2012 US Presidential Election.

[pilferk]

A little closer to the truth, you mean he actually told the truth about something?

I believe he did indicate his name is Paul Ryan.

And I think he mentioned that Mitt Romney was running for president.

So he got those right, at least.

But yes, it was a bit of reverse hyperbole.  He delivered the speech very well (better, IMHO, than Romney's speech last night)...but the content was lacking.

Which is the opposite of what you got from Romney last night.  Decent content (if a little snoozey), but man was he stiff.  He's going to have to work on that for the debates.  I was a bit surprised, given his stump speeches haven't been THAT bad.

Also...Romney has got to lay off the "Better off than you were 4 years ago".  It's a loser for the Repubs.  Because, the truth is: Yes, we are.  We've seen steady (but glacially slow) job growth.  We've seen a drop in unemployment.  The stock market has rebounded.  The housing market has stabilized and even rebounded a bit in places.  The auto industry has remade itself and is strong again.  The banking industry isn't on the verge of collapse.  Love or hate Obamacare...those with pre-existing conditions can get insurance, the donut hole is closed, and you can keep your kids on your insurance for longer.

It also brings up the spectre of Bush II...the last Republican president...who did an awful lot to put us in the predicament we were.  A guy who also just happened to be a businessman who was a relatively successful governor. 

"Better off" isn't the question.  It's how to we get better, faster.  How do we go forward, and not jeopardize the gains we made in a tenuous economy.  Hell....Most of Europe is STILL in a recession with something like 11% unemployment.  How do we not get back there.

Those are issues the Repubs are better off tackling (agree with them or not).  Because, by and large, "Are we better off than we were 4 years ago" is a loser.  "Will we be MUCH better off 4 years from now" might not be.

[tim_m]

A little closer to the truth, you mean he actually told the truth about something?

I believe he did indicate his name is Paul Ryan.

And I think he mentioned that Mitt Romney was running for president.

So he got those right, at least.

But yes, it was a bit of reverse hyperbole.  He delivered the speech very well (better, IMHO, than Romney's speech last night)...but the content was lacking.

Which is the opposite of what you got from Romney last night.  Decent content (if a little snoozey), but man was he stiff.  He's going to have to work on that for the debates.  I was a bit surprised, given his stump speeches haven't been THAT bad.

Also...Romney has got to lay off the "Better off than you were 4 years ago".  It's a loser for the Repubs.  Because, the truth is: Yes, we are.  We've seen steady (but glacially slow) job growth.  We've seen a drop in unemployment.  The stock market has rebounded.  The housing market has stabilized and even rebounded a bit in places.  The auto industry has remade itself and is strong again.  The banking industry isn't on the verge of collapse.  Love or hate Obamacare...those with pre-existing conditions can get insurance, the donut hole is closed, and you can keep your kids on your insurance for longer.

It also brings up the spectre of Bush II...the last Republican president...who did an awful lot to put us in the predicament we were.  A guy who also just happened to be a businessman who was a relatively successful governor. 

"Better off" isn't the question.  It's how to we get better, faster.  How do we go forward, and not jeopardize the gains we made in a tenuous economy.  Hell....Most of Europe is STILL in a recession with something like 11% unemployment.  How do we not get back there.

Those are issues the Repubs are better off tackling (agree with them or not).  Because, by and large, "Are we better off than we were 4 years ago" is a loser.  "Will we be MUCH better off 4 years from now" might not be.

All Romney seems to want to do is undo everything Obama has done. Repeal the healthcare, yes, it has its problems but by and large its going to help millions of people. People like me who have pre existing conditions who can only get medicare or medicaid. The expanded medicaid will insure millions of people unless you have a moron governor like i do who rejected it and the health care exchanges that will help so many. He wants to remove all the regulations Obama put in place on the financial system. That's what got us in this mess in the first place and caused the financial collapse. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is plain stupid. A few points during Romney's speech that enraged me were his claim Obama raised taxes on the middle class. He did no such thing. Infact he compromised with republicans to keep the bush tax cuts for everyone not just the middle class like he wanted. The cuts for those making 250k or more have expired now i believe. He also said that us education isn't lagging behind the rest of the world. This made me want to throw my tv. How dare he have the gall to say such idiocy. We are behind quite a few countries when it comes to educating our kids. Republicans seem to want to still think this is the greatest country in the world when it isn't. We are middle of the pack in so many things and they think going back to how it was 4 years ago will fix things faster. It will just break things again and probably faster. You are right they need to drop the are we better off then 4 years ago cause the answer is a resounding yes. If he uses that in the debates Obama will eat him for dinner.

[norway]

Clint Eastwood sounded like a nutcase.

loved it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTucyyBRMHY

[tim_m]

Clint Eastwood sounded like a nutcase.

loved it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTucyyBRMHY

It was stupid, inappropriate and disgraceful not to mention riddled with lies.

[pilferk]

Anybody watch the HBO series Newsroom.  Bit off topic, but I think there are a lot of posters in this thread that would enjoy it (serious political stuff in it).

[D]

My business depends on Medicare

so vote for the guy who cut 700 billion

or the ones claiming they will save it?

pretty easy choice IMO

[Axl4Prez2004]

My business depends on Medicare

so vote for the guy who cut 700 billion

or the ones claiming they will save it?

pretty easy choice IMO

And D, please tell us...which Party is going to "save" Medicare? 
The GOP is ready to cut everything except defense spending, which they want to increase.  That's it.  From an economic standpoint, I can understand their concerns...that said, I don't think a lot of folks realize what's going to happen once spending is drastically cut...especially considering the GOP intends to lower taxes on the rich.  (it 's a very good time right now to be wealthy!)

[tim_m]

My business depends on Medicare

so vote for the guy who cut 700 billion

or the ones claiming they will save it?

pretty easy choice IMO

Obama cut nothing from Medicare, don't listen to Romney's lies. The money came from hospitals, doctors and insurance companies. NOBODY saw a decrease in their benefits to fund AFCA. Romney and Ryan want to privatize Medicare and make it a voucher program. They also want to privatize Social Security.

[tim_m]

My business depends on Medicare

so vote for the guy who cut 700 billion

or the ones claiming they will save it?

pretty easy choice IMO

And D, please tell us...which Party is going to "save" Medicare? 
The GOP is ready to cut everything except defense spending, which they want to increase.  That's it.  From an economic standpoint, I can understand their concerns...that said, I don't think a lot of folks realize what's going to happen once spending is drastically cut...especially considering the GOP intends to lower taxes on the rich.  (it 's a very good time right now to be wealthy!)

If Romney runs with Ryan's idea. It sure won't be them fixing anything. Medicare will be a voucher program. Which scares me since i am on medicare/medicaid.

[pilferk]

My business depends on Medicare

so vote for the guy who cut 700 billion

or the ones claiming they will save it?

pretty easy choice IMO

Given the info above...it sure is.  You vote for the guy who "cut" 700 billion from medicare.

Here is why:

Obama did not cut a single benefit with the 700 billion.  What he did do is to stop the govt from paying a 50% premium to medicare managed care administrators...that is, the insurance companies who Bush II said would be better at administrating health care, both in terms of speed and efficiency, than the govt would be. FYI, that hasnt been true. That 50% premium was always intended to be a short term enticement. Obama takes that money and puts it back into the healthcare system.

The dirty little secret the GOP isnt telling you? Ryans Medicare proposal/budget makes the exact same changes...but uses them to fund a tax break mostly targeted at those making more than 250k a year.  FYI, that speeds up Medicare insolvency (going broke) by eight years, according to the CBO.

And Ryan wants to turn Medicare into a strict voucher system...which is not what you want if your business depends on Medicare reimbursement. Hes basically suggesting privatizing medicare like Bush II proposed privatizing social security.

 There is a reason why most healthcare institutions are pretty OK with obamacare. It is because you will actually get paid, more.  Not necessaily per patient...but because you will be able to collect something on more patient bills.  In essence, a higher paid volume, rather than the volume who pay having to pay more.

Check out politifact.com or factcheck.org.  Both have more info on the bs gop claim that obama is robbing medicare. It is a baldface lie.

[Axl4Prez2004]

My business depends on Medicare

so vote for the guy who cut 700 billion

or the ones claiming they will save it?

pretty easy choice IMO

Given the info above...it sure is.  You vote for the guy who "cut" 700 billion from medicare.

Here is why:

Obama did not cut a single benefit with the 700 billion.  What he did do is to stop the govt from paying a 50% premium to medicare managed care administrators...that is, the insurance companies who Bush II said would be better at administrating health care, both in terms of speed and efficiency, than the govt would be. FYI, that hasnt been true. That 50% premium was always intended to be a short term enticement. Obama takes that money and puts it back into the healthcare system.

The dirty little secret the GOP isnt telling you? Ryans Medicare proposal/budget makes the exact same changes...but uses them to fund a tax break mostly targeted at those making more than 250k a year.  FYI, that speeds up Medicare insolvency (going broke) by eight years, according to the CBO.

And Ryan wants to turn Medicare into a strict voucher system...which is not what you want if your business depends on Medicare reimbursement. Hes basically suggesting privatizing medicare like Bush II proposed privatizing social security.

 There is a reason why most healthcare institutions are pretty OK with obamacare. It is because you will actually get paid, more.  Not necessaily per patient...but because you will be able to collect something on more patient bills.  In essence, a higher paid volume, rather than the volume who pay having to pay more.

Check out politifact.com or factcheck.org.  Both have more info on the bs gop claim that obama is robbing medicare. It is a baldface lie.

Oh Pilferk, you and your "facts!"   

btw, the beauty of the "voucherization" of Medicare the GOP has planned is that it doesn't affect the current elderly population (aka people who vote in high %'s), it will fuck those of us 54? and younger.  Is that correct Pilferk?  From what I heard, the new "vouchers" would not increase in value to keep up with the rise in healthcare costs either.  Pretty sweet, eh?   

[tim_m]

My business depends on Medicare

so vote for the guy who cut 700 billion

or the ones claiming they will save it?

pretty easy choice IMO

Given the info above...it sure is.  You vote for the guy who "cut" 700 billion from medicare.

Here is why:

Obama did not cut a single benefit with the 700 billion.  What he did do is to stop the govt from paying a 50% premium to medicare managed care administrators...that is, the insurance companies who Bush II said would be better at administrating health care, both in terms of speed and efficiency, than the govt would be. FYI, that hasnt been true. That 50% premium was always intended to be a short term enticement. Obama takes that money and puts it back into the healthcare system.

The dirty little secret the GOP isnt telling you? Ryans Medicare proposal/budget makes the exact same changes...but uses them to fund a tax break mostly targeted at those making more than 250k a year.  FYI, that speeds up Medicare insolvency (going broke) by eight years, according to the CBO.

And Ryan wants to turn Medicare into a strict voucher system...which is not what you want if your business depends on Medicare reimbursement. Hes basically suggesting privatizing medicare like Bush II proposed privatizing social security.

 There is a reason why most healthcare institutions are pretty OK with obamacare. It is because you will actually get paid, more.  Not necessaily per patient...but because you will be able to collect something on more patient bills.  In essence, a higher paid volume, rather than the volume who pay having to pay more.

Check out politifact.com or factcheck.org.  Both have more info on the bs gop claim that obama is robbing medicare. It is a baldface lie.

Oh Pilferk, you and your "facts!"   

btw, the beauty of the "voucherization" of Medicare the GOP has planned is that it doesn't affect the current elderly population (aka people who vote in high %'s), it will fuck those of us 54? and younger.  Is that correct Pilferk?  From what I heard, the new "vouchers" would not increase in value to keep up with the rise in healthcare costs either.  Pretty sweet, eh?   

Which means those who our age are screwed.

[pilferk]

Oh Pilferk, you and your "facts!"   

btw, the beauty of the "voucherization" of Medicare the GOP has planned is that it doesn't affect the current elderly population (aka people who vote in high %'s), it will fuck those of us 54? and younger.  Is that correct Pilferk?  From what I heard, the new "vouchers" would not increase in value to keep up with the rise in healthcare costs either.  Pretty sweet, eh?   

Correct, that's the proposal.

The problem is this:  The numbers don't work.  If the GOP keeps that promise, they'll bankrupt medicare quicker than currently projected.

I suspect that would be their "no new taxes" campaign promise.  They'd have to abandon it (or risk ticking off the fiscal conservatives and Tea Party faithful...as they plunge the country further into debt).

[pilferk]

Which means those who our age are screwed.

Pretty much.

Now..I'm not sure if their age bracket is simply because that's who, by and large, is already on medicare.

OR if they actually mean "it won't effect anyone already receiving benefits", which is slightly different.

Nobody has asked, that I've heard, and I haven't heard them clarify, specifically.  I haven't really looked, either...

[Sober_times]

Anybody watch the HBO series Newsroom.  Bit off topic, but I think there are a lot of posters in this thread that would enjoy it (serious political stuff in it).

Yeah its good. Definetly reccomend it.

Back on topic...

I think Obama's speech on Thursday will be good. He is in full swing as Candidate Obama. I think there is a difference between Candidate Obama and Executive Obama. Executive can be timid but Candidate Obama is assertive and has balls of steel. Candidate Obama is the fuckin' man. I think if he wins Executive Obama will more closely resemble Candidate Obama. Now that he has some experience in the office I think we will see a more assertive Executive.

Which means those who our age are screwed.

Pretty much.

Now..I'm not sure if their age bracket is simply because that's who, by and large, is already on medicare.

OR if they actually mean "it won't effect anyone already receiving benefits", which is slightly different.

Nobody has asked, that I've heard, and I haven't heard them clarify, specifically.  I haven't really looked, either...

My understanding is it won't effect anyone over 54 so those who have benefits and those who are about to receive them wouldn't be effected by the new voucher program they want. Which is a stupid idea IMHO.

Regarding 700 billion in cuts, I am under the impression it can have indirect benefit cuts to current reciepants. As in there may be less care offered because of cuts to funding. Nurses in some retirement homes may be trimmed down or other care givers could lose funding and it could cause less care being given. But no direct benefits are cut outside of medicare advantage which even though it costs more for the government, some seniors do enjoy over regular Medicare. So those who have joined Medicare Advantage may also see a difference in benefits when they eliminate it. Its not all cut and dry though. From what I understand they really don't know the full extent of what it will do to medicare as some of it is still being phased in.

The 700 billion itself is a projection of money saved with the cuts from 2013-2022, according to politifact. Basically a ten year projection of money cut from the program in an attempt to make Obama care deficit neutral. In 2010, the projection was 500 billion from 2011-2020.  Most believe the dollar amount of savings from the cuts will increase again as time goes on.

[pilferk]

My understanding is it won't effect anyone over 54 so those who have benefits and those who are about to receive them wouldn't be effected by the new voucher program they want. Which is a stupid idea IMHO.

There are people under age 54 on Medicare.  What I meant was...I'm not sure if they're included in the "no effect" category or not.

Regarding 700 billion in cuts, I am under the impression it can have indirect benefit cuts to current reciepants. As in there may be less care offered because of cuts to funding. Nurses in some retirement homes may be trimmed down or other care givers could lose funding and it could cause less care being given. But no direct benefits are cut outside of medicare advantage which even though it costs more for the government, some seniors do enjoy over regular Medicare. So those who have joined Medicare Advantage may also see a difference in benefits when they eliminate it. Its not all cut and dry though. From what I understand they really don't know the full extent of what it will do to medicare as some of it is still being phased in.

Nope, not true at all.

Think of it this way:

If you are on Medicare (regular, govt administered medicare), and it costs the govt $1 for "something" to do with your healthcare...that includes administrative costs, processing costs, and the cost of the service itself.

The government is paying the administrators of Medicare Managed care (aka Advantage...it's pretty much the same as MedicAID Managed care, except for Medicare, which is why some people call it that) somewhere between $1.20 and  $1.50 to do that same thing.  That extra 20% to 50% was to entice them to take over administering pieces of Medicare.  The thought was, if it costs the government $1..the insurance companies should be able to do the same thing for less, because of economies of efficiency, etc.  That premium was always intended to go away at some point.

That 700 billion dollars is, largely, the change from paying them $1.20/$1.50 bck to the $1 the govt uses.

That's it.  Reimbursement doesn't change, payments to facilities don't change, processing doesn't change.  The Medicare Managed care (Advantage) administrators CAN NOT REDUCE BENEFITS to patients  OR REIMBUREMENT to providers.  They don't have the authority to do it, or to deny claims that "regular" medicare would accept/process.  They have to function exactly like Medicare does, in terms of rules and regs.  The only difference is who the recipient contacts and deals with when it comes to their claims.

And seniors won't lose that under the Obama plan...because the insurers will make less on those patients (but still make money) AND will make more on the volume of patients that will be signing on to the roles of Obamacare.  They're not going to give up on administering their piece of Medicare...though they might actually work to improve their efficiency.  Again, the volume is the key to all this.

There IS some changes to DRGs and coding (specifically a change to ICD-10, from ICD-9) and some quality of care measures that will start to effect reimbursement rates.  But that's not a change in benefits.  It's differentiation of acuity/severity (something ICD-10 does better)...and ensuring that those that provide the best quality care get better reimbursement rates.  And, again, healthcare providers are OK with that..because they (we, actually) will see a drastic reduction in unpaid services.  What that means is...you'll actually see those providers taking in MORE money, on average, per patient...but potentially less from any individual patient..than they do now. 

NONE of that removes or reduces benefits.  And they DO know the full extent of it, in terms of what effect it will have on Medicare patients, services, etc....again, don't believe the GOP talking points..

Just FYI: This is the industry I work in (healthcare) and specifically in IT/Decision Support.  We've looked at this, exhaustedly.

The 700 billion itself is a projection of money saved with the cuts from 2013-2022, according to politifact. Basically a ten year projection of money cut from the program in an attempt to make Obama care deficit neutral. In 2010, the projection was 500 billion from 2011-2020.  Most believe the dollar amount of savings from the cuts will increase again as time goes on.

Exactly, it goes back into health care.  Ryan makes the SAME CUTS, and redirects the money to balance lost tax revenue to balance out some tax cuts (mostly targeted at those making over 250k). 

Likely it will continue to grow, as more people sign on to Medicare Managed care (Advantage).  The more people on those roles, the greater the savings.

[pilferk]

Here's a simple, and much better constructed, explanation:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/obama-medicare-cuts-romney-ad-paid-in.php

The reduction in reimbursement rates to hospitals, referred to in the article, is exactly the DRG regrouping, coding changes, and quality of care measures I talked about, earlier.  It's not a straight reduction in payout (ie: if Medicare paid $85 for a preventative care visit before..their base rate will still be $85 for that visit, in the future).

The RNC will tell you the cuts are going to turn Medicare into Medicaid, reduce reimbursement rates so prohibitively that physicians/providers will run screaming from the program, and a whole host of other things that simply aren't true...or aren't the ENTIRE truth.

Don't believe it.

Likewise, don't believe everything the DNC says, either.  They're not any better on their "talking point"attack  issues.

[Sober_times]

NONE of that removes or reduces benefits.  And they DO know the full extent of it, it terms of what effect it will have on Medicare services, etc....again, don't believe the GOP talking points..

I wasn't believing the GOP talking points. I was just commentating on how I interpreted what I have read or scimmed through from a variety of news sources over the last several months/years. I was actually hoping you would clarify it for me if I was off base and it appears I was.

Its difficult to know what your reading in the news these days is fact, conjecture or not. Least I find it is. As one article shows one thing as fact and another article has something opposite as fact. News in general plays loose with sources and facts. FAIR.org points this out quite well.  I read a lot of what CBO points out and a lot of politifact. Than I go read stuff elsewhere and you can find other sources (outside gop circles and inside) who disagree with those interpretations of facts or the CBO's projections. Not always of course but I have seen it with medicare, ss, obamacare, ryans budgets, the progressive caucus' budget(which I want), and other things. I tend to trust the CBO but there are organizations that sometimes make a good argument against their projections or at least seem too(maybe because of my own ignorance). With so much distortion of fact, I find it easy for me to assume things that may not be true(and sometimes the opposite). As in me coming to the conclusion above, which is basically that the facts fall somewhere in the middle of what democrats and republicans say.

I will admit I don't have an extreme knowledge of medicare or some other important issues and am always looking for clarification and thanks for that.

Here's a simple, and much better constructed, explanation:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/obama-medicare-cuts-romney-ad-paid-in.php

The reduction in reimbursement rates to hospitals, referred to in the article, is exactly the DRG regrouping, coding changes, and quality of care measures I talked about, earlier.  It's not a straight reduction in payout (ie: if Medicare paid $85 for a preventative care visit before..their base rate will still be $85 for that visit, in the future).

The RNC will tell you the cuts are going to turn Medicare into Medicaid, reduce reimbursement rates so prohibitively that physicians/providers will run screaming from the program, and a whole host of other things that simply aren't true...or aren't the ENTIRE truth.

Don't believe it.

Likewise, don't believe everything the DNC says, either.  They're not any better on their "talking point"attack  issues.

Saw this right before I was about to post. Thanks for additional clarification.

[pilferk]

I wasn't believing the GOP talking points. I was just commentating on how I interpreted what I have read or scimmed through from a variety of news sources over the last several months/years. I was actually hoping you would clarify it for me if I was off base and it appears I was.

I should have been clearer...the "don't listen to the GOP talking points" was meant as a general warning...not necessarily to you, specifically.

The CBO had been...right up until they scored Obama's healthcare reform...the accepted authority on all things government finance.  They seem to be right far more often than they are wrong in their projections, if you look at their historical accuracy.  And when they've been drastically wrong in the past, it has been because there was either a drastic economic shift OR they were not provided with full disclosure in the original analysis.

It wasn't until the CBO actually gave it's seal of approval to the healthcare reform that real partisan bickering began over their accuracy.  In fact, the CBO was the torch the RNC held up, on more than one occasion, to try to thwart Democratic legislation/campaigning.

I trust them...far more than the Dems or Repubs...because they've earned my trust thus far.

I agree...sometimes it's hard to believe even the news.  That's because news has become tied to ratings and revenue...which is unfortunate, because they feel they need to be compelling, rather than just provide information.  I think we're drifting back to "The Newsroom" discussion, though.

[tim_m]

When it comes to news. From what i've heard the best sources as far as tv are MSNBC and BBCA. Both Cnn and Fox News or Fixed News as i call it tell lies or mixed truths.