Dems counting on People over 55 being Ignorant?

[bripat9643]

Sure, people are free to change their minds, but they haven't changed their mind on this issue.

How do you know? When did they get a chance to vote on it in the last 10 years?

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think any change to Medicare qualifies as "ending it". I do strongly feel that getting rid of the current system and replacing it with a coupon book where the value doesn't keep pace with insurance premiums is "ending it".

So any change you don't agree with is "ending it," but any change you like is not?

Paying an additional 15% overhead beyond what it would otherwise cost Medicare.

Who paid the 15 % to whom?

Yes, and it's head for bankruptcy. In fact, it's already bankrupt.

That's only true if you assume it's function is to turn a profit.

According to that definition, it was bankrupt the day it started. However, now it's bankrupt according to any convention definition of the term. It can't pay the benefits it promised. it's bankrupt.

 

[FA_Q2]

But they're not looking at it objectively. They're saying cuts must be made to keep government as the same share of GDP as it was over the second half of the 20th century. That's a perfect valid belief to hold, but nothing about it is necessary.

It is a matter of dollars and cents. It is fact that cost, already eating general funds which it should not be doing EVER, is increasing faster than growth ever will. That is unsustainable no matter what the tax code is, GDP or anything. There is absolutely no possible way to make the program solvent without addressing cost. There are many was to do so and NONE of which the libs are willing to talk about.

Two falsehoods in your post.

1. It's absolutely possible to make the program solvent without addressing cost. You raise taxes to cover the cost of the program. It's not saying that's a preferable outcome, but it's certainly a valid option that exists.

No it is not. Maybe you did not bother to read the point but I specified cost is increasing faster than GROWTH. That means that no matter what the tax rate is, cost will eventually exceed 100 percent of that. The system will fall apart FAR sooner but the fact of the matter is that as long as costs are exceeding GROWTH then costs will always eat a larger portion of the pie until it gets the whole damn thing.

2. Liberals have definitely been willing to talk about cost controls in Medicare. Just because they don't think Ryan's coupon book idea is good policy doesn't mean they've been unwilling to discuss cost controls.

……..
I am waiting to hear all those solutions that the dems are seriously talking about. Have any proposed bills to show??

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is a matter of dollars and cents. It is fact that cost, already eating general funds which it should not be doing EVER, is increasing faster than growth ever will. That is unsustainable no matter what the tax code is, GDP or anything. There is absolutely no possible way to make the program solvent without addressing cost. There are many was to do so and NONE of which the libs are willing to talk about.

Two falsehoods in your post.

1. It's absolutely possible to make the program solvent without addressing cost. You raise taxes to cover the cost of the program. It's not saying that's a preferable outcome, but it's certainly a valid option that exists.

No it is not. Maybe you did not bother to read the point but I specified cost is increasing faster than GROWTH. That means that no matter what the tax rate is, cost will eventually exceed 100 percent of that. The system will fall apart FAR sooner but the fact of the matter is that as long as costs are exceeding GROWTH then costs will always eat a larger portion of the pie until it gets the whole damn thing.

2. Liberals have definitely been willing to talk about cost controls in Medicare. Just because they don't think Ryan's coupon book idea is good policy doesn't mean they've been unwilling to discuss cost controls.

……..
I am waiting to hear all those solutions that the dems are seriously talking about. Have any proposed bills to show??

Read the healthcare bill, so-called Obamacare.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did you vote in 1965? I didn't.

.

I wasn't around to get to vote to ratify the Constitution either you moron. What's your point?

My point was in the part of my post that you deleted so you could pretend I didn't have a point, you dishonest piece of shit.

Nevertheless, the will of the people is subject to change. Even if liberals get their frilly panties in a wad. See the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which Democrats opposed).​

NO.

I asked you what your point was in bringing up the obvious fact that most of weren't voting in 1965.

So what IS your point? Why is that relevant, specifically?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The idea that we can't pay for our previous commitments is completely bogus. We have more than enough money to pay for Medicare and Social Security in their current forms out to eternity. The issue is if we feel those costs are justified.

Yeah, perhaps if we raise the tax rate to 70% on incomes as low as $50,000.

Is that a prospect that you find attractive?

It's a zero sum game.

If your healthcare is going to cost X amount of dollars in your senior years, it will cost you X whether you pay into Medicare and eventually get Medicare coverage, or, you kill Medicare and have to buy private insurance.

The cost of healthcare isn't going to magically decline by rearranging the payment plan.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sure, people are free to change their minds, but they haven't changed their mind on this issue.

How do you know? When did they get a chance to vote on it in the last 10 years?

How often would you like a referendum on preserving Medicare effectively in its present form?

Public opinion is currently about 2 to 1 FOR that.

 

[Bfgrn]

The idea that we can't pay for our previous commitments is completely bogus. We have more than enough money to pay for Medicare and Social Security in their current forms out to eternity. The issue is if we feel those costs are justified.

Yeah, perhaps if we raise the tax rate to 70% on incomes as low as $50,000.

Is that a prospect that you find attractive?

It's a zero sum game.

If your healthcare is going to cost X amount of dollars in your senior years, it will cost you X whether you pay into Medicare and eventually get Medicare coverage, or, you kill Medicare and have to buy private insurance.

The cost of healthcare isn't going to magically decline by rearranging the payment plan.

Yes it will...The cost under private insurance will magically increase, and so will the profit margins of insurance cartels.

Ryan shifts $4.9 trillion in health care costs from the government to Medicare beneficiaries, this number is dwarfed by a $34 trillion increase in overall costs to beneficiaries that is projected based on the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis.

The report:

Representative Ryan’s $30 Trillion Medicare Waste Tax

 

[Big Fitz]

Not only is the Left miss characterizing the Ryan plan as the End of Medicare, but they seem to be hoping to scare people who are over 55 right now into voting against it.

I guess they are betting that people over 55 are to stupid to understand that they will not be effected at all by the Ryan plan because they are Already over 55?

Can't believe the American People are falling for this BS from the left. I mean I don't think the Ryan plan is perfect, or the only way, But the Left seems to just want to ignore the Problem all together. To Actually say there is nothing wrong with Medicare as it is and nothing needs to be done. Which if People were smart, they would understand, is the Real Threat to Medicare. Doing Nothing.

The Democrats have quickly taken over the slot as the party of no. 2 Years and no Budget, and no willingness to even discuss entitlement reforms. They should change the Democrat party logo to an ostrich. the Party of "lets just keep our heads buried in the sand and spend out selves into ruin, Fuck the Grand kids!"

The problem is the left has good reason to expect those over 55 will be foolish enough to accept their argument. They've done it many times before, and more often than not, they're leftists to begin with. An aging and dying out breed. It'll be a good day when those who protested in the 60's and 70's are no longer around.

 

[rightwinger]

Not only is the Left miss characterizing the Ryan plan as the End of Medicare, but they seem to be hoping to scare people who are over 55 right now into voting against it.

I guess they are betting that people over 55 are to stupid to understand that they will not be effected at all by the Ryan plan because they are Already over 55?

Can't believe the American People are falling for this BS from the left. I mean I don't think the Ryan plan is perfect, or the only way, But the Left seems to just want to ignore the Problem all together. To Actually say there is nothing wrong with Medicare as it is and nothing needs to be done. Which if People were smart, they would understand, is the Real Threat to Medicare. Doing Nothing.

The Democrats have quickly taken over the slot as the party of no. 2 Years and no Budget, and no willingness to even discuss entitlement reforms. They should change the Democrat party logo to an ostrich. the Party of "lets just keep our heads buried in the sand and spend out selves into ruin, Fuck the Grand kids!"

The problem is the left has good reason to expect those over 55 will be foolish enough to accept their argument. They've done it many times before, and more often than not, they're leftists to begin with. An aging and dying out breed. It'll be a good day when those who protested in the 60's and 70's are no longer around.

It's not that the left thinks those over 55 are foolish...it's that the right thinks those over 55 are selfish

The republicans thought they could buy off seniors by telling them they could keep THEIR Medicare. But it is our seniors who appreciate how much Medicare is needed and are leading the fight against republicans who will kill it

 

[daveman]

I wasn't around to get to vote to ratify the Constitution either you moron. What's your point?

My point was in the part of my post that you deleted so you could pretend I didn't have a point, you dishonest piece of shit.

Nevertheless, the will of the people is subject to change. Even if liberals get their frilly panties in a wad. See the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which Democrats opposed).​

Sure, people are free to change their minds, but they haven't changed their mind on this issue.

Bold statement.

 

[daveman]

I wasn't around to get to vote to ratify the Constitution either you moron. What's your point?

My point was in the part of my post that you deleted so you could pretend I didn't have a point, you dishonest piece of shit.

Nevertheless, the will of the people is subject to change. Even if liberals get their frilly panties in a wad. See the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which Democrats opposed).​

NO.

I asked you what your point was in bringing up the obvious fact that most of weren't voting in 1965.

So what IS your point? Why is that relevant, specifically?

Are you really this dense, or is this just knee-jerk opposition?

I've explained my point as simply as I can. If you can't or won't get it, there's nothing I can do.

 

[Greenbeard]

No it is not. Maybe you did not bother to read the point but I specified cost is increasing faster than GROWTH. That means that no matter what the tax rate is, cost will eventually exceed 100 percent of that. The system will fall apart FAR sooner but the fact of the matter is that as long as costs are exceeding GROWTH then costs will always eat a larger portion of the pie until it gets the whole damn thing.

This is a feature of system-wide health costs, not just Medicare. Eliminating Medicare wouldn't stop this; in fact, it would remove the only major leverage (other than its influence on Medicaid policy, which Ryan also seeks to strip) the federal government has in beginning the cost control process in the system as a whole.

I am waiting to hear all those solutions that the dems are seriously talking about. Have any proposed bills to show??

You should probably start with this one.

 

[Polk]

Sure, people are free to change their minds, but they haven't changed their mind on this issue.

How do you know? When did they get a chance to vote on it in the last 10 years?

Looks like the voters in at least one district spoke pretty strongly on it last week...

 

[Polk]

I don't think any change to Medicare qualifies as "ending it". I do strongly feel that getting rid of the current system and replacing it with a coupon book where the value doesn't keep pace with insurance premiums is "ending it".

So any change you don't agree with is "ending it," but any change you like is not?

No. Any change that results in eliminating the service is "ending it". If Ryan's proposal was to restructure Medicare to make it like Medicare Part D (which is similar to his proposal, except that the subsidies are set at the rate of actual cost growth), it would be something I'd oppose as being ineffectively, but I'd also say it would be unfair to categorize that as ending the program.

Paying an additional 15% overhead beyond what it would otherwise cost Medicare.

Who paid the 15 % to whom?

The government to Aetna, Cigna, et al.

Yes, and it's head for bankruptcy. In fact, it's already bankrupt.

That's only true if you assume it's function is to turn a profit.

According to that definition, it was bankrupt the day it started. However, now it's bankrupt according to any convention definition of the term. It can't pay the benefits it promised. it's bankrupt.

This is a good example of one of the most dangerous concepts the right has convinced themselves is true: that the public sector is the same as a business.

 

[candycorn]

Sure, people are free to change their minds, but they haven't changed their mind on this issue.

How do you know? When did they get a chance to vote on it in the last 10 years?

Looks like the voters in at least one district spoke pretty strongly on it last week...

Perfect comeback....surgical.

 

[Polk]

It is a matter of dollars and cents. It is fact that cost, already eating general funds which it should not be doing EVER, is increasing faster than growth ever will. That is unsustainable no matter what the tax code is, GDP or anything. There is absolutely no possible way to make the program solvent without addressing cost. There are many was to do so and NONE of which the libs are willing to talk about.

Two falsehoods in your post.

1. It's absolutely possible to make the program solvent without addressing cost. You raise taxes to cover the cost of the program. It's not saying that's a preferable outcome, but it's certainly a valid option that exists.

No it is not. Maybe you did not bother to read the point but I specified cost is increasing faster than GROWTH. That means that no matter what the tax rate is, cost will eventually exceed 100 percent of that. The system will fall apart FAR sooner but the fact of the matter is that as long as costs are exceeding GROWTH then costs will always eat a larger portion of the pie until it gets the whole damn thing.

That's pretty faulty thinking. I know people love to show those charts of how health care could eventually be 100% of GDP, but that's asinine. Are people really going to stop eating? Buying televisions or cars? No. It's a tool of showing that costs are increasing rapidly, not that it will literally happen.

2. Liberals have definitely been willing to talk about cost controls in Medicare. Just because they don't think Ryan's coupon book idea is good policy doesn't mean they've been unwilling to discuss cost controls.

……..
I am waiting to hear all those solutions that the dems are seriously talking about. Have any proposed bills to show??

Some of them have already been passed in to law. The Affordable Care Act included full coverage for annual wellness screenings (it's cheaper to treat something if you catch it early), a shift toward accountable care organizations (which ties pay to ability to reduce total costs), financial incentives for hospitals to reduce readmission rates, and provisions to align Medicare cost growth more closely with overall cost growth (IPAB).

Some of the proposals that haven't been passed, but have been discussed are increasing the rate of cost growth acceptable during IPAB, and increasing funding for comparative effectiveness research.

 

[Polk]

My point was in the part of my post that you deleted so you could pretend I didn't have a point, you dishonest piece of shit.

Nevertheless, the will of the people is subject to change. Even if liberals get their frilly panties in a wad. See the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which Democrats opposed).​

Sure, people are free to change their minds, but they haven't changed their mind on this issue.

Bold statement.

Not really. Survey after survey shows a clear majority of Americans favor keeping Medicare as-is/not replacing it with a coupon book. Bonus: that's without most of them knowing the coupon book is for less than the cost of care.

 

[Trajan]

Six of one……….this debate has become circular…..its a battle of philosophies.

Every plan will always be unfair to someone. Getting the system to perform, to capture the best of what it has to offer and provide the greatest good to the greatest number of people is what this is supposedly all about.

However, there is an ideological bridge that is keeping the parties apart; there are some who believe that the government is the best arbiter, they think they can, by their management stamp out every vestige of unfairness for/to everyone. They believe they can protect everyone from their own intrinsic lack of self interest in this context.

Conversely the other party feels that in the end, the gains via the above platform are marginal in that no one anywhere at anytime has ever been able to bend so complex a vehicle like healthcare so as to deliver to everyone everything, exactly equitably where in citizen *A gets exactly what citizen *B gets no matter their status, ala earning power or station in life. There will always be unfairness. It is what it is.

Its central planning vs. competitive market forces. The ideology of one seeks to harness the herd, the other seeks to free it to roam and to make a more individual choice and let markets mesh and evolve.

Give me the voucher; let me shop and buy a plan I want, tailored exactly to my need with me handing over the payment, if I don’t want add ons or packages that some markets demand via government dictate so be it, I will spend it wisely, when folks have to absorb and face the cost of what they are buying at the end user point, they wake up and I believe will make better or more learned choices, if they don’t, well as I inferred, you simply cannot make everyone get/take everything you want them too, people are not blocks of wood, that’s not unfair, its just life……...


Until we recognize this, we’ll just roll along till the system blows up and the pain then will be infinitely worse effecting many many many more and the unfairness quotient will be many many many times larger.

 

[The T]

Six of one……….this debate has become circular…..its a battle of philosophies.

Every plan will always be unfair to someone. Getting the system to perform, to capture the best of what it has to offer and provide the greatest good to the greatest number of people is what this is supposedly all about.

However, there is an ideological bridge that is keeping the parties apart; there are some who believe that the government is the best arbiter, they think they can, by their management stamp out every vestige of unfairness for/to everyone. They believe they can protect everyone from their own intrinsic lack of self interest in this context.

Conversely the other party feels that in the end, the gains via the above platform are marginal in that no one anywhere at anytime has ever been able to bend so complex a vehicle like healthcare so as to deliver to everyone everything, exactly equitably where in citizen *A gets exactly what citizen *B gets no matter their status, ala earning power or station in life. There will always be unfairness. It is what it is.

Its central planning vs. competitive market forces. The ideology of one seeks to harness the herd, the other seeks to free it to roam and to make a more individual choice and let markets mesh and evolve.

Give me the voucher; let me shop and buy a plan I want, tailored exactly to my need with me handing over the payment, if I don’t want add ons or packages that some markets demand via government dictate so be it, I will spend it wisely, when folks have to absorb and face the cost of what they are buying at the end user point, they wake up and I believe will make better or more learned choices, if they don’t, well as I inferred, you simply cannot make everyone get/take everything you want them too, people are not blocks of wood, that’s not unfair, its just life……...


Until we recognize this, we’ll just roll along till the system blows up and the pain then will be infinitely worse effecting many many many more and the unfairness quotient will be many many many times larger.

Nice.