Obama camp trying to scare seniors... AGAIN...

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
http://www.newsweek.com/id/164796

Wow, with the election essentially in the bag, you would think the Obama camp wouldn't venture into the fearmongering ads. But apparently Obama doesn't mind. As Newsweek reports, fact check has debunked his absurd claim that McCain wants to cut Medicare benefits, yet Obama continues with the ad campaign in an effort to scare seniors. (much like what was done when SS reform was brought up)

Even with victory in hand, Obama can't help but lower himself into the pit of political BS. Apparently his time in the filth of Chicago politics isn't easily washed off.
 
http://www.newsweek.com/id/164796

Wow, with the election essentially in the bag, you would think the Obama camp wouldn't venture into the fearmongering ads. But apparently Obama doesn't mind. As Newsweek reports, fact check has debunked his absurd claim that McCain wants to cut Medicare benefits, yet Obama continues with the ad campaign in an effort to scare seniors. (much like what was done when SS reform was brought up)

Even with victory in hand, Obama can't help but lower himself into the pit of political BS. Apparently his time in the filth of Chicago politics isn't easily washed off.


Uh, you simply cannot cut $1.3 trillion over ten years from Medicare and Medicaid without cutting benefits. McCain said he will cut $1.3 from Medicare and Medicaid to pay for his health plan.
 
Uh, you simply cannot cut $1.3 trillion over ten years from Medicare and Medicaid without cutting benefits. McCain said he will cut $1.3 from Medicare and Medicaid to pay for his health plan.
So, basically, you are stating that you didn't read the article and do not wish to have information rather than innuendo and falsehoods.
 
Uh, you simply cannot cut $1.3 trillion over ten years from Medicare and Medicaid without cutting benefits. McCain said he will cut $1.3 from Medicare and Medicaid to pay for his health plan.

EARTH TO LEMMING... come in LEMMING... put down the kool-aid... READ the article. EARTH out.
 
So, basically, you are stating that you didn't read the article and do not wish to have information rather than innuendo and falsehoods.

Yeah. McCain's going to magically find a trillion dollars of waste to cut without cutting benefits.

He's been in the senate how long now? What? 90 years? And we're just now hearing about his plan to save us a trillion dollars without touching benefits?

But you two apologists did vote for Bush, so I can't be suprised to find out you'd fall for that crock of $hit McCain is feeding you.
 
So, basically, you are stating that you didn't read the article and do not wish to have information rather than innuendo and falsehoods.


I read the article. I also am familiar with McCain's proposal and how he intends to pay for it. I'm also aware of the annuals budgets of Medicare and Medicaid. I'm additionally aware of simple arithmetic. Putting all of that together, there is no way that McCain can cut $1.3 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid without cutting benefits no matter what Holtz-Eakin claims.
 
While Factcheck.org does not have a monopoly on the truth for the most part it seems to be a pretty trusted group. Factcheck could be wrong here but neither dungheap or ladyt have even referenced anything they stated as to where Obama is wrong. And to bring up Bush does not help your argument that Factcheck is wrong.
 
While Factcheck.org does not have a monopoly on the truth for the most part it seems to be a pretty trusted group. Factcheck could be wrong here but neither dungheap or ladyt have even referenced anything they stated as to where Obama is wrong. And to bring up Bush does not help your argument that Factcheck is wrong.

That's because Obama's not wrong.

good observation.
 
While Factcheck.org does not have a monopoly on the truth for the most part it seems to be a pretty trusted group. Factcheck could be wrong here but neither dungheap or ladyt have even referenced anything they stated as to where Obama is wrong. And to bring up Bush does not help your argument that Factcheck is wrong.


Look at the "Factcheck" piece and point out each fact it cites to in support of it's claims as opposed to what they were told by Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

In short, everything Douglas Hotlz-Eakin says is not a "fact."
 
Yeah. McCain's going to magically find a trillion dollars of waste to cut without cutting benefits.

He's been in the senate how long now? What? 90 years? And we're just now hearing about his plan to save us a trillion dollars without touching benefits?

But you two apologists did vote for Bush, so I can't be suprised to find out you'd fall for that crock of $hit McCain is feeding you.

LMAO... so Newsweek and Factcheck are both wrong and the two Obamamites are right? Lemming number two has also failed to read the article.
 
Yeah. McCain's going to magically find a trillion dollars of waste to cut without cutting benefits.

He's been in the senate how long now? What? 90 years? And we're just now hearing about his plan to save us a trillion dollars without touching benefits?

But you two apologists did vote for Bush, so I can't be suprised to find out you'd fall for that crock of $hit McCain is feeding you.
The same money that Obama says he'll find in savings and loopholes...

:rolleyes:

I expected the "outrage" to pour over, I mean saying he's friends with Ayers is an "attack" that deserves all the outrage one can muster, an ad that lies like this is excoriated... but then, hypocrisy knows no political bounds.

It's fascinating. I do wonder why he'd be trying to scare the old folks while he's so far ahead.
 
LMAO... so Newsweek and Factcheck are both wrong and the two Obamamites are right? Lemming number two has also failed to read the article.


Just for giggle, here is the piece:

Summary
In a TV ad and in speeches, Obama is making bogus claims that McCain plans to cut $880 billion from Medicare spending and to reduce benefits.

A TV spot says McCain's plan requires "cuts in benefits, eligibility or both."
Obama said in a speech that McCain plans "cuts" that would force seniors to "pay more for your drugs, receive fewer services, and get lower quality care."

These claims are false, and based on a single newspaper report that says no such thing. McCain's policy director states unequivocally that no benefit cuts are envisioned. McCain does propose substantial "savings" through such means as cutting fraud, increased use of information technology in medicine and better handling of expensive chronic diseases. Obama himself proposes some of the same cost-saving measures. We're skeptical that either candidate can deliver the savings they promise, but that's no basis for Obama to accuse McCain of planning huge benefit cuts.

Analysis

The Obama campaign began the Medicare assault with a 30-second TV ad released Oct. 17, which it said would run "across the country in key states."

Obama-Biden TV Ad: : "It Gets Worse"
Announcer: John McCain's health care plan … first we learned he's going to tax health care benefits to pay for part of it.

Now the Wall Street Journal reports John McCain would pay for the rest of his health care plan "with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid."

Eight hundred and eighty-two billion from Medicare alone. "Requiring cuts in benefits, eligibility, or both."

John McCain … Taxing Health Benefits … Cutting Medicare. We Can't Afford John McCain.

Obama: I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message.

The ad quotes the Wall Street Journal as saying McCain would pay for his health care plan with "major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid," which the ad says would total $882 billion from Medicare alone, "requiring cuts in benefits, eligibility, or both."

Obama elaborated on the theme Oct. 18 in a stump speech in St. Louis, Mo., claiming flatly that seniors would face major medical hardships under McCain:

Obama, Oct. 18: But it turns out, Senator McCain would pay for part of his plan by making drastic cuts in Medicare -$882 billion worth. Under his plan, if you count on Medicare, you would have fewer places to get care, and less freedom to choose your doctors. You'll pay more for your drugs, receive fewer services, and get lower quality care.

But in fact, McCain has never proposed to cut Medicare benefits, or Medicaid benefits either. Obama's claim is based on a false reading of a single Wall Street Journal story, amplified by a one-sided, partisan analysis that piles speculation atop misinterpretation. The Journal story in turn was based on an interview with McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He said flatly in a conference call with reporters after the ad was released, "No service is being reduced. Every beneficiary will in the future receive exactly the benefits that they have been promised from the beginning."

Twisting Facts to Scare Seniors
Here's how Democrats cooked up their bogus $882 billion claim.

On Oct. 6, the Journal ran a story saying that McCain planned to pay for his health care plan "in part" through reduced Medicare and Medicaid spending, quoting Holtz-Eakin as its authority. The Journal characterizes these reductions as both "cuts" and "savings." Importantly, Holtz-Eakin did not say that any benefits would be cut, and the one direct quote from him in the article makes clear that he's talking about economies:

Wall Street Journal, Oct. 6: Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the Medicare and Medicaid changes would improve the programs and eliminate fraud, but he didn't detail where the cuts would come from. "It's about giving them the benefit package that has been promised to them by law at lower cost," he said.

Holtz-Eakin complains that the Journal story was "a terrible characterization" of McCain's intentions, but even so it clearly quoted him as saying McCain planned on "giving [Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries] the benefit package that has been promised."

Nevertheless, a Democratic-leaning group quickly twisted his quotes into a report with a headline stating that the McCain plan "requires deep benefit and eligibility cuts in Medicare and Medicaid" – the opposite of what the Journal quoted Holtz-Eakin as saying. The report was issued by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, headed by John D. Podesta, former chief of staff to Democratic President Bill Clinton. The report's authors are a former Clinton administration official, a former aid to Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey and a former aid to Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski.

The first sentence said – quite incorrectly – that McCain "disclosed this week that he would cut $1.3 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid to pay for his health care plan." McCain said no such thing, and neither did Holtz-Eakin. The Journal reporter cited a $1.3 trillion estimate of the amount McCain would need to produce, over 10 years, to make his health care plan "budget neutral," as he promises to do. The estimate comes not from McCain, but from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. McCain and Holtz-Eakin haven't disputed that figure, but they haven't endorsed it either.

Nevertheless, the report assumes McCain would divide $1.3 trillion in "cuts" proportionately between the two programs, and comes up with this: "The McCain plan will cut $882 billion from the Medicare program, roughly 13 percent of Medicare's projected spending over a 10-year period." And with such a cut, the report concludes, Medicare spending "will not keep pace with inflation and enrollment growth—thereby requiring cuts in benefits, eligibility, or both."

"Savings" vs. "Cuts"
For the record, Holtz-Eakin said in a telephone conference call with reporters Oct. 17, after the ad was released, that any shortfall in McCain's health care plan could be covered, without cutting benefits, by such measures as reducing "Medicare fraud and abuse," employing "a new generation of treatment models" for expensive chronic diseases, speeding adoption of low-cost generic drugs, and expanding the use of information technology in medicine.

Interestingly, Obama proposes to pay for his own health care plan in part through some of the same measures, particularly expanded use of I.T. and better handling of chronic disease. Whether either candidate can achieve the huge savings they are promising is dubious at best. As regular readers of FactCheck.org are aware, we're skeptical of Obama's claim that he can achieve his promised $2,500 reduction in average health insurance premiums, for example.

But achievable or not, "savings" are what McCain is proposing. It's a rank distortion for Obama's ad to twist that into a plan for "cuts in benefits, eligibility or both," and for Obama to claim in a speech that seniors will "receive fewer services, and get lower quality care."


I'll highlighted the portions of the article that rely exclusively on the claims of Holtz-Eakin as opposed to actual verifiable facts.

In short, this article should be titled "Obama and McCain disagree as to the impact of the McCain healthcare proposal on Medicare and Medicaid" because that's all it is.

Obama says one thing. Holtz-Eakin says another. Somehow Holtz-Eakin's claims are transformed into "facts" when basic math tells you otherwise.
 
LMAO... so Newsweek and Factcheck are both wrong and the two Obamamites are right? Lemming number two has also failed to read the article.

http://www.retiredamericans.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/6491/pid/179

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/mccains_quiet_medicare_bombshe.php

"What the NewsHour didn’t let the candidate discuss was his quiet bombshell proposal to make Medicare beneficiaries with higher incomes pay more for their prescription drug benefits"
We're all socialists now.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/mc...s-little-attention-in-florida-2008-01-26.html

"McCain plan to scale back drug benefit gets little attention in Florida "


to be fair McCain's been all over the map with his plans.
 
LOL

Seriously. Poof! We're going to knock off $1T in costs.

"For the record, Holtz-Eakin said in a telephone conference call with reporters Oct. 17, after the ad was released, that any shortfall in McCain's health care plan could be covered, without cutting benefits, by such measures as reducing "Medicare fraud and abuse," employing "a new generation of treatment models" for expensive chronic diseases, speeding adoption of low-cost generic drugs, and expanding the use of information technology in medicine.

Interestingly, Obama proposes to pay for his own health care plan in part through some of the same measures, particularly expanded use of I.T. and better handling of chronic disease. Whether either candidate can achieve the huge savings they are promising is dubious at best. As regular readers of FactCheck.org are aware, we're skeptical of Obama's claim that he can achieve his promised $2,500 reduction in average health insurance premiums, for example. "

The point of the article is not whether McCain will be successful or not making his plan budget neutral, but whether or not he plans to cut benefits. He clearly does not plan to cut benefits as Obama claims. THAT is the bullshit portion of the ad that is designed to scare seniors.

AS both the Newsweek and Factcheck sites stated, they are dubious of whether EITHER of the two candidates plans would be cost neutral as they claim. But given that our good little Obamamites refuse to actually READ the damn article, we end up with the same kool-aid induced talking points put forth by the One.
 
The same money that Obama says he'll find in savings and loopholes...

:rolleyes:

I expected the "outrage" to pour over, I mean saying he's friends with Ayers is an "attack", this is outright lying.



McCain says his plan is budget neutral. McCain's plan would cost an additional $1.3 trillion. McCain says he will make up the savings in Medicare and Medicaid. If you cut $1.3 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid, you are going to cut benefits.
 
http://www.retiredamericans.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/6491/pid/179

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/mccains_quiet_medicare_bombshe.php

"What the NewsHour didn’t let the candidate discuss was his quiet bombshell proposal to make Medicare beneficiaries with higher incomes pay more for their prescription drug benefits"
We're all socialists now.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/mc...s-little-attention-in-florida-2008-01-26.html

"McCain plan to scale back drug benefit gets little attention in Florida "


to be fair McCain's been all over the map with his plans.


No, no - it's just an "absurd claim," and "the filth of Chicago politics..."
 
McCain says his plan is budget neutral. McCain's plan would cost an additional $1.3 trillion. McCain says he will make up the savings in Medicare and Medicaid. If you cut $1.3 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid, you are going to cut benefits.
Again, there is a difference in making it more efficient without cutting services and "cutting".

I am personally dubious that he'll find that much in savings as much as the next guy. So IMO his will cost more and so will Obamas. Magical loopholes and savings is where he says he'll find the money to pay for his too...

BOTH of these guys are too danged expensive for us, but everybody is voting for Santa Claus rather than President...

There was once this guy who made a speech with a portion that I really admired. "Ask not what your country can do for you...."

Nowadays it's sitting on the lap of a friendly guy who talks nice and promises you more things...
 
Back
Top