• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ryan’s Convention Speech Draws Fewer Viewers Than Palin

I'd watch Biden purely to get my daily dose of unintentional political comedy. It's amusing to try and guess what nationally broadcast error he's going to make next.
Not sure this is funny and hope it's a put-on, but it's certainly Bidenesque:

From Huffington Post, "Approaching a table of men he knew to be Greek, the VP said, 'I’m Joe Bidenopoulos.'” 'Joe Bidenopoulos' Meets Greek Voter At Ohio Campaign Stop
 
Not surprising considering the distaste the public seemingly has towards politics. Wait till the numbers come out for the Dems next week. Isn’t Biden speaking on Wednesday night? And the Cowboys and Giants are playing football simultaneously…which do you think folks will be watchin’? And I'm sure the rancorous media will be all over the lack of viewership.

I was wrong. Clinton is speaking on Wednesday night and then the the roll call of states. Biden AND President Obama are speaking on Thursday night...
 
Pretty simple to prove you wrong but the real interesting issue is going to be when your doctor stops taking Medicare, you know the doctor you have had for years?

Premium support’: Campaigning in Florida on Monday, Romney said that he and Ryan want to “preserve and protect” Medicare. To do that, Ryan’s plan would turn Medicare into what the House Budget Committee chairman calls a “premium support” system.That means that future retirees would get subsidies to buy private insurance plans — or have the option of keeping traditional Medicare through a new federal exchange. Changes wouldn’t kick in until 2023, meaning it wouldn’t affect current seniors

Is this what was voted on in the House and passed twice or is this something new?
 
Moderator's Warning:
next person who continues the birthed stuff in this thread is getting thread banned

I'm curious as to just how you define "birthed stuff" since you quoted me. Are you trying to ban me from another thread? And just where in the forum rules does it prohibit talking about "birthed stuff"?

A L
 
Is this what was voted on in the House and passed twice or is this something new?

You claimed that Ryan gutted Medicare and was destroying it, I proved different. That was what was voted on this year. Why do you have to distort Republican programs and ignore Obama's programs that have failed? Are you that desparate for four more years of what we have had the last four?
 
You claimed that Ryan gutted Medicare and was destroying it, I proved different.
You're changing tense on me, I never said that. In my opinion though, Ryan's proposals are not the same thing as Medicare so they can't have the same name.
 
You're changing tense on me, I never said that. In my opinion though, Ryan's proposals are not the same thing as Medicare so they can't have the same name.

No, I am proving that you will continue to divert and distort all in order to support Obama. Ryan's plan doesn't hurt seniors and will offer options to those 55 and under thus is not gutting or destroying Medicare. Your support for Obama is noted but also noted is the desperation, distortion, and diversions.
 
No, I am proving that you will continue to divert and distort all in order to support Obama. Ryan's plan doesn't hurt seniors and will offer options to those 55 and under thus is not gutting or destroying Medicare. Your support for Obama is noted but also noted is the desperation, distortion, and diversions.
It has nothing to do with President Obama, I just don't feel privatizing what is now Medicare. Call it Ryancare, Vouchercare, it's just not Medicare.

If this is such a good for those under 55, why isn't offered to every senior now?
 
I'm curious as to just how you define "birthed stuff" since you quoted me. Are you trying to ban me from another thread? And just where in the forum rules does it prohibit talking about "birthed stuff"?

A L

If you want to discuss birther issues,use the search function in the upper right hand corner of the page.Thatta get you enough birther threads to take well into Obmanas next term.Enjoy.:2wave:
 
It has nothing to do with President Obama, I just don't feel privatizing what is now Medicare. Call it Ryancare, Vouchercare, it's just not Medicare.

If this is such a good for those under 55, why isn't offered to every senior now?

You really are for some reason scared of the private sector however there is no privatization of Medicare in the Ryan plan if you don't want to do it. Your choice, interesting how choice only seems to matter when it comes to abortion but not your own healthcare
 
You really are for some reason scared of the private sector however there is no privatization of Medicare in the Ryan plan if you don't want to do it. Your choice, interesting how choice only seems to matter when it comes to abortion but not your own healthcare
Why have vouchers when the voucher will not pay the full price of the policy? And if you have a voucher and have a medical condition the insurance company is not likely going to want to insure you. Bad deal all around.

I hope you realize the public will not buy this crap.
 
Why have vouchers when the voucher will not pay the full price of the policy? And if you have a voucher and have a medical condition the insurance company is not likely going to want to insure you. Bad deal all around.

I hope you realize the public will not buy this crap.

How do you know the vouchers won't pay the full price of the policy? Do you have any idea the value of the vouchers? I

f you don't want a voucher, stick with the govt. program. The status quo got us into this mess and it isn't the status quo that is going to get us out.

What the public is however is disgusted with the lies and distortions of the Obama Adminstration and surrogates
 
How do you know the vouchers won't pay the full price of the policy?

We know that because voucher spending is capped at GDP + 0.5% when health care inflation is much higher than that. The CBO estimates that the vouchers would only cover 39% of premiums by 2022.
 
We know that because voucher spending is capped at GDP + 0.5% when health care inflation is much higher than that. The CBO estimates that the vouchers would only cover 39% of premiums by 2022.

So then don't take the vouchers but as usual you believe the cost of healthcare is the same in every state and every city. The voucher program could be a great deal for some but to demonize it is what big govt. central economy liberals always do. it takes away control from the bureaucrats and we cannot have that, right?
 
If you want to discuss birther issues,use the search function in the upper right hand corner of the page.Thatta get you enough birther threads to take well into Obmanas next term.Enjoy.:2wave:

Interesting opinion ... however, the question about which DP rule it violates remains unanswered.

A L
 
We know that because voucher spending is capped at GDP + 0.5% when health care inflation is much higher than that. The CBO estimates that the vouchers would only cover 39% of premiums by 2022.
The idea, I suppose, is that introducing competetion into medicare will do what competition always does--reduce costs. But the fundamental problem with healthcare that neither side wants to address is that there is simply no way to provide every American every medical proceedure and treatment they need whenever they need it. The way to make Medicare solvent is very easy. Raise the Medicare withholding tax. Funny how no one mentions doing that.If people use 3 times what they put into Medicare (which they do) then the answer is to triple the Medicare withholding. The trouble is, you cant do that sort of thing when you have an entitlement culture. So what we have is one party pretending the handouts can continue unabated, and the other party trying to find a way to keep the handouts continuing unabated. Sooner or later the music stops, and most people wont have a chair.
 
The idea, I suppose, is that introducing competetion into medicare will do what competition always does--reduce costs. But the fundamental problem with healthcare that neither side wants to address is that there is simply no way to provide every American every medical proceedure and treatment they need whenever they need it. The way to make Medicare solvent is very easy. Raise the Medicare withholding tax. Funny how no one mentions doing that.If people use 3 times what they put into Medicare (which they do) then the answer is to triple the Medicare withholding. The trouble is, you cant do that sort of thing when you have an entitlement culture. So what we have is one party pretending the handouts can continue unabated, and the other party trying to find a way to keep the handouts continuing unabated. Sooner or later the music stops, and most people wont have a chair.

In addition we know that one size doesn't fit all and healthcare costs vary around the nation so vouchers may indeed handle the policies in certain part of the country but I would be very weary of using CBO numbers that are very suspect especially 10 years out. CBO accuracy is not very good at all and it is amazing how so many use CBO when it supports their point of view and ignores it when it doesn't
 
Back
Top Bottom