Media reporting and left-right bias

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Was just thinking about this watching this video...



Sununu's claim that Obama is "robbing" $716 billion from Medicare is flat-out false. They are cutting $716 billion of waste and fraud from the expected rate of growth of Medicare, in the form of subsidies to insurers in the Medicare Advantage program that were supposed to be only temporary but turned into just another useless government subsidy. There is no cutting of actual benefits. This should be an example of tough spending cuts of bloated government the Republicans always talk about us needing.

Soledad O'Brien called him out and told him it was false and he told her to just put an Obama bumper sticker on her forehead. CNN is guilty of too often letting false talking points like this fly. But Ms. O'Brien did a good job of not doing that this time. And I'm sure she is voting for Obama, but she did her job in her capacity as a reporter well here. Dude tried to spout bullshyt and she called him out and fact-checked him. But to someone not paying attention, it looks like she's just a partisan Democrat showing liberal media bias.

Even though the title of this video says "Soledad O'Brien schools John Sununu" I've seen the video posted other places with titles about how Sununu "crushed" her or "owned" her or whatever. That's either a misunderstanding of facts, or pure disingenuousness

That's what these guys have been doing. Make up factually inaccurate shyt that usually goes unchallenged. Then when it does get challenged, call it liberal media bias. And because news is so partisan in general be it left or right, it just looks like partisan bickering whenever there's an honest attempt to get to the truth.

People gotta understand it's not about left vs. right but rather the truth vs. lies.

 

[Broke Wave]

When you leave the right-wing echo chamber and go to the mainstream media with your lies and you get called out on them, the first thing to do logically is accuse the host of being a supporter of the opposing party. Then when you get back to your echo chamber you can gloat about how you challenged the liberal left wing media. The fact may well be that the center-right corporate media may be in fact to the left of many Republicans including Sununu.

Also its 716 Billion

 

[thekingsmen]

It's an illusion for people like yourself to be glued into things that both parties feeding lies and misinformation. Sadly people believe one party over the other. 2 Wings of the Same Bird.

 

[Rain]

Post those other videos. She's been shytting on these dudes all week

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

When you leave the right-wing echo chamber and go to the mainstream media with your lies and you get called out on them, the first thing to do logically is accuse the host of being a supporter of the opposing party. Then when you get back to your echo chamber you can gloat about how you challenged the liberal left wing media. The fact may well be that the center-right corporate media may be in fact to the left of many Republicans including Sununu.

Also its 716 Billion

Yeah my fault...fixed.

 

[ThatTruth777]

It's an illusion for people like yourself to be glued into things that both parties feeding lies and misinformation. Sadly people believe one party over the other. 2 Wings of the Same Bird.

That's easy to say but do you have proof? I've thought it as probably many already have but the only thing I can assert is 'how can they be this stupid, it has to be a game because if its not '.

 

[KingpinOG]

Sununu's claim that Obama is "robbing" $716 billion from Medicare is flat-out false. They are cutting $716 billion of waste and fraud from the expected rate of growth of Medicare, in the form of subsidies to insurers in the Medicare Advantage program that were supposed to be only temporary but turned into just another useless government subsidy. There is no cutting of actual benefits. This should be an example of tough spending cuts of bloated government the Republicans always talk about us needing.

So let me get this straight, Victor Von Doom. You think that Obama is going to reduce future Medicare spending by a whopping $716 billion simply by eliminating "waste and fraud" from Medicare?



Even you can't possibly be this stupid. Do you realize that "waste and fraud" is the old standby that politicians use when they don't want to name specific spending programs that they plan to cut? The idea that Obama is going to magically find three quarters of a trillion dollars in waste and fraud in Medicare that no other previous president has been able to find is absolutely inane.

As Paul Ryan is pointing out in virtually every stump speech, the $716 billion reduction in future Medicare spending will come primarily from a government panel that reduces reimbursment rates paid to doctors and hospitals. Currently, Medicare reimbursement rates are so low compared to what is paid by private insurers that many doctors refuse to see patients on Medicare. If these already low reimbursement rates are going to be slashed to the tune of $716 billion dollars the problem is going to become even worse. That is Ryan's primary point: that Obama's cuts in reimbursement rates will lead to denial of service to numerous Medicare patients and possibly even hospitals and doctors being forced out of business. What good is having Medicare if there is no doctor to see you?

Victor Von Doom, this is why it is so frustrating to talk to you and why I accused you of living in a bubble in that Mitt Romney thread last week. You copy and paste arguments from your favorite left wing blogs but you have no real understanding of the actual issues. You are absolutely clueless about what Republicans like Paul Ryan actually advocate because you show no interest in actually learning the truth. The problem for you is that there are actually a few conservatives on this message board that are going to challenge you on your factually inaccurate shyt.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

So let me get this straight, Victor Von Doom. You think that Obama is going to reduce future Medicare spending by a whopping $716 billion simply by eliminating "waste and fraud" from Medicare?



Even you can't possibly be this stupid. Do you realize that "waste and fraud" is the old standby that politicians use when they don't want to name specific spending programs that they plan to cut? The idea that Obama is going to magically find three quarters of a trillion dollars in waste and fraud in Medicare that no other previous president has been able to find is absolutely inane.

As Paul Ryan is pointing out in virtually every stump speech, the $716 billion reduction in future Medicare spending will come primarily from a government panel that reduces reimbursment rates paid to doctors and hospitals. Currently, Medicare reimbursement rates are so low compared to what is paid by private insurers that many doctors refuse to see patients on Medicare. If these already low reimbursement rates are going to be slashed to the tune of $716 billion dollars the problem is going to become even worse. That is Ryan's primary point: that Obama's cuts in reimbursement rates will lead to denial of service to numerous Medicare patients and possibly even hospitals and doctors being forced out of business. What good is having Medicare if there is no doctor to see you?

Victor Von Doom, this is why it is so frustrating to talk to you and why I accused you of living in a bubble in that Mitt Romney thread last week. You copy and paste arguments from your favorite left wing blogs but you have no real understanding of the actual issues. You are absolutely clueless about what Republicans like Paul Ryan actually advocate because you show no interest in actually learning the truth. The problem for you is that there are actually a few conservatives on this message board that are going to challenge you on your factually inaccurate shyt.

Sometimes your trolling makes this place interesting. Now is not one of those times. Pick your spots better.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-said-barack-obama-first-history-rob-me/

Medicare is a hot topic in the presidential race since Mitt Romney picked U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan to be his running mate.Ryan, R-Wis., is the head of the Budget Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives and the architect of a plan to dramatically restructure Medicare.Ryan’s plan is for people who are under age 55 now. It would give them voucher-like credits to buy traditional fee-for-service Medicare or competing private insurance plans. (The credits are sometimes called "premium support.")Though House Republicans voted overwhelmingly for Ryan’s plan,*polling*shows public opinion is mixed, and Democrats have vigorously attacked the proposal as a voucher plan and worse. The Romney campaign, meanwhile, refutes those charges by saying President Barack Obama has targeted Medicare himself.Here’s how Romney put it in an interview with*60 Minutes*shortly after selecting Ryan:"There's only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare, $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare."Here, we’re checking whether Obama "robbed" Medicare of $716 billion dollars to pay for Obamacare.$700 billion from Medicare?The claim that Obama cut $700 billion out of Medicare is relatively new. Not long ago, the oft-cited number was $500 billion. How did he manage to cut another $200 billion when no one was looking?First things first: Neither Obama nor his health care law literally cut a dollar amount from the Medicare program’s budget.Rather, the health care law instituted a number of changes to try to bring down future health care costs in the program. At the time the law was passed, those reductions amounted to $500 billion over the next 10 years.What kind of spending reductions are we talking about? They were mainly aimed at insurance companies and hospitals, not beneficiaries. The law makes significant reductions to Medicare Advantage, a subset of Medicare plans run by private insurers. Medicare Advantage was started under President George W. Bush, and the idea was that competition among the private insurers would reduce costs. But in recent years the plans have actually cost more than traditional Medicare. So the health care law scales back the payments to private insurers.Hospitals, too, will be paid less if they have too many re-admissions, or if they fail to meet other new benchmarks for patient care.Obama and fellow Democrats say the intention is to protect beneficiaries' coverage while forcing health care providers to become more efficient.Under the new law, the overall Medicare budget is projected to go up for the foreseeable future. The health care law tries to limit that growth, making it less than it would have been without the law, but not reducing its overall budget. So claims that Obama would "cut" Medicare need more explanation to be fully accurate. In the past, we’ve rated similar statements*Half True*or*Mostly False, depending on the wording and context.Because Medicare spending gets bigger every year, the cost-saving mechanisms in the health care law also get bigger. Also, it takes a few years for the health care law’s savings mechanisms to kick in. In fact, the effects of time are the main reason the $500 billion number has turned into $700 billion.The CBO*determined*in 2011 that the federal health care law would reduce Medicare outlays by $507 billion between 2012 and 2021. In*a more recent estimate*released this year, the CBO looked at the years 2013 to 2022 and determined the health care law affected Medicare outlays by $716 billion.So it’s timing that’s making the cuts bigger, not changes to Medicare.Historic steal for ‘Obamacare’?Now, to address the word "robbed." We know the civility is at a low ebb these days, but we think it’s worth pointing out that the money was not robbed in any literal sense of the word.Congress passed the law through its normal process, and the proposal was debated out in the open during the many weeks that the final law was being negotiated.At the time the health care law was being finalized and passed, Democrats said it was important to them that the new law not add to the deficit. So the reductions in Medicare spending were counted against the health care law’s new spending. That spending is primarily to cover the uninsured, by giving them tax credits to buy private insurance. But some new spending increases Medicare coverage for prescription drugs for seniors.Finally, Romney said Obama is the "only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare." In reality, several presidents have reduced Medicare spending.We reviewed this history in detail in a fact-check of Romney’s statement from December, "Only one president has ever cut Medicare for seniors in this country . . . Barack Obama." We rated that*False. Many presidents have sought to rein in Medicare spending.Here are a few highlights from that fact-check:• President Ronald Reagan cut Medicare by reducing payments to hospitals, and he cut benefits by raising deductibles.***• President George H.W. Bush cut benefits by repealing a law that would have expanded coverage for drugs and catastrophic illness.***• President Bill Clinton cut Medicare by changing payments to doctors and other providers, which could be considered to have an indirect effect on beneficiaries.Our rulingRomney said, "There's only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare, $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare."The only element of truth here is that the health care law seeks to reduce future Medicare spending, and the tally of those cost reductions over the next 10 years is $716 billion. The money wasn’t "robbed," however, and other presidents have made similar reductions to the Medicare program.We rate this statement Mostly False.

 

[KingpinOG]

Sometimes your trolling makes this place interesting. Now is not one of those times. Pick your spots better.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...omney-said-barack-obama-first-history-rob-me/

Like I said above, all you know how to do is copy and paste. You don't know how to think.

What does that article have to do with anything that I said???? Obama's waste and fraud claim is bullshyt, and he is going to reduce reimbursement rates to doctors which will cause senior citizens to have trouble getting health care. Period.

Copy and paste another response, bytch.

 

[Broke Wave]

Like I said above, all you know how to do is copy and paste. You don't know how to think.

What does that article have to do with anything that I said???? Obama's waste and fraud claim is bullshyt, and he is going to reduce reimbursement rates to doctors which will cause senior citizens to have trouble getting health care. Period.

Copy and paste another response, bytch.

So if you care about seniors having trouble getting healthcare, do you want to see a Canadian style healthcare revamp in America? Singlepayer universal coverage, privately owned competing hospitals?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Like I said above, all you know how to do is copy and paste. You don't know how to think.

What does that article have to do with anything that I said???? Obama's waste and fraud claim is bullshyt, and he is going to reduce reimbursement rates to doctors which will cause senior citizens to have trouble getting health care. Period.

Copy and paste another response, bytch.

I applaud your ability to make up complete bullshyt with no factual basis or evidence and stick to your guns.

 

[kermit da hustla]

Was just thinking about this watching this video...

CNN's Soledad O'Brien schools Romney surrogate on Medicare plan - YouTube

Sununu's claim that Obama is "robbing" $716 billion from Medicare is flat-out false. They are cutting $716 billion of waste and fraud from the expected rate of growth of Medicare, in the form of subsidies to insurers in the Medicare Advantage program that were supposed to be only temporary but turned into just another useless government subsidy. There is no cutting of actual benefits. This should be an example of tough spending cuts of bloated government the Republicans always talk about us needing.

Soledad O'Brien called him out and told him it was false and he told her to just put an Obama bumper sticker on her forehead. CNN is guilty of too often letting false talking points like this fly. But Ms. O'Brien did a good job of not doing that this time. And I'm sure she is voting for Obama, but she did her job in her capacity as a reporter well here. Dude tried to spout bullshyt and she called him out and fact-checked him. But to someone not paying attention, it looks like she's just a partisan Democrat showing liberal media bias.

Even though the title of this video says "Soledad O'Brien schools John Sununu" I've seen the video posted other places with titles about how Sununu "crushed" her or "owned" her or whatever. That's either a misunderstanding of facts, or pure disingenuousness

That's what these guys have been doing. Make up factually inaccurate shyt that usually goes unchallenged. Then when it does get challenged, call it liberal media bias. And because news is so partisan in general be it left or right, it just looks like partisan bickering whenever there's an honest attempt to get to the truth.

People gotta understand it's not about left vs. right but rather the truth vs. lies.

she's done an excellent job holding republican pundits' feet to the fire, challenging them on their spin. it's hilarious watching them attempting to defend what can't be defended, especially when facts are placed squarely in their faces.

 

[kermit da hustla]

So let me get this straight, Victor Von Doom. You think that Obama is going to reduce future Medicare spending by a whopping $716 billion simply by eliminating "waste and fraud" from Medicare?



Even you can't possibly be this stupid. Do you realize that "waste and fraud" is the old standby that politicians use when they don't want to name specific spending programs that they plan to cut? The idea that Obama is going to magically find three quarters of a trillion dollars in waste and fraud in Medicare that no other previous president has been able to find is absolutely inane.

As Paul Ryan is pointing out in virtually every stump speech, the $716 billion reduction in future Medicare spending will come primarily from a government panel that reduces reimbursment rates paid to doctors and hospitals. Currently, Medicare reimbursement rates are so low compared to what is paid by private insurers that many doctors refuse to see patients on Medicare. If these already low reimbursement rates are going to be slashed to the tune of $716 billion dollars the problem is going to become even worse. That is Ryan's primary point: that Obama's cuts in reimbursement rates will lead to denial of service to numerous Medicare patients and possibly even hospitals and doctors being forced out of business. What good is having Medicare if there is no doctor to see you?

Victor Von Doom, this is why it is so frustrating to talk to you and why I accused you of living in a bubble in that Mitt Romney thread last week. You copy and paste arguments from your favorite left wing blogs but you have no real understanding of the actual issues. You are absolutely clueless about what Republicans like Paul Ryan actually advocate because you show no interest in actually learning the truth. The problem for you is that there are actually a few conservatives on this message board that are going to challenge you on your factually inaccurate shyt.

 

[hayesc0]

I posted this interview a few days ago saying Soledad O'Brien destroyed him everybody said I was crazy
http://www.the-coli.com/higher-learning/32876-soledad-obrien-destroys-john-sununu.html