• 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!

Democrat scores upset in Medicare-focused House race

Perhaps they don't want to see their children suffer in old age. Has empathy ever occured to anyone?

Then they ought to realize that doing nothing will lead to just that - Medicare going bankrupt and their children suffering as a result. If they don't want their children to suffer in old age, Medicare better be heavily reformed before it's too late.

Of course, maybe they HAVE realized that. Since if this poll is to be believed, the whole "Seniors hate Ryan's Medicare reform!" thing is nothing but media spin:

Americans Divided Over Ryan vs. Obama Deficit Plans

baidvf9hm0kke-caef-wna.gif
 
You don't think paying for it all their lives is a good reason to expect it? How about you buy a hat from me and I just decide not to send it to you?

We would have the money if the government didn't regard pilfering from the funding a viable way of covering expenses.

Oh, you don't even get the irony of your comments! This is too rich!

Okay, years and years ago SS got set up, see, and they started taking from our paychecks to "help us when we need it most". Cause we're all just too ****ing stupid to manage money right. And over the years it became obvious to anyone with half a brain the system wasn't working as intended. I.E. "the government pilfering" BUT HEY, as long as I get my SS check, who cares? Then in the 60's Medicaide/Medicare comes about and it doesn't take long to figure out this is another "Give us your money so we can help you" scam. But who cares right, as long as I "get mine"? who gives a **** how badly it's "pilfered" or underfunded. I just want "mine".


SS Medicaide and Medicare were nothing more then blatant bribes by politicians promising things they have not, could not and never will be able to deliver on.

And your POV is that we "have to keep the system going because people paid into it?"

**** THOSE PEOPLE. They promised themselves MY MONEY.


Why do people insist on perpetuating this myth that just cause you paid the government means you have the right to keep demanding more even though it's FUBAR?
 
Perhaps they don't want to see their children suffer in old age. Has empathy ever occured to anyone?

Are you for real? They just wnat their kids money ot keep living how they want. Greedy, selfish bastards the lot of em.
 
Oh, you don't even get the irony of your comments! This is too rich!

Okay, years and years ago SS got set up, see, and they started taking from our paychecks to "help us when we need it most". Cause we're all just too ****ing stupid to manage money right. And over the years it became obvious to anyone with half a brain the system wasn't working as intended. I.E. "the government pilfering" BUT HEY, as long as I get my SS check, who cares? Then in the 60's Medicaide/Medicare comes about and it doesn't take long to figure out this is another "Give us your money so we can help you" scam. But who cares right, as long as I "get mine"? who gives a **** how badly it's "pilfered" or underfunded. I just want "mine".


SS Medicaide and Medicare were nothing more then blatant bribes by politicians promising things they have not, could not and never will be able to deliver on.

And your POV is that we "have to keep the system going because people paid into it?"

**** THOSE PEOPLE. They promised themselves MY MONEY.


Why do people insist on perpetuating this myth that just cause you paid the government means you have the right to keep demanding more even though it's FUBAR?

Nobody has suggested we increase benefits or that we don't need to do anything with the system. However, if you can't see an option in between privatization and "do nothing," I don't know what to tell you.
 
It's Obama that wants to create the death panels. How soon people forget.

you really need to get out and have your party sell that as their main 2012 message.
 
It's called The Independent Payment Advisory Board and they decide who gets to live and who gets to die.

Welcome to the real world.

So, show us in the bill where it says the consultation would be with this advisory board instead of your doctor.
 
Vicchio says

They sat around and did nothing while these programs just become more and more unsustainable, and now they demand to get what they were promised in return for their votes.

Actually what older Americans did was exactly the opposite. They spent most of their live working hard. They entered into a social contract with not only government but the rest of society as well and they honored their end of that contract. They did just what they were suppose to do and upheld their end of the bargain. They did not trade their votes and nobody can prove that they did not matter how many right wingers pontificate about such nonsense.
 
When a government board conducts end of life counciling, I would call that a death panel. What would you call it?


Considering death is a natural part of life...I'd consider it helping people make informed decisions about when to stop care.

As it is now, Medicare will pay for any and every life-extending technique that exists, and probably some that don't. What it doesn't pay for is for you to have a conversation with your doctor about how you want to die. That was what the "death panel" provision changed. It simply made this conversation coverable the same as hooking you up to the little machine that goes "beep."

I thought Conservatives were all about having the freedom to make your own choices, and to be empowered in areas like health care. Not in this case, I guess.
 
Considering death is a natural part of life...I'd consider it helping people make informed decisions about when to stop care.

As it is now, Medicare will pay for any and every life-extending technique that exists, and probably some that don't. What it doesn't pay for is for you to have a conversation with your doctor about how you want to die. That was what the "death panel" provision changed. It simply made this conversation coverable the same as hooking you up to the little machine that goes "beep."

I thought Conservatives were all about having the freedom to make your own choices, and to be empowered in areas like health care. Not in this case, I guess.

In this case, a (D) was doing it. President Obama could announce a plan to slash all tax rates, cut all entitlements, remove all handgun bans, repeal the healthcare reform law, and permanently ban all abortions and the GOP would still push every effort to attack him over it. It just doesn't matter what the Democrats do right now, the Republicans are vehemently against it. They aren't interested in governing, they're interested in winning. They aren't interested in even their own supposed ideals.
 
Considering death is a natural part of life...I'd consider it helping people make informed decisions about when to stop care.

As it is now, Medicare will pay for any and every life-extending technique that exists, and probably some that don't. What it doesn't pay for is for you to have a conversation with your doctor about how you want to die. That was what the "death panel" provision changed. It simply made this conversation coverable the same as hooking you up to the little machine that goes "beep."

I thought Conservatives were all about having the freedom to make your own choices, and to be empowered in areas like health care. Not in this case, I guess.

Some conservatives don't notice the similarities between their own entitlements and those of others. Some don't see the fundamental flaws inherent in both private and public health insurances. When a 3rd party administers disbursements for whole populations of people, they have to ration it somewhere and in some fashion. This destroys choice. Inability to afford something doesn't destroy choice, at least not in the way that handing over the entire checkbook to a stranger does.

Health insurance at its core is communistic. Keeping the industry
for-profit is just sprinkling it with artificial flavor of capitalism. Extreme as it seems to us this day and age, the only move that ultimately will keep these costs down for good is eliminating health insurance altogether and returning to cash-only.
 
Last edited:
Some conservatives don't notice the similarities between their own entitlements and those of others. Some don't see the fundamental flaws inherent in both private and public health insurances. When a 3rd party administers disbursements for whole populations of people, they have to ration it somewhere and in some fashion. This destroys choice. Inability to afford something doesn't destroy choice, at least not in the way that handing over the entire checkbook to a stranger does.

Given that one cannot choose what is not available, it absolutely destroys choice for the very same reasons.
 
Given that one cannot choose what is not available, it absolutely destroys choice for the very same reasons.

Again, choice is preserved when we decide how to save and spend our own money. Lamborghini is not destroying my sense of choice by pricing out of my range. Choice is destroyed when a third and/or fourth party manages an entire class of expenditures for us, and doubly destroyed when government makes non-participation in that scheme illegal.
 
Again, choice is preserved when we decide how to save and spend our own money. Lamborghini is not destroying my sense of choice by pricing out of my range. Choice is destroyed when a third and/or fourth partsy manages an entire class of expenditures for us, and doubly destroyed when government makes non-participation in that scheme illegal.

And you would be wrong. Because this car is outside of your financial range, you have no reasonable choice for that car. It may not destroy your SENSE of choice, but it does remove it from what is available to you, so it remove it in fact.

In the libertarian system, we theoretically have all sorts of choices, but if its not available in real life, than its just on paper and has no real world value.

However, this does not mean a lack of choice is a bad thing in and of itself. I cannot choose to have fairy dust be generated by my intestines and come out of my butt, but that does not server a purpose for me, so it does not matter. Alternatively, if I have no reasonable choice to do something harmful to myself, than it is for my good (I have no access to possess a lot of material which may be harmful to me, like something radioactive). Choice alone does not make a system good or bad, it depends on the situation in which that choice occurs.
 
Last edited:
it's 2 years since the party in power produced a budget in the senate

according to finance chair max baucus, conrad is not likely to come up with one this year either

Senate Dems' budget in limbo - The Hill's On The Money

in times like these

if something isn't done imminently to protect our precious programs they will expire

bill clinton chimed in today

shaking paul ryan's hand backstage at the debt forum (see the video), the former prez from the dlc told the embattled budget chair, "i'm glad we won this race in new york but i hope democrats don't use this as an excuse to do nothing"

"you shouldn't draw the conclusion that the new york race means that nobody can do anything to solve the rising medicare costs,” bubba blared to the forum

sotto voce, to ryan: "give me a call"

Bill Clinton to Paul Ryan: Give Me a Call

it appears obamacare didn't quite succeed in sufficiently bending the cost trajectory, eh, bill

last friday: With narrow majority, Senate Democrats adopt minimalist agenda - The Washington Post

"try to do next to nothing and have it look good"

"reid's approach is that doing nothing looks better for them"

i guess hurryup harry didn't get the memo

leadership, anyone?
 
Last edited:
today ryan was voted down in hurryup harry's house of hesitation

5 republicans bolted---snowe, collins, murkowski, scott brown

and rand paul from the right

more power to em, of course

and then obama's budget, the only piece on paper the party has produced in two years, published in february, the one that bizarrely RAISES deficit spending a brazen 20%, was voted DOWN in hurryup harry's handsome haberdashery, NINETY SEVEN to ZERO

Indeed, the vote on the president’s plan turned into a rout, with neither Republicans nor Democrats voting in favor of taking it up. At one level, the 97-0 vote showed how out-of-date the February requests can seem after so much has changed in the spending debate already this year. But for Democrats, it also proved a convenient way to mask their substantial internal differences over how to proceed,

Obama himself has also substantially altered his February requests as part of a “new framework” announced last month just prior to House-Senate talks with the administration led by Vice President Joe Biden. The immediate goal is to find the votes needed to expand Treasury’s borrowing authority and avert default this summer, but Biden has also spoken of the package as a “down payment” toward a longer range deficit reduction plan akin to what was proposed last December by the president’s debt commission.

Senate votes down Paul Ryan budget plan, 57-40 - David Rogers - POLITICO.com

fyi
 
Vicchio says



Actually what older Americans did was exactly the opposite. They spent most of their live working hard. They entered into a social contract with not only government but the rest of society as well and they honored their end of that contract. They did just what they were suppose to do and upheld their end of the bargain. They did not trade their votes and nobody can prove that they did not matter how many right wingers pontificate about such nonsense.

Oh, the poor hard working souls, they did everything right and now we have to honor that! NO, we do not.

THEY watched SS, Medicare and Medicaide become over bloated, over spent and wiped out. And what do they do now? Don't give a flip the system's dead, they just want "theirs".

Sorry, it's time to pull the plug on the whole social welfare state.
 
Oh, the poor hard working souls, they did everything right and now we have to honor that! NO, we do not.

THEY watched SS, Medicare and Medicaide become over bloated, over spent and wiped out. And what do they do now? Don't give a flip the system's dead, they just want "theirs".

Sorry, it's time to pull the plug on the whole social welfare state.

So you basically think government should be run like a mob. That we should lie and cheat and steal from our own citizens, because you seem to hate people.

Keep in mind, they were paying for everyone. Not everyone uses SS to the same extent, for the same amount of time, etc. I pay taxes on stuff I'll never use probably. I doubt SS will exist by the time I get to that age, but I still pay it.

And you know what? Happy to do so. Because I am not selfish enough to deny people access to things they need, even if I don't, and I'm not hateful enough to act in spite against my fellow countryman.
 
I respectfully disagree. This election provides a snapshot of what happens when the Republican vote is split between 2 candidates. Despite winning, the Democrat got under 50% of the vote. Had there only been the Republican in the race, and no Tea Party candidate, the district would have stayed red.

While that may be true, the fact remains that a dem scored 48% in a district where a dem should not have scored more than 35%.
 
obama took 46.4% of buffalo/erie in november, 08

liberal candidates alice kryzan and jon powers won 45% in the 08 house race

jack davis, then a dem, won 48% in 06, losing by 4 to tom reynolds

davis lost 44 to 56 to reynolds in 04

in 2000, 1998 and 1996 democrat maurice hinchey won the seat with 62, 62 and 55%, respectively

New York's 26th congressional district - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
So you basically think government should be run like a mob. That we should lie and cheat and steal from our own citizens, because you seem to hate people.

Keep in mind, they were paying for everyone. Not everyone uses SS to the same extent, for the same amount of time, etc. I pay taxes on stuff I'll never use probably. I doubt SS will exist by the time I get to that age, but I still pay it.

And you know what? Happy to do so. Because I am not selfish enough to deny people access to things they need, even if I don't, and I'm not hateful enough to act in spite against my fellow countryman.

If you want to pay for them go right ahead, but can do you me a favor? Keep the force at the door and your hands out of my pockets.
 
If you want to pay for them go right ahead, but can do you me a favor? Keep the force at the door and your hands out of my pockets.

Ok. How about we as a coutry just defund everything you need. If you take a rare prescription med you can only afford because of a program that prescribes it generic, de-fund it. Your safe water supply? De-fund it. Your public education system? De-fund it. Your local police force? Defund it. The infrastructure that allows your phone and internet connection? Defund it.

Because I don't use those things, and most other people in your state or the country as a whole don't either. Why should we help fund it? Pay for it yourself. All billions upon billions of dollars of it.

You want to live like a refugee in a 3rd world country? Be my guest.

Is that better?
 
Ok. How about we as a coutry just defund everything you need. If you take a rare prescription med you can only afford because of a program that prescribes it generic, de-fund it. Your safe water supply? De-fund it. Your public education system? De-fund it. Your local police force? Defund it. The infrastructure that allows your phone and internet connection? Defund it.

Because I don't use those things, and most other people in your state or the country as a whole don't either. Why should we help fund it? Pay for it yourself. All billions upon billions of dollars of it.

You want to live like a refugee in a 3rd world country? Be my guest.

Is that better?

Is that even a good argument? Police everyone uses even when they don't. Safe water is a joke and government doesn't provide it.

And phone and Internet connections shouldn't have funding. As for your medical example, no it shouldn't exist.

Well I guess you just failed.

And why is it all of sudden a 3rd country if the government doesn't baby sit people? WTF kind of logic is that?
 
Last edited:
It's Obama that wants to create the death panels. How soon people forget.

Cant create something that already exists in the private run healthcare system you all got over there.
 
Is that even a good argument? Police everyone uses even when they don't. Safe water is a joke and government doesn't provide it.

And phone and Internet connections shouldn't have funding. As for your medical example, no it shouldn't exist.

Well I guess you just failed.

And why is it all of sudden a 3rd country if the government doesn't baby sit people? WTF kind of logic is that?

I don't use the police in your city. Nor do the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Safe water isn't a joke. When was the last time someone in America died of water poisoning that wasn't from a backyard well? It may not be the best of the best, but it is safe. People die all the time in 3rd world countries from undrinkable water.

The infrastructure requires for phone and internet connections to the extent we have now is enormous. Defunding it would leave vast areas of the country without any sort of connection. They couldn't call the police if they tried.

I didn't fail at anything. Unsafe drinking water, no crime deterence, no education, and no medicine = the standard mode of operation for a 3rd world country.
 
Back
Top Bottom