• 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!

Obama vows to veto short-term bill(edited)

Harry Guerrilla said:
Why is age a disqualifier for one of the highest cost programs to our government?

What is your alternative?
Click to expand...

Where did you get that from what I said? I simply explained what the CBO showed as a problem(a rather huge one) with Ryan's budget proposal.
 
Barbbtx said:
Why does everyone bash part D? To my knowledge it's the only government program that has ever come in under the projected cost.


Medicare Part D Under Budget
According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the total costs for the Medicare Part D prescription drug program based on actuary estimates will be $37.2 billion in 2008 and $46.4 billion in 2009. When the drug benefit was being debated in Congress, however, the actuary estimated the benefit would cost $68 billion in 2008 and $74 billion in 2009. Based on these estimates, Medicare Part D is currently operating at 37-45% under initial projections.Further, officials at CMS report that monthly premiums for Medicare prescription drug plans will average $28 in 2009 – a 37% decrease from $44.12 when the benefit was created in 2003 – translating into significant savings for the Federal government as well as beneficiaries.
DRX Trends: Medicare Part D Under Budget
Click to expand...

I did not bash Part D. The program itself is quite good. What I bashed was that it was not paid for and increased the debt and no effort was made to pay for it, but the same people who support Bush and Part D are the ones crying about the health care reform bills cost, where an attempt was made to pay for it.
 
Erod said:
I believe they fear that the government will shut down, and no one will even notice.

Think about it. What do they even do? Other than rathole huge some of money for their supporters, that is.

Kinda puts the picture in the frame.
Click to expand...

It will be be noticed. Not only will programs be shut down, and tax returns stop coming in, but a large number of employees will be without checks for as long as the shut down is in place, with no certainty that they will get back pay. This means bills might not get paid, stressing morgages and other large items. I don't see how this could not be felt.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
What this is saying is that come 2022, people who move into Medicare would get a voucher to buy insurance from private companies with. Problem 1: private insurance companies have higher costs than Medicare and have to turn a profit. So seniors end up footing a much larger bill. Problem 2: Seniors need alot more health care, which would drive up the cost of health insurance for every one. The CBO report linked previously details all this.
Click to expand...

Not only that but the voucher will be tied to general inflation or economic growth, but as has been well documented, insurance premiums have doubled in the past ten years and is expected to do so again. Of course economic growth nor inflation has kept up with that pace, so the Medicare beneficiaries will be burdened with the fast rising costs at a time in their life where they are living on a fixed income and can't do anything significant to increase that income to try to keep up.

As you, and others, have pointed out one of the cons biggest voting block, the elderly white, have been exempted and the changes affects those 15-20 or more years away from retirement or even thinking about retirement, thus are pretty much apathetic about it. That doesn't sound very 'courageous'.

Remember it wasn't so long ago when McConnell, Boehner and the media's new 'darling boy' Paul Ryan lambasted the dems for the cuts to Medicare in the ACA - even though those cuts were primarily to the expensive give-away to the private insurance companies, AKA Medicare Advantage. Now they want to destroy it as we know it now.

My, how quickly some can flip flop . . . .;)
 
Barbbtx said:
Why the **** won't the Dems just vote on it. The new party of "no" ? Will they ever be willing to cut any programs they like? We're broke! and they're bitching about cutting 300 million?

Here's a poll to take, asking who's to blame.
So far
Obama 25%
Dems 24%
Repubs 31%
Tea Party 19%

News Headlines
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't the GOP just ****in vote for universal health care during the reform process?
 
Deuce said:
Why wouldn't the GOP just ****in vote for universal health care during the reform process?
Click to expand...

Maybe because voting for an unknown program that no one botherted to read that will cost an unknown amount of money isnt the brightest thing to do when youir country is already 14 trillion dollars in debt. Maybe thats a good reason to not vote in universal health care.

This whole thing is crap. Democrats failed in their responsibility to pass the annual budget when they had control of the house and senate. Everyone now is paying for their continued lack of leadership. Today they dont want a budget solution. Howard Dean said it most plainly...they WANT a government shutdown so they can scare senior citizens, use the poor children in attacks against republicans, knowing that most of their supporters are too stupid to realize (or care) it is the fault of Pelosi and Reid this never got passed in the first place. If they believed in all these programs they allegedly care so much about, then why didnt they pass it in the first place? Answer? Because they knew when they proposed the budget it would show they were spending almost twice what they were taking in in taxes.

Paul Ryans 2012 budget proposals may not be THE answer. If those proposals do not include realistic across the board budget cuts they definitely arent THE answer. But honest discourse on government spending and dealing with our massive debt is needed. Partisan bull**** over piddling costs that add up to a fraction of a percentage of our overall annual budget is mindless.
 
Redress said:
Where did you get that from what I said? I simply explained what the CBO showed as a problem(a rather huge one) with Ryan's budget proposal.
Click to expand...

I meant to quote this,

Redress said:
It leads the way in trickle down economics at the cost of old people.
Click to expand...

But why does it matter if they're old.
It's one of the biggest cost programs, seniors need to pay more than they are now.
They are the wealthiest age demographic.

What are the problems that the CBO has outlined and what is the alternative?
 
VanceMack said:
Maybe because voting for an unknown program that no one botherted to read that will cost an unknown amount of money isnt the brightest thing to do when youir country is already 14 trillion dollars in debt. Maybe thats a good reason to not vote in universal health care.

This whole thing is crap. Democrats failed in their responsibility to pass the annual budget when they had control of the house and senate. Everyone now is paying for their continued lack of leadership. Today they dont want a budget solution. Howard Dean said it most plainly...they WANT a government shutdown so they can scare senior citizens, use the poor children in attacks against republicans, knowing that most of their supporters are too stupid to realize (or care) it is the fault of Pelosi and Reid this never got passed in the first place. If they believed in all these programs they allegedly care so much about, then why didnt they pass it in the first place? Answer? Because they knew when they proposed the budget it would show they were spending almost twice what they were taking in in taxes.

Paul Ryans 2012 budget proposals may not be THE answer. If those proposals do not include realistic across the board budget cuts they definitely arent THE answer. But honest discourse on government spending and dealing with our massive debt is needed. Partisan bull**** over piddling costs that add up to a fraction of a percentage of our overall annual budget is mindless.
Click to expand...

But universal healthcare saves money! It has in every single country that has adopted it. Clearly if budget numbers were the only thing important, the GOP would vote in favor of it, right?

The point I'm trying to make is that UHC would be against the core ideology of the GOP, so placing it in a bill is a way to ensure that they all vote against it.

The same thing has been done with this budget. Democrats agreed to the numbers, but then the GOP threw in riders that they damn well know will not be voted for by the Democrats. How come you give the GOP a pass on partisan bull****?
 
ptif219 said:
The GOP wants a balanced budget and to cut the deficit. Notice the GOP wants military paid if government shutdown and Obama would stop that
Click to expand...

Lots of federal employees who still have to go to work in a shutdown wouldn't be paid during a shutdown. The government is shut down; that's what happens. There's not a budget and monies appropirated, you can pay from what is not there.
 
Deuce said:
But universal healthcare saves money! It has in every single country that has adopted it. Clearly if budget numbers were the only thing important, the GOP would vote in favor of it, right?

The point I'm trying to make is that UHC would be against the core ideology of the GOP, so placing it in a bill is a way to ensure that they all vote against it.

The same thing has been done with this budget. Democrats agreed to the numbers, but then the GOP threw in riders that they damn well know will not be voted for by the Democrats. How come you give the GOP a pass on partisan bull****?
Click to expand...

No complete analysis has been done of the supposed cost savings of UHC. Particularly the cost of waiting and what it costs in lost productivity.

Not only that but if UHC were cheaper, no one would need to cut Medicare.
 
Deuce said:
But universal healthcare saves money! It has in every single country that has adopted it. Clearly if budget numbers were the only thing important, the GOP would vote in favor of it, right?

The point I'm trying to make is that UHC would be against the core ideology of the GOP, so placing it in a bill is a way to ensure that they all vote against it.

The same thing has been done with this budget. Democrats agreed to the numbers, but then the GOP threw in riders that they damn well know will not be voted for by the Democrats. How come you give the GOP a pass on partisan bull****?
Click to expand...

How can you even pretend to believe universal healthcare run by the federal government will save a penny? They face constant cost overruns on every program they are involved with including the medical assistance programs. The GAO cant even comprehend what the final cost will be. NO ONE has the first clue what it will cost or what kind of financial impact it will have on this country because everything we do will be radically different. Nor do you have a clue how much of an increase it will cause in taxes. And seriously...not everyone in this country believes that the federal government should be responsible for our health care.

You bet...both parties are playing politicsa with this. Heres the problem...if the democrats gave a damn about these programs they should have PASSED them when it was their responsibility to do so. You know why the republicans get a say in this matter now? Because the democrat 'leadership' couldnt even so much as come up with a budget, let alone propose it and pass it. The programs on the chopping block are programs conservatives dont believe have any business being in the federal budget. Dont like them being cut? Tough ****...blame Pelosi and Reid. And oh yeah...what was it the president said? You can come along for the ride...just get your ass in the back of the bus. You fail in your reponsibility, then you have to live with the other party doing what your leaders failed you on.
 
The Prof said:
from "harry reid stands alone," by politico, link above:
Click to expand...

Am I to guess from your very brief post that somehow, someway, this means something to you in the way of importance?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I meant to quote this,



But why does it matter if they're old.
It's one of the biggest cost programs, seniors need to pay more than they are now.
They are the wealthiest age demographic.

What are the problems that the CBO has outlined and what is the alternative?
Click to expand...

The elderly are the ones who will have the largest cost increase. This actually will be offset(probably) for those who are now in the top tax bracket, but for most, it will be a huge cost increase. This funds the tax cuts for high income people.

The problem the CBO outlined: private insurance has higher administrative costs and has to turn a profit. The projected costs of insurance premiums for elderly, plus deductible, minus voucher is quite high(number earlier in thread, too busy at the moment to look it up). Further, these same elderly people will be receiving more in benefits than they will be paying in premiums plus voucher. This cost will have to be made up by the rest of the populace, who will face higher insurance premiums. In other words, what happens is that, in order to save money, every one pays more money.
 
haymarket said:
this means something to you in the way of importance?
Click to expand...

ask roger simon's drug tested professional leftists and journolisters who assert that "obama was disengaged until the last 48 hours"

ask the senate democrats who "in meeting after meeting have berated obama's lack of personal involvement"
 
Deuce said:
Why wouldn't the GOP just ****in vote for universal health care during the reform process?
Click to expand...

bbc this week:

nhs---20 billion pounds beneath

"devastating and cruel" delays for treatment, suddenly upped requirements to receive care

patients must be "more disabled or in greater pain" to qualify

treatments delayed "UNTIL THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR"

and the "invisible wait time:" by not even beginning the referral process a patient ends up wating longer without being "recorded in the official waiting statistics"

BBC News - Surgeons raise alarm over waiting
 
The Prof said:
ask roger simon's drug tested professional leftists and journolisters who assert that "obama was disengaged until the last 48 hours"

ask the senate democrats who "in meeting after meeting have berated obama's lack of personal involvement"
Click to expand...

Neither seems to be responding. Perhaps you can tell us why you feel this 'knowledge' is important to you?
 
Redress said:
The elderly are the ones who will have the largest cost increase. This actually will be offset(probably) for those who are now in the top tax bracket, but for most, it will be a huge cost increase. This funds the tax cuts for high income people.
Click to expand...

They should have the largest cost increase though.
They are costing the system the most.

The high income tax cuts come at a cost of the the closure of tax loop holes.
Not only that but the CBO can't accurately analyze the effects it will have on people bringing money back into the states, at a tax lower rate.

Redress said:
The problem the CBO outlined: private insurance has higher administrative costs and has to turn a profit. The projected costs of insurance premiums for elderly, plus deductible, minus voucher is quite high(number earlier in thread, too busy at the moment to look it up). Further, these same elderly people will be receiving more in benefits than they will be paying in premiums plus voucher. This cost will have to be made up by the rest of the populace, who will face higher insurance premiums. In other words, what happens is that, in order to save money, every one pays more money.
Click to expand...

Did they calculate the potential reduction in fraudulent claims and in the reduction in over usage of services?
Medicare already costs more than what elderly have paid in.
 
Deuce said:
Why wouldn't the GOP just ****in vote for universal health care during the reform process?
Click to expand...

Because UHC is the worst possible solution. Every Country it's tried in starts well and deteriorates, like ANY GOVERNMENT WELFARE SYSTEM. Just like SS, Medicaide and Medicare it starts out small (ish) and grows into an unstoppable, unwieldy behemoth that breaks the budget.

UHC is a non-answer, and those pushing for it should be mocked out of any rationale discussion about how to make healthcare better in this country.
 
MrVicchio said:
Because UHC is the worst possible solution. Every Country it's tried in starts well and deteriorates, like ANY GOVERNMENT WELFARE SYSTEM. Just like SS, Medicaide and Medicare it starts out small (ish) and grows into an unstoppable, unwieldy behemoth that breaks the budget.

UHC is a non-answer, and those pushing for it should be mocked out of any rationale discussion about how to make healthcare better in this country.
Click to expand...

How do you explain the deterioration and increased costs of our system, where we spend more less?

I think you are making an inaccurate generalization based on misinformation.
 
MrVicchio said:
Because UHC is the worst possible solution. Every Country it's tried in starts well and deteriorates, like ANY GOVERNMENT WELFARE SYSTEM. Just like SS, Medicaide and Medicare it starts out small (ish) and grows into an unstoppable, unwieldy behemoth that breaks the budget.

UHC is a non-answer, and those pushing for it should be mocked out of any rationale discussion about how to make healthcare better in this country.
Click to expand...

Way to miss the point.

The GOP put in riders that are ideologically untenable for the Democrats with the sole purpose of getting them to vote against the bill. UHC was an example of a rider that the GOP would never vote for. It doesn't matter what the bill is, if Democrats put a rider on a bill that implements UHC, the GOP will vote against it. It's not governing.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
They should have the largest cost increase though.
They are costing the system the most.

The high income tax cuts come at a cost of the the closure of tax loop holes.
Not only that but the CBO can't accurately analyze the effects it will have on people bringing money back into the states, at a tax lower rate.
Click to expand...

The problem is the number is in the realm of simply not affordable by a large portion of the elderly. A thousand a month just for health care is out of reach for a large portion of those elderly people.

Did they calculate the potential reduction in fraudulent claims and in the reduction in over usage of services?
Medicare already costs more than what elderly have paid in.
Click to expand...

The first would be under administrative costs, the second I am not sure on.
 
Oh, and HG...to be clear, Ryan's plan is not all bad. There are good things in it. However, overall it is not workable and incomplete and unpassable. I personally prefer to do things just like I suggested during the health care debate, incrementally. Make some changes, let them take effect, see the results, make more changes. What Ryan's plan does is, like the health care reform bill, makes huge changes all in a fairly short period with it being difficult at best to undo things if they go wrong.
 
Redress said:
The problem is the number is in the realm of simply not affordable by a large portion of the elderly. A thousand a month just for health care is out of reach for a large portion of those elderly people.
Click to expand...

The elderly poverty rate is about on par or a little lower than the average population and means testing should be done, but never the less, they cost more money than what we can afford.

There is no practical "other" option but to reduce services for them on some level.
They already get the most tax dollars directed at them, while at the same time having some of the lowest tax rates of anyone because of their age, which is dumb.

Redress said:
The first would be under administrative costs, the second I am not sure on.
Click to expand...

I'll look into it more.
 
Boo Radley said:
How do you explain the deterioration and increased costs of our system, where we spend more less?

I think you are making an inaccurate generalization based on misinformation.
Click to expand...

No I'm not.

UHC leads to a bureaucratic medical system that puts patients second in the equation. Look at Canada, and the UK. Sure, for basic walk in check up stuff, it's great, the masses are happy. What happens when you need real treatment?


Aha. There is the problem. Look at the problem the UK is facing. Take heart bypass for example, they ended up BUYING a Private hospital over there, to get wait times to three weeks. Three WEEKS! It wads 6 MONTHS before that.

You cannot centrally plan and manage the healthcare of a population, it just doesn't work. You create a dependent population, you drain resources and who suffers? The people.

It's just how it happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom