New Poll Shows Most Americans Reject The Republican Party's Plan For Eliminating Medicare

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

    Jun 02, 2011 5:08 PM GMT
    http://beta.news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/most-americans-reject-rep-ryan-medicare-proposal-poll-153943968.html

    A solid 58% of Americans oppose the Ryan Budget which would eliminate Medicare.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2011 5:26 PM GMT
    ROFL, that's because his plan for "eliminating" medicare doesn't exist. The only plan he has is for saving medicare.

    The democratic plan is to eliminate it by not saving it. Keeping with the status quo until it goes bankrupt is not how you "save" medicare.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2011 5:53 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidROFL, that's because his plan for "eliminating" medicare doesn't exist. The only plan he has is for saving medicare.

    The democratic plan is to eliminate it by not saving it. Keeping with the status quo until it goes bankrupt is not how you "save" medicare.




    NOPE.
    What you posted is just the Repub spin/BS.
    And as the new poll shows - the American people aren't buying the Repub spin/BS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2011 5:55 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie saidROFL, that's because his plan for "eliminating" medicare doesn't exist. The only plan he has is for saving medicare.

    The democratic plan is to eliminate it by not saving it. Keeping with the status quo until it goes bankrupt is not how you "save" medicare.




    NOPE.
    What you posted is just the Repub spin/BS.
    And as the new poll shows - the American people aren't buying the Repub spin/BS.


    So what's the democratic plan for saving medicare?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2011 6:06 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie saidROFL, that's because his plan for "eliminating" medicare doesn't exist. The only plan he has is for saving medicare.

    The democratic plan is to eliminate it by not saving it. Keeping with the status quo until it goes bankrupt is not how you "save" medicare.




    NOPE.
    What you posted is just the Repub spin/BS.
    And as the new poll shows - the American people aren't buying the Repub spin/BS.


    So what's the democratic plan for saving medicare?




    Medicare doesn't need to be saved.
    It will be solvent until 2029.
    http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/08/medicare_outlook_healthy_to_st.html
    The pressing issue that needs to addressed right now - is reducing the huge National Debt - that both parties have blown up.
    And BOTH parties are serious about doing that and have proposed plans to do it.

    The Repub proposal, which includes a plan to destroy Medicare - has been rejected by the American people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2011 7:23 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie saidROFL, that's because his plan for "eliminating" medicare doesn't exist. The only plan he has is for saving medicare.

    The democratic plan is to eliminate it by not saving it. Keeping with the status quo until it goes bankrupt is not how you "save" medicare.




    NOPE.
    What you posted is just the Repub spin/BS.
    And as the new poll shows - the American people aren't buying the Repub spin/BS.


    So what's the democratic plan for saving medicare?




    Medicare doesn't need to be saved.
    It will be solvent until 2029.
    http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/08/medicare_outlook_healthy_to_st.html
    The pressing issue that needs to addressed right now - is reducing the huge National Debt - that both parties have blown up.
    And BOTH parties are serious about doing that and have proposed plans to do it.

    The Repub proposal, which includes a plan to destroy Medicare - has been rejected by the American people.


    Even if that article were entirely accurate and not relying heavily on assumptions, the republican plan won't take place until 10 years from now. Are you saying we do nothing until 2029? By 2029, according to that article, it WILL BE INSOLVENT if nothing is done.


    Why do you try so incredibly hard to look like a complete imbecile?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2011 9:41 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie saidROFL, that's because his plan for "eliminating" medicare doesn't exist. The only plan he has is for saving medicare.

    The democratic plan is to eliminate it by not saving it. Keeping with the status quo until it goes bankrupt is not how you "save" medicare.




    NOPE.
    What you posted is just the Repub spin/BS.
    And as the new poll shows - the American people aren't buying the Repub spin/BS.


    So what's the democratic plan for saving medicare?




    Medicare doesn't need to be saved.
    It will be solvent until 2029.
    http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/08/medicare_outlook_healthy_to_st.html
    The pressing issue that needs to addressed right now - is reducing the huge National Debt - that both parties have blown up.
    And BOTH parties are serious about doing that and have proposed plans to do it.

    The Repub proposal, which includes a plan to destroy Medicare - has been rejected by the American people.


    Even if that article were entirely accurate and not relying heavily on assumptions, the republican plan won't take place until 10 years from now. Are you saying we do nothing until 2029? By 2029, according to that article, it WILL BE INSOLVENT if nothing is done.


    Why do you try so incredibly hard to look like a complete imbecile?




    LOL!
    The only person saying that we should " do nothing until 2029" is YOU.
    Which makes you the "complete imbecile"!
    As per usual.
    And you don't even have to try!
    What a rare talent you have.
  • Bigolbear

    Posts: 528

    Jun 02, 2011 9:49 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie saidROFL, that's because his plan for "eliminating" medicare doesn't exist. The only plan he has is for saving medicare.

    The democratic plan is to eliminate it by not saving it. Keeping with the status quo until it goes bankrupt is not how you "save" medicare.




    NOPE.
    What you posted is just the Repub spin/BS.
    And as the new poll shows - the American people aren't buying the Repub spin/BS.


    So what's the democratic plan for saving medicare?



    Funding medicare.
  • Bigolbear

    Posts: 528

    Jun 02, 2011 10:16 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Bigolbear said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie saidROFL, that's because his plan for "eliminating" medicare doesn't exist. The only plan he has is for saving medicare.

    The democratic plan is to eliminate it by not saving it. Keeping with the status quo until it goes bankrupt is not how you "save" medicare.




    NOPE.
    What you posted is just the Repub spin/BS.
    And as the new poll shows - the American people aren't buying the Repub spin/BS.


    So what's the democratic plan for saving medicare?



    Funding medicare.


    How?


    Simplified or detailed?

    Either way it just brings up a different argument which will lead to an entire thread on supply side economics and how important the role of revenue (yes, the TAX word) is in this equation. I just know that care for those who are sick is NOT profitable and the invisible hands of the free market are not motivated by kindness.

    Also, I found that with you it's not about answering a question as much as it is answering a question the way you want it answered. I don't think I can do that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2011 10:23 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie saidROFL, that's because his plan for "eliminating" medicare doesn't exist. The only plan he has is for saving medicare.

    The democratic plan is to eliminate it by not saving it. Keeping with the status quo until it goes bankrupt is not how you "save" medicare.




    NOPE.
    What you posted is just the Repub spin/BS.
    And as the new poll shows - the American people aren't buying the Repub spin/BS.


    So what's the democratic plan for saving medicare?




    Medicare doesn't need to be saved.
    It will be solvent until 2029.
    http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/08/medicare_outlook_healthy_to_st.html
    The pressing issue that needs to addressed right now - is reducing the huge National Debt - that both parties have blown up.
    And BOTH parties are serious about doing that and have proposed plans to do it.

    The Repub proposal, which includes a plan to destroy Medicare - has been rejected by the American people.


    Even if that article were entirely accurate and not relying heavily on assumptions, the republican plan won't take place until 10 years from now. Are you saying we do nothing until 2029? By 2029, according to that article, it WILL BE INSOLVENT if nothing is done.


    Why do you try so incredibly hard to look like a complete imbecile?




    LOL!
    The only person saying that we should " do nothing until 2029" is YOU.
    Which makes you the "complete imbecile"!
    As per usual.
    And you don't even have to try!
    What a rare talent you have.


    I can't even believe you expect to be taken seriously. Quote me where I said we should do nothing until 2029.You just said we don't have to do anything because medicare will still be solvent until 2029. So tell me, what is the democratic plan!

    You lie more than you think fox news does.


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

    Jun 02, 2011 10:24 PM GMT
    Bigolbear said
    southbeach1500 said
    Bigolbear said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie saidROFL, that's because his plan for "eliminating" medicare doesn't exist. The only plan he has is for saving medicare.

    The democratic plan is to eliminate it by not saving it. Keeping with the status quo until it goes bankrupt is not how you "save" medicare.




    NOPE.
    What you posted is just the Repub spin/BS.
    And as the new poll shows - the American people aren't buying the Repub spin/BS.


    So what's the democratic plan for saving medicare?



    Funding medicare.


    How?


    Simplified or detailed?

    Either way it just brings up a different argument which will lead to an entire thread on supply side economics and how important the role of revenue (yes, the TAX word) is in this equation. I just know that care for those who are sick is NOT profitable and the invisible hands of the free market are not motivated by kindness.

    Also, I found that with you it's not about answering a question as much as it is answering a question the way you want it answered. I don't think I can do that.




    All SB cares about is keeping taxes on the rich as low as possible.
    Period.
    If others have to suffer or struggle or if the American economy as a whole suffers - he doesn't care.
    As long as his taxes are kept as low as possible.

    So don't waste your time trying to debate seriously with him about economic issues.
    Anything that involves higher taxes - he's against.
    No matter what the cost to our country economy and the vast majority of Americans.
    The same applies to twinkie
  • Bigolbear

    Posts: 528

    Jun 02, 2011 10:34 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Bigolbear saidSimplified or detailed?

    Either way it just brings up a different argument which will lead to an entire thread on supply side economics and how important the role of revenue (yes, the TAX word) is in this equation. I just know that care for those who are sick is NOT profitable and the invisible hands of the free market are not motivated by kindness.

    Also, I found that with you it's not about answering a question as much as it is answering a question the way you want it answered. I don't think I can do that.


    OK, then just direct me to the website where the Democrat's plan is posted. I'm having trouble finding it online. Thanks.


    http://www.privatizingmedicarewillkillyourgrandmabysendinghertoacorporatedeathpannel.com/becauseshewillbebrokeanddie.html


  • Bigolbear

    Posts: 528

    Jun 02, 2011 11:29 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Bigolbear said
    southbeach1500 said
    Bigolbear saidSimplified or detailed?

    Either way it just brings up a different argument which will lead to an entire thread on supply side economics and how important the role of revenue (yes, the TAX word) is in this equation. I just know that care for those who are sick is NOT profitable and the invisible hands of the free market are not motivated by kindness.

    Also, I found that with you it's not about answering a question as much as it is answering a question the way you want it answered. I don't think I can do that.


    OK, then just direct me to the website where the Democrat's plan is posted. I'm having trouble finding it online. Thanks.


    http://www.privatizingmedicarewillkillyourgrandmabysendinghertoacorporatedeathpannel.com/becauseshewillbebrokeanddie.html





    Thanks. Checkmate.



    Is that your version of the Charlie Sheen "duh WINNING!!"?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 03, 2011 12:09 AM GMT
    You can't completely CHANGE something that basically is a single payer system and make it a Voucher system and then say you're not CHANGING it

    Are you Daft Man ? Do you even LISTEN to yourself sometimes ? icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 1:10 AM GMT
    GQjock saidYou can't completely CHANGE something that basically is a single payer system and make it a Voucher system and then say you're not CHANGING it

    Are you Daft Man ? Do you even LISTEN to yourself sometimes ? icon_confused.gif


    Of course it's going to have to be changed. Reason being that it wasn't sustainable in the first place. And of course, it was a ponzi scheme built on mountains of assumptions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 2:48 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    GQjock saidYou can't completely CHANGE something that basically is a single payer system and make it a Voucher system and then say you're not CHANGING it

    Are you Daft Man ? Do you even LISTEN to yourself sometimes ? icon_confused.gif


    Of course it's going to have to be changed. Reason being that it wasn't sustainable in the first place. And of course, it was a ponzi scheme built on mountains of assumptions.


    Incorrect. Medicare is easily sustainable with a few minor modifications.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 03, 2011 10:07 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    GQjock saidYou can't completely CHANGE something that basically is a single payer system and make it a Voucher system and then say you're not CHANGING it

    Are you Daft Man ? Do you even LISTEN to yourself sometimes ? icon_confused.gif


    Of course it's going to have to be changed. Reason being that it wasn't sustainable in the first place. And of course, it was a ponzi scheme built on mountains of assumptions.


    Ponzi scheme?

    You wanna Ponzi scheme?
    How about US paying for the wealthiest 2% to become even wealthier?
    or how about big Pharma ripping off medicare and then turning around and ripping us off at the drug store even more

  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jun 03, 2011 12:14 PM GMT
    Hopefully that will be a factor when the election is held next year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 12:29 PM GMT
    HndsmKansan saidHopefully that will be a factor when the election is held next year.

    Yes agreed, and with all the facts clearly understood.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 2:10 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie said
    GQjock saidYou can't completely CHANGE something that basically is a single payer system and make it a Voucher system and then say you're not CHANGING it

    Are you Daft Man ? Do you even LISTEN to yourself sometimes ? icon_confused.gif


    Of course it's going to have to be changed. Reason being that it wasn't sustainable in the first place. And of course, it was a ponzi scheme built on mountains of assumptions.


    Incorrect. Medicare is easily sustainable with a few minor modifications.


    Like what? Just higher taxes?
  • metta

    Posts: 39107

    Jun 06, 2011 7:36 PM GMT


    Vouchercare Is Not Medicare

    "For Republicans are indeed seeking to dismantle Medicare as we know it, replacing it with a much worse program."

    [quote]
    But what about the claim that none of this matters, because Medicare as we know it is unsustainable? Nonsense.

    Yes, Medicare has to get serious about cost control; it has to start saying no to expensive procedures with little or no medical benefits, it has to change the way it pays doctors and hospitals, and so on. And a number of reforms of that kind are, in fact, included in the Affordable Care Act. But with these changes it should be entirely possible to maintain a system that provides all older Americans with guaranteed essential health care.

    Consider Canada, which has a national health insurance program, actually called Medicare, that is similar to the program we have for the elderly, but less open-ended and more cost-conscious. In 1970, Canada and the United States both spent about 7 percent of their G.D.P. on health care. Since then, as United States health spending has soared to 16 percent of G.D.P., Canadian spending has risen much more modestly, to only 10.5 percent of G.D.P. And while Canadian health care isn’t perfect, it’s not bad.

    Canadian Medicare, then, looks sustainable; why can’t we do the same thing here? Well, you know the answer in the case of the Republicans: They don’t want to make Medicare sustainable, they want to destroy it under the guise of saving it.
    [/quote]

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 06, 2011 7:50 PM GMT
    metta8 said

    Vouchercare Is Not Medicare

    "For Republicans are indeed seeking to dismantle Medicare as we know it, replacing it with a much worse program."

    [quote]
    But what about the claim that none of this matters, because Medicare as we know it is unsustainable? Nonsense.

    Yes, Medicare has to get serious about cost control; it has to start saying no to expensive procedures with little or no medical benefits, it has to change the way it pays doctors and hospitals, and so on. And a number of reforms of that kind are, in fact, included in the Affordable Care Act. But with these changes it should be entirely possible to maintain a system that provides all older Americans with guaranteed essential health care.

    Consider Canada, which has a national health insurance program, actually called Medicare, that is similar to the program we have for the elderly, but less open-ended and more cost-conscious. In 1970, Canada and the United States both spent about 7 percent of their G.D.P. on health care. Since then, as United States health spending has soared to 16 percent of G.D.P., Canadian spending has risen much more modestly, to only 10.5 percent of G.D.P. And while Canadian health care isn’t perfect, it’s not bad.

    Canadian Medicare, then, looks sustainable; why can’t we do the same thing here? Well, you know the answer in the case of the Republicans: They don’t want to make Medicare sustainable, they want to destroy it under the guise of saving it.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss[/quote]

    What those like New York Times chose not to tell you:
    http://health.wikinut.com/Five-Differences-between-Canadian-and-American-Health-Care-Systems/xenp89lk/
    In 2007, public system health care spending in Canada was about $2,700 (USD) per person, while in the United States it was about $3,300 (USD). Even though Canada's public system spends less per capita than the United States, it covers 100 per cent of the population, while the United States covers only 28 per cent.

    It was not always the case that America public spending was higher than Canada’s. From 1960 to 1993, Canada’s public system spent more per person than the American public system. Between 1992 and 1996, the Canadian government kept public health care spending fixed at about $1,450 per person. Public health care spending grew after 1996.


    Sure yeah - you want to blame the Republicans, I get it. The problem is that the Democrats and the US government has shown it can't get reasonable results for the money it already spends. The question - what possible expectation is there that they will do even better with the money if they're given more?

    What you also seem to refuse to accept is that the Canadian system is unsustainable with greater wait times (though somewhat diminished in a few key core disease groups) and even noted as unsustainable by the Canadian Medical Association. As if the Canadian system is even the greatest or the only system out there. It's remarkable how myopic advocates of a one payer system seem to be in the US. There are a lot better systems out there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 06, 2011 8:31 PM GMT
    What the critics of the critics of the Ryan plan don't understand (or are too bullheaded to admit politically):

    Despite what Enthoven says in his op-ed, Ryan's plan is most definitely not premium support, UNLESS you fix the level of the subsidy. To tie it to the consumer price index is to pin the rest of the medical inflation on the elderly by administrative fiat.

    The exchange model, on the other hand, ties the subsidy level to the local market price. You can still have competition between plans.

    http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-key-difference-between-exchanges-and-the-ryan-rivlin-plan/Why is this competitive bidding vs. administrative pricing difference between the ACA’s exchanges and the Ryan-Rivlin plan the whole ballgame? Well, it pertains to precisely the extent to which taxpayers are on the hook for health care costs and the extent to which consumers are protected from increases in them. Those two are at odds and competitive and administrative pricing balance them differently. Administrative pricing has weak protections for consumers and puts taxpayers at political risk for costs. As we’ve seen in the Medicare Advantage program, that political risk is a real one. Costs have not been controlled in that program.

    Competitive pricing provides greater protection for consumers from health care cost risk and puts taxpayers at market risk. It depends on price competition to control health care costs. In so doing, it ties taxpayers, through the government, to the performance of the market with respect to health care cost control. In other words, it aligns the government with the market in terms of incentives to keep costs down. Recent experience both within Medicare and outside it suggests that neither the market nor the government alone has done a good job of health care cost control. Perhaps focusing on the problem together — as competitive bidding forces them to do — is an experiment worth trying.


    I thought the Republican motto is all for market competition?!
  • Goofeyman

    Posts: 199

    Jun 06, 2011 8:35 PM GMT
    Get the facts straight...the dnc wants to do away with Medicare, not the GOP
    Obamacare seeks to destroy.
  • Goofeyman

    Posts: 199

    Jun 06, 2011 8:39 PM GMT
    The GOP seeks to save Medicare the dnc seeks to destroy Medicare.
    That's the problem with the Left wing. They purposely lie and twist things.
    I'm surprised they're not blaming g w bush for thus.

    The dnc...stalin's useful idiots.