Jason Bourne wrote:beastie wrote:That's the problem with politics today. Apparently everyone not only gets to have their own opinions, but their own facts.
Has it really ever been any different? Read a bio of Abe Lincoln. We seem tame to some of what was said back then in political campaigns.
Oh, I know political campaigns have always been nasty. But I think that the media has let us down in the past couple of decades in terms of demanding that politicians at least concede basic facts. I blame cable networks for that. In the day of 24/7 news channels, said news channels have to try and find a particular niche that will increase viewership. Then it's more entertainment than actual news, but it's cloaked as news. Sometimes it appears that the shows that actually present themselves as entertainment do a better job at presenting actual news.
For example, the article you linked said this:
Medicare - Sorry, guys, but it is 100 percent true that Obamacare raided $716 Billion from Medicare to pay for itself. It does cut benefits to current seniors. And Paul Ryan's plan took the president's Medicare "savings," and re-routed them back into Medicare to shore up the program. Mitt Romney's plan would undo those cuts altogether. Obama took those cuts and used them to pay for Obamacare. He has admitted this on camera:
This directly contradicts the Democrats' claim that benefits are NOT cut to current seniors. How can both be true?
If you follow the link that your article provides to prove this claim, you see this:
Providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries). Simulations by the Office of the Actuary suggest that roughly 15 percent of Part A providers would become unprofitable within the 10-year projection period as a result of the productivity adjustments.
So here's another explanation:
As for the cuts, they come from eliminating a massive subsidy to private insurers and gradually reducing the rate of growth in payments to some providers. These changes, while not catastrophic for Medicare, are important. Under the ACA, the federal government will substantially reduce the amount it spends funding Medicare Advantage, which is privately administered insurance offered to Medicare beneficiaries. About one-quarter of Medicare recipients are enrolled in private Medicare Advantage. In theory, these plans are supposed to manage health care spending better than fee-for-service Medicare. But they don’t actually save the federal government any money. They cost, per patient, 14% more than traditional Medicare. (See Figure 3 of this fact sheet from the Kaiser Family Foundation. And see here for more.) The ACA eliminates this subsidy and pegs Medicare Advantage payments to quality metrics.
The second bunch of money that gets cut from Medicare under Obamacare comes from providers. Hospitals, home health agencies and others will see Medicare payments grow more slowly than they have in the past.
Medicare benefits will not change – in theory. However, providers who get paid less from Medicare in the future may be less inclined to accept Medicare patients, thereby reducing access. The frequently criticized Independent Payment Advisory Board, created by the ACA, could cut provider payments even more to keep the growth in Medicare spending under a benchmark. If Medicare per capita spending grows faster than a rate pegged to inflation and later GDP, IPAB will be empowered to recommend provider payment cuts. If Congress can’t find alternative ways to keep Medicare spending growth under the inflation or GDP benchmark, the IPAB recommendations will automatically go into effect. This too could reduce access. Bonus Medicare Advantage benefits – like free gym memberships – may go away.
In exchange for these kinds of reductions in Medicare spending, funding for the program was bolstered in other ways by the ACA. Preventive care is now covered at 100% for Medicare beneficiaries and a gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage will slowly close under the law. Some Medicare beneficiaries, primarily wealthy Americans, will pay higher Medicare premiums and taxes under the ACA.
The idea, however, that the Affordable Care Act struck a dangerous blow to Medicare that will change the program in fundamental ways is untrue. Under the new law, Medicare will remain a wildly popular, public single-payer health insurance system that provides comprehensive coverage to millions of Americans.
http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/16/fa ... care-cuts/So Obama eliminated one program that did NOT save any money, and compensated for the second reduction via the ACA.
Ryan, OTOH, included those same cuts, but then eliminates ACA which compensated for those same cuts. And yet now he gets to say Obama is hurting seniors? Come on!
I know everyone puts their own spin on things, but when the spin reaches the point where it's almost impossible to determine the facts, then there's a problem.
