The lies of the left...MoveOn

[XZeroII]

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...org-says-proposed-house-republican-budget-ab/

Never too early to start spreading the FUD.

"MoveOn.org claimed that Ryan’s budget plan "abolishes Medicare within 10 years." The group provided no evidence that backs the claim. To be sure, the plan would change Medicare, significantly, starting in 2022. But for those who turn 65 before then, there would be no changes at all, even after 2022. And for the others, Medicare would change -- dramatically -- but it would still exist.

MoveOn.org went too far with its claim. We rate it False."

 

[nick1985]

How does moveon suggest we balance the budget?

 

[ElFenix]

if the euros can cover their entire populations for what we spend on medicare/va/schip there is obviously room for improvement.

 

[Craig234]

What a bad piece. It ignores the substance and nit picks a word.

It's the opinion of some that a plan like this can talk all it wants about how the future payments to citizens (or states) by the feds will always continue, but in the fact of massive debt and 'starve the beast' policies, it's very likely - and this is probably the plan as well - that those payments will go away.

Regardless, privatizing Medicare is 'abolishing' it as the program we know.

Even the article acknowledged points close to the Moveon statement:

Ryan’s 10-year plan has plenty to get worked up about. It would slash spending and deficits by the trillions, repeal the health care reform law enacted under President Barack Obama, and take aim at two mainstays Ryan and others say are headed for bankruptcy: Medicaid and Medicare.

Families USA framed it more cautiously, saying the proposal would "end Medicare as we know it by 2022."

So it would "take aim" at Medicaid and Medicare, and the source THEY cite said it would "end Medicare as we know it".

Ya, saying the plan would abolish Medicare is a real lie. When that's the best the right can come up with, it shows how badly they're on the losing end of the lie issue.

 

[Craig234]

if the euros can cover their entire populations for what we spend on medicare/va/schip there is obviously room for improvement.

Private insurance, with its hundreds of different companies' forms, and profit motives pushing it to fight every claim it can, creates massive bureaucratic expenses.

I've seen estimates those expenses - which only exist under the private system - I forget the number, but perhaps up to 35% of the costs. It's crazy.

 

[PeshakJang]

According to Democrats, the Republican budget cuts are equivalent to "bombing civilians", and thousands of people would literally die from starvation should we cut a single dollar from the budget.

Democrats: Civil debate means you shut the fuck up while they continue to be uncivil.

 

[Throckmorton]

What kind of fucking stupid insurance company would accept someone over age 65 without huge premiums?

 

[Throckmorton]

According to Democrats, the Republican budget cuts are equivalent to "bombing civilians", and thousands of people would literally die from starvation should we cut a single dollar from the budget.

Democrats: Civil debate means you shut the fuck up while they continue to be uncivil.

You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.

What goes around comes around, OSAMA.

I for one do not want some private insurance death panel deciding whether my "Medicare" voucher makes me worth keeping alive.

 

[senseamp]

Hands off Medicare, Ryan can take his voucher and shove it.

 

[PeshakJang]

You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.
What goes around comes around, OSAMA.

Wasn't it the Democrats that came out screaming for civility after the Giffords shooting? The President that came out and said we need to maintain a civil debate, be careful about what we say... etc.

It was that same group that took the exact opposite approach *the next day*, and has been toning it up ever since. Do you think this is not hypocritical? The right has never really made a big deal about civil debate... though the rhetoric has been historically less hysterical than the left (Fact, not opinion).

 

[Throckmorton]

Wasn't it the Democrats that came out screaming for civility after the Giffords shooting? The President that came out and said we need to maintain a civil debate, be careful about what we say... etc.

It was that same group that took the exact opposite approach *the next day*, and has been toning it up ever since. Do you think this is not hypocritical? The right has never really made a big deal about civil debate... though the rhetoric has been historically less hysterical than the left (Fact, not opinion).

Why do you hate America so much?

 

[Throckmorton]

BTW, what parallel universe do you live in where rightfully saying that Paul Ryan wants to end Medicare through privatization is uncivil? It's fact.

Or are we not allowed to tell the public the truth about Republicans' ideology? Are you that embarassed? And only a year after you were "accusing" us of taking away old peoples' Medicare, which is a program you're opposed to. I can't even wrap my head around it. And now Paul Ryan is actually trying to end Medicare, and you right wingers are mad... at what?? Either stand by your rightist ideology or STFU.

You can't be opposed to a program because it's socialist, accuse your political opponent of wanting to end that socialist program because he's socialist, and then whine because the left tells the public that you want to end the socialist program that you're opposed to because it's socialist!!!! ARGHHHH

 

[ElFenix]

Private insurance, with its hundreds of different companies' forms, and profit motives pushing it to fight every claim it can, creates massive bureaucratic expenses.

I've seen estimates those expenses - which only exist under the private system - I forget the number, but perhaps up to 35% of the costs. It's crazy.

so you are telling me this... why?

 

[cubby1223]

Families USA framed it more cautiously, saying the proposal would "end Medicare as we know it by 2022."

Well, by that same phrasing, *every* change to anything ends it as we know it. Because it will be different. Hell, ADDING more coverage changes Medicare as we know it. Obamacare changes Medicare as we know it.

 

[Bowfinger]

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...org-says-proposed-house-republican-budget-ab/

Never too early to start spreading the FUD.

"MoveOn.org claimed that Ryan’s budget plan "abolishes Medicare within 10 years." The group provided no evidence that backs the claim. To be sure, the plan would change Medicare, significantly, starting in 2022. But for those who turn 65 before then, there would be no changes at all, even after 2022. And for the others, Medicare would change -- dramatically -- but it would still exist.

MoveOn.org went too far with its claim. We rate it False."

While it's not exactly FUD, it is certainly dishonest hyperbole. Shame on MoveOn for embracing such RNC/Rovian tactics. They should apologize and correct their comments to more accurately expose Ryan's plan to gut Medicaid.

 

[boomerang]

How does moveon suggest we balance the budget?

Soros has dictated that it's not necessary. The faithful follow...blindly.

Soros: U.S. Can Take on More Debt and Stop Obsessing About Budget Cuts

 

[Craig234]

so you are telling me this... why?

You said there's room for improvement by comparing Europe's universal coverage to ours.

 

[ElFenix]

You said there's room for improvement by comparing Europe's universal coverage to ours.

no, i said there's room for improvement comparing europe's government coverage (which is close to universal) to our government coverage (which is no where near universal and costs just as much).

 

[Craig234]

Soros has dictated that it's not necessary. The faithful follow...blindly.

Soros: U.S. Can Take on More Debt and Stop Obsessing About Budget Cuts

How ironic, that somoene who so blindly follows right-wing propaganda as to parrot its talking points against Soros, makes the attack you made that's far more about you.

What networks does Soros own, what shows does he host, what newspapers does he own - the man supports the freedom of people, but the right wing wants someone to use as a demon to get their blind followers to buy their lies in their propaganda, and use him for the suckers, like you.

 

[Craig234]

Well, by that same phrasing, *every* change to anything ends it as we know it. Because it will be different. Hell, ADDING more coverage changes Medicare as we know it. Obamacare changes Medicare as we know it.

And we have the idiocy lobby posting now, who can't tell the difference between things as similar as 'aboloshing medicare' and 'ending Medicare as we know it' as it is turned from the government's single payer insurace program into a vulnerable cash payout to fund a terrible, inefficient privatized system - and how adding 1 penny to the Medicare budget is like 'abolishing Medicare' by changing it a tiny bit. Idiocy. Idiocy.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

The Republicans claim Obamacare creates death panels. and Democrats claim privatizing Medicare creates death panels. What both sides are missing is that "death panels" are the only solution to the problem. The real issue is that people are demanding more healthcare than we can afford. We can either limit supply by government force through a single payer system or do something more market based that exposes people to the true costs of their healthcare.

The arguments about about whether the government or private insurance companies have higher overhead miss the point. In both cases the numbers are pretty low, that's not where the majority of the costs are. Single payer isn't cheaper because its more efficient, its cheaper because you get less healthcare. If we privatize Medicare and limit the subsidy rate you will get more or less the same result but people will a little more control over it. Either way people are going to bitch.

We should be having an honest debate about the best way to reduce the amount of healthcare supplied, not pretending that we can have our cake and eat it too.

 

[Craig234]

The Republicans claim Obamacare creates death panels. and Democrats claim privatizing Medicare creates death panels. What both sides are missing is that "death panels" are the only solution to the problem. The real issue is that people are demanding more healthcare than we can afford. We can either limit supply by government force through a single payer system or do something more market based that exposes people to the true costs of their healthcare.

The arguments about about whether the government or private insurance companies have higher overhead miss the point. In both cases the numbers are pretty low, that's not where the majority of the costs are. Single payer isn't cheaper because its more efficient, its cheaper because you get less healthcare. If we privatize Medicare and limit the subsidy rate you will get more or less the same result but people will a little more control over it. Either way people are going to bitch.

We should be having an honest debate about the best way to reduce the amount of healthcare supplied, not pretending that we can have our cake and eat it too.

You're wrong.

The issue of simply the cost of an efficient system is AN issue - on with solutions, as other countries show.

The issue of the massive excessive costs of our privatized insurance system that simply takes hundreds of billions of the money spent for its profits and pointlessly expensive overhead like with redundant forms and operations, IS a huge issue, you are wrong to say otherwise.

The issue can't be fixed with your opinion - all you can do is keep cutting care and cutting care to protect the insurance industry. We need single payer healthcare.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

You're wrong.

The issue of simply the cost of an efficient system is AN issue - on with solutions, as other countries show.

The issue of the massive excessive costs of our privatized insurance system that simply takes hundreds of billions of the money spent for its profits and pointlessly expensive overhead like with redundant forms and operations, IS a huge issue, you are wrong to say otherwise.

The issue can't be fixed with your opinion - all you can do is keep cutting care and cutting care to protect the insurance industry. We need single payer healthcare.

The facts do not support your argument. Private insurance companies pay out about 85% of premiums toward medical expenses. The other 15% is overhead, profit, and taxes. Medicare's administrative costs are about 3.5% of revenues. When you adjust for taxes and the significantly higher levels of fraud in medicare its a wash or private insurance comes out slightly ahead. The overhead and profit of the insurance industry is not whats driving costs. Single payer is only cheaper because you get less care.

 

[ElFenix]

You're wrong.

The issue of simply the cost of an efficient system is AN issue - on with solutions, as other countries show.

The issue of the massive excessive costs of our privatized insurance system that simply takes hundreds of billions of the money spent for its profits and pointlessly expensive overhead like with redundant forms and operations, IS a huge issue, you are wrong to say otherwise.

The issue can't be fixed with your opinion - all you can do is keep cutting care and cutting care to protect the insurance industry. We need single payer healthcare.

so what's the government's excuse as to why it spends more than the governments of france, uk, and germany to cover about 25% of the population (if even that)?

 

[OrByte]

You're either with us or you're with the terrorists.

What goes around comes around, OSAMA.

I for one do not want some private insurance death panel deciding whether my "Medicare" voucher makes me worth keeping alive.

Lol! Oowpnd