Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 108

Thread: McConnell: Paul Ryan Medicare Plan 'On The Table' In Debt Ceiling Discussions

  1. #91
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,147

    Re: McConnell: Paul Ryan Medicare Plan 'On The Table' In Debt Ceiling Discussions

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You sound like a man who has never dealt with one. Getting money can be difficult even when you're right.
    no doubt. but getting money out of government in this instance is impossible'

    Suing is hardly a sure thing, and you might actually have an easier time with the government
    that is incorrect - the law is written so that even Congress has a hard time overturning their decisions.

    I think there are those who feel they are entitled, no matter how well off they are, I have heard the argument many times. But I hope you're right on that one. I just don't think you are.
    Americans are generally good hearted people. I refuse to give up hope.

    The devil is always in the details. If you change them so much that they really don't do anything, there is not much point. What Ryan does goes a long way towward giving seniors and others much less and toward reforming it in a way that is positive and meaningful.
    this is incorrect. yes, the Ryan plan gives people less - but he also gives them what we can afford to give, and he makes sure that those who have difficulty making up the difference get more support to help them. Medicare still offers guaranteed coverage, and it still takes care of the elderly. but we can no longer afford the plans we have been giving.

    No, you didn't. I know you think that any old thing you throw up is overwhelming, but it isn't. And I make no mistake at all with Dr. Berry. There are more than enough sick people, wealthy sick people
    apparently you missed the part where the prices he charges range from one-half to one-third that of the market.

    He doesn't have to lower anything much. I know the profession fairly well.
    given your schooling by Jeezy where you claimed that state-funded research could match private research.... I would say maybe not as much as you think

    Going this route universally will never lower the costs enough to make it affordable for a all, or even a majority, and will leave a large number outside without adequate care.
    i never said universally. but it is an option, and the more it is implemented the more prices across the board will be driven down.

  2. #92
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: McConnell: Paul Ryan Medicare Plan 'On The Table' In Debt Ceiling Discussions

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    no doubt. but getting money out of government in this instance is impossible'
    Sounds like an insurance company to me.

    that is incorrect - the law is written so that even Congress has a hard time overturning their decisions.
    Hard is not impossible.

    Americans are generally good hearted people. I refuse to give up hope.
    All for hope. But it won't trump reality. Sadly.


    this is incorrect. yes, the Ryan plan gives people less - but he also gives them what we can afford to give, and he makes sure that those who have difficulty making up the difference get more support to help them. Medicare still offers guaranteed coverage, and it still takes care of the elderly. but we can no longer afford the plans we have been giving.
    No, it actually doesn't, not even means testing. It doesn't keep up and in the end it is reasonable to foresee them getting less.

    apparently you missed the part where the prices he charges range from one-half to one-third that of the market.
    Nope, didn't miss that at all. And it changes nothing I said. Remember, he is alone, only one, and cannot represent what would happen overall, and for a number, even this would be too much. As his is based on no one having insurance, and not accepting government money, that is how we have to frame it as a future cost saving measure. It simply would not do the job.



    given your schooling by Jeezy where you claimed that state-funded research could match private research.... I would say maybe not as much as you think
    There's been no schooling and frankly your comment suggests you have no understanding of what has been argued. You're going to the j school of debate, which is slightly better than the Prof school. And I do know the profession quite well.

    i never said universally. but it is an option, and the more it is implemented the more prices across the board will be driven down.
    But that's the premise, without going universally, you have what you have now. A few here and there with no effect at all.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #93
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,147

    Re: McConnell: Paul Ryan Medicare Plan 'On The Table' In Debt Ceiling Discussions

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Sounds like an insurance company to me.
    then you need to get your hearing checked - people get money out of insurance agencies all the time.

    flippancy does not become this debate.

    Hard is not impossible.
    that is correct - any time they can work up the same percentage that it takes to overturn a Presidential Veto they can overturn a decision by the IPAB. Now, given that that is the hurdle you have to jump over, what do you think the odds are that you will see more success out of that than you would suing an insurance company that is in breach of contract.

    All for hope. But it won't trump reality. Sadly.
    well if you think reality is that Americans are too greedy to try to protect the poor then we are just going to have to disagree.

    No, it actually doesn't, not even means testing
    in fact it does - the coverage is guaranteed by law.

    Nope, didn't miss that at all. And it changes nothing I said. Remember, he is alone, only one, and cannot represent what would happen overall, and for a number, even this would be too much.
    cutting healthcare costs by 1/2 to 1/3 is pretty impressive - and you offer precisely zero evidence that this wouldn't work for anyone other than him.

    As his is based on no one having insurance, and not accepting government money, that is how we have to frame it as a future cost saving measure. It simply would not do the job.
    he's not. he's basing it on people paying cash for service. this sort of thing would work splendidly with high-deductible plans.

    There's been no schooling and frankly your comment suggests you have no understanding of what has been argued. You're going to the j school of debate, which is slightly better than the Prof school. And I do know the profession quite well.
    lol, once upon a time, boo, i might have even agreed with that last line. since then...
    Last edited by cpwill; 06-11-11 at 12:27 AM.

  4. #94
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: McConnell: Paul Ryan Medicare Plan 'On The Table' In Debt Ceiling Discussions

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    then you need to get your hearing checked - people get money out of insurance agencies all the time.

    flippancy does not become this debate.
    No, my hearing is fine, and i wasn't flippant. Is see little difference.

    that is correct - any time they can work up the same percentage that it takes to overturn a Presidential Veto they can overturn a decision by the IPAB. Now, given that that is the hurdle you have to jump over, what do you think the odds are that you will see more success out of that than you would suing an insurance company that is in breach of contract.
    And you have to jump over major hrdles concerning an insurance conmpany as well, who have much more money and lawters, and a maze of rules and such to get through.


    well if you think reality is that Americans are too greedy to try to protect the poor then we are just going to have to disagree.
    Wow, what a leap. This is the definition of a strawman. Seriously, dude.

    in fact it does - the coverage is guaranteed by law.
    No, limited coverage.

    cutting healthcare costs by 1/2 to 1/3 is pretty impressive - and you offer precisely zero evidence that this wouldn't work for anyone other than him.
    Yes, I have offered evidence through logic. For all to do this, you ahve to end government aid and healthcare, as that is what he did. So, this means, that some would be left outside of care, as it was before insurance.

    he's not. he's basing it on people paying cash for service. this sort of thing would work splendidly with high-deductible plans.
    Right., Cash and not insurance. Now add the two. Link the logic.

    lol, once upon a time, boo, i might have even agreed with that last line. since then...
    And that is whn you would have been right. Your ideology blinds you to reality and the profession, of which you ahve very limited knowledge.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #95
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: McConnell: Paul Ryan Medicare Plan 'On The Table' In Debt Ceiling Discussions

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt Meowenstein View Post
    McConnell is refering to the Ryan budget. The budget that effectively ends Medicare. There is no way in hell Dems will go along with that. Therefore; there will be no deal if McConnel insists on those terms. Get back to me when you have a clue.
    Senator McConnell almost certainly knows that the Democrats will not accept Congressman Ryan's proposed solution for Medicare. It's an opening position. Notice that with respect to a deal, Senator McConnell stated "Medicare will be a part of it" but did not get more specific than that. That broad statement is not accidental. It leaves a lot of flexibility for both the magnitude and type of Medicare reforms that he could possibly accept.

  6. #96
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: McConnell: Paul Ryan Medicare Plan 'On The Table' In Debt Ceiling Discussions

    Quote Originally Posted by Sgt Meowenstein View Post
    McConnell is refering to the Ryan budget. The budget that effectively ends Medicare. There is no way in hell Dems will go along with that. Therefore; there will be no deal if McConnel insists on those terms. Get back to me when you have a clue.
    The Hyperbole King!
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #97
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,147

    Re: McConnell: Paul Ryan Medicare Plan 'On The Table' In Debt Ceiling Discussions

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No, my hearing is fine, and i wasn't flippant. Is see little difference.
    you see little difference between a private entity against whom suit can be brought, and who pays out money on a constant basis...

    ...and a board of bureaucrats against whose decisions cannot be contested and who by law will thus pay out nothing at all.


    this is like your north/south korea thing, Boo - you are testing the limits of reality here in your desire to defend a poorly chosen argument.

    And you have to jump over major hrdles concerning an insurance conmpany as well, who have much more money and lawters, and a maze of rules and such to get through.
    yes, and you have to run a gamut of hurdles to get a McDonalds Cheeseburger, from finding the place, to getting to the place, to getting through the door, to waiting in line....

    it's not a matter of whether or not one has to work for it - it's a matter of scale. to get money out of an insurance agency you fill out the right forms and if they try anything funny you hire a lawyer. to get money out of the government in this case you have to get the equivalent of a Constitutional Amendment passed.


    Wow, what a leap. This is the definition of a strawman. Seriously, dude.
    I said that Americans would support means-testing as a way to protect the poor, you argued that they wouldn't because that would entail a loss of benefits for upper and middle class Americans, I disagree that I don't think Americans are that greedy and your only response is to try to pretend like you don't have to respond.....

    No, limited coverage.
    coverage for which those who can afford it pick up more of the premium is not "limited coverage"

    Yes, I have offered evidence through logic.
    no you haven't, you've just offered a series of just-so statements.

    For all to do this, you ahve to end government aid and healthcare, as that is what he did.
    no you don't. you simply have to have people willing to pay in cash. people on an HSA, for example.

    Right., Cash and not insurance. Now add the two. Link the logic.
    the logic is not "ergo, there can be no insurance".

    And that is whn you would have been right.
    yup; once upon a time.... even then you were slippery, but at least you were quality when you staked out a position. it all started to go downhill for you, I think, when the war in Iraq turned around.

  8. #98
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,147

    Re: McConnell: Paul Ryan Medicare Plan 'On The Table' In Debt Ceiling Discussions

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Senator McConnell almost certainly knows that the Democrats will not accept Congressman Ryan's proposed solution for Medicare. It's an opening position. Notice that with respect to a deal, Senator McConnell stated "Medicare will be a part of it" but did not get more specific than that. That broad statement is not accidental. It leaves a lot of flexibility for both the magnitude and type of Medicare reforms that he could possibly accept.

    perhaps they will accept the Simpson-Bowles proposal - that would be good.

  9. #99
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: McConnell: Paul Ryan Medicare Plan 'On The Table' In Debt Ceiling Discussions

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    you see little difference between a private entity against whom suit can be brought, and who pays out money on a constant basis...

    ...and a board of bureaucrats against whose decisions cannot be contested and who by law will thus pay out nothing at all.


    this is like your north/south korea thing, Boo - you are testing the limits of reality here in your desire to defend a poorly chosen argument.
    Your tactic is alwys to tery andf take it where it isn't so you can make such silly claims. The fact is, actually winning anything is difficult to impossible with both. This is the point.

    yes, and you have to run a gamut of hurdles to get a McDonalds Cheeseburger, from finding the place, to getting to the place, to getting through the door, to waiting in line....
    Another silly comparison that is not remotely the same. How do you expect someone to address something so silly?

    it's not a matter of whether or not one has to work for it - it's a matter of scale. to get money out of an insurance agency you fill out the right forms and if they try anything funny you hire a lawyer. to get money out of the government in this case you have to get the equivalent of a Constitutional Amendment passed.
    And the scale isn't that different. If it were as small as you example, you would be correct. But as they are much closer, it comes across as just stupid. If you're going to make the scale argument, show me how they are not closer than your example.



    I said that Americans would support means-testing as a way to protect the poor, you argued that they wouldn't because that would entail a loss of benefits for upper and middle class Americans, I disagree that I don't think Americans are that greedy and your only response is to try to pretend like you don't have to respond.....
    Means testing will effect more than the poor. It isn't as much about greed as it is about feeling entitled and seeing their need as different than the standards the testing will likely have. For example, some see $14,000 a year as the standard for help for a family of four. Would you argue someone at $16,000 year didn't see it differently? It's not greed as much as not accepting the standard the government is likley to present.


    coverage for which those who can afford it pick up more of the premium is not "limited coverage"
    Just so we don't get lost in your diversions, we're speakign about the entire program, which will decrease benefits, apart from means testing, which will mean in fact limited coverage. Picking more is only possible if you really can pick up more. Otherwise, it will be limited.


    no you haven't, you've just offered a series of just-so statements.
    Yes, and if you add the series of statements together, you know, reading the whole to see what it adds up to instead of mindless breaking it down to parts as if they were separate, you might see what I'm saying.


    no you don't. you simply have to have people willing to pay in cash. people on an HSA, for example.
    I'm sorry, that makes no sense. To pay cash, you have to have cash. Are you suggesting we hand people cash?


    the logic is not "ergo, there can be no insurance".
    If you are paying cash, there is no insurance to cover to cover it.


    yup; once upon a time.... even then you were slippery, but at least you were quality when you staked out a position. it all started to go downhill for you, I think, when the war in Iraq turned around.
    Turned around? Even there your view is through some weird colored glasses.

    CP, long before now, long before Bush went with any surge or anything, your tactics angered even people who shraed your ideological bent. I orignally started speaking to you about it back then because so many spoke of it, people who liked you like I do. You're no where near as good as you think you are. Few of us are. But before you can critize someone's logic you have to understand it and when you look only at parts, removed from the whole, and don't connect them, you simply don't have the understanding to comment.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #100
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,147

    Re: McConnell: Paul Ryan Medicare Plan 'On The Table' In Debt Ceiling Discussions

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Your tactic is alwys to tery andf take it where it isn't so you can make such silly claims. The fact is, actually winning anything is difficult to impossible with both. This is the point.
    yes, i get what you are trying to say. the problem is that what you are trying to say isn't connected to reality. people can and do get money out of their insurance companies all the time. I have done so on multiple occasions.

    Another silly comparison that is not remotely the same
    it is, in fact, more comparable than your own. the nature of the two are the same - it is merely the degree that differs. whereas the comparison you are attempting to draw is between two items of opposing nature.

    but I don't expect you to address it at all. you have consistently demonstrated yourself unwilling to do so, preferring to be dismissive rather than try to actually engage.

    And the scale isn't that different.
    really. You think that filling out a piece of paperwork or hiring a lawyer... is the equivalent of passing a Constitutional Amendment.


    like the North/South Korea thing, Boo, you are beyond rationality here in your attempt to defend a stupid point. There is a reason even Democrats are turning on the IPAB.

    Means testing will effect more than the poor.
    it will effect both the poor and the well-off, that is correct.

    It isn't as much about greed as it is about feeling entitled
    see - "feeling entitled" to someone else's money... that's what we call greed.

    and seeing their need as different than the standards the testing will likely have.
    you are saying everyone always wants more. I am saying in a zero-sum distribution; people will accept shifting the support that is currently weighted towards the wealthy towards the impoverished instead.

    For example, some see $14,000 a year as the standard for help for a family of four. Would you argue someone at $16,000 year didn't see it differently?
    that depends entirely on the family, place, and time. when I was bringing in about $24000 a year with a family I didn't think I needed any help, and a family in most nations around the world would consider themselves solid middle class or even wealthy on $16,000 a year. As an American today I'm fully willing to extend such people more aid when it comes to the entitlements.... and I'm willing to cut the entitlements to someone bringing in $70K to do it.

    It's not greed as much as not accepting the standard the government is likley to present.
    specifically with regards to themselves?

    here's a question: do you even know at what point the means-testing begins to tilt extra support to the senior? or are you just throwing out randomness desperately attempting to dodge the point?

    Just so we don't get lost in your diversions, we're speakign about the entire program, which will decrease benefits, apart from means testing, which will mean in fact limited coverage. Picking more is only possible if you really can pick up more. Otherwise, it will be limited.
    in that sense coverage is already limited due to the constant of scarcity of resources. as for Reduced Benefit - I'm less sure. We will definitely see decreased expenditures; but if we see anything like the success story we saw the last time we put into play something like this we may see not nearly the kind of benefit reduction that worry us enough to impose means-testing.

    I'm sorry, that makes no sense. To pay cash, you have to have cash. Are you suggesting we hand people cash?
    do you know what a "high deductible plan" is? are you aware of what an "HSA" is? I ask this in honesty because you say that the notion of people paying in cash makes no sense - yet if you knew about those two items, then the only way that such a concept couldn't make sense to you would be if you were mentally deficient; and so I must assume lack of knowledge rather than assume idiocy. or perhaps it was just an oversight? a missed connection?

    If you are paying cash, there is no insurance to cover to cover it.
    or you have chosen not to have your insurance cover it, or you are on a high-deductible plan.

    Turned around? Even there your view is through some weird colored glasses.
    says the man who kept changing the goal posts. well the election hasn't gone off well. well it went off well but the sunni didn't participate. well the election went off well, and now the sunni are now participating but violence is still high. the elections have gone off well, the Sunni are participating, and violence is decreasing, but violence still isn't below 2005 (no idea why you picked that year) levels. Well, the elections have gone off well, the Sunni are participating, violence is below 2005 levels, but we always knew this would happen and the Surge troops haven't left yet. How many times did you predict massive civil war?

    and all the while you are loudly proclaiming that Afghanistan is the "good" war, that that is where we should be "surging" and that is where we should be sticking it through.... and so did nearly everyone else on the anti-Iraq side of the aisle, throwing out support for Afghanistan as their shield to charges that they were weak on national security and willing to lose the war.....

    .... now, let me see if I can recall... When McCrystal asked for another 40,000 troops and a surge to stick it through your response was.....
    .... and your reaction to Obama deciding to go for what is politically popular rather than necessary to finish that conflict will be.....

    and the faux-support you and your compatriots pretended to have for Afghanistan shrivels up minus the need to use it as a cover.

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •