-
Has Sebelius Violated the Anti-Lobbying Act?
June 10, 2013 | 34 comments
-
California Schemin’
June 3, 2013 | 16 comments
-
An IRS Scandal Inseparable from Obamacare
May 28, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?
May 20, 2013 | 6 comments
-
The Grand Old Poseurs
May 13, 2013 | 72 comments
The Right Prescription
Obama’s Latest Plan to Snooker Seniors
GAO outs $8 billion Medicare Advantage “demonstration project” as an election year scam.
For years, the President and his congressional accomplices have been telling us that the Medicare Advantage (MA) program is too costly. As Obama claimed during a 2009 interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “We are spending a lot of money subsidizing the insurance companies around something called Medicare Advantage.… And if we eliminate that and other programs, we can potentially save $200 billion…” This canard was the pretext for the massive slashes in MA funding he authorized when he signed Obamacare into law. As the election year approached, however, the President’s reelection team evidently noticed a potential problem — the seniors most likely to be affected by these MA cuts were due to find out about them just a few weeks before the November election.
As Benjamin E. Sasse and Charles Hurt report, open enrollment for MA begins three weeks before voters go to the polls: “It’s hard to imagine a bigger electoral disaster for a president than seniors in crucial states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio discovering that he’s taken away their beloved Medicare Advantage just weeks before an election.” And it is no exaggeration to say that MA is “beloved.” Nearly 25 percent of all Medicare enrollees are on MA, and the vast majority of these seniors chose the program because of its low co-pays and comprehensive benefits. It is no coincidence that well over three-fifths of MA beneficiaries have annual incomes of less than $30,000 and that the percentage of minorities enrolled in the program is much higher than is the case for traditional Medicare.
The electoral significance of these facts would hardly have been lost on the President’s political advisors when they learned that Obamacare’s MA cuts would be unveiled to the nation’s most reliable voters just before the November election. The resultant vision of surly seniors lining up in their millions at the polls to pull the lever for Mitt Romney presumably produced urgent emails and frantic phone calls, followed by a terse directive from the White House to Obama’s creatures at CMS to come up with plan to put off the cuts until after the election. In due course, an $8.3 billion “demonstration project” materialized that would “temporarily restore Medicare Advantage funds so that seniors in key markets don’t lose their trusted insurance program in the middle of Obama’s re-election bid.”
It would appear, however, that the auditors of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) smell a rat. “In a rebuke to the Obama administration, government auditors are calling for the cancellation of an $8 billion Medicare program that congressional Republicans have criticized as a political ploy.” Naturally, the number crunchers at the GAO didn’t employ the kind of partisan verbiage that the GOP used when word of this scam got out. They couched their criticism in the bland vernacular of the Beltway bureaucrat. Nonetheless, they pointed out that this particular demonstration project “dwarfs all other Medicare demonstrations — both mandatory and discretionary — conducted since 1995” and “precludes a credible evaluation of its effectiveness in achieving CMS’s stated research goal.”
In other words, the amount of money being spent on this faux demonstration project is gigantic compared to legitimate projects and CMS didn’t bother to outline any real plan for evaluating its success. The GAO folks are mistaken on the latter assumption, however. The Obama reelection team, which includes the apparatchiks at CMS, does indeed have a plan for measuring the success of the project — they will count the votes cast for the President on election day. If he receives more votes than Mitt Romney, the program will be judged a success. Presumably, the transparency of their motives in this regard is why the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has also raised concerns: “The panel denounced Medicare’s ‘overly broad use of demonstration authority.’”
This concern echoes those which have long been voiced by a variety of Republicans on Capitol Hill, including Senator Orrin Hatch and Rep. Dave Camp, who released this statement: “The Obama Administration launched this demonstration program to divert attention away from cuts to the popular Medicare Advantage program … Furthermore, it’s unclear whether the Obama Administration even had the legal authority to undertake it in the first place.” The response of the White House to the protests of Republicans and the concerns of nonpartisan agencies was predictable: “Asked about the report, White House press secretary Jay Carney immediately changed the subject to the $200 billion in projected savings from eliminating improper payments under the health care law.”
At this late date, it’s difficult to restrain a chuckle when Republicans like Orrin Hatch, the appointees at MedPAC, and the GAO number crunchers raise concerns about “overly broad” use of power and lack of “legal authority” by this administration. These people should know by now that such behavior defines the Obama White House. For Obama and his accomplices, this $8 billion “demonstration project” is no different than the Obamacare waivers or the gag order issued by Kathleen Sebelius in September of 2009 forbidding insurance companies to communicate with their own customers about the “reform” law while it was being debated in Congress. These people simply don’t care if their actions are legal. They will do whatever it takes to win.
And to win this November, they know they must keep as many seniors as possible in the dark about what has been done to Medicare Advantage. It isn’t enough to simply lie. They must maintain the false illusion that the program’s cost and benefits have not been altered. Thus, $8 billion of our money must be used to shore up the program until the President has weathered the election. That this is unethical and probably illegal is utterly irrelevant to Obama and his mendacious minions.
About the Author
David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (66) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Catron
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/04/24/obamas-latest-plan-to-snooker
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi.| 4.24.12 @ 7:27AM
Who would think that politicians would tinker with Medicare and Social Security, just before an election? No wonder Orrin Hatch is horrified. He has been such a defender of the Constitution. Orrin is running for re-election this year. Is there any one in Congress who has been more of an ass licker and errand boy for the elites? Dumping Hatch, Lugar, Tommy Thomson, and George Allen, in the primaries would do a lot of good for the future of the Republican party.
Pete| 4.24.12 @ 2:57PM
Hatch is even older than Ron Paul.
cali| 4.24.12 @ 7:34AM
I have said on a number of occasions that this administration is corrupt; that no longer applies. This administration is criminal to the core; it's time that they go.
Impeachment would solve it; an election upcoming does not guarantie the end to this criminal gang.
TrueBlue | 4.24.12 @ 4:31PM
A Democrat controlled Senate would never hold a real impeachment trial, which is why the House hasn't bothered to waste their time.
Von Mises Jr| 4.24.12 @ 7:47AM
This is about "fairness." It is the essence of socialism. Like the 1% that do not deserve their billions, 25% of seniors do not deserve better health care than the other 75% of seniors, or the poor.
Obama is leveling the field and making it "fair." If the IPAB death panels are good enough for anybody in 2013, it is good enough for everybody. Except of course the ruling class. They will be Martha's Vineyard or Vale.
This is what Rousseau, Hegel and Nietzsche believed. Only the elites of the day would be treated above the rest. Privilege was not to be gotten other than one's personal achievements. So if you went to Harvard or Columbia, you get to live like king. Otherwise, you are part of the society and deserve no better than the worst off.
Moynihan talked about "defining deviancy down." Obama is "defining misery down."
A. C. Santore| 4.24.12 @ 9:29AM
Such nonsense you spout, Von!
1. I have Medicare Advantage. It is paid for partly by my contributions to Social Security, partly by my paying for "Plan B," and partly by a monthly premium I pay to my insurance company. It's that extra monthly premium that gets me M. A. I pay for it
2. Obama said this: "We are spending a lot of money subsidizing the insurance companies around something called Medicare Advantage...."
There are several egregious errors in that one little half-sentence. Part of the money "spent" by "the government" is money paid in over millions of lifetimes of seniors. It's not like it's the government's money!
And they're not "subsidizing insurance companies." They' simply turning over to the insurance companies money that we have deducted from our Social Security payments. That's even MORE of our money they're turning over to the insurance companies.
3. What annoys the flamers in the Obama administration is that, when those monies are paid to my insurance company, only my insurance company and my physicians have control of my medical care. Unlike plain vanilla Medicare, which the government controls.
4. We're in this bucket of [deleted] largely because AARP - self-described friend of retired people - made a deal with Obama to support ObamaCare in exchange for his dropping M.A. so that AARP can soak their members for the very money we had been paying into M.A.
It stinks to Heaven.
Von Mises Jr| 4.24.12 @ 9:53AM
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, Santore. Current recipients are receiving 3-4 times their contributions in payouts. Since the government spent the money, there are no significant gains on the money they told you were an investment in your retirement. It was a tax and was declared so by the Supreme Court. They ruled that you have no claim to your Social security other than what the plan decides to pay you. If they fail to send your check, you are SOL, understand?
You should read what I wrote in the comments of Americas Alternate Economic Reality. You are not the only one being deceived. But as long as you refuse to open your eyes, you and your senior friends will be dupes of liberal lies.
Good luck with the IPAB Death Panels. Since you refuse to fight for your liberty, you accept their verdict.
Jobe| 4.24.12 @ 10:48AM
Gentlemen: You and Santore are both right. Don't be distracted by the straw men upon whom the liberals invite you to vent your spleen. If there had actually been "a lock box" or if the money put into SS had, in fact, been invested, we probably wouldn't be in the fix that we are in. However, since this would be government handling the money, chances are, they would have found some other way to leave the whole thing FUBAR.
Al Adab| 4.24.12 @ 11:36AM
What if I had been able to take those contributions and place them in my own 401 or IRA or mutual funds. How much would my net worth be today? I could even use it for medical expenses, to pay off my mortgage, to educate my children, or to retire...it would be mine. Just imagine, a nation of independantly wealthy citizens free from government dependancy.
Von Mises Jr| 4.24.12 @ 1:22PM
A county in Texas opted out and did their own plan. They get back about six or seven times SS, perhaps more.
But the point is that people must come to the realization that they are in denial. NYT just cut their defined benefit plan. Rush played a clip from the six minute outrage of NYT employees. One lady is shocked that she will get $15K a year instead of $58K.
This is what Santore refuses to accept.
Al Adab| 4.24.12 @ 3:09PM
WSJ is reporting this AM that SS will be broke in 2033. Earlier than predicted. Think it might change again as people live longer?
Von Mises Jr| 4.24.12 @ 3:22PM
Social Security Disability is up 70% in four years under Obama. The 99 week unemployment slugs are virtually all claiming disability. I think I heard this is going broke in a few years.
So like EBT cards and other entitlements, those not in need found that they can scam the system, and those who actually need them will be eating dog food.
This is Obama's "fairness." If he had to eat dog, Americans can at least eat dog food. Dogs beware, you might be next on the menu under ObamaSocialism. North Koreans have moved on to bugs and grass.
hangemhi| 4.24.12 @ 3:56PM
when is the military going to go broke? Oh, that's right, the gov just funds them without extra payments from us. Guess what, SS is the same friggin thing as the military, except that FDR cleverly came up with a direct payment from tax payers so that when the gov tried to steal SS back from them, they wouldn't be able too because "that's my money I paid in over my lifetime". So you banana heads who think SS is a ponzi scheme or going broke don't realize you've been check mated by FDR - and that the military and EVERYTHING that gov spends on is in the same boat including SS - so if you think SS is a ponzi - then what is the insane name to call unfunded wars, and an ever growing military on a constantly shrinking tax base?
aboutashiasyeriq| 4.24.12 @ 4:41PM
Except, genius, among the reasons you have a banana lodged where it must be strangling the oxygen to your brain, you are equating constitutional providing for the common defence, with unconstitutional domestic spending, unless you friggin try the liberal gambit that social security is constitutionally promoting the general welfare, in which case, how, exactly, is the general welfare promoted, exactly, by a general welfare promotion that is already actually unfunded in ponzi scheme actuality by more than $100 trillion, which means is actually unfunded in ponzi scheme actuality by more than $1 million for each and every single taxpayer already, actually, which actually unconstitutionally unsecures not only the blessings of liberty to ourselves, but unsecures the blessings of liberty to our posterity created equal that is actually endowed with actual birth, not to mention the unsecured blessings of liberty to our posterity created equal that is not actually endowed with actual birth, insanely, much less unconstitutionally forming a less perfect union, unconstitutionally unestablishing justice, and unconstitutionally uninsuring domestic tranquility, in exactly insane liberal progressive socialist tyrannical insane order, insanely.
Linden| 4.26.12 @ 2:59PM
Just like Chile.
Purp| 4.24.12 @ 8:52PM
Unfortunately you still don't know the definition of Ponzi scheme.
Death panels already existed before Obamacare and you know it. It's called claim denied ala the Insurance Company. Whether an insurance company or a government agency determines care, it's still not your doctor and you. But you can vote out your government - you can't your insurance carrier (from your employer). Moreover, Medicare provides a guarantee of care, insurance companies do NOT.
So what you have to pay for what you will use later in life - if you have to pay more, tough. Raise taxes and save Social Security and Medicare and stop dissing the elderly. They deserve a good, worry free retirement - don't you?
Von Mises Jr| 4.24.12 @ 9:47PM
Perp, you ignored my riddle again:
If Keynesian Demand-Side economics states too much demand causes inflation and too little demand unemployment, how did your boy Jimma create stagflation?
If the Bureau of Bullshittics reported the real unemployment and inflation, you boy Bumma would be near 20% Misery Index.
How do you guys defy the rules of your own economic theories?
Now don't change the subject, troll!!!
Jabber3| 4.24.12 @ 10:52AM
A.C. you have summarized the essence of the Medicare Advantage issue pertaining to the cuts authorized under Obamacare. The question is what can we do about it unless Obama is defeated and the Republicans control the House and Senate and Obamacare is repealed. These cuts are in place even though they are being masked this year by this $8B "demonstration" authority.
BTW I tore up my AARP card over their role in this fiasco.
Owen K| 4.24.12 @ 3:08PM
Excellent observations. I see you are student of Von Mises as well. However, there are still people who will never believe the truth, even when it is obvious.
Darin| 4.24.12 @ 7:53AM
Ah yes, the stench of "hope and change."
Dave | 4.24.12 @ 7:54AM
"My plan is to fundamentally change America."
- Barack Obama -2008
"Governments are not always overthrown by direct and open assaults. They are not always battered down by the arms of conquerors, or the successful daring of usurpers. There is often concealed the dry rot, which eats into the vitals, when all is fair and stately on the outside. And to republics this has been the more common fatal disease. The continual drippings of corruption may wear away the solid rock, when the tempest has failed to overturn it."
- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story -1829.
"Remember, Daniel son, the Constitution is what binds the republic. All else is the lemming's Utopia.
- Mr. Miyagi
Indy| 4.24.12 @ 8:35AM
Please see below for an important message from the AARP on this:
" __________________________"
Thank you, please keep paying your dues, we are looking out for our seniors.
Any AARP fans out there? Do you expect to see any TV ads educating seniors and asking them to call on Congress to save MA? No, a big nothing, they are a hard Left organization who lobby for the Left and throw seniors under the bus. A big nothing is what we will "hear" from AARP.
martin j smith| 4.24.12 @ 8:52AM
And what is Romney's job running as President ? It should be to illuminate the truth--but will he ?
fiscal| 4.24.12 @ 10:18AM
Can we get this fact free blog out in the open? While MA started in the 70's because private insurers said they could do it cheaper than the government, it wasn't until the 90's that subsidies started. Most analyses I've seen say that the federal government subsidizes the MA program 14% more than standard Medicare. Those are just facts.
I have no problem simply providing private insurers the same amount as standard Medicare and letting them prove they can do it for less. But they can't do it for less which is why they lobbied for the subsidies. If you are truly a conservative, you should ask for the abolishment of all federal subsidies that favor some businesses over others. This includes the high cost of MA as well as ethanol subsidies, capital gains, and other items that combat market mechanisms. Let the market decide.
Yes, politically cutting MA is a problem. But it is the right thing to do fiscally -- and conservatives should be at the forefront in asking for it.
Calvin| 4.24.12 @ 10:32AM
There is a guy you supported for President that needs to hear from you. If the big O does the right thing I am sure all will follow.
squalis| 4.24.12 @ 10:33AM
Don't you get it? Conservatives have been asking for those cuts, and everytime they get demogogued on the issue, accused of killing Granny and forcing the elderly to eat dog food. What is truly despicable here is that it seems some of the libs may actually be coming to the realization that we are headed for a financial, economic train wreck with all our entitlement programs, but they are so damned dishonest and cowardly that they are unable to be truthful.
fiscal| 4.24.12 @ 10:56AM
I wish conservatives asked for those cuts. However, I can't find any evidence that is true. If you remember, it was conservatives blaming Obama for killing Grandma with their "death panels".
Let's face it, Medicare has become too large and needs to be cut. I'm for practically anything that will cut that monster. Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves for not being fiscally responsible. We know that Dems will not be responsible. That's what makes me think that there is really very little difference in fact (aside from the rhetoric) between the political parties. They all value being re-elected more than governing, are afraid of losing the senior vote (so they won't cut entitlements), will not even cut departments like Education even though they talk about it (because teachers are a large voting block).
This also makes me angry at blogs like this that make everything political and doesn't deal with facts and fiscal responsibility. This column should have outlined the fiscally responsible position of getting rid of Medicare Advantage subsidies (but not the program). But it didn't...
squalis| 4.24.12 @ 11:22AM
You must not recall this dem sponsored advertisement:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011.....heelchair/
fiscal| 4.24.12 @ 11:47AM
Wasn't this a response to Palin's "death panels" and killing grandma lines?
But let's get back to facts. Privatizing Medicare would indeed leave many seniors not covered because insurance companies need to make profits. You make profits as an insurance company by covering those who won't cost you too much. So the ad is right in terms of facts.
Health insurance is as far from the free market as you can imagine because it is so heavily regulated. They make money by NOT covering people. That's why regulations are necessary to prevent them from dropping you if you get sick or too old. Those people that believe health insurance is the free market need to have their heads examined. Another myth is that you can get insurance cheaper of you could cross state lines. In fact, if an insurance company from out of state wants to sell to you, they would have you meet your state's regulations which would mean they'd charge almost precisely what it costs you now. States regulate insurance rates so you would not get any type of deal.
The problem here is that voters have no idea of how insurance works, the regulation involved, and how profits are made. This is just another case where "common sense solutions" are just another way of showing how dumb the electorate is.
From the Desk of Media Matters| 4.24.12 @ 7:34PM
Fecal Fecal Barney Fecal Frankey Fecal,
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots know Palin was correct about death panels so much so that congress will soon vote to eliminate the death panel Palin was correct about.
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots are in disbelief that you acknowledge medical insurance is so costly so much so because of regulation, and that you are retarded so much so that you are calling for even more regulation as the solution.
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots are in disbelief that you are retarded so much so that you believe voters have no idea of how insurance works, insurance such as auto insurance, homeowners insurance, and life insurance, that voters have no idea how to purchase, despite their relative affordability, affordability voters have no idea is because these insurances are not so heavily regulated by government so much so that employers are insanely involved in, among the ideas voters have no idea of.
Our bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots are getting the idea you are retarded so much so that they are rapidly becoming convinced you are the world's most retarded liberal troll.
Stop embarrassing and discrediting common sense itself.
- MM staff
From the Desk of Media Matters| 4.24.12 @ 12:07PM
barney fecal frank fecal fecal fiscal fecal,
MM staff is facing it - you are another epic fail - same as our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots like Jacquelina Penelope Lawrie Carney Gibbs ODonnell Moscow Pelosi.
MM staff is facing it - Conservatives are not the same as Republicans that should be ashamed of fiscal irresponsibility.
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots know fiscal responsibility must be obtained through reduced spending.
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots know you have outlined your idea of fiscally responsible positions by your very own words:
- "it is very clear that tax cuts are not stimulative"
- "The argument that if we put more money in the pockets of "jobs creators" it will create more jobs is clearly false"
- "leading with tax cuts as an economic strategy makes absolutely no sense"
- "The Ryan plan is just as irresponsible as Obama's"
- "financial companies [were] the major cause of the problem -- not the CRA, not Fannie and Freddie, not government"
Even our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots are facing that fiscal responsibility per barney fecal means:
- conservatives more to blame than government
- tax cuts make absolutely no sense
- an actually House passed budget,
actually reducing the rate that spending continues to actually increase,
is actually not any fiscally responsibly different than a budget:
- voted 0 (for) - 419 (against) in the House that has 190 democrats
- voted 0 (for) - 97 (against) in the Senate that has 53 democrats
Stop embarrassing liberal trolls.
- MM staff
Drunken Sailor| 4.24.12 @ 2:35PM
Funny, I seem to remember Dems running a commercial about Paul Ryan throwing Grandma off a cliff that was ran not all that long ago, when he proposed changing these programs. Guess you missed that one.
squalis| 4.24.12 @ 10:36AM
I'm surprised the tiny pimple of 8 billion on our fat ass of trillions of debt showed up on someone's radar.
Jabber3| 4.24.12 @ 10:58AM
Pimples have a way of becoming "pustules"
Andrew Keirns| 4.24.12 @ 11:01AM
THIS $8B shows up because it is essentially a campaign contribution to re-elect Mr. Obama.
jiml| 4.24.12 @ 10:42AM
Obama is a FRAUD! He is decietful and anti-US in everything he does. American better wake up.
corvair| 4.24.12 @ 10:54AM
This already happened to us. Anthem got out of MA this year and no other MA offered in our area. Had to go to AARP Supplement at 5x the cost.
Now, doctor bills go to medicare for processing and then to AARP Supplement for additional processing. With Advantge, one processor - the provider.
Have to believe that one processor (a private company) is more cost effective.
fiscal| 4.24.12 @ 11:02AM
Anthem got out of this business for a couple of reasons. First of all, insurance rates are regulated by the states (not the federal government), and they probably couldn't make much money at the rates they were allowed to charge. Secondly, processing is a very small part of administration and the insurance companies get most of the processing subsidized by Medicare. They just take the feed and put it through their system. Without Medicare, it would cost them a lot more for processing. You got good coverage from MA because you really didn't pay what it cost. If you did pay appropriately, you'd be complaining about the high cost.
corvair| 4.24.12 @ 11:11AM
I believe Anthem still offers service in NH, just not our county.
Obama's knock on MA is that they reimburse more than non MA plans. Part, if not all, of the higher reimbursement is the fact that the entire process is with the provider and none with the government. I'll bet that when the MA are gone, the government will justify hiring more workers to handle the additional processing
fiscal| 4.24.12 @ 11:28AM
The higher reimbursement has nothing to do with processing -- it was simply a subsidy given to large political donors (the insurance companies) for their lobbying efforts. Medicare is much more efficient in claims processing than private companies simply because of their size. Administration is an extremely small portion of the cost of Medicare. Private companies must not only match the efficiency of the government, but must also return a profit to their shareholders.
My guess is that you probably have a lot of older people in your county and since NH regulates the rates Anthem can charge, they simply could not make money in your county. There may also be some local ordinances that would restrict the sale in your county.
From the Desk of Media Matters| 4.24.12 @ 3:10PM
fecal barney fecal doddey fecal frankey doodey,
Our other bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots are astonished that you pulled off actually out Pelosi-ing Moscow Maddow Jacquelina Penelope Biden Olbermann Schultz Wasserman Schultz Mahre Matthews Pelosi queerself.
Medicare is much more efficient . . . th . . . tha . . . thaan private companies simply because of th . . . the . . . theiir size.
Hoo. Sorry. MM staff is astonished they tend to agree with our bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots.
MM staff is immediately seeking many, many more bottom rung MM mindless retarded parrots, in order to be more efficient.
Stop embarrassing and discrediting the discipline of economics.
- MM staff
Kingofthenet| 4.24.12 @ 11:20AM
You Conservatives are FOOLS, ALL The President has to do is 'test' the Ryan plan for Medicare in key markets and let the seniors know this is going to be universal IF the Republicans get elected, that it is their plan. The President should give those 'test' seniors worthless Republican vouchers.
Calvin| 4.24.12 @ 12:27PM
If you look at Medicare and don't see the problem then you are the fool. I guess you are a fool either way.
Bill| 4.24.12 @ 11:27AM
Veep Talk:
1. Kelly Ayotte: The women votes
2. Chris Christie: Straight talkers, no apology
3. Pat Toomey: Anti-tax crusader
4. Rob Portman: Budget Guru
5. Mitch Daniel: fiscal hawk executive
6. Jeb Bush: Sunshine Bush dynasty
7. Marco Rubio: The Latino votes (?)
8. Paul Ryan: Genious
And the VP nominee is ...................you decide!
Kingofthenet| 4.24.12 @ 1:54PM
Well that's about right Paul Ryan is DEFINITELY a 'Genious' whereas President Obama is MERELY a Genius.
Bill| 4.24.12 @ 2:18PM
Obama is a "pathological liar."
Drunken Sailor| 4.24.12 @ 2:37PM
And Obama has the shown the grades to prove it. Oh Wait, I see the problem. But man, his pants sure have a sharp crease!!
Joe Gause| 4.24.12 @ 3:34PM
Kingofthenet Go back to your Das Kapital!
Al Adab| 4.24.12 @ 11:40AM
Those who are dependant upon government for their livlihood will continue to vote for more of the same. Promise them anything, but get their votes.
FL is a case in point. The GOP cannot win without FL electoral votes. How will those, fearful of losing an income stream from the govt. vote?
fiscal| 4.24.12 @ 11:55AM
You are right on! That's why it doesn't make much difference anymore which party you vote for -- they are all paid by the same lobbyists and must go after the same demographic groups of swing voters. This includes seniors, suburban women, and moderates. You can't get seniors on a platform of cutting Medicare and Social Security. You can't get suburban women by cutting education and health regulation. And you can't get moderates by privatizing Social Security.
Reagan and Bush said government was too large, but both of them grew it substantially. In fact, Bush grew government faster than Clinton. Neither of them were fiscally responsible as they had the greatest deficits prior to Obama -- and Obama is a disaster.
Once these jokers get into office, no matter what they say, they act the same. That's why we all know that Romney doesn't mean what he says when it comes to promises made to conservatives -- it is just lip service. That said, he would be a lot better than Obama.
Al Adab| 4.24.12 @ 12:20PM
"Lasciate ogni speranze voi ch'entrate"
Burlington| 4.24.12 @ 11:46AM
This outfit is so slimy. They lie, cheat and steal. I would hope that the people employed in the health insurance industry realizes that they are to be out of a job soon as Rep. Schakowsky revealed. That is the commies plan.
Bill| 4.24.12 @ 12:02PM
Obama's tactics: lies, lies, and lies. He got caught in the 2010 mid-term, and it ain't gonna work this time.
Kent Lyon| 4.24.12 @ 12:31PM
So, why has no one drafted articles of impeachment? There are about 5000 things that Obama has done that comprise high crimes or misdemeanors. Are Republicans in the House utterly prostrate?
Doctor Right| 4.24.12 @ 1:11PM
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me at each and every election cycle?...Gee, I must be a Senior citizen.
Be 65+ should not excuse one from being informed and making the right choices.
If seniors keep reflexively pulling the lever for democrats because they believe the democrats' lies, that's their problem.
But it will be MY problem when I'm 65+, and the country is dead-broke from all of these damn "entitlements"!! But unlike them, I understand what's happening, and I want it fixed before the disaster happens.
Kingofthenet| 4.24.12 @ 1:56PM
So you want to 'take one for the team' quite Noble of you
Doctor Right| 4.24.12 @ 4:01PM
What??
No. I don't want to "take one for the team." I'd like "the team" (oldsters) to wise the hell up, and stop being so damn gullible.
Oldefarte| 4.24.12 @ 1:39PM
I'm one of millions of seniors that have Medicare Complete, and hopefully am also one of those many who will be voting for Romney and all other Republicans in November. Is what this administration does daily unethical, immoral, illegal? You damned right it is and hopefully they will pay the price of same with their defeat!!!!
Joe Gause| 4.24.12 @ 2:53PM
This has to be brought up repeatedly between now and the elections on November 6th. Romney should hammer away at it. "Seniors, did you know Obamacare does away with your Medicare Advantage?"
Owen K| 4.24.12 @ 3:02PM
Alas, many seniors are fooled by Obumbo and his shenanigans. Apparently, they are no longer able to discern when they are being used for political gain. Case in point: the AARP. While it is true that the AARP saw only a windfall in insurance sales, there were many members of AARP that fell into line. I left the AARP due to Obamstercare. I am 68 years old. And I DO know when I am being fed a line of nonsense. Lets hope other seniors recognize this for what it is.
KML| 4.24.12 @ 6:33PM
So, Mr. Hatch, what are you and all of the other Republicans going to do about this? You have the power to make this a huge deal, and a painful process for President Obama. Mr. Hatch, if it is "unclear" the president has the authority to use the money in this way, then do something about it!
The Republicans have no idea how to fight back against the Democrats. It is sickening. Every day there should be a news conference that covers Fast and Furious, gas prices, unemployment, Solyndra, the EPA, Holder's Justice Dept, and monthly attempts to repeal Obamacare. Instead we get tepid, weak responses from tepid, incompetent men.
Linden| 4.26.12 @ 3:06PM
You are SO RIGHT!! There is so much fodder to absolutely crucify this administration on the cross of its policies, that any good PR person would be drooling at the opportunity.
But the Pubbie frat boyz are SO stupid and SO cowardly that they will sell all of us down the river, and think they can keep their cushy jobs and perks.
May they rot in hell for what they have FAILED to do, as in defend their country and perform their oath of office. I mean that literally. May they rot.
Norm Klevens| 4.24.12 @ 10:59PM
Seniors need to wak the heck up and look at their demise.
Bob S| 4.25.12 @ 3:23AM
There goes Obama trying to play politics again.
Who needs a Super PAC when you can throw around $8 BILLION at will?
Norm Klevens| 4.26.12 @ 1:33PM
The more this word gets to senior citizens the less chance this pig has of being re elected.