Are Reporters the Dumbest most Disconnected People in Media? Ryan gets Another Pass.

Do reporters...THINK at all? Are they curious. Aren't they're supposed to ask questions when politicians make comments that raise a whole bunch of red flags? Why don't they even bother to ask?

For example: Paul Ryan came out with this message at the state party convention that didn't seem raise any media questions.

Rep. Paul Ryan told Wisconsin Republicans that they must capitalize politically on the implementation of Obama's health care overhaul, offering those who become frustrated a better alternative. "This is the moment that we have to offer them real hope and give them real alternatives. Businesses don't know how to comply," Ryan told reporters after his speech. "State's don't know what's going on." 

Lot's of irony here, but first, question: Does that mean that Ryan won't lift a finger to adjust or fix any of the bumps in health care reform? Would he intentionally allow Americans to struggle, to fall victim to any unforeseen problems that come up, so he can "capitalize politically" on the situation?

Wouldn't that make Ryan an opportunist of the worst kind? Wouldn't that work against his reelection in 2014? 

Simple questions, right? IRONY: Perhaps a reporter might take the time to ask Ryan about the mess he helped pass, and didn't paying for; Medicare part D. Did Democrats block all the changes needed after, believe it or not, Ryan rammed it down the throats of American seniors? Google's just a simple search away from nailing this sociopath:

Fox 11: Implementation of the program was barely considered in the effort to push the bill through Congress, and chaos ha(d) ensued. Seniors and their families remain confused about which plans to choose. And many states have had to declare emergencies to ensure that dual-eligibles continued to receive their medications ... faulty Medicare eligibility data have resulted in regular denials of prescriptions; and both beneficiaries and pharmacists (were) regularly paying out-of-pocket costs to ensure continuity of treatment.

Did Ryan forget to tell that cheering rabid audience how bumpy Part D was when it rolled out? It was ugly, corrupt and took less time than the one year debate over Obamacare (which really started around 1900). 

New England Journal of Medicine-Rep. Louise Slaughter: Top Medicare official Thomas Scully deliberately understated the program's projected cost by $134 billion, and threatened to fire the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) if he shared his true estimate with Congress. Scully resumed his career as a health care–industry lobbyist.

The House was given less than one day to read the 850-page bill.

Part D does not allow the administration to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies … companies are charging taxpayers up to 80 percent more for drugs purchased under Part D than for those purchased under other plans.

Millions of seniors had to enroll in a plan by an arbitrarily selected deadline or face premium increases for each month beyond it, an incentive that clearly benefits insurance companies.

Seniors have had little time to choose among plans that may change drug formularies whenever they want to without penalty.

And complicated…

The bill requires beneficiaries to pay a $250 deductible and 25 percent of their annual drug costs up to $2,250. They must then cover all annual expenses between $2,251 and $3,600. This “doughnut hole” rule will cost patients a substantial amount of money.

States, already overburdened by health care costs, (were) required to partially fund Part D. Some states (were) actually losing money under it.

Now is the time to remind those who might become frustrated with Obamacare, who will not trying to fix it and who screwed up rolling out Medicare Part D!!!