Obamacare - The Republican $500 Billion Medicare LIE

Ok, I've seen this lie thrown out in this forum and again and again on the Right-wing media machine, that I feel it is time to put it to bed once and for all. I challenge ANYONE to disprove anything written here. The Right-wing lie is that Obamacare cuts Medicare by $500 billion. The truth is Obamacare saves Medicare $500 billion in costs. Defining savings as "cuts" is what the Right is trying to argue. What kind of false nonsense is that?

The Lie: "Obamacare raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion. Obamacare cuts Medicare -- cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion,"


The Truth: Obamacare DOES NOT CUT $500 BILLION FROM Medicare RECIPIENTS!
Obamacare DOES NOT slash benefits to Medicare reicipients.
The law stipulates that guaranteed Medicare benefits won’t be reduced, and it adds some new benefits, such as improved coverage for pharmaceuticals.
Obamacare results in $500 Billion in Medicare COST SAVINGS
Most of those savings come from a reduction in the future growth of payments to hospitals and other providers (not physicians), and a reduction in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans to bring those payments in line with traditional Medicare.
Yes, Obamacare “cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion”
$500 BILLION IN SAVINGS!!!!!!!!!

That’s $500 billion out of the hospitals systems and execs that DONATE TO THE REPUGS and Republican Super PACS.
Why do Republicans have to lie this way to convince people to vote for them? There is just something wrong with that approach? Any decent American should recoil from these people not vote them into office.

 

To quote you;
"The law stipulates that guaranteed Medicare benefits won’t be reduced, and it adds some new benefits, such as improved coverage for pharmaceuticals."
But it cuts FUNDING $700B. Good math - if you can get away with it.

"Most of those savings come from a reduction in the future growth of payments to hospitals and other providers (not physicians), and a reduction in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans to bring those payments in line with traditional Medicare." Resulting in Medicare Advantage plans being dropped and hospitals refusing Medicare, but yet "Obamacare DOES NOT slash benefits to Medicare reicipients[sic]."

Now, that is using your word specifically parsed to deny the obvious.

 

Neither Axelrod nor Wasserman-Schultz could deny Obamacare cuts $700 billion from Medicare...plus you can add one of the lefts moronic attack dogs, Rachel Maddow, she couldn't defend it either.

 

What part of "cuts" vs. "saves" is confusing you. Doesn't a cut imply something is taken away and therefore something isn't going to exist because it will no longer be paid for? Tell me what is being lost here? What Medicare services are being lost specifically.

 

You said two things here. The first begs the question "How can you cut funding (Which Obamacare doesn't do and that was the point) and you come up with this $700 billion figure from someplace (Don't know, you don't explain) and then prove nothing. You just quip something snarky offering zero proof for you position just blatant skepticism. Still haven't disproven my post.

Then you conclude by patting yourself on the back for pointing out that something is obvious. What, you never say. So, in the end, you've disproven nothing.

NEXT!

 

Nothing in my post is disproven here either.

NEXT!

 

Because I caught your comparison of recipients and providers. Apples do not equal oranges.
"DOES NOT CUT $500 BILLION FROM Medicare RECIPIENTS!" i.e. Me and the over 65 generation. You are correct. It does not cut what is covered. However, putting aside Medicare Advantage, "Most of those savings come from a reduction in the future growth of payments to hospitals and other providers" In other words, you are providing the same services, but cutting what you pay for them. Now companies are required by law to make money so they have 2 choices - not cover Medicare patients or increase the costs to the other 3/4 (? what ever the figure is) of America. Many have already opted for the first option. As a result, it has also cut services to the recipients.

BTW, I am sure the Republicans would love to get their hands on that $700B to replace that measly $1B they are presently receiving. Again, your math just does not compute.

 

Medicare Advantage sucks funds out of the Medicare pot and gives it to private insurers who are far less efficient due to substantial overhead costs the private insurers charge. What Obamacare does is corrects this drain on Medicare dollars and that is part of the savings along with the associated decreased future spending savings realized that the Republicans are calling "cuts". Do you really believe it is being honest to call these savings to the consumer cuts? I realize the private insurers are having their slice of the pie cut but nobody on the Right is phrasing it that way but they are trying to make people believe that their benefits will be cut. It's basically dishonest and they keep repeating it.

 

It is not "far less efficient", but it does cover more and different things. Special Needs Plans (SNP) and Medical Savings Account (MSA) Plans are among them. I am sure that would go over like a lead balloon when he cuts benefits to the mentally ill and handicapped.
One of the main reasons costs have gone up so much is that its popularity has grown so much. And just how are you planning to "reduce" the costs without cutting the services?

 

Here is Soledad O'Brian ripping apart the Republican lie as Sununu tries and fails to defend the lie. This is good.

 

Thanks for posting that. Gov. Sununu ripped Soledad (with the Obama bumper sticker on her forehead) a new pie hole. She should have known better than to go one-on-one with Sununu.

 

It amazes me at how the left can have the facts presented to them on a silver platter (CBO report of 7/24, pages 13 and 14) and still have it go go right ahead with their lies.

BTW, "and you come up with this $700 billion figure from someplace (Don't know, you don't explain)" was explained in your own video. Try listening to it.

 

This is just great and speaks well for a transparent administration. Not only are they lying about Medicare and Obamacare, now they will not even tell us which loopholes they plan to close "when" they are elected. For Gods sake, could these idiots be more obtuse?

WASHINGTON — Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan says he and Mitt Romney will wait until after they're elected to disclose what tax loopholes they plan to get rid of.

Ryan tells Fox News that — quote — "that is something that we think we should do in the light of day, through Congress."

Ryan says the GOP ticket wants to get feedback from Americans about what tax cuts should be kept and what loopholes to close.

In the interview, Ryan accused President Barack Obama of cutting Medicare to pay for his federal health care overhaul. It was the Romney campaign's line of the day, and it drew a blistering response from Obama's campaign, which labeled the latest Romney ad dishonest and hypocritical.

 

I thought a vein was going to pop out of his neck he got so angry trying to pass off the line of BS he is selling. Soledad stayed calm and respectful but I'm guessing that will be the last non-Fox interview anyone in the Romney camp does. He finally had to throw out an insult at O'Brian because he was losing so badly. He starts screaming and yelling and just loses it. Sununu lost it big time. I just have to keep watching it again, and again, and again....

 

Again, you must be trying to look through your liberal blinders. Take them off, man! There's a real world out there. Don't live like a mushroom all your life.

 

Maybe because Soledad is a liberal hack:

Cameras catch CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien reading liberal blog during debate with Romney adviser​

August 14, 2012​

CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien was recently caught on screen looking at an article from a known left-wing website to assist her when debating Romney campaign senior adviser Barbara Comstock.​

In screen grabs posted on Newsbusters.org, O’Brien, who was filling in for Anderson Cooper, can be seen reading from a piece entitled “The Myth of Paul Ryan the Bipartisan Leader” as Comstock offers her response.

The post, which was published just hours before the program began, appeared on the website Talking Points Memo.
While she does not directly cite the blog, she does a read a quote from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Or.) to Comstock that appears verbatim in the piece during the program.

Blogger Ali A. Akbar first posted about it on Viralread.com.

On Tuesday, O’Brien and Mitt Romney surrogate John Sununu engaged in a heated debate over Medicare on “Starting Point,” where he told her, “Soledad, stop this! All you’re doing is mimicking the stuff that comes out of the White House and gets repeated on the Democratic blogs board out there. Put an Obama bumper sticker on your forehead when you do this.”

O’Brien said her figures were from unbiased information from Factcheck.org, the CBO and CNN analysis. Oh, Soledad.. Soledad.. who are you trying to fool?

​

​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/08/14/cameras-catch-cnn-anchor-soledad-obrien-reading-liberal-blog-during-debate-with/#ixzz23a91X3FW​

 

He ripped her a new pie hole? Really, does anyone actually believe that?

She responded to him like a mother would to a kid throwing a tantrum at the grocery store.
Know why?-because he acted that way.

 

Just curious, but aside from bumper stickers, pie-holes, veins, tantrums, etc., did anyone actually listen to the points they were trying to make?

 

Wasn't part of it centered around the fact that Mittens recently said that his plan for Medicare is much like Ryan's. This apparently annoyed Sununu who was trying to set Mittens straight on this in absentia by insisting that Mittens's plan for Medicare isn't at all like Ryan's plan. The underlying assumption being that Mittens doesn't know what his plan for Medicare is but Sununu does know what it is and we shouldn't be listening to Mittens on this.

 

I understand two people watching the same thing and coming to different conclusions but all you have to do is turn the sound down and watch the body language and it is pretty clear Sununu was about to pop his cork while O'Brian remained calm and on point and didn't resort to throwing out insults. It's funny how many time Coin has stated that during any debate, once you throw out insults, you have lost the argument. But now apparently, that doesn't apply for some reason.

Coin isn't as obtuse as he pretends in this situation and he knows Sununu got hammered but his pride and his partisanship won't let him admit it to himself much less admit it to the rest of us. I don't care what he admits to himself or us, it is just a sign of a his lack of personal integrity and that is nothing I haven't known all along. In other words, don't concede any point ever no matter how wrong you are because it just might devastate your fragile personal narrative. Whatever...