Gecko/Ryan vs Obamacare

[boutons_deux]

The other Paul Ryan plan: $800B in Medicaid cuts

WASHINGTON (AP) — Rep. Paul Ryan's plan for Medicare gets all the attention, but the GOP vice presidential candidate has proposed more fundamental changes to medical care for the poor and disabled.

Under the Wisconsin congressman's Medicaid plan, states would take over the program. Simultaneously, Ryan's proposed budget would reduce projected federal spending by about $800 billion over 10 years, shrinking Medicaid as a share of the overall national economy. The plan has passed the Republican-led House two years in a row.
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:apcm="http://ap.org/schemas/03/2005/apcm" xmlns:apnm="http://ap.org/schemas/03/2005/apnm">Ryan would also repeal President Barack Obama's health care law, expected to add at least 11 million more people to Medicaid.

On both proposals, Ryan is in sync with his new boss, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. But such cuts would result in millions of vulnerable people losing health insurance, according to advocates for the poor and some nonpartisan economic analysts.

"Medicaid is already a very lean program," said Edwin Park of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which advocates for low-income people. "It is not a program where you can magically glean huge efficiencies by just devolving it to the states. The only way to compensate for funding reductions of this magnitude would be to ins ute deep, damaging cuts to beneficiaries and the health care providers who serve them."

Bring it on, says Wisconsin Health Secretary Dennis Smith, who oversees Medicaid in Ryan's home state. Smith, who works for Republican Gov. Scott Walker, says states can cut costs without gutting services by running Medicaid more efficiently.

"Everybody agrees that there is excess cost in the health care system, so by golly, give us the flexibility to address it, and we will," said Smith. "We can serve the people on Medicaid with the adjustments the Ryan budget. We can make that work."

For example, Wisconsin is now charging some low-income adults a modest monthly premium for Medicaid, tapping a new funding source to pay for valuable benefits, Smith said. And the state is looking for ways to help frail elderly people keep living at home, avoiding the costly alternative of a nursing home.

Medicaid serves nearly 60 million people, about 20 percent of Americans, a diverse population brought together by need.

Low-income children and their mothers, people disabled by life-changing injuries or birth defects, as well as elderly nursing home residents would all feel the consequences of the debate.

On average, the federal government pays about 60 percent of Medicaid costs, and states cover the rest. Medicaid has become a big share of state budgets, and since Washington sets many of the rules, the program is a source of constant tension between federal and state governments. The Supreme Court recently gave some la ude to states chafing at Obama's health care law, saying they are free to opt out of its Medicaid expansion.

Obama has largely shielded Medicaid from cuts in budget negotiations with Congress. But his administration has proposed new ways to allocate funding that could be used to dial back the federal share.

Ryan's plan goes beyond tweaking. It would essentially rip up the Medicaid manual and start all over again. States would get a lump sum from Washington, a "block grant" indexed to reflect population growth and inflation. The idea has governors split along party lines.

Ryan's Medicare plan, shifting future retirees to private insurance, would phase in over a decade or more. But the Medicaid changes would come much more rapidly. The proposal has not been fleshed out in detail, leaving many unanswered questions. For example:

—What happens if a state's economy tanks?

Under current law, the federal Medicaid share is pegged to program enrollment, not population growth, said John Holahan, director of the Health Policy Center at the nonpartisan Urban Ins ute. That means federal funding increases when the Medicaid rolls swell. But under Ryan's plan, "there are no provisions to automatically deal with recessions," said Holahan. "The demand for Medicaid goes up at the same time state revenue is going down."

—Would low-income and disabled people still have a legal right to coverage?

Converting Medicaid into a block grant would end the current right to coverage under federal law, and it remains unclear what rights could be preserved. Most analysts say states would insist on the flexibility to reduce their Medicaid rolls. The Urban Ins ute estimates that between 14 million and 27 million people would lose coverage because of Ryan's spending restrictions.

—What sorts of safeguards would remain in place for seniors in need of nursing home care?

Although frail elderly people must spend down most of their savings before they can qualify for Medicaid, a federal law shields spouses from becoming impoverished. It's unclear what would take its place.

Supporters of state control say governors and legislatures are closer to the people and would not run roughshod over their own cons uents.

Back in Ryan's state, the jury is still out.

Medicaid covers nearly 1 in 5 Wisconsin residents, and hospitals have a major stake in the outcome. But Joanne Alig, senior vice president for policy with the Wisconsin Hospital Association, says they would need to know more about the plan to reach conclusions.

"While I think we are supportive of looking at alternatives to the Medicaid status quo, the devil's in the details," she said.

http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_...l=true#display

While Gecko said he would restore all of Obama's Medicare cuts (which were not cuts on care but on what corporations charge Medicare for).

But Ryan actually said Thu his Medicare cuts (apparently still in HIS plan if not in Gecko's plan anymore) were in his plan because they were in Obama's.

But we see above the there's huge difference in Gecko's Medicare cuts vs Ryan's Medicare cuts. Gecko cuts payments to for-profit gougers, why Ryan keeps all those corporate money flows, but cuts care and coverage to the Medicare recipients.

[boutons_deux]

Mitt Romney Promise To Reverse Medicare Cuts Would Cause Trust Fund To Go Insolvent Earlier

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's new promise to restore the Medicare cuts made by President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law could backfire if he's elected.

The reason: Obama's cuts also extended the life of Medicare's giant trust fund. By repealing them, Romney would move the program's insolvency eight years closer, toward the end of what would be his first term in office.

But Obama's cuts were not directly aimed at Medicare's 48 million beneficiaries; instead they affect hospitals, insurers, nursing homes, drug companies and other service providers. Simply undoing the cuts would restore higher payments to those service providers. And that would cause Medicare to spend money faster.

The Obama campaign was quick to seize on the issue.

"The fact of the matter is, what Romney is proposing now is to roll all that back, which would mean that Medicare would reach insolvency eight years earlier, which would mean that seniors would lose benefits," David Axelrod, a senior political adviser to Obama, said Thursday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

Romney's running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, kept the Obama cuts in his budget, which envisions greater savings by shifting future retirees into private insurance plans with a fixed payment from the government to help cover their premiums.

"If you are going to restore (Obama's cuts), then what it's going to do is complicate the financial condition of Medicare," said former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, a fiscal conservative who says government health care programs are too costly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...=Daily%20Brief

[boutons_deux]

Whiteboard Face Off: ThinkProgress Takes On Romney’s Medicare Madness



Mitt Romney offered a white board presentation during a news briefing in South Carolina on Thursday morning that sought to untangle the campaign’s contradictory message about Medicare. Over the last week, Romney and Ryan have twisted themselves into a pretzel to attack President Obama for “stealing” $716 billion from Medicare, while trying to explain why Paul Ryan included the savings in his FY 2013 budget. Romney had previously pledged to sign the do ent into law.

During the presentation, Romney tried to lay out the differences. Obama takes the money out of seniors’ Medicare Advantage plans and cuts payments to providers, causing some to lose his coverage, he argued. The program’s trust fund would go bankrupt by 2024, under Obama, and seniors would lose access to the care they need. His plan, alternatively, would preserve the program for current retirees and keep it solvent indefinitely.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...y-on-medicare/

and the slimy, secretive LYING Gecko/Ryan are whining about getting Obama to raise the level of the campaign?

[boutons_deux]

Medicare feud explained: both sides would cut but GOP more

The reduced government support for Medicare Advantage will doubtless upset some seniors who enjoy the extra services. But when he was a candidate, Obama vowed to reduce the extra coverage for some in order to prolong the health of the Medicare Trust Fund, which serves everyone. The savings from those reductions are expected to keep the trust fund out of the red for an additional eight years — staving off deficits from 2016 until 2024.

Republicans may find it a bit uncomfortable to sustain attacks on Obama’s $716 billion reduction, though. It turns out that Ryan’s budget proposal included the same maneuver. Romney’s claim that he would restore that $716 billion leaves unclear how he would maintain the system’s solvency.

http://mobile.chicagotribune.com/p.p...%3D0%26DPL%3D3

Obamacare must terminate the Repugs' corporate welfare and subsidy to for-profit corps, aka, Medicare Advantage, which costs 12% than standard Medicare, proving once again that govt is more efficient than for-profit corps.

[boutons_deux]

Seniors would pay the price of Ryan's plan to overhaul Medicare

The growth in costs becomes even more significant when private coverage is separated from the federal plan. Private insurance costs rose 7.7% last year, S&P determined, while outlays under the heavily regulated Medicare program increased just 2.7%.

"I don't think there's any reason to believe that private insurers can offer a more compe ive rate than what Medicare offers for the same level of coverage," Holahan said. "They'll either have to charge more or offer less coverage."

The bottom line: Some private plans would almost certainly be cheaper than Medicare, but they'd offer less coverage to keep costs down. If a senior wanted to stay with Medicare, he or she would have to pay more out of pocket than provided by the federal subsidy.

In other words, a greater share of the federal program's costs would shift to beneficiaries.

As far as Medicare is concerned, I don't think there's much evidence that the private sector has the best interest of patients at heart. Ask yourself: Does your insurance provide the level of coverage you desire at an affordable rate? Are you confident your private insurance will meet your needs in the future?

Most other developed nations offer a Medicare-for-all program that spreads healthcare risks evenly among members of society. If Ryan's plan were to be adopted, the United States would move even further from a goal of universal coverage.

In that sense, if in no other, it's fair to say that it would end Medicare as we know it.

http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?m=b&a=...3&pageNumber=2

[boutons_deux]

Truth and Lies About Medicare



Republican attacks on President Obama's plans for Medicare are growing more heated and inaccurate by the day. Both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan made statements last week implying that the Affordable Care Act would eviscerate Medicare when in fact the law should shore up the program's finances.

Both men have also twisted themselves into knots to distance themselves from previous positions, so that voters can no longer believe anything they say. Last week, both insisted that they would save Medicare by pumping a huge amount of money into the program, a bizarre turnaround for supposed fiscal conservatives out to rein in federal spending.

The likelihood that they would stand by that irresponsible pledge after the election is close to zero. And the likelihood that they would be better able than Democrats to preserve Medicare for the future (through a risky voucher system that may not work well for many beneficiaries) is not much better. THE ALLEGED "RAID ON MEDICARE" A Republican attack ad says that the reform law has "cut" $716 billion from Medicare, with the money used to expand coverage to low-
income people who are currently uninsured. "So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that's not for you," the ad warns.

What the Republicans fail to say is that the budget resolutions crafted by Paul Ryan and approved by the Republican-controlled House retained virtually the same cut in Medicare.

In reality, the $716 billion is not a "cut" in benefits but rather the savings in costs that the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next decade from wholly reasonable provisions in the reform law.

One big chunk of money will be saved by reducing unjustifiably high subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans that enroll many beneficiaries at a higher average cost than traditional Medicare. Another will come from reducing the annual increases in federal reimbursements to health care providers - like hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies - to force the notoriously inefficient system to find ways to improve productivity.

And a further chunk will come from fees or taxes imposed on drug makers, device makers and insurers - fees that they can surely afford since expanded coverage for the uninsured will increase their markets and their revenues.

NO HARM TO SENIORS The Republicans imply that the $716 billion in cuts will harm older Americans, but almost none of the savings come from reducing the benefits available for people already on Medicare. But if Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan were able to repeal the reform law, as they have pledged to do, that would drive up costs for many seniors - namely those with high prescription drug costs, who are already receiving subsidies under the reform law, and those who are receiving preventive services, like colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations, with no cost sharing.

Mr. Romney argued on Friday that the $716 billion in cuts will harm beneficiaries because those who get discounts or extra benefits in the heavily subsidized Medicare Advantage plans will lose them and because reduced payments to hospitals and other providers could cause some providers to stop accepting Medicare patients.

If he thinks that will be a major problem, Mr. Romney should leave the reform law in place: it has many provisions designed to make the delivery of health care more efficient and cheaper, so that hospitals and others will be better able to survive on smaller payments.

NO BANKRUPTCY LOOMING The Republicans also argue that the reform law will weaken Medicare and that by preventing the cuts and ultimately turning to vouchers they will enhance the program's solvency. But Medicare is not in danger of going "bankrupt"; the issue is whether the trust fund that pays hospital bills will run out of money in 2024, as now projected, and require the program to live on the annual payroll tax revenues it receives.

The Affordable Care Act helped push back the insolvency date by eight years, so repealing the act would actually bring the trust fund closer to insolvency, perhaps in 2016.

DEFICIT REDUCTION Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan said last week that they would restore the entire $716 billion in cuts by repealing the law. The Congressional Budget Office concluded that repealing the law would raise the deficit by $109 billion over 10 years.

The Republicans gave no clue about how they would pay for restoring the Medicare cuts without increasing the deficit. It is hard to believe that, if faced with the necessity of fashioning a realistic budget, keeping Medicare spending high would be a top priority with a Romney-Ryan administration that also wants to spend very large sums on the military and on tax cuts for wealthy Americans.

Regardless of who wins the election, Medicare spending has to be reined in lest it squeeze out other priorities, like education. It is utterly irresponsible for the Republicans to promise not to trim Medicare spending in their desperate bid for votes.

THE DANGER IN MEDICARE VOUCHERS The reform law would help working-age people on modest incomes buy private policies with government subsidies on new insurance exchanges, starting in 2014. Federal oversight will ensure a reasonably comprehensive benefit package, and compe ion among the insurers could help keep costs down.

But it is one thing to provide these "premium support" subsidies for uninsured people who cannot get affordable coverage in the costly, dysfunctional markets that serve individuals and their families. It is quite another thing to use a similar strategy for older Americans who have generous coverage through Medicare and who might well end up worse off if their vouchers failed to keep pace with the cost of decent coverage.

Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan would allow beneficiaries to use vouchers to buy a version of traditional Medicare instead of a private plan, but it seems likely that the Medicare plan would attract the sickest patients, driving up Medicare premiums so that they would be unaffordable for many who wanted traditional coverage. Before disrupting the current Medicare program, it would be wise to see how well premium support worked in the new exchanges.

THE CHOICE This will be an election about big problems, and it will provide a clear choice between contrasting approaches to solve them. In the Medicare arena, the choice is between a Democratic approach that wants to retain Medicare as a guaranteed set of benefits with the government paying its share of the costs even if costs rise, and a Republican approach that wants to limit the government's spending to a defined level, relying on untested market forces to drive down insurance costs.

The reform law is starting pilot programs to test ways to reduce Medicare costs without cutting benefits. Many health care experts have identified additional ways to shave hundreds of billions of dollars from projected spending over the next decade without harming beneficiaries.

It is much less likely that the Republicans, who have long wanted to privatize Medicare, can achieve these goals.


http://mobile.nytimes.com/article;js...=28&sub=Sunday

[jack sommerset]

I'm thinking about a boutons appreciation thread. You are a shinning light, brother. We are lucky to have you. God bless

[boutons_deux]

Ignorance and false piety are your greatest assets. GFY

[boutons_deux]

On the Stump, Romney and Ryan Avoid Real Medicare Debate

Last week, in the wake of Representative Paul Ryan’s selection as Mitt Romney’s running mate, there was a rare moment of agreement across the political spectrum. Both liberals and conservatives concluded that Ryan’s addition to the ticket would make the campaign a choice between his radical right-wing vision of privatizing Medicare and block-granting Medicaid and President Obama’s desire to preserve guaranteed health coverage for vulnerable Americans. Both sides relished the fight, believing it would be to their benefit.

Now conservative pundits and activists are celebrating this supposed development. On Fox News Sunday, Karl Rove said, “There was going to be a battle about Medicare, no matter what. The question was: Was it going to be left to what the Democrats traditionally do—which is late-night phone calls in the final week of the campaigns, to seniors, and scary mail pieces? Or were we going to have a full-out, honest debate? And we’re having, for what passes in politics, a full-out, honest debate about it.” The Weekly Standard’s William Kristol, also on the program, added, “It feels more like a movement and less like a couple hundred people in Boston, working very hard to kind of push the boulder up the hill—and more like a genuine, exciting cause.”

Alas, no such thing has occurred. Ryan has a reputation for political bravery and commitment to principle, and on the campaign trail Republicans such as Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli have tried to claim that merely by picking Ryan, Romney has demonstrated he also possesses those virtues. But when it comes to healthcare policy, the Romney/Ryan ticket is being cowardly and dishonest. When they give stump speeches they do not emphasize, or even mention, their radical, unpopular plans to leave seniors without adequate health coverage. Instead, the deliberately obscure the issue by attacking Obama for “raiding” Medicare to pay for the Affordable Care Act. It is nothing but a transparent pander to the GOP’s base of older voters. Unless Kristol’s “genuine cause” is to confuse and mislead the American people—always a distinct possibility—then his comment makes no sense.

All Romney/Ryan are doing is trying to hide from the American public just how badly they would shred the social safety net in order to pay for giving themselves giant tax cuts.

Ryan actually included the savings from cuts to wasteful private subsidies in the Medicare Advantage program that the ACA enacted—the same ones he now inveighs against in every speech—in his own budget. The reason he kept them in his budget, even while he votes to repeal the ACA and therefore would lose them, is because it gives him more breathing room. Take away those savings, and Ryan would have to come up with even more cuts to other popular programs.

The Obama campaign is understandably aggravated by their opponents’ cowardly refusal to stand and fight. On Saturday, after a typically evasive appearance by Ryan in Florida, Obama campaign spokesman Danny Kanner issued the following statement. “Congressman Ryan didn’t tell seniors in Florida today that if he had his way, seniors would face higher Medicare premiums and prescription drug costs, and would be forced to pay out of pocket for preventive care.… He didn’t say that they’d turn Medicare into a voucher system, ending the Medicare guarantee and raising costs by $6,400 a year for seniors. And he certainly didn’t say that they’d do it all to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. But those are the facts, and the ‘substantive’ debate he claims they want requires Romney and Ryan to be honest about them.”

Having a substantive debate about how to balance the budget is something liberals and conservatives should both want. Unfortunately, the Republicans are afraid to do so.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169469...l=emailNation#

[boutons_deux]

Patients Would Pay More if Romney Restores Medicare Savings

Mitt Romney's promise to restore $716 billion that he says President Obama "robbed" from Medicare has some health care experts puzzled, and not just because his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, included the same savings in his House budgets.

The 2010 health care law cut Medicare reimbursements to hospitals and insurers, not benefits for older Americans, by that amount over the coming decade. But repealing the savings, policy analysts say, would hasten the insolvency of Medicare by eight years - to 2016, the final year of the next presidential term, from 2024.

While Republicans have raised legitimate questions about the long-term feasibility of the reimbursement cuts, analysts say, to restore them in the short term would immediately add hundreds of dollars a year to out-of-pocket Medicare expenses for beneficiaries. That would violate Mr. Romney's vow that neither current beneficiaries nor Americans within 10 years of eligibility would be affected by his proposal to shift Medicare to a voucherlike system in which recipients are given a lump sum to buy coverage from competing insurers.

For those reasons, Henry J. Aaron, an economist and a longtime health policy analyst at the Brookings Ins ution and the Ins ute of Medicine, called Mr. Romney's vow to repeal the savings "both puzzling and bogus at the same time."

Marilyn Moon, vice president and director of the health program at the American Ins utes for Research, calculated that restoring the $716 billion in Medicare savings would increase premiums and co-payments for beneficiaries by $342 a year on average over the next decade; in 2022, the average increase would be $577.

Beneficiaries, through their premiums and co-payments, share the cost of Medicare with the government. If Medicare's costs increase - for instance, by raising payments to health care providers - so, too, do beneficiaries' contributions.

And those costs would be on top of the costs involved with a full repeal of the health care law, which would eliminate expanded coverage of prescription drugs, free wellness care and preventive checkups.

"One can only wonder what's going on inside their headquarters in Boston and among their policy people," said John McDonough, the director of the Center for Public Health Leadership at Harvard. "But there are only two explanations: Either they don't understand how the program works, which is hard to imagine, or there is some deliberate misrepresentation here because they know how politically potent this charge is."

The potency of the Republicans' charge was evident in the 2010 midterm elections, when they accused Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats of cutting Medicare by $500 billion to pay for new coverage under the health care law. They went on to recapture control of the House.

Led by Mr. Romney, Republicans revived that line of attack for 2012. But Mr. Romney cited a higher $716 billion in the same week that he announced his selection of Mr. Ryan, who had supported the reductions until joining the Republican ticket. The different dollar figures reflect a shifting time frame: $500 billion represented the projected Medicare savings in the decade after the 2010 health care law was enacted; $716 billion reflects savings from 2013 through 2022.

The Romney campaign adamantly disputes the critics' assertions.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=963019&f=19

[boutons_deux]

In Poll, Obama Is Given Trust Over Medicare

The Romney-Ryan proposal to reshape Medicare by giving future beneficiaries fixed amounts of money to buy health coverage is deeply unpopular in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin, according to new polls that found that more likely voters in each state trust President Obama to handle Medicare.

The Medicare debate was catapulted to the forefront of the presidential campaign this month when Mitt Romney announced that his running mate would be Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, who is perhaps best known for proposing a budget plan, supported by Mr. Romney, to overhaul Medicare to rein in its costs.

After more than a week of frenzied campaigning on the issue, Medicare ranks as the third-most crucial issue to likely voters in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin - behind the economy and health care, according to new Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News polls of the three swing states. The Republican proposal to retool the program a decade from now is widely disliked.

Roughly 6 in 10 likely voters in each state want Medicare to continue providing health insurance to older Americans the way it does today; fewer than a third of those polled said Medicare should be changed in the future to a system in which the government gives the elderly fixed amounts of money to buy health insurance or Medicare insurance, as Mr. Romney has proposed. And Medicare is widely seen as a good value: about three-quarters of the likely voters in each state said the benefits of Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers.

"On Medicare, I don't like the Paul Ryan plan," said Beverly McLaren, 72, an independent from St. Petersburg, Fla., who said in a follow-up interview that Medicare worked well for her and that she planned to vote to re-elect Mr. Obama. "I can't see how it will help at all, and we'll have more out-of-pocket expenses, and I'm not really clear how it will work."

About 60 percent of independent voters in the three states support keeping Medicare as it is today, as do at least 8 in 10 Democrats. Republicans are closely divided on the issue in Florida and Ohio, but in Wisconsin, Mr. Ryan's home state, a majority of Republicans support changing it along the lines he has proposed.

The polls - the first in this series of swing-state surveys taken since Mr. Ryan joined the Republican ticket - showed that at least in Mr. Ryan's home state, he may be helping Mr. Romney. A majority of likely Wisconsin voters said they approved of the way Mr. Ryan has handled his job in Congress, and 31 percent said his selection made them more likely to vote for Mr. Romney, while 22 percent said it made them less likely to do so. The race appears to have tightened a bit in both Florida and Wisconsin in recent weeks.

In Florida and Wisconsin, where Mr. Obama had led Mr. Romney by six percentage points in polls conducted before the selection of Mr. Ryan, the race is essentially tied. Mr. Obama is ahead in Florida by 49 percent to 46 percent and in Wisconsin by 49 percent to 47 percent - differences within the polls' margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. Mr. Obama retains a six-point advantage in Ohio, where he leads Mr. Romney 50 percent to 44 percent, unchanged from last month's survey.

The polls were largely conducted before the uproar over remarks on rape and abortion made by a Republican Senate candidate in Missouri, Representative Todd Akin, which officials in both parties agree could alter the dynamic of the race, especially among women. Mr. Obama enjoys solid support of a majority of women in each of these three states, the surveys found, but in Wisconsin his healthy lead among women has narrowed since the last poll and now trails the levels of the 2008 election, when he won the state.

The polls' findings on Medicare underscore the risk Mr. Romney took when he chose Mr. Ryan to be his running mate. Mr. Ryan rose to prominence among conservatives who lauded his willingness to propose unpopular measures to balance the budget and cut the rising costs of Medicare - costs officials in both parties agree are on an unsustainable path. But while the polls found that Mr. Romney enjoyed a wide advantage in all three states on the question of who is better equipped to tackle the budget deficit, it found that he lagged on other questions voters feel strongly about - including who is better equipped to handle health care, Medicare and foreign policy. Some voters give them credit for campaigning on a politically contentious issue.

"It may be political suicide, but at least Romney and Ryan are willing to stand up and say we can't keep shoveling money into this program and other programs like this," said Michael Behnke, 59, an independent from Solon, Ohio.

When it comes to the running mates, Mr. Ryan comes out ahead with independents. On balance, they feel more favorable toward Mr. Ryan but have a more negative view of Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has drawn criticism in recent days for saying that Mr. Romney's policies would unchain the financial sector and "put y'all back in chains." But many voters in Florida and Ohio said they did not yet know enough about Mr. Ryan to form an opinion - and many in all three states said the choice of running mate would have no impact on their votes.

The polls were conducted by telephone (landline and cellphones) from Aug. 15 through Tuesday among 1,241 likely voters in Florida, 1,253 likely voters in Ohio and 1,190 likely voters in Wisconsin. All three are states Mr. Obama won, but where Republicans have since made gains in state and local elections.

Mr. Romney has taken pains to stress that his Medicare plan would not change the benefits for people 55 or over. But voters over 55 have strong feelings about it, including in Florida, the electoral-vote-rich state where Republicans will hold their convention next week.

Jim Ryan, 75, a retired executive from Bradenton, Fla., who is an independent, said it was an important issue because he and his wife were on Medicare.

"We're enjoying the benefits now, and the Paul Ryan program of making it into a voucher system would change things," he said. "I know it's not intended to apply to people in our age group, but I'm concerned about the future. I think it's a wonderful program, and I've got middle-aged children and I don't want to see the program destroyed. It's probably one of the best programs sponsored by the federal government that we've ever had. It does have to be made fiscally sound, but there are ways to do that without destroying the whole concept or the substance of it."

Mr. Romney has been attacking Mr. Obama for counting on $716 billion in Medicare savings to help pay for his health care law - savings that Mr. Ryan also counted on in his budget plan but which Mr. Romney has promised to restore. The poll underscored how unpopular deep cuts to Medicare are.

Only about a tenth of the voters in each state said they would support major reductions in Medicare spending to reduce the federal deficit. Nearly half of the voters in each state said they would support minor reductions, and about a third said they would not support any reductions at all.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=963550&f=19

[Winehole23]

^^^ Mr.Talking Points, handing them out for the DNC

[boutons_deux]

^^^ Mr.Talking Points, handing them out for the DNC

WH

There are real differences between the 2 plans, and Repugs are losing. Even mostly dumb Americans have figured the Repugs out.

We'll see if Rove and his $Bs can tell them big enough lies to turn the tide after the Repug convention in Taxpayers-Built-That! convention site.

[Winehole23]

there are differences, sure, but both plans are based on unrealistically rosy assumptions and dubious promises to do things ten years down the road.

are you blind to Obama's BS?

[Winehole23]

your criticism is so one sided, one could easily come away with that impression. I see a lot of lip service to criticizing Obama from you, but little actual criticism.

[boutons_deux]

your criticism is so one sided, one could easily come away with that impression. I see a lot of lip service to criticizing Obama from you, but little actual criticism.

The key difference is that Obamacare cuts spending by reducing payments to for-profit providers, NOT in reducing care.

Ryan's plan doesn't touch for-profit gougers. He cuts treatments, denies care, removed insurance, and greatly shifts costs to seniors, poor, crippled, disabled, and the states.

trash talking "rosy projections" ain't gonna get it.

[TeyshaBlue]

The key difference is that Obamacare cuts spending by reducing payments to for-profit providers, NOT in reducing care.

Ryan's plan doesn't touch for-profit gougers. He cuts treatments, denies care, removed insurance, and greatly shifts costs to seniors, poor, crippled, disabled, and the states.

trash talking "rosy projections" ain't gonna get it.

I think the point can be made that cutting profits can reduce care. The inverse of the HCA story we discussed recently....

Before you get all "YOU LIE" on my ass, I said "can". Not parenthetically, but as a distinct possibility.

And critiquing 10 year predictions in today's economic climate is completely relevant tbh.

[boutons_deux]

Obamacare reduces (I hope will eventually kill) Repug-corporate-welfare Medicare Advantage, which costs 12% more (going to for-profit insurers) than does no-profit Medicare.

[boutons_deux]

Mitt Romney's Hypocrisy on Disability

The latest Romney campaign commercial, led “Nothing’s Free,” returns to his favorite whipping post, “Obamacare.” It seems to have finally occurred to Romney that quite a few voters might think extending health insurance to more than 40 million Americans is a good thing. But Romney does not want to focus on the ugly side of his promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—that he would leave these citizens uninsured and potentially allow them die for lack of medical treatment. So instead he argues that the cost of insuring them is too high.

“Some think Obamacare is the same as free healthcare,” says the voiceover. “But nothing is free. Obama is raiding $716 billion from Medicare, changing the program forever. Taxing wheelchairs and pacemakers.” On the other hand, “The Romney/Ryan plan will restore Medicare funding, and protect and strengthen the program for the next generation.”

Each of these complaints is false. As the New York Times explains, the ACA did not actually take $716 billion out of what goes into Medicare, it took the money out of what Medicare pays to insurers and hospitals. Therefore, it actually improves Medicare’s fiscal health, which Romney would undermine by repealing the ACA. “The 2010 health care law cut Medicare reimbursements to hospitals and insurers, not benefits for older Americans, by that amount over the coming decade,” writes the Times’s Jackie Calmes. “But repealing the savings, policy analysts say, would hasten the insolvency of Medicare by eight years—to 2016, the final year of the next presidential term, from 2024.”

The ad also gives you the incorrect impression that the ACA is detrimental for people with disabilities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Disability rights advocates have vociferously supported its passage and implementation.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169534...mailNation%27#