Posted by 
White House spreading lies about Sarah Palin
There is a White House memo making the circulation that claims Sarah Palin’s recent op-ed mentions “Eliminating Medicare”. Not true!
Every non partisan organization that has looked at her claims say they are false. And the ideas in her op-ed are both scary and risky. Eliminating Medicare and giving our seniors vouchers instead is a bad idea that we shouldn’t adopt.
This claim is false.
In the former Governor’s op-ed, she addresses several arguments by Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute to include “providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage”. There was no mention of Medicare elimination. Rather common sense would imply that the voucher is merely an option, as the word “allow” would imply.
It is important to note that there was only a singular mention of medicare in Palin’s op-ed.
Read Palin’s op-ed here
[...] White House attacks Sarah Palin and makes false claims about [...]
In this case the word “allow” does NOT imply that they may or may not get a voucher – in her op ed Palin proposed “providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that ALLOW them to purchase their own coverage”. This purchasing of “their own coverage” indeed implies the recipient of the voucher could choose to opt out of Medicare. In her post Palin credits Michael Cannon of the Cato institute with this idea. Here are all the details of his plan. (yes opting out of medicare is exactly what he has in mind) http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-12.pdf Pay close attention to page 5 of the pdf (page 129 of his page numbering). This is where he actually proposes to “replace Medicare with a prefunded system where workers invest their Medicare taxes in personal accounts dedicated to their health needs in retirement”. I would say the characterization that Mr. Cannon (and therefore also Ms Palin) proposes to “eliminate” Medicare is completely accurate.
Mr Cannon’s plan to eliminate Medicare and replace it with a vouchers for purchase of private insurance is consistent with the budget amendment the Republicans proposed in January. Here they not only specify how they will end Medicare, but also lay out a time table for its gradual demise, and replacement with vouchers.
Do you have a clue as to what you are talking about PJ? Since when do you get to decide what someone means or implies? Maybe your friends ar ACORN who used the term “play on words” will suffice for the left, but not here. Also, since when does it mean that a person supports all stances of an individual, when they mention they support a few. Mr. Cannon may in fact want to replace medicare all together, if so, go after him. I don;t beleive Sara said anything about supporting that view, or “all” of his views.
By your standards, that means that Obama supports “all” the views of all his czars. Shall I name all the crazy views that they have?
typical liberal, spouting of implications and play on words when thier views can not be supported by facts. lol
Don:
What are you talking about? Yes, I do attempt to understand what someone means when I read what they have written. Often that understanding includes implied meaning. I hope everyone attempts to understand what they read. Here is Ms. Palin’s paragraph:
“Instead of poll-driven “solutions,” let’s talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let’s give Americans control over their own health care.”
Yes, I am giving Ms. Palin the benefit of the doubt here. I assume that she includes Michael Cannon’s name in her post on purpose. I am assuming that she includes his name because he is an example of a person who’s plan she is holding up as a good example of the type of reform she supports, and that the has read and understands his proposal. I am also assuming that if her own ideas include a major departure from his proposals, she would not be shy about communicating that, or she would just pick a person with whom she is more closely aligned. What I don’t understand, is why all the cloak and dagger? Yes there are a lot of conservative plans out there outlining how to transition Medicare out of government and into the private sector. (See the Republican proposed budget amendment for one such plan) Why are the Republicans hiding from their own policy? Are they afraid that if the public knew what they were up to they would disapprove?
Don:
Its not really a big mental leap. When she says points you to Mr. Cannon’s plan and then says “providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage” – that makes me think she is in favor of Mr. Cannon’s plan to provide Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage, instead of depending on the coverage from Medicare. By the way this is a version of your party’s plan for phasing out Medicare – lots of Republicans voted for it in the January budget amendment. That amendment also included specific funding levels incrementing 2% each year until Medicare is completely privatized. For some reason the people that voted for that amendment in January are attempting to distance themselves from that position.
Oh my, PJ, you assume WAY TOO MUCH! no wonder you are so bitter. Bottom line, the word “allow” does not translate into “mandate”, “require”, “must” or anything like that. Allow, by definition means “to give permission to or for; permit”. Or, in basic terms, giving a choice!
Again, Obama hired all his czar’s, do you think he support ALL of their views on EVERYTHING?
hmmmmmm
Have a nice day!
Don:
Thanks. You have a nice day too.
No, of course I don’t think that President Obama has the exact same views as any of the people he hired, nor do I think that Ms. Palin ascribes to all of the views of Mr. Cannon. I do however think that Ms. Palin was referring to Mr. Cannon as an example of someone who’s views she does support, which is why she choose to refer to him in her op. ed. Was there something in that article that lead you to believe otherwise?
I like your definition of “allow”, and how you distill it down to “giving a choice”. That is just how I phrased it in my post too. Here is how I put it: ” purchasing of “their own coverage” indeed implies the recipient of the voucher could choose to opt out of Medicare”.
Whats with the name calling? (“bitter”, “typical liberal spouting”, “crazy”, “my friends at Acorn”, etc)
Do you think other people could read Ms. Palin’s op. ed. and read Mr. Cannon’s proposal for Medicare Vouchers and reasonably conclude that her position was consistent with his, or am I just reading way too mush into the fact that she sites him by name, and proposes the same things he does?
Natalie:
Based on your interpretation and Don’s reading of Ms. Palin’s op. ed. It sounds like I have misinterpreted Ms. Palin’s intentions with regard to replacing the government Medicare program with vouchers that would allow Senior citizens to purchase private insurance ultimately in place of Medicare. Do you think that Ms. Palin would agree with the white house position which you state above: “Eliminating Medicare and giving our seniors vouchers instead is a bad idea that we shouldn’t adopt.”?
Is this all just a misunderstanding, and in reality Ms. Palin and the Whitehouse are on the same page with Medicare? – both think keep Medicare, no vouchers. Now do I have it right?
Well PJ, I can not speak for Natalie, or Sarah Palin and the white house for that matter. But I say this, with regard to Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin has a track record of going against the republicans, that you can be sure of. She does not back down from what she says, no matter the consequences. From my observation, she has not said anything or done anything that leds me to beleive she wants do do anything with medicare, other than give some choices. Right or wrong, that is what I beleive based on her specific words and actions. Does she beleive otherwise, perhaps. I do not pretend to know what others think, so I can’t ever say for sure.
As far as the White House (as a whole) is concerned, I do not think they want to eliminate Medicare either…nothing that has been said or done would lend me to believe that. I do know that there are those in congress and in Obama’s administration that want a single-payer system (includeing Obama himself), based on their own admissions. A single-payer system (if you know the true definition of a single payer system) would lead to the end of medicare BUT transfer those benefits into the single-payer system. It does not mean the end of coverage of the elderly, it just a transfer of benefits. So, I do not believe that the WH (as a whole) wants to eliminate Medicare, but they do want to make cuts, in the way of fraud waste and abuse. And let me tell you, as a federal employee, FWA cuts ALWAYS leads to cut that are not associate withe FWA.
In a nut shell, in my opinion, the WH and SP are not on the same page, but they are not far off either. Neither one of use will ever no for sure. But I put more stock in actions and past track record that words. SP doesn’t have a track record on ACTION with regard to medicare, so I have to put a little more stock in her words alone…no assumptions. Those in the white house….plenty of actions to go off of.
As for me, I do not want to see medicare go…it is a decent system. But there are areas of this country that do not give seniors a lot of options, with regards to who accepts Medicare. Vouchers would be a good “Alternative” for those in that type of situations.
wouldn’t you agree.
Sorry about the spelling, grammer and random thoughts. I am on break and do no have time to proof read.
Don:
Thoughtful post. I agree with you that actions often speak louder than words.