ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,729
- 1,830
Paul Ryan's Response to Obama's Speech Yesterday
- Thread starter Dont Taz Me Bro
- Start date
dam you didnt even say it was a lie 
ScreamingEagle
Gold Member
- Jul 5, 2004
- 13,399
- 1,714
- 245
The best thing about Reagan is that he attempted to put the money back into the hands of Americans.....after all it's our money....
I mean....most politicians treat our money like it grows on trees....or like we are some sort financial slaves that they can always count on to produce enough money to pay for their shennanigans....look at all the spending that's been done by both parties (icomplained about Bush's spending too)....the money just runs through their fingers....and they accomplish very little with it.....they now spend money we don't even have.....trillions and trillions.....and then stick us with the bill......and then tell us they need to tax us even more.......**** that................................
...that's why the Tea Party exists today....
....that's why finally a responsible person (Ryan) came up with a rational plan to at least attempt to get us out of this mess......i just hope we can....
Mr Liberty
Hater of Socialism
Perhaps we should consider a balance budget amendment. This of course means that we would have to accept the federal government shrinking with the private sector.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,888
- 1,830
That's a piss poor lie according to the plan Lyin' Ryan submitted for evaluation to the CBO.
The voucher would not be enough to pay for a health care plan for many seniors. There would be no "public option" for seniors to run to, so if they could not find insurance from the private industry they would simply be on their own. If seniors then could not pay out-of-pocket they would presumably be denied care in all non-emergency situations.
Ryan's plan does save the federal government money by reducing its Medicare expenditures, but as the CBO report documents, it basically does so by simply shifting the costs to seniors. If seniors could not pay they would simply have to go without benefits
Ryan's plan essentially forces seniors into the "death panels" of the private market.
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11966/11-17-Rivlin-Ryan_Preliminary_Analysis.pdf
Congressman Ryan and his staff recently provided specifications for a proposal that would
substantially change federal payments under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Although an
extensive analysis of that proposal is not feasible in the time available, CBO has conducted a
preliminary analysis of its major provisions—the results of which are summarized here.
Key Features of the Proposal
MEDICARE
People who turn 65 in 2021 or later years would not enroll in the current Medicare program
but instead would receive a voucher with which to purchase private health insurance.
Although the voucher system would not be implemented until 2021, the amount of the
voucher would be calculated by taking the average federal cost per Medicare enrollee in 2012
(net of enrollee premiums) and growing that amount at the annual rate of growth in GDP per
capita plus one percentage point.
o While the voucher program is being phased in, the voucher amount would be adjusted
downward to reflect the fact that eligible individuals would be younger and less
costly than the average Medicare enrollee.
Affected Medicare enrollees who are also eligible for full Medicaid benefits (“dual
eligibles”) would no longer receive assistance from Medicaid with their Medicare premiums
and cost-sharing; instead the federal government would establish a medical savings account
for them and make an annual contribution to it. The amount of the contribution would be
calculated by starting with $6,600 in 2012 and growing that amount at the rate of GDP
growth per capita plus one percentage point.
Starting in 2021, the age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months per year
until it reached 67 in 2032.
For purposes of this analysis, CBO assumed that all individuals projected to enroll in
Medicare would use the proposed voucher. Voucher recipients would probably have to
purchase less extensive coverage or pay higher premiums than they would under current law,
for two reasons. First, most of the savings for Medicare under the proposal stem from
reducing the amounts that the federal government would pay for enrollees on a per capita
basis, relative to the projections under current law. Second, future beneficiaries would
probably face higher premiums in the private market for a package of benefits similar to that
currently provided by Medicare. (For additional discussion of these issues, see CBOÂ’s
January 2010 letter to Congressman Ryan about his “Roadmap” proposal.)
Similarly, reducing federal payments for Medicaid relative to currently projected amounts
would probably require states to provide less extensive coverage, or to pay a larger share of
the programÂ’s total costs, than would be the case under current law.
For both Medicare and Medicaid, the budgetary effects would become larger over time
because federal payments would tend to grow more slowly under the proposal than projected
costs per enrollee under current law. Although the level of expected federal spending and the
uncertainty surrounding that spending would decline, enrolleesÂ’ spending for health care and
the uncertainty surrounding that spending would increase.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,888
- 1,830
So when Reagan raises taxes and deficit spends that's putting money back in the hands of Americans.
And Cryin' Lyin" Ryan's "rational" plan is to make seniors pay more for health care.
Brilliant!
ScreamingEagle
Gold Member
- Jul 5, 2004
- 13,399
- 1,714
- 245
I believe it was Fed monetary policy (Carter's Chairman Volker tried to control inflation) that caused the steep '82 recession...not the tax cuts...the economy rebounded and the stagflation of the Carter years became a thing of the past...
Unemployment declined from 7% in 1980 to 5.4 percent in 1988.
Reagan was at odds with Congress over tax increases....and the Dem congress was at odds with Reagan over spending cuts....
Reagan reduced the marginal tax rates from 70% to 28%.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,888
- 1,830
You've got it backwards as usual. Volker's monetary policy brought down inflation and that brought about the economic rebound. Reagan increased unemployment from 7.6% in 1980 to 10.8% in 1982 with 10 consecutive months of double digit unemployment.
Reagan always takes credit for everyone else's hard work.
Reagan cut the progressive income tax and increased all the regressive taxes he could as well as beginning the taxing of SS benefits. As a result the rich paid less in taxes and the middle class paid more in overall taxes.
Yiu ought to read the article, which relies on CBO scoring, which is notoriously off.
sinister59
Rookie
- Mar 21, 2011
- 884
- 34
- 0
- Banned
- #129
allot already have to make choice between medicine and heat or food . now the teabaggers want more from them ,
I can see a break off point that if you retire with wealth ,no SS ,
ScreamingEagle
Gold Member
- Jul 5, 2004
- 13,399
- 1,714
- 245
At least you agree the economy improved during Reagan's terms...that's a start....however regarding the 1982 recession....
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
That is mentally handicapped nonsense. All we got from Reagan's policies were massive unprecedented peacetime deficits. Reagan made massive deficits politically acceptable. Reagan almost singlehandedly destroyed America's long held tradition of fiscal responsibility.
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,830
- 1,790
EriktheRed
Eh...
Like "Death Panels"?
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,888
- 1,830
Your own pull quote belies your claim and supports mine. The 1981 Reagan recession began BEFORE Volker's 1982 monetary policy change, and ended AFTER it, thanks to it. Reagan then tries to steal the credit.
Geezzz, only a CON$ervative could be gullible enough to read it and copy and paste it and still swallow that what came after CAUSED what came before!!!
Last edited:
Greenbeard
Gold Member
You've made two key points here that seem to be lost on some here. Medicare, at its core, is primarily two things: a public insurance plan and a guaranteed health benefit. Both of these are destroyed under the Ryan proposal. What you're left with is a shrinking check to try and go buy an Anthem plan (or, for some unlucky seniors, perhaps something like a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Delaware plan), which I take it we're now supposed to call "Medicare" and breath a sigh of relief that, thank goodness, perhaps the program's name has been saved. The reality, of course, is that eventually no will be allowed to have Medicare (insurance) anymore. It will simply no longer exist. And with it goes the guaranteed benefits America's elderly have enjoyed for more than 45 years.
Tack on the end of CHIP and giant cuts to Medicaid and you've got a pretty savage "plan." There's a very good reason the Republican leadership deliberately hid their intentions before the elections last fall.
sinister59
Rookie
- Mar 21, 2011
- 884
- 34
- 0
- Banned
- #136
as most all teabagers /repigs do ryan lied , SS is solvent up to 2026
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
So the government would pass out billions of dollars of worth of vouchers to seniors for them to use ONLY on buying insurance in the private sector?
Isn't that a textbook case for skyrocketing insurance costs, based on skyrocketing demand?
Isn't that a textbook case for skyrocketing insurance costs, based on skyrocketing demand?
sinister59
Rookie
- Mar 21, 2011
- 884
- 34
- 0
- Banned
- #138
WOW
where were you fore the past 20 years ?
when flat screens TVS came out look how much they were same for VCR when they came out they were 500 buck , now DVDs are around one hundred , supply and demand works if there's enough sales .
insurance , you pay for every non-insured person that use the emergency room , now , you're insurance pays most .
thats now , if we all pay for insurance it will go down .
ScreamingEagle
Gold Member
- Jul 5, 2004
- 13,399
- 1,714
- 245
Geezzz only a LIBtard is retarded enough to assume that the number 1982 label means that's when Volker made his monetary changes....it's called "the 1982" recession....even in paragraph two (if you got that far) it refers to "the 1982"....that's when the recession was at its worst (it officially ended Nov'82) and that's probably why it is labelled "the 1982".....altho the recession actually began in 1980...before Reagan was even elected....(Volker started his new policies in 1979)
The 1982 recession was the result of tightening monetary policies....not the Reagan tax cuts as you claim....things got bad in the process of breaking the back of inflation inherited from the Carter era but Reagan allowed Volker to do it because it was necessary....
Educate Yourself - Paul Volker - Part 2
Last edited:
If Ryan did anything, he moved the ball down the court unlike the other Republicans and Dems who have no cahones at all. He's got to be given credit for that at least. And he forced Pres. Obama to show his hand.
News, Views and Tattoos
News, Views and Tattoos
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Geez.... Iran is betting that our fists wear out before their face does....
- Started by justoffal
- Replies: 5
-
