posted July 16, 2010 08:45 PM         

The timing of his call for a moratorium on new federal regulations is impeccable.

He waited until the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico reached such catastrophic proportions that even people who hate regulations now crave them. He waited until the day after the Senate passed the hugely popular sweeping reform to regulate the fat cats on Wall Street. In fact, he even waited until regulations got popular with the public. He even waited until health care started becoming popular again - with a clear majority against repeal.

The Republicans in the Senate have elevated saying "no" to an art form.

The Republicans in the Senate said no to unemployment benefits, no to aid to the states, no to creating jobs, no to standing up to Wall Street. They have been talking a lot recently about extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich - no matter how much that increases the deficit - but they won't extend unemployment benefits because that will increase the deficit.

In response, Speaker Nancy Pelosi fired back in a blog on Friday afternoon: “Instead of standing up for American workers, their families and small businesses who have been burned by Wall Street, Big Banks and Big Oil – Boehner wants to give ‘breathing room’ to the special interests. The Bush-Republican decision to take the referee off the field is what led to the most serious fiscal crisis since the Great Depression.”

The moratorium on regulations would derail new rules to protect children from unsafe bassinets and cradles, new consumer protections for air travelers, and establishment of a public website disclosing federal contract information, she said.

Boosted by recent polls giving them a shot at taking back the House in November elections, Republicans are convinced that a 10 percent unemployment rate will eclipse all other aspects of the Obama agenda. GOP candidates are focusing their campaigns around jobs and the economy – an issue they say Democrats have sidelined in their rush to overhaul health care and Wall Street regulation

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0716/GOP-s-jobs-ideas-Keep-Bu sh-tax-cuts-freeze-regulations http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-rome/boehners-big-idea_b_649761.html

This is thickly, sickly, hilarious. Is he also hoping discernment and rationality are eclipsed?

posted July 16, 2010 11:05 PM         

Further, Fannie and Freddie were creations of demoscats who used them as reelection piggy banks.

posted July 16, 2010 11:14 PM         

It seems so much simpler when you put it that way.

most financial analysis's of the situation have this in the lead:

posted July 16, 2010 11:36 PM         

Carter created the Community Reinvestment Act. Kommander Korruption expanded the Act and his Attorney General Janet Reno threatened banks and other mortgage lenders to make them lend to credit unworthy borrowers. In the meantime demoscats were getting millions in campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie and demoscats were bilking the institutions out of about 150 million in bonuses by cooking the books. Fannie and Freddie were buying the sub prime mortgages from another demoscat institution who were writing loans...ACORN. Fannie and Freddie were packaging up those sub prime mortgages and selling them to banks and other lenders who sold derivatives based on those loans called Credit Default Swaps.

3 times between 2001 and 2008 Republicans attempted to rein in Fannie and Freddie with common sense regulations but demoscats screeched, whined, howled and shrieked that there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie. In July 2008, Barney Frank was shrieking that Fannie and Freddie were solvent and there wasn't a problem there. In September 2008, Fannie and Freddie were so insolvent the US government had to step in and take them over. In the meantime, those derivatives sold against those sub prime loans which Fannie and Freddie bought and then resold to banks and others caused huge losses as sub prime loan defaults overwhelmed the banks.

That cost American taxpayers about 3 trillion dollars between TARP and the Federal Reserve bailing banks and other lenders out.

That's just how simple it was. This collapse has demoscat fingerprints all over it...including O'Bomber's, Barney Franks, Maxine Waters and Chris Dodd.

The very same people who caused the problem with the financial system collapse wrote the new financial regulations bill.

Everyone should be sooo relieved.

Oh but wait, it gets even better.

posted July 17, 2010 12:08 AM         

when I read post's such as this I free fall down a worm hole into an alternate reality.

posted July 17, 2010 01:16 PM         

Jwhop, your oversimplification of the financial crisis is as astounding. Fully half of the subprime lending was done by mortgage companies not beholden to CRA whatsoever.

Wikipedia's gathered a lot of the contributing factors here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932010

posted July 23, 2010 02:12 PM         

quote:

---

There’s now a concerted effort under way to rehabilitate Mr. Bush’s image on at least three fronts: the economy, the deficit and the war.

---

from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=1&src=tp

On the economy: Last week Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, declared that “there’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy.” So now the word is that the Bush-era economy was characterized by “vibrancy.”

I guess it depends on the meaning of the word “vibrant.” The actual record of the Bush years was
(i) two and half years of declining employment, followed by
(ii) four and a half years of modest job growth, at a pace significantly below the eight-year average under Bill Clinton, followed by
(iii) a year of economic catastrophe. In 2007, at the height of the “Bush boom,” such as it was, median household income, adjusted for inflation, was still lower than it had been in 2000.

But the Bush apologists hope that you won’t remember all that.

and that President Obama, though not yet in office or even elected, caused the 2008 slump. I have read this many times on these very pages

On the deficit: Republicans are now claiming that the Bush administration was actually a paragon of fiscal responsibility, and that the deficit is Mr. Obama’s fault. “The last year of the Bush administration,” said Mr. McConnell recently, “the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product was 3.2 percent, well within the range of what most economists think is manageable. A year and a half later, it’s almost 10 percent.”

But that 3.2 percent figure, it turns out, is for fiscal 2008 — which wasn’t the last year of the Bush administration, because it ended in September of 2008. In other words, it ended just as the failure of Lehman Brothers — on Mr. Bush’s watch — was triggering a broad financial and economic collapse.

By the first quarter of 2009 — with only a trickle of stimulus funds flowing — federal borrowing had already reached almost 9 percent of G.D.P. To some of us, this says that the economic crisis that began under Mr. Bush is responsible for the great bulk of our current deficit. But the Republican Party is having none of it.

Finally, on the war: For most Americans, the whole debate about the war is old if painful news — but not for those obsessed with refurbishing the Bush image. Karl Rove now claims that his biggest mistake was letting Democrats get away with the “shameful” claim that the Bush administration hyped the case for invading Iraq. Let the whitewashing begin!

posted September 19, 2010 05:40 PM         

House Republican Leader John Boehner's office issued a "Leader Alert" titled "10 Facts Every American Should Know About Speaker Pelosi's 1,990-Page Govt Takeover of Health Care."

MASSIVE CUTS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR SENIORS. Despite grave warnings from CBO, FactCheck.org, and the independent Lewin Group that cuts to Medicare of the magnitude included in Speaker Pelosi's bill would have a negative impact on seniors' benefits and choices, Speaker Pelosi's health care bill stays the course and cuts Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars.

quote:

---

We never have said that seniors would suffer "massive cuts to Medicare benefits" under the pending House or Senate overhaul bills, and in fact have done our best to debunk claims to that effect. The only seniors who might see cuts are those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, about 22 percent of the Medicare population. Currently, many of those seniors receive a bit more in benefits than regular Medicare fee-for-service patients - perhaps a gym membership, a pair of eyeglasses, a reduced premium. But, as we've written, Medicare pays the private companies that administer Medicare Advantage about 14 percent more per beneficiary than it does for the rest of Medicare beneficiaries, who wind up subsidizing the program, according to government analysts.

If current law didn't change, the value of the additional benefits given under Medicare Advantage would amount to about $85 per senior per month in 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office. If the Senate bill passed (and the House bill is similar on this point), that would be reduced to about $42 per month. But under no circumstances would any senior receive less in benefits than the other 78 percent of the Medicare population.

We're sure seniors who see benefit cuts of any kind won't be happy about it. But to characterize these as "massive cuts," and our article (as well as CBO's analysis) as a "grave warning" is simply rubbish.

We asked Boehner's office to take our name out of the document, but spokesman Michael Steel said: "I'm not inclined to do so," and invited us to send an e-mail further making our case. We are doing so.

What are Boehner and Steele thinking? Are they really under the impression that they have no responsibility to correct this gross misrepresentation of the facts? Or do they have such loose relationships with the truth that they simply don't care? Either way, it's up to us to let them both know that we won't stand for these kinds of blatant lies and it's time for them to own up to this enormous "mistake", publicly retract those false statements, and apologize to FactCheck.org and the American public for distorting the truth (again).

Please take a moment to sign this petition and send a letter to Boehner and Steele demanding the truth, and a public apology to FactCheck.org for skewing their findings

---

posted September 19, 2010 10:08 PM         

Of course leftist O'Bomber Kool-Aid drinkers would believe removing half a trillion dollares will improve care for Medicare patients and won't lead to rationing or outright denial of medical services for Medicare patients.

posted September 19, 2010 10:28 PM         

Wrong so wrong it is silly, and old news.

quote:

---

The Affordable Care Act Strengthens Medicare Without Cutting Benefits

FactCheck.org: "None Of The 'Savings' Or 'Cuts' (Whichever You Prefer) Come From Reducing Current Or Future Benefit Levels For Seniors." According to FactCheck.org, "The House bill would trim projected increases in payments for hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and others, including home health care providers and suppliers of motor-driven wheelchairs. But it also proposes what CBO estimates is a $245 billion increase in spending for doctors, by canceling a scheduled 21 percent cut in physician payments. None of the 'savings' or 'cuts' (whichever you prefer) come from reducing current or future benefit levels for seniors." [FactCheck.org, accessed 9/9/09]

Health Care Reform "Will Keep Paying Medical Bills For Seniors." According to PoliFact.com: "The government-run Medicare program will keep paying medical bills for seniors, but it will begin implementing cost controls on health care providers, mostly through penalties and incentives. The legislation would reduce payments for hospital-acquired infections or preventable hospital admissions. For Medicare Advantage, the federal government intends to reduce extra payments, taking away subsidies to private insurance companies. Insurers will likely cut benefits in order to not lose profits. The bill does not address the 'doctor's fix,' an expected proposal that Congress usually passes to prevent doctors' Medicare payments from severe cuts." [PoliFact.com, 3/18/10; emphasis in original]

CBO: Cost Changes To Medicare Made From Savings. According to the CBO: "Changes to the Medicare program and changes to Medicaid and CHIP other than those associated directly with expanded insurance coverage: Savings from those provisions are estimated to total $93 billion in 2019, and CBO projects that, in combination, they will increase by 10 percent to 15 percent per year in the next decade." [CBO.gov, 10/7/09]

Changes To Medicare Advantage Come With Extra Benefits For All Medicare Enrollees. FactCheck.org reported: "The CBO has estimated that the move would change the value of the extra benefits Medicare Advantage participants get, but they would not receive fewer benefits than the rest of seniors who aren't on the Advantage plans. The bill does add some extras for Medicare beneficiaries, eliminating copays and deductibles for preventive services, for example." [FactCheck.org, 12/2/09, emphasis added]

Health Care Reform Fills The "Doughnut Hole." According to the Kaiser Family Foundation: "In 2010, Part D enrollees with any spending in the coverage gap will receive a $250 rebate. Beginning in 2011, enrollees with spending in the coverage gap will receive a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs, provided by the pharmaceutical industry. The law phases in Medicare coverage in the gap for generic drugs beginning in 2011, and for brand-name drugs beginning in 2013. By 2020, Part D enrollees will be responsible for 25 percent of the cost of both brands and generics in the gap, down from 100 percent in 2010." [Kaiser Family Foundation, accessed 8/25/10]

Health Care Reform Improves Medicare's Coverage Of Preventative Benefits. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation: "Beginning in 2011, no coinsurance or deductibles will be charged in traditional Medicare for preventive services that are rated A or B by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Medicare will cover a free annual comprehensive wellness visit and personalized prevention plan." [Kaiser Family Foundation, accessed 8/25/10]

Click HERE for the hypocrisy for details on the trillions of dollars Republicans have voted to cut from Medicare.

---

posted September 21, 2010 08:15 AM         

Factcheck??? My Gawd, let's add factcheck to the list of those who didn't read the O'BomberCare bill...which would include Socialist comrades in the House and Senate. Of course it's not unusual to find factcheck lacking in knowledge...or simply lying through their teeth for their current leftist cause.

Factcheck, the political arm of the Annenberg Trust which gave about $50 million or so to O'Bomber and his domestic terrorist bomber communist friend Bill Ayers to push Saul Alinski street thug tactics to school kids in Chicago...instead of pushing math, english, science etc.

But, here's a guy who read the bill talking at the so called Health Care Summit...and no one, not O'Bomber, not Pee-Lousy, not Reid, not one demoscat challenged what he told them.

posted September 21, 2010 08:28 AM         

This is Max Baucus...the guy who supposedly WROTE O'BomberCare for the US Senate version.

Baucus now ADMITS...he didn't read the O'BomberCare Bill either. Didn't read it and sure as hell doesn't know what's in O'BomberCare...because he didn't read it.

video http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/28/democratic-sen-max-baucus-admits-he-didnt-read-health-care-bill-video/

Of course Nancy Pee-Lousy has already ADMITTED neither she nor her Socialist comrades in the House read the O'BomberCare Bill before voting on it.

Here's Pee-Lousy...with her gross stupidity on display for everyone to see.

posted September 21, 2010 09:41 AM         

The cuts to Medicare votes just in the last 5 years by Republicans from the above Hypocrisy link.

quote:

---

109th Congress: January 3, 2005 - January 3, 2007
House
109th Congress (membership exceeds 435 due to at-large members, resignations, etc.)
204 Democrats
1 Independent
236 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 109th Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

This House session did not cast votes pertaining specifically to Medicare cuts.

Senate
109th Congress (membership exceeds 100 due to resignations, etc.)
45 Democrats
1 Independent
55 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 109th Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

50 Republican Senators Voted To Cut Medicare By $6.4 Billion. 50 Republican Senators voted in favor of the budget reconciliation bill that cut funding for Medicare by $6.4 billion by requiring that beneficiaries purchase medical equipment and cutting payments to home health care providers. The motion passed 50-50, with Vice President Cheney casting the deciding vote. [S. 1932, Vote #363, 12/21/05]

50 Republican Senators Cut $5.78 Billion From Medicare. 50 Republican Senators voted in favor of passage of a Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Resolution that would cut $5.78 billion from Medicare. The legislation passed 52-47. [S. 1932, Vote #303, 11/3/05]

110th Congress: January 3, 2007 - January 3, 2009
House
110th Congress (membership exceeds 435 due to at-large members, resignations, etc.)
246 Democrats
0 Independents
207 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 110th Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

59 House Republicans Voted To Cut $20 Billion From Medicare Physician Reimbursement. In 2008, 59 House Republicans voted to maintain a 10.6% scheduled cut in reimbursement rates for doctors serving patients who receive Medicare. The motion passed. [Kaiser Health News, 7/16/08; HR 6331, Vote #443, 6/24/08]

Senate
110th Congress (membership exceeds 100 due to resignations, etc.)
49 Democrats
2 Independents
51 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 110th Congress, accessed 12/7/09]

This Senate session did not cast votes pertaining specifically to Medicare cuts.

111th Congress: January 3, 2009 - January 3, 2011
House
111th Congress, 1st Session (membership exceeds 435 due to at-large members, resignations, etc.)
267 Democrats
0 Independents
178 Republicans
[Projects.WashingtonPost.com, 111th Congress - 1st Session, accessed 12/7/09]

172 House Republicans Voted To Cut $210 Billion From Medicare Physician Reimbursement. In 2009, 172 House Republicans voted against blocking "a 21 percent cut scheduled to take effect in January 2010, and increase the payment rate based on the Medicare economic index." The vote would have restored $210 billion in scheduled physician reimbursements. The measure failed. [Congressional Quarterly, accessed 12/4/09; New York Times, 11/19/09; HR 3961; Vote #909, 11/19/09]

Senate
111th Congress, 1st Session (membership exceeds 100 due to resignations, etc.)
62 Democrats
2 Independents
42 Republicans
[Projects

---

posted September 23, 2010 08:19 PM         

John Boehner At GOP 'Pledge For America' Unveiling:
Privatizing Social Security Is Still On The Table (VIDEO below)

quote:

---

Republican leaders were short on specifics at the unveiling of their much-anticipated governing agenda today at a hardware store in Virginia, stressing that the document is not comprehensive and meant to just outline "first steps" of what they would do if they take back the majority in Congress.

One item noticeably missing from the Pledge is an explanation of how the party would cut spending, particularly by dealing with Social Security and Medicare, which many Republicans have publicly said need to be cut and privatized, although they've been reluctant to embrace such measures as an official party position. (Social Security is mentioned just twice, and Medicare mentioned eight times.)

In today's "Pledge for America" press conference, Boehner refused to answer reporters' questions with specifics about how the party would cut spending -- saying instead that the country needs to have an "adult conversation" about the issues -- although he eventually admitted that cuts to entitlement programs are still on the table:

Q: What are you actually going to cut? Are you willing to go in and cut entitlements, which of course is where the real money is?

BOEHNER: If we're going to deal with deficits and we're going to be honest with the American people, we have to cut spending and we need real economic growth in America that puts more Americans back to work caring for themselves and caring for their families. And you can't have real economic growth in America if you insist on raising taxes on the American people.

Q: There are not very many specifics in here about how you would actually get to the balanced budget if you do plan to extend all the tax cuts and expand defense spending. Again, just to follow up on the previous question, there's really no specifics on what you would do about Social Security and Medicare, which are some of the biggest drivers of deficit spending. So could you give us more detail on exactly how you could fulfill these pretty big promises, and spending caps don't seem like they would do it?

BOEHNER: Well, I think it's pretty clear that by having the spending cap at 2008 levels, we can save $100 billion a year -- that's one $1 trillion over the next 10 years. When it comes to dealing with the entitlement programs, I've made it pretty clear: It's time for us to have an adult conversation with each other about the serious challenges that face our country. I don't have all of the solutions, but I believe if we work with the American people, the American people will want to work with us to come to grips with these challenges that face our country.

Q: What are we to think of ideas that are not included in here, for example, private accounts for Social Security? Since it's not in here, is that to say it's off the table?
BOEHNER: No. If you look at the Pledge, it's not intended to be a party platform. It's not intended to cover everything under the sun. ... It's about what needs to be done now -- first steps toward real fiscal sanity in Washington, D.C. and real steps about getting our economy moving again and getting people back to work.

When the reporter followed up and asked what "percentage of the problem, in terms of our deficit, is being taken care of by this plan," Boehner said, "What we intend to do is take first steps, and those first steps would be to reduce spending to 2008 levels, saving $100 billion a year, our commitment to put ourselves on a course to balance the budget and to pay down the debt."

One provision in the GOP's Pledge is a requirement that every bill contains "a citation from Constitutional authority," picking up on the conservative complaint that health care reform is unconstitutional. At the press conference, a reporter asked Boehner, "Would you speak for a minute about the pledge to give a sort of constitutional test to all legislation, and talk about where in the Constitution is states that Congress should have to follow that test for legislature?" Boehner didn't really have a reply for this question, just saying that he believes most Americans "believe Washington is involved in far too many things." "And so I believe, if we're going to bring a bill to the floor, cite the specific constitutional authority that allows it to come to the floor," he added

---

I have a thread further down this page about how well Social Security is doing, and how fully vested it is to paying everyone until 2039! Which is why the Conservatives want the money so badly. They have a proved track record of fiscal irresponsibility are we not taxed [stolen from] enough? Do we not pay Mr Boneheads salary?
And lets not even get into the fact that it is unconstitutional to ask for an income tax anyway...the corporate tax which is constitutionally legal brings in half of what income tax pays into the coffers and they want to privatize one of the only means of support some people PAY INTO! URRHAHH~~

Though the GOP has backed off the middle class tax cut expiration due to a major hew and cry from the base here they go again!
alright rant over for the time being here is the vid

Pledge to America

posted September 24, 2010 09:04 AM         

David Korn of Mother Jones wrote an article

showing what is not in the retro era pledge

quote:

---

Below is a list of words and phrases and the number of times they are each mentioned in the 45-page "Pledge."

Wall Street: 0
Bank: 0
Finance: 0
Mortgage crisis: 0
Derivative: 0
Subprime: 0
Lobbying: 0
Lobbyist: 0
K Street: 0
Campaign finance: 0
Campaign contribution: 0
Campaign donation: 0
Disclosure: 0
Climate change: 0
Environment: 1 ("political environment")
Alternative energy: 0
Renewable: 0
Green: 0
Transportation: 0
Infrastructure: 0
Poverty: 0
Food: 0
Food safety: 0
Housing: 0
Internet: 0
Education: 0
College: 0
Reading: 0
Science: 0
Research: 0
Technology: 0
Bush administration: 0

That list is as telling as the actual contents.

---

posted October 06, 2010 09:19 AM         

by economist Paul Krugman

quote:

---

...For these days one of America’s two great political parties routinely makes equally nonsensical promises. Never mind the war on terror, the party’s main concern seems to be the war on arithmetic. And this party has a better than even chance of retaking at least one house of Congress this November.

Banana republic, here we come.

---

• House Republicans released their “Pledge to America,” supposedly outlining their policy agenda. In essence, what they say is, “Deficits are a terrible thing. Let’s make them much bigger.” The document repeatedly condemns federal debt — 16 times, by my count. But the main substantive policy proposal is to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which independent estimates say would add about $3.7 trillion to the debt over the next decade — about $700 billion more than the Obama administration’s tax proposals.
  
• 
  True, the document talks about the need to cut spending. But as far as I can see, there’s only one specific cut proposed — canceling the rest of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which Republicans claim (implausibly) would save $16 billion. That’s less than half of 1 percent of the budget cost of those tax cuts. As for the rest, everything must be cut, in ways not specified — “except for common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops.” In other words, Social Security, Medicare and the defense budget are off-limits.
• So what’s left? Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math. As he points out, the only way to balance the budget by 2020, while simultaneously (a) making the Bush tax cuts permanent and (b) protecting all the programs Republicans say they won’t cut, is to completely abolish the rest of the federal government: “No more national parks, no more Small Business Administration loans, no more export subsidies, no more N.I.H. No more Medicaid (one-third of its budget pays for long-term care for our parents and others with disabilities). No more child health or child nutrition programs. No more highway construction. No more homeland security. Oh, and no more Congress.”

quote:

---

The “pledge,” then, is nonsense. But isn’t that true of all political platforms? The answer is, not to anything like the same extent. Many independent analysts believe that the Obama administration’s long-run budget projections are somewhat too optimistic — but, if so, it’s a matter of technical details. Neither President Obama nor any other leading Democrat, as far as I can recall, has ever claimed that up is down, that you can sharply reduce revenue, protect all the programs voters like, and still balance the budget.

And the G.O.P. itself used to make more sense than it does now. Ronald Reagan’s claim that cutting taxes would actually increase revenue was wishful thinking, but at least he had some kind of theory behind his proposals. When former President George W. Bush campaigned for big tax cuts in 2000, he claimed that these cuts were affordable given (unrealistic) projections of future budget surpluses. Now, however, Republicans aren’t even pretending that their numbers add up.

So how did we get to the point where one of our two major political parties isn’t even trying to make sense?

---

posted October 07, 2010 12:14 PM         

The language in these articles often need a decoder ring, for me anyway.... The language is a meld between legalese and insurancebabble-- which results in an incomprehensible [at times] soup. The language makes it sound like people will be languishing at home in bed with infections contracted by a recent hospital stay, with no help for expensive recovery.

My understanding was that the infected will not be penalized with the costs, as has happened in the past....

so I put that sentence in a search box and found a few links that quoted it...here is one reply:

quote:

---

"There Are No Cuts To The Traditional Medicare Benefit." As reported by Reuters:

There are no cuts to the traditional Medicare benefit. The lion's share of spending cuts are in Medicare Advantage -- a program that uses private firms such as Humana and UnitedHealth Group to deliver Medicare benefits. Many of these providers offer extra coverage and some of those extras could be dropped as Medicare Advantage subsidies are bought more in line with the cost of traditional Medicare benefits. Medicare Advantage payment rates will be frozen in 2011 and then gradually reduced giving companies time to adjust to the changes. [Reuters, 3/22/10]

No Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries Would Be Affected. From Kaiser Health News:

The three-quarters of beneficiaries who receive traditional Medicare benefits would not be affected by the change. However, for those in Advantage plans, they may have fewer to choose from. "You are going to start seeing companies dropping out," said Robert Moffit, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. [Kaiser Health News, 4/6/10]
Medicare "Cuts" Are Actually Savings From Phasing Out "Substantial Overpayment" To Medicare Advantage

---

from

Boehner's AEI Speech Perpetuates Health Care Lies