House Republicans regroup amid Medicare anger

[drsmith1072]

And that is the problem with the Republican budget....They expect seniors, students and the poor to tighten their belts so that additional tax cuts can be provided to the wealthy.

We KNOW who the privileged class is ....don't we?

She just doesn't see the contradictions in her arguments. She supports taxcuts for the "wealthy" removing the sacrifice on their parts but believes that seniors don't want to sacrifice but should like "everyone else" except the "wealthy" who get tax cuts.

LOL

Nope. I support tax cuts for all those who pay taxes. That includes the wealthy who pay the majority of the Fed taxes in this country. I think they pay their fair share.

How bout the 40% who pay for nothing.

You just can't stay on topic can you?? The debate was NOT about your new line of spin. You went after seniors and your comments above show that to be the case and yet ealier in this thread you defended giving taxcuts to the "wealthy" so why move the goal posts and try to change the subject to who you believe should pay taxes??

In this thread you have shown that you want seniors to tighten their belts even as you promote and defend taxcuts for the "wealthy". You want the former to tighten their belts while the latter gets a pass and does not have to. There in lies the contradiction.

 

[Claudette]

Oh look, class warfare. Imagine that.



WOW! So you are actaully trying to compare the results, which you believe that you read somewhere, of an actual even increased revenue more than the results of an event that didn't actually occur?? WOW!

I would say that you are wrong for drawing such a baseless conclusion.

Yes Indeedy. I did read it. So can you.

DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

That addresses only HALF of your claim. Here is the half that I was questioning you about.

Much more than raising taxes would have generated. Am I wrong??

So now that your own words have been shown to you, I will ask you, how can you HONESTLY make claims about how raising taxes would have affected revenues when based on the fact that it didn't happen no one could really know how it would have affected revenues?

You are trying to compare the results of an event that did occur to the results of an event that that did NOT occur. One exists the other does NOT, therefore there can be no real comparison.

So why did you skip the part of your claim that I was actually questioning you about??

Apparantly you missed the "Am I wrong?" part of my post. Thats a question in case you wondered.

 

[Claudette]

She just doesn't see the contradictions in her arguments. She supports taxcuts for the "wealthy" removing the sacrifice on their parts but believes that seniors don't want to sacrifice but should like "everyone else" except the "wealthy" who get tax cuts.

LOL

Nope. I support tax cuts for all those who pay taxes. That includes the wealthy who pay the majority of the Fed taxes in this country. I think they pay their fair share.

How bout the 40% who pay for nothing.

You just can't stay on topic can you?? The debate was NOT about your new line of spin. You went after seniors and your comments above show that to be the case and yet ealier in this thread you defended giving taxcuts to the "wealthy" so why move the goal posts and try to change the subject to who you believe should pay taxes??

In this thread you have shown that you want seniors to tighten their belts even as you promote and defend taxcuts for the "wealthy". You want the former to tighten their belts while the latter gets a pass and does not have to. There in lies the contradiction.

New line of spin?

You seem to think that the wealthy should shoulder the burden for all. I on the other hand think everyone should have skin in the game.

You will have to let me know just what pass the wealthy are getting since they already pay the majority of the Fed taxes.

Perhaps you would like them to pay all the taxes?? LOL

 

[kiwiman127]

I think Claudette should read this article that I linked and in particular look at how much health care costs have risen in comparison to the CPI.
Ryan's plan uses the CPI for any raises in the annual voucher total dollars per recipient.
As one can easily see, the CPI is dwarfed by the real costs increases in health care costs. The increase in health care costs are mirrored in the increase of insurance premiums.
How in the world can a senior, poor person or disadvantaged person on a fixed income keep up with the increases under Ryan's plan. They can't. When people say Ryan's plan throws granny under the bus,,,they aren't kidding.

Here you go Claudette, go to this link, read it and then tell us that this is the plan you want for yourself.

Comparing Ryan's Medicare Plan to What Congress Gets - Uwe E. Reinhardt - NYTimes.com

 

[RDD_1210]

You notice that Claudette never even bothered to respond to my post where I explained how by her own definition she is getting a "free ride". Wonder why that is.

 

[drsmith1072]

Yes Indeedy. I did read it. So can you.

DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times

That addresses only HALF of your claim. Here is the half that I was questioning you about.

Much more than raising taxes would have generated. Am I wrong??

So now that your own words have been shown to you, I will ask you, how can you HONESTLY make claims about how raising taxes would have affected revenues when based on the fact that it didn't happen no one could really know how it would have affected revenues?

You are trying to compare the results of an event that did occur to the results of an event that that did NOT occur. One exists the other does NOT, therefore there can be no real comparison.

So why did you skip the part of your claim that I was actually questioning you about??

Apparantly you missed the "Am I wrong?" part of my post. Thats a question in case you wondered.

Actually I did not miss it I answered it in my previous post,

I would say that you are wrong for drawing such a baseless conclusion.

However, how does that question substantiate the half of your claim that I was asking you about?? It also does not explain why you avoided that half previously.

Now that I have shown you that I answered your question which you falsely claim I missed, instead of addressing what you actually said previously, why don't you give it another try with less spin.

Once again you fail to stay on topic and try to move the goal posts. This time your failure was based on a false claim that i missed a question that I had already answered.

1. You made a claim.
2. I asked you a question about that claim.
3. you present evidence that addresses ONE small part of that claim as you avoid the other which cannot be proven.
4. I point out that you avoided the part that I was questioning you on.
5. instead of addressing what you avoided the first time around you falsely claim that I missed a question that I had already answered.

I wonder what you will do next to avoid your own words?

 

[drsmith1072]

Nope. I support tax cuts for all those who pay taxes. That includes the wealthy who pay the majority of the Fed taxes in this country. I think they pay their fair share.

How bout the 40% who pay for nothing.

You just can't stay on topic can you?? The debate was NOT about your new line of spin. You went after seniors and your comments above show that to be the case and yet ealier in this thread you defended giving taxcuts to the "wealthy" so why move the goal posts and try to change the subject to who you believe should pay taxes??

In this thread you have shown that you want seniors to tighten their belts even as you promote and defend taxcuts for the "wealthy". You want the former to tighten their belts while the latter gets a pass and does not have to. There in lies the contradiction.

New line of spin?

You seem to think that the wealthy should shoulder the burden for all. I on the other hand think everyone should have skin in the game.

You will have to let me know just what pass the wealthy are getting since they already pay the majority of the Fed taxes.

Perhaps you would like them to pay all the taxes?? LOL

So once again instead of addressing what you actually said you avoid your contradiction and try to put words into my mouth and dishonestly frame my opinions with your work of fiction.

When and where did I say I think the wealthy should shoulder the burden for all or even anything close to that?? Fact is I didn't.

Furthermore, this whole debate about sacrifice is that ALL should be required to sacrifice. So can you tell me what sacrifice the weathly are making by getting more and more taxcuts??

Even as you demand that seniors must sacrifice you refuse to demand the same of the weathly. That is my point based on your own words in this thread.

So why are you continuing to avoid your own words even as you try to put words into another poster's mouth??

 

[drsmith1072]

You notice that Claudette never even bothered to respond to my post where I explained how by her own definition she is getting a "free ride". Wonder why that is.

I also tried to call her attention to that and she went off on some other tangent to avoid responding. That seems to be her MO at least in this thread.

 

[Claudette]

You just can't stay on topic can you?? The debate was NOT about your new line of spin. You went after seniors and your comments above show that to be the case and yet ealier in this thread you defended giving taxcuts to the "wealthy" so why move the goal posts and try to change the subject to who you believe should pay taxes??

In this thread you have shown that you want seniors to tighten their belts even as you promote and defend taxcuts for the "wealthy". You want the former to tighten their belts while the latter gets a pass and does not have to. There in lies the contradiction.

New line of spin?

You seem to think that the wealthy should shoulder the burden for all. I on the other hand think everyone should have skin in the game.

You will have to let me know just what pass the wealthy are getting since they already pay the majority of the Fed taxes.

Perhaps you would like them to pay all the taxes?? LOL

So once again instead of addressing what you actually said you avoid your contradiction and try to put words into my mouth and dishonestly frame my opinions with your work of fiction.

When and where did I say I think the wealthy should shoulder the burden for all or even anything close to that?? Fact is I didn't.

Furthermore, this whole debate about sacrifice is that ALL should be required to sacrifice. So can you tell me what sacrifice the weathly are making by getting more and more taxcuts??

Even as you demand that seniors must sacrifice you refuse to demand the same of the weathly. That is my point based on your own words in this thread.

So why are you continuing to avoid your own words even as you try to put words into another poster's mouth??

More and more tax cuts?? AS far as I know there was only one. The Bush tax cuts . To clarify. You didn't think that the wealthy should have gotten their tax cuts extended?? Correct? It was okay for everyone else but not the wealthy. That is the sacrifice your alluding to??

As for the wealthy paying all the taxes that was a question as well. You have stated that I was putting words in your mouth. Not so. Question dude.

You know if you just asked a staight up question you might get a straight up answer.

 

[Claudette]

Do you have health insurance?

Yup. How bout you??

Sure do.

So let me ask you this. You complain about "free rides" and claim that people should only get out exactly what they put in. Do you understand how the concept of insurance works? Because if you were to fall gravely ill tomorrow and need expensive treatments or an extended hospital stay, do you think you will only be treated up to the amount you have paid towards your insurance? Of course not, because insurance is pooled risk and people can exceed what they have paid in when the time calls for it. That's how the premise of insurance works. So you by your own definition, having health insurance are on a "free ride", unless of course you plan on telling the doctor to stop treatment immediately once they've done as much as you've paid for.

Sorry. I didn't see your post.

Medicare recipients pay into Medicare. Its their tax money. Once they use it up they begin using other peoples tax money to pay Medicare expenses for those folks.

A private insurer is paid for a service. To provide HC for a fee so I think its different from Medicare which is payed for with tax dollars.

At least thats the way I see it.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yup. How bout you??

Sure do.

So let me ask you this. You complain about "free rides" and claim that people should only get out exactly what they put in. Do you understand how the concept of insurance works? Because if you were to fall gravely ill tomorrow and need expensive treatments or an extended hospital stay, do you think you will only be treated up to the amount you have paid towards your insurance? Of course not, because insurance is pooled risk and people can exceed what they have paid in when the time calls for it. That's how the premise of insurance works. So you by your own definition, having health insurance are on a "free ride", unless of course you plan on telling the doctor to stop treatment immediately once they've done as much as you've paid for.

Sorry. I didn't see your post.

Medicare recipients pay into Medicare. Its their tax money. Once they use it up they begin using other peoples tax money to pay Medicare expenses for those folks.

A private insurer is paid for a service. To provide HC for a fee so I think its different from Medicare which is payed for with tax dollars.

At least thats the way I see it.

So does your private insurance cap what it will pay out for you based directly upon how much you paid in? I don't think so. What's the point of insurance then if you are only getting back at most the exact amount you spent?

You pay in to private insurance, just like people pay in to Medicare. If you get hit with an expensive illness you are being treated beyond what you paid in and being covered by "other peoples money", which is the way both private insurance and Medicare works. Make sense?

So your notion of people on Medicare are getting a "free ride" is true, only if you and everyone else who have private insurance policies are also getting "free rides".

 

[Claudette]

WOW! So it's the old spin that we go with their plan or nothing at all. LOL

BTW it's funny how you didn't really address the actual content of his post and started railing against medicare.

It's ok, we already know that you don't like it but how does that address you claims of only getting back exactly what you pay into it when that belief is compared with the reality that kiwi explained to you??

He made an excellent point and you sidestepped as you continued ranting against
medicare. WOW!

He asked a question and I answered it. So Sorry the answer wasn't to your liking. Although I do like your WOW.

Thanks for the spin. BTW where was the question that you answered??

Furthermore, how does that adress your spin about how it's ryan's plan or do nothing??

I never said it was Ryans plan or nothing. Since his plan won't make it through the Senate its a moot point anyway.

I did say that he at least has a plan.

I did a factcheck on the plan and seniors probably will be paying more out of pocket and the plan isn't perfect by a long shot.

 

[Claudette]

Sure do.

So let me ask you this. You complain about "free rides" and claim that people should only get out exactly what they put in. Do you understand how the concept of insurance works? Because if you were to fall gravely ill tomorrow and need expensive treatments or an extended hospital stay, do you think you will only be treated up to the amount you have paid towards your insurance? Of course not, because insurance is pooled risk and people can exceed what they have paid in when the time calls for it. That's how the premise of insurance works. So you by your own definition, having health insurance are on a "free ride", unless of course you plan on telling the doctor to stop treatment immediately once they've done as much as you've paid for.

Sorry. I didn't see your post.

Medicare recipients pay into Medicare. Its their tax money. Once they use it up they begin using other peoples tax money to pay Medicare expenses for those folks.

A private insurer is paid for a service. To provide HC for a fee so I think its different from Medicare which is payed for with tax dollars.

At least thats the way I see it.

So does your private insurance cap what it will pay out for you based directly upon how much you paid in? I don't think so. What's the point of insurance then if you are only getting back at most the exact amount you spent?

You pay in to private insurance, just like people pay in to Medicare. If you get hit with an expensive illness you are being treated beyond what you paid in and being covered by "other peoples money", which is the way both private insurance and Medicare works. Make sense?

So your notion of people on Medicare are getting a "free ride" is true, only if you and everyone else who have private insurance policies are also getting "free rides".

I see your point. Thanks for the explanation. I always assumed there was a difference between tax money and what collected through a private insurer.

 

[drsmith1072]

New line of spin?

You seem to think that the wealthy should shoulder the burden for all. I on the other hand think everyone should have skin in the game.

You will have to let me know just what pass the wealthy are getting since they already pay the majority of the Fed taxes.

Perhaps you would like them to pay all the taxes?? LOL

So once again instead of addressing what you actually said you avoid your contradiction and try to put words into my mouth and dishonestly frame my opinions with your work of fiction.

When and where did I say I think the wealthy should shoulder the burden for all or even anything close to that?? Fact is I didn't.

Furthermore, this whole debate about sacrifice is that ALL should be required to sacrifice. So can you tell me what sacrifice the weathly are making by getting more and more taxcuts??

Even as you demand that seniors must sacrifice you refuse to demand the same of the weathly. That is my point based on your own words in this thread.

So why are you continuing to avoid your own words even as you try to put words into another poster's mouth??

More and more tax cuts?? AS far as I know there was only one. The Bush tax cuts .

That really is NOT the important part but they were extended on more than one occasion and plus ryan's plan calls for even more taxcuts.

To clarify. You didn't think that the wealthy should have gotten their tax cuts extended?? Correct? It was okay for everyone else but not the wealthy. That is the sacrifice your alluding to??

Why is it that you refuse to answer questions abotu your own words?? What are you so afraid of??

As for the wealthy paying all the taxes that was a question as well. You have stated that I was putting words in your mouth. Not so. Question dude.

Really?? I guess I have to show you your own words AGAIN only to have you avoid them AGAIN.

You seem to think that the wealthy should shoulder the burden for all.

How is that a question??? That is you presuming to know what I think as you put words into my mouth.

You know if you just asked a staight up question you might get a straight up answer.

I have asked several straight up questions you are just too busy CYA changing subjects or avoiding questions and your own comments to answer them.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3581322-post61.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3581265-post60.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3581230-post57.html

Those are just a few of the posts that contain questions that you avoided or failed to respond to.

 

[drsmith1072]

He asked a question and I answered it. So Sorry the answer wasn't to your liking. Although I do like your WOW.

Thanks for the spin. BTW where was the question that you answered??

Furthermore, how does that adress your spin about how it's ryan's plan or do nothing??

I never said it was Ryans plan or nothing. Since his plan won't make it through the Senate its a moot point anyway.

I did say that he at least has a plan.

I did a factcheck on the plan and seniors probably will be paying more out of pocket and the plan isn't perfect by a long shot.

Uh ok, and yet

As for the senior paying out of pocket under Ryans plan. What do you think will happen if they don't fix Medicare??

This is you presenting the assumption that there are only these two choices, ryan's plan or not fixing medicare at all. That is a pretty good example of "ryan's plan or nothing"

BTW part of my argument against the claims by the right that ryan's plpan is real is the fact that they knew it would never pass. It's nice to see that you agree that it will never pass. No, it's not perfect, not even close, so I guess it's a good thing that it will never pass.

P.S. You claimed that he asked a question so I asked you where was the question that you answered?? So where was it?

 

[kiwiman127]

He asked a question and I answered it. So Sorry the answer wasn't to your liking. Although I do like your WOW.

Thanks for the spin. BTW where was the question that you answered??

Furthermore, how does that adress your spin about how it's ryan's plan or do nothing??

I never said it was Ryans plan or nothing. Since his plan won't make it through the Senate its a moot point anyway.

I did say that he at least has a plan.

I did a factcheck on the plan and seniors probably will be paying more out of pocket and the plan isn't perfect by a long shot.[/QUOTE]


Claudette, did you check out the graph from the NY Times article I posted. Seniors will be paying a lot more out of pocket. To the point a hugh percentage won't be able to afford Ryan's Medicare. Then what do they do? Die?

 

[VaYank5150]

Thanks for the spin. BTW where was the question that you answered??

Furthermore, how does that adress your spin about how it's ryan's plan or do nothing??

I never said it was Ryans plan or nothing. Since his plan won't make it through the Senate its a moot point anyway.

I did say that he at least has a plan.

I did a factcheck on the plan and seniors probably will be paying more out of pocket and the plan isn't perfect by a long shot.[/QUOTE]


Claudette, did you check out the graph from the NY Times article I posted. Seniors will be paying a lot more out of pocket. To the point a hugh percentage won't be able to afford Ryan's Medicare. Then what do they do? Die?

Wouldn't that be similar to "death panels"???

 

[Political Junky]

Kill Grandma so that you can give tax cuts to the wealthy

Sound political strategy

Damn right, Grandma's a leech.

 

[EriktheRed]

I never said it was Ryans plan or nothing. Since his plan won't make it through the Senate its a moot point anyway.

I did say that he at least has a plan.

I did a factcheck on the plan and seniors probably will be paying more out of pocket and the plan isn't perfect by a long shot.[/QUOTE]


Claudette, did you check out the graph from the NY Times article I posted. Seniors will be paying a lot more out of pocket. To the point a hugh percentage won't be able to afford Ryan's Medicare. Then what do they do? Die?

Wouldn't that be similar to "death panels"???

Death voutures.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think Claudette should read this article that I linked and in particular look at how much health care costs have risen in comparison to the CPI.
Ryan's plan uses the CPI for any raises in the annual voucher total dollars per recipient.
As one can easily see, the CPI is dwarfed by the real costs increases in health care costs. The increase in health care costs are mirrored in the increase of insurance premiums.
How in the world can a senior, poor person or disadvantaged person on a fixed income keep up with the increases under Ryan's plan. They can't. When people say Ryan's plan throws granny under the bus,,,they aren't kidding.

Here you go Claudette, go to this link, read it and then tell us that this is the plan you want for yourself.

Comparing Ryan's Medicare Plan to What Congress Gets - Uwe E. Reinhardt - NYTimes.com

The insurance companies will push up prices on senior care to whatever the market will bear, and will bleed seniors dry. Of course when you're a poor enough senior I think you get to go on Medicaid.