Reality spells doom for GOP healthcare plan.

[Liability]

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?

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.

Don't cite shit from Think Progress unless they provide sources which can be verified since they are partisan hacks unworthy of acceptance on their own.

Do some real work before you spout off or think you have the right to demand answers to your endless fraud.

 

[Liability]

One (anonymous) lib says this:

Romney 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.

-- Fact Check: Romney’s Plan to ‘Restore’ Medicare Spending Cuts - ABC News

Yet we have Thimk Pwogwess and Greenbeard contending that Romney's "plan" WILL bankrupt Medicare by 2016....

My question is: when will you libs yapping all about the Romney "plan" get on the same page about what it is and what it will supposedly "do?"

 

[Greenbeard]

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 Romney’s 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 program’s 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?

 

[whitehall]

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.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

lets get fully truthful about medical costs.
How many doctors post lists of costs for procedures?

Just how much will cost for prostrate cancer costs from doctor/hospital a/b/c?

You swap to another doctor how long will it take him to catch up on your history, get your files, how many tests will he repeat?

 

[taichiliberal]

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.

I asked you to show me an insurance company that can give my parents the EXACT same hospitalizaton coverage for $8K....because THAT is the crux of the Ryan plan. If you can't, just say so. If you can, then please do (FACTS, NOT just your opinion). I'll wait.

 

[midcan5]

Reality has no place in the republican mind.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...care/235883-a-moral-question.html#post5665900


"...Is one’s individual freedom not increased by measures such as unemployment compensation, guaranteed health insurance, public pensions, higher wages, strong unions, state-funded or provided childcare—the whole panoply of social democracy that most libertarians see as not only irrelevant to but an infringement upon individual freedom?" Corey Robin When Libertarians Go to Work… « Corey Robin

 

[taichiliberal]

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.

Translation: Liability dare not honestly address the issue of the OP, as he cannot provide an insurance company that can give the coverage I pointed to for $8K....the crux of the Ryan plan.

This is typical of the intellectual dishonesty of neocon/teabagger supporters of the current incarnation of the GOP and it's ilk....when they can't logically disprove something that contradicts their world view, they just blow smoke and attempt character assasination.

 

[taichiliberal]

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.

really? please explain to us all how that is? Because the whole point of "free market" competition among health insurance companies is to reduce out of pocket cost via monthly installments to them.

So are YOU implying that they should act AGAINST their competitive mandate?

 

[taichiliberal]

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.

 

[taichiliberal]

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.

Read posts number 22 & 23. You can stubbornly repeat the false mantra that the GOP feeds you, but the FACTS will always be your undoing.

 

[taichiliberal]

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 Obama’s new ad, ‘Facts,’ gets the facts wrong,” Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg said.

“The facts concerning the president’s 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.”

-- Obama’s Answer to Romney Medicare Attack? AARP - ABC News


You lib idiots need to stop taking your "information" from bullshit sites like Think Progress.

Here's how I educated your like minded compadre Peaches on this subject. I strongly suggest you READ the information in the links carefully and comprehensively:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5832343-post22.html

 

[taichiliberal]

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 Romney’s 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 program’s 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?

You hit the nail right on the head.....flunkies like Liability DO NOT READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY...Liability just grabs headlines and excerpts fed to him via right wing blog sights and whatever Drudge hands out to the neocon/teabagger punditry.

 

[taichiliberal]

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.

typical response from the intellectually dishonest neocon/teabagger flunky.....when faced with FACTS that disprove their current bullhorn, they go straight for character assasination to avoid acknowledging reality.

So tell me Whitehall, what current insurance company can do exactly for my parents for $8K? Because that is the crux of what Ryan is selling. I'll wait.

 

[alan1]

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.

Evidently, you are the one that needs the refresher course in civics.
Please tell me what part of the constitution allows the government to force people to engage in commerce.
Please tell me what part of the constitution allows the government to establish medicare or medicaid.

"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.

 

[Greenbeard]

"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.

 

[alan1]

"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.

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

 

[hortysir]

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?

Not when my annual maximum out of pocket is $1,000

But keep up the fear level.

Obama appreciates your efforts

 

[alan1]

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.

I don't care what you say or how you spin it, "general welfare" was never meant by any of the founding fathers to force one to engage in commerce.