Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Obamacare's Deficit Reduction Continues to Unravel - This is very surprising

The Washington Examiner? You're seriously bringing that crap in here? Lies aren't so much surprising as, well, wrong.

The options that most Medicare Advantage participants select include Rx coverage. That reduces overall costs of care for seniors* because it results, essentially, from moving Medicare money around, mostly from hospital coverage to Rx benefits.

Team Obama has shown no reluctance to pivot on a dime on policy when it decided where they were headed was either politically or economically (or both) inadvisable.

I don't expect either you or Philip Klein to understand this stuff. MA and plans of its type were conceived of long ago by conservatives who had an interest in policy & governing. People like Kein - liars like Klein - have another,very small, agenda

*not all Medicare beneficiaries are seniors, but most are, so

Does the GAO lie? That's what his article is based on. Feel free to read the "lies" at its source:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-281

What do cat pictures and GIFs have to do with Republican politics? Not a whole lot, at least right now. But beginning next week, that'll change.

Staffers at the National Republican Congressional Committee are finishing up a site redesign that'll likely be rolled out this weekend. The new NRCC.org does away with all the typical features of a political website, emulating instead the style of the Web juggernaut whose top headlines currently include "10 Easter Bunnies Straight From Hell" and "14 Photos Of George W. Bush Touching Bald Men's Heads."

Yes. They're going to copy BuzzFeed.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:is NAMBLA real or like a hypothetical everyone uses?

Bucky wrote:i don't know, but i wouldn't google it if i were you

Werthless wrote:Thta's a relief.

CalvinBall wrote:

Werthless wrote:Thta's a relief.

just saying since you only want to point out the negative.

Werthless wrote:

what, a poor person can't go bowling once in a while?

in any event, once it's in their hands, it's their money. that's my view.

Studies have shown that giving cash has a larger effect on quality of life in the recipient than receiving "restricted" benefits. So I'm very sympathetic to this view, that we should just implement a negative income tax and wipe our hands of over-engineering outcomes.

However, the moral justification used to support these transfer payments relies on the fact that the money should be spent to contribute to certain positive societal outcomes. It's harder to justify transfers that can be used on bowling.

And really, if the scope of the problem is so tiny (0.09%), then I don't understand why there would be opposition to a change. If it eliminates mis-informed perceptions, then it may contribute to the longer-term health of the funding.