|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Good for Soledad O'Brien!
CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien debunked the pervasive right-wing media falsehood that President Obama "stole $700 billion" from Medicare.
Right-wing media have repeatedly claimed that the Medicare savings included in Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA) "gutted" the Medicare program. However, on CNN's Starting Point, when Romney senior adviser John Sununu claimed that Obama "gutted Medicare by taking $717 billion out of it," O'Brien was quick to correct him.
O'Brien pointed out that Sununu's talking point has been debunked by the Congressional Budget Office, which found that the Medicare savings in the ACA are not cuts, but rather a reduction in the expected rate of growth of the program.
O'Brien also noted that independent fact-checkers have found that the Affordable Care Act does not cut Medicare benefits. These fact-checkers also determined that the claim that hundreds of billions of dollars have been cut from Medicare is outright false.
When Sununu continued to claim that Obama had gutted Medicare, O'Brien confronted him with even more facts, citing evidence that drug providers and hospitals agreed to the Medicare savings because their "theory is that what they're going to be able to do is make up by the number of people who come into the system. It doesn't reduce or cut the benefits.
The right-wing media either doesn't understand the ACA's effect on Medicare, or is blatantly misleading about it.
Romney-Ryan actually do gut Medicare for future retirees, so it's beyond laughable that Romney could attack Obama for this.
Mr. Romney, if cutting Medicare (actual retiree benefits, unlike the ACA, as shown by the CBO), is so outrageous, why did you pick a VP that chooses to do that very thing? That reduces benefits for people under 55?
A commentator on one of the cable networks asked today if Romney was even aware of what he was saying half the time. I think it's a legitimate question when situations like this come up.
Actually Soledad O'Brien was wrong, Obama does gut medicare to fund Obamacare. I know you will not take my word for it but maybe you would believe it if you hear it from Obama himself in an interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7sLt1Dm … ture=share
Utter baloney, AV and this proves it while it supplies the truth without selective and convenient editing . . .
Stephanie Cutter: Medicare Whiteboard
That is the comeback talking point from the WhiteHouse now that they are being called out for the cuts in fees and services, not fraud waste or abuse. And remember, the cuts are not savings, they just divert them to and help pay for Obamacare, and the President even sways so.
You are way off base here! The cuts will be to doctors, not patients and will occur over the next ten years and will mostly be absorbed by savings that occur due to the new law. This has nothing to do with White House rhetoric, it's simply the truth. Read this: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-six-m … icare.html to get the facts...or take a look at politifact!
First the link to your article does not work but that's okay. Because your first sentence you agreed with me. I had said the cuts were in fees and services and not fraud, waste, or abuse as Obama is trying to display it as.
You said the cuts will be to doctors, which is what I said, cuts in fees. But what you don't realize is cuts in doctors fees equal less doctors for more patients. Doctors who currently have Medicaid or Medicare patients will keep the ones they have. but the last year and a half or so they have already been turning down new patients, trust me I know firsthand.
But it's not just doctors fees that are being cut, fees for procedures are being cut, some procedures are being cut out completely. Perhaps this Fact Check article will clear it up for you
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/0 … -medicare/
Thanks. It's hard for people who believed in Obama to take it in that he actually took $716 billion from Medicare until they hear it from his own mouth.
The best part is Medicare doesnt even have 700 billion lying around to steal. It would be gone.
LIES DON'T WIN ELECTIONS! ... UNLESS I SAY SO...... ..... P.S. The other guy is a total hack, don't vote for him or the terrorists win and grammy will be put in front of the death panels
Very simple. Lies are the only weapon left in this flip-flopper's arsenal. That, and deception is by far Willard Mitt Romney's greatest and most practiced and thoroughly honed skill.
Maybe it's because there are a number of moderate swing voters who feel they have benefited from the changes introduced by the present Government? Romney needs them, right? And, maybe, it's because the big pharms feel that Obama has stolen lots of money from their corporate pots. Why should they lose out, when they can get the average Joe to pay though the nose.
Maybe it's because he wants to draw attention away from what he and Paul Ryan are planning to do to Medicare.
Yes, easier than discussing what they propose to replace Medicare with. Big distraction, huge distortion.
The irony is just stunning.
Claiming that Obama, in masterminding the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) to extend health insurance coverage to 94 percent of all Americans, would implement a program that guts an existing health insurance program for older Americans.
When you think about it philosophically, it's absurd.
But that's the thing. You have to actually "think" about it.
Too many people will not.
True, particularly those who foster the 'anyone but Obama' mindset.
This lays it out pure and simple.
THINKING PROHIBITED -- sign at the Statue of Liberty
He makes it real clear. Kinda sorta. On this whiteboard.
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/24401 … -medicare-
Reminiscent of Michele Bachmann's
Unbelievable. It's almost like he's saying, just gimme a number, any number, and I'll write it down here on the left hand side of the board. Where exactly did he pull these figures from, where's the evidence? And, is he actually agreeing that Obamacare works just fine the way it is?
He's such an ass. It's shocking.
Girls, I'm sorry to be the one to burst your bubbles, because it seems as though you're having a lot of fun believing Obama's claims.
Unfortunately, they're just lies and according to FactCheck, they're not even new lies.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/democr … per-again/
You might want to refer back to Romney's whiteboard, it's closet to the truth.
Boys, I'm sorry to be the the one to burst your bubbles, because it seems as though you're having a lot of fun believing Romney's claims.
Unfortunately, they're just lies and and according to..... they're not even new lies.
You might want to refer back to Obama's whiteboard, it's (not closet) but closest to the truth.
See how that works?
The American Prospect is a far left magazine, dedicated to the liberal agenda. The other sources used in this thread against Obama's claims are from FactCheck, Politifact, and WaPo, all neutral or left-leaning, so I trust them more on this.
Want an unbiased source?
Politfact.com have debunked Mitt Romney's claim that the President has 'robbed' Medicare of more than $700 billion to pay for provisions in the Affordable Care Act.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … ry-rob-me/
Yeah, both sides are lying about the issue. The democrat line was labeled 'lie of the year' by politifact.
Exactly! That's what I was referring to in my comment. BOTH sides are guilty, as usual.
I was reading an article about Romney the other day, and it was going over his history in politics, and that of his father. He said something to the extent that he learned from his dad's campaign that you just can't run a strictly clean campaign, you have to fire back against your opponents or you'll lose.
That "lie of the year" was from 2011 and refers to the specific claim that Republicans voted to end Medicare, which was not true. It's a bit disingenuous to imply this relates to the "Democratic line" in general. It doesn't.
I analysed Politfact results for statements made in 2012 relating to healthcare or Medicare made by Republicans, Democrats or left/right wing political commentators. There were 44 relevant statements on the first 4 pages of this search (I got bored after that). The result was:
Republicans/ Right wing commentators
Statements found to be false, mostly false, or "pants on fire"*: 34
Statements found to be true, half true or mostly true: 1
Democrats/ Left wing commentators
Statements found to be true, half true or mostly true: 6
Statements found to be false, mostly false, or "pants on fire"*: 3
* indicates a statement that is blatantly untrue.
So 34 out of 35 statements made by a Republican or a right-leaning commentator on the subject of healthcare or Medicare was found to be false. That's truly shocking. In contrast, the majority of statements on the issue from the Democratic/left-leaning commentators have been found by Politfact to be true. That's still not good enough, but it gives lie to the suggestion both sides are as bad as each other. They aren't.
Habee's right, Hollie. FactCheck, which is run by the Annenberg Foundation, lays it out in black and white. Obama's whiteboard isn't based in truth. American Prospect doesn't hide its bias. FactCheck, on the other hand is quick to defend Obama - when and (if) he's telling the truth. Compare the two sites and you'll find FactCheck is the place to go if you want political clarification.
Of course, if you're more interested in propaganda and less in truth - there are many websites willing to accommodate. I'm not a Romney fan, but I see the value in getting to the bottom of a story. FactCheck comes down on Romney on other issues. But on this specific one - the Obama camp is telling a whopper.
But that's what I'm getting at. When I googled Romney/Obama medicare all I could find in the first two pages of the serps were what appears to be opinion falling on one side or the other. (I actually mentioned this in a thread earlier) Maybe it's because I'm using a UK search engine, but the info out there seems heavily weighted. ie. Obama's telling a whopper, Romneys's telling a whopper.
There doesn't appear to be any impartial analysis, whatsoever. And, left leaning or not, if I were a US citizen (and I'm really glad I'm not in the situation which you are all in at the moment, having to establish the facts regarding this issue, I mean) I do believe I'd have to give some consideration to the issue of the rising costs of care. Romney's plan (and yes, I know Obama's doesn't either) appears to make not attempt to bridle the big pharms and their profits.
You bring up a good point, Hollie. Googling the info pulls up propaganda from both ends. That's a tough thing to try and sort out. I really do like FactCheck because they get to the bottom of the issues, but we're still going to hear fudging from both sides, I'm afraid.
Most folks won't take the time to find out the truth so it probably all equals out in the long run. What bothers me is that the elderly who are on limited budgets worry needlessly when both sides go the fear-mongering route. For some of them, life is already tough enough, and some are dealing with depression and anxiety over medical concerns. Those are the ones I worry about. As both candidates accuse the other side falsely over things like Medicare and Social Security, these older Americans are catching bits and pieces, and it's got to be stressful. My own mother calls me from time to time, worried that she and dad won't be able to afford their medications anymore....or that SS benefits for her sister, whose disabled will cease.
I want to tell these politicians to stop it. Unless the other candidate REALLY intends on cutting services to these very needy citizens, why must they go down those roads?
Too true, Hollie. I've just about "had it" with both campaigns!
It's a real shame that they are slinging mud instead of having a grown up debate. But, that's what politicians do. I saw a tweet earlier regarding this issue that read "Trying to work out what is really going on is more time consuming than my husband, kids and full time job put together. " I thought given the current situation that comment seemed really quite apt.
I won't bother quoting AARP because some believe it's left-leaning.
Health organizations have also expressed serious concern over how Romney and Ryan would impact seniors.
The American Hospital Association said Ryan’s Medicare policy “will severely impact access to care for our most vulnerable patients. While we recognize the serious fiscal challenges we face as a nation, this budget is not the right prescription for the health of America.”
The Catholic Health Association said the policy “would damage the nation’s health care system by decimating Medicaid, Medicare and recent coverage gains made possible by the Affordable Care Act.”
For the same reason the Obama campaign continues to spew that the Ryan/GOP plan takes away Medicare, even though it's been called "Lie of the Year" and "Whopper of the Year" by WaPo, Politifact, and FactChecker. Both campaigns are getting pretty disgusting, IMO.
I'm just about ready to let the two men draw straws or have a duel at this point. Ugh. Save all that money and stop the mudslinging! The election is going to be a crap shoot, anyway. The country is evenly divided. The candidate who gets out his base will win. 50% of the population will be happy (sort of), and the other 50% will be pi$$ed.
Or the candidate that manages to get swing state governors to suppress voters with "MANDATORY" state issued ID! Yeah, the "Mandatory" word that most Republicans have a problem with! lmao
Habee - I love your idea. A duel. Maybe that's what we need. LOL
Neither campaign is telling the truth, but Obama is probably lying more. No one in their right mind thinks that we will be able to suddenly subsidize the care of the poor without making major cuts to existing coverage. Medicare is at the top of the list for cuts, and the Cato Institute has explained how it will be cut. For gosh sakes, the reductions are right there in the actual health bill, so I'm not sure why Obama is lying about them. Probably, because he knows the American public won't take the time to read the text.
I'm going to predict that Obama is elected again, but that in 2015, the nation will collectively turn against him - over the problems created by Obamacare.
History will not remember Obama well if he's elected again. His only hope of securing a place in history is if Romney is elected and he guts Obamacare. Then, Obama would go down as a martyr who tried to save poor Americans. As it is - if this plan goes full-force - the very folks this plan is supposed to help are going to turn on Obama. Mark my words.
I understand your frustration but just relax and enjoy the show. Politics have been dirty from the dawn of time and there's nothing new this time around.
Howard - awesome "cutting through the bs" analysis. I agree wholeheartedly, although I hope that Obama will not be elected again this November. He hasn't even gotten a budget through congress inn three years! My sister still awaits the government's decision on what death benefit she will receive from his post office pension for losing her husband to stroke last year (he retired as a U.S. postal worker). I believe they are holding onto it because they can't get a single thing through Congress, and until they can balance the budget, she won't receive her death benefit. They just keep shuffling her around different departments every time one of their internal deadlines for her case is passed. What a dog and pony show. I don't want the government "helping" me!
Why is it his fault that he hasn't gotten anything through Congress...isn't that their fault?
Indeed! it is congresses job and congress is the peoples job, I take time to write and tell them (congress) what I want them to do, I receive 1 answer from 100 mails, I was surprised to see that one and it was seeming direct, after I wrote and asked "why are you not demanding charges be brought against the setting president for attempting to bribe a candidate to throw an election?"
The reply was "I tried, I brought it to the floor, it fell silently to the annals of no justice in the senate or house".
I knew then that the president is a Teflon coated felon, that charges will never stick, his opponent is not much better if any, I have no clue!
Hey 50 Caliber, all politicians since JFK has been coated in Teflon (remember LBJ and Tricky Dick?). Yes it is congresses job, and good for you that you write them. Our NM District 2 Rep here (Steve Pearce) has a website where I registered and now get regular communication about what he is doing each week. It's an easier way to get your message to your reps at the state and local levels, where you have the most chance to make a difference with suggestions and viewpoints in Washington.
Univited Writer - Yes, you are right, it is Congress's job to pass the budget set forth by the President, but he hasn't put one in front of them that isn't so politically divisive as to stall the Congress. In my opinion, that is a lame duck president, but yet, it all seems so calculated. O is smart as hell, in a dumb kinda way. As a president, he is a bumbler, and not as in control of the media as he needs to be. If he is elected this fall, it means that I was wrong about his control of the media.
Rubbish. The savings on Medicare are not related to benefits or coverage, they relate to payments to insurers, hospitals, drug companies etc. The Whitehouse has been up front about those savings. And they have said very clearly they will invest those savings into making healthcare more accessible to poor people, while raising $1.5 trillion by making top earners pay their fair share of taxes.
That's what they said before. That's what they're saying now. That's not lying, or hiding. It's setting out your stall for all to see. What they object to is the way those savings are being characterised as cuts to benefits and coverage. That's an absolute lie.
In contrast, it is a fact that the Congressional Budget Office said the 2011 Ryan plan would double out of pocket costs for a typical 65 year old compared to traditional Medicare. You can read the CBO's letter to Paul Ryan yourself here.
Is it misleading for some Democrats to quote figures from that 2011 plan instead of the revised 2012 plan, or the Romney-Ryan plan? Yes. But there is at least some factual basis, and let's face it Romney seems to change his mind as many times as the rest of us changes socks, so who knows what his plan is today. On the other hand, the suggestion that the Obama administration is cutting benefits and coverage of Medicare has no factual basis whatsoever. None. Not sure what measurement of lying you are using, but whatever it is, it seems a bit skewed.
lmao I like how you ignore the opening paragraph from the CBO, which already includes ObamaCare.
CBO on the current system:
"....from those programs remain near their past levels relative to GDP, the increase in
spending on Social Security and the health care programs will lead to rapidly growing
budget deficits and mounting federal debt"
Further, who do you think is going to pick up those "cuts" in payments to doctors and hospitals? The CBO also states that these proposals will most likely (they never say anything definitively) lead to less availability of care, reduction in the quality of care and higher costs to seniors.
You have cut the first 5 words of that sentence. I'm sure that was purely accidental on your part. Unfortunately they are key to understanding the sentence which, frankly, doesn't make much sense without them.
The actual sentence says: "If revenues and federal spending apart from those programs remain near their past levels relative to GDP, the increase in spending on Social Security and the health care programs will lead to rapidly growing budget deficits and mounting federal debt." (my emphasis).
In other words, there needs to be a decrease in Federal spending in other areas, or an increase in revenue somewhere (or both) in order to pay for any additional expenditure. Guess what the current administration wants to do? Reduce the cost of Medicare (while maintaining benefits and coverage) by $700 billion; Cut defense spending by hundreds of billions; And raise $1.5 trillion by ensuring top earners start paying their fair share of taxes.
In other words the current administration want to decrease Federal spending in some areas, and increase revenue, which is exactly what the Congressional Budget Office suggests needs to be done to avoid growing budget deficits and mounting federal debt. Amazing what difference 5 words makes.
There are no spending cuts aside from slashing our defense to the bare minimum which is only 16% of the budget. The revenue from raising taxes on the wealthy will only fund the government for 8 days. If you are talking about the massive increases in corporate taxes and dividends and capital gains, you can kiss any economic recovery good-bye and say hello to double digit unemployment. Do you understand how business works? How to keep your bottom line you have to increase prices to keep pace with the costs of doing business? That investors will not invest, will not sell if it does not create a profit? That the money stops going round at all if those things happen? That hiring hits bottom? Do you really believe that businesses are going to eat those costs and not raise consumer prices by leaps and bounds? It is not logical. It will not work. And when it doesn't, the Dems will do what they always do. Raise taxes on everyone when we already won't be able to afford anything.
Have you guys even looked at the proposed budget of the President and the massive increases in spending? It isn't just about Medicare. And all those numbers are not real numbers anyway. It's if this and if that, for both sides. If GDP grows, guess what? Medicare doesn't get reduced AT ALL under the Ryan plan because all increases are tied to growth. If costs don't go down (and so far they haven't) then guess what? The unelected panel set up by ObamaCare will be deciding what gets cut and by how much.
And for the last time, that crap about top earners not paying their fair share is just plain BS. The top 1% pay over 37% of the taxes. The top 5% pay over 78% of all Federal taxes. How much would you like them to cover your butts for? All of it?
And I'm not done because the ignorance of people of basic facts is just mind boggling. 52% of Americans have money invested. Do you know who, after you deduct the Top 10%, those people are? The bulk of them are SENIORS. That's right. They are living off those dividends, capital gains and interest because they invested their nest eggs to have that extra money. That's who will be paying all those taxes in the long run because they don't have the choice to hold onto their stocks because they have to sell in order to live.
Another thing that needs to be pointed out is the projected increase in government revenue vs the actual increase. As much as the President and the left are wanting to increase taxes on the top tier, the actual increase in revenue will be nowhere near what is projected. If you look at top tier tax revenue, it has hovered around 17-19% of GDP since the 1940's...even though the tax rate for this group has varied from 92% to 28%. Historically, tax increases on the upper tier are often revenue neutral, and sometime result in a net loss for the government. Why? As much as the left would like to claim offshore accounts, this is not the case (Although I am sure that there are plenty of people who try). It is a simple case of changing investment strategy to maximize income and minimize taxes. And let's be honest, everyone in every tax bracket tries to minimize their taxes (I don't see many people lining to to pay extra taxes).
If taxes go up, then perhaps it is in your best interest to move investments to municipal bonds, which are tax free. So you invest more in municipal bonds and less in the private sector. Since less money is invested in the private sector, there is less growth in the economy, which means fewer jobs in the private sector, which means less revenue for the federal government.
It will have to be draw straws, romney can't count to ten with out his CPA and Obama can't unless there is a teleprompter set up with wheels to follow his pacing.
I would enjoy to see it played out with paintball guns to see if either could actually hit the other, I sure doubt it.
We are living in sad days of choice as to candidates, seems it has crumbled away since, well,
I've never voted a straight ticket, and never voted for anything but the least of two evils and I see a draw at this point on this issue.
I can't say with any conviction or honesty. I'm sad.
To discredit Obama to the eyes of the future electorate seems a good reason!
Romney is lying because he can and because it works for him. He plans to steal the election anyway. Remember: an estimated 5 million opposition voters are being disenfranchised in advance of the 2012 elections.
lol Yeah so many are being disenfranchised that the PA court just ruled it is completely constitutional and non-discriminatory because it expects the same thing from everyone.
Plus, you do know the Supreme Court already ruled that this is a State issue and completely constitutional right? Just more of this Administration and Holder trying to overstep their bounds.
http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the … er_id_law/
If voters are disenfranchised, it's probably due to the quality of our two candidates.
You know there is untrue lies being spread from both sides, about both sides, right? Romney's campaign is spreading the lies to make Obama's campaign look bad; same as Obama's campaign doing things to make Romney's campaign look bad... Same thing happened in the last election, and the one before that. This isn't news.
Excellent point Kathleenkat! I assume everyone understands that. God, I hope so. Remember, a "campaign" is what advertisers do to promote a brand or idea. Presidential campaigns are media wars, and each candidate is a brand that sponsoring companies would like to see in office. Within the FTC rules for advertising (which is what a presidential campaign is), you must avoid puffery (exaggerated claims) and telling outright lies. That's where rhetorical language comes in, because it can be construed in many different ways, depending on how many "facts" are used concerning a candidate or issue they are debating. Let the mudslinging continue. There isn't any news in that...
And here's the truth about Social Security if you have the grit to handle it . . .
@WoW George Carlin - definitely a funny guy. But, that isn't about SS. He would have called out this hypocrisy of this Administration in a heartbeat! The proposed SS plan is ALREADY IN PLACE for all Federal workers. None of them complain about their retirement and most retire early.
Like I said—if you have the grit to handle it—or should I have said, aware enough to see the truth that he points to?
And you know what Carlin would have done, when he never did?
lol@WoW What truth? Are you denying that the SS plan is already in place for all Federal workers? Do you see this hysteria from them that they were left high and dry at retirement? It is an option anyway. If you don't want to opt in, don't. If you don't think you can decide how best to invest your money, better than the government can, then don't. You'll still have your SS when you're ready for it.
So then we can assume as a public that Obama's use of Medicare funds works sort of like Social Security has been working for the past 40+ years? Those funds are gone rather than accumulated and it is not because they were used up by receipts....they were simply "borrowed" by our elected officials. How much of that do you think will be repaid. No doubt, funds have been diverts for start up purposes with the rationale that down stream reduction in participation caused by the diversion of younger generations to ACA will free up those funds and make them unnecessary....that is quite different than replacing what has been taken. Essentially the funds which myself and most other later generation Americans have paid into Medicare have been diverted for "other purposes" in effect leaving that fund not much better off than Social Security is today....a box full of government IOU's. Go ahead and dress up that pig...put some lipstick on it, but it will still be a pig. ~WB
No Wayne, you don't have to assume anything. The information is all there, out in the open. Under the Affordable Care Act, existing guaranteed Medicare benefits won’t be reduced or taken away.
Money will be saved through reducing waste, fraud and abuse; reducing payments to insurers, hospitals and drug companies; and slowing cost growth. Then $1.5 trillion of revenue will be raised by ensuring top earners pay their fair share of taxes. That's it. There is no 'replacing' of funds, because no funds are being taken.
Imagine you have a budget of $5000 to run your car over the next year. You realise you can cut costs without any impact on your level of use, and you manage to save $2500. With the savings you go buy something else you need. You have not just 'gutted' your car budget by $2500. You've simply made your money go further by being financially astute. You haven't lost anything. You've gained.
That's what is being misrepresented at the moment. Reducing the cost of Medicare is the same as the above. You still get the benefits and coverage needed, but by being financially astute, savings can be made and used elsewhere. This actually strengthens Medicare by reducing future shortfall and extending it's life (by 8 years to be exact).
If those savings are reversed (as proposed by Romney-Ryan) and Medicare spending increases by more than $700 billion, Medicare will run out of money in 4 years. So far neither Romney or Ryan have made it clear what they will do about this. And even if they did reverse those savings there would be no improvement to benefits or coverage, because that's not where the savings are coming from anyway.
So the money you have paid into Medicare is not being 'taken' or 'diverted'. It's just being made to go further. If the Affordable Care Act were repealed tomorrow, you would be paying an additional $700 billion for exactly the same benefits and coverage you are getting now, instead of making a $700 billion saving. This is exactly what the Congressional Budget Office have said in their reports. It's this saving that is being misrepresented as a 'cut' in Medicare funding by the Romney campaign. The reason? That misrepresentation allows them to say "we will reverse cuts to Medicare" which is a nice thing to be able to say, even if it is complete nonsense. Unfortunately (for them) even the mainstream news media seem to be calling their bluff on it.
Heck Romney and Ryan are tripping over their own words. We don't need the mainstream news media tocall them on it! They don't seem to be on the same page. Romney if with Ryan one day and has his own "Plan" the next. Whatever that "Plan" may be?
What do you expect of a guy who introduced his new VP candidate as "The Next President Of The US"?
Just like Obama did with Biden? Forgot about that, huh?
I hardly think you can compare the intellectual capacity of Obama to that of Romney...now really, let's be honest! Romney is a nice guy, but bright he ain't. Obama, on the other hand, is brilliant. We all make mistakes, but I pointed out that one just to make a point...Romney has continually made errors in public that are horrible. Again...nice guy, but dumber than a box of rocks.
Pie in the sky. That's all it is.
Your example of the car is very apt but for one thing. We don't know how to cut the cost in half without reducing car usage. Sure, you say we'll cut fraud - how? We've worked for years on it and gotten nowhere. We don't know how to do that.
You say we'll drive insurers, hospitals and doctors out of business by cutting their income. Wonderful - now there is nowhere to get medical help whether we can pay for it or not.
You say we'll raise ungodly sums by making the rich pay their "fair share" which they already do. What you really mean is we'll soak them for 100's of times their fair share and claim that it's only fair that they support someone else because they can. Whereupon the rich leave (or at least their money leaves) and there is nothing to tax.
Pie in the sky. Claims that are not only unsupported but that experience tells us won't work at all.
"Sure, you say we'll cut fraud - how?"
The information is openly available. It's not a secret. The Administration says it will create new tools and strengthen existing legislation. You can read it all for yourself here.
You are absolutely right, no one knows if this will solve all the problems, but that's kind of how reality works. The best you can do is plan it, do it, then review it. The current administration have thought about what can be done to improve healthcare. Now they are doing it. It's too soon at the moment to be able to review, but that's next. At that time, if the plan is a miserable failure, everyone can say "Boo that didn't work, you suck". If it works everyone can say "Yay, good job, you guys are great". But what you don't do is put your hands over your ears, close your eyes and shout "no, no, no" because you don't like the guy who made the plan. That seems to be the preferred approach for the group of politicians Mitt Romney belongs to, and it doesn't really help anyone.
"You say we'll drive insurers, hospitals and doctors out of business by cutting their income. Wonderful - now there is nowhere to get medical help whether we can pay for it or not."
I said nothing of the sort. That's a deliberate misrepresentation and it does you no credit. My exact words were: "Money will be saved through reducing waste, fraud and abuse; reducing payments to insurers, hospitals and drug companies; and slowing cost growth." You are intimating that this will put insurers, doctors and hospitals out of business, not me. And that's utter rubbish. Insurers, hospitals and doctors have gotten away with charging inflated prices for years. Why? Because they could. Reductions in payments won't put them out of business. It will just reduce those massively inflated prices. So don't worry, hospital directors, fat cat insurers, and doctors won't be going hungry any times soon.
"You say we'll raise ungodly sums by making the rich pay their "fair share" which they already do."
They don't, and won't under Romney's tax proposals. If you don't have time to go through the data, PolitiFact have done it for you here. In summary, the claim that Romney would give millionaires another tax break and raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year, is found to be mostly true. Top earners are not paying a fair share, and won't under the Romney tax proposals. Not unless you change the definition of "fair" and "share".
As for top earners 'leaving'. While some people would relinquish their US citizenship to avoid making a fair contribution to the country that enabled them to become a high earner in the first place. There are also high earners who have more regard for the country of their birth, and the place that helped them become what they are today. They are more than willing to pay their fair share, and would welcome doing so. From what I've seen, heard and read, Mitt Romney isn't one of them.
The 2012 report from the Chief Actuary of the Medicare program said that the Affordable Care Act is making all healthcare services more effective. The report said that this is why Obamacare provided for feduciary soundness of the Medicare for an extra 12 years, at the same level of services. And it recommended that more bills like Obamacare be passed in the future to make the healthcare establishment become even better in providing services.
I know this sound like I'm lying but go on, read, the report. I could hardly believe it: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center … dicare.pdf
It's just astounding that those people who passed this law don't take credit for it. They saved Medicare for an extra 12 years without hardly trying.
No, you're not lying, but the report's predictions are based on the hypothetical anticipated payments and projected expenditures.
And, unfortunately, that report became moot when SCOTUS ruled that forcing Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional. Already, states that could not afford the program opted out, which was supposed to take a big chunk of the financial burden off Medicare.
ACA is going to fail. Financially, it can't survive, especially without the Medicaid expansion provision.
Add that to the fact that this bill rides on the backs of the lower-middle class who are already feeling the crunch in this economy - and it's a dead-end road.
I think you are confusing Medicaid and Medicare (?)
The bill expands coverage of Medicaid AND provides money to states to enroll their citizens in Medicaid because more people will qualify.
It was not assumed that any state could afford the plan without federal funding.
The states that are opting out are doing so on political lines. It's a Red backlash.
Medicare is the program for senior citizens.
Finally, the SCOTUS ruled that forcing Medicaid expansion is unconstitutional?
Honestly, that is brand new news to me. As it apparently is to the consortium of foundations, hospitals, health clinics and public agencies writing the strategic plan for rollout of Obamacare in my region. I have now edited 5 drafts of the plan.
NOWHERE does it mention that the Medicaid expansion rollout was rendered illegal by SCOTUS.
But I could be mistaken.
I'm not confusing Medicare and Medicaid. The economic health of both depend upon the health of the entire bill. I'm surprised you missed the SCOTUS ruling, it was a part of the larger decision in July that upheld the mandate as a tax.
After the ruling, the CBO office revised its healthcare predictions. Now, it is predicting that FEWER folks will be insured as a result of the ACA bill - not more as was once assumed. Billy the Kid's report was released prior to the ruling, so it is no longer viable.
Here's a link to a CBO report that estimates how SCOTUS ruling will affect citizens. Be sure to read the third section that explains how the ruling will reduce the number of people that will receive healthcare.
SCOTUS did not rule that expanding Medicaid was Illegal. It ruled punishing the states that did not expand Medicaid would be illegal. Medicaid will continue as usual in those Republican states who choose not to enroll thier children at 10% of the normal cost.
And c'mon, the you're saying the Chief Actuary of Medicare is full of it? You're denying that senors have already gotten up to $600 in lowered costs for persecriptions. Perhaps, you're a "just say no guy" and that's OK. You can believe whatever your convictions tell you to believe. I believe I'd rather drink a beer than think much more about this! But--
The SCOTUS ruling has no effect on Medicare. Sorry. And besides, most Republican governors are not going to turn away money to expand Medicaid, except Rick Perry, who doesn't much care about anybody's health.
I wasn’t the one who used the term “illegal.” I said that “forcing” the states to expand Medicaid was ruled “unconstitutional.”
I also did not say the Chief Actuary was “full of it.” I said that the report you cited is no longer viable, due to the changed predictions. As much as many would like to make the ACA bill some sort of savior – it simply isn’t. The bill is in bed with the insurance industry.
The reduction in Rx for some seniors is nice, but the program is deemed a “…source of policy-related uncertainty,” in the actuarial report you cited. It also states that the outcome “…will depend on the achievement of unprecedented improvement in health care provider productivity.” It sums that up by saying that “…Medicare costs could be substantially larger than shown in the Trustees’ current-law protection.” So, in essence, it’s basing is assessment on the current law. And that changed tremendously with the SCOTUS ruling.
In the actual ACA bill – it projects that one of the facets of Medicare savings is the morphing of the lowest-income Medicare recipients transferring to the Medicaid rolls, under the new expansion. That would further reduce the cost of Medicare. The CBO report, while it doesn’t focus specifically on Medicare, makes it clear that the Medicaid expansion numbers will be substantially less than predicted. In fact, they will so much less, that when the ACA is in full swing – more Americans will be uninsured than are uninsured today.
It puts the strain right back on Medicare. Add to that the fact that more doctors are not accepting new Medicare patients and the problem is double.
You should note the disclaimer at the bottom of page 3 of your link. The projections were made under “hypothetical modifications” to the current law. SCOTUS ruling just modified the law in a way that was NOT hypothesized in the report.
I could not find that projection in the link you provided.
What the link you provided says (or my interpretation) is merely a shift. Some people they had anticipated becoming newly insured under Medicaid will in fact become newly uninsured by purchasing insurance through their state's insurance pool instead.
Same net effect: More Americans getting insurance under ACA. Different ratio of Americans getting insured under Medicaid vs. getting insured through a state run private insurance plan.
That's not quite it. No one becomes "newly uninsured" if they purchase insurance.
The net effect is that fewer people will be uninsured - not more. Here's the actual CBO quote:
That's pretty clear. While more people will obtain health insurance, more will lose Medicaid coverage and overall fewer will be insured.
Actually - here's the quote. It didn't come through on the last post.
"How Does Insurance Coverage Change After the Supreme Court’s Decision?
CBO and JCT now estimate that fewer people will be covered by the Medicaid program, more people will obtain health insurance through the newly established exchanges, and more people will be uninsured. The magnitude of those changes varies from year to year. "
The key is that overall more will be uninsured.
Both groups are counted as newly insured for the purposes of ACA.
There are two different ways a person can join the ranks of the "newly insured" (this is not my terminology, it is a term used by those on the frontlines of ACA preparedness, at least where I live).
Some citizens who previously did not qualify for Medicaid now will. They will be newly insured under Medicaid.
Some citizens who previously did not or could not purchase private health insurance will now be able to purchase health insurance from state health insurance pools. Some of those people will qualify for subsidies to help them afford it.
It is NOT saying that more people will be uninsured under ACA than are currently uninsured. It is an adjustment of the proportions of people in each of three groups.
1. THere will be a smaller percentage of the "uptake" (change) from uninsured to newly insured will be covered under Medicaid than they previously estimated.
2. BUT, a larger precentage of the currently uninsured will get coverage under the insurance pools than they previously estimated.
Net change: Still a lot more people with health care coverage than now.
3. But, you are right in that they are saying that some of those they had projected to get coverage will not. And will still be uninsured.
But nowhere, nowhere near the 49 million Americans who are currently uninsured.
The only way someone who now has Medicaid could LOSE their Medicaid under ACA is if they make too much money and thus disqualify themselves. Which hopefully would mean for them that they got a job that provides employer-paid health benefits!
LOL Our posts are now being minimized. Took me a while to find where they were hidden.
I do understand your point - but I think you'll see many millions more Americans that do not receive any coverage than you think you will. I firmly stand behind the idea that this is a bad and unsustainable bill and that it is in bed with the insurance industry. Penalizing people who can't buy a policy is beyond belief and SCOTUS might have upheld it as a "tax," but it's a tax on those who can least afford to pay it.
The numbers of people who will get coverage under this plan will not make up for the millions who will suffer under it. And, if you think just because a person works for a company that employs over 50, that you'll get coverage - think again - you may still be booted out if you can't afford your portion of the premium...which could be quite high.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/us/am … wanted=all
This bill doesn't touch the wealthy, but it puts an insurmountable burden on many in the lower/middle class. It's a bad bill all the way around.
Already Medicare payments are being cut to doctors and other health providers, under the guise of reducing waste.
I think this 92 year old WW11 veteran says it well. He's a retired district court trial judge from Fargo, ND.
"Wherefore are thou, Mitt Romney-O.." He speaks more coherently and dignified than many much younger 'adults'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmEZxw_A … r_embedded
The lies are all the Republicans have. If the people knew the truth, no one would vote for them. If these people get into office....they think they hate Obama...they will be crying a bucket o tears!
Probably not, because they would have elected the one they wanted elected, and people are more willing to pay/support something that goes along with their beliefs.
It is my strong belief that there are a lot of people who won't vote in this election, particularly as the same group that considers gay marriage wrong (Obama stated that gays should be allowed to marry), is the same group that thinks Mormonism is wrong (Romney is Mormon). And that is a LARGE part of the population. Perhaps Ron Paul may get some votes, afterall.
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
Obama indicated in his promissory speeches that he would improve America? However, he has done nothing of the kind, in fact, he has made America much worse since his takeover in the White House. Do you think that...
by Judy Specht2 years ago
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new...
by theirishobserver.4 years ago
At Last - A Patient's Bill of Rights Good afternoon,It seems like everywhere you go in this country, you hear story after story of Americans who have been let down by the private health insurance...
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
believe would have made a more efficient president? Why?
by Credence24 years ago
"Solving that conundrum exposes one of the ugly little secrets of the Republican right today — and one of many reasons why that movement no longer merits the honorable title of "conservative." For what...
by Eric Seidel13 months ago
Can anyone explain the Affordable Care Act to me?I was honestly going to make a Hub about this, asking this very question, and I had written 800 something words on the subject. Ok actually it's more like a mild rant,...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.