I just saw the most amazing display of message discipline by the GOP that I could have ever imagined. It was a thing of beauty. I mean, a thing of beauty if your idea of "beautiful" is Mt. Doom from Mordor.
Yesterday I found in a errant FreedomWorks Tweet the structure of the Republican Playbook on protecting VP Pick Paul Ryan, and that is Attack Obama on Medicare.
This Morning Reince Prieus led the charge on Meet the Press arguing that "Obama Stole $700 Billion from Medicare", and when question on that by David Gregory doubled down to claim that Obama is "Steeling from Seniors and has Blood on His Hands" for what he's done to Medicare.
Not only did Priebus use this line, so did Gov. Walker, and so did Rich Lowry, and so did Bill Bennett (even going further to say we need to "Save Medicare from the President"). Meanwhile on CNN, both John Sununu and Ed Gillespie said it too.
Word. For. Word.
"Obama Stole $700 Billion from Medicare to Give to Obamacare".
Except that just like that accusation that Obama is trying to block the Troops from Voting in Ohio, and is trying to Drop the Work Requirements on Welfare - It's a Complete and Total Lie.
But did anyone, except Rachel Maddow, even question it or deny it? Nope.
On it's face it's easy to bust this, I already did and anyone can.
Here's the Short Version I just posted earlier today as a Comment:
The ACA didn't take a dime from Seniors. The primary financial changes were reductions in payments to Private providers and Hospitals in Medicare Advantage, not to services that are be provided to patients through Traditional Medicare (Part-A, Part-B).
By Contrast A Romney/Ryan Administration at the very least would take away the Payment Advisory Board from trying to do what Ronald Reagan always said we should do, find better more efficient ways to deliver services without Rationing which otherwise would Decrease the Solvency of the Trust Fund, they would Re-Open the Prescription Drug Donut Hole, they would Bring Back the Deductibles & Co-Pays for Preventive Screenings for Cancer and Contraception, they would - if they can - create a Voucher System for Medicare that could increase out of pocket costs for Seniors by as much as $7,000 per year according to the CBO.
And you know what else they'd do?
They'd Keep those Medicare Cuts In Place and instead of Extending the Life of the Trust Fund as the ACA has already done - they'd give it over to Inefficient Corporate Insurance Companies to pad their profits, while forcing families to make the painful and potentially deadly choice of dropping the coverage they can no longer afford.
That's the real Death Panel, a sad family around their own kitchen table staring at the incoming bills.
The most amazing thing, which shows just how much the GOP is throwing
everything into the strategy to purify Ryan from his past, is this exchange between Rich Lowry and Rachel Maddow.
Now, Rachel challenges Lowry here on the fact that Ryan's Plan, even the watered down Wyden version of it, Keeps these Cuts. Ryan admitted this on ABC's This week while claiming that they would use it to "extend the trust fund".
So that's what makes his version of the cut "OK", but the President's version of the cut - Not "Ok". Except that as I mention above, the Medicare Trustees have already announced that the Affordable Care Act Already Extended The Life of the Trust Fund.
They even predicted it might begin to RUN A SURPLUS in 2014.
The financial status of the HI trust fund is substantially improved by the lower expenditures and additional tax revenues instituted by the Affordable Care Act. These changes are estimated to postpone the exhaustion of HI trust fund assets from 2017 under the prior law to 2029 under current law and to 2028 under the alternative scenario.
Beginning in 2014, trust fund surpluses are estimated to occur throughout the short-range projection period and for several years thereafter.
Right now that extension is estimated to
add another 8 years to the fund - which is
more than double what it would have been without the ACA, however when Axelrod mentions this to David Gregory earlier in the show
Gregory Blows Him Off claiming "That's not enough" when in fact, this truth
Destroys the Pro-Ryan argument that He and ONLY HE can save Medicare.
Obama is already "Saving" Medicare.
This is their play.
Accuse the President of doing something that Paul Ryan would do exactly the same way. It's a LIE. It's despicable. It's cynical, and OFFENSIVE to say "Obama has Blood on his Hands" based on NOTHING - particularly while they're whining and sniveling about the Obama Campaign of "Low Blow, Gutter Tactics" by insinuating that Romney may have committed a Felony or Killed a woman. (Even if the first was only a hypothetical eiher/or and the second wasn't done by the Obama Campaign).
This Deceitful Bullcrap needs to get stomped.
And unfortnately for the GOPers, they may have overplayed their hand because Rich Lowry actually tried to Double-Down on this with Rachel and she wasn't having it at the 2:23 Mark. Watch this, it's amazing.
You know what's going to happen now? Rachel is going Lead Off her Next Show with a detailed and pointed analysis of this subject. She's going to burrow into it, dig deep and dig hard. She, I Hope, will point of that it's not $700 Billion, it's only $500 Billion and that it didn't come from traditional Medicare, that it comes from the already privatized Medicare Advantage, that it doesn't take a Second of service or quality away from Seniors, and that it has already extended the Medicare Trust Fund for Another 8 Years.
Oh, and Ryan would keep the exact same cuts if he could.
By this time on Tuesday, the Next Republican to use this despicable lie - just might be laughed right off the screen.
Vyan
6:09 PM PT: The source of the $711 Billion Figure from the CBO estimate for the cost of repealing the ACA, not the estimate of savings from the Original legislation ($500 B).
The ACA also includes a number of other provisions related to health care that are estimated to reduce net federal outlays (primarily for Medicare). By repealing those provisions, H.R. 6079 would
increase other direct spending in the next decade by an estimated $711 billion.
Deficits would be increased under H.R. 6079 because the net savings from eliminating the insurance coverage provisions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending increases and revenue reductions. In total, CBO and JCT estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion over the 2013–2022 period, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period (see Table 2).
Forever the Rightwing has been saying that CBO figures that the ACA
improves the deficit were wrong because of the "Assumptions" they were given to evaluate the law. But this is the response to ,
their request on what the impact of repeal would be. Yet it still shows that on Net Balance, the plan
Cuts the Deficit.
Here's something else the Repeal of the ACA would do - Take Healthcare away from 30 Million people.
H.R. 6079 would repeal all of the provisions of the ACA that are designed to expand insurance coverage as well as related provisions. Most of those provisions are scheduled to go into effect in January 2014. Under H.R. 6079, about 30 million fewer nonelderly people would have health insurance in 2022 than under current law, leaving a total of about 60 million nonelderly people uninsured (see Table 3). About 81 percent of legal nonelderly residents would have insurance coverage in 2022, compared with 92 percent projected under current law (and 82 percent currently).Here's the specific figure that Lowry was talking about.Spending for Medicare would increase by an estimated $716 billion over that 2013–2022 period.
Within Medicare, net increases in spending for the services covered by
Part A (Hospital Insurance) and Part B (Medical Insurance) would total $517 billion and $247 billion, respectively. Those increases would be partially offset by a $48 billion reduction in net spending for Part D.
● Repeal of the reductions in the annual updates to Medicare’s payment rates for most services in the fee-for-service sector (other than physicians’ services) would increase Medicare outlays by $415 billion. (That figure excludes interactions between those provisions and others—,namely, the effects of those changes on payments to Medicare Advantage plans and collections of Part B premiums.) Of that amount, higher payments for hospital services account for $260 billion; for skilled nursing services, $39 billion; for hospice services, $17 billion; for home health services, $66 billion; and for all other services, $33 billion.
● Repeal of the new mechanism for setting payment rates in the Medicare Advantage program would increase Medicare outlays by $156 billion (before considering interactions with other provisions).
● Repeal of the reductions in Medicaid and Medicare payments to hospitals that serve a large number of low-income patients, known as disproportionate share hospitals (DSH), would increase federal spending by $56 billion.
So if you repeal the ACA,
Spending Will Increase in terms of payments to doctors and hospitals - but
nowhere does the CBO this would result in reduced services and for some reason, Republicans now claim
that's a Bad Thing.
Um... I don't think so.
I think saving the American People $716 Billion is a good thing, particularly if you do it without reducing services. This entire argument is like being in an brand new upside down world that must be the Red-Headed Love Child of Oz and Wonderland, where Superman gets stronger from Kryptonite and weaker from Lead, where Aquaman can't swim but he can fly.
And where Republicans think that they have an advantage over a Democratic President who Cut Nearly a $1 Trillion worth of Spending From Medicare, without weakening the quality of the program.
Hey wasn't "Cutting Government Spending" supposed to be the Republican Speciality? Why are you attacking a Democratic President who did it without you?
Oh, right, cuz he did it WITHOUT YOU.