Dems counting on People over 55 being Ignorant?

[bripat9643]

The choice was made by the People when Medicare was established. As law.

Did you vote in 1965? I didn't.

.

I wasn't around to get to vote to ratify the Constitution either you moron. What's your point?

Then neither of you voted on it. Yet, you claim you did.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't get to choose how much of my tax dollars go to defense, why should anyone get to choose how much of their money goes into Social Security?

Why shouldn't they get to choose? Why not let everyone decide how much of their tax dollars go to fund each government program?

You belief in "choice," don't you?

 

[bripat9643]

Prove it's wrong.

Right after you prove the other poster's link was wrong, Corky.

In other words, there's absolutely no evidence that his propaganda is accurate

 

[bripat9643]

GDP = C + I + G

Making G smaller doesn't boost the sum.

Not in the short term, but it does in the long term. GDP is not fixed. It grows, and the smaller 'G' is the faster it grows.

 

[bripat9643]

1. Pretty hard to argue rolling back overpayments to Medicare Advantage providers is "essentially end[ing] Medicare", noting Medicare Advantage didn't even exist until 1997.

Since you and the rest of the drones have argued that any change to Medicare is "ending it," then why is that hard to argue?

What "overpayments" to Medicare Advantage?

2. Force everyone into single payer? Medicare is already a single-payer system.

Yes, and it's head for bankruptcy. In fact, it's already bankrupt.

 

[uscitizen]

Read the thread. The question's been answered.

Or continue looking like an idiot.

Pssst! YOU are not a 'thread'.

A lot of dumb people make that mistake.

WHY can't you answer the question? HOW is Ryan's plan better for senior citizens? Just give me ONE thing.

It offers them freedom to choose.

Why do you oppose that?

Freedom to choose?

Man I thought you were smarter than that.
Ohh well.

 

[Old Rocks]

Not only is the Left miss characterizing the Ryan plan as the End of Medicare, but they seem to be hoping to scare people who are over 55 right now into voting against it.

I guess they are betting that people over 55 are to stupid to understand that they will not be effected at all by the Ryan plan because they are Already over 55?

Can't believe the American People are falling for this BS from the left. I mean I don't think the Ryan plan is perfect, or the only way, But the Left seems to just want to ignore the Problem all together. To Actually say there is nothing wrong with Medicare as it is and nothing needs to be done. Which if People were smart, they would understand, is the Real Threat to Medicare. Doing Nothing.

The Democrats have quickly taken over the slot as the party of no. 2 Years and no Budget, and no willingness to even discuss entitlement reforms. They should change the Democrat party logo to an ostrich. the Party of "lets just keep our heads buried in the sand and spend out selves into ruin, Fuck the Grand kids!"

Well, I will be 68 this year and am dead set against that plan to transfer money that should go the our senior citizens to Ryan's rich buddies.

The election in New York was demonstrative about how most Americans feel about that idea. And the coming elections in Wisconsin are going to be even more so.

 

[Greenbeard]

What "overpayments" to Medicare Advantage?

Medicare Advantage plans were spending 14% more per beneficiary on average than traditional Medicare. See MedPAC's March 2009 report to Congress:

In 2009, the ratio of payments relative to FFS [fee-for-service, i.e. traditional Medicare] spending will vary by the type of MA plan, but the ratios for all plan types are substantially higher than 100 percent. We estimate that 2009 payments to plans overall will average 114 percent of FFS spending.

Yet beneficiaries received almost no additional vaue. Austin Frakt in 2009:

Payment to MA plans has gone way up since 2003. Did the payment increase largely benefit beneficiaries or not? This is a current political and policy debate, about which much has been written in the media (both traditional and blogospheric). It turns out the answer is known and quantifiable. My work (with Steve Pizer and Roger Feldman) shows that for each additional dollar spent by the federal government (taxpayers) on the program since 2003, just $0.14 of it can be attributed to additional value (consumer surplus) to beneficiaries (see also: findings brief).

What do we make of the other $0.86? That goes to the insurance companies but doesn’t come out “the other end” in the form of value to beneficiaries. In part it is accounted for by the costs of the additional benefits and in part it is captured as additional insurer profit.

So, do higher MA payments produce little value to beneficiaries, as Obama claims, or are the benefits they fund important to maintain, as Republicans would have us believe? The balance of the evidence is on Obama’s side. In fact, it is a landslide: for each dollar spent, 14% of the value reaches beneficiaries and 86% of it goes elsewhere (profit or cost).

Cuts to MA should be a no brainer.

Thus the cuts to Medicare Advantage in the law.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems in 2008: These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis

Dems in 2011: These two entities—Social Security and Medicare—are not facing any kind of financial crisis

Don't Get Fooled again!

 

[EriktheRed]

1. Pretty hard to argue rolling back overpayments to Medicare Advantage providers is "essentially end[ing] Medicare", noting Medicare Advantage didn't even exist until 1997.

Since you and the rest of the drones have argued that any change to Medicare is "ending it," then why is that hard to argue?

Who said "any" change?

2. Force everyone into single payer? Medicare is already a single-payer system.

Yes, and it's head for bankruptcy. In fact, it's already bankrupt.

Who says?

 

[daveman]

The choice was made by the People when Medicare was established. As law.

Did you vote in 1965? I didn't.

.

I wasn't around to get to vote to ratify the Constitution either you moron. What's your point?

My point was in the part of my post that you deleted so you could pretend I didn't have a point, you dishonest piece of shit.

Nevertheless, the will of the people is subject to change. Even if liberals get their frilly panties in a wad. See the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which Democrats opposed).​

 

[daveman]

Pssst! YOU are not a 'thread'.

A lot of dumb people make that mistake.

WHY can't you answer the question? HOW is Ryan's plan better for senior citizens? Just give me ONE thing.

It offers them freedom to choose.

Why do you oppose that?

Freedom to choose?

Man I thought you were smarter than that.
Ohh well.

Freedom to choose coverage that suits their needs, from a variety of insurers.

...or do you think that the Nanny State is the only valid choice?

 

[FA_Q2]

Replace it with something different is not "ending" it? Something ended. Otherwise, how could it be "replaced"?

Of course you are leaving out the fact that if we do nothing as the dems want then Medicare will end itself when we can no longer pay for it. Since you do not like the rand plan where is the democrat one? Or is that something that can only be asked when a republican is nay saying?

The idea that we can't pay for our previous commitments is completely bogus. We have more than enough money to pay for Medicare and Social Security in their current forms out to eternity. The issue is if we feel those costs are justified.

And herein lays the absolute problem. It is impossible for Americans to fulfill their future obligations if the current plans are followed because costs are rising faster than incomes. That is a fact and our obligations will sink us. Everyone that has looked objectively at the numbers has come to the same conclusion. The problem is that even when the voters acknowledge this problem they are only willing to deal with it if it is not them receiving the cuts. Spoiled brats, plain and simple. Changes MUST happen and until there is real conversation for those changes we are in deep trouble.

 

[Polk]

The idea that we can't pay for our previous commitments is completely bogus. We have more than enough money to pay for Medicare and Social Security in their current forms out to eternity. The issue is if we feel those costs are justified.

Yeah, perhaps if we raise the tax rate to 70% on incomes as low as $50,000.

Is that a prospect that you find attractive?

Not particularly, which is why some changes need to be made.

 

[Polk]

GDP = C + I + G

Making G smaller doesn't boost the sum.

Not in the short term, but it does in the long term. GDP is not fixed. It grows, and the smaller 'G' is the faster it grows.

There is absolutely no evidence to support that conclusion.

 

[Polk]

1. Pretty hard to argue rolling back overpayments to Medicare Advantage providers is "essentially end[ing] Medicare", noting Medicare Advantage didn't even exist until 1997.

Since you and the rest of the drones have argued that any change to Medicare is "ending it," then why is that hard to argue?

I don't think any change to Medicare qualifies as "ending it". I do strongly feel that getting rid of the current system and replacing it with a coupon book where the value doesn't keep pace with insurance premiums is "ending it".

What "overpayments" to Medicare Advantage?

Paying an additional 15% overhead beyond what it would otherwise cost Medicare.

2. Force everyone into single payer? Medicare is already a single-payer system.

Yes, and it's head for bankruptcy. In fact, it's already bankrupt.

That's only true if you assume it's function is to turn a profit.

 

[Polk]

Did you vote in 1965? I didn't.

.

I wasn't around to get to vote to ratify the Constitution either you moron. What's your point?

My point was in the part of my post that you deleted so you could pretend I didn't have a point, you dishonest piece of shit.

Nevertheless, the will of the people is subject to change. Even if liberals get their frilly panties in a wad. See the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which Democrats opposed).​

Sure, people are free to change their minds, but they haven't changed their mind on this issue.

 

[Polk]

Of course you are leaving out the fact that if we do nothing as the dems want then Medicare will end itself when we can no longer pay for it. Since you do not like the rand plan where is the democrat one? Or is that something that can only be asked when a republican is nay saying?

The idea that we can't pay for our previous commitments is completely bogus. We have more than enough money to pay for Medicare and Social Security in their current forms out to eternity. The issue is if we feel those costs are justified.

And herein lays the absolute problem. It is impossible for Americans to fulfill their future obligations if the current plans are followed because costs are rising faster than incomes. That is a fact and our obligations will sink us. Everyone that has looked objectively at the numbers has come to the same conclusion. The problem is that even when the voters acknowledge this problem they are only willing to deal with it if it is not them receiving the cuts. Spoiled brats, plain and simple. Changes MUST happen and until there is real conversation for those changes we are in deep trouble.

But they're not looking at it objectively. They're saying cuts must be made to keep government as the same share of GDP as it was over the second half of the 20th century. That's a perfect valid belief to hold, but nothing about it is necessary.

 

[FA_Q2]

The idea that we can't pay for our previous commitments is completely bogus. We have more than enough money to pay for Medicare and Social Security in their current forms out to eternity. The issue is if we feel those costs are justified.

And herein lays the absolute problem. It is impossible for Americans to fulfill their future obligations if the current plans are followed because costs are rising faster than incomes. That is a fact and our obligations will sink us. Everyone that has looked objectively at the numbers has come to the same conclusion. The problem is that even when the voters acknowledge this problem they are only willing to deal with it if it is not them receiving the cuts. Spoiled brats, plain and simple. Changes MUST happen and until there is real conversation for those changes we are in deep trouble.

But they're not looking at it objectively. They're saying cuts must be made to keep government as the same share of GDP as it was over the second half of the 20th century. That's a perfect valid belief to hold, but nothing about it is necessary.

It is a matter of dollars and cents. It is fact that cost, already eating general funds which it should not be doing EVER, is increasing faster than growth ever will. That is unsustainable no matter what the tax code is, GDP or anything. There is absolutely no possible way to make the program solvent without addressing cost. There are many was to do so and NONE of which the libs are willing to talk about.

 

[Polk]

And herein lays the absolute problem. It is impossible for Americans to fulfill their future obligations if the current plans are followed because costs are rising faster than incomes. That is a fact and our obligations will sink us. Everyone that has looked objectively at the numbers has come to the same conclusion. The problem is that even when the voters acknowledge this problem they are only willing to deal with it if it is not them receiving the cuts. Spoiled brats, plain and simple. Changes MUST happen and until there is real conversation for those changes we are in deep trouble.

But they're not looking at it objectively. They're saying cuts must be made to keep government as the same share of GDP as it was over the second half of the 20th century. That's a perfect valid belief to hold, but nothing about it is necessary.

It is a matter of dollars and cents. It is fact that cost, already eating general funds which it should not be doing EVER, is increasing faster than growth ever will. That is unsustainable no matter what the tax code is, GDP or anything. There is absolutely no possible way to make the program solvent without addressing cost. There are many was to do so and NONE of which the libs are willing to talk about.

Two falsehoods in your post.

1. It's absolutely possible to make the program solvent without addressing cost. You raise taxes to cover the cost of the program. It's not saying that's a preferable outcome, but it's certainly a valid option that exists.

2. Liberals have definitely been willing to talk about cost controls in Medicare. Just because they don't think Ryan's coupon book idea is good policy doesn't mean they've been unwilling to discuss cost controls.