Thursday, August 27, 2009
From the GOP website:

How Government-Run Health Care Will Reduce Health Care Benefits You Currently Receive

"Maurice Engleman, 82 ... says the controversial Medicare Advantage program ... helped him beat cancer ... Engleman, who was diagnosed with tongue cancer last year ... [said,] ‘I don't believe Medicare would have taken care of the kind of services I required.'"

MANY OF YOUR FELLOW LOW-INCOME SENIORS BENEFIT FROM MEDICARE ADVANTAGE ...

Nearly Half Of Seniors Like You On Medicare Advantage Have "Incomes Below $20,000." "Among Medicare beneficiaries in all areas (regardless of whether a Medicare Advantage plan was available), 18 percent were enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. Forty-eight percent of beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage plans had incomes below $20,000. For comparison, 44 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries in the original fee-for-service program had incomes below $20,000."

Medicare Advantage Growing And "Making Extra Benefits Available" To More Of Your Fellow Seniors. "The relatively generous payment system for Medicare Advantage has encouraged greater plan participation in recent years, significantly expanding the number of private plans offered throughout the country and making extra benefits available to more beneficiaries."

BUT OBAMA'S CUTS TO MEDICARE ADVANTAGE WILL REDUCE YOUR HEALTH CARE BENEFITS

Your Medicare Advantage Program Is Obama's Top Target When It Comes To Paying For His Health Care Experiment. "The biggest savings he proposes, $177 billion, would come from having insurance companies bid for government reimbursements for offering private plans, known as Medicare Advantage, to senior citizens."

  • Obama Blasts Medicare Advantage As "Costly And Redundant." "About 10.2 million Medicare recipients are in Medicare Advantage ... the government pays insurers a set amount per Medicare beneficiary. Obama ridiculed it as costly and redundant ...."

And Obama's Cuts To Medicare Advantage Will Reduce Your Benefits. "Mr. Obama has repeatedly said, ‘Nobody is talking about cutting Medicare benefits.' At the same time, he wants to eliminate what he describes as ‘unwarranted subsidies' and giveaways to private Medicare Advantage plans, which use some of the money to provide extra benefits."

Ah, I see. Yes, this is something to be concerned about for sure. The GOP have caught the Democrats trying to cut back on some wasteful, redundant programs in the federal government and are duly alerting the senior citizens that some of these proposed Medicare decreases could adversely affect their medical care.

Although, now, to be fair, this does raise a rather important question that needs to be addressed. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Are you kidding me? Seriously? I got pissed off before when the Democrats were the ones that had no policy except for "the opposite of what Bush wants" and now I'm doubly pissed off that it appears to be the GOP's plan.

Is this really what the Republican party is about? Is it? Are we in favor now of more Medicare? When it's proposed that the scope of the federal government be lessened (even if it is possibly a preamble to enlargening - though that won't happen) is it now our job to run to the seniors? Should I be working on the elderly people I know, telling them that President Obama wants them to eat dog food and take away their Medicare? Or is this all just part of a grand plan to confuse the hell out of the AARP?

I'm sorry, this is just stupid. I'd rather the party stood for something and stuck to it than just blindly opposing whatever President Obama suggests and saying whatever nonsense it takes to win.
Aug 27, 2009 6:49 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback
 Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Wil Wheaton on Twitter:
I was an early adopter for Twitter, I mean, relative to when Twitter blew up and I thought that it was this really cool, new way to communicate with my friends and with just random people. I come from an improv comedy background and Twitter's like this giant global game of "Yes, and..." that we can play together - it's really fun. And I was really annoyed by the explosion of kind of like big-deal mainstream celebrities who I really thought were sort of like invading our space without getting - without, like, making an effort to understand it. And then I was even more annoyed with the big mainstream media, especially CNN, for trying to take Twitter and turn it into something that it wasn't. And I think it is an enormous testament to the fundamental mindset of we, like Twitter nerds that have been using this from the beginning that we survived that, like giant explosive 15 minutes of Twitter mania. And it's great for people like us and for a show like The Guild that we can completely circumvent the traditional old rules of communication for media and go directly to interact with the audience.

Exactly, yes. I would just add as an example, Oprah's much-hyped joining of Twitter. Her first post was predictably tone-deaf:
HI TWITTERS . THANK YOU FOR A WARM WELCOME. FEELING REALLY 21st CENTURY .
Let's see. Calling people "Twitters" for some reason? Check. All caps? Of course. Confusing spaces before periods? You bet. There's even a self-conscious reference to Twitter as being "really 21st Century".

Now I'm not just picking out minor things for no reason - it shows exactly what he was talking about. She (or whomever was writing for her) showed no attempt to learn the rules or understand what she was using. It was popular and that was the end of it.

To which you may say, "invading our space? It's not some elite thing; can't Oprah use it if she wants?" Yes, of course. And since creating her account she has used it fully, sending a whopping 56 tweets to her almost 2 million followers. 56 in about three months and nothing since mid July. To contrast, Wil Wheaton has sent 56 in the last week, Felicia Day in 5 days, and Alyssa Milano in 3.
Aug 4, 2009 7:41 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |  Trackback
 Monday, August 03, 2009
Says Pat:
White men were 100% of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100% of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country built basically by white folks, who were 90% of the nation in 1960 when I was growing up and the other 10% were African-Americans who had been discriminated against. That's why.

To be fair, there were probably some non-white people that would have been willing to help with the Declaration of Independence and such if it wasn't for the fact that they were only considered 3/5 of a person and would have been horribly beaten and stuff. You know, minor barriers like that.

Aug 3, 2009 9:44 PM (EDT)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]  |  Trackback