Expect to see this

[WorldTraveller]

Anyone who is paying attention knows that both sides are going to demagogue each other, the D's will say that under Romney and Ryan, "Medicare will end as we know it", that you will get a voucher and after that voucher, you are on your bud.

 

The R's will say, "Obama cut Medicare by over $700B"

 

Those are simple attacks that will resonate with some voters. However, there is going to be a very powerful attack that actually has substance behind it, which is the following:

 

Under Obamacare, there is a medical advisory board called IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board).

 

This "advisory board" is going to be comprised by 15 unelected bureaucrats who will have the authority to make decisions on cuts to Medicare providers.

 

In other words, its all about price control. Rationing

 

Not only will they have this power, but Congress doesn't even have the power to overturn their rulings. According to the Medicare chief actuary , within the next 10 years, Medicare providers will be paid less than Medicaid providers.

 

 

 

This can scare the hell out of seniors. A rationing board that determines payments to Medicare providers.

 

I fully expect this to be a potent weapon to more than offset the onslaught we will see against Romney and Ryan's plan.

[joey greco]

You're substantively correct, but I doubt it will have any effect on the election. There's so little future-time orientation in the electorate that if it's not happening in the next 6 months it may as well not exist. The left will just keep running ads telling the sheep that Paul Ryan is going to line up every old bag in the country and toss them off a cliff the day after the election and they'll eat it up.

[Doc]

Anyone who is paying attention knows that both sides are going to demagogue each other, the D's will say that under Romney and Ryan, "Medicare will end as we know it", that you will get a voucher and after that voucher, you are on your bud.

 

The R's will say, "Obama cut Medicare by over $700B"

 

Those are simple attacks that will resonate with some voters. However, there is going to be a very powerful attack that actually has substance behind it, which is the following:

 

Under Obamacare, there is a medical advisory board called IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board).

 

This "advisory board" is going to be comprised by 15 unelected bureaucrats who will have the authority to make decisions on cuts to Medicare providers.

 

In other words, its all about price control. Rationing

 

Not only will they have this power, but Congress doesn't even have the power to overturn their rulings. According to the Medicare chief actuary , within the next 10 years, Medicare providers will be paid less than Medicaid providers.

 

 

 

This can scare the hell out of seniors. A rationing board that determines payments to Medicare providers.

 

I fully expect this to be a potent weapon to more than offset the onslaught we will see against Romney and Ryan's plan.

Yep, mentioned IPAB in my discussions with birddog. Suffice it to say that "pushing grandma off a cliff" in 2023 will ring hollow in the face of not being able to find a doctor to treat you, which will happen much sooner.

[WorldTraveller]

You're substantively correct, but I doubt it will have any effect on the election. There's so little future-time orientation in the electorate that if it's not happening in the next 6 months it may as well not exist. The left will just keep running ads telling the sheep that Paul Ryan is going to line up every old bag in the country and toss them off a cliff the day after the election and they'll eat it up.

 

I would agree with you, however this isn't a complicated line of attack. here goes: "Under ObamaCare" Seniors will be subject to a board of unelected bureaucrats who will ration health care for seniors" bla bla blaYou see that? In less than 10 seconds, I used the word "ObamaCare", "bureaucrats" and "ration"These words are negatively associated with seniors.This line of attack can work.

Edited August 13, 2012 by WorldTraveller

[Doc]

You're substantively correct, but I doubt it will have any effect on the election. There's so little future-time orientation in the electorate that if it's not happening in the next 6 months it may as well not exist. The left will just keep running ads telling the sheep that Paul Ryan is going to line up every old bag in the country and toss them off a cliff the day after the election and they'll eat it up.

The right will run adds saying Barry will be pushing them off the cliff in 2014, a full 9 years before Ryan's plan.

[IDBillzFan]

I would agree with you, however this isn't a complicated line of attack. here goes: "Under ObamaCare" Seniors will be subject to a board of unelected bureaucrats who will ration health care for seniors" bla bla blaYou see that? In less than 10 seconds, I used the word "ObamaCare", "bureaucrats" and "ration"These words are negatively associated with seniors.This line of attack can work.

 

Not to mention, it gets easier when the Obama campaign can't even get their stories straight. Did Obama cut it or didn't he? Let's go to tape:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK49WTpjYfM&feature=player_embedded

[joey greco]

Throw "death panel" in there and it might work. The two problems I still see with it are 1) Romney and Ryan are too patrician to effectively demagogue the issue. They'll both go for an attempt at rational explanation, which is a losing tactic atm. 2) Something between a third and a half of the populace (and growing every day) are direct dependents of the federal government. If they have the capability and attention span to actually look at the plans, what they'll see is one plan that requires them to make a choice, have some small measure of responsibility, and another in which daddy.gov tells them what's going to happen, just like in every other aspect of their lives.

 

It's all bread and circuses for these people-asking them to make choices and take some responsibility for themselves is anathema.

[meazza]

Not to mention, it gets easier when the Obama campaign can't even get their stories straight. Did Obama cut it or didn't he? Let's go to tape:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK49WTpjYfM&feature=player_embedded

 

How could anyone trust someone with eyebrows like that?

[B-Man]

Video: Romney, Ryan play offense on Medicare in 60 Minutes appearance

 

It’s good news, though, that the 60 Minutes audience got a chance to see this swipe at the Mediscaring that had already begun over the weekend after Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan for his running mate. It turns out that Ryan and Romney both agree that the best defense is a good offense:

 

 

Romney answered critics who say Ryan’s Medicare plan will hurt the ticket’s chances, especially in Florida.

 

“There’s only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare, $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare,” Romney said.

“What Paul Ryan and I have talked about is saving Medicare, is providing people greater choice in Medicare, making sure it’s there for current seniors. No changes, by the way, for current seniors, or those nearing retirement. But looking for young people down the road and saying, “We’re going to give you a bigger choice.” In America, the nature of this country has been giving people more freedom, more choices. That’s how we make Medicare work down the road.”

 

This is the part that readers claim was edited out of the broadcast, which if true would be journalistic malpractice:

 

Ryan added, “My mom is a Medicare senior in Florida. Our point is we need to preserve their benefits, because government made promises to them that they’ve organized their retirements around. In order to make sure we can do that, you must reform it for those of us who are younger. And we think these reforms are good reforms. That have bipartisan origins. They started from the Clinton commission in the late ’90s.”

 

Ryan’s plan doesn’t affect those already eligible for Medicare. In fact, one of the conservative criticisms of the plan was that he didn’t give current Medicare recipients the option to choose a private-insurance plan, as younger Americans will get once they become eligible.

 

That’s a pretty newsworthy detail, no?

 

The Ryan budget proposes the partial privatization of Medicare by turning it into a premium-support system within a federal exchange, where insurance companies compete for business while meeting coverage requirements. That’s really no different than Medicare Advantage, which puts market power into cost control and gets the government out of paying providers over a period of several years. It’s not a perfect solution, as it maintains the third-party-payer system that interferes with pricing signals, which is the main problem driving the cost spiral. However, it’s as close as we can get to a good political solution, since there is absolutely no support for dismantling Medicare entirely, and it at least lessensthe problems of price-signal opacity.

 

This demonstrates the advantage that Romney gets in picking Ryan as his running mate. Democrats would have hung the Ryan plan around his neck anyway. Now Ryan himself gets to answer those attacks on the biggest stage, and the more people hear what Ryan actually proposes, the more apt they are to like it.

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/13/video-romney-ryan-play-offense-on-medicare-in-60-minutes-appearance/

[meazza]

Video: Romney, Ryan play offense on Medicare in 60 Minutes appearance

 

It’s good news, though, that the 60 Minutes audience got a chance to see this swipe at the Mediscaring that had already begun over the weekend after Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan for his running mate. It turns out that Ryan and Romney both agree that the best defense is a good offense:

 

 

 

 

This is the part that readers claim was edited out of the broadcast, which if true would be journalistic malpractice:

 

 

 

Ryan’s plan doesn’t affect those already eligible for Medicare. In fact, one of the conservative criticisms of the plan was that he didn’t give current Medicare recipients the option to choose a private-insurance plan, as younger Americans will get once they become eligible.

 

That’s a pretty newsworthy detail, no?

 

The Ryan budget proposes the partial privatization of Medicare by turning it into a premium-support system within a federal exchange, where insurance companies compete for business while meeting coverage requirements. That’s really no different than Medicare Advantage, which puts market power into cost control and gets the government out of paying providers over a period of several years. It’s not a perfect solution, as it maintains the third-party-payer system that interferes with pricing signals, which is the main problem driving the cost spiral. However, it’s as close as we can get to a good political solution, since there is absolutely no support for dismantling Medicare entirely, and it at least lessensthe problems of price-signal opacity.

 

This demonstrates the advantage that Romney gets in picking Ryan as his running mate. Democrats would have hung the Ryan plan around his neck anyway. Now Ryan himself gets to answer those attacks on the biggest stage, and the more people hear what Ryan actually proposes, the more apt they are to like it.

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/13/video-romney-ryan-play-offense-on-medicare-in-60-minutes-appearance/

 

Well apparently it was edited out:

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/13/cbs_edits_out_ryan_talking_about_mom_on_medicare_in_60_minutes_interview.html

[B-Man]

Well apparently it was edited out:

 

http://www.realclear..._interview.html

 

 

For time...................................no doubt.

 

We certainly wouldn't want to leave out important information about Mr. Ryan's beliefs, regarding the same subject that his opposition is demagoguing about.

 

naaaaaw!

 

.

[fjl2nd]

Paul Ryan's budget would keep the $700B in cuts as well....

[B-Man]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/313825/obamacare-changed-everything-yuval-levin

 

 

Obamacare Changed Everything

By Yuval Levin

 

 

Watching some of the Sunday shows yesterday and reading the usual suspects online, I was struck by how even knowledgeable liberals still do not understand what Obamacare has done to them. They have a sense that health care is no longer a good issue for them, that it might have cost them the 2010 elections and will hurt in 2012, but they haven’t grasped that Medicare — which for decades has been a trusty battering ram against Republicans in the contest for the votes of seniors and others — is also no longer their issue.

 

This becomes evident in part when you consider that the arguments the Democrats naturally fall back upon regarding Medicare are just false now. So for instance David Axelrod on CNN’s State of the Union referred to “Congressman Ryan’s idea that we should turn Medicare into a voucher program, shifting thousands of dollars ultimately onto the backs of seniors.” But that’s simply a lie — Ryan’s actual Medicare proposal (which Romney has backed) simply doesn’t shift costs to seniors.

But it’s even more evident when liberals try to confront what they themselves — the supporters of Obamacare — propose to do to Medicare. Thus we find Rachel Maddow like a deer in headlights when Rich Lowry asked her a simple question on Meet the Press yesterday: “Do you support $700 billion in cuts in Medicare over the next ten years?” Obamacare takes that amount out of the program and spends it on other things, especially its new exchange subsidies. Maddow literally refused to answer the question.

 

{snip}

 

It’s at least a bit odd for Democrats who say Ryan is the devil to defend President Obama’s raid on Medicare by saying Paul Ryan does the same thing — and what’s more, it’s not true. The Ryan budget puts those $700 billion into the Medicare trust fund, to shore up the program’s future and reduce the deficit, rather than spending the money on yet another new entitlement. And Mitt Romney proposes not to make those Obamacare cuts in the first place — keeping the money in Medicare’s operating budget and so leaving the program simply as it is for today’s seniors and starting his premium-support reform for younger Americans when they retire, beginning a decade from now. Both undo Obama’s raid on Medicare, and both support a plan to save Medicare from bankruptcy in the years ahead.

 

I don’t think Axelrod and Maddow were just setting out to lie exactly — it’s worse than that. Listening to them, it seemed as if they really hadn’t realized until now the situation they were in. They’re used to a certain order of things on Medicare and have not stopped to grasp what Obamacare has done to them. They assume it must be true that Republicans want to cut benefits and Democrats want to preserve them. But it’s not true, not anymore. You could see that panicked realization slowly rising in Maddow’s eyes as she was pressed.

 

What she was probably recognizing was this: Obamacare changed everything.

 

{snip}

 

President Obama has put Democrats in the position of being the party that seeks to cut current seniors’ benefits (especially those in Medicare Advantage) and access to care (thanks to the IPAB) while still allowing the program to collapse in the coming years and so watching the deficit explode and bringing on fiscal disaster. And Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have put the Republicans in the position of being the party that wants to protect current seniors’ benefits and make them available to future seniors while still saving the program from collapse in the coming years and so dramatically reducing the deficit and averting fiscal disaster.

 

Whether you’re now a senior and concerned about your health coverage, are younger and worry if you’ll have affordable coverage when you retire, or are most concerned about the nation’s fiscal health and economic future, the Democrats offer you a very bad deal on Medicare and the Republicans offer you a good one.

 

The Democrats still don’t see that, and think that turning to Medicare in the wake of Ryan’s selection will yield great political rewards. Perhaps Romney and Ryan should inform them of how the two parties actually stand on the issue. And they might think about informing some voters as well.

[Joe Miner]

Paul Ryan's budget would keep the $700B in cuts as well....

 

 

Good job Rachel.

[Nanker]

That $700 BILLION cut in Medicare makes about as much sense as the payroll deduction tax reduction. Both systems are going broke and BO wants to buy coverage for a few million people on the backs of retirees, and the bipartisan cut in payroll tax which funds Social Security is a shortcut it its insolvency. Brilliant! But hey - you gots an extra $20 bucks in your pocket!

Edited August 14, 2012 by Nanker

[WorldTraveller]

Paul Ryan's budget would keep the $700B in cuts as well....

 

With one main distinction, BO's $700 B "cut" was to pay for Obamacare, Ryan's was made for the preservation of Medicare. Something that was totally lost on Rachel Maddow.Btw, did anyone catch Rich Lowry making a fool of Rachel on Sunday on MTP? Pretty hilarious.

Edited August 14, 2012 by WorldTraveller

[IDBillzFan]

With one main distinction, BO's $700 B "cut" was to pay for Obamacare, Ryan's was made for the preservation of Medicare. Something that was totally lost on Rachel Maddow.Btw, did anyone catch Rich Lowry making a fool of Rachel on Sunday on MTP? Pretty hilarious.

Saw that. I initially thought the GOP meme of "Man, the libs were totally caught flat-footed with the Ryan pick" was just blather, but the more I watched and read yesterday...especially watching Axelrod and DWS trip all over their own tongues...the more I realized that was no meme. (It was a space station.)

[Joe Miner]

With one main distinction, BO's $700 B "cut" was to pay for Obamacare, Ryan's was made for the preservation of Medicare. Something that was totally lost on Rachel Maddow.Btw, did anyone catch Rich Lowry making a fool of Rachel on Sunday on MTP? Pretty hilarious.

 

Hey, she isn't running for office, so she didn't have to give her opinion on that opinion show.

[meazza]

Hey, she isn't running for office, so she didn't have to give her opinion on that opinion show.

 

She is quite transparent. One of those that surrounds herself with people like her so she doesn't look like a fool.

 

Maher, Maddow, Mcconnell, Ed, all nut jobs with no basis for reality.

[fjl2nd]

Good job Rachel.

q

 

Did she talk about it on her show? I think I beat her to the punch on it.