How Do You Find Middle Ground With a Party That Has No Plan?’

[JoeB131]

The Democrats have no plan to fix any of our big problems why would anyone vote for them?



Rand Paul and Senate GOP:

And the Republicans do?

YOu mean other than, "Doooooy, tax cut for rich people, Dooooyyyy"

 

[Darkwind]

Smart folks believe the exact opposite of anything Ayn Rand Paul says.

Is that what group think looks like?

I just had a vision of a group of psychiatric patients in hospital gowns all gathered around telling each other how stupid the medical staff is.

 

[The T]

Obama had a plan, it was voted down 99 to 0.

It's all fodder to blame Republicans that haven't been in power...

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Republican 'plan' has been tried and failed.

"What experience and history teach is this-that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it."
G. W. F. Hegel

 

[Darkwind]

I find it amusing that until the Congress decided to meddle in private home ownership by forcing banks and GSEs to lend money to unqualified borrowers, that these alleged 'failed policies have provided this country with over 25 years of economic prosperity (with a few speed bumps along the way of course).

Now, however, we hear that we must not return to prosperity, but follow a new path of government expansionism without accountability. For lets be Frank here (sorry Frank), the Senate (controlled by Democrats) has not passed a budget, and has no plans of passing a budget under the current leadership, for one specific reason.

If the Senate Democrats actually passed a budget, it could, afterwards be reviewed, analyzed, studied, and reported to the people of this country. This means that the Democrats would subsequently have an actual stance, or position, with regard to monetary policy in this country. They fear this. They fear this because it would expose them as power-hungry, uncaring about the plight of those who fit their demagoguery. A budget would mean that the citizens would hold them responsible for the mess they are in, and expose their incompetence at anything other than keeping and holding onto their jobs at our expense.

Until such time as the Democrats, and their party, pass a budget, or seriously sit down to discuss a budget, those on the left, mainly the left here at this forum, will have zero credibility with regard to having a plan.

The GOP, as lousy as they are, at least HAVE passed budgets, and attempted to do some of the people's business. The problem is, it is the LEFT which does not like the terms and refuses to sit down at the table, let alone compromise on anything.

 

[Darkwind]

The Republican 'plan' has been tried and failed.

"What experience and history teach is this-that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it."
G. W. F. Hegel

That is incorrect. The Republican's plan, while flawed, provided for more prosperity and growth than anything the current President or his Congress has provided in the last 3.5 years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Democrats have no plan to fix any of our big problems why would anyone vote for them?



Rand Paul and Senate GOP:

Middle ground on what? The budget? Deficit reduction? Middle ground on fiscal matters would be a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.

Which tax increases are the Republicans willing to support in order to reach the 'middle ground'?

 

[Jroc]

The OP is wrong. The Democrats have a plan:
1)Spend more money
2) Increase regulations across the board
3) Increase taxes to pay for it
4) Demonize opponents
5) Blame Bush

It has to be a plan to fix the problems an actual plan laid out to be voted on, not some political tactics to win an election, and Obamacare will not fix anything. More entitlements are not the answer. I think seniors wouldn't mind having the same health care plan as congress, Balance budget in five years, sounds pretty good, although we could balance it next year if we wanted to

 

[SniperFire]

The Democrats have no plan to fix any of our big problems why would anyone vote for them?



Rand Paul and Senate GOP:

And the Republicans do?

YOu mean other than, "Doooooy, tax cut for rich people, Dooooyyyy"

You do realize that the amount of said tax cuts Obama plans to restore amount to 11 hours of gubmint spending per year, right?

 

[Jroc]

The Democrats have no plan to fix any of our big problems why would anyone vote for them?



Rand Paul and Senate GOP:

And the Republicans do?

YOu mean other than, "Doooooy, tax cut for rich people, Dooooyyyy"

Is Simplemindedness coverd under Obamacare?

 

[peach174]

The Democrats have no plan to fix any of our big problems why would anyone vote for them?



Rand Paul and Senate GOP:

Middle ground on what? The budget? Deficit reduction? Middle ground on fiscal matters would be a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.

Which tax increases are the Republicans willing to support in order to reach the 'middle ground'?

The American people are paying 4.4 trillion in taxes already,when you add Federal,State,City and County.
You can't get blood out of turnip. Especially during a recession.
Feds get 2.2 trillion and spends 3.6 trillion. It's an out of control spending problem and not a tax problem.

 

[freedombecki]

The Democrats have no plan to fix any of our big problems why would anyone vote for them?

Democrats have a plan, you simply don’t like it for subjective partisan reasons.

And republicans are on the record for refusing to compromise, in addition to offering poorly conceived plans predicated on failed policies.

One could ask why anyone would vote for them as well.

Mr. Jones, if you want to be the leader, lead us out of debt and stop using a battering ram on the Bill of Rights. If you don't, the adults will.

 

[Greenbeard]

Ah...

This is a part of the ACA that reduces medicare funding by 500 Billion?

Still to come! What doesn't seem to be widely appreciated is that the slowing in Medicare growth over the next decade required by the ACA isn't simply a baseless assumption or thoughtless edict. The legislation contains a number of reforms to the way Medicare does business, as well as reforms to the way providers do business. These are what make that slowed growth possible.

The slower growth in market basket updates to its payments to certain providers is 1) a signal to providers to get serious about implementing these reforms and finding these savings, and 2) a way to get CBO-scoreable savings from those Medicare reforms upfront during the legislative process. But I find that folks don't realize there's actually a great deal of Medicare reform underlying the future slower growth rates required and assumed by the ACA.

Presumably that's because Republicans continue to hammer the lie that Democrats haven't offered (much less already passed) Medicare reform. I can understand why it's inconvenient for them to acknowledge that--much less note that Medicare spending has slowed appreciably over the past two years! It certainly gives one pause on uncritically accepting their premise that Medicare has to be stripped and sold for parts.

Some observations from March of this year: Slower Growth in Medicare Spending — Is This the New Normal?

But there are indications that Medicare spending growth has slowed. One highly visible gauge of Medicare spending trends is the standard monthly Part B premium, which is set by the Medicare actuary to cover one quarter of total Part B spending. In August 2011, the actuary projected that the Part B premium for 2012 would be $106.60, but the actual premium was set in November at only $99.90. A much broader indicator of a slowing trend is the fact that growth in Medicare outlays per enrollee in 2010 and 2011 was roughly in line with growth in the economy (see graphExcess Medicare Spending Growth.). And in January 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) made a $69 billion downward revision to its 10-year Medicare spending projection — a technical correction that reflects emerging data showing surprisingly slow growth in outlays. Similar slowing trends have led to positive earnings surprises for publicly traded insurers.

The framers of the ACA perceived broad provider-payment reform as the best prospect for slowing the long-term spending trend. But they needed scoreable savings, and they could ill afford to alienate backers by forcing through major payment reforms at the same time. The ACA planted the seeds for accountable care organizations (ACOs), bundled payment for episodes of care, patient-centered medical homes, and incentives for reducing readmissions. Now those seeds offer a way forward.

In site visits and interviews conducted for our ongoing qualitative research, the Center for Studying Health System Change found strong provider interest in payment reform and efforts to prepare for it, with the prospect of increasing constraint on Medicare payment rates cited as motivation. We see a combination of reformed delivery of care and broader units of payment as having the potential to allow providers to generate savings through steps that are less threatening to quality of care and access than are cuts in payment rates. More concretely, payment on the basis of shared savings or partial capitation can reward providers for delivering care more efficiently. This approach is preferable to merely paying providers less and less for business as usual.

There is a historical precedent for harsh, simple-minded cuts setting the stage for broad-based payment reform. Up until the early 1980s, Medicare reimbursed hospitals for costs incurred, subject to ceilings. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 substantially tightened those limits, leaving hospitals with no upside — they could not earn a profit by reducing costs — and a growing downside for those whose costs exceeded the limits. The next year, legislation was passed, with the support of the hospital industry, replacing cost reimbursement with the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS), with rates initially calibrated to leave Medicare outlays unchanged. Hospitals then had the opportunity to reduce costs per admission by shortening lengths of stay and to earn a positive margin in the process.

The IPPS is generally viewed as a major policy success: it encouraged hospitals to seek efficiencies, and when they found those efficiencies, it allowed the federal government to share in the savings. Should ACOs and other reforms prove effective, they will provide broader opportunities to increase the efficiency of delivery beyond shortening lengths of stay, such as managing chronic disease more effectively so as to keep beneficiaries out of the hospital in the first place. But our current challenge is more complex than the one faced in the early 1980s. Broadening the unit of payment will require reaching across different types of providers and helping to stitch together real delivery systems in places where now there are none.

Providers are beginning to change the way they do business to improve the cost picture without compromising quality. The recent Medicare and Medicaid reforms offered carrots for these improvements and, through Medicare, the looming threat of some big sticks on the horizon.

Medicare spending in surprising slowdown | UPI.com

U.S. Medicare spending growth has slowed even as enrollment rises, and could remain below targets set by Congress for the next 10 years, experts said.

Medicare recorded a sharp drop in the volume of doctor visits and other outpatient services early in 2010, from an annual growth rate of 4 percent growth to less than 2 percent.

"We thought, 'Wow, what's happening?'" chief Medicare actuary Rick Foster told The Washington Post in an interview. "Part B cost growth has slowed down so much, we're seeing virtually the lowest rates ever."

Washington Stuck Fighting Wrong Health-Care Battle | Bloomberg

This brings us back to the progress being made beyond the Beltway toward a better combination of cost and quality in health care. Consistent with other evidence that points to a deceleration in cost pressures is a Congressional Budget Office report earlier this month showing that Medicare spending has risen less than 3 percent over the past year.

Bending The Health Care Cost Curve: More Than Meets The Eye? | Health Affairs Blog

During the past months, a number of important articles have appeared in the healthcare literature on the subject of the recent slowing of health-spending growth in the U.S. In an article in January’s Health Affairs, economists at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services suggest that the recession, even though officially ending in mid-2009, was the major factor in “extraordinarily slow” spending growth of 4.7 percent in 2008 and 3.9 percent in 2010, down from 7.5 percent in 2007 and double-digit growth in the 1980s and 1990s. Also citing recessionary causes, a report from the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform specifies declines in the rate of overall spending growth for eight consecutive years, from 9.2 percent in 2002 to 4.0 percent in 2009.

The purpose of this commentary is to suggest—through observations and data analyses—that independent of the recession, other fundamental and structural changes are likely contributing to the flattening of the cost curve, and further, that these changes have the potential to significantly alter the curve’s path into the future. Two independent analyses support this premise.

 

[peach174]

The slower growth is because Doctor's are not accepting new patients who have Medicare.
People are complaining about it all over the net forums.
Here is one example;
Unable to find medical doctor who accept new patients with medicare
There are plenty of them out there saying the same things as these people.
So which party is throwing grandma over the cliff? The new health plan,by the Dem's that's who.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Republican 'plan' has been tried and failed.

"What experience and history teach is this-that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it."
G. W. F. Hegel

That is incorrect. The Republican's plan, while flawed, provided for more prosperity and growth than anything the current President or his Congress has provided in the last 3.5 years.

That's nonsense.

From where we were when this president took office, we are currently seeing approximately an 900,000 per month job growth improvement, and an 11 percentage point improvement in GDP growth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Democrats have no plan to fix any of our big problems why would anyone vote for them?



Rand Paul and Senate GOP:

Middle ground on what? The budget? Deficit reduction? Middle ground on fiscal matters would be a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.

Which tax increases are the Republicans willing to support in order to reach the 'middle ground'?

The American people are paying 4.4 trillion in taxes already,when you add Federal,State,City and County.
You can't get blood out of turnip. Especially during a recession.
Feds get 2.2 trillion and spends 3.6 trillion. It's an out of control spending problem and not a tax problem.

That's the GOP's argument. It's wrong and it dodges the question.

Which tax increases are the Republicans willing to support in order to reach the 'middle ground'?

 

[Truthmatters]

The Democrats have no plan to fix any of our big problems why would anyone vote for them?



Rand Paul and Senate GOP:

the country is getting pretty tired of a party that insists its their way or the highway when that is NOT what the country voted for.


Its not a game its a government.

represent NOT try to sack the place and take over.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What sacrifices (since sacrifices HAVE to be made) by the Rich are the Republicans willing to support

to reach this 'middle ground'?

 

[PredFan]

What do you mean they don't have a plan?

Their plan is; blame Bush, blame the gop, blame Europe, play the race card, and stir up class warfare.

It's been working pretty well.

 

[Too Tall]

The Democrats have no plan to fix any of our big problems why would anyone vote for them?

Democrats have a plan, you simply don’t like it for subjective partisan reasons.

And republicans are on the record for refusing to compromise, in addition to offering poorly conceived plans predicated on failed policies.

One could ask why anyone would vote for them as well.

What Democrats do you say have a plan? It certainly can't be the Democrats in the Senate who have not passed or even proposed a budget in three years.

If not passing a budget is a plan while the yearly deficit adds over a trillion dollars a year to our national debt, you would be correct.