McCaskill ad frames Rep. Akin as too extreme for Missouri
By Alexandra Jaffe – 08/10/12 01:01 PM ET
….In a rare moment of agreement, Akin’s campaign did not dispute the facts posted on the site, but did say it believed the positions McCaskill’s campaign is highlighting are sound ones and make Akin attractive to voters – and that he’s happy to come across as out of the mainstream….
Things do certainly change in a republican campaign in five days. It’s as if it’s a requirement for republicans to do so.
The newest attack ad from Todd Akin (r):
Todd Akin (r): I’m Todd Akin and I approve this message.
Narrator: Claire McCaskill’s attacks on Todd Akin, misleading, deceptive, false. Akin fights to protect and strengthen Medicare and Social Security, defending our Missouri values. Claire McCaskill voted with Obama ninety-eight percent of the time. was the deciding vote to pass Obamacare. Voted to cut and gut Medicare by seven hundred billion dollars. McCaskill voted to raise our taxes but didn’t pay the taxes on her own private plane. Claire McCaskill, the wrong way for Missouri.
“…Akin’s campaign did not dispute the facts posted on the site, but did say it believed the positions McCaskill’s campaign is highlighting are sound ones and make Akin attractive to voters…”
“…Claire McCaskill’s attacks on Todd Akin, misleading, deceptive, false…”
Which is it? Just asking.
And just who voted for what?:
The Difference Between Obama And Ryan’s Medicare Cuts
Sahil Kapur August 13, 2012, 11:30 AM
…The Medicare cuts, passed in the Affordable Care Act, come in the form of reimbursement reductions to hospitals, Medicaid prescription drugs and private insurance plans under Medicare Advantage. The Congressional Budget Office projects that they’ll extend the solvency of Medicare by eight years.
AARP, the seniors’ lobby and chief gatekeeper of Medicare benefits, endorsed the Affordable Care Act despite its cuts, arguing that they wouldn’t affect seniors’ access to care. The law expanded benefits by closing the prescription drug coverage gap known as the “doughnut hole.” The hospital and drug industries also endorsed the legislation, believing that the additional customers via the coverage expansion would more than make up for the cuts.
Obama and Ryan agree that Medicare per-beneficiary cost growth needs to be capped at per-capita GDP plus 0.5 percent. But they disagree on what to cut in order to get there.
Ryan’s plan under the Path To Prosperity would end Medicare as an insurance program that directly pays medical bills for the elderly. It would be replaced with a fixed subsidy which seniors may use to buy competing private and public insurance policies on an exchange. If the value of the subsidy does not keep up with the growth of health care costs, seniors would make up the cost and pay higher medical bills.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that Ryan’s plan would raise seniors’ out-of-pocket expenses by $6,500 per year….
And the vote on the Ryan (r) “Path to Prosperity, ity, ity” on March 29, 2012:
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 151
H CON RES 112 YEA-AND-NAY 29-Mar-2012 3:27 PM
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Resolution
BILL TITLE: Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022
—- YEAS 228 —
—- NAYS 191 —
—- NOT VOTING 12 —
Just so we understand – voting to cut Medicare costs by $700 billion over ten years by reducing costs with no reduction in benefits for seniors = bad, voting to cut $700 billion from Medicare, increase the annual cost to seniors by $6,500.00 each a year, and plow the “savings” into a large tax cut for the one percent = really good.