U.S Added More Debt Monday Than From 1776 Through Pearl Harbor
The federal government added $93,245,605,914.16 to its debt
on Oct. 1, the first day of fiscal 2013. That was more than all the debt the
federal government accumulated between July 4, 1776 when the United States declared independence from England and sometime in October 1942, which was
ten months after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the United States
entered World War II.
President Obama’s longtime mentor, Frank Marshall Davis (who
was an actual card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA), “Frank,” as he
is referred to in Obama’s memoir “Dreams From My Father,” is mentioned multiple
times in the print edition of the president’s book, however, Kengor now reveals
that all references to “Frank” were purged from the volume’s abridged audio
version.
“Frank” — whose influence Kengor asserts was key to the
fledgling politician and that the eccentric activist appears in “each
mile-marker” of Obama’s path from Hawaii to the halls of Washington, D.C. — is
mentioned no less than 22 times by name in “Dreams From My Father” and is
referenced via pronouns numerous other times throughout the book.
While the Obama campaign could certainly argue that during
the editing process many excerpts, not just the ones referencing Frank, were
eliminated from the audio version for brevity, some might find it odd that such
an important figure in the president’s life would have been relegated to the
cutting room floor. Kengor posits that the audio version of “Dreams” was
scrubbed in an effort to distance the president even further from the
controversial Davis.
To illustrate the type of effort that was clearly involved in the editing
process, Kengor mapped out one difference in content between the original 1995
text version of the book and the 2005 audio version:Original text version (1995): “It was the same dilemma that old Frank had posed to me the year I left Hawaii.”
Audio version (2005): “It was the same dilemma posed to me the year I left Hawaii.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/why-would-obamas-audio-book-version-of-dreams-from-my-father-have-been-purged-of-all-references-to-communist-mentor/
Obamacare Summed Up
in One Sentence – She’s a former nun, an Army major, a lawyer, a college
professor and a physician. Now Dr. Barbara Bellar wants to be a state senator
from Illinois,
and she has one question about ObamaCare:
“So let me get this straight. (This is a long sentence.)We’re going to be gifted with a healthcare plan we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don’t, which purportedly covers at least 10 million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a president who smokes, with funding – [laughing & applause] same sentence – with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted social security and medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese and [laughing & applause] and financed by a country that’s broke. [laughing & applause]
So, what the blank [laughing & applause] could possibly go wrong?”
From The Heritage Foundation: Two Liberal Whoppers on Medicare
A debate that has been
fought largely over the airwaves is about to go head-to-head. Medicare reform is
a huge part of that debate, and the left—bolstered by the media—has been
promoting two huge falsehoods on the issue.
Several proposals from conservatives and liberals for Medicare reform, including The Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream proposal, are based on a financing model called “premium support.” What that means: Medicare has a premium cost, just as other health insurance does. When the government makes a contribution (sometimes referred to as a “defined contribution”) toward paying your premium, that is called premium support. The difference with reform is that the government would no longer dictate to seniors which Medicare plan they would have to use. The government would still support the premium, but the seniors would have the option to choose from a variety of plans tailored to their needs, including traditional Medicare.
The concept is already working in several areas of Medicare, including Medicare Advantage plans and the prescription drug benefit program. Program savings in the drug program have been spectacular, and in Medicare Advantage and the drug program premiums have been stable. Patient satisfaction is very high in both programs.
But two whoppers are still circulating—let’s put them to rest once and for all.
1. “Vouchercare”
Vice President Joe Biden has described the Medicare reform proposal championed by Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) and others as “Vouchercare.” Heritage expert Robert Moffit dispatches this claim with zero ambiguity:
Under the left’s definition of “vouchers,” the existing Medicare drug benefit program is a voucher. Under the left’s definition of “vouchers,” the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program is a voucher. And under the left’s definition of “vouchers,” Obamacare’s insurance exchanges will be funded by vouchers in 2014.
This simply isn’t what we think of as a “voucher.” An example of a true voucher plan? The food stamp program. People are given vouchers, which they take to the store and use to buy something. Medicare reform proposals do not work this way.
Moffit plainly lays out the features of a premium support plan:
Use of the word “voucher,” with the accompanying mental picture of confused seniors wandering around with coupons in their hands, is merely a rhetorical scare tactic. It has no basis in fact.
2. The $6,400 Question
You’ve likely heard that reforming Medicare would cost seniors $6,400 out of pocket. This charge is based on a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis relating to an outdated version of Ryan’s budget proposal.
This figure is meaningless and misleading for two reasons. Not only has Ryan’s proposal changed significantly since then, but the CBO has also admitted that its estimates would be limited—because it cannot account for the effects of competition on prices.
As Heritage’s Rea Hederman reports, “CBO director Douglas Elmendorf has publicly acknowledged that his agency does not have the methodological tools to accurately model Medicare premium-support plans and the impact of market competition.”
The most recent academic analysis indicates that introducing premium support into Medicare could save 9 percent in annual costs. In addition to reducing Medicare spending across the board, the more important effect would be the competition between plans—giving people options for their coverage plans and saving individuals money.
Share this article with friends so we can put these falsehoods to rest and move the debate forward.
MORE:
Why Medicare Premium Support Would Not Cost Future Beneficiaries $6,400 More by Rea Hederman
Medicare Reform Myths Debunked from Heritage Action for America
In-Depth: Premium Support: Medicare’s Future and Its Critics by Robert Moffit
Be sure to watch the first of the presidential candidates' debate tonight!
Several proposals from conservatives and liberals for Medicare reform, including The Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream proposal, are based on a financing model called “premium support.” What that means: Medicare has a premium cost, just as other health insurance does. When the government makes a contribution (sometimes referred to as a “defined contribution”) toward paying your premium, that is called premium support. The difference with reform is that the government would no longer dictate to seniors which Medicare plan they would have to use. The government would still support the premium, but the seniors would have the option to choose from a variety of plans tailored to their needs, including traditional Medicare.
The concept is already working in several areas of Medicare, including Medicare Advantage plans and the prescription drug benefit program. Program savings in the drug program have been spectacular, and in Medicare Advantage and the drug program premiums have been stable. Patient satisfaction is very high in both programs.
But two whoppers are still circulating—let’s put them to rest once and for all.
1. “Vouchercare”
Vice President Joe Biden has described the Medicare reform proposal championed by Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) and others as “Vouchercare.” Heritage expert Robert Moffit dispatches this claim with zero ambiguity:
There is no major Medicare reform proposal, including the Ryan proposal, that would issue future senior citizens a voucher (a certificate or coupon or a check for a fixed dollar amount) and then force them to fend for themselves — on their own – in negotiating with health-insurance companies…It’s all scary nonsense.
Under the left’s definition of “vouchers,” the existing Medicare drug benefit program is a voucher. Under the left’s definition of “vouchers,” the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program is a voucher. And under the left’s definition of “vouchers,” Obamacare’s insurance exchanges will be funded by vouchers in 2014.
This simply isn’t what we think of as a “voucher.” An example of a true voucher plan? The food stamp program. People are given vouchers, which they take to the store and use to buy something. Medicare reform proposals do not work this way.
Moffit plainly lays out the features of a premium support plan:
- It would provide direct payment from the government to a health plan of a person’s choice, including traditional Medicare, if that was the patient’s choice.
- Health plans, including employer-based retiree plans, would have to meet government standards, including benefit standards of the traditional Medicare program, plus new and much-needed protections against the costs of catastrophic illness.
- Plans would be offered like the Medicare Part D program, governed by existing Medicare insurance rules, meaning people could not be legally denied coverage or dropped merely because they are sick.
- Low-income Americans would be specially protected from unforeseen out-of-pocket cost hikes.
- All enrollees would benefit from an improved risk adjustment among plans in the competitive market to guarantee continuity of patient care and health-plan stability.
Use of the word “voucher,” with the accompanying mental picture of confused seniors wandering around with coupons in their hands, is merely a rhetorical scare tactic. It has no basis in fact.
2. The $6,400 Question
You’ve likely heard that reforming Medicare would cost seniors $6,400 out of pocket. This charge is based on a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis relating to an outdated version of Ryan’s budget proposal.
This figure is meaningless and misleading for two reasons. Not only has Ryan’s proposal changed significantly since then, but the CBO has also admitted that its estimates would be limited—because it cannot account for the effects of competition on prices.
As Heritage’s Rea Hederman reports, “CBO director Douglas Elmendorf has publicly acknowledged that his agency does not have the methodological tools to accurately model Medicare premium-support plans and the impact of market competition.”
The most recent academic analysis indicates that introducing premium support into Medicare could save 9 percent in annual costs. In addition to reducing Medicare spending across the board, the more important effect would be the competition between plans—giving people options for their coverage plans and saving individuals money.
Share this article with friends so we can put these falsehoods to rest and move the debate forward.
MORE:
Why Medicare Premium Support Would Not Cost Future Beneficiaries $6,400 More by Rea Hederman
Medicare Reform Myths Debunked from Heritage Action for America
In-Depth: Premium Support: Medicare’s Future and Its Critics by Robert Moffit
Be sure to watch the first of the presidential candidates' debate tonight!
No comments:
Post a Comment