Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apparently the Obama administration, via an HHS insurance "experiment", is doing some fancy re-direction of taxpayer money to keep/buy votes of the elderly in November by staving off some of the most egregious cuts to seniors from Obamacare which have been set to kick in just before the election.
It’s hard to imagine a bigger electoral disaster for a president than seniors in crucial states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio discovering that he’s taken away their beloved Medicare Advantage just weeks before an election.
This political ticking time bomb could become the biggest “October Surprise” in US political history.
But the administration’s devised a way to postpone the pain one more year, getting Obama past his last election; it plans to spend $8 billion to temporarily restore Medicare Advantage funds so that seniors in key markets don’t lose their trusted insurance program in the middle of Obama’s re-election bid.
America is better off if we stop spending that money on Medicare in the long term, and America is better off if Obama gets re-elected. So it's a win-win.
I doubt Republicans would've made the long-term cut in the first place; and as for the short term $8 billion, that is nothing in the context of the Medicare system. If this is the cost of reform, I'll take it.
You need to broaden your news sources ... and read ones other than FOX and Murdoch. OP-Ed type columns are interesting, but I wouldn't hang my hat on what's said in them. Especially not ones promoted by Murdoch.
America is better off if we stop spending that money on Medicare in the long term, and America is better off if Obama gets re-elected. So it's a win-win.
I doubt Republicans would've made the long-term cut in the first place; and as for the short term $8 billion, that is nothing in the context of the Medicare system. If this is the cost of reform, I'll take it.
So, then why do they want to move it a year out? Why not put it into place before the election, as it is supposed to be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gomexico
You need to broaden your news sources ... and read ones other than FOX and Murdoch. OP-Ed type columns are interesting, but I wouldn't hang my hat on what's said in them. Especially not ones promoted by Murdoch.
Why are you shooting the delivery guy, can you dispute this information?
You need to broaden your news sources ... and read ones other than FOX and Murdoch. OP-Ed type columns are interesting, but I wouldn't hang my hat on what's said in them. Especially not ones promoted by Murdoch.
.....and it would be nice if you discussed the issue instead of the OP. You might want to check the various news sources carrying the same, or similar, stories before you make a total ass of yourself.
Using taxpayer funds for purely political purposes should be illegal,...but it probably wouldn't make any difference in the corrupt cesspool of politics called "mexico".
You need to broaden your news sources ... and read ones other than FOX and Murdoch. OP-Ed type columns are interesting, but I wouldn't hang my hat on what's said in them. Especially not ones promoted by Murdoch.
White House Downplays GAO Report on Questionable Bonuses Through Medicare Advantage - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-downplays-gao-report-questionable-bonuses-medicare-210457657--abc-news-politics.html - broken link)
Doesn't the WH need the approval of Congress to re-route money ?
This doesnt sound like its being re-routed, just a change on how its spent. Congress would create budgets and authorize spending on Medicare, but what Medicare does with that money once they have it, isnt Congressional concern.
So Obama is planning death panels and Obamacare is going to kill the elderly...but he is diverting funds to give them a cushy lifestyle and great medical care....
Which is it? You can't have both. They are mutually ****ing exclusive unless you have fewer brain cells then teeth.
So Obama is planning death panels and Obamacare is going to kill the elderly...but he is diverting funds to give them a cushy lifestyle and great medical care....
Which is it? You can't have both. They are mutually ****ing exclusive unless you have fewer brain cells then teeth.
With voter ID laws being passed you can't have the dead voting for you can you ?
He's diverting funds for the vote; not because he cares about their lifestyles.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
