"A new study out today by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation confirms what many have been saying for a very long time—the Romney-Ryan Medicare plan would result in six out of ten seniors paying substantially more for the same Medicare benefits they receive today.
The premium support approach to Medicare involves the government providing seniors with a set amount of money each year—pegged to the second lowest priced private health care plan available—in an effort to turn over health care for seniors to the private insurance market. While proponents of the approach believe that this will generate more competition in health care, make seniors more responsible for how they spend their health care dollars and result in less spending on seniors by the federal government, critics have argued that the sum of money the government would pay would be insufficient to cover the rising costs of health care, leaving seniors exposed to having to pay an ever growing portion of their health insurance coverage.
[skip]
The study further found that the additional costs to seniors would vary from region to region, with areas of high per-capita Medicare spending seeing a cost boost for 80 percent of Medicare recipients."
When you hear Mr. Romney lie again tonight, remember this:
Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post concludes that Romney's is lying when he says his plan will create 12 million jobs. He gives the claim four pinncochios:
"This is a case of bait-and-switch. Romney, in his convention speech, spoke of his plan to create “12 million new jobs,” which the campaign’s White Paper describes as a four-year goal. But the candidate’s personal accounting for this figure in this campaign ad is based on different figures and long-range timelines stretching as long as a decade — which in two cases are based on studies that did not even evaluate Romney’s economic plan."
10 comments:
More facts Republiscums will deny.
Before you can post my comment Republiscums will be calling this study fake, fixed, bogus
It's been said that a society's level of civilization can be judged by how well it treats its most vulnerable people. Insofar as the elderly are the most vulnerable, our society actually rates pretty well -- so long as none of these shabby, cruel Republican scams are allowed to destroy Medicare and Social Security.
I appreciate you trying to put lipstick on a pig, Shaw, but Mr. Unger has shown himself ready to use underhanded tricks to make his "point."
He was one of those that used the "rate of growth" canard to try to portray Obama as a fiscal skinflint. It just don't fly.
The cost projections for Obamacare have at least doubled, according to the CBS, so we all pay.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/27/cbo-obamacare-will-spend-more-tax-more-and-reduce-the-deficit-less-than-we-previously-thought/
Do a little googling and you'll find the other side to this story.
The conclusion of the Kaiser Foundation should come as no surprise to anyone. The Romney/Ryan plan is designed to limit the expense to government, not the people. It does not attack the cost of medical care. It simply puts a cap on what the government will pay towards a persons medical expenses.
That is what a voucher program does. Rather than share the cost amongst all people, it pays a base which caps government costs, and puts the remainder on the individual. This is just the opposite of the current Medicare program. It puts a cap on what the individual pays and spreads the remaining costs across everyone.
Which would you rather have?
Pay attention, the oligarchs are working to solidify their power and control.
No pig in here, SF.
I'm going with Kessler, whom you have used as a go-to guy for the facts, and the impartial Kaiser Foundation over your biased opinion.
Surprised?
Didn't take the Republiscums long at all to call another survey (poll) "fixed" bogus, left wing garbage.
Don't like the message, kill the messenger.
NEW YORK -- Underscoring just how hard a political lift Mitt Romney's tax reform plan would be if pursued, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said on Tuesday that he would be uncomfortable with any plan that cut down some of the biggest deductions.
"There will be a very helpful debate about whether things like the charitable deduction, the health insurance premium, the home interest deduction should be part of the deal," Rubio told a crowd of journalists at a Bloomberg View event. "I don't think that those, especially the home interest deduction, [reducing that] is troubling, because it really helps the middle class. Do you really want to hurt charitable giving in a country when you are saying that you want to rely less on government and more on private institutions to deal with these issues? And how are you going to raise taxes on people on their health care premiums when you are saying you want there to be a system in place where folks can have more control over their own money?"
Rubio's analysis of who benefits from these deductions is correct. It is primarily the lower and middle class. But politically, his statement throws cold water on Romney's tax reform plan. Without touching the charitable, home interest, or health care deductions, there isn't even close to enough revenue to pay for a 20-percent across the board rate cut of the kind that the Republican nominee has pledged -- even including those exemptions and deductions doesn't get you close. A recent Joint Committee on Taxation report suggested that including those exemptions and deductions would get you toward 4 percent of the cost.
there isn't even close to enough revenue to pay for a 20-percent across the board rate cut of the kind that the Republican nominee has pledged
But.....but.....he had six studies proving it will work! Even if two of them were right-wing propaganda screeds, three were blog posts by people who don't know "its" from "it's", and one was Chinese fortune cookie fortune that said "You are good with money."
Romney's tax plan is the biggest pipe of hopium ever in national financial proposals.
Post a Comment