Fact Check: Obamacare’s Medicare Cuts

  • Share
  • Read Later

Since the Romney-Ryan campaign is hammering the Obama-Biden ticket on the Affordable Care Act’s $716 billion in cuts to Medicare, it seems useful to put this figure in context and explain exactly what programs within Medicare lose funding under the health care law.

First, the context. The Congressional Budget Office estimates Medicare spending over the next 10 years will be about $7.5 trillion. This means the ACA’s Medicare cuts account for less than 10% of overall Medicare spending. The program is not being gutted. Even with the ACA cuts, the CBO says the cost of Medicare is expected to grow from about $500 billion in 2012 to nearly $900 billion by 2022.

As for the cuts, they come from eliminating a massive subsidy to private insurers and gradually reducing the rate of growth in payments to some providers. These changes, while not catastrophic for Medicare, are important. Under the ACA, the federal government will substantially reduce the amount it spends funding Medicare Advantage, which is privately administered insurance offered to Medicare beneficiaries. About one-quarter of Medicare recipients are enrolled in private Medicare Advantage. In theory, these plans are supposed to manage health care spending better than fee-for-service Medicare. But they don’t actually save the federal government any money. They cost, per patient, 14% more than traditional Medicare. (See Figure 3 of this fact sheet from the Kaiser Family Foundation. And see here for more.) The ACA eliminates this subsidy and pegs Medicare Advantage payments to quality metrics.

The second bunch of money that gets cut from Medicare under Obamacare comes from providers. Hospitals, home health agencies and others will see Medicare payments grow more slowly than they have in the past.

Medicare benefits will not change – in theory. However, providers who get paid less from Medicare in the future may be less inclined to accept Medicare patients, thereby reducing access. The frequently criticized Independent Payment Advisory Board, created by the ACA, could cut provider payments even more to keep the growth in Medicare spending under a benchmark. If Medicare per capita spending grows faster than a rate pegged to inflation and later GDP, IPAB will be empowered to recommend provider payment cuts. If Congress can’t find alternative ways to keep Medicare spending growth under the inflation or GDP benchmark, the IPAB recommendations will automatically go into effect. This too could reduce access. Bonus Medicare Advantage benefits – like free gym memberships – may go away.

In exchange for these kinds of reductions in Medicare spending, funding for the program was bolstered in other ways by the ACA. Preventive care is now covered at 100% for Medicare beneficiaries and a gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage will slowly close under the law. Some Medicare beneficiaries, primarily wealthy Americans, will pay higher Medicare premiums and taxes under the ACA.

The idea, however, that the Affordable Care Act struck a dangerous blow to Medicare that will change the program in fundamental ways is untrue. Under the new law, Medicare will remain a wildly popular, public single-payer health insurance system that provides comprehensive coverage to millions of Americans.

197 comments
BettsyRoss
BettsyRoss

My electric bill is up, my gas bill is up, my water bill is up, telephone bill is up, cable is up,( all because of Obama's hidden taxes on them), food is now shockingly so expensive especially fruit and vegetables, gas is high and now Obama cut my Medicare check.  I worked and paid into the system for 50 yrs. and deserve a decent check, not these young fat lazy people who just don't want to work, or aliens just coming into our country to get whatever they can for free. I pay almost $300. a month of my Medicare check for health care but Obama wants to give health care free to all the freeloaders and aliens.  Obama is destroying this country with this Chernobyl care but then again I believe that is his plan.

janeyz
janeyz

Someone please explain to me how we rank number 37 worldwide in healthcare but we have the highest cost in healthcare in the world?

RichHeckmann
RichHeckmann

Healthcare in this country has infuriated me for the past 40 years.  Why should employers pay for a good slice of an individual's health plan. Perhaps you haven't heard that many major corporations are now initiating an $8000 family deductible and still charging $500 a month for coverage. A family of 4 making something in the $50,000 range might just have a hard time dealing with that. I love the Tea Party alternative.....don't get healthcare. It's my right! Then tell me why an emergency room can't refuse anyone. Including the moochers. Who by the way, are responsible for doctors and hospitals charging more to cover those costs. The insurance companies aren't going to complain as they can take up to 25% of their premiums to cover administrative costs and profits. Medicare spends 95% on patients. Healthcare is something that potentially  effects each and everyone of us. Unless you sign an affidavit stating that under no conditions will I ever be helped by a doctor or hospital, seems fair that we all pay our fair share.

thgirbla
thgirbla

And yet there will be NO Medical Plan cuts to the Members of Congress or Barry in the coming years ???

polnick
polnick

Scarcity is the root of violence; a few crumbs must be thrown to the weak or they will rebel. Violence will continue until all know their feeding order in life’s jungle.  When a benevolent president is feely chosen, he will make sure that even the disabled have a roof over their heads and the means to survive.

xps420
xps420

Oh ,but did not Obama say that if his Obama care pasted it would only keep health care cost down and at lower prices?

Campbell_Glass
Campbell_Glass

Great!  And when's gonna come the piece on how Romney isn't cutting anything from Medicare?  (No changes for anyone over 55.)  When's gonna come that piece?

I won't be holding my breath.

Richard
Richard

I assume anyone  can declare themselves as a  FACTCHECKER these days.   So here goes:

FACTCHECK by yours truly:  The billions in Obamacare cuts to Medicare providers will never occur.    The billions will be borrowed and add to the national debt.  Go look at the DOC fix which never happens.  

max4374
max4374

Well done.  The most comprehensive explanation I have read.  Thank you.

MACV
MACV

Here are a few of the nations with some form of "Universal Health Care"

Norway, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, Belgium, United Kingdom, Kuwait, Sweden, Bahrain, Brunei, Canada, Netherlands, Austria, United Arab Emirates, Finland, Slovenia, Denmark, Luxembourg, France, Australia, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Cyprus, Greece, Spain, South Korea, Iceland, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, Israel .... 

United States 2014? Not if the Republicans have their way .... what is wrong with Americans?

DeeinColumbiaMD
DeeinColumbiaMD

The GOP has been trying to get rid of Medicare since the 60s. They do not now nor have they ever wanted to protect the program. What they want to do is to create a program that over time allow insurance companies syphin off the healthiest seniors by luring them with a cheaper plan so the govt plan will be stuck with sicker seniors and eventually implode under the weight since insurance is solvent because of the mix.

More importantly, the market share of Medicare allows it to drive the direction of health care insurance. Thru ACA amp; Medicare PBO has introduced a slow move away from fee for service towards practices that are both cheaper but produce better outcomes. The shift from paying for quantity of procedures to paying for quality or value of treatment will eventually save the money to keep Medicare solvent.

What's amazing is that the party that claims they're the party of free markets fails to understand basic market principles. PBO eliminates payments to industry because they failed provide the service at the cost from which they bid. He then plows that savings back into the program just like businesses plow profits back into their companies to expand. The GOP makes those same savings but instead of using it to strengthen the program they do exactly what they've accused the president of, they raid the program to pay for more tax cuts for the wealthy.

The GOP has no choice but to repeatedly lie because they can't sell their proposals to the average voter. When you call them out in it their supporters callyou names and repeat the lies in angrier voices but its still lies because they have nothing else to offer.

MACV
MACV

Here is the Romney-Ryan agenda FACT CHECKED BY 60 MINUTES ...Repealing the Affordable Care Act - which both Romney and Ryan have pledged to do - would re-open the so-called donut hole, a coverage gap in the Medicare drug benefit, which under the president's health-care plan is gradually closing. Further the non-partisan agency that reviews congressional budgets (CBO) also said keeping Obama's health care reforms in place would not mean a $716 billion decrease in Medicare spending, as claimed by Romney and his campaign ad, it would slow down the INCREASE in Medicare spending over 10 years. The nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation found that seniors would pay about $6,200 more for medical care under the Ryan plan.  And I don't even want to talk about the Ryan/Republican plan to cut $16 Billion Dollars from the Food Stamp Program. A program that feeds over 24 Million Whites, 8 Million Blacks and approximately 4 Million Hispanic/Asians. 

The addition of Ryan to the Romney ticket moves the debate beyond the budget and the economy into morality. The Ryan Plan is so damaging to social programs benefiting our poorest and most vulnerable citizens that it prompted the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to publicly blast the devout Catholic for not just tearing holes in the nation's safety net but for his "shredding of the nation’s moral obligations."

Informed Guy
Informed Guy

Whatever happened to U.S. News amp; World Report !?!

mcb0b
mcb0b

"However, providers who get paid less from Medicare in the future may be less inclined to accept Medicare patients, thereby reducing access."

It's already difficult to find someone who accepts Medicare in many areas.  The article glosses over this troubling aspect as if it's a non issue.  If you think it's not an issue you should first ask your doctor whether he or she is interested in taking on new medicare patients.  I think you'll be let down. 

politathiest
politathiest

Paul Ryan’s Medicare overhaul may be the most controversial part of his budget.But the proposed cuts to the program are not the biggest cuts in the plan.

As Ezra notes, Ryan’s cuts to Medicare “are only 60 percent as large as the cuts to Medicaid and other health-care programs.” What’s more, his biggest change to Medicare wouldn’t kick in until 2023—the start date for his voucher-based premium support program. By comparison, Ryan’s cuts to Medicaid are more drastic, and they start sooner: Between 2013 and 2022, it would make nearly $1.4 trillion in cuts to Medicaid that “would almost inevitably result in dramatic reductions in coverage” as well as enrollment, according to the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

Over the next 10 years, the Ryan plan would cut Medicaid by $642 billion by repealing the Affordable Care Act and by $750 billion through new caps on federal spending—a 34 percent cut to Medicaid spending over the next decade, according to Edwin Park of the Center and Budget and Policy Priorities.

Who would that impact? First, by overturning the ACA, the Ryan plan would prevent 11 million people from gaining Medicaid coverage by 2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest estimates.

At the same time, the Ryan plan would turn the entitlement program into a block-grant program. Currently, the federal government provides matching, open-ended funds to states, which each run their own Medicaid program. The Ryan plan would instead give states a block grant with a hard annual cap that would be adjusted to population growth and inflation, but it would not factor in rising health-care costs or economic conditions that impact state budgets. The result? Much less federal money. In exchange, states would have more flexibility to set the parameters for their Medicaid programs.

States could replace the money with state funds, but they’re unlikely to be willing or able to do so to any significant degree: State budgets remain tight. Similarly, states could try to get more bang for the buck by delivering care more efficiently, but Medicaid is already more efficient and better at driving down costs per capita than both private insurance and national health-care costs overall, as the Kaiser Family Foundation notes. Indeed, Medicaid costs much less, per person, than equivalent private insurance.

That’s why the CBO believes that $750 billion in Medicaid cuts under the Ryan plan would “probably require states to reduce payments to providers, curtail eligibility for Medicaid, provide less extensive coverage to beneficiaries, or pay more themselves than would be the case under current law.”

politathiest
politathiest

While Medicare is important , let's not forget the even more devestating effect to medicaid. Billions for overseas bases and Billionaires, but through the least under the bus-- Jesus weeps!

Paul Ryan’s Medicare overhaul may be the most controversial part of his budget.But the proposed cuts to the program are not the biggest cuts in the plan.

As Ezra notes, Ryan’s cuts to Medicare “are only 60 percent as large as the cuts to Medicaid and other health-care programs.” What’s more, his biggest change to Medicare wouldn’t kick in until 2023—the start date for his voucher-based premium support program. By comparison, Ryan’s cuts to Medicaid are more drastic, and they start sooner: Between 2013 and 2022, it would make nearly $1.4 trillion in cuts to Medicaid that “would almost inevitably result in dramatic reductions in coverage” as well as enrollment, according to the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

Over the next 10 years, the Ryan plan would cut Medicaid by $642 billion by repealing the Affordable Care Act and by $750 billion through new caps on federal spending—a 34 percent cut to Medicaid spending over the next decade, according to Edwin Park of the Center and Budget and Policy Priorities.

Who would that impact? First, by overturning the ACA, the Ryan plan would prevent 11 million people from gaining Medicaid coverage by 2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest estimates.

At the same time, the Ryan plan would turn the entitlement program into a block-grant program. Currently, the federal government provides matching, open-ended funds to states, which each run their own Medicaid program. The Ryan plan would instead give states a block grant with a hard annual cap that would be adjusted to population growth and inflation, but it would not factor in rising health-care costs or economic conditions that impact state budgets. The result? Much less federal money. In exchange, states would have more flexibility to set the parameters for their Medicaid programs.

States could replace the money with state funds, but they’re unlikely to be willing or able to do so to any significant degree: State budgets remain tight. Similarly, states could try to get more bang for the buck by delivering care more efficiently, but Medicaid is already more efficient and better at driving down costs per capita than both private insurance and national health-care costs overall, as the Kaiser Family Foundation notes. Indeed, Medicaid costs much less, per person, than equivalent private insurance.

That’s why the CBO believes that $750 billion in Medicaid cuts under the Ryan plan would “probably require states to reduce payments to providers, curtail eligibility for Medicaid, provide less extensive coverage to beneficiaries, or pay more themselves than would be the case under current law.”

If states maintained their current level of spending for each Medicaid patient, 19 million more people would have to be cut from the program in 2021 because of Ryan’s block-grant reform, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. If states managed to curb health-care spending growth in Medicaid, 14 million beneficiaries would still lose Medicaid coverage under the Ryan plan. And that’s on top of the 11 million Americans who would lose Medicaid coverage because the Ryan plan would repeal Obamacare. So all in all, Ryan’s cuts could mean as many as 30 million Medcaid beneficiaries lose their coverage.

politathiest
politathiest

My number below was for a little farther out but this $6300 is still bad for 2022. Voucher will cosy seniors less...BAAAHAAAAA. WHEN have conservs EVER offered plans that helped mid class or poor rather than rich.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEn...

politathiest
politathiest

My number was for a liitle farther out but this ones still bad. Vouchers will cost less.. baahaaa. When have conservs EVER proposed anything that will benefit mid class or poor!!?

The Obama campaign wasted no time before rolling out an attack ad featuring Floridian seniors voicing concerns about how Medicare cuts under Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan will affect them. But the ads raise questions about whether the Republican duo will really be "ending Medicare care as we know it" and increasing "seniors' health costs by $6,350 a year."

So ABCNews.com fact-checked the claims for you, and found that they're generally accurate given the information we have - assuming Romney embraces a plan that's similar to Ryan's budget proposal, that is.

In other words, they're somewhere between the truth and Stephen Colbert's "truthiness."

The dollar value in the Obama campaign statement comes from the Congressional Budget Office's long-term review of Paul Ryan's budget proposal published in April 2011. The report compares Ryan's proposal and the current Medicare system at several points in time, so ABCNews.com waded through the numbers to tell you what you need to know:

In 2022, Ryan's health plan is expected to save the government $615.38 per beneficiary compared with the current law (plus other possible policy changes), but it will cost those beneficiaries $6,358.97 more per person, according to the nonpartisan report. That's where the Obama campaign is getting its $6,350 number.

Here's a handy chart with data from the CBO report:

Costs in 2022 Ryan Proposal Current Law w/Expected Updates Difference Gov't Share $8,000.00 $8,615.38 ($615.38) Beneficiary Share $12,512.82 $6,153.85 $6,358.97 Total Cost $20,512.82 $14,769.23 $5,743.59

politathiest
politathiest

Ryans vouchers estimated to cost average 65 year old in decent shape an additional $9,734 in premium for policy to make up different. And Obama cut, ... no reapplication, .... no cost of repeal ( Romney can't figure what it really is cause he's already lied about what it is). But that small amount is gona hurt seniors and vouchers won't. Baaa haaaaaa haaaaaaa haaaaa, (choke, spat) HAAAAA , Bahaaaaaaaaaa... Stop please..... Your delusions are killing me.....I better get medical help.........i before Romney takes over! Bahaaaaa

John Smitson
John Smitson

We will never reduce medical costs until we rein in the lawyers! The reason for all the expensive tests that were never really needed is to cover the doctors ass when he gets sued! And dont forget the exorbinate mal-practice insurance costs due to the out of control lawyers!

shmtime
shmtime

Kate Pickert's precision in discussing how ACA and Medicare funding work is much appreciated. 

kjerry
kjerry

BL, I must not have hit reply as I was attempting to respond to the author's assertion that the Affordable Care Act struck a dangerous blow to Medicare that will change the program in fundamental ways, is untrue". That's the comment I was originally talking about.

However, why would it being a consumer protection focused law make it good law?

As you may have determined, I do not believe the ACA is good law as I believe the government should only do those things necessary to support the free market or that the free market cannot do. I favor a far more limited government than most on this site. I have read a great deal of the ACA (no not the whole 2700 pages), and I have read the Ryan plan, not off of right wing sites. Also, I have 35 years experience as a healthcare executive running hospitals, physician groups and a small HMO for a time. In my opinion Ryan's plan is far superior to tha ACA. The reason for me is that Ryan attempts to get free market principles reintroduced into the healthcare system. If we are to ever get a handle on healthcare costs, It's my belief that free market competition and choice (my personal choice, not the governments) will over time drive down prices, but only if you let it work and not throw hundreds of obstacles (well intended laws, the thousands of pages of regulations still being written, etc.) in the way.

To my mind, the issues are economic, not legal. It matters little what the ACA says today 2012 when the regs, which will be written and rewritten over the ensuing 10, 20, 30 years along with all the reactions to it by citizens will determine what happens. This post is long enough, so I'll go look at your Healthcare.org website

kjerry
kjerry

I would submit that the author has no way of knowing (nor do you) whether the above comment is true or untrue. It is an opinion, the truth of which will only be known years after the program has been in effect. All the players; hospitals, physicians, medical suppliers, drug companies, the bureaucrats in the many new agencies, and perhaps most importantly the consumers will act so as to protect their interest. No one really knows how it will turn out. Those who believe the government will take care of them and love big government have a set of beliefs. Those who believe that government should stay out of anything which the free market can readily provide have another set of beliefs. I guess we'll see who is right, maybe.

jsfox
jsfox

Umm  because we we are talking about the changes for those under 55. And how the Romney/Ryan plan will end -up costing seniors more and will more than likely not come close to covering their medical needs.

Campbell_Glass
Campbell_Glass

We don't like socialism.  What is wrong with you?

Furthermore, if those countries have it so good, what are you still doing here?

Campbell_Glass
Campbell_Glass

Anyone who spells syphon as "syphin" is not to be listened to.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

 Don't be a stranger, Dee.  We miss you!

MACV
MACV

The "providers" accepted the reduction in payments because they realized that President Obama's ACA plan would bring in MORE PATIENTS (i.e. consumers)!

Campbell_Glass
Campbell_Glass

You understand that Bill Clinton actually DID rape a woman, right?

Campbell_Glass
Campbell_Glass

How 'bout the Bush tax cuts?  Those helped the poor, middle-class and rich.  But you're just a moron, so you wouldn't know about that.

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

There is no cure for your kind of psychosis.  Would you like to use my gun?

MACV
MACV

kjerry ~ you love the "free market", well it's not free, someone always pays;  let me put it to you this way. 

CAPITALISM is another form of Cancer.  It must continue to expand in order to keep the stock-holders happy. And in doing so it must continue to increase its profits. Therefore Capitalism dictates that an organization seeks the most profits wherever it can, however it can (by eliminating employees and company sponsored health-care and pension programs and by moving to another part of the body, er I mean planet to exploit; like China) .... eventually killing the host! 

(DO YOU SEE THE PARALLEL'S ?)

"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." - John Maynard Keynes 

politathiest
politathiest

No offense but all claims of "expertise" is questioned here. Experts on both sided of this issue come up with different conclussions. The facts are current "market based systems have failed, some use bogus "lawsuit" claim to explain high costs when in reality, other than systems like Kaiser, doctors get paid more for doing more proceedures. Add to this which is rarely discussed, wages of doctors as whole have increased about 2-3% higher than inflation. When looked at by "fields" the increases seem less until you look at fact that overal doctors, especially outa school aren't going into "family practice" but choosing much more lucrative "specialties". We also know upper level insurance and hospital wages have grown. These factors have to be addressed. You can't have even 2-3% annual increases when society at large income have been stagnant for a decade. ACA may not be perfect, but we've already gone from 7%gdp in 70s to closing in on 20%., something has to be done and everybody involved in industry is suspect.

oldprofessor
oldprofessor

I was lucky enough to be employed by the Federal Government late in my career and was eligible for FEHB:

http://www.opm.gov/insure/heal...

If the ACA is patterned after FEHB and I think the  Insurance Exchanges coupled with  the ability to change private insurance policies on a annual basis without being stuck with  limitations due to pre-existing conditions will provide a similar business environment.  The private companies will offer their deals in a standard format that makes for easier comparisons. 

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

Great summary, but good luck in trying to get those who are complete Obamabots to understand let alone comprehend.  

We now live in an entitlement society.  Everyone expects the government to provide for their needs and individual responsibility is thrown out with the dish water.  

But one fact is certain.  The level of entitlements we have today including ObamaCare is not sustainable.  No amount of taxes from all those "big fat cat bankers" or Wall Street tycoons is ever going to come close to paying for it all even if they taxed them all 100% of earnings.  

It is so sad to see a once great country that prided itself on individual ingenuity, hard work, and self worth fall to the fairytales and unicorn stories as told by the socialist dreamers of the great Utopia that socialism will bring to the masses.  

I remember a time when people actually took cash to the doctor for treatment.  ANd before that, a couple chickens to set a broken arm for Johnny.  When people paid out of their pockets for a hospitalization.  Then we moved to a major medical insurance plan, and seniors those seniors on a very low fixed income and poverty were provided with a safe guard called Medicare.  Employers began to offer more extensive coverage as a benefit package and the rest is history.  

The ONLY thing which will drive down the high cost of healthcare is for people to live healthier lifestyles and not require treatment, and for people to pay out of their own pockets for their treatment or insurance.  When you put government into the mix, the costs and fees will continue to rise uncontrollably.  Free market forces and competition is the only thing which will drive down costs.  

LiberalLies2012
LiberalLies2012

One thing is very true.  Barry Hussein Soetoro-Obama, Nancy Pukelosi, and Harry "I Lie" Reid ALL screwed seniors out of 716 BILLION dollars.  That fact is indisputable.

They have transferred funding that was in Medicare Advantage over to ObamaCare.  Simple fact.  

The rest I will agree.  We learn daily new things about the 2,700 page document that is now called ObamaCare.  We also know over the next 5 years until the implementation is supposed to be completed in 2017 that many more thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Government rules and regulations will be written by Bureaucrats in Washington giving their interpretation of the law.  That is also a fact.

That is why Nancy Pelosi said "But we will have to pass the [health care ] bill so that you can find out what is in it".  

Don't believe me, watch her for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Benevolent Lawyer
Benevolent Lawyer

I do not agree. It is not a question of big or small government. The ACA just like Romneycare is a consumer protection focused law.  It is a good law.

On the other hand, the Ryan plan is focused on cost control and shifting most of the cost to the consumer. You should check out the Healthcare.org site. It has the full text of the plan and explains a lot of stuff.

jsfox
jsfox

This has to be the stupidest statement ever. If these nations can offer their citizens equal if not better healthcare. And they can do it, in some cases, at half the cost. Why shouldn't we take a serious look at their models? And from a competitive stand point how long can we as country support a healthcare system that in a decade will eat up 25% of our GDP? How do our businesses compete internationally against businesses that do not have to bear the cost of their employees health insurance? 

DeeinColumbiaMD
DeeinColumbiaMD

Only the simple minded, authoritarian mindset or those incapable of mounting an adequate defense clings to typos, font sizes or grammatical deficiencies to parry an attack.

DeeinColumbiaMD
DeeinColumbiaMD

Hey, I've been practicing my short form in the twitterverse. But I'll be stopping by.

mcb0b
mcb0b

Accepted implies they negotiated.  What really happens is they get a letter saying "Here's what we'll pay.  If you don't take it we'll say you abandoned your patients."

I also hate to break it to you but doctors aren't short on patients, at least paying patients and those with adequate insurance, and if they were I still doubt they'd be running  a Cheap Charley's Volume Discount Thoracic Surgery Center.  Your theory does, however, apply to most everything else lately.

KattoTang
KattoTang

Just keep throwing those red herrings in there...

JZimm09
JZimm09

Instead of writing very much, why don't you just tell people to refer to the Fox talking points since that's where you're really coming from.

politathiest
politathiest

Ryans vouchers estimated to cost average 65 year old in decent shape an additional $9,734 in premium for policy to make up different. And Obama cut, ... no reapplication, .... no cost of repeal ( Romney can't figure what it really is cause he's already lied about what it is). But that small amount is gona hurt seniors and vouchers won't. Baaa haaaaaa haaaaaaa haaaaa, (choke, spat) HAAAAA , Bahaaaaaaaaaa... Stop please..... Your delusions are killing me.....I better get medical help.........i before Romney takes over! Bahaaaaa

robbobrob
robbobrob

Welfare queen. "Obama is cutting my welfare. Waaaa. Obama isn't socialist enough. Waaaa" Get a job, hippy.

kjerry
kjerry

BL, tried your website recommendation. It's just a site where one can shop for healthcare insurance plans (Healthcare.org). There is no full text of any plan, did I miss something?