The illogic of the Medicare lie

1. 74

   Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

   Forget for a minute the amount of money involved.
   
   Think philosophically only.
   Ask yourself this simple question:
   Why in God's name would President Obama, in his sweeping legislation to extend healthcare benefits to as many Americans as possible, take healthcare benefits away from the main group that is already receiving them from the government?
   
   It makes absolutely NO SENSE.
   
   Why is this very, very basic argument not being used to refute the Romney/Ryan Medicare lie???
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 60

      God is in kitchenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      America is a police state now, dear. The politicians are all liars. Finding one illogic is scratching the surface.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Well, police have health benefits so hopefully they'll share!
         

         replyreport
         1. 60

            God is in kitchenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Good luck finding that around here

            replyreport
            1. 77

               schoolgirlforrealposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Like

               replyreport
   2. 60

      American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      MM,
      
      Sense??? what has Obama ever done that makes sense. It is true, that there is a huge cut that has already happened to Medicaid and Medicare, and another huge cut coming in January. You don't have to believe me, you get right from the horse's mouth during an ABC interview.
      
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7sLt1Dm … ture=share

      replyreport
   3. 74

      Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It's the same strategy as repeating the "You didn't build that" quote out of context:
      
      Take something that sounds bad if you only hear that bit, pretend that bit is the whole thing, and tell everybody that the bit is the whole thing loudly enough and often enough that people start to believe it.
      
      It works really well on people predisposed to dislike the president.
      It works moderately well on people who are only casually paying attention.
      It doesn't work at all on people both able and willing to think critically.
      
      The GOP is counting on America to be either unable or unwilling (or both) to think critically about its message.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         American Viewposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         okay, he was asked the question more than one time from the interviewer of ABC, which of course is very liberal it would never do something to make the president look bad, he answered the question plainly, under no duress, he is very calm giving his answers. Now because the answer shows the truth, you want to claim it was taken out of context. Would you like me to post a bunch more links of speeches and interviews were Obama says that over and over and over again. It is a fact they're cutting Medicaid and using those funds for Obama care start up.
         
         I must say I am totally enjoying the new Democrats response to everything. Oh it's a lie, oh he did not mean to say that, oh it was taken out of context, or course the best is now Obama is campaigning by saying "the Republicans are going to say" and then trying just blow it off. His and the Democrats hopes are that by trying to say that people will not listen to the message, but that is not working because people are listing to the message, people are wising up to the mistruths and deflections this administration.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         lol How can in interview be out of context? He was asked, he answered in his own words. Now he wants to try to claim it as a big lie. Everything says any savings will not be continuous. In other words, it cannot be maintained. A large chunk of the so-called savings is from no longer funding the Iraq War. Guess what? That is a one-time deal and does not continue into subsequent years. He also tries to count the $716 billion dollars twice! He at first tries to say it will be a savings of $716 billion and help to reduce the deficit and then later on says it will be put into ObamaCare programs. Um...what? This Administration is nothing but double speak and lies.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Exhibit A

            replyreport
            1. 0

               SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Here is the truth:
               
               "First, the president claims that he is not actually cutting benefits for beneficiaries. That is technically true in that most of the cuts are reductions in payments to providers. But it is ridiculous to assume that cutting payments to doctors and hospital will have no impact on seniors. In fact, Medicare’s own actuaries estimate that the cuts could force as many as 15 percent of hospitals to close. Similarly, at a time when physicians are already complaining that Medicare reimburses at a rate less than actual costs, additional reimbursement cuts will force many doctors out of practice or at least cause many to stop accepting Medicare patients. Seniors may still have their full Medicare benefits. They just won’t be able to find a doctor who will take them.
               
               The president also claims that his cuts have “extended the life of the Medicare trust fund by eight years.” Again, technically true. But extending the life of the Trust Fund is not the same thing as extending the life of Medicare."
               "it is using any savings from Medicare to pay for Obamacare, while pretending it is available to pay for future Medicare benefits. As Medicare’s chief actuary points out, “In practice, the improved [Medicare] financing cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions) and to extend the trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective accounting conventions.”
               
               The rest of the truth:
               
               "Romney and Ryan assume that the combination of competition and consumer cost sharing will help hold down the cost of the program.If they are wrong, it is likely that the government payment would not keep up with the rising cost of insurance premiums. This means that the insurance plans fully subsidized by the government would offer fewer benefits than Medicare currently provides. Seniors who wanted a plan that provided all the benefits offered by Medicare today would then have to contribute some of their own money over and above the government subsidy. This is the source of the president’s claim that the Romney-Ryan plan would cost seniors an additional $6,600. (The $6,600 figure is a bit dubious, actually derived from an earlier version of the Ryan budget that included a tighter cap on future spending.)
               
               But since we cannot pay the current level of benefits in the future, seniors will either have to pay more or get less no matter who wins this election. Romney and Ryan are simply being a little more explicit—and honest—about it. Or at least they were until they started to deny it.
               
               Politicians pandering to seniors is nothing new. But this year’s Medicare dishonesty is especially dangerous. With both campaigns peddling the idea that any cuts to Medicare, now or in the future, are automatically a bad thing, we run the risk of poisoning the well for any future reform of the system. And if that is the outcome of this election, America is in deep trouble, no matter who wins in November."
               Medicare is not sustainable under the current system. That is just a fact. President Obama's plan simply postpones the inevitable, while cutting provider payments which will shut down hospitals and force physicians simply not to accept it. Then in the end, seniors will STILL wind up paying more for benefits and have trouble finding anyone to accept Medicare. Romney's plan at least has a fighting chance to keep the status quo if the competition does reduce the cost of insurance. It might not, and yes, they may wind up paying more down the road. It is not like that is going to happen bingo! voila! next year you are paying $6000 more (and that figure is not even correct anyway). However, at least they will be able to find doctors and hospitals who will still take Medicare and they will wind up paying more under Obama's plan as well with less options for care.

               replyreport
               1. 74

                  Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You cut and paste the same language in every forum.
                  Where are you getting this "truth" from?
                  Would you be so kind as to provide links so others can read the quotes in their entirety (Not that i don't trust your interpretation, just that some of these do seem highly selective and not complete).
                  Thank you.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     SassySue1963posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … icare.html

                     replyreport
2. 59

   Xenonlitposted 12 years ago

   

   replyreport
3. 62

   taburkettposted 12 years ago

   Sorry Mighty -
   but I must use a simple example to show why the Romney/Ryan claim is correct.
   If I have a pie that is cut into six pieces, I can have a party for 5 friends, and everything stays equal.
   But, if I invite 7 firends to enjoy the pie, then 4 people end up with a smaller piece than the other 4.
   The revenue is the pie.  Medicare and Medicaid received its share.
   Now the revenue is still the pie but the new Healthcare law took some of the pie.
   Where do you think the smaller piece is?  Answer - Medicare/Medicaid.
   
   I do not understand why people do not comprehend that you cannot have your pie and eat it to.

   replyreport