All year long, the media were disgusted with the new Medicare prescription drug benefit that became available this January thanks to George W. Bush and a Republican Congress. It was too confusing. It was too expensive. It wasn’t going to save anybody any money. It was just a big payoff for Bush’s friends in the pharmaceutical industry.
Remember?
Well, almost three weeks after the polls closed, it must be safe to report the truth: 80 percent of seniors are satisfied with the new benefit. So said the Boston Globe Monday (emphasis mine throughout):
It sounded simple enough on the campaign trail: Free the government to negotiate lower drug prices and use the savings to plug a big gap in Medicare's new prescription-drug benefit.
But as Democrats prepare to take control of Congress, they are struggling to keep that promise without wrecking a program that has proven cheaper and more popular than anyone imagined.
Wouldn’t want to tell people this before Election Day, would you folks? The article miraculously continued:
The Medicare drug benefit, one of the Bush administration's signature domestic programs, was created in 2003 and took effect in January. It has enrolled 22.5 million seniors, some of whom had no previous drug coverage.
Polls indicate that more than 80 percent of enrollees are satisfied, even though nearly half chose plans with no coverage in the doughnut hole, a gap that opens when a senior's drug costs reach $2,250 and closes when out-of-pocket expenses reach $3,600.
There’s even more good news: “The cost of the program has been lower than expected, about $26 billion in 2006, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The cost was projected to rise to $45 billion next year, but Medicare has received new bids indicating that its average per-person subsidy could drop by 15 percent , to $79.90 a month.”
So, more people have signed up for it than anybody expected, it’s cheaper for seniors than expected, cheaper for the government than expected, and over 80 percent of enrollees are satisfied. Just imagine how that kind of news regularly disseminated in October instead of a sex-scandal involving a little-known Florida Congressman might have impacted the elections.
What a disgrace!
*****Update: Our member "kw" pointed out that this Globe story was taken from a front-page Washington Post article published on Sunday. Imagine that. Here are some paragraphs the Globe didn't include (emphasis mine):
Initially, he said, people were worried no private plans would participate. "Then too many plans came forward," Reischauer said. "Then people said it's going to cost a fortune. And the price came in lower than anybody thought. Then people like me said they're low-balling the prices the first year and they'll jack up the rates down the line. And, lo and behold, the prices fell again. And the reaction was, 'We've got to have the government negotiate lower prices.' At some point you have to ask: What are we looking for here?"
Republicans contend that Democrats were looking for a campaign issue.
In the Nov. 7 elections, public anger over the doughnut hole helped many Democratic candidates, who pointed to the ban on government negotiations and accused Republicans of selling out to the pharmaceutical industry.
Republicans, by and large, did a poor job of defending the program, said Thomas A. Scully, a Republican and the former head of the federal unit that runs Medicare. He played a key role in creating the drug benefit.
In reality, this appears to be another part of the Democrat bait and switch -- yet one more campaign promise they had no intention of keeping -- and the media were totally complicit in the scam. In the end, the 2006 elections could go down in history as the one in which the most lies were told to voters by both politicians and their minions in the press.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Noel
November 28, 2006 - 00:08 ET by BlondeNoel,
Nice post.
I heard a bit on this on the radio today....the statement was that "80% of seniors LOVE the new program".
I know my mom does.....she started taking the 1x a month calcium pill, Boniva (Sally Field does the commercial). After much hunting....it was $80 per dose....after about eleven months, I think it's down to about $17.
But heaven forbid, that didn't happen until Bela Pelosi was elevated with all of her squeaky clean colleagues (you know...Jefferson, Reid, Hastings, Murtha, et. al.) The truly unfortunate thing, though, is that the seniors all watch the MSM...and they'll believe it was a democrat initiative that "gave" them this benefit.
Maddening.
I really want to buy a plasma T.V., but at this point, I may have to turn all media off forever.....
Why do Seniors love the nightly news?
November 28, 2006 - 00:14 ET by terrigBlonde, I know we've chatted about this before but I just don't get why Seniors watch the Nightly News as if their lives depended upon it. Funny thing though is my Dad got a prescription plan when he retired and my Mom was all worried that they would take that away. So far they haven't but even their neighbors who hate George Bush they love the prescription drug plan.
Senior Viewing
November 28, 2006 - 00:21 ET by Blondeterri,
I suspect it's just habit. I had to tolerate CBS / Dan Blather / Bob Scheiffer until I was ready to lose my bloody mind! Must say I'm now a Katie fan....she was so bad even my mom won't watch her....but hello Charlie Gibson!!!!
If we polled our fellow NB'ers, we'd get the exact same result.....it's a viewing habit our parents are loathe to give up.
Unfortunately, and for a reason not known to me, the senior set believes everything they read and hear that's disseminated by the MSM as gospel....maybe it's because they grew up in an environment when journalism was at least somewhat honest.
Sad, but true.....
so true
November 28, 2006 - 00:23 ET by terrigI think you're right. The days of David Brinkley are over but they still think he's around.
ladies from the geezer
November 28, 2006 - 00:33 ET by misterbillterri, blonde--I am not like that and I once posted a protest that us geezers were better than that, but when I check with my older friends, I'll be darned if you are not right. Darn fools and then they wonder why the young folks don't want us driving around. A simple truth is we held Cronkite in a position next to the Pope, maybe even higher. We watched and it took no effort. I think older people have to have something shake them up before they put any effort into seeking the truth. I owe my attitude due to an innate distrust of the Kennedys. All of which have been proved to be true. It made me start questioning a lot of things I saw on the TV news or read in the $& $# ing Boston Globe.
PS In a recent discussion with a friend, I mentioned what an a$$h**e Jimmuh Cahter was. He (65) said, "Oh, he does such nice things for the country". God help us!
misterbill,Well, maybe if we
November 28, 2006 - 00:38 ET by Blondemisterbill,
Well, maybe if we keep double teaming the senior set, they'll begin to see the truth....or at least not buy the MSM's shtick, hook, line, and sinker.
You are no "geezer", kind man, you are a treasure.
Nite'o.
nite
November 28, 2006 - 00:41 ET by misterbillnite, eyes are getting heavier!!! ZZzzzzzzzzz!
Misterbill
November 28, 2006 - 00:42 ET by terrigYou know about 3 years ago my Mom said the same thing & my husband & I both said "are you crazy????". She said "why, he builds houses for poor people". Yeah, I know the type you're talking about. Why are the Kennedy's on a pedestal? I don't get that either.
Terrig
November 28, 2006 - 00:50 ET by misterbillTerri, if you will go along with macabre humor, Kennedys are popular because they get away with murder. I grew up in BOston. The schmucks up there idolize the Kennedys. I never knew why. I thought I was alone and held my counsel. The day that Robert Kennedy was assassinated, I overheard a couple of fellow emplotyees discussing it. They felt that it was a horrible thing to happen but that it was probably a good thing for the country. Teddie boy allowed a young girl to drown while he saved his pig a$$ and then bought the law and the parents off. He was guilty of involuntary manslaughter, but he was never tried. I was mature and experienced enough to realize that he would probably get probation (involuntary) but he was NEVER charged. I never was a fan---whenthat happened I became an opponent!!
terri PS
November 28, 2006 - 00:52 ET by misterbillPS To me, Kerry, Kennedy, it's all the same!
The news and TV disseminates that
November 28, 2006 - 01:51 ET by SportPoliticsThe news and TV disseminates that. If you are not involved in poitics but just get the regular doses of stuff in between it all, you were RAISED in my generation to worship the Kennedy's and especially JFK, and his speeches and our run to the moon, and the terrible tragedy of his assination that "everyone remember's exactly where they were" when it happened and the entire nation stood weeping, filled with sorrow at the loss of the greatest man ever known.
That's what gets hammered down the throats of all the kids that grew up in the 70's and 80's. No one I would say that doesn't specifically pay attention to politics is really aware of it, it's disseminated as if it were "common knowledge".
So the only time anybody "wakes up" to become aware of the ingrained propaganda is when they check into politics and start to learn about that which is "verboten" to the masses, like drunken Teddy's Mary massacre and Daddy's alcohol running and mafia ties and their Hyanissport Kennedy Compound and the Bay of Pigs and the secret missile removal deal and all that crap.
That is so true Sport. I at
November 28, 2006 - 07:22 ET by The Real TonyThat is so true Sport. I attended parochial schools for all my schooling and there were four things in every classroom: a crucifix, a picture of the Pope, a flag and a picture of John F. Kennedy.
We used to have a running joke that during oral quizzes, if you didn't know the answer just say "God" or "John F. Kennedy" and odds were good you would be right or at least not get chewed out for being wrong. You know what? It worked.
I guess the Catholics were more than happy to overlook all his philandering and his rampant liberalism (as well as his old man's bootlegging) since they had a Catholic in the White House. You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned how everything related to JFK is disseminated, and accepted, as common knowledge and he is considered the "greatest man ever known." Where that thought started is beyond me.
It sickens me that the Kennedys are held is such high esteem because it doesn't happen anywhere else. Joe Kennedy had his daughter lobotomized because she was a little uninhibited, but he had money from the aforementioned bootlegging and quite a bit of less-than-desirable connctions from the same business. All of that is glossed over.
I can't believe of all the Kennedys, Ted is the survivor. Just wait; when God finally punches his ticket, there will be a gruesome saccharine display of sentimentality and his killing of a young woman will be glossed over as a 'tragic event that derailed his hopes for the Presidency" instead of it being treated as the death of a young woman with a good future.
Fight Terrorism at home - defeat a liberal!
lol - The Real Tony
November 28, 2006 - 23:42 ET by SportPoliticslol - The Real Tony
Thanks for the explanation and superior additions, my young "training" makes more sense now.
My mom still watches NBC in
November 28, 2006 - 08:49 ET by msh1973My mom still watches NBC in the morning and evening. I keep telling her to turn it off, but she insists it is just the "talking" that she likes. My dad on the other hand only watches FOXNews. He is very well informed, gotta love Dad.
I too grew-up in a household
November 28, 2006 - 10:37 ET by ValendilI too grew-up in a household where the evening "news" was on at dinner time. I have graduated to FOXNews, like your Dad, and find myself much more informed than my colleagues!!
Blonde no, no, no
November 28, 2006 - 00:24 ET by misterbillBlonde buy that TV--there are still some good CSI shows, House, NFL, Close to Home, Jericho (in my opinion, Jericho is a prediction not fiction) and a host of other entertainment shows. So, enjoy!!!!!
I have said this many times on NB. I have not watched Nightly News or KOLB, I tuned in once each to Colbert (silly, stupid ass), Stewart (sometimes funny, alltimes stupid),I never watch TV in the morning, I read the papers(I'm a geezer as you know), besides I like doing the crosswords on a piece of newsprint.
I take three meds, but I get some money from a retirement med plan. If I buy from the company they specify, they pay 50% of generics and 35% of name brands. I am fortunate.
Geez, mrbill.....You scared m
November 28, 2006 - 00:28 ET by BlondeGeez, mrbill.....
You scared me with that "No, No, No!!!!"
Well, my Gators would look pretty cool on a wide screen plasma. Guess we should take that discussion over to the open thread, tho. ;-)
On ripoffs on TV and by the government
November 28, 2006 - 00:43 ET by UnsaneJericho? Surely you mean The Day After: The Series?
CBS better be paying some royalties to ABC for that one...
Anyways, with my apologies to the senior citizens who post here...because of the demographics of the country, I cringe whenever you guys are promised some other freebie by politicians. All that tells me is that there will be one less thing for me (and my generation) when I finally hit that stage in life! For the past decade, one of the central tenets of my investment strategy is: assume Social Security will not exist at all when you retire, then plan accordingly.
Am I somehow wrong?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
You are smart to take that po
November 28, 2006 - 13:57 ET by HokieconYou are smart to take that position. I'm not quite a Senior Citizen, but have the same opinion as you re: Social Security. There might be something for me, but then again, I'll stop working when they pry the keyboard from my cold, dead fingers.
IMHO, Social Security reform suddenly became a non-starter for the Bush administration when they could have used it as leverage for the election campaign. The political blunders are stacking up.
--Hokiecon
hokiecon gopgirl
November 28, 2006 - 14:06 ET by misterbillYou are wise to look at the finances that way. My fellow geezers bought the Dems and AARP scare tactics. The GW Bush plan to privatize part of SS was an excellent idea. I wish that had been the case through the 70s,80s,and 90s,. My little amateur analysis shows I would have almost doubled my annual SS income.
I read somewhere that the rat
November 28, 2006 - 17:33 ET by HokieconI read somewhere that the rate of return on SS "funds" a decade or so ago was around 4%. Now it's about half of that, I think. You can get a better rate putting your money into a regular old fashioned savings account. My kids aren't going to have a SS "fund" as they will be paying double to support me.
If we took a poll of the majority of Congressional reps and senators, I'll bet you lunch that 100% of them have investment plans and 0% of them are worried about whether SS is going to require them to work the rest of their lives.
--Hokiecon
hokiecon hate to tell you!!!
November 28, 2006 - 17:53 ET by misterbillhokiecon hate to tell you!!!
It has been a while since I checked,. but the interest rate was 2%. The Department of Defense borrowed most of the money. In this sense, each and every administration has played lightly with our investment in retirement. Again, I stopped checking, but I can remember, about 8(?) years ago, the collections were $58Billion more than the disbursements. If you play with the numbers and go back far enough, had the money been invested in the private sector, say half growth and half income we would be in darn good shape today. had it been invested in all growth (and not dot.coms) it would be so healthy we would not be discussing it.
I hate to sound like a Nicholas Chauvin, but I believe the USA will come up with a solution. It won't be perfect, but it will help. I just wish the %&%pols would stop playing politics with our retirement money.
Agree completely. One of t
November 28, 2006 - 20:52 ET by HokieconAgree completely. One of the lib arguments for illegal immigrant amnesty is that they will become "payers" into the SS System, so why bother reaching into the fiscally responsible kit bag and make the SS system a real investment scheme rather than the ponzi scheme it is now. What the libs fail to understand is that they've probably already consumed about as much as the "potential" for them to put in.
--Hokiecon
Why should our Representative
November 28, 2006 - 20:30 ET by UnsaneWhy should our Representatives and Senators worry about investements, IRAs and Social Security when their retirement pensions are assured AND guaranteed to be adjusted for inflation after a mere six years of service?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Sorry Unsane...I'm new here
November 28, 2006 - 20:56 ET by HokieconSorry Unsane...I'm new here, so I forgot to make it obvious I was being a bit rhetorical when I mentioned the Congress. If we were to make it mandatory that all of Congress and the Judicial and Executive branch be on the SS System, it would probably be fixed faster than we can all say "fiscal responsibility"
;)
--Hokiecon
If we could make it so that
November 28, 2006 - 21:18 ET by lnthompIf we could make it so that Congress-Critters have to obey the laws they write, lots of things would be fixed in a hurry.
LNTHOMP previously posting as LEENT. U.S. Navy (ret.)
My success and happiness are not determined by who wins elections.
Response
November 28, 2006 - 21:23 ET by CRDGood, because if it they were you would be very sad and unsuccessful at the moment.
English, Do you speak it? How
November 28, 2006 - 21:26 ET by ChemicalOperatorEnglish, Do you speak it?
How about trying again with that last post. It makes no sense.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
Response
November 28, 2006 - 21:47 ET by CRDSkip it. Its beyond your ability to comprehend.
I understand completely. So
November 28, 2006 - 21:59 ET by UnsaneI understand completely. Some of us, unlike you, don't go crying to the government every single day for the solutions to ALL of life's woes.
Do you ever have anything constructive to add?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Your right, I do not read stu
November 28, 2006 - 22:02 ET by ChemicalOperatorYour right, I do not read stupidity.
Learn how to properly formulate a sentence than post. Its simple really.
Dont worry we will wait for you to figure it out.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
Response
November 28, 2006 - 22:04 ET by CRDWell based on your own definition, you just did.
I knew better than to argue w
November 28, 2006 - 22:09 ET by ChemicalOperatorI knew better than to argue with you.
How does that expression go.... "Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to there level and beat you with experience"
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
Response
November 28, 2006 - 22:11 ET by CRDAnd yet you are doing just that.
I wished I would of had that
November 28, 2006 - 18:01 ET by bigtimerI wished I would of had that option too misterb! For the rest of the republicans to forget about an idea that is a good and solid one made me furious...there was no fighting for it!
It is an option, nobody was going to be forced into it!
BT AARP scared people
November 28, 2006 - 18:14 ET by misterbillBT AARP scared people the seniors were shaking in their boots. They were led to believe taht if Congress passed Bush's privatization plan that their checks would be reduced. Naughty AARP. I will remain a member, but only to take advantage of travel discounts. (They have been quite good!)
We will never join the AARP..
November 28, 2006 - 18:28 ET by bigtimerWe will never join the AARP...there is another organization that is a conservative one like the AARP, just can't think of the name right at the moment that has comparable rates and goodies misterb!
The AARP are despicable critters in my opinion, I was surprised when they came on board for the medicare program that the Bush administration got through....about time they supported something from the conservative side, which by the way, over eighty percent of the people like...lol!
I will try and find it in the next couple of days and PM you if interested! We need to get the info again too!
If travel discounts is import
November 29, 2006 - 13:45 ET by dscottIf travel discounts is important, then have you checked AAA? They do a lot of that stuff, why support a leftist organization through annual dues and being counted among the total represented to legitimize their political positions?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Thanks Noel for another great
November 28, 2006 - 02:35 ET by lostincyberspaceThanks Noel for another great post.
I don't see this sub-topic brought up much, although it may be discussed elsewhere further. I believe that in communities that are relatively small, like the one I live in, certain members of society (ie. Seniors) are targeted by the newsprint media to sway opinion and it makes me extremely flustered. For me locally, it’s not so much even what they currently print, although what they print is well pointed out in this and other great forums, but what they don’t print. As well, the headlines they use, article location, article placement, daily run, etc. all seem to me to be manipulated.
I grew up incorrectly thinking that the US main stream media was generally "fair and balanced", now I see that I was substantially misled. It wasn’t until I lived overseas on and off for the last 15 years that has opened my eyes. Sites like NB don’t hurt either…. :-)
What people expect of newspapers
While living in Kuala Lumpur this summer, working on a three month contract in an ordinary “office” there, I came across an editorial in a free local daily newspaper I read regularly with interest. I found the link to the online version a few minutes ago.
“A newspaper's role then is to report the news, to recognize [sic] that there is a plurality of views on many of the issues that matter to society, and to present these different views in a balanced manner - not with any sinister aim to instigate trouble, but with the recognition that the press has a role to play in informing and empowering readers to form their own opinions and make their own decisions.”
I ripped the article out of the newspaper and saved it to deliver to one of the local paper's editor where I live here in the US. The main alleged “newspaper” here is simply a Lee Ent., AP, NYT mouthpiece that literally surrounds certain articles with others that propagate the current required selling point(s). Of course this newspaper “owns” the town since there’s no other for competition. The second alleged “newpaper” is a small, weekly, free, biased paper that spews further rhetoric. I could go on for hours but will save myself (and you) and look forward to tomorrow mornings “news” print niblets, knowing my elderly, much respected Mom, Aunts, Uncles and others will be reading with interest… makes me sad. Thanks again Noel, please keep it up.
LostInCyberspace
Hmmm. I can believe only 20
November 28, 2006 - 04:34 ET by sarcasmoHmmm. I can believe only 20% of seniors are fiscal conservatives; that sounds about right, sad to say. And it's good to see that this boondoggle seems to cost less than expected, but it's nothing to crow about IMO because it's still an expensive creeping-socialist Hillarycare-style boondoggle, and "conservative" Republicans, of all people, should be able to understand that you're not gonna be able to out-socialist the Democrats on this issue no matter what gets spent. Also, from my eyes the CBO looks a hell of a lot more bipartisan than "nonpartisan" -- and there IS a difference -- at least here in libertarian-realityville!
JMR
Sarcasmo, my job entails supp
November 28, 2006 - 10:37 ET by BruzillaSarcasmo, my job entails supporting a Medicare Part D call center that helps seniors, and I think you're wayyyy off base when it comes to describing Med D as a "creeping-socialist" program. In fact, the exact opposite is true as it is the model of free market capitalism at its finest.
The core of socialism is that everyone gets treated equally. Med D was designed to not be equal for everyone. Those with minimal drug needs got a great deal, those with catastrophic needs got an ok deal, and those in between got hosed as they have to pay a premium but get no benefits (these are the people who make up 20-30% "dissatisfied" crowd.) By not giving equal coverage to everyone, and basing coverage on a person's total annual drug costs (their share and medicare's share added together) the plan encouraged people to keep their drug costs to a minimum. Also, Medicare only specified what minimum coverage would be and left it up to individual health plans to determine what the maximum benefits would be. This allowed plans to add additional benefits, at their own cost, in order to gain market share. So companies like the one I work for offered to cover generic drugs while the member was in the coverage gap.
In Hillarycare, a senior would have been able to get any cadillac drug they wanted and the plan would pay for it. With Med D the plan will pay for high-cost drugs but once you hit the $2,250 drug cost limit you fall into the coverage gap and receive nothing until you spend $3,600 of your own money. This made seniors rethink the need for pricey name-brand drugs and got them to go after cheaper generics. Also, since most plans offered a provision for coverage of generic drugs during the gap period, this pushed seniors to use lower-cost drugs even more. This drove up the demand for generics and forced the drug companies to change their business models. Before Med D, new drugs were patented and sold as name brand drugs at premium prices until their patent expired. Now that seniors have become accustomed to generics, they will look for a generic alternative drug if a new name brand drug is too expensive. So the new business model is to release a brand name drug and measure its sales performance, and when sales start to slide release a generic version as soon as possible. This has resulted in a big increase in the number of generic drugs that are available.
Now, moving away from seniors, all Americans are benefitting from the new business model as now there are enough generics, at low prices, for operations like WalMart and Target to get involved and offer very low cost generic prescriptions to everyone. And what will the impact of this be? It won't be long before seniors start dropping out of Med D because there's no point in paying a $40-$60 monthly premium to get a generic prescription filled for $5 when you can get it for $4 at WalMart without the plan. So we're likely going to see the first self-terminating entitlement program.
Hillarycare would have negotiated lower prices at the start of the program, but any price that can be negotiated down can later be negotiated up. Also, since her plan covered all drugs for everybody, there would have been no incentive for people to use or push for low-cost generics. The Med D plan has been a model for government answering a public need by letting the market place set prices and by giving people a reason to keep the cost of the program at a minimum.
Ooops... forgot a point that the article left out. Besides the costs of the program going down 15% for 2007, the coverages for seniors have improved. The 2006 coverage gap was from $2,250 total drug costs to $3,600 true out-of-pocket (trOOP) costs, the 2007 gap has been raised to $2,400 to $3,850, so even fewer people will fall into the gap in 2007.
"So we're likely going
November 28, 2006 - 11:41 ET by sarcasmo"So we're likely going to see the first self-terminating entitlement program."
You're an optimist. I'm not. I just wish I could find a way to bet on this proposition, because I think I could give you fairly-good odds it won't ever happen. If it's not creeping socialism, why get big government involved at all? I'm just not-with-you on this one -- perhaps I see it as a tax-payer more than a recipient, I don't know. I also think that cheap generic drugs in Wal-Mart in no way result from political "initiatives," I think they're instead a result of powerful forces unleashed by market competition.
JMR
WaPo SUCCESS OF DRUG PLAN CHALLENGES DEMOCRAPS
November 28, 2006 - 07:39 ET by kwSame story on the front page above the fold Washington Post (link to story). Headline reads "Success of Drug Plan Challenges Democrats". Two things right off the bat regarding the headline - (1) "success of drug plan" post election timing already discussed above and (2) "challenges democrats" again the liberal bias centers around the almighty Democraps. Why not "Success of Drug Plan Helps Seniors"?
And my favorite line..."...PROVEN CHEAPER AND MORE POPULAR THAN ANYONE IMAGINED." Who is the anyone? If you mean anyone on the left, anyone in the Democrap party, or anyone in the liberally biased media - then I agree, but how about the folks that devised the plan? Did they imagine the plan would be an utter disaster? Give me a break. THis is a VERY SAD example of poor liberally biased reporting.
It seems the Dems have been r
November 28, 2006 - 08:44 ET by dscottIt seems the Dems have been revealing a number of November surprises. Only the dults are surprised that Dems misrepresent the truth in their sales pitch to get your vote. Are you buying what they're selling? Caveat Emptor.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
It has been said that a peopl
November 28, 2006 - 10:55 ET by Indiana JoeIt has been said that a people gets the government they deserve.
Now comes the MSM, who can blatantly lie and misdirect the attention of a whole country, come right out and SAY they are going to manipulate opinion, freely admit, after the fact, that they DID misrepresent the news, and openly decide to re-define a debate based on semantics. And, by and large, most people seem to just NOT CARE!!!
Maybe we DON'T deserve better....
Depressing... but I have a wicked cold, so that's probably affecting my attitude.... ;^\
Noel - and where's AARP?
November 28, 2006 - 12:58 ET by Gary HallNoel - and where's AARP now?
Spot on. I remember a national poll last year (casually here), from which came this rather generic impression:
yet,
Go figure - might have had something to do with the MSM and AARP presenting nothing but smear on the issue.
Of course the same is generally true on the topic of SS reform and immigration reform, is it not?