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

[The Rabbi]

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.

I again ask, for the third time, if this is the end of the Medicare, what will the new program be called? Surely that is a simple enough question for you to answer. Right?

 

[Greenbeard]

I again ask, for the third time, if this is the end of the Medicare, what will the new program be called? Surely that is a simple enough question for you to answer. Right?

The fact that this is what you've identified as the salient point amuses me. "No, no, no, I don't want to discuss the substance of the proposal--what's he going to call it?" Maybe you sincerely believe there's some important point of policy lurking in there, despite the fact that I've already explained, multiple times, that "Medicare" refers to both a payer and a benefit and both will be eliminated under Ryan's proposal.

There's no rule in the universe that politics has to be inane--people just insist that it be.

 

[American Horse]

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?

There are models for good budgetary policies in the states; federal government, not so much. States are closer to thier own needs; but as to where the money will come from in the short term, there will be block grants according to formula based on demographics and needs as far as I know. I do know it will get us away from the stultifying one size fits all imposed federal formula which is so easy to exploit by all the players. States show resilience to change and the feds don't, and now states are in backruptcy, and the feds beleive (or want us to believe) they are immune to that outcome because of flexibility in the federal monetary system.

In the long term there will be adaptations within the states, the federal system, and the free market system that reach a common sense reasonable balance.

 

[grunt11b]

When the GOP wanted to defeat Obama-Care, they convinced seniors that Obama was going to cut their Medicare. The GOP pretended to be defenders of Medicare, the Holy Grail of Liberal Social Programs, which is thoroughly dependent on progressive taxation.

But everyone knows that the Republican Party wants to end Big Government entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. They want to tear at the fabric that allows middle class families to give their children a portion of the resources of those born wealthy.

The benefits of Medicare
When middle class families are not destroyed by their parent's health costs, they have more money for consumption (to drive the economy), and more money to invest in their children's education (a.k.a. upward mobility).

Question.

Do Republican seniors who depend upon and want Medicare understand that they are sheep being lead to slaughter?

Have Republicans created a base of voters who don't understand that their leaders are creating a world of concentrated wealth (enabled by massive tax breaks), where a small elite uses that wealth not to create jobs (which they're shipping to dictator-countries in the 3rd world) but to manipulate the American political process? Does the GOP voter understand that concentrated wealth is concentrated political power? When the money doesn't trickle down into American jobs (which it hasn't since globalization freed American capital to go to the 3rd world), than that money trickles into politics, that is, the money that was supposed to trickle down becomes concentrated political power. [The GOP voter does understand that they have created the very concentrated power they detest. They have handed this country to a small group of corporations who now fund elections and staff government. Goodbye representative democracy, hello lobbying industrial complex]

How is it possible that Republican seniors believed that the GOP was going to save their Medicare? Has the GOP created a media machine so powerful that they can get people to vote against their economic interests?

The ability of Republicans to win geriatric Medicare-dependent states like Florida in 2012 will depend on a very effective network of lies and distortions. A world where Osama morphs into Hussein, and oil geopolitics is covered-up by banal cliches like "Freedom is on the march". This is a world where the government policies that saved Reagan's family in the 40s are re-branded as evil socialism. This is a world where naive voters are fed strategic wedge issues and "culture war" rhetoric to distract them from a very real class war: the GOP is handing the country to a small group of corporations and shareholders. How does the GOP do it? How do they give all the power to a small group of corporations and shareholders while convincing everyone else that they stand for average people?

[Remember how Reagan, in 1984, strategically used the culture war to peel northern catholic union workers from the Democratic Party: "Reagan Democrats". Reagan went into the heart of union country and convinced union families that he was their leader. Then, 30 years later, his Revolution took dead aim at unions. Reagan lead those sheep to slaughter. The GOP has turned this into an art]

 

[Greenbeard]

States are closer to thier own needs; but as to where the money will come from in the short term, there will be block grants according to formula based on dographics and needs as far as I know. It will get us away from the stultifying one size fits all imposed federal formula which is so easy to exploit by all the players.

Block grants based on a formula are superior to matching funds (in which the amount of the federal contribution to the state's Medicaid program is determined entirely by the level at which the state itself decides to spend--that is, the feds match state spending for Medicaid) because they get us away from a formula?

 

[Old Rocks]

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!

Ya dumb fuck. Tear up the Interstates, not in the Constitution. Anyone with black blood only gets considered to be 3/5s of a person. Same for the Transcontinental railroads. NASA, NOAA, and everything else that we depend on.

Unbelievable how you stupid ideologue asswipes would destroy this nation. What a bunch of knownothing bozos.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

I again ask, for the third time, if this is the end of the Medicare, what will the new program be called? Surely that is a simple enough question for you to answer. Right?

Fuckin' GOP Idiocy.

 

[American Horse]

States are closer to their own needs; but as to where the money will come from in the short term, there will be block grants according to formula based on [demographics] and needs as far as I know. It will get us away from the stultifying one size fits all imposed federal formula which is so easy to exploit by all the players.

Block grants based on a formula are superior to matching funds (in which the amount of the federal contribution to the state's Medicaid program is determined entirely by the level at which the state itself decides to spend--that is, the feds match state spending for Medicaid) because they get us away from a formula?

I believe disciplines, both market and politically driven will need be adhered to in any new formula arrived at, and there will need be new formulae. The new formulae will reflect the best ideas of the new batch of elected politicians. Whatever defects are in the presently imposed federal formula at least can be re-formulated as the states and the federal government take into account a more market based system. Medicare Part-D is the framework for bringing market forces and competition into the new system, as the old system is clearly not working.

States will have their own local political situation to deal with and that’s a good thing. There are states with workable systems already in effect which can be models for those which keep building on failure with mounting deficits.
This can be the “reset” we need.

IMO we will not lack for compassion for the vulnerable if everyone comes to the debate and engages to improve it rather than attempting to keep necessary change from happening.

 

[The Rabbi]

I again ask, for the third time, if this is the end of the Medicare, what will the new program be called? Surely that is a simple enough question for you to answer. Right?

The fact that this is what you've identified as the salient point amuses me. "No, no, no, I don't want to discuss the substance of the proposal--what's he going to call it?" Maybe you sincerely believe there's some important point of policy lurking in there, despite the fact that I've already explained, multiple times, that "Medicare" refers to both a payer and a benefit and both will be eliminated under Ryan's proposal.

There's no rule in the universe that politics has to be inane--people just insist that it be.

OK, so medicare is not going to be eliminated under Ryan's proposal. At least you can admit that.
But who is planning on cutting medicare? Who else?
White House says Obama will lay out deficit-reduction plan later this week - The Washington Post

Obama unveils his plan to reduce the deficit, in part by scaling back the government’s chief health programs for seniors and the poor.

Why does Obama hate poor and elderly people??

 

[RDD_1210]

I again ask, for the third time, if this is the end of the Medicare, what will the new program be called? Surely that is a simple enough question for you to answer. Right?

The fact that this is what you've identified as the salient point amuses me. "No, no, no, I don't want to discuss the substance of the proposal--what's he going to call it?" Maybe you sincerely believe there's some important point of policy lurking in there, despite the fact that I've already explained, multiple times, that "Medicare" refers to both a payer and a benefit and both will be eliminated under Ryan's proposal.

There's no rule in the universe that politics has to be inane--people just insist that it be.

OK, so medicare is not going to be eliminated under Ryan's proposal. At least you can admit that.
But who is planning on cutting medicare? Who else?
White House says Obama will lay out deficit-reduction plan later this week - The Washington Post

Obama unveils his plan to reduce the deficit, in part by scaling back the government’s chief health programs for seniors and the poor.

Why does Obama hate poor and elderly people??

When Rabbis loses an argument he has to resort to playing word games. LOL!

"I never said black people CAN'T lead, I just said they can't be good at it". "See, you are a liar!"

 

[The Rabbi]

The fact that this is what you've identified as the salient point amuses me. "No, no, no, I don't want to discuss the substance of the proposal--what's he going to call it?" Maybe you sincerely believe there's some important point of policy lurking in there, despite the fact that I've already explained, multiple times, that "Medicare" refers to both a payer and a benefit and both will be eliminated under Ryan's proposal.

There's no rule in the universe that politics has to be inane--people just insist that it be.

OK, so medicare is not going to be eliminated under Ryan's proposal. At least you can admit that.
But who is planning on cutting medicare? Who else?
White House says Obama will lay out deficit-reduction plan later this week - The Washington Post

Obama unveils his plan to reduce the deficit, in part by scaling back the government’s chief health programs for seniors and the poor.

Why does Obama hate poor and elderly people??

When Rabbis loses an argument he has to resort to playing word games. LOL!

"I never said black people CAN'T lead, I just said they can't be good at it". "See, you are a liar!"

jackoff. I won this argument. The claim was the Ryan's plan would end Medicare. To end Medicare you yhave to, you know, end Medicare. In fact it changes Medicare so Medicare can continue to function without bankrupting the government. So the argument that "the GOP" or "Ryan" or whoever wants to end Medicare is simply false.
Obama seems to want to end Medicare as he is the one proposing cuts.

 

[Greenbeard]

I believe disciplines, both market and politically driven will need be adhered to in any new formula arrived at, and there will need be new formulae. The new formulae will reflect the best ideas of the new batch of elected politicians. Whatever defects are in the presently imposed federal formula at least can be re-formulated as the states and the federal government take into account a more market based system. Medicare Part-D is the framework for bringing market forces and competition into the new system, as the old system is clearly not working.

I think concepts are being mixed here. The block grant proposal refers to funding for Medicaid. The market-based system you've been talking about refers to Ryan's Medicare proposal: namely, ending Medicare and tossing future seniors into the private insurance market.

When it comes to funding the federal share of Medicaid, a block grant system isn't more attuned to state needs than the current system. As I said, right now states get a match for state dollars spent on Medicaid. The amount of federal funds they receive is not dictated by a federal formula, only the match rate. The feds don't tell states how much to spend or how much the feds will give them, they just kick in X dollars for every dollar the state decides to spend. Under a block grant proposal, states get a fixed annual amount determined by the federal government.

OK, so medicare is not going to be eliminated under Ryan's proposal.

Medicare = a payer + a benefit. Both are eliminated under Ryan's proposal.

He may end up retaining the word instead of opting for the obvious "RyanCare." And perhaps that's all it takes to fool you. But that doesn't change the reality that Ryan's plan seeks to dismantle Medicare.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, so medicare is not going to be eliminated under Ryan's proposal.

Medicare = a payer + a benefit. Both are eliminated under Ryan's proposal.

He may end up retaining the word instead of opting for the obvious "RyanCare." And perhaps that's all it takes to fool you. But that doesn't change the reality that Ryan's plan seeks to dismantle Medicare.

You haven't proven this and yet you keep repeating it. You are therefore lying.
Ryan's proposal changes the program radically, true. But it is totally dishonest to say he seeks to "dismantle" Medicare.
Of course you and honesty aren't exactly on speaking terms.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

OK, so medicare is not going to be eliminated under Ryan's proposal.

Medicare = a payer + a benefit. Both are eliminated under Ryan's proposal.

He may end up retaining the word instead of opting for the obvious "RyanCare." And perhaps that's all it takes to fool you. But that doesn't change the reality that Ryan's plan seeks to dismantle Medicare.

You haven't proven this and yet you keep repeating it. You are therefore lying.
Ryan's proposal changes the program radically, true. But it is totally dishonest to say he seeks to "dismantle" Medicare.
Of course you and honesty aren't exactly on speaking terms.

I also hear that Ryan's plan will force poor children to eat kitty-Kats and puppy-dogs.

Awful stuff man.

 

[The Rabbi]

Medicare = a payer + a benefit. Both are eliminated under Ryan's proposal.

He may end up retaining the word instead of opting for the obvious "RyanCare." And perhaps that's all it takes to fool you. But that doesn't change the reality that Ryan's plan seeks to dismantle Medicare.

You haven't proven this and yet you keep repeating it. You are therefore lying.
Ryan's proposal changes the program radically, true. But it is totally dishonest to say he seeks to "dismantle" Medicare.
Of course you and honesty aren't exactly on speaking terms.

I also hear that Ryan's plan will force poor children to eat kitty-Kats and puppy-dogs.

Awful stuff man.

And decide whether grandma gets life-saving surgery or not.
Oh wait, that's Obamacare.

 

[RDD_1210]

You haven't proven this and yet you keep repeating it. You are therefore lying.
Ryan's proposal changes the program radically, true. But it is totally dishonest to say he seeks to "dismantle" Medicare.
Of course you and honesty aren't exactly on speaking terms.

I also hear that Ryan's plan will force poor children to eat kitty-Kats and puppy-dogs.

Awful stuff man.

And decide whether grandma gets life-saving surgery or not.
Oh wait, that's Obamacare.

Link to which part of Obamacare says that.

 

[The Rabbi]

I also hear that Ryan's plan will force poor children to eat kitty-Kats and puppy-dogs.

Awful stuff man.

And decide whether grandma gets life-saving surgery or not.
Oh wait, that's Obamacare.

Link to which part of Obamacare says that.

Doesn't matter. The law is unconstitutional, thus null and void.

 

[RDD_1210]

And decide whether grandma gets life-saving surgery or not.
Oh wait, that's Obamacare.

Link to which part of Obamacare says that.

Doesn't matter. The law is unconstitutional, thus null and void.

LOL, ie. you can't link to it because it doesn't say that and you're talking out of your ass yet again.

 

[The Rabbi]

Link to which part of Obamacare says that.

Doesn't matter. The law is unconstitutional, thus null and void.

LOL, ie. you can't link to it because it doesn't say that and you're talking out of your ass yet again.

It's actually a consequence of how the system si to be set up. Oregon already is there.
Rationing Care: Oregon Changes Its Priorities | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

Looks like you've been pwned again, s0n.

Every point you make is wrong. Every time you question something I say you cannot defend it without either twisting my words or changing the subject. Maybe you should consider knitting.

 

[teapartysamurai]

A little history lesson I gave Old Fogey Liberal (Old Rocks) and I thought I would give to the rest of ignorant liberalism.

Hi, you have received -63 reputation points from Old Rocks.

Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:

By God, tear up the Interstates, also. Not in the Constitution. Bring back slavery.

Regards,
Old Rocks

Note: This is an automated message.

I hate to break it to you but the reason the 3/5 compromise was made
was to prevent the South counting slaves as full citizens thus gerrymandering their representation in the House of Reps.


The South wanted those slaves counted as full citizens thus increasing their represenation in the House of Reps.


Those who did not want slavery forced the "3/5 compromise" as a way to cut down this outrageous attempt by the South to count slaves as full citizens while allowing them no power to vote.


The 3/5 compromise was certainly a far from perfect compromise, but it was made in the hopes that soon slavery would be able to be voted out of existence, peacefully.


Blame your wonderful DEMOCRATS who continually fillibustered any attempt to bring the issue up for a vote, for no peaceful solution to slavery.


That was why it finally had to be solved by a very, bloody war.


Facts are terrible things, when you are a liberal trying to sell a fiction about the Constitution.