Bear in mind, first and foremost, that the Obamacare program, voted into law SOLELY by Democrats, contains MASSIVE cuts to Medicare. Doctors are now limiting Medicare patients as a result. But that doesn't stop the Democrats from railing at Ryan's plan, acting as if he is going to unplug machines or something.
Don't take it from me, though. FactCheck.org, a division of the Annenberg Foundation, just came out with an article highlighting the new DNC Chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's lies about this very program.
But first, astute readers may recall that the Annenberg Challenge is where Barack Obama and his good buddy, domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, served on the board together. This is no conservative organization coming out with this information, but one with a liberal past.
So, what did the DNC Chair say exactly? This, according to the FactCheck article, "DNC Chair Throws Truth To The Wolves," the headline of which says it all:
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz falsely claimed that seniors with preexisting medical conditions would be denied Medicare coverage under the GOP's plan. The House GOP plan specifically says insurance companies “must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries.”
She also repeated a false Democratic talking point that future beneficiaries — those who are now younger than 55 — would be left on their own to buy insurance in the private market. The GOP plan, as we have written before, would provide subsidies for future beneficiaries to buy private insurance from a Medicare exchange set up by the government.
Wasserman Schultz, the new chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, made her comments May 29 on "Face the Nation."
Wasserman Schultz, May 29: What they would do is they would take the people who are younger than 55 years old today and tell them, "You know what? You’re on your own. Go and find private health insurance in the — in the health care insurance market. We’re going to throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for preexisting conditions. We’re going to give you 'x' amount of dollars and you figure it out."
She is simply wrong to say that the GOP plan would allow insurance companies to "throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for preexisting conditions." [snip]
Not that you would know it from the attacks from Obama and his minions, but the Ryan Plan is not as Draconian as they want people to think. They are just blowing smoke to make sure no one pays attention to the cuts THEY made, which are affecting people on Medicare. But hey, why let the truth stand in your way? The Dems aren't, that's for sure:
The Republican plan — dubbed "Path to Prosperity" by its chief architect, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin — would make no changes in Medicare for those 55 and older. But it would make significant changes to Medicare for those younger than 55 — just not as described by the Florida Democrat. The plan would provide future beneficiaries with government subsidies to purchase health insurance through a Medicare exchange set up by the government.
Path to Prosperity: Health plans that choose to participate in the Medicare exchange must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.
DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan said "we stand by the statement" that the GOP plan would deny coverage to future beneficiaries with preexisting conditions. (Emphasis mine.) Sevugan provided excerpts of testimony given April 5 by Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian CATO Institute, at a hearing of a House oversight subcommittee. But in that testimony, Cannon said that "all seniors under the chairman's proposal, as I understand it, will be able to obtain health insurance coverage." And those with preexisting conditions "will get larger vouchers" because payments will be "risk-adjusted so that people with severe illnesses will get larger vouchers."
Sevugan made the point that the government subsidies — or "vouchers," as Cannon calls them — won't keep up with insurance premiums and, as a result, seniors would be forced to go without coverage. But that's not what the DNC chairwoman said. She said the GOP plan would allow private insurers to "drop you for preexisting conditions," and that's just not true. [snip]
Lies, lies, and more lies. But what I love is that the DNC spokesman, in the face of facts to the contrary, claims that they "stand by their statements." They are misrepresenting a plan to the American people to cast Ryan's plan in as negative a light as possible, even if what they say is not true. Wow. That takes some chutzpah. Or complete and utter lack of ethics. You decide.
The conclusion of this article (and there is more to it, so I urge you to click here to read the rest), is this:
[snip ]It's fair game to debate whether the subsidies are adequate to cover insurance costs. But it's wrong to say that the GOP plan would "throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage."
When FactCheck.org is telling you you're lying, and you keep doing it, that is disingenuous at best, and deplorable at worst. They are simply trying to gin up votes, and just like 2008, they don't care how much they lie to do it.
Of course, Rep. Wasserman Schultz is just following Obama's lead. He is the one who started this BS back in April, lying through his teeth, as FactCheck.org made clear. I think Rep. Paul Ryan is a bit over it, this Hill article makes clear from the meeting between Republicans and Obama on Wednesday,
"Ryan to Obama: 'Leadership Should Come From The Top'". Why, yes, it should, Rep. Ryan. Yes, leadership should come from the top. But Obama isn't a leader, he is a liar, which he has demonstrated time and time again. Why would you expect anything less than that from him, or his hand picked DNC chair?
Ahem. To his credit, Ryan stood firm:
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) confronted President Obama over his attack on the Republican budget plan in the most dramatic moment of a White House meeting with the House GOP conference.
Saying he wanted to “clear the air” amid a deficit debate marred by partisan rancor, Ryan, the author of the House GOP budget, told the president he was wrong to characterize Republicans as turning their backs on children and senior citizens.
“Leadership should come from the top,” Ryan said to Obama, according to Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), who described the exchange to The Hill.
Ryan also called out the president for his speech at George Washington University in April, where Obama castigated the Republican budget in harsh terms while Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, sat just a few feet away.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)
Ah, yes - Obama the picture of decorum and good manners. Not.
Both Rep. Ryan and FactCheck.org have tried to set the record straight about Ryan's Budget plan. The Democrats will have none of it. Better to stick with the lie than the truth, especially if it will score a bunch of points, right? They are intentionally manipulating people, scaring some, and pissing off others as a result of their continued false meme. That is reprehensible.
You know, I still cannot believe that this is how the DNC has always operated, and I was just too blind to see it. But if the past 3 years is any indication, that is exactly what they were doing, I am ashamed to admit. Is it really so hard for Democrats and Republicans to work together on the behalf of ALL AMERICANS? To not worry about who gets the most points for it? Is it really so hard to put the country first, and our worsening economic situation, over partisan sides?
Evidently. And that just makes me mad. How about you? Copyright © 2011 by Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy
4 comments:
But Obama isn't a leader, he is a liar, which he has demonstrated time and time again.
That says it all, Amy. And I'm with you...were the Democrats always like this and we bought into it? If so, I'm ashamed at what a fool I was when I had my old blog, "Divine Democrat".
That said, while researching my post today I went to a few of the smaller blogs that used to frequent my old blog to see what there take on the story I wrote for today would be. At that time, I saw two of the three blogs I visited were spreading the same lie about medicare that DWS was...and one of them outright said that ALL seniors would lose their medicare, the age cutoff wasn't there.
This is what they always do, I don't know if they just can't read or if they are genuinely big fat liars!
ME, I know - I am embarrassed by some of the things I have said to people,e specially when I didn't know they were Republicans (and I am talking abt friends). I don't know how, or why, they put up with me.
I think abt Nancy Pelosi, or Tom Daschle, and I do remember being angry at them for saying one thing abt Bush, then standing in the Rose Garden with him supporting the very thing they had just said they opposed. But I didn't want to believe that they were really like that.
Now I know they are. And it makes me mad that the DNC took my good faith in them, my straight party voting since I was 18, destroyed my faith in them, then essentially blamed me for not believing their bullshit any more.
Thank heavens my eyes have been open.
Seriously, can you believe they KNOW they are lying, and continue to do it, just to get votes? This is exactly what they did with Obamacare, too, abt which they are STILL lying. Typical.
Btw, one of the standard Obot trolls at NQ claimed you didn't do your research on Daily Kos abt Obama signing the Patriot Act extension. He claimed there was something with over 900 comments (he later reduced the number). I wasn't abt to follow his link, so I did a google search for DK, and went there myself and did a search. Know what they had? A late night Open Thread with an article in which Sen. Reid was lambasting Reps for not supporting the Patriot Act (I kid you not), and the statement from Senator Rand Paul against extending the Patriot Act. I believe I said, very clearly, that I wondered where the Leftys were attacking OBAMA for signing the extension, especially since, when he voted for it (Hillary and John did not) while a senator, the Dems trotted out (former) Senator Russ Feingold who claimed that Obama would veto it as Pres. Uh huh. The comments at both were VERY telling, and again, no one seemed to hold Obama accountable for it. They were aghast that they might have to say the Reps were right abt this, but no one attacked Obama for being a big fat, lying hypocrite.
I still cannot find the post Prime Obot claimed existed - I just did yet another search, and NOTHING at DK. Like I said, after some of the things that have happened to my computer, I am not abt to follow his link. Or spend any more time on rebutting people like him. Like those at the sites you used to frequent, no amt of reality will change their minds.
Ha! I love the way they claim a person is wrong, and then put up a link that proves that they are right. Idiots, all of them.
In a way I wish I had saved all my posts from when I had my old blog, Divine Democrat. It would have been a good reminder to me of what I wrote and to see if I was as guilty of not looking at the facts and only swallowing the propaganda handed to me.
Mostly,though, I do believe that this is just not the old Democratic Party which I supported most of my life. Their lies and cheating are so freakin' blatant now! I remember calling Bush's followers "sheep". Sigh...and what are these Obots that are following Obama? I used to make fun of Fox News...and now I watch (some) of it. I used to like watching Meghan Kelly before she went on maternity leave...she's one smart cookie. I also like Greta V-S because she's not afraid to ask tough questions, no matter if they are Republican's or Democrats.
I still can't stand Bill Reilly. He's kinda slimy and creepy.
Word verification: "Christed". Hey! Was I just blessed or something??? Cool!
Hey, ME -
Well, that makes me feel a little better if you think that the new DNC is not the old DNC. They are downright blatant in their scheming, lying ways - the whole Convention thing in 2008 proved that. They broke laws in 10 different states by forcing delegates to vote for Obama as a sign of "unity" when Hillary won those states. Their actions then, as now, have revealed them to be the worst kind of sanctimonious liars.
I don't like O'Reilly, either, but I have discovered that Fox News is nowhere NEAR as bad as people like David Brock made them out to be. They are WAY more "fair and balanced" than MSNBO could ever HOPE to be. It is fascinating to me how the lefties think that ALL media should only present their message - isn't that what we call "propaganda"? Uh, yeah.
I wish you had saved the posts, too. I loved your blog then, and your new one now. I do not recall you being one-sided, or blindly accepting whatever the DNC told you to believe.
And I guess that is why people like you scare people like Obots - you think for yourself. Oh, my!
Prime Obot is a piece of work, that's for sure. He then questioned how I got the stories I did - like GOOGLE, a pro-Obama source if there ever was one, and DK itself, are suspect. These people have zero logical abilities, that's for sure.
Post a Comment