Do you feel we should end Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid?

[ScreamingEagle]

Right...Because they have absolutely gutted reimbursements.

Medicare reimbursements have gone up, chief.

Absolutely not, and not one Republican Politician has proposed any thing of the sort. Reform is not the Same as Getting Rid of.

Not so. The FY12 budget the House passed last year (with virtually every Republican voting for it, as well as virtually every Republican in the Senate) ended Medicare, instead offering seniors a coupon for an Aetna or Blue Cross plan.

The big fanfare around their FY13 budget earlier this year is that--huzzah!--Medicare got to continue existing in that one. Turns out there was some pushback last year on their radical FY12 budget ending Medicare.

typical lying dimwit......the Ryan plan would not remotely end Medicare.....

it would actually SAVE it....(in both versions)

In light of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s shameless ad saying that the Paul Ryan-authored House Republican budget would “end Medicare,” it is worth noting that the Congressional Budget Office says that, in 2030, the Republican plan would give the average senior $18,276 in premium support to help purchase private health insurance ($15,000 in 2022, increased by 2.5 percent annually, to keep up with inflation). In addition, lower-income seniors would get another $9,504 to put into a medical savings account (an MSA) to use for additional medical expenses, bringing their annual tally of taxpayer-funded support to $27,780.

The Medicare Trustees Report (Table IV.C1) says that in 2030 there will be 80.424 million seniors enrolled in Medicare. Thus, in that year, Ryan’s plan would spend $1.470 trillion on Medicare premium support alone, in addition to the funding for the MSAs. That’s about 50 percent more than we would spend that year, under the Republican budget, on national defense.

Spending $1,469,800,000,000 a year on Medicare — not counting Medicare MSA funding — and more each year from that point forward, is a strange way to “end” the program.



http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/paul-ryans-plan-would-not-end-medicare_558430.html

 

[Full-Auto]

The federal programs cannot be ended quickly enough to suit me.

If the states want to pick up the functions that these programs coverm that's up to them - I would personally oppose any such initiative in my state.

You, and no one else, are responsible for you; expecting others to take care of you is the most hideous excample of self-important narcissism I can think of.

Do you have parents? Grandparents? Please tell us why they have no need for either Social Security or Medicare.

After decades of government telling you they have your back, while spending your money

What makes you think ignoring the problem will make it go away?

Had SS been reformed, had democrats not walked out of congress for the photo op. You would have money in an account.

What you have now is a government that has to borrow to send you that check......

Do you have parents, grandparents?

 

[Greenbeard]

typical lying dimwit......the Ryan plan would not remotely end Medicare.....

it would actually SAVE it....(in both versions)

"Saving" it by no longer allowing seniors to enroll in Medicare is ending it. Telling them that instead of enrolling in Medicare they need to look for an insurance plan from Aetna or Blue Cross is ending Medicare.

Medicare is a federal health insurance plan for seniors. If you shut it down and tell seniors we'll give you a coupon for an Anthem plan instead, you've indeed ended Medicare.

 

[Rozman]

Do you feel we should end Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid?

Yes or no?

If you say yes, then what happens to the people who depend on it? If you say no, then do you disagree with your leaders and if you do, then why you support them?

I say no...
I say we should find a way to pay for them.
The clock is ticking on these programs and as they are now we will have more people
withdrawing on these programs then paying in.

The left rather then try to fix these programs would rather bury their heads in the sand
and tell lies about the republicans who are trying to fix them.

 

[Wiseacre]

Social safety net programs are good things; we just have to find a way to pay for 'em without bankrupting future generations and without discouraging future healthcare providers from choosing another profession or current healthcare providers from leaving it. The entitlement programs we have in place now are not sustainable, and everyone knows it. You can't raise taxes enough to cover the rising costs, everyone knows that too if they have an ounce of sense. And yet almost none of our politicians are willing to even discuss it, they just point fingers at the other side and demand changes to their position without changing their own. I'm just not seeing a way out of this as long as this situation remains; apparently it will take at least one doozy of a depression to re-orient everyone back to working together on solutions that will work.

IOW, there's a major shitstorm acomin'. The questions are: when, how bad, how long, and how many times do we have to go through the same process.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

typical lying dimwit......the Ryan plan would not remotely end Medicare.....

it would actually SAVE it....(in both versions)

"Saving" it by no longer allowing seniors to enroll in Medicare is ending it. Telling them that instead of enrolling in Medicare they need to look for an insurance plan from Aetna or Blue Cross is ending Medicare.

Medicare is a federal health insurance plan for seniors. If you shut it down and tell seniors we'll give you a coupon for an Anthem plan instead, you've indeed ended Medicare.

it does not "end" Medicare.....nobody goes without coverage......but the plan does cap it at GDP +.5%......so if costs rise then seniors would have to chip in more on their premiums....

the revised Path To Prosperity (ptp2) even allows seniors to remain on traditional Medicare...

makes a whole lot more sense than Obamacare which will BANKRUPT the country.....and totally screw the seniors.....

 

[Greenbeard]

the revised Path To Prosperity (ptp2) even allows seniors to remain on traditional Medicare...

Good news! They got less radical after their first disastrous budget.

But you confirm my point: the FY 12 budget (er, "original" Path) did not allow seniors to remain on Medicare. And pretty much every Republican holding federal office is on record as voting for that.

We can pretend that they didn't tip their hand on that one and that their frantic election-year backtracking means they've seen the error of their ways. But who's really being fooled here?

The current crop of Republicans can't wait to end Medicare.

 

[Rozman]

From what I remember of the Ryan plan when he was on the Morning Joe show a few times.
Seniors now would not see ANY changes whatsoever.Future Seniors those needing the plan years from
now will have the changes apply to them thus giving everyone time to adjust.

The left knowing full well what his proposal was just started screaming that Ryan was gonna kill the programs.They even had a commercial with an actor that looked like Ryan pushing Granny in a wheelchair off the cliff.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

the revised Path To Prosperity (ptp2) even allows seniors to remain on traditional Medicare...

Good news! They got less radical after their first disastrous budget.

But you confirm my point: the FY 12 budget (er, "original" Path) did not allow seniors to remain on Medicare. And pretty much every Republican holding federal office is on record as voting for that.

We can pretend that they didn't tip their hand on that one and that their frantic election-year backtracking means they've seen the error of their ways. But who's really being fooled here?

The current crop of Republicans can't wait to end Medicare.

Bullcrappy.....

medicare will still exist under either Ryan version.....seniors will still actually get decent health care....and seniors can also have other plans if they want them.....and costs will actually be addressed in a responsible manner.....

what does the "current crop" of Democrats have to offer....besides increasing taxes and rationing care....?

and how about that Democrat Prez robbing half a trillion from medicare......so much for "caring" about seniors.......

 

[Full-Auto]

the revised Path To Prosperity (ptp2) even allows seniors to remain on traditional Medicare...

Good news! They got less radical after their first disastrous budget.

But you confirm my point: the FY 12 budget (er, "original" Path) did not allow seniors to remain on Medicare. And pretty much every Republican holding federal office is on record as voting for that.

We can pretend that they didn't tip their hand on that one and that their frantic election-year backtracking means they've seen the error of their ways. But who's really being fooled here?

The current crop of Republicans can't wait to end Medicare.

Bullcrappy.....

medicare will still exist under either version.....seniors will still actually get decent health care....and seniors can also have other plans if they want them.....and costs will actually be addressed in a responsible manner.....

what does the "current crop" of Democrats have to offer....besides increasing taxes and rationing care....?

DOPE AND CHANGE We help the drug cartels now......

 

[Greenbeard]

medicare will still exist under either Ryan version.....seniors will still actually get decent health care....and seniors can also have other plans if they want them.....and costs will actually be addressed in a responsible manner.....

Keep repeating it, someday it might be true.

what does the "current crop" of Democrats have to offer....besides increasing taxes and rationing care....?

New payment and delivery models that are already showing they can improve the quality of care while containing costs: http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-reform-model-lowers-costs-improves-care.html

Per capita Medicare spending growth is now at its lowest point in history.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

medicare will still exist under either Ryan version.....seniors will still actually get decent health care....and seniors can also have other plans if they want them.....and costs will actually be addressed in a responsible manner.....

Keep repeating it, someday it might be true.

what does the "current crop" of Democrats have to offer....besides increasing taxes and rationing care....?

New payment and delivery models that are already showing they can improve the quality of care while containing costs: http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-reform-model-lowers-costs-improves-care.html

Per capita Medicare spending growth is now at its lowest point in history.

yes i will repeat it....the Ryan plan is a solid plan that will maintain medicare and bring down the deficit....

there are many arguments about public vs private healthcare.....however there has been nothing definitive....

however as an American i wish to maintain my right to purchase (or not purchase) whichever plan i choose....

 

[DontBeStupid]

typical lying dimwit......the Ryan plan would not remotely end Medicare.....

it would actually SAVE it....(in both versions)

"Saving" it by no longer allowing seniors to enroll in Medicare is ending it. Telling them that instead of enrolling in Medicare they need to look for an insurance plan from Aetna or Blue Cross is ending Medicare.

Medicare is a federal health insurance plan for seniors. If you shut it down and tell seniors we'll give you a coupon for an Anthem plan instead, you've indeed ended Medicare.

it does not "end" Medicare.....nobody goes without coverage......but the plan does cap it at GDP +.5%......so if costs rise then seniors would have to chip in more on their premiums....

the revised Path To Prosperity (ptp2) even allows seniors to remain on traditional Medicare...

makes a whole lot more sense than Obamacare which will BANKRUPT the country.....and totally screw the seniors.....

"If" ? Don't you mean "when" ?

The GOP has no plan for controlling costs. They will go up. In fact, projections for the Ryan Plan are that within 15 years or so, retirees will be using their voucher plus their entire SS check just to afford insurance.

Yeah. Feel the compassion.

 

[Oddball]

The federal programs cannot be ended quickly enough to suit me.

If the states want to pick up the functions that these programs coverm that's up to them - I would personally oppose any such initiative in my state.

You, and no one else, are responsible for you; expecting others to take care of you is the most hideous excample of self-important narcissism I can think of.

Do you have parents? Grandparents? Please tell us why they have no need for either Social Security or Medicare.

Because shameless Marxist jackwagons like you will continue to hide behind the elderly, to defend the continuation of the slouch of America into dependence and subservience.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You forgot the part where I siai I would oppose such a system.
So, we're back to you being OK with forcing people into a condition of involuntary servitude.

It doesn't really matter that you're one of the few people left that feel the state has no role to playing in helping the indigent to access health care. Unless you're deluded, I assume you recognize that no state with a republican form of government and regular elections is ever going to lack such a program. Your philosophy went out of vogue about a century ago.

Thus the question becomes: how do we structure, operate, and finance these programs to make sure they're best achieving the goals the public has identified as worthy of them meeting, and in a way that gives the most bang for the public buck?

Designing programs in the dumbest way possible is not a middle ground between designing/operating good programs and convincing people of your absurd "involuntary servitude" rhetoric around health insurance for the poor.

None of this changes the fact that you're OK with forcing people into a condition of involuntary servitude.

 

[Oddball]

You forgot the part where I siai I would oppose such a system.
So, we're back to you being OK with forcing people into a condition of involuntary servitude.

It doesn't really matter that you're one of the few people left that feel the state has no role to playing in helping the indigent to access health care. Unless you're deluded, I assume you recognize that no state with a republican form of government and regular elections is ever going to lack such a program. Your philosophy went out of vogue about a century ago.

Thus the question becomes: how do we structure, operate, and finance these programs to make sure they're best achieving the goals the public has identified as worthy of them meeting, and in a way that gives the most bang for the public buck?

Designing programs in the dumbest way possible is not a middle ground between designing/operating good programs and convincing people of your absurd "involuntary servitude" rhetoric around health insurance for the poor.

None of this changes the fact that you're being OK with forcing people into a condition of involuntary servitude.

Obviously, you don't know what's "in you best interests"...

 

[M14 Shooter]

I addressed your concern.

Right. With this little gem.

You are responsible for you, and you have no right to impose on others to take care of you.

But, you see, you didn't address my concern. Because if a generation of retirees get their retirement accounts wiped out in a stock market crash, they will either retire with no money (not good for the economy) or they won't retire until later, which will keep younger workers from getting jobs (not good for the economy).

Again: You are responsible for you. Whatever choices you may have made, and whatever the results of those choices, they were -your- choices. If your choices led you to retiring later or with less money, the oly person responsible for that is you, and you have no right to expect others to make up for that.

And so, rather than force -other- people into a condition of involuntary servitude to make up for poor choices, we hold people responsible for those choices and force them to mke do with the results of those choices the best that they can.

Now, you -always- have the option to give to charity to help others - but that's YOUR choice.

 

[Listening]

Just give everyone a one time choice to opt in or out of these programs.

Ok, but again, how do you address a generation of retirees who have their retirement accounts wiped out in a stock market crash?

If the market crashes and does not recover...we'll have bigger issues to worry about on the short term...than this.

I recommend a new system for those just entering the workforce. They are going to have to help pay out the liability of the current system, but I would never take that away from those who worked their whole lives under it's promises.

But when today's sixteen year old retires, he's gonna retire with a sheet of paper in his hand that says how much money is in his account. And his distributions will be accordingly.

If he passes, what is in his account is moved to the accounts of his children...who know's maybe it his some minimum and at that point they are no longer needing to pay into the system. But they can if they wish.

 

[Listening]

medicare will still exist under either Ryan version.....seniors will still actually get decent health care....and seniors can also have other plans if they want them.....and costs will actually be addressed in a responsible manner.....

Keep repeating it, someday it might be true.

what does the "current crop" of Democrats have to offer....besides increasing taxes and rationing care....?

New payment and delivery models that are already showing they can improve the quality of care while containing costs: http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-reform-model-lowers-costs-improves-care.html

Per capita Medicare spending growth is now at its lowest point in history.

And more and more doctors are getting out of the medicare business.

I am not going to repeat the whole Mayo in Phoenix discussion. You can look it up. Suffice it to say that Mayo (Obama's darling of a cost model) was going bust on medicare. It simply does not pay enough....to say costs are at an all time low basically is covering up the fact that the government reimbursement rates are being cut and doctors are jumping ship.

 

[Oddball]

I addressed your concern.

Right. With this little gem.

You are responsible for you, and you have no right to impose on others to take care of you.

But, you see, you didn't address my concern. Because if a generation of retirees get their retirement accounts wiped out in a stock market crash, they will either retire with no money (not good for the economy) or they won't retire until later, which will keep younger workers from getting jobs (not good for the economy).

The question was about the economic impact, something none of you are addressing.

They've already been wiped out by irresponsible politicians pissing away the OASI "trust fund", but you don't give a flying fuck about that.