Obamacare guts Medicare

[kentay]

Why didn't your header state a fact that the Romney people are liars, then I would read more of your post, if you ever expressed one little bit of truth. kentay

[kentay]

To be fair, kentay, the title of the thread references the specific Republican stratagem--which is a lie, I agree, but that is the accurate descriptive of an actual Republican stratagem.

I just think when poster header represent a lie it's only to get others to read  his thread. Kind of like a scandal newspaper that lies in its headlines. My personal thoughts would be that posters should at least try to write headers of truth not lies as it's going to cause problems and that way you could ignore it if it didn't interest you. kentay

[Ted S]

A little unsolicited advice for Kentay: No headline tells the full story. Look beyond the headline and check multiple sources.

[Ted S]

Why didn't your header state a fact that the Romney people are liars, then I would read more of your post, if you ever expressed one little bit of truth. kentay

Actually I don't think the Romney people are liars.  They are truthful but misleading.  I think Obamacare does indeed cut Medicare but it doesn't really matter because Obamacare fills the void.  So technically Romney is correct but as a practical matter nothing changes.  Instead of one unsustainable government health care program there are two.

But this is just politics and each side does it.  Last election a Democrat candidate here in Minnesota accused her Republican opponent of wanting to impose a 30% federal sales tax.  Technically she was correct but highly misleading.  The Republican was in favor of REPLACING all federal income taxes with a 30% sales tax.  Her ads left out the fact that the sales tax was a replacement for the income tax, a critical piece of information.

[wbcoleman]

Why didn't your header state a fact that the Romney people are liars, then I would read more of your post, if you ever expressed one little bit of truth. kentay

Actually I don't think the Romney people are liars.  They are truthful but misleading.  I think Obamacare does indeed cut Medicare but it doesn't really matter because Obamacare fills the void.  So technically Romney is correct but as a practical matter nothing changes.  Instead of one unsustainable government health care program there are two.

But this is just politics and each side does it.  Last election a Democrat candidate here in Minnesota accused her Republican opponent of wanting to impose a 30% federal sales tax.  Technically she was correct but highly misleading.  The Republican was in favor of REPLACING all federal income taxes with a 30% sales tax.  Her ads left out the fact that the sales tax was a replacement for the income tax, a critical piece of information.

ted, as I understand it, Obamacare as written really is intended to transfer resources from Medicare recipients, through cutbacks in reimbursement rates, to other, previously uninsured beneficiaries.  Where I think the lie comes in is that the Democrats don't intend to allow the transfer to take place, they'll eventually repeal the cutbacks, the trick was to game CBO scoring and make O-care appeal less expensive than it is.

[Ted S]

ted, as I understand it, Obamacare as written really is intended to transfer resources from Medicare recipients, through cutbacks in reimbursement rates, to other, previously uninsured beneficiaries.  Where I think the lie comes in is that the Democrats don't intend to allow the transfer to take place, they'll eventually repeal the cutbacks, the trick was to game CBO scoring and make O-care appeal less expensive than it is.

In the final analysis I think you're right.  There was some accounting magic done to make the numbers look better that they actually are but Obamacare was sold as an addition to, or complimentary to, Medicare.

But rather than trying to sell themselves as the true guardians of the gigantic entitlement program called Medicare, I'd rather have Republicans making the point that it is better to control over your own health care than to turn your life over to the government.

[clistensprechen]

The HMO era showed just how problematic it is to "control your own health care" when in fact it's the insurance companies that had the control even under that particular guise.

Dems are correct when they point out that you're more in control over your own health care when you make the decisions compared to insurance companies making the decisions for you, instituting such crap as "pre-existing conditions" limits on what they'll cover etc.

[wbcoleman]

The HMO era showed just how problematic it is to "control your own health care" when in fact it's the insurance companies that had the control even under that particular guise.

Dems are correct when they point out that you're more in control over your own health care when you make the decisions compared to insurance companies making the decisions for you, instituting such crap as "pre-existing conditions" limits on what they'll cover etc.

I'd rather have the choice of insurance company bureaucrats to deal with as opposed to government bureaucrats.

[kentay]

Did Obama cut $700 billion from Medicare?We have generally given Republicans Two Pinocchios for such claims.

[Ted S]

I'd rather have the choice of insurance company bureaucrats to deal with as opposed to government bureaucrats.

Agreed.  And better yet, no third party would be involved.  You would buy health care like you buy a TV set.  You would walk through the door and pay cash.  If you couldn't afford it you would take out a loan.  If you had an expensive illness or accident your insurance would kick-in because it covered catastrophic events, not routine treatments.

[Ted S]

You would buy health care like you buy a TV set.  You would walk through the door and pay cash.

To expand on this, just imagine what would happen if TV sets were produced and delivered like health care.

You would never just go out and plunk down cash because your insurance company would be charging you big dollars every month for TV insurance.  Every time you wanted a new TV you would just go to the TV doctor and have him write you a prescription for a new one.  The doctor wouldn't care how much the TV actually cost and you wouldn't either.  Only the TV insurance company would care and they would be scorned by you for doing so.  You would always have the newest and best brand because the insurance premium was the same whether you used it or not.

After years of this the market would be full of expensive yet mediocre television sets.  Of course wealthy people would be able to afford to purchase the really good sets outright but average Joes would have to settle for whatever the government TV planners had specified.

[clistensprechen]

The HMO era showed just how problematic it is to "control your own health care" when in fact it's the insurance companies that had the control even under that particular guise.

Dems are correct when they point out that you're more in control over your own health care when you make the decisions compared to insurance companies making the decisions for you, instituting such crap as "pre-existing conditions" limits on what they'll cover etc.

I'd rather have the choice of insurance company bureaucrats to deal with as opposed to government bureaucrats.

That's nice--for YOU. Republicans want to shove your preferences down the throats of people who have other preferences, and that's the problem.

[clistensprechen]

I'd rather have the choice of insurance company bureaucrats to deal with as opposed to government bureaucrats.

Agreed.  And better yet, no third party would be involved.  You would buy health care like you buy a TV set.  You would walk through the door and pay cash.  If you couldn't afford it you would take out a loan.  If you had an expensive illness or accident your insurance would kick-in because it covered catastrophic events, not routine treatments.

You've hit on why we've had decades of employer-provided insurance in the first place: buying coverage in bulk used to be cheaper than each person buying individual unassociated accounts.  Employer-provided health benefits remains the best way a person earns his/her coverage, while THE best and THE cheapest way would be single-payer.

[Ted S]

...THE best and THE cheapest way would be single-payer.

If by "single payer" you mean I choose and pay for my own insurance, then we see eye-to-eye.  If by single payer you mean the government chooses and I pay for everybody else, then you're nuts.

[Woody]

For those who live and die by Politiact.  I read it to, have the app, but I also rad WAPO factchecker and of act check.org.  politifact has a tendency to be very literal when fact checking left wing talking points in order to sway a little left.
[/size]
[/size]T[/size]
[/size]
[/size][/size]Its recent rulings on Medicare have demonstrated the point thrice over. PolitiFactsaid[/size]zingedcalls

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/315125/politifiction-editors