$3.1 MILLION for propaganda Andy Griffith Obamacare ads....

[Midnight Marauder]

...That many including factcheck.org call bogus. Because they are.

Judicial Watch Obtains Documents from Obama Administration Detailing Actor Andy Griffiths Misleading Medicare Advertisements | Judicial Watch

Oh and I spoofed the first one, if you all remember:

[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=8WG5yNxyd3g[/ame]

Anyone out there happy with $3.1 MILLION of our money spent on this propaganda?

 

[Greenbeard]

...That many including factcheck.org call bogus.

FactCheck suggested the ads were misleading because they assumed people don't know what their guaranteed (i.e. guaranteed in federal law) Medicare benefits are. Medicare Advantage plans can provide supplementary benefits, i.e. perks on top of what you're guaranteed for paying your Medicare payroll taxes.

There's nothing that's actually false about saying guaranteed Medicare benefits are protected. FC is just assuming that seniors in MA plans don't know that they may be getting benefits above and beyond what they paid for during their working years.

 

[Revere]

Obamacare doesn't work unless you get a waiver from it or you lie about it.

 

[uscitizen]

As I recall Bush spent a lot promoting the pill bill.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

As I recall Bush spent a lot promoting the pill bill.

"MOM, the OTHER KID did it TOOOOOOO!"

 

[Midnight Marauder]

...That many including factcheck.org call bogus.

FactCheck suggested the ads were misleading because they assumed people don't know what their guaranteed (i.e. guaranteed in federal law) Medicare benefits are. Medicare Advantage plans can provide supplementary benefits, i.e. perks on top of what you're guaranteed for paying your Medicare payroll taxes.

There's nothing that's actually false about saying guaranteed Medicare benefits are protected. FC is just assuming that seniors in MA plans don't know that they may be getting benefits above and beyond what they paid for during their working years.

Here's what factcheck actually said, from the article:

“Would the sheriff of Mayberry mislead you about Medicare? Alas, yes. In a new TV spot from the Obama administration, actor Andy Griffith, famous for his 1960s portrayal of the top law enforcement official in the fictional town of Mayberry, N.C., touts benefits of the new health care law. Griffith tells his fellow senior citizens, ‘like always, we’ll have our guaranteed [Medicare] benefits.’ But the truth is that the new [Obamacare] law is guaranteed to result in benefit cuts for one class of Medicare beneficiaries — those in private Medicare Advantage plans.”

 

[Vel]

The government wastes money on this type of crap and yet wonders why people are opposed to tax increases. I doubt people would have as much issue with the tax bill if they could count on the money not being wasted.

 

[Greenbeard]

Here's what factcheck actually said, from the article:

You're missing the important part of the article:

The answer is that the term "guaranteed" is a weasel word — a qualifier that sucks the meaning out of a phrase in the way that weasels supposedly suck the contents out of an egg. It may sound to the casual listener as though this ad is saying that the benefits of all Medicare recipients are guaranteed to stay the same — and that may well be the way the ad’s sponsors wish listeners to hear it. But what the administration is really saying is that only those benefits that are guaranteed in law will remain the same.

There’s even a section in the new law (section 3601) that says: "Nothing in the provisions of, or amendments made by, this Act shall result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits under title XVIII of the Social Security Act" (the title that establishes the Medicare program). Section 3602 says even Medicare Advantage recipients won’t suffer any reduction of "any benefits guaranteed by law."

But here’s the catch: The extra benefits generally offered by Medicare Advantage plans aren’t guaranteed by law. They are offered by private insurance companies as inducements. The companies have been able to offer somewhat more generous packages than traditional, fee-for-service Medicare because the system pays them as much as 40 percent more per patient than it pays for traditional Medicare, according to the chief actuary. The average in 2009 was about 14 percent more, according to the most recent analysis by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, issued in February. But the new law generally eliminates the extra payments in the coming years.​

In other words, the ad makes a factually correct statement (guaranteed Medicare benefits aren't touched, even in MA plans) by actually referencing the protections written in the law itself. There's absolutely no way that re-stating the actual language of the law can somehow be a lie about the law.

FactCheck's premise, as I said, is that people might not know that the 24% of Medicare beneficiaries or so who are in Medicare Advantage plans might be getting additional benefits that aren't guaranteed. But the reality is that those people are getting significantly more money spent on them by Medicare than are the other 76% of Medicare beneficiaries. Believe it or not, Medicare paying for your gym membership isn't actually part of what you're entitled to for paying your payroll taxes over your working lifetime. That benefit, for that minority of beneficiaries lucky enough to get it, is not guaranteed in law. Lots of benefits are guaranteed in law and those aren't being touched (which, again, is what the ad says). However that per patient payment disparity that FC mentions is exactly what's being reduced under the law and that may result in some perks (that other, fee for service Medicare beneficiaries already have to pay for out of their own pockets if they want them) being eliminated from the Medicare Advantage gravy train.

FC bases its objections on how the statement "may sound to the casual listener," (by that they apparently mean an uninformed listener) not its actual truth content. But I have no idea how you'd explain these concepts to someone in a 30-second TV spot or why you'd even want to try.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

FC bases its objections on how the statement "may sound to the casual listener," (by that they apparently mean an uninformed listener) not its actual truth content. But I have no idea how you'd explain these concepts to someone in a 30-second TV spot or why you'd even want to try.

Which, is the key to propaganda as invented by Goebbels.

This is $3.1 million worth, to promote a law already passed. A scam to promote a scam.

 

[The T]

FC bases its objections on how the statement "may sound to the casual listener," (by that they apparently mean an uninformed listener) not its actual truth content. But I have no idea how you'd explain these concepts to someone in a 30-second TV spot or why you'd even want to try.

Which, is the key to propaganda as invented by Goebbels.

This is $3.1 million worth, to promote a law already passed. A scam to promote a scam.

Some people just adore being led by the nose down the primrose path of the Statists.

 

[The T]

The government wastes money on this type of crap and yet wonders why people are opposed to tax increases. I doubt people would have as much issue with the tax bill if they could count on the money not being wasted.

And this is a huge one. As one poster already made reference to is that if it is so great? Then why the waivers?

 

[The T]

As I recall Bush spent a lot promoting the pill bill.

So in your bizzarro world that's carte blanche to continue failure?

 

[The T]

Obamacare doesn't work unless you get a waiver from it or you lie about it.

Smacks of the prohibition days doesn't it? Libs like to cite 'back alley abortions'....how about back alley doctors under the radar of the healthcare law?

The law is nothing but a giant usurpation of Liberty under the thumb of an out of control Federal Government.

 

[Greenbeard]

Then why the waivers?

Waivers to which provisions?

 

[Ravi]

"Oh, you're just full of fun today, aren't you? Why don't we go up to the old people's home and wax the steps?"

 

[boedicca]

The government wastes money on this type of crap and yet wonders why people are opposed to tax increases. I doubt people would have as much issue with the tax bill if they could count on the money not being wasted.

It's very similar to all that Stimulus Pork being spent on Billboards and Signs to announce the spending of Stimulus Pork.

 

[The T]

Then why the waivers?

Waivers to which provisions?

You portend to be such a fucking genius and proponent of this? Go do your own homework...

Last month, federal officials granted dozens of one-year waivers that were aimed at sparing certain employers, including McDonald’s, insurers and unions who offer plans that sharply limit the coverage they provide. These limited-benefit plans, also known as “minimeds,” fail to comply with new rules phasing out limits on how much policies will provide in medical care each year.

It's not provisions but rather the LAW and it's effect on Plans already in place. And these companies that cannot comply...and yes UNIONS are companies. Odd that Unions really pushed this...and now they too are applying for waivers?

Guess where I got this?

Do your own legwork GreenBoy.

 

[Greenbeard]

It's not provisions but rather the LAW ...

No, those are waivers from a rather specific provision. We went through this yesterday.

 

[The T]

I don't give a shit what you went through yesterday. The whole thing stinks and Government is outta bounds.

How's that strike ya?

 

[Greenbeard]

I don't give a shit what you went through yesterday. The whole thing stinks and Government is outta bounds.

How's that strike ya?

Being met with a slogan instead of discussion? Strikes me as being pretty predictable, actually. Surprisingly light on the invectives this time, though. Kudos.