Republican *(Cough) Medicare Plan

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 05, 2011 10:45 PM GMT
    GOP budget plan would revamp Medicare and Medicaid to slash deficit
    By Kathleen Hennessey, Washington Bureau
    April 4, 2011

    Here ya go
    You wanted to see the difference between the republicans and the democrats
    Right?

    Here it is all wrapped up in a little pretty little package for ya ...... Bow and everything

    It's basically vouchers
    everybody who's under 55
    will get a certain amt of money to go Private insurance company shoppin
    Oh and Ummmm ....... btw? When the cost of your MRI goes up? Or the cost of your colostomy bag doubles? Sorry Bub..... you get the same amt
    Hey ...... what do you want an ENTITLEMENT????? icon_rolleyes.gif

  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Apr 05, 2011 11:15 PM GMT
    I just heard Representative Paul Ryan touting this nonsense.
    Less money means less medical coverage.
    Period.

    The Republicans want to do away with Medicare and Medicaid.

    What are poor people and the elderly supposed to do for medical care ? They can't afford to buy insurance.
    And, most insurance is relatively worthless because most medical care is excluded (not covered), meaning that you have to pay for it out of your own pocket or DIE.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2011 11:23 PM GMT
    Somehow, I doubt that we are going hear the other side of this story (whatever it may be)... just judging by the somewhat shrill tone being established.

    With the TEA Partiers and mainline GOP raising a ruction in the 2010 election cycle over death panels and health care rationing, you'd think that they wouldn't pursue the same course (moving to eliminate Medicare/Medicaid funding) without replacing it with a reasonable alternative.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2011 11:31 PM GMT
    alphatrigger saidSomehow, I doubt that we are going hear the other side of this story (whatever it may be)... just judging by the somewhat shrill tone being established.

    With the TEA Partiers and mainline GOP raising a ruction in the 2010 election cycle over death panels and health care rationing, you'd think that they wouldn't pursue the same course (moving to eliminate Medicare/Medicaid funding) without replacing it with a reasonable alternative.


    The Paul Ryan plan does provide for an alternative - have a look. The primary problem is that the reason for the massive future deficits is in large part due to entitlements that greatly eclipses anything that the US can do in cutting any budgets including defense or in even raising taxes. Besides, I think what's clear from 2010, and what Paul Ryan is betting on now is that voters understand the problem is big enough that entitlements like social security and medicare must be tackled now. It just can't wait.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 05, 2011 11:36 PM GMT
    So when your old Aunt Sadie who's in a nursing home
    with end stage Alzheimers
    and is wheelchair bound due to years of progressive spinal stenosis
    has to call her PRIVATE INSURANCE icon_rolleyes.gif
    Why her payment for peritoneal dialysis was held up we'll see why this is the most inane naive malicious thing the republicans have EVER proposed
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2011 11:47 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    alphatrigger saidSomehow, I doubt that we are going hear the other side of this story (whatever it may be)... just judging by the somewhat shrill tone being established.

    With the TEA Partiers and mainline GOP raising a ruction in the 2010 election cycle over death panels and health care rationing, you'd think that they wouldn't pursue the same course (moving to eliminate Medicare/Medicaid funding) without replacing it with a reasonable alternative.


    The Paul Ryan plan does provide for an alternative - have a look. The primary problem is that the reason for the massive future deficits is in large part due to entitlements that greatly eclipses anything that the US can do in cutting any budgets including defense or in even raising taxes. Besides, I think what's clear from 2010, and what Paul Ryan is betting on now is that voters understand the problem is big enough that entitlements like social security and medicare must be tackled now. It just can't wait.


    Except that's completely untrue. Entitlements are not the problem. Slight adjustments to the payroll tax and ending the cap on what amount of a salary is taxed would make SS solvent for our lifetimes.

    In terms of Medicare/Medicaid, the massive increases in the cost of healthcare are the primary drivers of the explosion of those budget items. Making them block grants or a voucher program does not address the underlying issue of rising healthcare costs. Instead, it will simply make healthcare less affordable for even more Americans, increase the number of Americans who go bankrupt because of an illness and lead to a decrease in expendable income for most Americans. None of that is good for the country or the economy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 05, 2011 11:56 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    alphatrigger saidSomehow, I doubt that we are going hear the other side of this story (whatever it may be)... just judging by the somewhat shrill tone being established.

    With the TEA Partiers and mainline GOP raising a ruction in the 2010 election cycle over death panels and health care rationing, you'd think that they wouldn't pursue the same course (moving to eliminate Medicare/Medicaid funding) without replacing it with a reasonable alternative.


    The Paul Ryan plan does provide for an alternative - have a look. The primary problem is that the reason for the massive future deficits is in large part due to entitlements that greatly eclipses anything that the US can do in cutting any budgets including defense or in even raising taxes. Besides, I think what's clear from 2010, and what Paul Ryan is betting on now is that voters understand the problem is big enough that entitlements like social security and medicare must be tackled now. It just can't wait.


    Except that's completely untrue. Entitlements are not the problem. Slight adjustments to the payroll tax and ending the cap on what amount of a salary is taxed would make SS solvent for our lifetimes.

    In terms of Medicare/Medicaid, the massive increases in the cost of healthcare are the primary drivers of the explosion of those budget items. Making them block grants or a voucher program does not address the underlying issue of rising healthcare costs. Instead, it will simply make healthcare less affordable for even more Americans, increase the number of Americans who go bankrupt because of an illness and lead to a decrease in expendable income for most Americans. None of that is good for the country or the economy.


    Show the numbers and the analysis then Christian. It's not as simple as "slight adjustments to the payroll tax and ending the cap on what amount of a salary is taxed would make SS solvent for our lifetimes." And define "lifetimes" - does this mean you're leaving a massive debt burden on those that come after? I'd like to see the numbers.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 06, 2011 12:00 AM GMT
    The Paul Ryan plan does provide for an alternative - have a look. The primary problem is that the reason for the massive future deficits is in large part due to entitlements that greatly eclipses anything that the US can do in cutting any budgets including defense or in even raising taxes. Besides, I think what's clear from 2010, and what Paul Ryan is betting on now is that voters understand the problem is big enough that entitlements like social security and medicare must be tackled now. It just can't wait.

    Okay ........ so point out to me WHERE the Ryan plan lowers the cost of medical care
    I see where it tries to keep the cost down to the GOVERNMENT
    but where in the reeds is the limits on the increasing cost of medical care in general?

    Because Grandpap gets less doesn't mean that what he has to pay for doesn't go up

    OH WAIT ................................................ I see it

    If you want better care you can Pay For It Yourself There ya go

    F**king Ridiculous
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Apr 06, 2011 12:13 AM GMT
    The sad reality about budget cuts is that they are just that --- C-U-T-S. They are almost always painful, and someone (and sometimes everyone) is going to be pissed. But we can't just SAY we are going to reduce the budget and, more importantly, the deficit, and then just keep spending out of control. At some point, hopefully sooner rather than later, these cuts (and that will most certainly include some entitlements because they are breaking the bank of this country) will have to be made. We can't keep pushing it off to the next congress...or the next President.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2011 12:18 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    alphatrigger saidSomehow, I doubt that we are going hear the other side of this story (whatever it may be)... just judging by the somewhat shrill tone being established.

    With the TEA Partiers and mainline GOP raising a ruction in the 2010 election cycle over death panels and health care rationing, you'd think that they wouldn't pursue the same course (moving to eliminate Medicare/Medicaid funding) without replacing it with a reasonable alternative.


    The Paul Ryan plan does provide for an alternative - have a look. The primary problem is that the reason for the massive future deficits is in large part due to entitlements that greatly eclipses anything that the US can do in cutting any budgets including defense or in even raising taxes. Besides, I think what's clear from 2010, and what Paul Ryan is betting on now is that voters understand the problem is big enough that entitlements like social security and medicare must be tackled now. It just can't wait.


    Except that's completely untrue. Entitlements are not the problem. Slight adjustments to the payroll tax and ending the cap on what amount of a salary is taxed would make SS solvent for our lifetimes.

    In terms of Medicare/Medicaid, the massive increases in the cost of healthcare are the primary drivers of the explosion of those budget items. Making them block grants or a voucher program does not address the underlying issue of rising healthcare costs. Instead, it will simply make healthcare less affordable for even more Americans, increase the number of Americans who go bankrupt because of an illness and lead to a decrease in expendable income for most Americans. None of that is good for the country or the economy.


    Show the numbers and the analysis then Christian. It's not as simple as "slight adjustments to the payroll tax and ending the cap on what amount of a salary is taxed would make SS solvent for our lifetimes." And define "lifetimes" - does this mean you're leaving a massive debt burden on those that come after? I'd like to see the numbers.


    Here you go:

    Sen. Don RiegleSocial Security currently has a $2.6 trillion surplus which has been building up since the 1983 amendments and is intended to help absorb the retirement of the baby boomers. This surplus is invested in US Treasury securities that are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. According to the Social Security Trustees 2010 report, Social Security can pay full benefits until 2037, at which time, if nothing were done to strengthen its financing, Social Security would still be able to pay about 78 percent of benefits. This quarter of a century means there is time to strengthen its financing without cutting benefits for future beneficiaries.

    Opponents of Social Security obscure the real facts, but they are easy to see in the graph below. The planned build-up of the Social Security Trust Funds since 1983 makes it clear that Social Security has a $2.6 trillion surplus today that will continue to grow:


    2011-04-05-Untitled2.jpg

    Sen. Don RiegleAnother argument made by Social Security opponents to raise fear about the national debt is how much our government has borrowed from China. They never mention how much our government has borrowed from Social Security. In fact, the government has borrowed more from the Social Security surplus than it has from any other source in the world, including China. As a result, Social Security now "owns" nearly 18 percent of the federal debt, making it the largest single holder of US debt. The government owes almost twice as much to Social Security as it does to China and Hong Kong.

    Why aren't the opponents worried about paying back Social Security -- why aren't they talking about repaying this debt to the American people?

    According to the U.S. Treasury Department's "Monthly Statement of the Public Debt of the United States" (9.30.10), the total debt was $13.562 trillion and was held as follows:

    US Holders of Debt
    42.1 % -- US Individuals and Institutions
    17.9 % -- Social Security Trust Fund
    6.0 % -- US Civil Service Retirement Fund
    2.1 % -- US Military Retirement Fund

    Foreign Holders of Debt
    11.7 % -- Oil Exporting Countries
    9.5 % -- China and Hong Kong
    6.3 % -- Japan
    1.4 % -- United Kingdom
    1.3 % -- Brazil
    1.6 % -- All other foreign countries


    Full article here:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-don-riegle/post_1901_b_845106.html
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Apr 06, 2011 2:12 AM GMT
    The stupid Republican suck asses on here act like the Republicans are for cutting spending and the Democrats are against it.
    In reality, the Republicans want the "haves" to have even more, and the poor to have even less.

    Would you be willing to have ONE extra dollar taken out of your paycheck so that your grandmother could afford to go to the doctor when she needed to ???????????

    The Republican health plan is:
    If you can't afford to pay for it yourself, then DIE.

    Social Security is solvent through 2037. Yes. 2037
    And, Medicare and Medicaid are not far behind.


    THEY DON'T ADD TO THE DEFICIT.

  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Apr 06, 2011 2:49 AM GMT
    From Politico.com

    The House Budget Committee chairman’s vision for the nation’s fiscal future is a conservative dream: It would cut spending by $5.8 trillion over the next decade, slash taxes for corporations and individuals by $4.2 trillion, transition Medicare away from the public sector and toward the private sector, provide no funding for the president’s new health care law and squeeze $771 billion from Medicaid while ceding federal control of the health care program for the poor and disabled to a system of state block grants.

    The truth is that Ryan’s budget will go nowhere in the Senate, where there’s no chance that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will put it on the floor. Budget resolutions are nonbinding, meaning that neither chamber is required to follow their prescriptions for spending and taxing. Moreover, Ryan’s release of a 73-page explanation of the budget notwithstanding, the resolution itself only sets numerical targets without actually detailing the policy changes that would achieve its goals.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2011 3:58 AM GMT
    Maybe we can get Ryan to look HERE for his savings!

    "In 1997, Rick Scott was implicated in the biggest Medicare fraud case in US history, stepping down as CEO of Columbia/HCA after the hospital giant was fined $1.7 billion and found guilty of swindling the government. As Florida's new governor, Scott is now trying to kill off an anti-fraud database that would track the fraudulent distribution of addictive prescription drugs in Florida, over the protestations of law enforcement officials, Republican state lawmakers, and federal drug policy officials. "

    http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/rick-scott-floridas-drug-fraud-enabler

    "In December 2000, the U.S. Justice Department announced what it called the largest Medicare and Medicaid government fraud settlement in U.S. history."

    BILLION.. not millions but BILLIONS!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2011 4:02 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidThe sad reality about budget cuts is that they are just that --- C-U-T-S. They are almost always painful, and someone (and sometimes everyone) is going to be pissed. But we can't just SAY we are going to reduce the budget and, more importantly, the deficit, and then just keep spending out of control. At some point, hopefully sooner rather than later, these cuts (and that will most certainly include some entitlements because they are breaking the bank of this country) will have to be made. We can't keep pushing it off to the next congress...or the next President.
    Cuts? How about jailing the thieves?

    You know, like the one I posted about above?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2011 4:05 AM GMT
    So the Democrats will have a committee decide where the money gets spent and the GOP will let the individual decide. What's the difference?
    The same amount of money will be spent.

    This is about business. Who cares about the sick?

    I would be interested in seeing the actual amount in vouchers that the poor and old receive compared to healthy strapping young people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2011 4:46 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidFull article here:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-don-riegle/post_1901_b_845106.html


    Just had a quick look. I really actually thought it would be a serious analysis. The primary premise is that social security has lent money to the federal government so if they paid it all back then there would be no problems with solvency. This is ridiculous on its face. Given the deficits as far as the eye can see for the US government, where precisely would they get the funds to pay it back? Further, given that spending will rise faster than the contributions of workers, in what world, could this fund possibly be seen as solvent (especially with $17 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities)?

    It's as if neither you nor the authors understand the implications of an unfunded liability. Not only is the article lacking in any form of seriousness, it is particularly dangerous given the mounting costs of these large entitlement programs and does nothing to the negate the coming costs ahead.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2011 6:16 AM GMT
    Riddler, it bothers me that you are living in country where you get your healthcare at little or no cost to you other than slightly higher taxes than our US friends, and that here you are promoting that they do with less.


    Tacky.

    -Doug

    There are men on this site depending on Medicare/Medicaid and some have AIDS. Are you going to send them money?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2011 6:56 AM GMT
    meninlove said Riddler, it bothers me that you are living in country where you get your healthcare at little or no cost to you other than slightly higher taxes than our US friends, and that here you are promoting that they do with less.


    Tacky.

    -Doug

    There are men on this site depending on Medicare/Medicaid and some have AIDS. Are you going to send them money?


    Doug, what's tacky is you don't bother to understand the underlying arguments being made and choose to attack the people making them. I am not arguing that Americans should do with less - what little you must know about the American or Canadian systems if you honestly believe what we have in either country are the best possible alternatives. To believe that the Canadian system and what we have which results in deaths on the waiting list and even condemning those who might have a better prognosis with certain expensive medications to do without in the name of cost control is always "better" is beyond ridiculous and callous.

    You may be in love Doug, but get a heart and grow up. Just because people may disagree with you on at a fundamental level doesn't mean they should be attacked - argue on the ideas or is that too difficult for you to understand that the US is going broke and it will affect us all - while you remain married to old dying solutions and ideas?
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Apr 06, 2011 7:03 AM GMT
    carminea saidSo the Democrats will have a committee decide where the money gets spent and the GOP will let the individual decide. What's the difference?
    The same amount of money will be spent.

    This is about business. Who cares about the sick?

    I would be interested in seeing the actual amount in vouchers that the poor and old receive compared to healthy strapping young people.





    GEE, doesn't this sound just like Republican "death panels ?"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2011 9:35 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidFull article here:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-don-riegle/post_1901_b_845106.html


    Just had a quick look. I really actually thought it would be a serious analysis. The primary premise is that social security has lent money to the federal government so if they paid it all back then there would be no problems with solvency. This is ridiculous on its face. Given the deficits as far as the eye can see for the US government, where precisely would they get the funds to pay it back? Further, given that spending will rise faster than the contributions of workers, in what world, could this fund possibly be seen as solvent (especially with $17 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities)?

    It's as if neither you nor the authors understand the implications of an unfunded liability. Not only is the article lacking in any form of seriousness, it is particularly dangerous given the mounting costs of these large entitlement programs and does nothing to the negate the coming costs ahead.


    Riddler -

    What part of the US owning 60% of our own debt don't you understand?

    Tackling the debt is pretty simple: Cut spending on unnecessary items (military primarily), close corporate loopholes and raise taxes on the rich.

    Done.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 06, 2011 11:02 AM GMT
    You wanted your death panels?




    Well you got them icon_neutral.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2011 1:03 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said Riddler, it bothers me that you are living in country where you get your healthcare at little or no cost to you other than slightly higher taxes than our US friends, and that here you are promoting that they do with less.


    Tacky.

    -Doug

    There are men on this site depending on Medicare/Medicaid and some have AIDS. Are you going to send them money?


    Doug, what's tacky is you don't bother to understand the underlying arguments being made and choose to attack the people making them. I am not arguing that Americans should do with less - what little you must know about the American or Canadian systems if you honestly believe what we have in either country are the best possible alternatives. To believe that the Canadian system and what we have which results in deaths on the waiting list and even condemning those who might have a better prognosis with certain expensive medications to do without in the name of cost control is always "better" is beyond ridiculous and callous.

    You may be in love Doug, but get a heart and grow up. Just because people may disagree with you on at a fundamental level doesn't mean they should be attacked - argue on the ideas or is that too difficult for you to understand that the US is going broke and it will affect us all - while you remain married to old dying solutions and ideas?


    My question to ridder is: what is your agenda? You spend hours upon hours on a fitness website posting political arguements regarding the US but you don't even live or have a vote in this country. Perplexing??? icon_question.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2011 2:12 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    alphatrigger saidSomehow, I doubt that we are going hear the other side of this story (whatever it may be)... just judging by the somewhat shrill tone being established.

    With the TEA Partiers and mainline GOP raising a ruction in the 2010 election cycle over death panels and health care rationing, you'd think that they wouldn't pursue the same course (moving to eliminate Medicare/Medicaid funding) without replacing it with a reasonable alternative.


    The Paul Ryan plan does provide for an alternative - have a look. The primary problem is that the reason for the massive future deficits is in large part due to entitlements that greatly eclipses anything that the US can do in cutting any budgets including defense or in even raising taxes. Besides, I think what's clear from 2010, and what Paul Ryan is betting on now is that voters understand the problem is big enough that entitlements like social security and medicare must be tackled now. It just can't wait.


    There IS no problem with Social Security.
    that's another one of those GOP LIE SPEWING Talking Points.

    NOT ONE PENNY HAS NEVER been NOT PAID by Social Security.



    Go Ahead....riddler78....name just one person who has not been paid.


    WOW, Since the 1930's......everyone has received their money...

    CAN'T SAY THAT FOR PEOPLE WHO PUT MONEY INTO ENRON

    THOUSANDS of people lost money they put into ENRON.

    but you can't find one person who has been defaulted on the money they gave to the US GOVERNMENT for SOCIAL SECURITY.















  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2011 3:20 PM GMT

    "You may be in love Doug, but get a heart and grow up. Just because people may disagree with you on at a fundamental level doesn't mean they should be attacked - argue on the ideas or is that too difficult for you to understand that the US is going broke and it will affect us all - while you remain married to old dying solutions and ideas?"


    You behave as though I'm the only that calls you out on your slant on things. icon_rolleyes.gif.

    Comparatively, to what others have said to you, I think I'm pretty mild. As Christian so aptly pointed out, Social Security in the US has money in it. In Mulroney-eque fashion, it appears some want that money taken from those that provided it (taxpayers) and use it to prop up their budgets, while giving chunks of to corporations in the way of tax breaks. Martin (Liberal) tried this with Unemployment Insurance, Mulroney with Canada Pension Plan, and it was one of the things they were given the proverbial boot over.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 06, 2011 3:46 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    "You may be in love Doug, but get a heart and grow up. Just because people may disagree with you on at a fundamental level doesn't mean they should be attacked - argue on the ideas or is that too difficult for you to understand that the US is going broke and it will affect us all - while you remain married to old dying solutions and ideas?"


    You behave as though I'm the only that calls you out on your slant on things. icon_rolleyes.gif.

    Comparatively, to what others have said to you, I think I'm pretty mild. As Christian so aptly pointed out, Social Security in the US has money in it. In Mulroney-eque fashion, it appears some want that money taken from those that provided it (taxpayers) and use it to prop up their budgets, while giving chunks of to corporations in the way of tax breaks. Martin (Liberal) tried this with Unemployment Insurance, Mulroney with Canada Pension Plan, and it was one of the things they were given the proverbial boot over.


    I think the most likely reason that there is such a push to essentially privatize Social Security is to create a new market for financial services companies.