[talaniman]

I get it, Obama is trying to scam seniors why exactly?

The GAO cannot score facts NOT in evidence, and the funding is targeted at specific carriers that have under preformed. Even the GAO admits the funding was transitional for those that have not come into compliance with the new law. The scam is how the right spins it.

DIG DEEPER>

The administration defended the program, saying without bonuses many plans would not have an incentive to improve.

But Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the GAO report suggests that the administration abused its authority, pumping money to the plans to avoid more criticism over the cuts.

Medicare Advantage is a popular private insurance alternative to the traditional health care program. More than 3,000 private plans serve nearly 12 million beneficiaries, about one-fourth of Medicare recipients. They offer lower out-of-pocket costs, usually in exchange for some limitations on choice.

Hatches rhetoric doesn't tell seniors they are being ripped off to start with, and will have more economical choices when the law is implemented fully, in two years.

Did you want me to continue elaborating what the do nut hole is doing under those plans, or can you find them yourself? You do know that the seniors prescription program was intentionally set outside of Medicare to begin with don't you? It cost the government NOTHING because it shifted costs to seniors. That's a republican idea by the way, and a vision of what you guys want, seniors paying for there own health care, as well as drugs.

[speechlesstx]

Um, WaPo is hardly a right-wing spinmeister.

The auditors did find, however, that [B]the bonuses would temporarily ease the auditors did find, however, that the bonuses would temporarily ease the pain of unpopular cuts to insurance plans under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law.

Ahead of presidential and congressional elections in which seniors are a key group of swing voters, the administration has been working hard to portray itself as a good steward of Medicare, by cracking down on waste and fraud, improving benefits, and keeping costs under control. The GAO report could become a blemish on its record.

Again, why is Obama trying to scam seniors? This is HIS health care plan, why on earth would he need to delay "the pain of unpopular cuts" in HIS OWN plan come October?

[TUT317]

Yes, the old fist/nose fire in a crowded theater thing. Where does advocating for my candidate or speaking an opinion fall in that, the right not to be offended?

Hi Steve,

You or your candidate speaking an opinion and the right not to be offended are two different things.

In theory you have a say because of indirect democracy, Your candidate puts forward your views because your views can be tied to a plurality of various interests.

The right not to be offended is different. The First Amendment has never stopped the abridging of speech( as opposed to the freedom of speech) The speeches I was actually talking about were the usual ones excluded by the First Amendment. Things like copyright, causing people to riot, obscenity and that type of thing.

My reference to corporations does come under the umbrella of political plurality. On this basis SCOTUS got the Citizens United decision wrong.

Justice Kennedy in summing up says that the First Amendment purposefully keeps government from interfering "in the market place of ideas" and "rationing" speech, He says that it is not up to the legislators or the courts to create a sense of "fairness" by restricting speech.

But where does the First Amendment say or imply this? It says that government shall not abridge freedom of speech. Where does it say or imply that governments can't PROMOTE freedom of speech. Before Citizens United decision was handed down there was at least some attempt to create plurality( plurality in this instance implying equal access of competing interests).

Corporations may well represent you best interests, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But Corporations sponsoring the current administration and corporations that will sponsor the next Republican government have no appeal for me. For me it would Hobson's choice. Where is the plurality in that?


Tut

[talaniman]

Um, WaPo is hardly a right-wing spinmeister.
Again, why is Obama trying to scam seniors? This is HIS health care plan, why on earth would he need to delay "the pain of unpopular cuts" in HIS OWN plan come October?

What part of private insurance companies that cannot comply with the law in 2014 will not survive. The companies that offer cut rates, and cut rate care will no longer be viable. We see them becoming unviable now, and others more competitive are spring up. Mostly larger companies underwriting smaller ones. Same company though, that already are in compliance.

Did you even know you could keep your primary insurance, and make Medicare a secondary one? Dude no matter what math you use, that's a savings for many seniors. Orrin Hatch doesn't tell you that either, and he was the spinmeister I was referring to and cited in bold. He is running in his first primary since 1976, and faces stiff tea party opposition. He has to attack, can you imagine that? The most conservative senator in the senate isn't conservative enough!

[speechlesstx]

Hi Steve,

You or your candidate speaking an opinion and the right not to be offended are two different things.

I know this, Tut. It is the left in this country and this stupid attempt to amend the first amendment that doesn't get it.

They are always outrageously outraged about something that offends them and therefore the offender must be silenced. They have been trying for years to silence Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives whose speech they find offensive. They don't believe that a corporation should have the right to have any (conservative leaning) influence. In short, if it offends them it shouldn't be allowed or it must be mandated that an opposing view be presented. As tom explained it:

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech ,except for corporations they don't like . This provision will not apply to trade unions ,public service unions , press institutions we favor ,or special interests advocacy groups that Democrats approve of ." ?

I on the other hand, will defend their right to free speech whether I find it offensive or not. I believe in the free speech enshrined in our constitution. If expressing my conservative views offends someone they'll just have to get over it.

[NeedKarma]

The problems lies in the fact that your politicains are bought and paid for by corporations and unions who have bigger and deeper pockets than any individual can ever have in a lifetime. That gives unfair access and influence - don't you agree?

[speechlesstx]

The problems lies in the fact that your politicains are bought and paid for by corporations and unions who have bigger and deeper pockets than any individual can ever have in a lifetime. That gives unfair access and influence - don't you agree?

Is there too much big buck influence? Yes. The problem is the left only wants it to end where it doesn't benefit them.

[speechlesstx]

What part of private insurance companies that cannot comply...

What part of any of that explains why Obama wants to scam seniors on his own healthcare plan?

[tomder55]

The problems lies in the fact that your politicains are bought and paid for by corporations and unions who have bigger and deeper pockets than any individual can ever have in a lifetime. That gives unfair access and influence - don't you agree?

The answer to that is to require full transparency and to have term limits . The answer is not limit speech.

We are not talking about campaign contributions here . We are talking about groups of people pooling their resources to air advertising . The specifics of the Citizen's United case makes that clear. All they wanted to do was air a film about Evita Clintoon but found that it was in violation of the unconstitutional law called the "McCain–Feingold Act " .

[NeedKarma]

a film about Evita Clintoon

Who's that?

[NeedKarma]

They are always outrageously outraged about something that offends them and therefore the offender must be silenced.

I see M. Limbaugh is doing just that!

Rush Limbaugh Issues DMCA Takedown To Censor Video Criticism | Techdirt

[talaniman]

Take a break and you righties run amok. Nobody is doing a thing about the right wing yakety yaks or the church for that matter, its just you have no respect for us lefties that believe in fair, and equal, or informed about the yakety yak in the first place.

I don't agree with you righties, and have as much RIGHT as you do to express my disagreement. Now having said all that, and just MY opinion, your level of true facts is severely challenged and doesn't go deep enough to paint more than a superficial examination of the cause and effect of policies that you have shown a real deficiency of understanding. You are good people but only barely informed to get beyond the rhetoric, and cleave issues beyond the basic concerns of talking points.

In short, I would propose multiple links to make a point, and not just one that you agree with. Just in case, on the off chance, that you are wrong and closed minded like Rush the Clown, and the network that claims fair and balanced but delivers the opposite.

Confession- I don't disagree with the ideas most times, it's the implementation that lacks clarity or precision, or the lack of considerations that an open mind gives to solutions and to be stuck in a lack of independent analysis.

Conclusion, Righties think everyone else is WRONG! Your designation is aptly earned. Love you any way. No matter what facts I give you, you may never believe it.

Oh well, back to rhetorical sparring.

Originally Posted by speechlesstx
They are always outrageously outraged about something that offends them and therefore the offender must be silenced.

Observation and rebuttal by Talaniman, stolen from his right wing buddy,
They are always outrageously outraged about something that offends them and therefore the offender must be silenced.

Of course I don't expect you to see my point.

COMING SOON, TALANIMAN VEERS RIGHT!!!

[speechlesstx]

I see M. Limbaugh is doing just that!

Rush Limbaugh Issues DMCA Takedown To Censor Video Criticism | Techdirt

Since when is copyright infringement claims on your property the equivalent of silencing someone else? I'd absolutely love for Kos to take on Rush, that could be quite entertaining. Especially for a guy like Kos who enjoys scrubbing his site of things that might be embarrassing to him.

[speechlesstx]

Take a break and you righties run amok. Nobody is doing a thing about the right wing yakety yaks or the church for that matter, its just you have no respect for us lefties that believe in fair, and equal, or informed about the yakety yak in the first place.

I don't agree with you righties, and have as much RIGHT as you do to express my disagreement. Now having said all that, and just MY opinion, your level of true facts is severely challenged and doesn't go deep enough to paint more than a superficial examination of the cause and effect of policies that you have shown a real deficiency of understanding. You are good people but only barely informed to get beyond the rhetoric, and cleave issues beyond the basic concerns of talking points.

In short, I would propose multiple links to make a point, and not just one that you agree with. Just in case, on the off chance, that you are wrong and closed minded like Rush the Clown, and the network that claims fair and balanced but delivers the opposite.

Confession- I don't disagree with the ideas most times, its the implementation that lacks clarity or precision, or the lack of considerations that an open mind gives to solutions and to be stuck in a lack of independent analysis.

Conclusion, Righties think everyone else is WRONG! Your designation is aptly earned. Love you any way. No matter what facts I give you, you may never believe it.

Oh well, back to rhetorical sparring.





Of course I don't expect you to see my point.

COMING SOON, TALANIMAN VEERS RIGHT!!!

In other words I've been right all along. You lefties think we're clueless idiots and pay no attention to facts presented or what we actually say. Case in point, I've only asked three times why Obama wants to scam seniors on his own health plan and you have done nothing but swerve away from the question asked.

Here
Here
Here

You ask for multiple links and I deliver. Now how about answering the question?

[NeedKarma]

Since when is copyright infringement claims on your property the equivalent of silencing someone else?.

Abuse of DCMA (of which there has been plenty since that law came into effect), since it's fair use. Plus why does he not want footage of himself on his own broadcasted show? How can that possibly work against him?

Of course he's too stupid to know about the Streisand effect. This will get more play than he had not made a big deal of it.

The video can be seen on that site I linked to. He's truly a vile person, no?

[speechlesstx]

Abuse of DCMA (of which there has been plenty since that law came into effect), since it's fair use. Plus why does he not want footage of himself on his own broadcasted show? How can that possibly work against him?

Sorry, but protecting your copyrighted material is entirely different than telling someone else to shut up.

Of course he's too stupid to know about the Streisand effect. This will get more play than he had not made a big deal of it.

LOL, yeah he's pretty dumb to have amassed that big a fortune and a radio empire.

The video can be seen on that site I linked to. He's truly a vile person, no?

Sorry, I don't consider Rush a vile person. Over the top sometimes, yes, but for the most part the left gets outraged over him because a) they don't actually listen, b) he's effective and c) they have no sense of humor. Other than that I'll let Rush defend himself and I await Kos taking him to court and letting them decide about the fair use stuff.

[TUT317]

I know this, Tut. It is the left in this country and this stupid attempt to amend the first amendment that doesn't get it.

They are always outrageously outraged about something that offends them and therefore the offender must be silenced. They have been trying for years to silence Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives whose speech they find offensive. They don't believe that a corporation should have the right to have any (conservative leaning) influence. In short, if it offends them it shouldn't be allowed or it must be mandated that an opposing view be presented. As tom explained it:



I on the other hand, will defend their right to free speech whether I find it offensive or not. I believe in the free speech enshrined in our constitution. If expressing my conservative views offends someone they'll just have to get over it.

Hi Steve,

I think there is a need to separate the content from how the content is presented. If someone is offended by a political commentary on the radio it can be convenient to say they are offended by the politics when in fact they are offended by the way it is presented, not the content. In other words they might be offended by vulgar, obscene and the derogatory way the item is presented.

People have the right to freedom of speech but they don't have the right to speech per se .Strictly speaking you don't have the right to present your views in an offensive manner if this manner violates common laws.


Tut

[NeedKarma]

LOL, yeah he's pretty dumb to have amassed that big a fortune and a radio empire.

If that is the only way you value someone's worth then I see why we differ.

Also you seem to think that repeatedly calling someone a slut is all good fun. We differ there as well.

[speechlesstx]

Hi Steve,

I think there is a need to separate the content from how the content is presented. If someone is offended by a political commentary on the radio it can be convenient to say they are offended by the politics when in fact they are offended by the way it is presented, not the content. In other words they might be offended by vulgar, obscene and the derogatory way the item is presented.

In a way you're right, but I say it's much more who says it then how it's presented. Case in point, and tom will attest to this - last June someone was complaining of name calling or some such by conservatives. I merely linked to a story by an Obama supporter and only MY post was removed because it was "offensive." The name calling was by others, I just reported a story.

That same subject was infamous because after the story came out Paul Shanklin wrote and recorded a parody. All hell broke loose after that. Same with Rush's remarks on Sandra Fluke (for which he apologized), the left is still trying to silence him over that yet that unfunny 'comic' Bill Maher can say much worse with no apology and get a complete pass.

It's not what is said in this country that sends the left into a fury, it's who says it. It's free speech no matter how offensive, unfunny, hateful, vile or threatening or beneficial for them, but everyone else needs to get on board with them or just shut the hell up. It's not about laws Tut, it's hypocrisy plain and simple. The first amendment is as much for me as it is for them.

[speechlesstx]

If that is the only way you value someone's worth then I see why we differ.

Back to the fallacious arguments, eh? Let's see, the subject was his intelligence. Your assertion was "he's too stupid" and the answer was of course, he's so stupid he managed to amass a fortune in building a radio empire, a massive following and managed to land himself as the left's number one target for destruction.

I didn't see in there where I even hinted at how I personally measure someone's worth, but I'm sure you'll make something up.

Also you seem to think that repeatedly calling someone a slut is all good fun. We differ there as well.

Do you never tire of just making things up? Really, NK, don't you think it's petty and childish to attempt to impugn my character by making things up that are obviously untrue? I think that's cowardly in my opinion, you seem to think it's noble - we differ there.