Does the Ryan/Romney plan restore that $700 billion? No, it does not.

Ah, yes Randy, it does. Read the plan. You don't have restore something you didn't take in the first place.

he 700B was taken from insurance and pharmaceutical company subsidies. Seniors have lost NO benefits because of this and the exact same reduction is in the Ryan plan, but it goes for the tax break for the rich.

This 700/500 Billion dollar statement by the Republicon is just another LIE.

PolitiFact addressed it more than a year ago and called the claim False.
But that’s not all: PolitiFact National gave Michele Bachmann a Mostly False in September for claiming Obama was stealing $500 billion from Medicare. In July, PolitiFact Texas gave a state representative a Mostly False for claiming $500 billion in Medicare cuts were coming. And PolitiFact Ohio served up an out-and-out False to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in June for claiming that Sen. Sherrod Brown had voted to cut $500 billion from Medicare.

There are more, but you probably get the idea.

That brings us to our ruling. Generally, we’d give this a "Mostly False" given that there is a small kernel of truth to the statement. But we also have a policy of taking into account whether the speaker is willfully repeating something we’ve said wasn’t true before -- and in this case we have said it several times. For that reason a FALSE!

The Affordable Care Act does not eliminate $500 billion out of the current budget for Medicare. Most important, there are no cuts to guaranteed Medicare benefits.

http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2011/nov/14/rob-cornilles/another-look-favorite-republican-talking-point/

A recent national survey found that 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market were turned down, were charged more, or had a specific health problem excluded from their coverage
And the Cons want to give 76 year olds vouchers.

What utter insanity!

Corey Mason has no ethics. He is scare-monger. Let me ask these seniors one question. We all heard Mason rant and rave how Walker was destroying education. Act 10 passed, the sky didn't fall, and those districts that actually used Act 10 are in far better financial shape than under the old system. Who is telling who the truth?

From your link:

"With a few small tweaks to their attack lines, Democrats could have been factually correct, said Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "I actually think there is no need to cut out the qualifiers and exaggerate," he said.

At times, Democrats and liberal groups were careful to characterize the Republican plan more accurately. Another claim in the ad from the Agenda Project said the plan would "privatize" Medicare, which received a Mostly True rating from PolitiFact. President Barack Obama was also more precise with his words, saying the Medicare proposal "would voucherize the program and you potentially have senior citizens paying $6,000 more."

You're right, Richard. We blew it all supporting our parents and grandparents in their retirement -- you know, that Greatest Generation that you Gen-Xers all worship?

Attitudes like 'Richard's' are why I don't for a minute believe that the benefits of those over 55 will be safe for long.

Medicare Costs More Under Ryan Plan
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/medicare-costs-more-under-ryan-plan-and-the-iraq-war-costs-more-than-a-school-lunch

Why do you LIE?

The Democrats cut $500/700-billion from Medicare: IT IS DIFFERENT. The Republicans want to cut everything in Medicare, and it's part of the Ryan's plan. The Democrats want to cut MEDICARE ADVANTAGE, which has very high costs, doesn't offer as good care as ordinary Medicare’s and has high levels fraud, waste and Abuse.

The Democratic cuts are Smart Cuts, The Republicans are not. Republicans just want to cut Medicare to give the 1% another tax cut!

Medicare Advantage Problems:

1. Medicare Advantage is a major contributor to Medicare's money problems.

2. It costs 14% more than ordinary Medicare and that differential has been rising at 1% per year.

3. For every dollar of increased coverage Advantage provides, it cost Medicare $3.

4. Medicare Advantage programs also provide poorer care.

5. Medicare Advantage plans are accepted by fewer doctors, clinics and hospitals.

6. Medicare Advantage plans have very high levels of, waste and abuse. They have a history of tricking senior into buying coverage they don't need.

Then time to raise the SS cap, time to end Corporate welfare, time to go back to the Clinton tax rates, time to reduce defense spending, time to make sure everybody pays their FAIR share of taxes (PERCENTAGE)! How many of those 1% are paying 13.9%, 10%, 5%, or maybe 0% on taxes.........And we wonder why we have such problems!

Rebpublicans have been trying to change/end Medicare since Goldwater days! And the only reason why the haven't it's because the Dems have kept the program in place and the American public will not let them! When I was in my early 20's I believed what the Republicans were saying back then "Medicare and SS will not be here much longer, blah, blah" And guess what it is still here!

All the current Republicons have left these days are FEAR AND LIES!

You want facts, here try reading some!

Ex-Reagan Budget Director: Paul Ryan's Budget 'Is Devoid Of Credible Math Or Hard Policy Choices'
Posted: 08/14/2012 1:42 pm Updated: 08/14/2012 2:34 pm

“Mr. Ryan’s sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to 'job creators' (read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse,” Stockman wrote in the op-ed, later adding: “Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices.”

Stockman, who resigned in 1985 in protest over deficit spending, has added his voice to a chorus of economists criticizing Ryan’s "Path to Prosperity," which would give tax cuts to the wealthy while slashing funding for programs like Medicaid, Medicare and food stamps, all in the name of reducing the national debt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/14/ex-reagan-budget-director_n_1776063.html

@Tansandy -- You'd 'whine' too if you had paid ahead for programs all your life only to see the benefits snatched away at the last minute. Frankly, all I want out of Medicare is the assurance that my final illness (whatever it may be) will not bankrupt my surviving spouse and vice versa. I'm not looking for a gym membership or ten visits to the doctor in a year for every little twinge.

As it is, seniors have to pay out of pocket for supplemental insurance to cover the Part B co-pay, and that's pricey enough on a fixed income. It's much worse for seniors who aren't in good health.

Randy please read my comment. "I state this as a middle class retired person ", Don't lecture me on not paying for programs. I have paid into the government ponzi schemes (SS, and Medicare) for over 45 years. Probably more years than you have had birthdays! So to assure that you don't run into finacial problems later in life, you should maybe make some choices in your life to insure this doesn't happen. But hey, thanks for the lecture anyway!!!

@Tansandy -- I'm pleased that my comments mark me as 'youthful' but I have probably had as many birthdays as you, if not more. A lucky middle class person can retire a lot younger than 66. 45 years is about the number since I first paid in too.

What choices would you have me make, other than the ones I did -- marry and work to achieve a college degree for at least one of us, be securely employed before having a child, never get into debt, put the funding of 401Ks and IRAs before any fripperies like vacations? I think if we hadn't made those choices, we'd be much worse off than we are now.

I've yet to take any government assistance, but the reason entitlements are called entitlements are because you're entitled to what you have paid for. I'm assuming you're not turning your Social Security and Medicare down -- if you have reached that age. I'd feel just as unhappy about putting money aside into a private annuity for years only to be told that the company was changing the benefits at the last minute. So thanks for the lecture about proper life choices yourself.

Yes -- how many seniors actually use that gym membership thing?

"@Randy, do you have a point?"

Yes, Dee, my point was that the gym membership in Medicare Advantage was an example of the uselessly expensive things the program pays for and goes right into the pockets of the private insurance industry. We can only expect more of the same under the various plans that private insurance would offer to seniors should the Ryan plan come to pass. 'Privatizing' will only make things worse, not better.

President Obama's $700 billion 'cuts' can and should be made to waste like this.

@Randy you say "That's not entirely correct. The voucher may or may not cover the entire premium of whatever insurance plan is chosen. Those seniors who can find adequate coverage for less than the limit of the voucher will be all right, but they won't be able to pocket the difference"

If workers are having this much difficulty saving for retirement, where in the world, will they find the money to pay what Rep. Ryan would make them pay for Medicare coverage when they turn 65 I mean 67, which Ryan’s plan wants the age increased?
Ryan's "blueprint" is one that will take America back to the pre-1965 days when senior citizens were losing their homes and their farms to pay for medical care. They were becoming destitute -- and dying much earlier than they are today -- because insurers would not sell them coverage because they were too much of a risk to insure, and there was no safety net for them. And let’s not forget seniors were eating cat food because they had to make choices, we should never go back to those days!
That's exactly the same place future senior citizens would find themselves if Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare ever becomes public policy.

Pocket the difference......Are you serious!

Dee, why are you arguing with me. I'm agreeing with you.

And yes, I'm serious that a senior who is in good health and whose coverage by some miracle would cost less than the amount of the voucher would NOT be able to pocket the difference. In traditional Medicare, that amount saved on a healthy senior goes to pay for the not so lucky ones. In Ryan's plan, the not so lucky senior makes it up him or herself.

Vouchers are a terrible idea. All this talk of 'choice' is nonsense. Choice will be limited to what an individual can afford, which may be no choice at all.

@Randy,

I apologize I misread your comment!

@Randy,

This is a very emotional issue for me. I have paid into Medicare and SS for over 33 years and that's my money they want to throw at the Rich for another tax cut!

If you're under 55 today (which I am), you will still pay to support all those folks on the current Medicare program without ever getting the same plan for yourself. That's right. This guy expects everyone under 55 to pay for the current program, but never receive the same benefit. That's just insulting.

I'm shocked that anyone takes this load of stupidity seriously. There are used car salesman who have try to sell you more elegant cons than what Rep. Ryan is trying to shove your way.

Perhaps if we took the time to read carefully what another poster is actually saying rather than simply assuming, we could have a much better discussion.

I have (or have had) relatives on Medicare, one with traditional and one on an Advantage plan, and I have seen areas of waste and downright exploitation of the elderly for profit. This is the area where fixes can be made. The answer is not to make life more difficult and precarious for those whose lives are difficult already.

@Dee -- I'm 63, within sight of finally having health coverage again and being able to sleep at night. I have no illusions about how long the under-55 people will be willing to pay for my expenses, plus I have friends under 55 and a son and grandson whose future I care about. I am on your side.

I also fail to see how the private sector can possibly save money over traditional Medicare, with its very low overhead. Competition, fooey! It reminds me of that old SNL commercial where a bank did nothing but make exact change. They'd give you four quarters or two fifty cent pieces (and sometimes even ten dimes!) for a dollar bill and claim to make money off it. "How do we do it? Volume!"

@Randy,

You are absolutely correct, there is no way the private sector will be able to save money over traditional Medicare....I guess were just suppose to TRUST the Insurance Companies...HA!

I see this event promoted as "join us" from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin... from their facebook page:

Seniors Speak Out About Paul Ryan

Public Event · By Democratic Party of Wisconsin.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012.

2:00pm in CDT.
.

Wilson's Coffee & Tea, 3306 Washington​ Ave., Racine

Please come Wednesday to Wilson's Coffee in Racine -- ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE A SENIOR YOURSELF -- and hear leaders talk about the Ryan's misplaced priorities and his dangerous plans for
Social Security and Medicare, as well as hear about a letter Wisconsin seniors will be presenting to Ryan, now the Republican vice presidential nominee.

Heather A., I respect your journalistic integrity, but would you have labelled an event promoted by the Republican Party of WI the same way that this story was titled? No party affiliation, no coordination or recruitment effort by a political party noted?

@kath - you have a point that this should have labeled an organized event from the Democratic Party. I know I would have written the story exactly the same way had the Republicans put it together.

@Kath,

Does it really matter who held the event! Why would you focus your efforts on who organized the meeting instead of focusing on the details of Ryan's budget!

I find it interesting that in discussion of our 'budget deficit' the 'entitlements' of Social Security and Medicare are included in federal spending -- it is often cited that they will eat up one third of the budget -- while ignoring the percentage of federal revenue that the FICA taxes bring in, which in 2010 was 40% of federal revenue. For years, FICA has drawn in a surplus and has been borrowed to fund other federal expenditures. This unwise policy allowed for lower income tax rates.

Now that it begins to change, we're told the sky is falling and that we must 'restructure' the program. And of course lower income taxes further.

@Eric,

I am referring to the the MEDICARE TAX! Again, I have been paying into this program as well as SS for over 30 years and I am under 55! Got it! And if you are over 55 shame on you for not having any concerned towards your fellow Americans, especially your Children, and Grandchildren, if you have any! For YEARS the Republicans have been shouting about how they care for their family, well guess that changes with this proposal. And you don't give me any of that BS that there will be options and it will not hurt any middle class American. BTW when the heck did the Republicans start caring about the Middle Class!

@dee50 -- I have read no plans to lower the FICA tax devoted to Medicare. They're just trying to save money by turning it into a voucher system rather than requiring more efficiency from providers. I had the quote somewhere (can't lay my mouse on it right at this moment) but the Romney/Ryan plan does intend to use the money saved to pay for other things -- not the healthcare for younger people that the savings are slated for now. They plan to repeal the AHCA, which will end up costing even more.

@Eric -- for me, Social Security would not be a full retirement income. It would only supplement my private savings. And it will keep me from living in poverty. That's about it. If healthcare is becoming increasingly costly, there are two ways to deal with it. Use Medicare's power as a large provider of coverage to keep costs down, or raise the FICA percentage devoted to the program. Preferably both. It isn't as if the rates have not been increased before. The FICA tax doubled in 1980, supposedly to save ahead for the retirement of the Boomers.

So, you favor doing away with all tax deductions and paying on the first dollar earned? No standard deduction or personal exemptions? Or do you mean doing away with the kind of deductions one would itemize, like home mortgage or charitable deductions? Either way, that leaves folks in the lower brackets with less money to live on.

@conservachick -- Yes, the individual mandate is a loathsome idea. Of course, it was originally a Republican idea. For years.

Too few doctors? For years, the AMA has been practicing what is known as professional birth control by artificially limiting the number of medical school admission in order to keep doctors fees and incomes up.

The 'gift' of the ACA is the curtailing of the worst abuses of the health insurance industry -- denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions and dropping a person the minute s/he gets sick. And thirty cents of every premium dollar being lost to administrative costs and profit.

Donald Trump is a buffoon.

@Gearhead,

Tort Reform is a crazy idea, why cause let's say you have an operation and the Doc amputates the wrong testicle or the wrong leg due to cancer, how much is that worth to you? With tort reform you would be limited to a certain amount, say $100K or 50K......And Randy is EXACTLY right if we had Universal Health Care there would not be a problem regarding the high costs of malpractice Insurance. and it's the GREEDY Insurance Companies who have been mostly the cause of the rising medical costs! The Insurance Companies, can't stand the fact that Affordable Health care will eliminate a lot of the $ they get from Drug Companies and everybody in between with their stealing profits, Eliminate the middle man!

Why do you think the Insurance Companies paid MILLIONS of dollars opposing ACA, yes it's because it cuts into their bottom line and with the Affordable Health Care requires 80-85% of your premium must be spent on care.... They can only use 10-15% of income based premiums on administrative fees or in the profit margin, cutting out the middle man. Repubs, not telling you that.

@Conservachick.........You are quoting Donald Trump and let me guess next it will be Ted Nuggent!

So much BS in that comment not even worth debating!

Could have been worse. She could have been quoting Howard Stern as an example of conservative punditry.

@Randy,

Howard, HA:)

Medical school admissions are still artificially limited. As far as I'm concerned, the real cause of soaring costs is the health insurance system itself. Every time something becomes covered by insurance, it becomes unaffordable out of pocket.

As someone who has a relative disabled by an HMO doctor's attempts to cut costs by postponing an expensive test, I don't think tort reform is such a great idea. Perhaps if a medical mistake didn't leave a patient with lifelong medical costs --that is, if we had universal single-payer coverage -- doctors wouldn't have to carry expensive malpractice insurance and practice defensive medicine.

Those 45% who say they will quit don't belong in medicine anyway. It's supposed to be about healing sick people not making a boatload of money. If you're fine with a system where some people can have excellent healthcare at the cost of others doing without it entirely, I think you've earned you screen name.

Why do you think there are soaring costs? Insurance rates are raised precisely because of covering govenment program shortages.
As far as doctors making too much money, I disagree. Student loans for a medical education can easily run over $100,000 and it's takes 4 years of med school and up to 5 additional years to complete a residency before you can start making some real money. Many doctors are on call almost 24 hours a day. The responsibility is enormous. Malpractice insurance costs an arm and a leg. We live in a litiginous environment. Some specialties have a relatively short life span. Medicaid/Medicare pays crap. No, I don't think they make too much money.

So what you're saying is that if we could just do away with medical care for those pesky poor and elderly, everything would just be fine. It takes a special kind of person to be able to sleep at night under a system like that.

No Randy, what she is saying is malpractice insurance among other things continues to raise costs. And you are opposed to tort reform? How can you decry greedy docs and insurance companies out of one side of your mouth, only to suck uo to greedy trial lawyers?

BTW, have you ever considered Social Security and Medicare are just another word for WELFARE for old people? A wealth-transfer Ponzi scheme.

I'm not completely opposed to tort reform. I just don't think it's a panacea.

It's a rare sort of'welfare' that you pay for yourself over the course of a lifetime.

@conservachick,

Please provide Link to back up your claims....There is nothing remotely close on any credible links out there that confirms your claim!