Paul Ryan To Obama: Do Not Continue To "Mischaracterize" Medicare Plan

[Bfgrn]

This is a brief and simple explanation of the GOP's plan for our senior's health care...

GOP Healthcare Plan

Medicare cannot continue into the future as it is; that is impossible.

Even though it almost has to be foolhardy to go first, I respect the Republicans for being willing to put something on the table.

Where is the Democratic plan to save Medicare?
Why are they unable to do anything but snipe and attack?
My own thought on that is that they prefer to have the issue, owing to the fact that they have the lamestream media in their pocket to join them in attacking the only plan anyone has yet come up with.

If any plans or ideas have been 'mis-characterized' it is the Affordable Healthcare Act and provisions that were designed to lower medical costs and Medicare costs. Especially the payment for end of life doctor/patient counseling called advanced directives. The ignorant and deceitful 'death panels' are the prime example or right wing deadly spin.

27% of Medicare's annual $327 billion budget goes to care for patients in their final year of life.

It’s hard to imagine how 'advanced directives', a compassionate, family-friendly measure — a measure that ultimately respects individual rights — could be twisted so grossly into the erroneous phrase “death panels.”

The concept of advanced directives was pioneered in La Crosse, thanks to our two first-class health care institutions.

It’s a simple concept: An individual, with the help of family, should have the ultimate say in the type of end-of-life care the individual receives. The best way to do that is through a careful consultation, with family and physician, before there is a health crisis — while the individual is still capable of having a rational voice in the decision.

Too often, those decisions are made when it’s too late for the individual to make the decisions. Instead, grieving family members are left to make the decision — and at times it’s nothing more than a guess.

Would the individual want extraordinary measures taken when the end is near? Why wouldn’t we trust the individual — in advance and when thinking clearly — to make that decision?

For those who crusade for the rights of the individual, here’s the question: Why are you so opposed to the individual being able to set down on paper, with help from family and physician, the standards and wishes for end-of-life care?

The issue of death panels became so hot during this year’s debate on health-care reform legislation that Democrats decided to pull that provision from the bill.

Health Care Bill Page 425 - The Truth

AP Fact Check: No "Death Panel" In Bill - CBS News

Debate surrounds end-of-life health care costs - USATODAY.com

Our view: Promoting advanced directives puts decisions in proper hands

La Crosse health care systems offer a model of efficiency - JSOnline

 

[NYcarbineer]

What gets generally ignored in the Ryan budget is the massive tax cut for the wealthy, from a 35% top rate to 25%.

 

[rightwinger]

What gets generally ignored in the Ryan budget is the massive tax cut for the wealthy, from a 35% top rate to 25%.

Thats what pisses me off the most about Ryans plan. It was sold as the Government making some tough choices in order to reduce our debt. Then he turns around and gives the savings back in tax cuts for the wealthy.

It is a comlete scam.......Rob from the poor and give to the rich

 

[Mr. Peepers]

What gets generally ignored in the Ryan budget is the massive tax cut for the wealthy, from a 35% top rate to 25%.

Exactly, they've had their significant tax break for a decade now and it hasn't helped our economy one whit - in fact, it has significantly harmed us. It's time for the people who really NEED it, the middle class, to get a significant break. It is OUR wages that are declining and it is OUR costs of living that are rising well beyond those wage increases. It is OUR jobs that are disappearing due to corporate greed, like that of insurance companies, parasites that they are. The wealthy already pay, on average 17% in income taxes, which is wholly unfair to those of us paying 35%.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I have an idea, why not let the middle class pay only 17% in income taxes for 10 years while the wealthy pay 35%? Then we can compare and contrast to see which 10 years produced the best economy (which we already know it will be the 10 years with the middle class getting the tax break).

 

[rightwinger]

I have an idea, why not let the middle class pay only 17% in income taxes for 10 years while the wealthy pay 35%? Then we can compare and contrast to see which 10 years produced the best economy (which we already know it will be the 10 years with the middle class getting the tax break).

Trickle up economy

 

[Ame®icano]

Yep

This is the mischaracterization.

Thanks Dumbfvck!

no, it's not.

If you're 55, you keep it.

If you're 54 and younger, or not born yet, it's gone and becomes a voucher program with a low cap on it all the while prices go up. it doesn't address rising cost, it doesn't address the fact that insurance co's could deny insurance to these elderly either.

Read the bill itself, not what the guy who's pimping it says in 34 second videos.

Thats exactly what I was thinking about Obamacare...

 

[Ame®icano]

Paul Ryan is trying to save Medicare from bankruptcy

Umm, no he isn't. He's changing medicare to something completely different.

If that would save it from bankruptcy then American Cowboy is right.


Offtopic, when ObiWan says he wants to fundamentally transform America, what do you think its on his mind?

 

[Ame®icano]

Umm, no he isn't. He's changing medicare to something completely different.

Because it will go under if we do nothing

Under what?

The American government is not a business. I'd wish conservatives would stop characterizing it as such.

Riiiight...

American govt will just print more money...

 

[Ame®icano]

Paul Ryan To Obama: Do Not Continue To "Mischaracterize" Medicare Plan


"I simply explained what our plan is, how it worked. It's been misdescribed by the president and many others, and so we simply described to him precisely what it is we've been proposing so that he hears from us how our proposal works so that in the future he won't mischaracterize it," Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said after meeting with the president this morning.

Click here for video

Most on the left still wont understand the plan and will continue to mischaracterize it.

The revolutionary leftists will completely understand it but continue to mischaracterize it.

And the media will remain in the hands of the democrat party.

Yep. To them Obama's shit smells like roses.

 

[mudwhistle]

The Republicans are losing on this issue.

No one wants to end Medicare, except Paul Ryan and his supporters. Then claiming that his plan is being mischaracterized, LOL! What a liar.

That was a mischaracterization.

Btw...Somebody needed to tell Obama to apologize for calling the Tea Party "Tea-Baggers"

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Btw...Somebody needed to tell Obama to apologize for calling the Tea Party "Tea-Baggers"

Why? In the beginning, they called THEMSELVES teabaggers - you remember, back when they were so culturally unsophisticated, that they didn't know what that term is slang for. Remember when Fox aired the plea to "stop making fun of us!". Remember?

 

[mudwhistle]

Btw...Somebody needed to tell Obama to apologize for calling the Tea Party "Tea-Baggers"

Why? In the beginning, they called THEMSELVES teabaggers - you remember, back when they were so culturally unsophisticated, that they didn't know what that term is slang for. Remember when Fox aired the plea to "stop making fun of us!". Remember?

Unless you show me a quote of a Tea Party rep calling himself a Tea-bagger I'll consider that a lie.

I never saw anyone call themselves a tea-bagger. They may have hung tea bags from their hats, but I never heard anyone call themselves a tea-bagger.

Btw, Obama knows better then calling millions of Americans essentially ball-sack suckers.

Of course he hasn't the class not to.

 

[Nic_Driver]

 

[Bfgrn]

Btw...Somebody needed to tell Obama to apologize for calling the Tea Party "Tea-Baggers"

Why? In the beginning, they called THEMSELVES teabaggers - you remember, back when they were so culturally unsophisticated, that they didn't know what that term is slang for. Remember when Fox aired the plea to "stop making fun of us!". Remember?

Unless you show me a quote of a Tea Party rep calling himself a Tea-bagger I'll consider that a lie.

I never saw anyone call themselves a tea-bagger. They may have hung tea bags from their hats, but I never heard anyone call themselves a teaibagger.

Btw, Obama knows better then calling millions of Americans essentially ball-sack suckers.

Of course he hasn't the class not to.

TIMELINE

The evolution of the word 'tea bagger'

Tea Party activists are outraged by the revelation that Obama once used the term "tea baggers" to describe them. But the coinage wasn't always considered an insult...

Was President Obama speaking derogatively when he referred to the Tea Party as "tea baggers"? That's the topic of some debate after a review of Jonathan Alter's book, The Promise: President Obama, Year One, revealed that Obama used the term in November 2009. The grassroots movement didn't always consider "tea bagger" a slur: Early Tea Partiers innocently embraced the term until they discovered its vulgar connotations (see also the 1998 John Waters movie Pecker). In a twist, some conservatives have recently advocated that the word be reclaimed. Here's a look at the evolution of the insult:

Feb. 27, 2009
At the first anti-stimulus "New American Tea Party" rally in Washington D.C., a protestor carries a sign reading "Tea Bag the Liberal Dems before they Tea Bag You!!" The Washington Independent's David Weigel calls it "the best sign I saw."

March 2
Americans for Prosperity, an anti-tax group, is one of the first Tea Party organizations to advocate sending tea bags to elected officials to protest the stimulus package. Several other lobby groups follow suit.

April 1
Several Tea Party protest sites encourage readers to "Tea bag the fools in DC." Jay Nordlinger at National Review Online later admits: "Conservatives started [using the term]... but others ran and ran with it.

More

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Rise of an Epithet by Jay Nordlinger - National Review Online

Isn't the National Review a wingnut rag? Yes? Here you go...

 

[Greenbeard]

What is being mischaractized is that you can choose between Medicare insurance plans or private plans.

If by "Medicare insurance plans" you mean public health insurance (which, indeed, is what folks generally mean when they refer to Medicare), then that's not true. Medicare as a public health insurance program ceases to exist under the Republican budget. Those grandfathered in do get that choice; no one else has the choice of a public insurance plan.

Where is the Democratic plan to save Medicare?

This is bizarre. The Democratic plan to reform Medicare is called the Affordable Care Act. If folks are somehow still unaware of that, I'd recommend reading about some of the Medicare reforms in it.

If you're asking that the ACA's reforms be built upon, that's a great idea. The ACA is designed to be a foundational piece, not the end of reform. It's supposed to be extended strengthened in future year (hence the inclusion of a variety of payment and delivery system reforms on different scales--those that prove themselves to be most effective will need to be implemented Medicare-wide). In fact, one of its more interesting contributions is creating engines for continuous reform within Medicare and Medicaid.

 

[Trajan]

so parting 4-500 billion is supposed to help build a strengthened mechanism? well sure, in bizzarro world....

 

[Trajan]

And how do you think we are going to continue to pay for Medicare? And Social Security for that matter?

According to a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, tax rates would have to increase by 90% to pay for projected spending in Medicare and Social Security through 2050.

As the population ages, the study says, the lowest tax rate on individual income will need to jump from 10% to 19%, the tax rate on incomes in the current 25% bracket will have to soar to 47%, and the highest rate could jump from 35% to 66%. To meet the accelerating cost of entitlements, the top corporate income tax rate also will likely need to increase from 35% to 66%.

Can you say job killer!!!

Unless you bring down healthcare costs, it's a zero sum game anyway. So you cut Medicare benefits -

seniors will still get sick. Seniors will still need healthcare. Private insurers aren't any better equipped to provide affordable coverage than Medicare is.

Seniors will simply go broke trying to survive. Or go without healthcare. Or bankrupt their children trying to survive (the ones that will help their parents).

The fundamental problem with the Republican solution is that it isn't a solution.

so cutting 4-500 billion from medicare is what? funding it?

 

[EriktheRed]

And how do you think we are going to continue to pay for Medicare? And Social Security for that matter?

According to a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, tax rates would have to increase by 90% to pay for projected spending in Medicare and Social Security through 2050.

As the population ages, the study says, the lowest tax rate on individual income will need to jump from 10% to 19%, the tax rate on incomes in the current 25% bracket will have to soar to 47%, and the highest rate could jump from 35% to 66%. To meet the accelerating cost of entitlements, the top corporate income tax rate also will likely need to increase from 35% to 66%.

Can you say job killer!!!

Unless you bring down healthcare costs, it's a zero sum game anyway. So you cut Medicare benefits -

seniors will still get sick. Seniors will still need healthcare. Private insurers aren't any better equipped to provide affordable coverage than Medicare is.

Seniors will simply go broke trying to survive. Or go without healthcare. Or bankrupt their children trying to survive (the ones that will help their parents).

The fundamental problem with the Republican solution is that it isn't a solution.

so cutting 4-500 billion from medicare is what? funding it?

So you're gonna keep going with that spin, huh?