calls for less government spending than the current Medicare system. .
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/no-end-to-end-medicare-claim/
WHere in this plan does it say SR. will lose their coverage? Where does it say that they will have to work with a Voucher that does not cover the cost of thier Insurance? It DOES SAY they have a CHOICE, but NOWHERE does it say they will not be covered or have High Cost on their own.
My abortion two cents,
who would help the victim care for the child of a rape. Is she to be considered a welfare queen, isn't that the GOP's biggest domestic enemy (after Obama). Now a single mother with a child to care for who nine times out of ten the victims is not older than 25 years old and does not have a career or enough savings to help sustain themselves until they can realize their own version of the American dream, must go through the welfare system and hope that the GOP doesn't end the program for people like her. Just seems a little hypocritical, also seems like they don't believe women have the right to an American dream.
Cindy, with the yellow sports car, would argue that the victim just wants "free stuff", like our seniors or people under 55 who have been paying into this system for 20 and 30 years, or college students who need help with expensive tuition. Pell Grants/Low Interest Loans=Free Stuff Tea Party has coined this term "free goodies".
Romney thinks the voters are dumb. Is he projecting this on the Democrat vote, or is he pandering to constituents in the "Party of Stupid". Just because you are rich does not mean you are smart. I have met some very rich people in Lousianna, New Mexico, Florida, Oregon, and California who still do not know how to read. I mean this literally.
I am sick of the free stuff meme'. The Republican Campaign is just throwing stuff against the walll and going with whatever sticks.
dagunshow98,
Should we apply your logic to children who have already been born?
If the child's mother is "a single mother ... who ... is not older than 25 years old and does not have a career or enough savings to help sustain themselves until they can realize their own version of the American dream" should the mother have the right to kill the already born child? If not, why not? If the mother's tough situation justified her killing the child in one situation, why doesn't it justify her killing the child in the other?
Mike
Your question Mike is irrational and is mixing up two very distinct realities.
In one scenario, the woman has a child. In the other, the woman has a fetus. A child and a fetus are NOT the same thing no matter how many times the Mike Huckabee video made you cry.
80's
When does a Fetus become a child? Is it ONLY after Birth, if that is the case, what do you call a 'fetus' that is moving around in the womb of it's mother? What if the 'fetus' is old enough to live outside it's mother is it a child then?
At what point do we stop calling it a 'fetus' and call it a child?
Why is it that when a woman has a miss-carriage, they say the lost the 'BABY' I have yet hear one say, "Oh I lost a fetus".
Cindy-3358832
Believe me, Obama does not want to run against Trump. It's pitbull vs labrador. The mainstream media wants to diminish Trump and elevate the other republican candidates because they know full well they don't stand a chance. Trump's got the cash, charisma and the trash talking skills needed to neutralize Obama and liberal media. As long as the economy, jobs and oil is our biggest problem, Trump will always be in play.
Sun May 1, 2011 3:04 PM EDT
Cindy-3358832
By the way, the birth certificate or the certificate of live birth is a total fake. You know it, I know it. I won't be surprise if Trump will call on it again. This is definitely heading to the supreme court. Good luck Obama.
Sun May 1, 2011 3:34 PM EDT
Cindy-3358832
I think George Bush did all the hard work and Obama got all the glory. From what was reported, the info was gotten from the detainees at Guantanamo long time ago due to all the waterboarding and severe interrogation which this government is completely against of.
Mon May 2, 2011 11:18 AM EDT
Cindy-3358832
Why do you think NBC and all the other liberal networks are so fixated on Trump? Because he is Obama's worst nightmare. Donald John Trump for 2012 !!!!
Thu May 5, 2011 5:40 PM EDT
f#$king bigots, both of you.
Classy response, Jane Shaner. Your mother would be proud.
Cindy-3358832
Cindy-3358832
Hey Rollo,
Are you channeling Cindy for some reason?
I think he's pointing out that she's lying when she made that comment about being a Democrat.
Cindy goes on other blogs trying to claim she's a "Clinton Democrat". Nah, she's just another "Republican Liar". Her only purpose is try try and strip Clintonites from Obama.
Good job Rollo!!!
Rollo is a schizophrenic fool. He can't defend the indefensible so he resorts to scare tactics. Nice try.
Quoting your own words are "scare tactics" Cindy-Loony-Who? LOL ...
Truth be told, you're not scary as much as amusingly-daft in a they-really-grow-them-stupid-in-Teatard-land kind of way.
So happy to have tracked down Steve Benen, after months of boredom with Political Animal, and I love the format and functionality of The Maddow Blog!!
I loved the close on this piece..."he suspects ignorance can propel him into the White House," for its implication that ignorance (both his and others') got him this far, why not ride the Ignance Wave all the way?!
The R-R plan will cost seniors $6K a year. The Dems need to say this over and over again. I just had a minor surgery that will cost me $2000 out of pocket. I'm working, so right now I can pay it. I was thinking back to when I was a lot younger and $2000 would take me all year to pay off.
Seniors on fixed income: can you easily absorb an extra $6K a year?
Wrong plan. See the current proposal below - "fact checked" by FackCheck (a liberal group no less).
Outdated Medicare Claims
(Disclaimer, Do Not Read if you are afraid of FACTS.)
The Obama camp also repeats the old claim that Ryan’s Medicare plan would have seniors pay “up to $6,000 more for their health care,” as Cutter put it. On “Fox News Sunday,” Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz had even more misleading things to say, claiming that seniors would “no longer have a guarantee for health care” and that Ryan’s plan would “make you pay about $6,300 more in premiums in order to be able to pay for that health care and essentially leave you with a gap between what the voucher provides and what the insurance company that you ultimately get coverage from charges you.”
We’ve been over this $6,000 claim a few times. It pertains to Ryan’s old plan that he released last year, which was less generous in terms of how the premium-support payments would increase over time. In a nutshell, Ryan’s plan would keep traditional Medicare as it is for those who are now receiving Medicare benefits. But for new beneficiaries, beginning in 2023, they’d choose a health plan from a new Medicare exchange, which would offer both traditional Medicare and private plans. And they’d get a government subsidy to cover, or partially cover, the cost of the policy.
It’s true that an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicated that under the plan Ryan released last year, seniors on the private plans would pay more than they would under traditional Medicare – about $6,000. But that plan had the premium-support payments, or subsidies, growing with the rate of inflation, and health care costs have risen much faster than that for years. Under the new Ryan plan, that premium-support payment would be tied to the second-cheapest health care plan, which can’t grow more than gross domestic product plus 0.5 percentage points. So, Ryan’s plan says the premium support would always be enough to cover the two cheapest plans. However, if the costs do grow faster than GDP plus 0.5 percentage points, the plan says Congress would have to step in and take some unspecified action to keep costs down.
CBO hasn’t conducted a detailed analysis of the latest plan, which is more generous but still calls for less government spending than the current Medicare system. .
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/no-end-to-end-medicare-claim/
WHere in this plan does it say SR. will lose their coverage? Where does it say that they will have to work with a Voucher that does not cover the cost of thier Insurance? It DOES SAY they have a CHOICE, but NOWHERE does it say they will not be covered or have High Cost on their own.
This post is better placed here than in a thread about education. Mea culpa. I've been trying to get this off my chest for a while...
Before Medicare Advantage Reform in Obamacare, medical insurance companies were getting subsidies to insure Medicare patients that opted out of Original Medicare. The invisible hand of the marketplace was supposed to make insuring the elderly less expensive than Original Medicare, through the magic of Managed Care (Before Managed Care, these same insurers wouldn't touch the elderly, so Original Medicare was set up and became virtually the only medical insurer of the elderly). The savings were going to be so great, insurers would make a profit, while saving Medicare some money, just for being the middleman in the deal. So, a recap so far: FICA funds were now going to private companies' shareholders and also to cover the medical expenses of the elderly, who would now find out that they couldn't go out of plan, and the plan was quite stingy about what was medically necessary. In order to get people to enroll in these restrictive plans perks were offered, analogous to getting a toaster when opening a bank account. A weekly cleaning lady was a popular perk, or cheap glasses, or some dental coverage. The biggest perk for the fixed income retirees was shelter from the whirlwind of jacked-up drug prices. Needless to say, these gems of medical insurance were never able to pry a majority of Medicare patients away from Original Medicare. So their bold attempt to privatize Medicare failed, without ever being recognized as such. Even with the blessings of Managed Care, these insurers insisted that they needed reimbursement over what Medicare itself would have paid, making clear to any and everyone that Medicare Advantage was unnecessary spending of FICA funds better administered by Original Medicare. So Obamacare cut these insurance companies out of the deal, saving tens of billions of FICA dollars for actual medical care of the elderly. The point is that Obamacare got rid of a profit-hungry middleman, very analogous to getting profit-hungry banks out of the Student Loan Program.
And we all know government programs are ALWAYS run better than the private sector - like the Post Office vs UPS.
Hey tpaine- why don't you waltz on down to UPS and tell them you want them to deliver a letter across the country in 3 days for under 50¢ and report back to us what they say.
Obama's debt commission reported that entitlements needed to be reformed to avoid collapse.
Obama turned around and submitted his budget with no reforms.
Reasonable voters may conclude that Obama has no plan or his plan includes allowing them to collapse.
Except for (drum roll) the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Maybe you've heard of it?
"The ad says the Affordable Care Act is "raising taxes on families making less than $120,000 a year," but that's a lie, too."
Why would that statement be a lie? My wife and I make about $55,000 on retirement income and will be forced at gunpoint to buy ObamaCare. If we don't buy ObamaCare we get hit with a fine that the Supreme Court says is a tax. So what does this writer know about Supreme Court rulings that the rest of us don't know about?
So you're retired and have no health insurance? Really?????
Let me get this straight...MSNBC is whining about someone distorting reality?
Projection anyone?
""Some think Obamacare is the same as free healthcare," but no one thinks that. The ad says Obama is "raiding $716 billion from Medicare," but that's simply not true. The ad says the Affordable Care Act is "raising taxes on families making less than $120,000 a year," but that's a lie, too. (This last one is especially amusing, since if Romney thinks it's accurate, it means he raised taxes, too.)
1. Many people think obamacaretax is "free" health care - see FREE so-called preventive health screenings, see no co-pay contraception and abortifacients.
2. obamacaretax DOES cut medicare HALF A TRILLION by, among other things, REDUCING reimbursements to care providers. ANYBODY who thinks/claims that is NOT a cut is a fool. If it's "savings" DO IT NOW.
3. obamacaretax DOES raise taxes on people making less than $250k. Just google "obamacare taxes" but here are a couple: Reduces the amount of medical expenses I can deduct = TAX INCREASE, reduces the pre-tax contributions to HSA's and FSA's = TAX INCREASE, can NO longer use FSA pre-tax dollars to buy over the counter meds.
Now, it is well known that MSNBC is essentially NO credibility and that Maddow is blinded by the obama light, but geeze, I can't find a thing in the article THAT IS TRUE.
Aricle starts with two lies (premium ARE up and so are business taxes) but here’s a quick rundown of the Ryan plan to save MediCare (factcheck.com):
■For seniors who are now in Medicare,
nothing changes. They can stay with the traditional program as it is.
■Beginning in 2023, 65-year-olds would have
their choice of insurance plans — private and traditional — on a new
Medicare exchange. A premium-support payment, like a subsidy, would be sent to
the plan of their choice. By inserting competition, costs should be lower.
■If the senior's chosen plan costs offers
more coverage and exceeds the premium-support, the senior could pay the
difference. Same as with MediCare Plus
plans now.
■The Medicare eligibility age would be
slowly raised to 67 by 2034.
■All plans on the Medicare exchange
would offer a base level of benefits, and they would be regulated by the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
■The premium-support payments would be tied
to the second-cheapest plan, which can’t grow more than gross domestic
product plus 0.5 percentage points. If the cost does grow faster, Congress
would be required to step in and take some action to keep costs
down.
TPaine:
What are you trying to do here, Scare them with the FACTS?
This is just what you would expect from Obama's minions at his reelection network NBC/MSNBC. First of all Obama does gut $716 billion in projected increases in medicare support to fund millions and millions of new Obamacare participants, many millions of whom will almost certainly be illegal immigrants to whom he has or has not given amnesty. The elderly won't be too happy that payments to doctors and hospitals for their medical care has been drastically cut to provide care to millions in the country illegally. Next the Romney/Ryan plan specifically keeps Medicare exactly as it is for all Americans 55 or older at the time the plan would be put into law. So that means anyone 53 or 54 now if Romney is elected. And finally Americans under 55 will have a choice between current Medicare as it is now, or the voucher system. Personally I'm 55 now, and I want the voucher choice. What Mr Benen wrote, reads like an ad put out by the Obama reelection committee, or one of those nasty disgusting Obama Super Pacs that have been accusing Gov Romney of killing woman who died of cancer. Its really shameful that our media can't be trusted any better than a desperate political campaign!!!!
Steve doesn't take the time to get his own facts correct before writing his piece. It's a shame because you aren't very effective in calling others liars when you distort their plan and deny the facts.
I believe it was the Supreme Court that stated that Obamacare was the largest tax increase in history. Now Steve wants us to believe that Romney is "lying" by stating the obvious, that Obamacare raises taxes on individuals with incomes of $120,000 and less?
I'm not buying it.
Steve Benen is lying. Obama does raise the taxes on people who make less than 120k.
The minimum deduction for taxes on medical currently is you may deduct everything above 7.5% of you adjusted income. So if you make 40,000 a year you can deduct all medical you pay above 3000 dollars. So if you pay 6000, you get to deduct 6000 - 3000 = 3000. In Obama care that limit is raised to everything above 10%. So you get to deduct everything above 4000. So if you pay 6000, you deduct 6000 - 4000 = 2000. That is a 1000 dollar deduction you can no longer make and you pay more taxes. That is for someone who makes 40,000 which is definitely less than 120,000 a year. So he lies by omitting this information. It is an increase in taxes if you get to deduct less. Secondly, he is going to tax medical devices. That tax will be reflected in the cost to the consumer and you will be paying that tax. So in short, Benen is lying and he knows it.
As far as raiding the medicare, it is in Section 3201 of the Affordable Healthcare Act. Benen is lying there as well and Ryan is simply stating the facts of what are in the bill.
The question is, is Steve Benen really a publicist for the democrat party or just a totally incompetant reporter? I think he is just a publicist who tries to impress people by claiming he is a political writer.
Shane, you really NEED to READ the ACA because you have it all wrong.
First of all what a person pay out of pocket is based on is based on the poverty level. So for a single person who earns $40,000, the max the out of pocket expenses could be is 2/3 of $5950 or $3967. And he would get a tax credit if his insurance costs were over 9.8% of his salary. For a family of 4 earning $40,000, the out of pocket expenses would be 1/3 of $11,900 or $3967 also, but they would get a much bigger tax credit.
There are a lot of other "goodies" in that plan that will reduce medical costs also!
You need to understand tax law. He may get a credit for his actual coverage, what he doesn't get a credit for is the actual medical expenses. Maybe he has a knee surgery, etc. He pays out of pocket for a portion of those expenses. He won't get a credit for that until he pays more than 7.5% or his income, the ACA changes that to more than 10%. I'm not talking about out of pocket for coverage but out of pocket for health care.
Why not? Todd Akin is okay with saying that women who are raped will not bear a child!