Matlock to seniors - Healthcare reform is good

[lerxstcat]

Dude, you're only calling it a public service announcement because you agree with the policy. Like I said earlier. Old people like to vote. Old people that are worried about how this law will affect them directly will hurt democrats in November. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that out. Dress it up however you want, but anybody capable of looking at this from a remotely objective view point can see this for what it is. As to the rest of your argument, I'm not here to debate the merits of the law. It has no bearing on this discussion. How I feel about Obamacare is irrelevent to the discussion.

It's a PSA because they are DOING IT, not talking about it. If it were a proposal you'd have a point, but this is a done deal that they are informing the public about. That's the very definition of a public service announcement. You'd LIKE the old folks to think it will hurt them, so as to not vote Democrat, I'm sure - whether it's good for them or not.

You're spinning it as propaganda because you don't agree with the policy. But it's not a question, or a plea. It's information for the people who are affected. Sorry if that irks you Bane, but it's simple fact.

Why do you keep assuming that you know what I want? I haven't made a single comment as to how I feel about this legislation. You have made about 5 of them. Who's the one with an agenda here? To tell you the truth, I applaud the fact that they've cut medicare. If they could clean up all the fraud and waste, I'd be a happy camper. None of that changes the fact that this is propaganda. It has nothing to do with informing the people that are affected other than trying to sway any adverse opinion come November. Go ahead and keep telling yourself that it's there as some touchy feely help the old folks message because our government really cares about their well being if it makes you feel better, but you're still just as wrong.

Bane, do you really think this thread exists in a vacuum? It's not like we haven't both been posting here for years. It's obvious that if you DID agree with the policy you would not be dismissing a PSA as "touchy-feely" and as propaganda. It's not that hard to infer from what you do say. It IS informational whether you accept that ot not; in fact, I find it ridiculous that anyone is getting upset about this, it's clutching at straws.

But if it makes you feel better, rail away at it. It's not like you can do anything about it. Other than vote the way you were going to anyway, so what's the diff?

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

if the government can afford to buy TV time to push their agenda, then they should be able to fund health care without any tax increases. If they can't, then they don't have their priorities straight. Like I already said in this post, if the government can afford to piss away hundreds of millions of dollars on TV and radio ads, taxes should be capped at the level they're currently at, and gradually rolled back. Spending millions to advertise when you're not trying to make a profit is just dumb, doing it with tax dollars shows how fucked up and out of touch these bureaucrats really are. Maybe if we didn't have a 13 trillion dollar deficit, and the government wasn't going to raise taxes to fund health care and schools were properly funded and there wasn't a single pothole anywhere in the country and the middle class weren't being slowly pushed into a 50%+ tax bracket, maybe then a few TV or radio spots wouldn't hurt, until that happens, they're just pissing away tax money

So, you want the government to become a for-profit corporation? You're conservative, so that's no surprise

Advertising is merely a method to get out one's message and promote one's goals. That goal can be profit in exchange for goods or services, such as Microsoft, Ford and Walmart. State and local governments also buy ads to get out their message as do many other non-profit entities, such as the Red Cross, Goodwill and the NRA.

[SmokeyRamone]

I'm not conservative, I'm more libertarian than anything else, and of course I don't want the government to become a for profit organization. I simply don't want them running commercials for any reason, especially when they're constantly looking for ways to raise taxes. It's irresponsible spending plain and simple. Today most states are in the hole and looking for a handout/bailout from the federal government. We have a 13 trillion dollar national debt. The federal government will soon be raising taxes to cover rising health care costs. States across the country, mine included are looking for more tax revenue anywhere they can, and yet they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on TV and radio advertising, it just doesn't make any fiscal sense.

[SmokeyRamone]

They wouldn't have to buy TV time if Republicans hadn't lied about the health care plan.

they could have called a press conference, or given an interview, they didn't have to buy TV time to do it. Obama could have talked about it when he was on The View the other day, or done a fireside chat. Buying airtime simply wasn't necessary

This isn't something new. Bush spent $100 million on anti-drug advertisements alone during his final year in office. Did Republicans complain? The only reason there is complaining about this advertisement is because of its content, not its cost. Republicans don't want their lies corrected.

I know it isn't anything new, this isn't a partisan issue to me, it's a government issue, it's wrong when the Obama administration does it, it was wrong when the Bush administration did it, it was wrong when the Clinton administration did it, it was wrong when Bush 1 and Reagan did it. As far as I'm concerned, the content is secondary to the fact that it's happening. I cited other examples of it in this thread like the Bush administration paying Armstrong Williams to push their education agenda, or the census bureau getting a $125 million dollar advertising budget, or the National Transportation and Safety board being sponsors of the Howard Stern and Conan O'Brien shows. I don't care who is pushing what, it's all money that could have been better spent.

Nobody likes to pay taxes. Problem with tax cuts is the voters like the govt to spend money. The only spending cuts that are popular are cuts to foreign aid and that's less than 1% of the Budget. If the voters want govt. spending, they need to pay for it. The only time we've seen serious spending cuts is after Clinton's tax hike in 93. Every time there is a tax cut, you have increases in spending. Forcing the voters to pay for the programs they want is the only way you're going to get spending cuts. Nobody gave a fuck when Bush blew 100 million on a ridiculous "just say no" campaign. But since Obama is talking about a tax hike, people get their panties in a twist over 700K and complain about socialism.

I gave a fuck when Bush did it, I just wasn't posting in this forum at the time. I haven't said a single word about socialism, again, this isn't about a specific party, this is about the government wasting money. Whether it's 700 grand or 100 million, it's still wrong. Fiscal irresponsibility is a huge problem in government, it's not a partisan issue, both sides are definitely guilty of it, and I maintain that if they can blow hundreds of billions of dollars on TV and radio ads, maybe they simply have too much money. And for the record, I haven't said socialism or socialist once in this thread. I've even kept my opinions about the health care bill to myself because I see this as a different issue.

So Bush was "just dumb" to spend 100 million on his anti-drug campaign. It's not "dumb" to correct lies and educate the public. Matlock's advertisement is correcting lies. Had no lies been told, the 700K would not have been spent. Blame the liars. If you told lies about health care, you're part of the problem and partially responsible.

Yes bush was dumb to spend 100 million on his stupid anti drug campaign. I'm not saying the Obama administration is dumb for this, just fiscally irresponsible, sure it's not as much money or as bad as what Bush did, but that doesn't mean they're not wasting money

So Bush was really fucked up and out of touch to spend $100 million on an anti-drug campaign. Obama's health care ad is less than 1% of that sum

again, to me it's not so much about the money in this case, it's the fact that it happens at all.

There is no "50% tax bracket." The top tax bracket is 35%. The average effective tax rate of someone making $1 million is 24%. That includes all taxes they pay (state, local, federal, payroll, property, excise, sales etc). People grossly overestimate how much tax they pay. Nobody is paying 50% of their income to the government.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/26/health ... d=rss_home

this is just an opinion piece, but is shows the DOJ is now arguing that the health care mandate is a tax in court, so come 2014, unless the mandate is overturned, all of our taxes are going to go up a lot, maybe not as high as 50%, but I'll bet it will be close to it for some people

Again, why didn't conservatives complain when Bush spent $100 million on a "just say no" type of campaign? What's obvious is that they don't want Republican lies corrected. This isn't about the money spent. It's about the content of the advertisement.

I don't know why they didn't complain about it, I sure did, just not here. In fact I'm the only person I know complaining about it this time. Everyone else on this thread seems to be defending it. I still maintain that it's wasted money no matter what administration is spending it, or what they're spending it on

Bush pissed away $100 million on a "just say no" campaign. Did you start a thread about it? Of course not. Again, this isn't about the money. It's about the content and the fact that lies are being corrected.

see above, I wasn't posting here at the time.

I was not a fan of Bush 2, with Obama I was cautiously optimistic when he was elected, but so far he's really let me down. I'm not 100% against the guy, but I am opposed to a lot of his policies and what he's done so far. I don't think he's evil, or he's a Muslim, or he's a socialist, I just have a lot of problems with the job he's doing, this Andy Griffith campaign is just the latest thing I take issue with

[tin00can]

It's amazing how many people are suddenly not fans of Bush 2 now that Obama is turning into Bush 3.

[bane]

Bane, do you really think this thread exists in a vacuum? It's not like we haven't both been posting here for years. It's obvious that if you DID agree with the policy you would not be dismissing a PSA as "touchy-feely" and as propaganda. It's not that hard to infer from what you do say. It IS informational whether you accept that ot not; in fact, I find it ridiculous that anyone is getting upset about this, it's clutching at straws.

But if it makes you feel better, rail away at it. It's not like you can do anything about it. Other than vote the way you were going to anyway, so what's the diff?

I'm not railing against it from any kind of partisan view point. Doing so would be pointless as both sides have been guilty of doing it. I'm simply defending my premise that this is propaganda. It's not anything new. Our government has been doing this for some time. Bush did it too. That doesn't make it right. The health care debate is over as far as I'm concerned, and as I've stated here several times, I'm not interested in making this an argument about that particular issue. This is about the misuse of tax payer funds for propaganda purposes. It makes no difference to me if it's a conservative administration pimping their latest or the liberal side doing it. The end result is the same. Our government needs to stop doing it IMO. Obama can hold as many press conferences as he wants. He can go on the View. He can talk to the public any time he feels the need to and not cost the tax payers a dime.

[SmokeyRamone]

it is possible to be critical of both Bush and Obama. I think Bush was worse overall, but still don't think Obama is doing a great job. It's not always about democrat versus republican or vice versa

[bane]

it is possible to be critical of both Bush and Obama. I think Bush was worse overall, but still don't think Obama is doing a great job. It's not always about democrat versus republican or vice versa

Preach!

[SmokeyRamone]

Bane, do you really think this thread exists in a vacuum? It's not like we haven't both been posting here for years. It's obvious that if you DID agree with the policy you would not be dismissing a PSA as "touchy-feely" and as propaganda. It's not that hard to infer from what you do say. It IS informational whether you accept that ot not; in fact, I find it ridiculous that anyone is getting upset about this, it's clutching at straws.

But if it makes you feel better, rail away at it. It's not like you can do anything about it. Other than vote the way you were going to anyway, so what's the diff?

I'm aware that the OP is a conservative honk trying to win points against the administration, but I'm not I'm not railing against it from any kind of partisan view point. Doing so would be pointless as both sides have been guilty of doing it. I'm simply defending my premise that this is propaganda. It's not anything new. Our government has been doing this for some time. Bush did it too. That doesn't make it right. The health care debate is over as far as I'm concerned, and as I've stated here several times, I'm not interested in making this an argument about that particular issue. This is about the misuse of tax payer funds for propaganda purposes. It makes no difference to me if it's a conservative administration pimping their latest or the liberal side doing it. The end result is the same. Our government needs to stop doing it IMO. Obama can hold as many press conferences as he wants. He can go on the View. He can talk to the public any time he feels the need to and not cost the tax payers a dime.

with all due respect, and I do respect your opinion Bane, bullshit. I'm not a conservative, in fact if you look at my last couple posts you'd see that we're pretty close to being on the same page. I'm not a blind Obama basher who looks for any reason to criticize the guy. When he does something that I think is worth criticizing, I bring it up, just like I would if it were a republican in office. I've said this more than once on this thread, issues like this aren't a partisan issue, they're a government issue. If McCain had won and his administration were running TV or radio commercials to push their agenda, I'd be just as pissed. EYU accused me of not speaking up when Bush spent 100 million on a bullshit anti drug crusade, and he was right but only because I wasn't posting here at the time. Waste and fiscal irresponsibility is not exclusive to either party, but when it's committed, I think it's worth pointing out.

[bane]

Of shit, sorry dude. I thought Nevermind started this thread for some reason. I went back and edited my post. My apologies.

[lerxstcat]

Bane, do you really think this thread exists in a vacuum? It's not like we haven't both been posting here for years. It's obvious that if you DID agree with the policy you would not be dismissing a PSA as "touchy-feely" and as propaganda. It's not that hard to infer from what you do say. It IS informational whether you accept that ot not; in fact, I find it ridiculous that anyone is getting upset about this, it's clutching at straws.

But if it makes you feel better, rail away at it. It's not like you can do anything about it. Other than vote the way you were going to anyway, so what's the diff?

I'm not railing against it from any kind of partisan view point. Doing so would be pointless as both sides have been guilty of doing it. I'm simply defending my premise that this is propaganda. It's not anything new. Our government has been doing this for some time. Bush did it too. That doesn't make it right. The health care debate is over as far as I'm concerned, and as I've stated here several times, I'm not interested in making this an argument about that particular issue. This is about the misuse of tax payer funds for propaganda purposes. It makes no difference to me if it's a conservative administration pimping their latest or the liberal side doing it. The end result is the same. Our government needs to stop doing it IMO. Obama can hold as many press conferences as he wants. He can go on the View. He can talk to the public any time he feels the need to and not cost the tax payers a dime.

So you prefer the government NOT tell its citizens what it is doing? The target of the commercial, older people, are also less likely to use the Internet. Newspapers, well that's be more costly by far nationwide than a TV commercial. Plus a lot of the elders can only read large-print which the newspaper does not offer.

Again, if they were doing this and NOT informing people, they would be criticized for that. I prefer they err on the side of informing the public to keeping it all under wraps. And yes, that applies to Democrat, Republican, Green Party, anyone who would be in power.

There might be a fine line between an infomercial and propaganda, but it's still better that they are telling us what they're doing than not. It's just as informative to YOU, if you oppose it, to know so you can vote AGAINST the party doing it, as it is for those who support it.

As for heath care reform as a whole, most conservatives are rallying that they are gonna undo it. If that really isn't your POV then I apologize for misjudging you. That comment can be taken as a general comment to those who think they are gonna undo it.

[bane]

I don't think conservatives are going to "undo" anything Lerx. That's just a bunch of right wing hogwash. As to the rest, I think I've made my view pretty clear on it. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Luminiferous]

Everyone up in arms over the cost of all of this, when rumor has it all Andy asked for was a complimentary dessert for he and Helen at the Blue Bird Diner..

[lerxstcat]

I don't think conservatives are going to "undo" anything Lerx. That's just a bunch of right wing hogwash. As to the rest, I think I've made my view pretty clear on it. We'll have to agree to disagree.

You have every right to your opinion, I just don't see why you don't want to answer my question; would you prefer the government NOT inform the people what it's doing? If you don't, you have the right to that opinion.

I kinda think if it was something you personally supported, you'd have no problem with a commercial being made. The fact that you don't want to directly answer the question brings me to that conclusion.

We can certainly agree to disagree, though.

[SmokeyRamone]

I can't speak for Bane, but there are plenty of ways to get the word out there short of spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money on airtime. Press conferences and other TV appearances, newspaper and magazine interviews just to name a few. A commercial campaign just isn't necessary and isn't what the government should be spending their time and money on. If people aren't informed, that's their fault. The government should not be wasting resources on trying to inform people who don't want to be informed. The information is available to anyone who wants it. We don't need TV and radio campaigns that cost hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money to try and form the willfully ignorant.

[lerxstcat]

I can't speak for Bane, but there are plenty of ways to get the word out there short of spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money on airtime. Press conferences and other TV appearances, newspaper and magazine interviews just to name a few. A commercial campaign just isn't necessary and isn't what the government should be spending their time and money on. If people aren't informed, that's their fault. The government should not be wasting resources on trying to inform people who don't want to be informed. The information is available to anyone who wants it. We don't need TV and radio campaigns that cost hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money to try and form the willfully ignorant.

When did this go from $700,000 to "hundreds of millions"? How much do you think TV time costs when advertising is hundreds of thousands a minute? Do you think private broadcasting, which is a business, should have to absorb announcements on a repetitive basis? If so, then why can't the government just come to YOUR business and take what it wants, in top of the taxes it pays?

Talk about your willfully ignorant....

[bane]

I don't think conservatives are going to "undo" anything Lerx. That's just a bunch of right wing hogwash. As to the rest, I think I've made my view pretty clear on it. We'll have to agree to disagree.

You have every right to your opinion, I just don't see why you don't want to answer my question; would you prefer the government NOT inform the people what it's doing? If you don't, you have the right to that opinion.

I kinda think if it was something you personally supported, you'd have no problem with a commercial being made. The fact that you don't want to directly answer the question brings me to that conclusion.

We can certainly agree to disagree, though.

I have already stated that the president can give as many press conferences as he wants. He can go on The View. He can talk to the public any time he feels the need. He can do it without spending tax payer dollars. I've also stated, repeatedly, that I don't care what the issue being advertised is. The issue isn't the problem. The use of tax payer dollars for partisan propaganda purposes is. How am I not answering your question? It appears to me that you just don't like my answers. One of us has an agenda here Lerx, and it ain't me. Look, I'm aware that this health care package is important to you. I get it, but understand that it's not that important to me. It doesn't change my life one iota, so really, I don't particularly care what happens with it. So, if you think I'm up in arms about it, you're wrong. You're coming across with some sort of persecution complex on this thing. Understand, it is not about health care for me. I don't know how I can be any clearer about it.

[lerxstcat]

I don't think conservatives are going to "undo" anything Lerx. That's just a bunch of right wing hogwash. As to the rest, I think I've made my view pretty clear on it. We'll have to agree to disagree.

You have every right to your opinion, I just don't see why you don't want to answer my question; would you prefer the government NOT inform the people what it's doing? If you don't, you have the right to that opinion.

I kinda think if it was something you personally supported, you'd have no problem with a commercial being made. The fact that you don't want to directly answer the question brings me to that conclusion.

We can certainly agree to disagree, though.

I have already stated that the president can give as many press conferences as he wants. He can go on The View. He can talk to the public any time he feels the need. He can do it without spending tax payer dollars. I've also stated, repeatedly, that I don't care what the issue being advertised is. The issue isn't the problem. The use of tax payer dollars for partisan propaganda purposes is. How am I not answering your question? It appears to me that you just don't like my answers. One of us has an agenda here Lerx, and it ain't me. Look, I'm aware that this health care package is important to you. I get it, but understand that it's not that important to me. It doesn't change my life one iota, so really, I don't particularly care what happens with it. So, if you think I'm up in arms about it, you're wrong. You're coming across with some sort of persecution complex on this thing. Understand, it is not about health care for me. I don't know how I can be any clearer about it.

I guess we are just really in disagreement then. I don't see the incumbent administration using taxpayer dollars to make and broadcast information on medical programs to be propaganda. I wouldn't see that no matter who was in office.

First of all, I think it's unfair to make the networks give free time to broadcast the President making a speech about every new thin g the government does. It's more fair to spread that cost equitably by using taxpayer money.

Second, the President doesn't necessarily have time to go on TV to proclaim every single thing the government is doing that people need to be informed about.

Third, not everybody is going to be watching TV at the moment the President makes his speech on the subject. A commercial can run again and again at various times of day, reaching far more people.

These are the reasons I do not see this as propaganda, asnd if it were a GOP administration telling us it was cutting benefits, I might not like the message but would still think a commercial, running repeatedly so as to reach the most possible people, would be the appropriate way to disseminate the information.

My agenda is definitely pro-health care reform, but that's not realy the issue here for me. And I don't consider it propaganda, but information. A wise and justified use of taxayer dollars. So in that regard, knowing you don't feel that way, we definitely do agree to disagree.

[SmokeyRamone]

I can't speak for Bane, but there are plenty of ways to get the word out there short of spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money on airtime. Press conferences and other TV appearances, newspaper and magazine interviews just to name a few. A commercial campaign just isn't necessary and isn't what the government should be spending their time and money on. If people aren't informed, that's their fault. The government should not be wasting resources on trying to inform people who don't want to be informed. The information is available to anyone who wants it. We don't need TV and radio campaigns that cost hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money to try and form the willfully ignorant.

When did this go from $700,000 to "hundreds of millions"? How much do you think TV time costs when advertising is hundreds of thousands a minute? Do you think private broadcasting, which is a business, should have to absorb announcements on a repetitive basis? If so, then why can't the government just come to YOUR business and take what it wants, in top of the taxes it pays?

Talk about your willfully ignorant....

I wasn't just talking about this case, but the 125 million dollar budget the census bureau was given, or the money the National Transportation and Saftey Board used to sponsor Conan O'Brien's old show, and Howard Stern's show (before he left for satellite.) Many government agencies are given advertising budgets. I don't know where you got the idea that I think the government should be allowed to run commercials for free, they shouldn't be running commercials at all. If they want to get word out, they can use the media, who'll report on the story not because they have to, but because it's newsworthy. I haven't watched a live presidential speech in years because I can read about it the next day in the paper after it's been vetted.

http://www.thetelegraph.com/articles/ce ... llion.html

With an advertising budget of $340 million, the Census Bureau has splashed the importance of a complete and accurate count through high-profile TV commercials during the Super Bowl

[Hames Jetfield]

I can't speak for Bane, but there are plenty of ways to get the word out there short of spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money on airtime. Press conferences and other TV appearances, newspaper and magazine interviews just to name a few. A commercial campaign just isn't necessary and isn't what the government should be spending their time and money on. If people aren't informed, that's their fault. The government should not be wasting resources on trying to inform people who don't want to be informed. The information is available to anyone who wants it. We don't need TV and radio campaigns that cost hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money to try and form the willfully ignorant.

When did this go from $700,000 to "hundreds of millions"? How much do you think TV time costs when advertising is hundreds of thousands a minute? Do you think private broadcasting, which is a business, should have to absorb announcements on a repetitive basis? If so, then why can't the government just come to YOUR business and take what it wants, in top of the taxes it pays?

Talk about your willfully ignorant....

I wasn't just talking about this case, but the 125 million dollar budget the census bureau was given, or the money the National Transportation and Saftey Board used to sponsor Conan O'Brien's old show, and Howard Stern's show (before he left for satellite.) Many government agencies are given advertising budgets. I don't know where you got the idea that I think the government should be allowed to run commercials for free, they shouldn't be running commercials at all. If they want to get word out, they can use the media, who'll report on the story not because they have to, but because it's newsworthy. I haven't watched a live presidential speech in years because I can read about it the next day in the paper after it's been vetted.

http://www.thetelegraph.com/articles/ce ... llion.html

With an advertising budget of $340 million, the Census Bureau has splashed the importance of a complete and accurate count through high-profile TV commercials during the Super Bowl

You do know that the majority of people get their news through broadcast media, right? Broadcast media doesn't cover as many topics in depth as print media, which is less popular. If the American people weren't so stupid then, yeah, this wouldn't be necessary. But you've got plenty of people, young and old, that are either apathetic or just too lazy to be bothered with "the news." It's a market-driven system and stories about the census and changes in healthcare aren't what sell advertising.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

I can't speak for Bane, but there are plenty of ways to get the word out there short of spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money on airtime. Press conferences and other TV appearances, newspaper and magazine interviews just to name a few. A commercial campaign just isn't necessary and isn't what the government should be spending their time and money on. If people aren't informed, that's their fault. The government should not be wasting resources on trying to inform people who don't want to be informed. The information is available to anyone who wants it. We don't need TV and radio campaigns that cost hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money to try and form the willfully ignorant.

When did this go from $700,000 to "hundreds of millions"? How much do you think TV time costs when advertising is hundreds of thousands a minute? Do you think private broadcasting, which is a business, should have to absorb announcements on a repetitive basis? If so, then why can't the government just come to YOUR business and take what it wants, in top of the taxes it pays?

Talk about your willfully ignorant....

I wasn't just talking about this case, but the 125 million dollar budget the census bureau was given, or the money the National Transportation and Saftey Board used to sponsor Conan O'Brien's old show, and Howard Stern's show (before he left for satellite.) Many government agencies are given advertising budgets. I don't know where you got the idea that I think the government should be allowed to run commercials for free, they shouldn't be running commercials at all. If they want to get word out, they can use the media, who'll report on the story not because they have to, but because it's newsworthy. I haven't watched a live presidential speech in years because I can read about it the next day in the paper after it's been vetted.

http://www.thetelegraph.com/articles/ce ... llion.html

With an advertising budget of $340 million, the Census Bureau has splashed the importance of a complete and accurate count through high-profile TV commercials during the Super Bowl

Wait a minute. I thought this was about healthcare propaganda.

When you claimed Andy's message was propaganda, I couldn't help but think you implied something insidious was involved. It is a very loaded word, after all, and often carries a negative connotation. Perhaps you could clarify things?

[SmokeyRamone]

in my inital post I said something to the effect that this seems like propaganda. A couple posts down I said I regretted using that word because even if it is propaganda, that's not what really bothered me. It's not about the message, or who's message it is. It's about wasting money. As others, myself included this is nothing new, just the latest case of the government deciding it knows what's best for everyone, and using tax money to fund an advertising campaign. The propaganda element is secondary to the hundreds of millions of dollars they waste every year, especially when they're constantly looking for ways to raise taxes. I'm against the health care plan for the most part, but even if I were for it, this ad campaign would have pissed me off.

[SmokeyRamone]

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/07/mayber ... -medicare/

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 law is guaranteed to result in benefit cuts for one class of Medicare beneficiaries — those in private Medicare Advantage plans.

The White House released the ad on the 45th anniversary of the Medicare program, and said it would run nationally on cable TV networks. Griffith, whose "Andy Griffith Show" was a TV comedy hit at the time Medicare was first enacted in 1965, explains the "good things" that the new health care law will mean for Medicare beneficiaries.

"This year, like always, we’ll have our guaranteed benefits," he says. An announcement of the ad on the White House website reinforces that claim, saying: "Under the Affordable Care Act … Seniors guaranteed Medicare benefits will remain the same." But the truth is, for millions of seniors, benefits won’t remain the same.

As we wrote most recently last December, about 10 million Medicare Advantage recipients could see their extra benefits reduced by an average of $43 per month, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And more recently, a detailed analysis by the Medicare program’s own chief actuary, Richard Foster, stated in April:

Medicare Actuary Richard Foster: The new provisions will generally reduce MA rebates to plans and thereby result in less generous benefit packages. We estimate that in 2017, when the MA provisions will be fully phased in, enrollment in MA plans will be lower by about 50 percent (from its projected level of 14.8 million under the prior law to 7.4 million under the new law).

Even the head of the White House Office of Health Reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle, acknowledges that Medicare Advantage benefits are going to be reduced. "I’m sure that some of those additional benefits have been nice," the Wall Street Journal quoted her as saying in a July 25 report. "But I think what we have to look at here is what’s fair and what’s important for the strength of the Medicare program long term."

A Weasel Word

So how can the Obama administration claim that "guaranteed Medicare benefits will remain the same"? 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. Foster, the chief actuary, estimates that federal spending for Medicare Advantage will be reduced by $145 billion over the law’s first decade.

Currently, about 1 in every 4 Medicare beneficiary is enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. For many of them, the words in this ad ring hollow, and the promise that "benefits will remain the same" is just as fictional as the town of Mayberry was when Griffith played the local sheriff.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

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. Foster, the chief actuary, estimates that federal spending for Medicare Advantage will be reduced by $145 billion over the law’s first decade.

So, cutting these extra taxpayer financed payments to private insurers is bad now? I would think you would be glad the government is saving us money.

It's not the governments (i.e. taxpayers) job to subsidize private insurance corporations in order to make them more attractive to their customers and more profitable to their shareholders. If private insurers want to offer generous benefits to drum up business, let them do it on their own dime.

[SmokeyRamone]

sure it's good they're cutting spending, my point was that the commercial with Andy Griffith, paid for with tax money, is misleading

[SmokeyRamone]

It's not the governments (i.e. taxpayers) job to subsidize private insurance corporations in order to make them more attractive to their customers and more profitable to their shareholders. If private insurers want to offer generous benefits to drum up business, let them do it on their own dime

so you don't think the government should be subsizing the insurance industry (which I wholeheartedly agree with) but have no problem with a federal mandate forcing every American to buy insurance from them?

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

It's not the governments (i.e. taxpayers) job to subsidize private insurance corporations in order to make them more attractive to their customers and more profitable to their shareholders. If private insurers want to offer generous benefits to drum up business, let them do it on their own dime

so you don't think the government should be subsizing the insurance industry (which I wholeheartedly agree with) but have no problem with a federal mandate forcing every American to buy insurance from them?

No, I was for the public option but this is what we're stuck with.

[SmokeyRamone]

It's not the governments (i.e. taxpayers) job to subsidize private insurance corporations in order to make them more attractive to their customers and more profitable to their shareholders. If private insurers want to offer generous benefits to drum up business, let them do it on their own dime

so you don't think the government should be subsizing the insurance industry (which I wholeheartedly agree with) but have no problem with a federal mandate forcing every American to buy insurance from them?

No, I was for the public option but this is what we're stuck with.

fair enough, I'm really hoping at least one of the court challenges to the mandate can gain some momentum and hopefully get it overturned

[Skate4RnR]

I don't know why you call yourself "Smokey" Ramone but you need to watch more anti-drug commercials. Just say no.

[SmokeyRamone]

I don't know why you call yourself "Smokey" Ramone but you need to watch more anti-drug commercials. Just say no.

why? Because I'm angry about wasteful spending? I haven't done any kinds of drugs in years