BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG
We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
verse of the day
You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.
- John 8:32
voice of the day
You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you odd.
-Flannery O'Connor
prayer of the day
Lord, may your truth make us both free and odd in a world that breeds bondage and demands conformity. Amen.
OBAMACARE. The very mention of the ACA / Affordable Care Act can set repiglicans and tea-baggers off on a foaming at the mouth, spit flying rampage. While that is all some of their supporters need to justify their voluntary ignorance and racist hatred, others need lies, deception and manipulation to make their voluntary ignorance and racist hatred more acceptable to themselves and those like them. Here are two examples of the continuing lies, manipulation, deception and fear started by greedy fascist pig koch brother's american action forum being spread on the internet by anonymous cowards and the blatantly fascist, racist and hateful karl rove's & ed (lost the VA Senate race) gillespie's american crossroads organization. From +PolitiFact .....
As a result of Obamacare, "California seniors face benefit cuts of over $1,700."
By Lauren Carroll on Friday, October 31st, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.
A recent American Crossroads ad attacks Rep. Ami Bera, D-Calif., for supporting Obamacare.
Even though Rep. Ami Bera, D-Calif., wasn’t in office when
Obamacare passed, a pro-Republican ad in California’s seventh
congressional district is using the law to attack him.
Bera is running against Republican Doug Ose for a second term, and
it’s a tight race. Less than six months into his first term, Bera voted against
repealing the Affordable Care Act, and American Crossroads, Karl Rove’s
conservative political action committee, used this fact to appeal to
California seniors in a recent ad.
"Bera voted to keep Obamacare, which cut $716 billion from Medicare,
slashing Medicare Advantage," the ad’s narrator says. "Now California
seniors face benefit cuts of over $1,700."
Many times, we’ve rated the claim that there are $716 billion in Medicare cuts as Half True. But we hadn’t heard claims about specific benefit cuts by state before, so we decided to check it out.
We found that the claim that California seniors will see $1,700 in
benefit cuts as a result of the Affordable Care Act is misleading. The
statistic comes from a report that ignores critical context and evidence
that the law has expanded Medicare’s benefits packages. Advantages
We should first note that the statistic comes from an April 2014 report by the American Action Forum,
and they have a stake in the election. The American Action Forum is an
arm of the American Action Network, which is a conservative political
nonprofit with financial ties to the Koch brothers. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the group shares office space with American Crossroads -- the group that produced the very ad we’re checking.
Now to the claim. The ad makes it sound like all California
seniors will face cuts to this degree. However, the report only
addresses Medicare Advantage. About one-third of seniors use Medicare
Advantage, which is a private coverage option.
Medicare Advantage plans are required to provide at minimum the same
array of benefits as traditional Medicare. Many Advantage plans offer
extra benefits -- things like gym memberships, vision exams or generous
cost-sharing -- that have contributed to escalating program costs.
The creators of Medicare Advantage thought that letting seniors
choose plans from private insurance providers would be more
cost-effective than traditional Medicare. But Advantage has turned out
to be more expensive. Medicare paid insurers about 114 percent more for
Advantage plans than for traditional plans, as of 2009 before enactment of the federal health care law.
The law attempted to close that gap in part by gradually reducing how
much Medicare pays Advantage plan providers. It was estimated that its
changes would slow down spending
on Medicare by about $716 billion over 10 years, and Medicare Advantage
cost-saving measures accounted for about one-third of that. (Though the
Obama administration has reversed these cuts for the past two years -- facing pressure from insurance providers, Republicans and some Democrats, including Bera.)
Critics argue that the cuts will force insurance providers to reduce
the benefits they offer to Medicare Advantage enrollees. However,
Medicare Advantage plans are still required to offer, at minimum, the
same level of benefits as traditional plans. And Obamacare includes language protecting that set of guaranteed benefits from shrinking.
In fact, the law expanded Medicare’s required benefits to include
certain preventative services, annual visits, closing a gap in
prescription coverage and more.
Additionally, the law rewards Medicare Advantage providers
with financial bonuses to encourage quality and cost-efficiency.
Providers are required to use the bonuses to offer extra benefits,
attracting more enrollees. Nearly all Medicare Advantage plan providers received these bonuses in 2012, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. A matter of speculation
It’s possible that Medicare Advantage providers could respond to
their pay cut by reducing benefits, but the only benefits they could cut
would be those extra benefits that go beyond Medicare plan
requirements.
"It's not automatic and won't affect every (Advantage) enrollee or
any of the (traditional Medicare) enrollees," said Dylan Roby, an expert
in health economics at the University of California Los Angeles Center
for Health Policy Research.
Insurance providers could also respond to lower payments by offering
the same benefits while operating more efficiently. They could cut
administrative costs, adjust cost-sharing plans, take in less profit or
drop out of the market altogether.
But, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the Department of Health and Human Services
and more, insurance providers’ response to the cuts has been less
dramatic than was expected when Obama signed the legislation in 2010. In
fact, Medicare Advantage enrollment is at an all-time high, and the
percentage of plans with four or more stars in the program’s five-star
rating system is increasing.
"When Congress debated the payment reductions in 2010, forecasters
and analysts also projected that reductions would drive insurers to
raise premiums, cut extra benefits and even pull out of the Medicare
Advantage market," Kaiser experts wrote in May. "Thus far, however, the
response by insurers to the (Affordable Care Act) cuts has been more
muted."
Health and Human Services reported in fall 2013
that "The average number of plan choices will remain about the same in
2014 and access to supplemental benefits remains stable. Since passage
of the Affordable Care Act, average MA premiums are down by 9.8
percent."
Experts also told us that they haven’t seen evidence of reduced Medicare Advantage cuts.
"The evidence is that plan participation has been stable, premiums
have been stable or even a little bit lower, and there are no overall
changes in the benefits provided," said Jack Hoadley, a research
professor at Georgetown University and a member of the nonpartisan Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
"In my view, the claims in this advertisement are misleading,"
Hoadley added. "Seniors have not faced benefit cuts in Medicare
Advantage, even though the plans (and providers) have to manage with
somewhat lower payments."
So how did the American Action forum report come up with their estimated benefit cut figures?
The American Action Forum report breaks down the reduction in
Medicare payments to Advantage plan providers by state and county. It
says, compared to pre-Obamacare, Medicare Advantage benefits in
California are down $1,718 per beneficiary.
We asked several experts to take a look at the report, and they told
us that it is misleading because it assumes that Obamacare’s spending
reductions directly results in reduced benefits.
Yes, Obamacare reduces Medicare’s spending per Advantage beneficiary,
but this does not necessarily mean fewer benefits for seniors with
Advantage plans. Like we said before, there are multiple ways that an
insurance provider can deal with the spending cuts other than slimming
down its offerings.
"To immediately treat it as a cut to benefits is an exaggeration,"
said Judith Feder, a professor of health policy at Georgetown
University. Our ruling
American Crossroads said that as a result of Obamacare, "California seniors face benefit cuts of over $1,700."
First of all, this claim is misleading because it makes it seem like
all seniors will face these cuts, when the statistic actually refers to
Medicare Advantage enrollees -- only about one-third of seniors.
The statistic comes from a report that assumes all reductions in
Medicare Advantage spending results in fewer benefits for enrollees.
While insurance providers feel the cuts, there are multiple ways for
them to respond other than reducing benefits, such as trimming
administrative costs. We heard from multiple experts and researchers who
said Medicare Advantage benefits have remained stable.
The ad also leaves out the fact that the federal health care law
expanded Medicare’s minimum required benefits and established incentives
for Advantage plans to provide extra benefits.
It’s possible that some Medicare Advantage enrollees could see their
benefits shrink, but this ad blows that possibility out of proportion
and ignores important context. We rate this claim False.
By Steve Contorno on Thursday, November 6th, 2014 at 4:11 p.m.
A chain email
claims more than 200,000 doctors aren't accepting patients with coverage
bought on Affordable Care Act marketplaces.
Are doctors en masse refusing patients who gained health care coverage due to the Affordable Care Act?
That’s the claim in a chain email a reader asked us to check. "More,
truly scary Obamacare news," said the email, sent just before Halloween.
The accompanying story was from CNSnews.com, a site operated by the conservative Media Research Center.
"Over 214,000 Doctors Opt Out of Obamacare Exchanges," read a headline on CNSnews.com.
We found the source of the claim. It was coming from American Action
Forum, a self-described "center-right policy institute." The
organization put out an analysis on Oct. 27 titled: "Health Care
Providers are Opting-Out of Obamacare Exchange Plans."
How many? According to the post, "as many as 214,524 American
physicians will not be participating in any (Affordable Care Act)
exchange products." It went on to list some reasons "doctors are opting
out of the exchange plans."
That’s a lot of doctors. Have that many decided to turn away patients with insurance purchased on the marketplaces?
Let’s take a look. Can doctors opt out of Obamacare exchanges?
The Affordable Care Act requires essentially everyone to have
insurance. To make it easier for people to buy insurance, the government
created federal and state insurance marketplaces, sometimes called
exchanges. The biggest one is HealthCare.gov, but some states elected to operate their own as well.
These marketplace policies are private plans sold by insurance
companies. In some states, just one or two companies are providing
plans; in others, it’s many. Consumers typically have dozens of choices
ranging from bronze policies, which pay 60 percent of health costs on
average, to platinum, which pay 90 percent of costs. (For comparison, a typical employer-based plan covers about 80 percent of costs.)
Can doctors choose not to participate in the networks of policies
purchased on exchanges? Sure. While some states require doctors to
accept any plan for an insurance provider they do business with, in most
cases insurance companies are constantly negotiating with physiciansand hospitals to determine which policy networks they will participate in, experts and industry officials told us.
Some doctors might decide they don’t want to be in the network of
plans purchased on federal or state marketplaces. In other instances,
insurance providers might choose not to include certain doctors or
health groups in policies they created for the marketplaces.
It’s a two-way street, and marketplace policies are just the latest
twist to a contracting process that has always existed between doctors
and insurance companies. 200,000 doctors?
We asked American Action Forum to explain their analysis to us. The
organization based its findings on an April survey from the Medical
Group Management Association, a trade organization for physician groups.
"The survey found that 23.5 percent of doctors said they would not
participate in (Affordable Care Act) exchange plans," said Marisol
Garibay, spokeswoman for American Action Forum.
That percentage was multiplied by the total number of professional
active physicians, which Kaiser Family Foundation estimates is 893,851.
That equals 210,054 doctors, close to the American Action Forum number.
Garibay called it an "upper bound" estimate.
But when we looked at the survey ourselves, we found this to be a pretty dubious figure.
Here’s the rub, from the research: "The survey includes responses
from more than 700 medical groups in which more than 40,000 physicians
practice nationwide."
While there’s a lot of interesting information gleaned from this
survey, the results cannot be extrapolated to represent all the doctors
in the country. Why not? Because the Medical Group Management
Association only represents doctors who are part of medical groups. This
does not include physicians who run independent practices, for example,
and there’s no reason that a poll of 700 medical groups is
representative of all 900,000 physicians in the country.
"That’s a significant difference," said Anders Gilberg, a senior vice
president of government affairs for Medical Group Management
Association. "I wouldn’t generally suggest using it as a proxy for all
physicians."
Let’s put that aside for a second and dig further. The survey found
that as of April, 76.5 percent of respondents were accepting health
insurance sold on a state or federal marketplace.
Of those not participating in marketplace policies, 42 percent said
it was because insurance companies in their area didn’t ask them to
participate in the networks of plans sold on marketplaces.
Meaning, even if this limited survey could be extrapolated to
represent all doctors, not all of them are "opting out" of Obamacare.
Many — almost half — weren’t asked to participate in ACA marketplace
policies.
Why weren’t they asked? One reason is that the insurance companies
want to limit which doctors will serve their customers by creating
narrow networks.Narrow networks are a way for insurance providers to keep costs lower for insurers.
How? If you create a narrow network, it guarantees a doctor will get a
bigger share of your patients, and a doctor would be willing to accept
lower reimbursement rates in exchange for more business.
Narrow networks are also more common on the exchanges because
consumers can pick the plan with the doctors that fit their needs, said
Paul Ginsburg, a professor of the practice of health policy and
management at University of Southern California.
"Employer plans tend to have a broad network because they’re trying
to satisfy everyone (at the company)," Ginsburg said. "On an exchange,
you don’t have to satisfy everyone with one policy, you can offer many,
so you can have narrower plans."
There are plenty of broad plans on the exchanges, they just tend to
be more expensive. According to a May survey of individuals likely to
use the marketplace, 54 percent said they would accept more limited
networks to get a cheaper sticker price. As it is, 85 percent of plans
bought on federal and state marketplaces were the less expensive bronze
or silver plans, according to the Department of Health and Human
Services.
To be sure, it appears some doctors want nothing to do with these cheaper marketplace plans or the customers who buy them.
Among other things, doctors worry that many of the plans on the
marketplace, particularly bronze and silver plans, have high
deductibles. Some patients won’t be able to meet their obligations for
cost-sharing, potentially forcing physicians to eat those costs or shake
down customers.
These are legitimate concerns, and there is reason to believe that
some doctors are choosing not to contract with marketplace insurance
plans. But there is no evidence to suggest the number is anywhere near
214,000. Our ruling
A chain email claimed that more than 214,000 American doctors are
"opting-out of Obamacare exchange plans." That is based on a survey of a
select group of doctors and even the makers of the survey said it can’t
be extrapolated for the entire country. Further, of the doctors
responding to the survey, 42 percent said they weren’t participating in
marketplace plans because they were never asked to, not because they
were "opting out."
The estimate is the result of a flawed methodology and a misreading of survey data. We rate the claim False.
THIS is the President Obama that will defeat mitt robme romney on November 6th. Here are his remarks at a Denver, Colorado campaign stop today. For a bit more information on just how the real mitt might govern if elected check out this earlier post Mitt Romney's Role as Mormon Bishop Shows His Extremist Religious Beliefs 15SEP12
http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/mitt-romneys-role-as-mormon-bishop.html This is not just about romney's religious beliefs, it is about the romney he presented to the Massachusetts voters before the election and the romney who was governor. As the President said today in Denver, that was not the real mitt romney at last night's debate. Here are his comments from today....
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Colorado! (Applause.) It is good to be back
in Denver! (Applause.) Can everybody please give Lily a big round of
applause for the great introduction. (Applause.) We’ve got so many
dignitaries I can’t name them all. But we’ve got your outstanding
senators in the house. (Applause.) Your terrific members of Congress
are here. (Applause.) Got our campaign co-chairs. Got Will.I.Am.
(Applause.) Most importantly, we’ve got all of you. (Applause.) Even
though you had to get the winter coats out a little quicker than you
expected. (Laughter.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you, Obama!
THE PRESIDENT: (Laughter.) I love you back. (Applause.)
Now, the reason I was in Denver, obviously, is to see all of you, and
it’s always pretty. (Laughter.) But we also had our first debate last
night. (Applause.) And when I got onto the stage, I met this very
spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney. (Laughter.) But it
couldn’t have been Mitt Romney -- because the real Mitt Romney has been
running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in
tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The fellow on stage last night said he
didn’t know anything about that. (Laughter.)
The real Mitt Romney said we don’t need any more teachers in our classrooms.
AUDIENCE: Booo --
THE PRESIDENT: Don’t boo -- vote. (Laughter and applause.)
But the fellow on stage last night, he loves teachers -- can’t get
enough of them. (Laughter.) The Mitt Romney we all know invested in
companies that were called “pioneers” of outsourcing jobs to other
countries. But the guy on stage last night, he said that he doesn’t
even know that there are such laws that encourage outsourcing -- he’s
never heard of them. Never heard of them. Never heard of tax breaks
for companies that ship jobs overseas. He said that if it’s true, he
must need a new accountant. (Laughter.)
Now, we know for sure it was not the real Mitt Romney, because he
seems to be doing just fine with his current accountant. (Laughter.)
So you see, the man on stage last night, he does not want to be held
accountable for the real Mitt Romney’s decisions and what he’s been
saying for the last year. And that’s because he knows full well that we
don’t want what he’s been selling for the last year. (Applause.) So
Governor Romney may dance around his positions, but if you want to be
President, you owe the American people the truth. (Applause.)
So here’s the truth: Governor Romney cannot pay for his $5 trillion
tax plan without blowing up the deficit or sticking it to the middle
class. That’s the math. We can’t afford to go down that road again.
We can’t afford another round of budget-busting tax cuts for the
wealthy. We can’t afford to gut our investments in education or clean
energy or research and technology. We can’t afford to roll back
regulations on Wall Street, or on big oil companies or insurance
companies. We cannot afford to double down on the same top-down
economic policies that got us into this mess. That is not a plan to
create jobs. That is not a plan to grow the economy. That is not
change -- that is a relapse. (Applause.) We don’t want to go back
there. We’ve tried it, it didn't work. And we are not going back, we
are going forward. (Applause.)
Now, I’ve got a different view about how we create jobs and
prosperity. This country doesn’t succeed when we only see the rich
getting richer. We succeed when the middle class gets bigger. We grow
our economy not from the top down, but from the middle out.
We don’t believe that anybody is entitled to success in this country,
but we do believe in something called opportunity. We believe in a
country where hard work pays off and where responsibility is rewarded,
and everybody is getting a fair shot, and everybody is doing their fair
share, and everybody plays by the same rules. (Applause.) That's the
country we believe in. That’s what I’m fighting for. That’s why I’m
running for a second term for President of the United States, and that's
why I want your vote. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years!
THE PRESIDENT: What I talked about last night was a new economic
patriotism -- a patriotism that's rooted in the belief that growing our
economy begins with a strong, thriving middle class.
That means we export more jobs and we outsource -- export more
products and we outsource fewer jobs. Over the last three years, we
came together to reinvent a dying auto industry that’s back on top of
the world. (Applause.) We’ve created more than half a million new
manufacturing jobs.
And so now you’ve got a choice. We can keeping giving tax breaks to
corporations that ship jobs overseas, or we can start rewarding
companies that are opening new plants and training new workers, and
creating new jobs right here in the United States of America. That's
what we’re looking for. (Applause.)
We can help big factories and small businesses double their exports,
and create a million new manufacturing jobs over the next four years.
You can make that happen.
I want to control more of our own energy. After 30 years of
inaction, we raised fuel standards so that by the middle of the next
decade, your cars and trucks will be going twice as far on a gallon of
gas. (Applause.)
We’ve doubled the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources
like wind and solar. And thousands of Americans have jobs today
building wind turbines and long-lasting batteries. (Applause.) The
United States of America today is less dependent on foreign oil than any
time in nearly two decades. (Applause.)
So now you’ve got a choice between a plan that reverses this
progress, or one that builds on it. Last night, my opponent says he
refuses to close the loophole that gives big oil companies $4 billion in
taxpayer subsidies every year. Now, we’ve got a better plan -- where
we keep investing in wind and solar and clean coal, and the good jobs
that come with them; where farmers and scientists harness new biofuels
to power our cars and our trucks; where construction workers are
retrofitting homes and factories so they waste less energy; and we can
develop a 100-year supply of natural gas that creates hundreds of
thousands of jobs -- and, by the way, we can cut our oil imports in half
by 2020. That will be good for our economy. That will be good for our
environment. That will be good for Colorado. That will be good for
America. That's what we’re fighting for. That's why I am running for a
second term as President of the United States. (Applause.)
I want to give more Americans the chance to learn the skills they
need to compete. I talked last night about how education was the
gateway of opportunity for me and Michelle, for so many of you. It’s
the gateway for a middle-class life. And today, millions of students
are paying less for college because we took on a system that was wasting
billions of taxpayer dollars on bankers and lenders. (Applause.)
And so now you’ve got a choice: We can gut education to pay for more
tax breaks for the wealthy, or we can decide that in the United States
of America, no child should have her dream deferred because of an
overcrowded classroom. (Applause.) No family should have to set aside a
college acceptance letter because they don’t have the money. No
company should have to look for workers in China because they couldn’t
find any with the right skills here in the United States.
So we’re going to recruit 100,000 new math and science teachers, and
we’re going to improve early childhood education, and we’re going to
create 2 million more slots in community colleges so that workers can
get trained for the jobs that are out there right now. (Applause.) And
we are going to continue to do everything we need to do to cut the
growth of tuition costs, because every young person in America should
have the opportunity to go to college without being loaded up with
hundreds -- with tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of debt. That's
part of what it means for us to be able to build an economy that lasts.
And finally, I’ve got a balanced plan that independent experts say
will cut the deficit by $4 trillion through a mix of spending cuts and
higher taxes on wealthiest Americans. Now, I’ve already worked with
Republicans in Congress to cut a trillion dollars in spending, and I’m
willing to do more. I want to reform the tax code so that it’s simple
and it’s fair, but also so incomes over $250,000 -- we go back to the
same rate we had when Bill Clinton was President, we created 23 million
new jobs, the biggest surplus in history, a lot of millionaires to
boot. (Applause.)
Now, last night, Governor Romney ruled out raising a dime of taxes on
anybody ever, no matter how much money they make. He ruled out closing
the loophole that gives oil companies $4 billion in corporate welfare.
He refused to even acknowledge the loophole that gives tax breaks to
corporations that ship jobs overseas. And when he was asked what he’d
actually do to cut the deficit and reduce spending, he said he’d
eliminate funding for public television.
AUDIENCE: Booo --
THE PRESIDENT: That was his answer. I mean, thank goodness somebody
is finally getting tough on Big Bird. (Laughter and applause.) It’s
about time. We didn't know that Big Bird was driving the federal
deficit. (Laughter.) But that's what we heard last night. How about
that?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: And Elmo!
THE PRESIDENT: Elmo, too? (Laughter.)
Look, the fact is Governor Romney’s math just doesn’t add up. And I
had to spend a lot of time last night trying to pin it down. The only
one way to pay for $5 trillion in new tax cuts and $2 trillion in new
defense spending that the military says it doesn’t need is by asking the
middle class to pay more. And I refuse to do that. (Applause.)
I refuse to ask middle-class families to give up their deductions for
owning a home or raising their kids just to pay for another
millionaire’s tax cut. I refuse to ask students to pay more for
college, or kick children out of Head Start programs, or eliminate
health insurance for millions of Americans who are poor, or elderly, or
disabled -- just to pay for more tax cuts that we cannot afford.
And I will never turn Medicare into a voucher. (Applause.) Governor
Romney doubled down on that proposal last night and he is wrong. No
American should have to spend their golden years at the mercy of
insurance companies. They should retire with the care and the dignity
that they have earned. (Applause.)
So, yes, we'll reform and strengthen Medicare for the long haul, but
we’ll do it by reducing the cost of health care -- not by asking seniors
to pay thousands of dollars more. And we will keep the promise of
Social Security by taking the responsible steps to strengthen it -- not
by turning it over to Wall Street.
Now, going forward we're going to have a chance to talk a little bit
about what's going on overseas, because our prosperity at home is linked
to what happens abroad. Four years ago, I promised to end the war in
Iraq, and I did. (Applause.) I said we’d wind down the war in
Afghanistan in a responsible way, and we are. (Applause.) While a new
tower is rising above the New York skyline, al Qaeda is on the path to
defeat and Osama bin Laden is dead. (Applause.)
But we still face serious threats around the world. We saw that just
a few weeks ago. And that’s why, so long as I’m Commander-in-Chief, we
will sustain the strongest military the world has ever known. And when
our troops take off their uniforms, we will serve them as well as
they’ve served us -- (applause) -- because nobody should have to fight
for a job when they come home, or a roof over their heads when they have
fought for their country. They have earned our respect and our honor.
(Applause.) That's a commitment I make.
Now, it will be interesting to see what the guy who was playing Mitt
Romney yesterday -- (laughter) -- will say about foreign policy when we
meet next, because he said it was "tragic" to end the war in Iraq. He
won’t tell us how he’ll end the war in Afghanistan. And I’ll use the
money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and to put
more people back to work rebuilding our roads and our bridges, and our
schools and our runways and broadband lines -- because after a decade of
war, it's time to do some nation-building here at home and put some
folks to work here at home. (Applause.)
So this is the choice we now face. This is what the election comes
down to. Over and over, we've been told by our opponents that since
government can’t do everything, it should do almost nothing. If you
can’t afford health insurance, hope you don’t get sick. If a company is
releasing toxic pollution into the air that your children breathe,
well, that’s the price of progress -- can't afford to regulate. If you
can’t afford to start a business or go to college, just borrow money
from your parents. (Laughter.)
As I described last night, that’s not who we are. That’s not what
this country is about. Here in America, we believe we’re all in this
together. (Applause.) We understand America is not about what can be
done for us -- it’s about what can be done by us, together, as one
nation, and as one people. (Applause.)
You understand that. You understand that, Denver. You are the
reason that there's a teacher in Pueblo who, with her husband, can buy
her first phone with -- first home with the help of new tax credits that
we helped pass. We couldn't have done it without you. You made that
happen. (Applause.)
You’re the reason that a woman outside Durango can get the treatment
she needs to beat cancer, now that there are affordable plans to cover
preexisting conditions. You did that. You made that happen.
(Applause.)
You’re the reason that thousands of students at CU Boulder, and
Colorado State, and University of Denver have more help paying for
college this year. That happened because of you. (Applause.)
You’re the reason a young immigrant who grew up here and went to
school here, and pledged allegiance to our flag will no longer be
deported from the only country she’s ever called home. (Applause.)
You're the reason why an outstanding soldier won’t be kicked out of
the military because of who he loves. (Applause.) You're the reason
why thousands of families have been able to say to the loved ones who
served us so bravely: “Welcome home." Welcome home. Welcome home.
(Applause.)
If you turn away now -- if you buy into the cynicism that somehow the
change we fought for isn’t possible, then of course, change won’t
happen. If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a
difference, then other folks fill the void -- lobbyists and special
interests, and the people who are writing the $10 million checks. And
all the spin will end up dominating the airwaves, and that’s how things
go, and ordinary folks get left out. All the folks who are trying to
make it harder for you to vote; the folks in Washington who think
somehow that they should control the health care choices that women
should be making for themselves.
AUDIENCE: Booo --
THE PRESIDENT: Only you can make change happen. Only you have the power to move us forward. (Applause.)
From the day we began this campaign, I always said real change takes
time. It takes more than one term. It takes more even than one
President or one party. You certainly can’t do it if you’ve got a
President who writes off half the nation before he even takes office.
(Applause.)
In 2008, 47 percent of the country didn’t vote for me. But on the
night of the election, I said to all those Americans, I may not have won
your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your
President, too. (Applause.)
And so I want to say to Denver, I want to say to the entire great
state of Colorado: I don’t know how many of you will be with me this
time around -- (applause) -- but I’ll be with you no matter what.
Because I’m not fighting to create Democratic jobs or Republican jobs --
I’m fighting to create American jobs. (Applause.) I’m not fighting to
improve schools in the red states or blue states -- I’m fighting to
improve schools in the United States. (Applause.)
The values we care about don’t just belong to workers or businesses,
or the rich or the poor, or the 1 percent or the 99 percent -- they are
American values; they belong to all of us. And if we reclaim them now,
if we rally around a new sense of economic patriotism, a sense of how we
build an economy from the middle out and give ladders of opportunity
for everybody who is willing to work hard -- we will strengthen the
middle class, we’ll keep moving forward.
I still believe that our politics is not as divided as it seems
sometimes. I still believe in you. I’m asking you to keep on believing
in me. (Applause.) I’m asking for your vote. And if you’re willing
to stand with me and work with me, we’re going to win Denver again.
(Applause.) We’ll win Colorado again. We’ll finish what we started.
We will remind the world just why it is the United States of America is
the greatest nation on Earth.
Thank you, everybody. God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/10/04/remarks-president-campaign-event-denver-co
MORE debate lies by mitt robme romney exposed by Bob Cesca on HuffPost, and check this out from The Daily Kos Mitt Romney: Lying to victory (DEBATE ANALYSIS) 4OKT12
Mitt Romney won the debate last night but only if you judge the
"winner" of a debate as the most hyperkinetic, oftentimes aggressive and
condescending participant who used his rehearsed delivery to spackle
over his lies, mistakes, generalities and misleading statements.
Almost on cue, the cable news people along with, shockingly enough,
some people who I otherwise admire and whose work I read every day,
confused style for substance and leadership quality -- and they've
completely and totally ignored the words Mitt Romney actually said. More
on that presently.
In contrast to Mitt Romney's used-car salesman approach in which he
stabs you in the face but does so in a way that makes you thank him and
shake his clammy hand in the end, Barack Obama's natural and authentic
-- underscore authentic -- style might've seemed like he wasn't as polished.
No, the president wasn't as energetic as he could've been. Yes, he
was far too kind and deferential to an opponent whose entire goal is to
roll back every Obama administration achievement. But there was zero
chance that President Obama would appear in Denver last night and
suddenly reveal himself to be a snappy, idealized Aaron Sorkin
character. Furthermore, many of my friends on the left lapsed back into
this weird chronic amnesia in which they forget how Barack Obama carries
himself, how he debates and who he is. With a few exceptions, the
Obama you watched last night was the same Obama we watched win all three
debates against John McCain four years ago,
say nothing of all of the various town halls, press conferences and
Question Time forums he's hosted. He's thoughtful and deliberate and,
yes, he sometimes stammers during pauses, but that's no reflection on
his leadership qualities or unrivaled intelligence. For the most part,
this is how he's always comported himself. The problem, however, was
that it might've come off as too deliberate and thoughtful when contrasted against Romney's caffeinated morning zoo deejay persona.
Speaking of which, let's talk about Romney's performance in terms of what he said.
Romney -- not the president -- made the biggest mistake of the night
and almost everyone missed it. The president, in a very effective run,
highlighted not only "corporate welfare" for oil companies but he also
talked about how corporations receive tax breaks when they ship jobs
overseas.
Romney's response to this tax break accusation?
"The second topic, which is you said you get a deduction for getting a
plant overseas. Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no
idea what you're talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant."
In other words, Why didn't I get that tax break when I shipped jobs overseas?
Right there, and on a televised presidential debate, Romney
accidentally admitted to shipping jobs overseas -- but claims to have
never received such a tax break, obviously when he's shipped jobs
overseas with Bain Capital. In an alternate dimension of punditry that
isn't an superficial as ours, this might have been the headline today,
especially given that American job creation was a central point of
debate. Romney appeared on television last night and was tasked with
describing how he would create jobs, he ended up copping to eliminating
American jobs and sending those jobs to China and elsewhere. Romney
needs to be pressed on this point. Over and over and over.
And immediately following that discussion, Romney went on to repeat the tired and universally debunked lie that Obamacare "cuts" $716 billion from Medicare.
He also insisted that his tax cuts, which are the centerpiece of his
economic plan, wouldn't cost $5 trillion. Of course they do. The Tax Policy Center agrees.
This is the guy who fancies himself as the deficit hawk whose
convention featured a real-time debt clock, and he's on deck to add
another $5 trillion to the deficit. He also said the cuts won't result
in tax hikes on the middle class. FactCheck.org wrote,
"Experts say that's not possible." And regarding the "six studies" that
Romney repeatedly cited as evidence against the massive deficit that
his tax plan would create, it's actually five studies, not six. Further:
Two of the five "studies" were blog items. And none of three
other studies was nonpartisan: Two were written by Romney campaign
advisers and a third was by a former economic adviser to President
George W. Bush.
Romney also accused the president of doubling the deficit. This is a
super-colossal lie. The president was inaugurated into a $1.2 trillion
deficit for 2009 generated by Bush spending requests. The highest the
deficit has climbed was $1.4 trillion by the end of that year. In every
year since then, the deficit has been cut -- contrary to the wishes of
liberals like me.
On top of everything else, Romney continued to be elliptical and
deceptive about how he intends to pass a repeal of various unknown tax
deductions; how he intends to pass a health care replacement through a
potentially hostile Senate after repealing Obamacare, which most of the
sitting Democratic senators spent considerable political capital to pass
into law; how he intends to replace Dodd-Frank when he knows the tea
party Republicans in the House will never vote for new regulations on
Wall Street; or how tax cuts will magically create jobs even though
businesses are enjoying the lowest taxes in history yet aren't spending
the record $2 trillion in cash assets being mysteriously held in
reserve.
Mitt Romney, for all of his spastic awkwardness, is clearly a good
actor. Most serial liars and matchstick men are Oscar-worthy performers.
You don't get this far in a race for the presidency with a record of
20-40 lies per week (that Benen knows of)
without being a slick operator. President Obama, for his part, wasn't
entirely as mighty as he could've been, but his side of the affair
wasn't the disaster some pundits (I'm looking at you, Chris Matthews and
Ed Schultz) and, sadly, fellow liberals have claimed. Adding... Not that this will impact the broader conventional wisdom about who "won," but you should try reading some of the transcript of the debate.
LIES, lies and more lies is how mitt robme romney won the first debate with Pres Obama. From The Daily Kos, and check this out by Bob Cesca on HuffPostMitt Romney Won the Debate. But Why? 4OKT12
The results of Wednesday night's first presidential debate are in and
it's official: Mitt Romney won round one. He was aggressive, he was
decisive, he delivered. Of course he also lied through his teeth for
most of the debate.
Romney lied:
When he claimed that "pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan." They're not.
When he said that President Obama had "cut Medicare by $716 billion to pay for Obamacare." Obama didn't.
When he denied proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. He did.
When he said President Obama had "added almost as much to the federal debt as all the prior presidents combined." Not even close.
When he resurrected "death panels." That was called "one of the biggest whoppers of the night."
When he stated that half the green energy companies given stimulus funds had failed. Only if three out of nearly three dozen is half.
