Luntz's "gambit": Fearmongering that Obama is "declaring war on Medicare"
On Fox News' Hannity, GOP consultant Frank Luntz forwarded the false conservative talking point that President Obama plans to cut Medicare benefits, claiming that it "is almost like he's declaring war on Medicare because it's the only way for him to pay for health care," and that it is a "fact" that "[t]hey're talking about lowering the reimbursements for Medicare." In fact, as FactCheck.org noted: "The claim that Obama and Congress are cutting seniors' Medicare benefits to pay for the health care overhaul is outright false."
From the August 18 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
LUNTZ: That's half of it. And the other half is that he's actually attacking Medicare. And that is something that's really important for your audience, whether you're 65 or older, you've got parents who are 65 or older. Barack Obama -- from this language -- I've got the text -- it's almost like he's declaring war on Medicare because it's the only way for him to be able to pay for health care. It's an interesting gambit, Sean, and I don't think it's going to work.
[...]
LUNTZ: I think that this debate can and should be conducted in a civil and meaningful manner. That said -- again, I point to the language that -- "Not these wild misrepresentations." I've started to read the bill. They're talking about lowering the reimbursements for Medicare. That is not a misinterpretation. That is a fact. And every senior has the right to know exactly what will be paid for and what won't be.
And every doctor, Sean, has the right to know whether they're going to be reimbursed for their service or not.
FactCheck.org, AARP have rebutted notion that health reform will reduce Medicare benefits
FactCheck.org: "The claim that Obama and Congress are cutting seniors' Medicare benefits to pay for the health care overhaul is outright false."
From FactCheck.org's August 14 article, "Seven Falsehoods About Health Care":
False: Medicare Benefits Will Be Slashed
The claim that Obama and Congress are cutting seniors' Medicare benefits to pay for the health care overhaul is outright false, though that doesn't keep it from being repeated ad infinitum.
The truth is that the pending House bill extracts $500 billion from projected Medicare spending over 10 years, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office, by doing such things as trimming projected increases in the program's payments for medical services, not including physicians. Increases in other areas, such as payments to doctors, bring the net savings down to less than half that amount. But none of the predicted savings -- or cuts, depending on one's perspective -- come from reducing current or future benefits for seniors.
The president has promised repeatedly that benefit levels won't be reduced, reiterating the point recently in Portsmouth, N.H.:
Obama, Aug. 11: Another myth that we've been hearing about is this notion that somehow we're going to be cutting your Medicare benefits. We are not.
Is he wrong? Not according to AARP, by far the nation's largest organization representing the over-50 population. In a "Myths vs. Facts" rundown, AARP says:
AARP: Fact: None of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services.
To be sure, Obama hasn't always thought that Medicare "savings" could be accomplished without actual cuts in benefits. Last fall, his campaign ran two television ads accusing Sen. John McCain of wanting "a 22 percent cut in [Medicare] benefits." The basis for the ads was a newspaper article in which a McCain aide said the Arizona Republican would cut Medicare costs. But the aide said nothing about cutting benefits, in fact quite the contrary. We called the claim "false" when Obama made it against McCain, and it's still false now when Obama's critics are making the same accusation against him. [FactCheck.org, 8/14/09]
FactCheck.org: "Congress isn't proposing to cut [Medicare] benefit levels." According to an August 18 FactCheck.org article, "None of the 'savings' or 'cuts' (whichever you prefer)" to Medicare in the House bill "come from reducing current or future benefit levels for seniors." From the article:
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the House bill would result in "savings" of $219 billion after all increases and decreases are netted out. The House bill would trim projected increases in payments for hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and others, including home health care providers and suppliers of motor-driven wheelchairs. But it also proposes what CBO estimates is a $245 billion increase in spending for doctors, by canceling a scheduled 21 percent cut in physician payments. None of the "savings" or "cuts" (whichever you prefer) come from reducing current or future benefit levels for seniors. [FactCheck.org, 8/18/09]
AARP says idea that "Health care reform will hurt Medicare" is a "Myth." From the AARP's "Myths vs. Facts" on health care reform:
Myth: Health care reform will hurt Medicare.
Fact: None of the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress would cut Medicare benefits or increase your out-of-pocket costs for Medicare services.
Fact: Health care reform will lower prescription drug costs for people in the Medicare Part D coverage gap or "doughnut hole" so they can get better afford the drugs they need.
Fact: Health care reform will protect seniors' access to their doctors and reduce the cost of preventive services so patients stay healthier.
Fact: Health care reform will reduce costly, preventable hospital readmissions, saving patients and Medicare money.
Fact: Rather than weaken Medicare, health care reform will strengthen the financial status of the Medicare program.
Bottom Line: For people in Medicare, health care reform is about lowering prescription drug costs for people in the "doughnut hole", keeping the doctor of your choice, improving the quality of care, and eliminating billions in waste that is causing poor care and medical errors. [AARP, accessed 8/18/09]
Medicare scare is a GOP talking point
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) reportedly claimed that health reform proposals will be paid for "through massive cuts to Medicare." As Media Matters for America noted, in an August 18 article, the Associated Press quoted McConnell claiming that health reform proposals will be paid for "through massive cuts to Medicare," without pointing out, as FactCheck.org did, that "[t]he claim that Obama and Congress are cutting seniors' Medicare benefits to pay for the health care overhaul is outright false."
From the August 18 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
LUNTZ: But here's an example where the Republicans initially react favorably, but when Obama finishes his statement, boy, do the Republicans not like it at all. Let's listen.
OBAMA [video clip]: If you don't have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you do have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.
And we will do this without adding to our deficit over the next decade, largely by cutting out the waste and insurance company giveaways in Medicare that aren't making any of our seniors healthy.
HANNITY: You know what's amazing to me, Frank? This attack line against the insurance companies seems to work only with Democrats. Democrats believe in government. Is that -- that's my read on it. Yours?
LUNTZ: That's half of it. And the other half is that he's actually attacking Medicare. And that is something that's really important for your audience, whether you're 65 or older, you've got parents who are 65 or older. Barack Obama -- from this language -- I've got the text -- it's almost like he's declaring war on Medicare because it's the only way for him to be able to pay for health care. It's an interesting gambit, Sean, and I don't think it's going to work.
[...]
LUNTZ: I think that this debate can and should be conducted in a civil and meaningful manner. That said -- again, I point to the language that -- "Not these wild misrepresentations." I've started to read the bill. They're talking about lowering the reimbursements for Medicare. That is not a misinterpretation. That is a fact. And every senior has the right to know exactly what will be paid for and what won't be.
And every doctor, Sean, has the right to know whether they're going to be reimbursed for their service or not.















Right-wingers are funny... scary, but funny.
So let me get this straight... this horrible socialist program called Medicare that would ruin America and throw us into Armageddon etc, is now being "threatened" by the horrible socialist Obama that will ruin America and throw is into Armageddon etc... and the right-wingers are COMPLAINING that the horrible socialist is destroying the horrible socialist program... because if the horrible socialist program is destroyed... it would be BAD?
I know right-wing logic isn't easy to figure out, but this logic is worse than usual.
Donald Rumsfeld
But, about 1min 22sec into this video, did Lutz say "I'm starting to read this bill"?
Does this mean Fox's go-to expert hasn't even read the bill yet???
Really? Then maybe you should finish, before you come on the TV and have any more Reagan flashbacks. It was Ronald Reagan who attacked Medicare, back in 1961. Every single thing he predicted would happen if it passed utterly and completely failed to materialize.
Know what that means? The odds that the conservatives were wrong about Medicare and right about a public option being so extremely long, mostly since they are recycling all the old Gipper arguments rather than coming up with anything new, I think we can safely dismiss most of this type of hot air.
Mr. Luntz, until you have something truthful and worthwhile to contribute to the debate, anyone who invites you to speak on their show without pointing out the lies you indulge in only paint themselves as partisan opponents rooting for the insurance companies.
([Your logic] is akin to using the fact that I got mugged as evidence that I can't handle money!)
Most of the Medicare/Medicaid cost overruns are due to fraud perpetrated on them by private health institutions. Additionally, funding has been siphoned away to pay for other things, or just to make the national debt look rosier than it was. Reagan expanded this practice to include Social Security as well.
Projections indicate costs will go down, not up, dexteritas0071418. Costs will go down even for people who desire to keep their private insurance. Will it become insolvent? Who can see into the future far enough to tell.
Back to the topic. There is no language in the proposed bills about cutting Medicare, Obama has said he would not do it. Luntz admits not reading the material he's talking about. Care to comment on Luntz's lies, dexteritas0071418?
We can quibble about where Medicare cost overruns come from if you like, but perhaps on another thread. The fact is that it is a government system that works fairly well despite being abused by the private sector for their own gain.
Luntz lying, though, that we agree on, right?
Not that facts should bother you at all.
More importantly, every system gets abused to some degree. That's just part of the territory, so that comes quite a bit short of showing that the system is "broken".
The upshot is that with anecdotal evidence you never get anywhere, because it's a constant game of one-upmanship, with each side competing to find the ultimate story that will prove... what? That something happened one time. Not really enough evidence to base an argument on.
That's not "evidence" - that's a leap. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen; I'm just saying that to use it as a cornerstone in your argument that Medicare is broken assumes that your audience is naive enough to see through the obvious flaws (read: conservative). This audience is not conservative.
Correct. What we DO NOT have is a good health COVERAGE system.
Get the difference?
And under Obama's plan, you'll be able to keep subsidizing CEO salaries and HMO profits through your private plan.
The right-wing canard that government is inept is getting really, really stale.
I know you do not understand the difference between Medicare and Medicaid or the difference between first-hand and second-hand, but maybe you can ask your mother-in-law. The fact that we do not provide healthcare for those who need it has nothing to do with the talent of our doctors. Get it? No, didn't think so.
By the way, I love the way you dismiss Michael Moore's documentary as evidence while using your mother-in-law's anecdotes. How brilliantly Colbert of you.
On a more serious note, nearly every post of yours attacks the federal government as being unable to run any large programs. So, put your money where your mouth is. Which large programs run by the federal government will be run more efficiently at a lower cost to the consumer by private industry?
I assume since all large federal government programs are run so pathetically that you want them controlled by private industry where they will be run so much better. So, just start with a few (we won't need to go all the way to letting our military be controlled by Xe). And Medicare and Medicaid should clearly go away and be replaced by private insurance companies as Dick Armey wants, right?
Medicare aint broken, the healthcare system is.
1) It's underfunded
2) It insures the most costly patients - the ELDERLY.
Btw, since you think healthcare is unsustainable, what do you think of Luntz's cynical attempts to decieve the public into believing Obama's reforms would destroy it? You see, Mr. Luntz knows medicare is immensely popular.
The Republicans are trying to decieve people into believing they are the defenders of medicare, thats how popular medicare is.
First sentence of the second paragraph should say:
"Since you think medicare is unsustainable"
It would have been both a public option and simple health care reform and it could have been done with less than 5 sentences on a bill.
I seriously doubt the right-wing would have had much to work with... imagine if they had tried to attack a system that has existed for 50 years! But now that the floodgates are open...
These right-wing pricks are not going to be satisfied until this country falls apart and even then they will blame it on Carter, Clinton, and Obama.
How many other presidents were black?
(Hint - the answer to both is zero)
Examples of racism:
"I want my country back" - weeping woman who can't fathom the black man as president.
"This isn't the America I remember" - weeping woman who can't fathom a black man in the White House.
There's more. Trust me. Lots more.
And I'm surprised it took this long for an insect like you to show up and claim that race has nothing to do with it!
It infers that those who are quick to use race to defend Obama most likely elected him because of his race.
Black, White, Purple or Pink: If you elected him and love him because of his race "YOU ARE RACIST". I would vote for a black president who shares my ideas of how the government should be run but never just because he is black.
Untrue generalization. It's not that people disagree with Obama, it's HOW they disagree with Obama.
You know, a politician emailing a photo of the White House lawn overgrown with watermelons, crying women at town hells saying "I want my country back (from the black man), another crying woman saying "This isn't the America I remember" (due to the black man being in the White House), etc. etc. etc. etc.
They will not be satisfied until the black man is out of the White House.
But the comment you made earlier had nothing to do with the argument. If you truly believe that all the people who speak out against Obama "won't be satisfied until the black man is out of the White House" then you should look at the mirror at the racist. That was the first and only racist comment in this thread.
What kind of America do they remember?
Like I said earlier, many times its the racist who can't recognize racism, especially subtle racism.
You truly don't believe someone is racist unless they implicitly tell you they are racist?
But, you have no problem calling the president and a member of the Supreme Court race-baiters? Are you for real? Are you human?
No one on the right is racist, but the left are all race-baiters. You really have lost it.
That is sad if you're seeing that. I hope your hallucinations are only a temporary effect of drug use or exhaustion, and not a sign of permanent dementia. Take care.
I'm guessing you mean the post about the black man being out of the White House. It wasn't directed at "anyone who disagrees with Obama", but at the nutty far right fringe ( mentioned as "right wing Pricks") who have been demonstrating their racism pretty frequently ever since Obama became well-known on the national political scene.
I'm assuming by "a coherent thought" you meant something simple enough for you to understand. I hope I was successful.
Oh how well I remember the howls of indignation when republicans offered spending legislation that "trimmed projected growth" and democrats decried it as evil, draconian "cuts". Now many of those same howlers are calling the tactic "savings"...CSL.
FactCheck was clear in labeling the future expenditures as either "cuts or savings...depending on your perspective". That means democrats have proposed to spend less money on certain healthcare services than those currently projected.
the cuts are going to come by making things more efficient by things like electronic records and eliminating fraud. not by just cutting spending as the republicans wanted to do. so yes, medicare will come in at lower than projected saveings but not at the expense of the people on medicare.
Fannie and Freddie, the public school system, the post office come to mind. Even the U.S. military is an abysmal failure at cost control and efficiency.
"I'm from the govt. and I'm here to help"...no thanks but I'll send them to your house.
-- Medicare's low overhead is the product of government accounting sleight-of-hand...10 to 20 percent of private insurance administrative costs goes to preventing fraud...
The results are predictable, but breathtaking nonetheless: an estimated $68 billion in outright Medicare fraud every year. On top of that, according to well-respected Dartmouth researchers, roughly a third of Medicare's total $400 billion annual spending goes to procedures which were medically unnecessary. -- ABC NEWS
-- when you compare administrative costs on a per-person basis, Medicare is dramatically less efficient than private insurance plans. As you can see here, between 2001-2005, Medicare's administrative costs on a per-person basis were 24.8% higher, on average, than private insurers. -- RealClearPolitics
Unaccountable, out of control, bureaucratic largesse...yep, that's the efficiency demonstrated by Medicare.
For example, total spending on health care, per person, 2007:
United States: $7290
France: $3601
And don't give me any crap about France's quality of health care. It's probably the best in the world. Plus, they cover 100% of their citizens. Maybe, just maybe, we should study these other countries to see how they do it. Or would that hurt the feelings of the "USA! USA! USA!" crowd?
The health care debate is a complete joke. We're paying twice as much as other countries and get less care than they do. We're paying a $3000 "tax" every year per person, you would think that conservatives would be outraged by this.
".yep, that's the efficiency demonstrated by Medicare." wesley
Do you understand what you're doing here? You're blaming the person who got robbed, rather than the thief, wesley. If there is $68 billion a year in fraud, how can that be Medicare's fault? It's the fault of private (for profit) health providers that are stealing from Medicare.
Incompetence.
I'll repeat it slowly...$200 billion a year in fraud and waste because they are incompetent.
Total spending on health care, per person, 2007:
United States: $7290
France: $3601
France has excellent health care and they cover 100% of their citizens. Just how the heck do they do it? Our rock stupid media will never investigate. It is simply too complicated for them to handle and isn't sexy enough. I mean if no one is yelling at someone else then they won't cover it.
That's a big 10-4.
-- France has excellent health care and they cover 100% of their citizens. Just how the heck do they do it? -- appleboy
I'm all for it...why don't you spell it out...just how do they do it?
How do they do it? I'm not an expert in France's health care system, but we have an entity in this country called the media (at least we used to) that is suppose to inform citizens on such matters. But if I can take a wild guess I think a big chunk of their savings comes from not profiting from peoples health.
I believe the system is funded mostly by taxing employers and employees (essentially the money we employers and employees pay now to insurance companies goes to the government). Don't quote me on this, but I believe I read somewhere that they also tax Big Pharma. There are also co-pays which I believe top out around 40% but are usually closer to 15%.
The amount that physicians (or providers) charge is not controlled. However, the amount that the national insurance will cover is controlled. If you choose to go to a doctor or provider that charges more than you make up the difference out of pocket. However, the people are very happy with their system.
I'll repeat it slowly...$200 billion a year in fraud and waste because they are incompetent." - wesley
You don't see the contradiction there? Come on, you're not stupid, you can see the obvious. How slowly do I need to say it?
If..there..is...too...much...fraud...then...it...would...mean...we...need...more...regulations...not...less. Right? That's not hard to comprehend is it?
Again, I have to say I am amazed at how many on the right dismiss the men and women who work for the federal government so easily. Only those who work for the government are incompetent? Insurance companies are good and competent, but federal employees are lazy and stupid?
I have zero interest in chasing that simple-minded, shopworn analogy down the the proverbial rabbit hole.
I have not and do not advocate a society without government and taxes.
I do advocate accountability and results from our government when they are spending taxpayer money...and their track record is woeful.
(braille tag on) Even the U.S. military is an abysmal failure at cost control and efficiency. -by wesley (2 hours and 39 minutes ago) (braille tag off)
Do you? Have you looked into how Halliburton has spent our money in Iraq? Because that little boondoggle has cost more money and taken more time than World War II.
Let me go ahead and comment on my own post for you all:
"Your just a crazy right wing hate monger"
boohooconservatives?
For those who don't know relatively recent history, the Soviets were masters of using disinformation to deceive the proletariat. What's paradoxical is that the Republican Party has adopted nearly all the Soviet disinformation practices.
People like Luntz and Rove literally analyze their opponents strength and then accuse them of doing the opposite with fallacious claims. They then are able to amplify these false claims through trusted media outlets who are part of the scam.
Media Matters is one of the few sites where the founders comprehend the disinformation model and how it works.
AARP is the largest insurance agent in the country. They sell third tier products based on their value to the beneficiary reaping huge profits for themselves and United Health Group. No one keeps more revenue or pays out less of a percentage of revenue in claims than UHG. "Fact Check" should get someone on staff that understands the insurance business because the "scare" is more real than not.
Does the GOP think there are no consequences to pay for all their lies? I believe there are.
Blue letter week starts Monday Aug 24th.
Nothing like big bags of snail mail from lot's and lot's of supporters who want the President to see bag's and bag's of mail from people who support a public option.
Blue letter week is starts Monday Aug 24th.
( Monday Aug 31 is the delivery goal.)
Send a regular snail mail letter with the words:
"I want a public option" on the back of the envelope.
President Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500
One letter and one stamp x 3 million people will get the point across.
Pass it along.