So the wrongness of lying is relative and situational? It’s okay to lie if there exist others who are lying? Got it.
In politics, the standards are lower, which is why you’ll notice that if you type in virtually any major political figure’s name in Politifact, you’ll get quite a few “Pants on Fire”.
I’d like to see a more honest campaign, but it’s pointless to whine about what just one side is doing, unless one side is going above and beyond with the dishonesty.
what we have right now is a rather typically dishonest campaign. The unusual part of it is the excessive whining coming out of both camps.
Except one of those statements is true and one is a lie, so you can’t say “If one, then the other.” That’s not how logic works.
When the president says that Paul Ryan would end Medicare as we know it, that is 100% true.
When Mitt Romney says the president “quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements, and under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check,” that’s a big, fat, stinking, steaming mound of bullshit lie.
Any guess as to why the governors might apply for such relief? Might it be something like that fact that they don’t have any jobs to give? That if they are required to provide jobs for welfare bums, they have to have them in the first place?
It is false, if we’re using the same stringent standards that you are applying to the welfare argument.
Not saying Politifact is the authority on truth and lies, but they did rate it Lie of the Year. Factcheck didn’t think it was particularly honest either.
As well as putting this stuff in perspective, it’s also important to recognize that people have different viewpoints. I believe Democrats believe that Ryan’s plan ends Medicare as they know it. Part of the reason is that Democrats see Medicare differently than non-Democrats. To them, the key feature is single payer and once you take that away it’s not Medicare anymore.
That could be a reason. If the administration wanted to be up front about that, we’d be having a different argument. Supposedly the economy has nothing to do with the waivers. Supposedly, it’s just giving governors what they’ve wanted for a long time. And I believe them, because the right time to do this for economic reasons would have been as soon as the administration took office.
And did anything else happen right about the time Obama took office? Anything that might, you know, have some bearing on the economic situation of the various states? Take your time, it’ll come to you…
Oh for fuck’s sake.
Does Paul Ryan propose turning Medicare into a voucher system, yes or no?
Well, actually that’s a “sort of”. His current plan is actually something akin to Obamacare + a public option (Medicare) with premium subsidies for everyone (as opposed to Obamacare where they are only for the poor).
Whether that is “ending Medicare as we know it” or not pretty much depends on how much you know about Medicare and health-care policy in general. If you think that a guaranteed benefit fee-for-service plan is the same as a premium support plan then I guess you might call it a lie.
And despite the fact that Politifact does indeed give it a “Pants on Fire” rating you fail to recognize how much of a lie this is. You know what Obama’s comments about Medicare are probably half-true, I mean Medicare for those currently over 55 will not end. But Romney is spouting an outright falsehood, it simply isn’t true. Ad no matter how much you try to claim it is really just a short distance between what Romney said and the truth, and how much you try to rationalize it as a normal “lie” in the context of a political campaign and it is therefore not “Pants on Fire”, you are wrong. It is a flat out lie, 100%. NONE OF IT IS TRUE. So just stop it, ok, stop trying to weasel some sort of justification out of this blatant misrepresentation.
By the same token, Medicare today is a fee for service program. Democrats want to change that. That is also ending Medicare as we know it.
Dems want to change the back-end structure of the program, not the user experience.
The Dems want to push it to results based so that money is saved. This isn’t going to impact the user’s experience.
The Repubs want to make Medicare into a premium support system that pays some small amount of your insurance bills.
Not being able to get insurance because you can’t afford it substantially changes the user’s experience.
All changes affect the user experience, especially moving from fee for service to pay per patient.
In both you get the care your doctor thinks you need. By disconnecting fee from service, you incentivize doctors to eliminate needless tests. But you still get the care you need.
In the Ryan version you stand with a voucher in your hand and wish really hard that you had an extra $6,000 to pay the difference.
Care vs. Standing in the rain with a voucher.
Not the same.
Not as far as the patient is concerned. All the changes in the Democrats program are on the provider side.
Which affects the patient. Doctors don’t do needless tests, but because of fee for service they will run every test they think necessary. Without fee for service, they’ll do fewer tests. That does affect the patient experience.
Current experience: “I’ve been feeling a pain in my side, can we look at that?” “Sure, we’ll do an X-ray, an MRI, and a blood test.”
Per patient experience: “I’ve been feeling a pain in my side, can we look at that?” “Oh, it’s nothing, here’s a prescription for pain.”
Doctor gets the same amount whether they do the tests or not.
Besides, if cutting provider payments doesn’t affect the patient, why are we worried about the doc fix? Just let the big cuts happen.
Wow. You have a very low opinion of doctors.
Those tests cost money. If they aren’t getting directly reimbursed, that changes the calculus.
I wasn’t the one who suggested doctors just perform needless tests.
YO! PEEPS! Don’t let the debate get hijacked! It’s an intentional sleight of hand to distract from the very real LIES Mitt Romney is spewing, and get you to defend a NOT LIE by his opponent. Don’t fall for it!
Mitt Romney LIED outright about President Obama’s waiver rule for Welfare.
Period.