Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
But your endless distortions of the Ryan plan and the Romney "plan" cost you far too much credibility for such a thing to happen any time soon.
Can you fill me in on what happens between 2016, when Romney bankrupts the trust fund, and 2023 when his reforms start?
Is there a secret plan for getting seniors through Romney's Seven Lean Years?
-- Fact Check: Romney’s Plan to ‘Restore’ Medicare Spending Cuts - ABC NewsRomney has offered broad outlines of his plan, but he has not offered details or predictions of its affect on Medicare spending. The lack of details has also made it impossible for independent analysts to assess its impact on Medicare solvency.
Show me that Romney or any part of his or Ryan's "plan" would bankrupt Medicare in 2016.
Show me that HIS proposals for reforms would only commence in 2023.
Recently my 78 yr. old father, a retired NYC homicide detective, spent 1 week in the hospital for a bladder infection. He was diagnosed, treated, fed, nurses monitored him, and released on a short out patient status.
thank God he's okay now.
The cost, $23,000. With his insurance set up through his UNION, his out of pocket was $300! $2300 for an elderly couple with medical issues (Mom has a condition for the last 16 years that requires routine check-ups and occasional hospitalization due to flare-ups) would put them in dire straights.
Now, picture someone WITHOUT a union pension and medical coverage given an $8K voucher and told to shop around for an insurance company (sans the AHCA) that will give them equal coverage!
Somebody needs to hip Romney/Ryan that their corporate flunky BS dog just isn't going to fly.
Competetition does not work very well in the health care industry.
When is the last time you shopped around for the cost of a medical procedure?
"Doctor shopping" is against the law in some cases.
I was talking about the cost in insurance premiums and different insurance plans.
Competition doesn't work well in the health care industry! Have you noticed how elective plastic surgery has dropped in cost due to competition! It works just like it does everywhere else.
Now lets be truthful about doctor shopping. The term doctor shopping doesn't refer to comparitive shopping to obtain a lower cost. It refers to the practice of getting prescriptions for certain classes of narcotics from multiple prescribers.
What YOU call doctor shopping is generally considered a fully legal second opinion.
Apparently, even 'reality' is relative now.
No sweetheart, FACTS are FACTS! If you can show me an insurance company that can give my parents the EXACT same hospitalizaton coverage for $8K, I'm all ears. If not, then you're just blowing stubborn smoke.
I don't discuss family on this board. Too many drooling morons. But, yea, I could. Still, it's of no real interest to me... other than I am glad you dad got what he needed and is now well. Long may his health continue.
Reality is a concept the left fights against.
If they cared at all about reality, they would revolt AGAINST the endless acquisition of debt which seems to be the only policy of the current administration.
Without intervention, and the libs offer no intervention worthy of the name, the Medicare system will collapse. Not maybe. Definitely.
Yet the libs oppose intervention, while they passively take a see nothing and do nothing attitude toward the raiding of Medicare by the incumbent.
Thus, it is clear: there's no logical reason to take seriously the musings in the silly OP.
The cost, $23,000. With his insurance set up through his UNION, his out of pocket was $300!
And the reason the cost was $23,000 is because his out of pocket costs were only $300.
That's the problem.
Why should the government be meddling in a persons healthcare?
Oh, that's right, politicians and the media told you they should be.
The question shouldn't be about which political party has the "right" or "best" plan, the question should be why the hell is the government sticking it's obtrusive nose into personal matters? And personal choices?
obama's medicare plan.
We will take 716 billion dollars out of medicare and make it up by not paying the doctors, hospitals or other providers.
The medical care personnel will keep working because they are nice people who have the good of the people more at heart than making money.
That's the plan.
Without intervention, and the libs offer no intervention worthy of the name, the Medicare system will collapse. Not maybe. Definitely.
Romney proposes to move the date of the Medicare trust fund's insolvency up to 2016. In return, he promises to start reforming Medicare starting in 2023.
Sounds like a great plan.
Nobody proposes moving an unavoidable date with insolvency up. That's ridiculous and it's simply untrue. It will BE insolvent when it becomes insolvent and if anybody challenges the projected date of such insolvency, that's very different than suggesting it gets moved up.
And he is NOT suggesting starting reform in 2023, either.
Since you are hostile to truth, I will share the correction of your deliberate distortions:President Obamas new ad, Facts, gets the facts wrong, Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said.-- Obamas Answer to Romney Medicare Attack? AARP - ABC NewsThe facts concerning the presidents record on Medicare are clear: 1) Obama cut the program by $716 billion, 2) millions will be forced to lose their Medicare Advantage coverage and 3) the program will go bankrupt in 2024.
You lib idiots need to stop taking your "information" from bullshit sites like Think Progress.
Show me that Romney or any part of his or Ryan's "plan" would bankrupt Medicare in 2016.
Bizarre, you find links then apparently don't read them. From your own link:
A bigger issue with Romneys plan to restore Medicare cuts under Obamacare could be the impact on the solvency of the program, which was extended by 8 years [note: from 2016 -- GB] to 2024 under the health care law.
Restoring the original, higher Medicare payout rates to providers could accelerate the programs path to bankruptcy, experts say at least until a Romney plan to convert the program into a fixed-benefit, voucher-style system could be put in place.
He either "restores" the savings, accelerating Medicare spending and putting it back on the pre-ACA path (Medicare insolvency: 2016), or he does not. If he does not, then he follows Ryan's lead and retains the ACA's savings, pushing insolvency back at least into the mid-2020s.
But Romney has now explicitly said he won't follow Ryan's lead and will, indeed, "restore" the savings and accelerate the depletion of the trust fund. This isn't rocket science.
Show me that HIS proposals for reforms would only commence in 2023.
Again, from your link:
The president has taken action in Medicare which significantly impacts the kind of health care opportunities and benefits that will be provided to current seniors, Romney said today at an impromptu news conference in South Carolina. Our plan [has] no change for current seniors and those 55 and older.
None of his changes take effect until current 54-year-olds become Medicare eligible in 11 years: 2023.
Are you still confused somehow? Or is this just denial at this point?
Recently my 78 yr. old father, a retired NYC homicide detective, spent 1 week in the hospital for a bladder infection. He was diagnosed, treated, fed, nurses monitored him, and released on a short out patient status.
thank God he's okay now.
The cost, $23,000. With his insurance set up through his UNION, his out of pocket was $300! $2300 for an elderly couple with medical issues (Mom has a condition for the last 16 years that requires routine check-ups and occasional hospitalization due to flare-ups) would put them in dire straights.
Now, picture someone WITHOUT a union pension and medical coverage given an $8K voucher and told to shop around for an insurance company (sans the AHCA) that will give them equal coverage!
Somebody needs to hip Romney/Ryan that their corporate flunky BS dog just isn't going to fly.
God bless the retired NYPD but when their own kids use them as a political tool to try to elect a president who created a 3,000 page freaking law behind closed doors it's an example of the desperation, disrespect and ignorance of the left.
Why should the government be meddling in a persons healthcare?
Oh, that's right, politicians and the media told you they should be.
The question shouldn't be about which political party has the "right" or "best" plan, the question should be why the hell is the government sticking it's obtrusive nose into personal matters? And personal choices?
You need a refresher course in civics....the gov't is elected by, for and of the PEOPLE to work in favor of it's general welfare. Read the Constitution and it's Amendments, as gov't enables people to address unfair business practices...to REGULATE commerce, as it were.
So when an insurance company pumps up it's rates and then dumps any client that actually needs their services, the gov't passes laws to prevent that. Maybe you should look into the testimonies of Dr. Peelo and Mr. Wendell Potter.
Bottom line: if you're happy with your insurance...NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO CHANGE.
Now, back to basics.....please tell me what insurance company can give my parents the coverage I laid out on an $8K voucher, because that's what Ryan is trying to put out. I'll wait.
Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin said:"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "
Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin said:"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "
Thomas Jefferson is but one that is probably rolling over in his grave.
Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin said:"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "
Thomas Jefferson is but one that is probably rolling over in his grave.
Perhaps. His latter to Gallatin was specifically echoing the sentiment expressed by Madison in the latter's 1817 veto of a bill that provided funds to build roads. On the grounds that the federal government has no authority to build roads.
The absurdly limited notion that the feds can't pay to build roads was shed a long, long time ago. We're running a superpower here.
Building roads is far different from forcing people to engage in commerce. Just like the "general welfare" of the founding fathers is far different than the "general welfare" that taichiliberal tries to pretend it is, as shown in the preceding quote of Mr Jefferson.
Anyone who has been hospitalized recently understands the costs involved. A five day stay with a minor operation is going to run $40,000. Even if your insurance pays 80% you are on the hook for $8000.
If you are fairly well off you can withstand the $8K. But to a family struggling to get by that is devastating
Republicans are trying to substitute a voucher system where you get a set amount to shop around with. Anything above that is your problem
What happens in five or ten years when you have to ask republicans to vote on increases to the voucher amount? is Grover Norquist going to help you out?
Building roads is far different from forcing people to engage in commerce. Just like the "general welfare" of the founding fathers is far different than the "general welfare" that taichiliberal tries to pretend it is, as shown in the preceding quote of Mr Jefferson.
In the eyes of the men you're citing, that doesn't seem to be the case. Jefferson (and Madison, whose veto he's referring to in that letter) believed the federal government had no authority to pass a bill funding the construction of roads and canals. They were great men, but they also provided the reductio ad absurdum of the strict constructionist philosophy that some today are still trumpeting.
And when you say "the 'general welfare' of the founding fathers," I'm not quite sure what you mean. The understanding of the phrase that tachiliberal presumably supports was certainly present in the founding generation, even among some of the Framers themselves (indeed, even one of the authors of the Federalist papers adopted it)--that's why you can find contemporary expressions of disdain for that view from Madison and Jefferson. You can find them arguing against it because they had political rivals--also founding fathers--who were arguing for it.
This has been the fundamental debate throughout the history of this country, starting right at the very beginning.
