The manipulated GOP voter: "get your government hands off my medicare"

[Greenbeard]

I guess the GOP is not trying to end Medicare after all. Glad you saw your error.

You're really lost on this one, aren't you?

 

[The Rabbi]

I guess the GOP is not trying to end Medicare after all. Glad you saw your error.

You're really lost on this one, aren't you?

Apparently you are.
I posted the original act. Then I asked where it was the GOP sought to repeal that act or its intent. I got crickets.
Now you will post some absurdity of just go away. Proof that you have lost this debate.

 

[Greenbeard]

I posted the original act. Then I asked where it was the GOP sought to repeal that act or its intent. I got crickets.

That's because I don't know how to help you. I can't connect concepts for you, that's something your mind has to learn to do for itself.

The law as it stands establishes a public insurance program for the nation's elderly. Paul Ryan proposes to end that public insurance program. Somewhere in there you're having trouble with this. I don't know where and thus I can't help you.

 

[The Rabbi]

I posted the original act. Then I asked where it was the GOP sought to repeal that act or its intent. I got crickets.

That's because I don't know how to help you. I can't connect concepts for you, that's something your mind has to learn to do for itself.

The law as it stands establishes a public insurance program for the nation's elderly. Paul Ryan proposes to end that public insurance program. Somewhere in there you're having trouble with this. I don't know where and thus I can't help you.

Which part of his program ends Medicare? What is the new program to be called?
I can't help you see how wrong you are if you hide behind semantics.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Stop electing republicans..or stop complaining. The choice is simple.

yea lets just elect Democrats.....that will make it so much better......

Democrats are not talking about dismantling SSI, Medicare and Medicaid.

whats your meaning of "dismantling" Sallow......i read these articles and i mostly see someone trying to keep the program but trying to either improve it or make it work but without all the costs.....i have yet to see an article where a GOPer said i want it abolished and the old people can go fuck themselves............and its funny cause out here when Gov Brown laid out his plans......right off the bat....the first things i read are how the Elderly and Incontinent were some of the harder hit.....as far as i am concerned those 2 groups should never be cut.....stay pat maybe but not cut.....but thats me....Harry the Humanitarian.....

 

[Greenbeard]

Which part of his program ends Medicare? What is the new program to be called?

Again, I don't know how to explain this to you. So let's start with the basics. A "payer" submits reimbursements to providers on behalf of those it serves; this is an insurer. For example, when I say I have "Blue Cross/Blue Shield," I'm describing my payer to you. Medicare is an example of a payer. It's a form of public health insurance.

If I asked someone over the age of 65 who their insurer is, they'd probably say "Medicare." (the entity here is technically CMS but Medicare refers to the program under which CMS serves that payment role). Just as, were I asked, I would say "Blue Cross/Blue Shield."

Under Ryan's proposal, no one would ever answer "Medicare" to that question, beyond those grandfathered in. Because it would no longer exist. Instead, a senior might answer something like BCBS, or Aetna, or whatever. They would in fact not be allowed to answer Medicare to that question--this is why Alice Rivlin, Ryan's one-time collaborator, has rejected the framework he released last week. Seniors are not even allowed to choose Medicare as their payer anymore under his proposal. This is because Medicare will eventually simply cease to exist. The changes, of course, are even broader than that. The benefit seniors are guaranteed in law will also vanish. But the above is the key point here.

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that, nor do I have any desire to. It seems evident to me that if this is still opaque to you, that's by choice and there's no reason for me to keep talking to a wall.

 

[VaYank5150]

I want medicare??????? Really?????????

I want it all gone! Social Security, welfare, all of this crap. If is isn't in the Constitutionm, the federal government shouldn't be involved in it.

Period!

I guess you're ready to dissolve the Air Force, eh?

Um, Defending the Nation is one of the FEW THINGS in the constitution. IDIOT! Have you ever read it? Things like SS, Medicare Etc. They are not in there. Providing for the Defense of the nation is. Therefore the Air force is, and you are a fucking idiot for comparing the 2.

Hey moran, please show me where an air force is mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[American Horse]

Ryan's plan is not to "end it to save it" that is your partisan take. His plan would instill it with free market incentves through competitive forces instead of the heavy hand of the bureacracy squeezing providers til they disappear.

If that's your way of saying Medicare is dismantled and seniors are instead pushed into the individual private market with a defined contribution that's in no way pegged to the actual cost of private insurance, sure. That's what I'm saying. Medicare no longer exists under that proposal. The basic benefit currently guaranteed to seniors in federal law disappears. CMS ceases to function as a payer. You're free to argue the merits of that approach but not noticing that Medicare is eliminated under it? That's a fairly basic point to miss.

It will be a different plan for folks under 55; for those older it will remain the same.

Medicare is going to change one way or the other. Either we face up to problem we have with our budget, a part of which is Medicare, or we will lose that choice and the program as it exists anyway in perhaps 7-10 years. I'm for dealing with it asap, not just casting accusations when our moment of opportunity is past and has been lost.

 

[VaYank5150]

Ryan's plan is not to "end it to save it" that is your partisan take. His plan would instill it with free market incentves through competitive forces instead of the heavy hand of the bureacracy squeezing providers til they disappear.

If that's your way of saying Medicare is dismantled and seniors are instead pushed into the individual private market with a defined contribution that's in no way pegged to the actual cost of private insurance, sure. That's what I'm saying. Medicare no longer exists under that proposal. The basic benefit currently guaranteed to seniors in federal law disappears. CMS ceases to function as a payer. You're free to argue the merits of that approach but not noticing that Medicare is eliminated under it? That's a fairly basic point to miss.

It will be a different plan for folks under 55; for those older it will remain the same.

Medicare is going to change one way or the other. Either we face up to problem we have with our budget, a part of which is dedicated to Medicare, or we will lose that choice and the program as it exists anyway. I'm for dealing with it asap, not just accusations when our moment of opportunity is past and has been lost.

So you agree that under Ryan's plan, Medicare ceases to exist?

 

[American Horse]

If that's your way of saying Medicare is dismantled and seniors are instead pushed into the individual private market with a defined contribution that's in no way pegged to the actual cost of private insurance, sure. That's what I'm saying. Medicare no longer exists under that proposal. The basic benefit currently guaranteed to seniors in federal law disappears. CMS ceases to function as a payer. You're free to argue the merits of that approach but not noticing that Medicare is eliminated under it? That's a fairly basic point to miss.

It will be a different plan for folks under 55; for those older it will remain the same.

Medicare is going to change one way or the other. Either we face up to problem we have with our budget, a part of which is dedicated to Medicare, or we will lose that choice and the program as it exists anyway. I'm for dealing with it asap, not just accusations when our moment of opportunity is past and has been lost.

So you agree that under Ryan's plan, Medicare ceases to exist?

It will be a different plan for folks under 55; for those older it will remain the same.

That is my take on the matter
Also, state sponsored plans will replace it, partly through block grants, and partly through local expenditures.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which part of his program ends Medicare? What is the new program to be called?

Again, I don't know how to explain this to you. So let's start with the basics. A "payer" submits reimbursements to providers on behalf of those it serves; this is an insurer. For example, when I say I have "Blue Cross/Blue Shield," I'm describing my payer to you. Medicare is an example of a payer. It's a form of public health insurance.

If I asked someone over the age of 65 who their insurer is, they'd probably say "Medicare." (the entity here is technically CMS but Medicare refers to the program under which CMS serves that payment role). Just as, were I asked, I would say "Blue Cross/Blue Shield."

Under Ryan's proposal, no one would ever answer "Medicare" to that question, beyond those grandfathered in. Because it would no longer exist. Instead, a senior might answer something like BCBS, or Aetna, or whatever. They would in fact not be allowed to answer Medicare to that question--this is why Alice Rivlin, Ryan's one-time collaborator, has rejected the framework he released last week. Seniors are not even allowed to choose Medicare as their payer anymore under his proposal. This is because Medicare will eventually simply cease to exist. The changes, of course, are even broader than that. The benefit seniors are guaranteed in law will also vanish. But the above is the key point here.

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that, nor do I have any desire to. It seems evident to me that if this is still opaque to you, that's by choice and there's no reason for me to keep talking to a wall.

OK. You haven't done more than play semantics.
In fact:

According to the congressman, seniors would still get a fixed subsidy from the government to help pay for premiums, but under his proposal, it would come from a private health plan of their choosing. Medicare would send the subsidies to the private plans, which would necessarily “compete against each other.”

So it is disingenuous to argue that he is ending Medicare. Rather he is ending the current manner that Medicare operates in. Currently Medicare helps pay for health insurance. Under teh Ryan plan Medicare will help pay for health insurance. See the difference? Me neither.

 

[American Horse]

Which part of his program ends Medicare? What is the new program to be called?

Again, I don't know how to explain this to you. So let's start with the basics. A "payer" submits reimbursements to providers on behalf of those it serves; this is an insurer. For example, when I say I have "Blue Cross/Blue Shield," I'm describing my payer to you. Medicare is an example of a payer. It's a form of public health insurance.

If I asked someone over the age of 65 who their insurer is, they'd probably say "Medicare." (the entity here is technically CMS but Medicare refers to the program under which CMS serves that payment role). Just as, were I asked, I would say "Blue Cross/Blue Shield."

Under Ryan's proposal, no one would ever answer "Medicare" to that question, beyond those grandfathered in. Because it would no longer exist. Instead, a senior might answer something like BCBS, or Aetna, or whatever. They would in fact not be allowed to answer Medicare to that question--this is why Alice Rivlin, Ryan's one-time collaborator, has rejected the framework he released last week. Seniors are not even allowed to choose Medicare as their payer anymore under his proposal. This is because Medicare will eventually simply cease to exist. The changes, of course, are even broader than that. The benefit seniors are guaranteed in law will also vanish. But the above is the key point here.

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that, nor do I have any desire to. It seems evident to me that if this is still opaque to you, that's by choice and there's no reason for me to keep talking to a wall.

OK. You haven't done more than play semantics.
In fact:

According to the congressman, seniors would still get a fixed subsidy from the government to help pay for premiums, but under his proposal, it would come from a private health plan of their choosing. Medicare would send the subsidies to the private plans, which would necessarily “compete against each other.”

So it is disingenuous to argue that he is ending Medicare. Rather he is ending the current manner that Medicare operates in. Currently Medicare helps pay for health insurance. Under teh Ryan plan Medicare will help pay for health insurance. See the difference? Me neither.

The bolded is a key point, and ignored by G. (thanks to Rabbi for that)
I repeat my earlier request to G: please supply me a link to any source material you have that fully explains Ryan's proposal, and I'm not interested in partisan evaluations or interpretations that focus on rhetorically exploitable phrases or material that is not a part of the plan as proposed.

 

[Greenbeard]

Currently Medicare helps pay for health insurance.

Again, we've reached the point where I'm simply repeating things that have already been said. Medicare is health insurance; that is, it's shorthand for a public insurer that Ryan is proposing to abolish. Medicare, at present, entails a certain guaranteed benefit that's protected in federal law. This, too, will be abolished.

This is not tinkering, these are not tweaks. This is the end of Medicare, the program that's existed for over 45 years now.

As I've said before, and you're quick to keep pointing out, it's isn't simply a repeal, Ryan is offering a repeal-and-replace. While seniors lose the entitlement to the level of care their predecessors enjoyed, the government will mail a check of fixed value to a private insurer on their behalf. Its value relative to the price of an insurance policy will shrink with time but certainly it's better than nothing. Does that mask that the public insurer offering the Medicare benefit and the Medicare benefit itself (i.e. those things that constitute "Medicare") are abolished under Ryan's proposal? Apparently in your case, yes.

But, beyond the diehards, I doubt most folks will be so easily fooled. And, given that they purposefully declined to bring up these plans before the last election and have opted to delay implementation for a decade, I suspect Ryan and the Republican leadership have similar apprehensions.

I give them kudos for drawing the contrast. If they wish to dismantle Medicare, it's time to have that discussion.

 

[Greenbeard]

I repeat my earlier request to G: please supply me a link to any source material you have that fully explains Ryan's proposal, and I'm not interested in partisan evaluations or interpretations that focus on rhetorically exploitable phrases or material that is not a part of the plan as proposed.

I have the same materials everyone else has: Ryan's white paper and the CBO's preliminary analysis.

I eagerly await him actually releasing some legislative text to put some meat on these bones.

 

[auditor0007]

Those people fucking paid in. Stop trying to steal shit from people, you fucking cowards.

CG, you are delusional.

No one "paid in." There isn't any "lock box!"

The money was spent! That's the scam of it!

But just because they were ripped off doesn't mean we need to KEEP ripping everyone off.

Like all pyramid schemes, sooner or later it has to stop, before it brings everyone down.

First of all, neither SS or Medicare is a pyramid scheme. It's just the kooks who concoct this crap because they think it makes them look smart. Those programs have always been pay as you go. The main problem is that when they were set up, no one envisioned people living for so long. The programs were not meant to pay out for nearly fifteen years for every person. The answer is simple; we need to raise the age at which people can begin collecting from SS and Medicare.

You nutcases who want to end SS and Medicare ought to move to some third world country where there are no safety nets for anyone and the economies are a pittance of ours. I'm really getting tired of the "I've got mine, screw you if you don't have yours" crowd.

 

[kiwiman127]

I've seen quite a few pieces on Ryan's plan and the the big problem with his plan is that Medicare's cost have been outpaced by the costs increases by private insurance. So in other words, instead of getting what was promised with Medicare as they loyaly paid in, the senior would get stuck with a huge increase in their health care insurance costs.

============================

United States had an independent press. After all, this is one of the main take aways of the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis of the plan proposed by Representative Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee. Representative Ryan would replace the current Medicare program with a voucher for people who turn age 65 in 2022 and later. This voucher would be worth $8,000 in for someone turning age 65 in that year. It would rise in step with with the consumer price index and also as people age. (Health care expenses are higher for people age 75 than age 65.)

According to the CBO analysis the benefit would cover 32 percent of the cost of a health insurance package equivalent to the current Medicare benefit (Figure 1). This means that the beneficiary would pay 68 percent of the cost of this package. Using the CBO assumption of 2.5 percent annual inflation, the voucher would have grown to $9,750 by 2030. This means that a Medicare type plan for someone age 65 would be $30,460 under Representative Ryan's plan, leaving seniors with a bill of $20,700. (This does not count various out of pocket medical expenditures not covered by Medicare.)

Representative Ryan Proposes Medicare Plan Under Which Seniors Would Pay Most of Their Income for Health Care | Beat the Press

This is just another attack on the middle class by the plutocratic tools (GOP/Tea Party) Can anyone point out with Ryan's grand plan where the top percentile sacrifices? Why is all the sacrifice directed at the bottom 80%?

 

[gekaap]

Wow, it's really pathetic when a thread devolves into a meaningless semantics bitchfest.

 

[American Horse]

Wow, it's really pathetic when a thread devolves into a meaningless semantics bitchfest.

This thread hasn't so much devolved as improved from the pathetic thread it was when it began IMO

 

[VaYank5150]

It will be a different plan for folks under 55; for those older it will remain the same.

Medicare is going to change one way or the other. Either we face up to problem we have with our budget, a part of which is dedicated to Medicare, or we will lose that choice and the program as it exists anyway. I'm for dealing with it asap, not just accusations when our moment of opportunity is past and has been lost.

So you agree that under Ryan's plan, Medicare ceases to exist?

It will be a different plan for folks under 55; for those older it will remain the same.

That is my take on the matter
Also, state sponsored plans will replace it, partly through block grants, and partly through local expenditures.

States are broke and/or brankrupt now. Where exactly will these "local expenditures" come from? How will they be funded?

 

[mudwhistle]

Those people fucking paid in. Stop trying to steal shit from people, you fucking cowards.

CG, you are delusional.

No one "paid in." There isn't any "lock box!"

The money was spent! That's the scam of it!

But just because they were ripped off doesn't mean we need to KEEP ripping everyone off.

Like all pyramid schemes, sooner or later it has to stop, before it brings everyone down.

It's a Panzi scheme. Most of the spending that the government does is done through Intragovernmental Holdings. In other words, they borrow from the SSA and Medicare fund to pay for all of their union bailouts and Cowboy Poetry festivals.

I remember the cheer that went up from the Democrats during one of Bush's State of the Union speeches when he had to admit that privatizing Social Security was dead in the water. The Dems were just relieved that their biggest cash-cow was still within their grasp. Bush's 06' budget only called for $160 billion yet the dems found a way to spend another half a trillion through intragovernmental holdings which added to the debt. It's fraud, plain and simple. They're defrauding us, running up debt and it's all just intended to raise our taxes. They've been extending unemployment benefits since 06' and now it seems Obama is worried about food shortages this Summer. It seems he knows something we don't.

Oh, and in case you weren't paying attention, Obama said Obamacare was going to borrow $400 billion from Medicare. The fund only has $500 total, so he was planning on gutting it and replacing it. Medicare for those under 55 will be gone. They're replacing it with something else. Both parties mind you.