The cuts are for spending. The money is NOT taken from the Medicare Trust Fund as Liar Romney said.What are you talking about? She details most of the cuts in it.. Is that not what you wanted?
"spending for Medicare would increase by an estimated $716 billion."So how does Obamacare "save" $716 billion? IT CUTS IT.... Read the next few lines you dope. The facts are in the article. You asked for them. Educate yourself.
.
And where do the cuts come from??
According to the Chief Medicare Actuary, approximately half of all seniors currently using Medicare Advantage will lose access to their plans.
According to President Obama, these cuts to providers would “not only jeopardize our physicians’ pay, but our seniors’ health care.” In addition they would be “punishing … the millions of Americans who count on Medicare.”
Of course, that was back when he was against it, before he was for it
so you consider "seniors getting healthcare" to be spending that "isn't needed" in Medicare? how interesting.
You are right in saying that spending was cut. I understand that. But the money that was, for example, spent on hospital reimbursement rates (the red portion of the chart in the article I posted from wp) came from the "Medicare Trust Fund". Most all of the spending comes from the trust fund. Obama cut some of this spending, as you mentioned, and transferred it to Obamacare. So he did in fact take money from the Medicare Trust fund that was being used to fund things like hospital reimbursement rates and put it into Obamacare.
No, not any spending, but spending where its now longer needed is good.
.
yes. specifically this spending is on "seniors getting healthcare". it's cutting seniors access to healthcare.
the Physicians Foundation, for example, says that over half of doctors will either have to stop or severely restrict seeing medicare patients. The Chief Medical Actuary and President Obama have both agreed that these cuts mean cuts to seniors healthcare (Obama even suggested it was "punishing" them).
If you think that "spending money on seniors getting healthcare" is "no longer needed".... well, I disagree, but I hope that you and your allies continue to make that argument throughout the campaign
Look, I realize that ya'll are in a no-win situation here, but at least you could do a better job of it than this. Talk about how the collapse of the current half-way system is needed in order to justify bringing in single-payer or something.
Romney has said he would have signed Ryan budget if he could, so he is stuck with it.In one of them (he has had several), yes. He sent the savings into the Medicare Trust Fund in order to make that program solvent for longer (unlike the Administration, which spent it on Obamacare, thus ensuring that Medicare would still go bankrupt).
However, those cuts are not in the Romney plan, which is what Ryan is running on now.
some of this stuff is downright funny. For example, it's a lie to call any of the cuts "cuts", since they only reduce the growth in future spending rather than a raw dollar reduction in total spending.
Romney has said he would have signed Ryan budget if he could, so he is stuck with it.
You were not for the Ryan Budget?:shrug: well yes, only a fool allows the perfect to be the enemy of the good. But it's not his plan, it's not what he's running on, and it's not what he wants to do.
ya'll are really grasping on this one
:lol: still excited about the Ryan pick?
