The ones that mentioned the stealing from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare are called Republicans in the House of Representatives, and several of the new Senators elected in the 2010 blow back. The one's that tried to either support the passage of ObamaCare and its robbing from Medicare, or run from their votes for that, are called former Democrat Party Congressmen and former Democrat Party Senators.

Where were you in 2010, Adam? Or when ObamaCare was being foisted on us with ony 24 hours of debate in Congress? It's been loud and clear, especially for those under Medicare...hence the huge superiority of voter support from the senior crowd for Romney!

Keith - It must be positively EXHAUSTING repeating the lies about the Medicare savings and the 24 hours of debate on the ACA. Seriously, stay away from the FAUX, the crackpipe or whatever it is you're on ... it's not helping.

$700 billion from Medicare?

The claim that Obama cut $700 billion out of Medicare is relatively new. Not long ago, the oft-cited number was $500 billion. How did he manage to cut another $200 billion when no one was looking?

First things first: Neither Obama nor his health care law literally cut a dollar amount from the Medicare program’s budget.

Rather, the health care law instituted a number of changes to try to bring down future health care costs in the program. At the time the law was passed, those reductions amounted to $500 billion over the next 10 years.

What kind of spending reductions are we talking about? They were mainly aimed at insurance companies and hospitals, not beneficiaries. The law makes significant reductions to Medicare Advantage, a subset of Medicare plans run by private insurers. Medicare Advantage was started under President George W. Bush, and the idea was that competition among the private insurers would reduce costs. But in recent years the plans have actually cost more than traditional Medicare. So the health care law scales back the payments to private insurers.

Hospitals, too, will be paid less if they have too many re-admissions, or if they fail to meet other new benchmarks for patient care.

Obama and fellow Democrats say the intention is to protect beneficiaries' coverage while forcing health care providers to become more efficient.

Under the new law, the overall Medicare budget is projected to go up for the foreseeable future. The health care law tries to limit that growth, making it less than it would have been without the law, but not reducing its overall budget. So claims that Obama would "cut" Medicare need more explanation to be fully accurate. In the past, we’ve rated similar statements Half True or Mostly False, depending on the wording and context.

Because Medicare spending gets bigger every year, the cost-saving mechanisms in the health care law also get bigger. Also, it takes a few years for the health care law’s savings mechanisms to kick in. In fact, the effects of time are the main reason the $500 billion number has turned into $700 billion.

The CBO determined in 2011 that the federal health care law would reduce Medicare outlays by $507 billion between 2012 and 2021. In a more recent estimate released this year, the CBO looked at the years 2013 to 2022 and determined the health care law affected Medicare outlays by $716 billion.

So it’s timing that’s making the cuts bigger, not changes to Medicare.

Historic steal for ‘Obamacare’?

Now, to address the word "robbed." We know the civility is at a low ebb these days, but we think it’s worth pointing out that the money was not robbed in any literal sense of the word.

Congress passed the law through its normal process, and the proposal was debated out in the open during the many weeks that the final law was being negotiated.

At the time the health care law was being finalized and passed, Democrats said it was important to them that the new law not add to the deficit. So the reductions in Medicare spending were counted against the health care law’s new spending. That spending is primarily to cover the uninsured, by giving them tax credits to buy private insurance. But some new spending increases Medicare coverage for prescription drugs for seniors.

Finally, Romney said Obama is the "only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare." In reality, several presidents have reduced Medicare spending.

We reviewed this history in detail in a fact-check of Romney’s statement from December, "Only one president has ever cut Medicare for seniors in this country . . . Barack Obama." We rated that False. Many presidents have sought to rein in Medicare spending.

Here are a few highlights from that fact-check:

• President Ronald Reagan cut Medicare by reducing payments to hospitals, and he cut benefits by raising deductibles.

• President George H.W. Bush cut benefits by repealing a law that would have expanded coverage for drugs and catastrophic illness.

• President Bill Clinton cut Medicare by changing payments to doctors and other providers, which could be considered to have an indirect effect on beneficiaries.

Our ruling

Romney said, "There's only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare, $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare."

The only element of truth here is that the health care law seeks to reduce future Medicare spending, and the tally of those cost reductions over the next 10 years is $716 billion. The money wasn’t "robbed," however, and other presidents have made similar reductions to the Medicare program.

We rate this statement Mostly False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/15/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-said-barack-obama-first-history-rob-me/

Congress started the debate for the ACA in the summer 2009 and the bill passed in March 2010. So either you are lying about the "24 hour debate" or you really, really suck at time management.

Sub committee and committee hearings do not qualify as full House and Senate thoughful debates. 20 minutes a side to debate by a subcommittee the merits of each proposed regulation before it was railroaded into a bill by a party line vote is the way the 2000 plus piece of crap legislation was accomplished, and at no time did the interlocking impact of any of this get debated in Congress, such as the proposed trimming of $500 billion in waste and fraud from Medicare, and the $216 billion of Medicare Advantage premiums being cut out and spread over a 10 year period. By the way, there were a lot of things in Medicare Advantage policies, like no co pay and deductions and internal prescription costs and dental and vision care from these HMO like policies that aren't available in Traditional Medicare.

When ObamaCare went to the full floors of the House and Senate they were sent through with 24 hour clocks only. John McCain, for one, presented an amendment to keep return to the $500 billion back to Medicare, citing it as a cut that was going to severely impact the services to our seniors, and that amendment was defeated on a straight party vote. It was called a drastic cut in services then, just as it is being called that now. And in the campaigns of 2010 that focused on ObamaCare and the American voters dislike for the bill, and especially its treatment of Medicare funds and seniors, the Democrats who supported it in closely contested House and Senate seats were voted out of office. Or did I just dream that, heineyfeiney?

You spent a lot of bull crap words describing a myth, and the usual crappola Washington, DC blue smoke and mirrors acounting practices, not the true state of affairs here regarding the stealing of $716 billion from the Medicare Trust Fund over the next 10 years, hastening the point of where it will go bankrupt, and causing the drastic reduction of services to our seniors, of which I am one!

Appears someone has forgotten to take their anti-dementia meds ... I love how you "think" you counter my post with your "opinion." You never cite sources, just give your pathetic version of events. Sorry, old man but here's some advice for you:

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Daniel P. Moynihan

Further, the $716M lie has been thoroughly debunked. But, keep lying if it helps you get through your miserable life, pappy.

Now, go take a senior nap, you old fool.

This is what he said (after the insult). I have no idea how you came up with 14% "charity". This means he's only given about 7% tithe but seeing that he's a rich, famous morman who some hope might fulfill the so-called white horse prophesy, I guess he gets away with it. I'm with Bill Maher on the opinion that mormonism is no "charity" btw.

the fascination with taxes I’ve paid I find to be very small-minded compared to the broad issues that we face. But I did go back and look at my taxes and over the past 10 years I never paid less than 13 percent. I think the most recent year is 13.6 or something like that. So I paid taxes every single year. Harry Reid’s charge is totally false. I’m sure waiting for Harry to put up who it was that told him what he says they told him. I don’t believe it for a minute, by the way. But every year I’ve paid at least 13 percent and if you add in addition the amount that goes to charity, why the number gets well above 20 percent.

Charitable contributions are deductable from income, so when he adds his over 10% of his income as charitable to the over 15% of his income as taxes, he gets 25%, but the tax deduction for the charitable contributions drops his income taxes to 13 or just over on average. More charibable contributions, less taxes in any one year, Misssoishi.

Charitable donations is not paying taxes, sport.

Charitable contributions are better than taxes in the service of our fellow mankind, heineyfeiney. There isn't the huge amount of waste and graft and overhead payments to legions of government officials before the dollars get back to the people in any useful way.

LMAO - I hardly consider the LDS a "charity", you old and crusty anti-semite.

There is also Romney's submission of financial disclosure for both state and federal office, and his record running for Governor and as Governor of Massachusetts are availabe for review there, Little Simcha...there is 5 years right there that the President's campaign is now asking for (no longer 10 years, LOL!).