About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Luntz's "gambit": Fearmongering that Obama is "declaring war on Medicare"

August 19, 2009 9:00 am ET — 138 Comments

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."

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

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.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (August 19, 2009 9:24 am ET)
      10  
      Yea and furthermore you keep the government hands off my medicare!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by sambo (August 19, 2009 10:24 am ET)
        2 7
        Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (August 19, 2009 10:39 am ET)
          7  
          Ummm... he's quoting the town-hell protetsers - in a mocking manner, but fairly accurately, scary a thought as that is.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (August 19, 2009 11:53 am ET)
          4 1
          Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about
          It's obvious that he does and you don't.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (August 19, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
            2  
            Glad someone here could see the irony I was trying to point out, Geesh
            Report Abuse
      • Author by fawltylogic (August 19, 2009 3:23 pm ET)
        6  
        :D
        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (August 19, 2009 3:33 pm ET)
          2  
          Ergo, your screen name. Well done.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by National_Insecurity (August 19, 2009 4:01 pm ET)
          3  
          "Start with an illogical statement and proceed logically from there."
          Donald Rumsfeld
          Report Abuse
    • Author by SLRTX (August 19, 2009 9:53 am ET)
      1  
      I'm not sure if I heard this right...

      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???
      Report Abuse
    • Author by The_Cat (August 19, 2009 10:14 am ET)
      7  
      "I've started to read the bill." -Luntz

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (August 19, 2009 10:38 am ET)
          6
        Using your logic, should we assume that healthcare reform/public option will cost a ton more than projected, its coffers will be raided for congressional pet projects, and that it will become insolvent?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (August 19, 2009 10:43 am ET)
          5  
          That its coffers might be raided for "pet projects" is a good reason not to allow the pet projects. It's NOT a good reason not to act on health care reform. Same goes for Soc. Sec. Al Gore was right: lock-box it. The answer is to make these idiots (on BOTH sides) pay for their pork; NOT to scrap the important programs they're raiding/ruining.

          ([Your logic] is akin to using the fact that I got mugged as evidence that I can't handle money!)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by kfraz43 (August 19, 2009 5:21 pm ET)
            1  
            Gore got SLAMMED for the lock-box. Why? Because it was such a good idea, the only thing the right could attack is the way he SAID it.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by The_Cat (August 19, 2009 10:57 am ET)
          8  
          I only point out that conservatives were wrong about Medicare. It was not the end of the U.S., it did not result in losing the war for the Allies, and it did not bring about a fascist state. Doctors were not told where and when and who to treat. There was no rationing.

          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?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dexteritas0071418 (August 19, 2009 11:43 am ET)
              6
            OMG, most of the cost overruns are from private fraud? That's enough for me to stop reading right there.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (August 19, 2009 11:55 am ET)
              5 1
              Why not? You stopped understanding long before that.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by The_Cat (August 19, 2009 12:19 pm ET)
              4  
              So, you agree that Luntz is a liar, 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?
              Report Abuse
      • Author by starkcr31 (August 19, 2009 11:01 am ET)
        1 7
        You act as though Medicare ISN'T a broken system. Please.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (August 19, 2009 11:57 am ET)
          6  
          You act as if it is, but without offering one scintilla of evidence to back up your case. You have been wrong about everything you have posted so far, why should anyone take your word without proof now?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by starkcr31 (August 19, 2009 1:33 pm ET)
              6
            Let's see, people getting Medicare to feed their drug habits. That's not evidence? My mother in law is a pharmacist and sees it on a daily basis. Your assertion that I'm wrong does not equate to fact. They may be identical in your eyes, but you and reality don't seem to be meshing well.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (August 19, 2009 1:52 pm ET)
              7  
              Are you calling Granny a drug addict?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 19, 2009 2:08 pm ET)
                  6
                No, but this may shock you, but old people aren't the only ones on Medicare. Plenty of drug-addicted losers are on it as well.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by steelers84 (August 19, 2009 2:49 pm ET)
                  4  
                  People under 65 who receive gov't aided health care are on MEDICAID, not MEDICARE.
                  Not that facts should bother you at all.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by starkcr31 (August 19, 2009 2:54 pm ET)
                      4
                    Fine, Medicaid. So I used the wrong one. Sue me please.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by fawltylogic (August 19, 2009 3:24 pm ET)
                      4  
                      Yeah, why get the facts right? It's not like you care anyway.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by starkcr31 (August 20, 2009 10:53 am ET)
                          2
                        I said I made a mistake. What more do you want from me? I know it's perfectly fine for liberals to make mistakes on a daily basis, but heaven forbid a conservative makes one.
                        Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 19, 2009 3:51 pm ET)
              2  
              Once again, starkcr Colbert - what the hell are you talking about? People are using Medicare to feed their drug habits? Your mother-in-law is a pharmacist and sees old people using Medicare to feed their drug habits?! Take another look at reality.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 20, 2009 10:55 am ET)
                  2
                Ok, firstly, I meant MEDICAID, as your fellow liberal so kindly pointed out, and secondly, this is the second time someone has compared me to Steven Colbert, who is a liberal. He is a satirist. Most of you are clearly not intelligent enough to realize that he pretends to be conservative as a joke.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (August 19, 2009 12:49 pm ET)
          4  
          Medicare is very, very successful.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by starkcr31 (August 19, 2009 1:34 pm ET)
            1 5
            Thank you, I needed a laugh today.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by congero6189599 (August 19, 2009 2:07 pm ET)
              6  
              You really crack yourself up, do you? Your mother-in-law as proof give me a break...hahahahaha!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 19, 2009 2:09 pm ET)
                  3
                So first hand evidence means nothing now? Interesting. You take everything that comes out of your messiah's mouth as gospel truth without evidence of any kind but first hand evidence is meaningless. Now I understand!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (August 19, 2009 2:30 pm ET)
                  5  
                  That would actually be second-hand evidence. First hand evidence would be something you've personally experienced.

                  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".
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by IowaDem (August 19, 2009 3:03 pm ET)
                  4  
                  You are discussing second-hand information from your mother-in-law (error #1) and you are confusing mediCARE with medicAID (error #2). Do we need to know any more about any future statements that you claim the "fact"?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by starkcr31 (August 20, 2009 10:56 am ET)
                      1
                    I already admitted that I confused Medicare with Medicaid but the information from my mother in law is accurate. She has no reason to lie to me.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by The_Cat (August 19, 2009 4:43 pm ET)
                  1  
                  From an historical perspective, it would be an eyewitness account, starkcr31. However, from the standpoint of rational debate, your story, or your mother-in-law's story, is what is known as anecdotal evidence, and generally discounted. Why? Because every story one side comes up with is easily matched by a story from the other side.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by starkcr31 (August 20, 2009 10:57 am ET)
                      1
                    So I assume you work in a pharmacy where you witness no such cases? Also, "one time"? It happens several times a day. That's hardly one time.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by kfraz43 (August 19, 2009 5:52 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Wouldn't that be second hand SPECULATION? I mean, unless people came up to your mother in law and signed a written confession that they are a) drug addicts and b) are using Medicare to fill the prescription in front of them, not to resolve a legitimate problem or manage a legitimate pain, but for the express purpose of feeding their addiction.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by starkcr31 (August 20, 2009 10:59 am ET)
                      1
                    It's also broken because it's bankrupt, just as every other government-run program is now. The liberals want an entity that can't even run the simplest of things in charge of something as important as health care. That's baffling to me.
                    Report Abuse
            • Author by steelers84 (August 19, 2009 2:51 pm ET)
              4  
              So Medicare is LESS successful than the brilliant private insurance industry we currently have that results in Americans paying more than DOUBLE the next closest industrialized country for care and the result being that our results are worse than Costa Rica? In what other field could you pay double the second-closest payer in cost and have results that rank in the high 40s and that be considered the "best"?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 19, 2009 2:57 pm ET)
                  5
                You see, this is what kills me. You get your information about our health care system from the likes of Michael Moore and act like it's actually accurate. We DO NOT have some terrible health care system. If we did, people from the UK and Canada that have to wait months for a second-rate procedure wouldn't be coming here to get it done.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (August 19, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
                  6  
                  That doesn't stand to reason, either. We can have fantastic health care available for certain people who can afford it, while everyone else gets terrible care. The fact that the Mayo Clinic exists doesn't mean that our system is good.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by IowaDem (August 19, 2009 3:09 pm ET)
                  5  
                  Again, you try to rebut points made by someone by using the exact same tactic you accuse them of--making statements without any evidence to support them! You argue like an idiot (not name-calling). Michael Moore did not provide anything but facts, unless you'd like to prove otherwise. No one said we have a "terrible" health care system. We have a health care system that can do much better, especially considering the amount of money pumped into it. We do have terrible insurance company practices that people from the UK and Canada find almost inhumane and would NEVER consider giving up what they have to go to a US style insurance scam. Yes, (rich) people from the UK and Canada do come to the US because we are the only place that will spend billions on high tech equipment that only benefits a tiny percentage of the population at the expense of everyone else. You must be rich or not very bright.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by starkcr31 (August 20, 2009 11:04 am ET)
                      1
                    You KNOW he provided facts? How, by going to Cuba and seeing for yourself? If not, you don't know. Of course we can do much better, we can do pretty much anything better if our politicians knew what they were doing (both parties), but handing it over to the government is hardly the answer. Our insurance standards (no pre-existing conditions business) ARE broken and need to be fixed. I agree with you on that, but it has to be done right. I'm not rich but I am bright so stop with your attempt at condescension.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (August 19, 2009 3:37 pm ET)
                  4  
                  We DO NOT have some terrible health care system.

                  Correct. What we DO NOT have is a good health COVERAGE system.

                  Get the difference?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by starkcr31 (August 20, 2009 11:05 am ET)
                      1
                    I never claimed otherwise, but stop saying our health care system is bad. Handing it over to the inept government WILL make things worse.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (August 20, 2009 11:35 am ET)
                      1 1
                      So you're saying government-run Medicare is bad? Try asking your elderly relatives how they like their health care.

                      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.
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 19, 2009 4:38 pm ET)
                  2  
                  Starkcr Colbert, I know I am wasting my time because you are unable to understand the difference. But, the problem is with our healthcare system, not our doctors or medical school training. We have excellent doctors. We have a horrible system that will never cover everyone. Can you understand the difference?

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by starkcr31 (August 20, 2009 11:09 am ET)
                      1
                    I dismiss his "documentary" because it's nothing but lies, as all his movies are. Do you believe we attacked ourselves on 9/11 as well? You can stop with your attempts to insult me as they just show your desperation and absurd lack of intelligence. Once again, I'll try to explain this to you. Colbert is not a conservative. It's called satire. You may want to look that up since you clearly aren't able to grasp it.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (August 20, 2009 11:37 am ET)
                      2  
                      (psst - your posts are so full of wingnut talking points that YOU are mimicking Colbert, hence the moniker.)

                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 20, 2009 12:25 pm ET)
                      1  
                      OK, I can't resist. In which documentary did Michael Moore claim we attacked ourselves on 9/11? Please tell me you didn't get this info from your mother-in-law. I also find it particularly hilarious that you fail to get my comparison of you to Colbert. Part of me still thinks you may be Solon playing a joke on all of us.

                      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?
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by steelers84 (August 20, 2009 1:49 am ET)
                  1  
                  Please cite any international report where the U.S. is anywhere in the top 20 in health care
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 19, 2009 3:54 pm ET)
              4  
              I only hope your mother-in-law the pharmacist understands the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. Clearly, you do not. You also do not understand the difference between anecdotes and evidence. But, I must ask you again - are you now saying that you do want to get rid of Medicare?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 20, 2009 11:10 am ET)
                  1
                No, but it needs to be fixed and not become the entire health care system like the liberals want. Why? Because it's bankrupt and not working.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by jmille426471 (August 20, 2009 6:45 am ET)
          1  
          Well, if its so broken, why didn't a single GOP congressman vote to eliminate it when they had the chance? Medicare is here to stay, my socialist comrade.

          Medicare aint broken, the healthcare system is.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by starkcr31 (August 20, 2009 11:10 am ET)
              1
            So it's bankrupt for no reason I suppose?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (August 20, 2009 11:38 am ET)
              1  
              Uh, it's bankrupt because:

              1) It's underfunded

              2) It insures the most costly patients - the ELDERLY.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by jmille426471 (August 20, 2009 2:48 pm ET)
              1  
              Stark, I think I said this already, but the costs of private insurance has been rising much faster than medicare's. That's why I say healthcare is in crisis, not medicare.

              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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by jmille426471 (August 20, 2009 2:54 pm ET)
                   
                Correction.

                First sentence of the second paragraph should say:

                "Since you think medicare is unsustainable"
                Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (August 19, 2009 10:53 am ET)
      6  
      The sad part is is that the Obama administration could have given us universal health care months ago if they would have simply said they were going to combine Medicare and Medicaid and expanded it to every American that wanted in at a cost of roughly between $1000 - $1200 (average) per household per year.

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by seroquel (August 19, 2009 11:33 am ET)
        6  
        Sad to say, but your right. Only when all the poor are dead are these pricks going to be satisfied. For shame...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (August 19, 2009 12:44 pm ET)
          4  
          They will not be satisfied until the black man is out of the White House.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by starkcr31 (August 19, 2009 1:35 pm ET)
              6
            Wow, I was wondering how long it would take for race to be dragged into a conversation that has nothing at all to do with it.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (August 19, 2009 1:54 pm ET)
              4  
              Usually it's the racists who can't see obvious racism.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 19, 2009 2:11 pm ET)
                  7
                Wrong. You are a racist for thinking everything is about race. I hate to break the news to you, but not everyone that disagrees with your precious Obama does so because of the color of his skin. Try to grasp that.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (August 19, 2009 2:27 pm ET)
                  4  
                  You are a racist for thinking everything is about race.
                  That wouldn't be racist. Thinking that others are racist, whether right or wrong, does not mean that one believes one race is superior over another.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by starkcr31 (August 19, 2009 2:32 pm ET)
                      4
                    Fair enough, but it makes them obsessed with race and in some cases, race-baiters.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by IowaDem (August 19, 2009 3:13 pm ET)
                      3  
                      Obssessed with race? No, obssessed with calling out overt racism when it is standing in the public square for all to see. If you don't see it in every town hall shout-down, then you are turning a blind eye and sticking your fingers in your ears saying "nah, nah, nah, nah" until it goes away. That's not color-blindness, that's blindness.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by foghornleghorn (August 19, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
                        3  
                        It's simpler than that, iowadem. The Republican party has shown itself to be the party of racists due to the fact that more than 1/2 of their base (southern whites) do not believe Obama is an American citizen.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by starkcr31 (August 20, 2009 11:14 am ET)
                            1
                          Explain how that's racism.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by foghornleghorn (August 20, 2009 11:40 am ET)
                            2  
                            How many other presidents had their citizenship questioned?

                            How many other presidents were black?

                            (Hint - the answer to both is zero)
                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by starkcr31 (August 20, 2009 11:12 am ET)
                          1
                        Give me examples of racism at these town hall meetings. Oh wait, I do have one. The one where the black conservative man was beaten up by the SEIU union thugs here in St. Louis (I was there). I guess that does count. Thanks!
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by foghornleghorn (August 20, 2009 11:42 am ET)
                          2  
                          The SEIU incident is a lie as you retell it.

                          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.
                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 19, 2009 4:46 pm ET)
                      1  
                      We know, we know. Only Obama, and Gates, and Sotomayor can be racists. Because in this upside down world we live in, clearly white people can no longer be racists.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by starkcr31 (August 20, 2009 11:13 am ET)
                          1
                        No, they are race-baiters, claiming that everyone else is racist. That's the difference.
                        Report Abuse
            • Author by captfoster2 (August 19, 2009 5:18 pm ET)
              2  
              Wow, I was wondering how long it would take for race to be dragged into a conversation that has nothing at all to do with it.

              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!
              Report Abuse
          • Author by boohooliberals (August 19, 2009 1:56 pm ET)
            1 5
            Its sad to see that liberals are quick to call anyone who disagrees with Obama a racist. The assertion that the only reason we disagree with our president is because we are racist is in essence a racist remark. Try to look past his color and realize that we just think he's an idiot.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Brabantio (August 19, 2009 2:40 pm ET)
              4 1
              Again, "That wouldn't be racist. Thinking that others are racist, whether right or wrong, does not mean that one believes one race is superior over another."
              Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 19, 2009 2:58 pm ET)
                1 5
                So what is your word for it then?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (August 19, 2009 3:11 pm ET)
                  3 1
                  It depends on the intent. You yourself used the word "obsessed", which would work, or "dishonest" if you think the person doesn't really believe it and is using the accusation as a matter of convenience.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by boohooliberals (August 19, 2009 4:22 pm ET)
                  1
                Throwing out racist accusations when there is no race comment being made and simply a disagreement of ideas and policies asserts that this is the one quality that Obama was elected under.

                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.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Brabantio (August 19, 2009 8:52 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Throwing out racist accusations when there is no race comment being made and simply a disagreement of ideas and policies asserts that this is the one quality that Obama was elected under.
                  I have no idea how you think that logically follows.
                  If you elected him and love him because of his race "YOU ARE RACIST".
                  No. Even if you could establish that people voted for him based on race, that would not suggest anything about superiority of any race. Obviously, people could be excited about breaking a race barrier.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by starkcr31 (August 20, 2009 11:18 am ET)
                      1
                    Treating someone differently BECAUSE of their race, whether it's positive or negative (like many did with Obama) is racism. It's not just racism to dislike Obama because he's black, it's also racism to like him because he's black. I disagree with his policies (all of them), but not because he's black. I couldn't care less about that. It's simple not fair (to put it mildly) to call someone a racist for disagreeing with someone that isn't their color, nor is it fair to agree with someone because they ARE.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 20, 2009 12:30 pm ET)
                         
                      But you do think it's fair to call them race-baiters?
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by Brabantio (August 20, 2009 3:52 pm ET)
                         
                      It's not just racism to dislike Obama because he's black, it's also racism to like him because he's black.
                      No, it isn't. Check with a dictionary and get back to me.
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (August 19, 2009 3:51 pm ET)
              3 1
              Its sad to see that liberals are quick to call anyone who disagrees with Obama a racist. - boohoo

              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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by boohooliberals (August 19, 2009 4:30 pm ET)
                  1
                I agree, those statements you just mentioned are racist. I have yet to see any of the mentioned though.


                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.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by starkcr31 (August 20, 2009 11:22 am ET)
                     
                  Wrong, they aren't. The racist words weren't actually said (they weren't in quotes).
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 20, 2009 11:21 am ET)
                  1
                The examples you provided aren't at all racist. You added your own junk in parentheses to illustrate your absurd, untrue point. Unless the words you added were actually said, you have no reason to believe they were implied. You just want them to be. I suggest you find something better to do with your time.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (August 20, 2009 11:46 am ET)
                  2  
                  Who do they want their country back from?

                  What kind of America do they remember?

                  Like I said earlier, many times its the racist who can't recognize racism, especially subtle racism.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 20, 2009 12:36 pm ET)
                     
                  So, who is it they want their country back from?

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (August 19, 2009 4:17 pm ET)
              3 1
              Its sad to see that liberals are quick to call anyone who disagrees with Obama a racist.

              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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by boohooliberals (August 19, 2009 4:41 pm ET)
                  1
                Very eloquent and well thought out point. Maybe you should see the post that started this thread, then take a moment to compose a coherent thought and come back.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (August 19, 2009 9:49 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Thank you.

                  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.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by starkcr31 (August 20, 2009 11:23 am ET)
                1 1
                So being called a racist time and time again because I disagree with him, even though nothing I've ever said anything that suggests I'm the least bit racist is sad? Yes, it is sad to be accused of something that isn't true.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by seroquel (August 19, 2009 11:32 am ET)
      4  
      I love how these idiots are grasping straws. It's amusing, in a dark comedy kind of way. I mean, at first, it was the DEATH PANELS(I happen to like my lame humor), and NOW, the evil people are going to kill Medicare. Republicans=Asenine.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (August 19, 2009 12:36 pm ET)
      1 6
      -- 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 -- mmfa/FactCheck

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by peace4all (August 19, 2009 2:20 pm ET)
        4  
        epic fail again.

        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (August 19, 2009 3:01 pm ET)
          1 3
          Even Pollyanna wouldn't fall for the line about the govt. making things more efficient.

          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.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by IowaDem (August 19, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
            7  
            How do you rebut the fact that nearly 30% of every dollar that goes to insurance companies is spent on administrative cost, while only less than 3% goes to admin cost under Medicare? To me that is the very definition of efficiency, is it not?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (August 19, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
              5  
              Not to mention Medicare Part D which was a gift-wrapped bundle of cash given by Bush and his congressional cronies to the insurance company vampires to the tune of $100 billion a year.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by wesley (August 19, 2009 4:03 pm ET)
              1 2
              It's not.

              -- 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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Appleboy (August 19, 2009 4:19 pm ET)
                2  
                How do other advanced nations supply governent run health care at half the cost we do?

                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.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by The_Cat (August 19, 2009 4:50 pm ET)
                1  
                "The results are predictable, but breathtaking nonetheless: an estimated $68 billion in outright Medicare fraud every year." ABC NEWS

                ".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.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by wesley (August 19, 2009 11:24 pm ET)
                    1
                  -- If there is $68 billion a year in fraud, how can that be Medicare's fault? -- thecat

                  Incompetence.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by The_Cat (August 20, 2009 11:33 am ET)
                    1  
                    Actually, not incompetence. Lack of oversight. I think more regulation will fix this. Not that you will agree, of course, wesley. Stealing from the government is practically a conservative right, isn't it? And all the while decrying government 'handouts' to the less fortunate? Well, that's just gravy.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 19, 2009 4:54 pm ET)
                1  
                So now you're arguing that Medicare fraud is not regulated closely enough. And you're charging this to overhead? Which argument are you trying to make? That we should crack down on Medicare fraud or that Medicare has too much overhead. Stick with one argument and we can debate the facts of it. You can't say Medicare is inefficient and then when people point out that it is more efficient than private insurance say - "people steal from Medicare!".
                Report Abuse
                • Author by wesley (August 19, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
                    2
                  Who said anything about more regulations?

                  I'll repeat it slowly...$200 billion a year in fraud and waste because they are incompetent.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Appleboy (August 19, 2009 6:16 pm ET)
                    1  
                    If Medicare is so wasteful, lets see how other countries are able to do it then. Let me repeat

                    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.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by wesley (August 19, 2009 11:02 pm ET)
                        1
                      -- I mean if no one is yelling at someone else then they won't cover it. -- appleboy

                      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?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Appleboy (August 20, 2009 10:30 am ET)
                        1  
                        Actually you would not be for it because it would be government run.

                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 20, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
                           
                        France has a sort of hybrid system. They have a national health insurance plan. France also has one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the world (just not nearly as expensive as ours). They have also had the occasional deficits from their healthcare plan, which is inevitable with national healthcare - there will be years where it runs a deficit.

                        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.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 20, 2009 12:42 pm ET)
                       
                    "Who said anything about more regulations?

                    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?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 20, 2009 12:58 pm ET)
                       
                    "200 billion a year in fraud and waste because they are incompetent."

                    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?
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by peace4all (August 19, 2009 3:37 pm ET)
            3  
            well, if thats your argument then let get rid of ALL govenment that is not cost efficient. you know, we can start by dismantleing the military. then shut down ALL public colleges. no more hiway dept. no more homeland security, no more ins. that right there should enable us to all get a big tax cut right? and imangine how much better we will be as a country.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by wesley (August 19, 2009 4:15 pm ET)
                2
              peace4all

              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.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by peace4all (August 19, 2009 4:38 pm ET)
                2  
                really? you don't seem to demand the same accountability from the programs that you want, like most conservitives you only have an issue with the programs you don't want. after all, where is you outrage at military spending? how about your outrage at the waste in homeland security. when i see the right complain loudly about those and work to get those made more efficient then i may give your words some weight. but until i see proof of that your words are just more blather.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by wesley (August 19, 2009 5:45 pm ET)
                    1
                  -- where is your outrage at military spending -- peace4all

                  (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)

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by peace4all (August 19, 2009 5:52 pm ET)
                    1  
                    thats great. so..what have YOU done to change the waste that goes on in the military? or do you give them a pass and just want to stop something that MAY have some waste becuase you don't like that program. if you don't want healthcare reform because it might waste money fine. but at least be consistant and work in a concrete way to eliminate other thing that are wasteful.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 20, 2009 1:03 pm ET)
                    1  
                    I agree, wesley. Let's get the federal government's hands off our military. They can't run any large government program. Let's give it to Xe, let them run it. Military for profit!
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by The_Cat (August 19, 2009 4:51 pm ET)
                1  
                "I do advocate accountability and results from our government when they are spending taxpayer money..."

                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.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 19, 2009 4:50 pm ET)
            1  
            The post office is actually very efficient. As is Medicare and Medicaid when compared to private industry. Again, this is not my opinion - this is a fact.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by dewdrop_8171931 (August 19, 2009 12:54 pm ET)
      4 2
      Luntz's needs to find out how many calories his fat@$$ needs to cut back on in order to drop that triple chin he's sporting. Perhaps he should run on poll on that.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by boohooliberals (August 19, 2009 2:53 pm ET)
        1 2
        Glad to see we are staying objective. It tiring to see people use the term "hate mongering" when that is what half these posts are. Lets keep to the subject.

        Let me go ahead and comment on my own post for you all:

        "Your just a crazy right wing hate monger"
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 20, 2009 1:06 pm ET)
             
          I have to ask: Do you see any irony in that your name is accusing liberals of being crybabies while you are actually playing the preemptive victim role? Anything there seem funny to you?

          boohooconservatives?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by mfinn7314 (August 19, 2009 1:38 pm ET)
      3 1
      Luntz could turn out to be the worst of the bunch of unholy liars. He's an expert in language supposedly and apparently in manipulation, distortions, etc. of the same.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by National_Insecurity (August 19, 2009 4:10 pm ET)
        3 1
        Luntz is the king of disinformation, not merely misinformation.

        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.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by denovan8 (August 19, 2009 2:05 pm ET)
      2 1
      if any of you trace history of u.s former presidents and of the other countries. their battle to reach great benifits for their citizens, where like facing hell itself.the millions of dollars that insurance companies are paying lobbiest like this seudo journalists, will make president Obama not to have it easy. but if he gets to make this great reform come true, he will be inmortalize as one of the greatest presidents of our days.shame on all those lobbiest misleading the elder and those that do not have the capability to analize the whole picture of what is really going on behind doors. jc
      Report Abuse
    • Author by camaspermaculture (August 19, 2009 2:30 pm ET)
        4
      Medicare benefits ARE being cut to millions of people that can't afford to pay for supplemental care offered in the Medicare Advantage program. The highest value plans that also had the lowest cost are leaving in 2010 because reimbursement rates were just lowered. What is left are second and third tier plans that have poor coverage and costs that won't be affordable for many people. Using AARP sources to "debunk" this fact is ironic.

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by National_Insecurity (August 19, 2009 4:13 pm ET)
        2  
        MedicareAdvantage is not Medicare, it is literally a fraud passed during the Bush era to increase costs by 12-15%, subsidized by tax payers with the profits funneled to for-profit insurers. AARP and many otherwise trustworthy organizations participate in the fraud.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by andrea_m_taylor5058 (August 19, 2009 3:07 pm ET)
      2  
      The GOP should not get the White House back for 100 years because of the way they are handling themselves now.

      Does the GOP think there are no consequences to pay for all their lies? I believe there are.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by lyvwyr101 (August 19, 2009 3:58 pm ET)
      1  
      BLUE lETTER WEEK-

      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.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by aocasio463507 (August 20, 2009 9:12 am ET)
      1  
      If the Main Stream Media were interested in the Truth they would declare War on Fox News on a daily bases and expose the public to the lying bastards that they and the Republicans are.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.