• 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!

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

As an aside, I found the Stossel article a day or so after the report came out, when I already read portions of the consolidated report. Stossel is a whining turd.
Based solely on your glowing recommendation I decided to read it. :)
 
Wrong. The whole reason it starts at 55 and not 35 is because the repubs want to pay for bonds held for 2025 with medicare money instead of trying to find better sources of revenue and actually fixing the government's budget by getting rid of useless agencies.

i have no idea where you got this idea. Republicans specifically repeal the raid on Medicare funds (which, thanks to Obamacare, is current law) in their 2012 budget.

We start the program in 10 years because if we wait any longer the whole damn thing goes down, and takes the rest of the country with it. 10 years is about as long as we can push out without drastic and painful fixes elsewhere, likely to current seniors.

The insurance market is what drives medical prices up in the first place

you are partially correct. it is our unwillingness to allow health insurance to function as health insurance that serves significantly to cause prices to rise as fast as they do.

but I notice you didnt' answer the point about the false assumptions that feed that number, and their history of poor prediction based upon the inaccuracy of those assumptions.
 
Last edited:
Whoa, whoa, you mean Dems want to get rid of useless government agencies? I think they have be much more of an impediment to that and have been instrumental in adding more agencies through their policies.

For your second part, didnt medical costs begin to spiral upward when Medicare and Medicaid entered the market? Or is that just coincidence?


yes. the research I've seen indicates that Medicare alone is responsible for about 50% of the costs increases between it's start and 1990.
 
If the cost of health care is so troubling why don't we just stop paying for it completely? Let's start right after July 4th, Independence Day. No more talk of single payer. No more insurance plans. Just pay a fee for service. Why not buy health care like we buy groceries?
 
If the cost of health care is so troubling why don't we just stop paying for it completely? Let's start right after July 4th, Independence Day. No more talk of single payer. No more insurance plans. Just pay a fee for service. Why not buy health care like we buy groceries?

The providers that do that are able to provide healthcare at rates that far undercut current spending.

There is a clinic in Tennessee, for example, that uses precisely the model you propose - and the prices it charges it's patients are roughly one-half to one-third the general cost under our third-party-payment model.


Incidentally; I graduated from Virgil I Grissom High back gosh a decade ago. :) always good to see another Bama Boy on the forums.
 
Incidentally; I graduated from Virgil I Grissom High back gosh a decade ago. :) always good to see another Bama Boy on the forums.
Very cool. I have a checkered past. Twenty years in the Army, started one of the first Internet Service Provider companies in Texas, managed a network engineering company with offices in two cities, then moved into the track that brought me to Alabama. This has to be the world's best kept secret.

Oops. Did I just type that out loud?
 
If the cost of health care is so troubling why don't we just stop paying for it completely? Let's start right after July 4th, Independence Day. No more talk of single payer. No more insurance plans. Just pay a fee for service. Why not buy health care like we buy groceries?

Because HMO became mandatory under republicans\\
We start the program in 10 years because if we wait any longer the whole damn thing goes down, and takes the rest of the country with it. 10 years is about as long as we can push out without drastic and painful fixes elsewhere, likely to current seniors.

The reason repubs start 10 years is because they don't want to pay for it. It can easily be made solvent for another 20-30 years (starting today) if money was taken from other programs and feed into it. If Ryan's plan didn't start at 55, seniors wouldn't be up in arms about it.
 
Last edited:
Did I say dems?

Medical cost began to spiral upward when HMOs were made mandatory and therefore common place.

No you said republicans, its utterly fascetious to blame it on Republicans when Democrats are guiltier over the years and currently blocking all attempts to make cuts in negotiating. IE you are full of bull caca with this statement.

The medicare and medicaid question was rhetorical, I know they both caused a dramatic increase in medical costs since their inception into the system. Go look at a cost graph, medical costs trended sharply upward after the introduction of medicare and medicaid.

HMOs Im not sure of but your statement seems contrary to every story I have always read about HMOs and cost control. But I will admit I need to know more before making a thorough statement regarding them. ACOs are being hailed as HMO.2 so Im assuming you dislike those as well?
 
The reason repubs start 10 years is because they don't want to pay for it. It can easily be made solvent for another 20-30 years (starting today) if money was taken from other programs and feed into it.

that is correct. for example, if we got rid of Social Security we could probably prop up Medicare for 20 years; I would be hesitant to say 30.

but good luck selling that.
 
fantastic. the more of the Ryan Plan that we can get attached to this, the better.


People want to fix the deficit, yet personal income taxes are at an all time low. No one is really serious about fixing the deficit unless they are willing to discuss taxes.

The party of fools vs. the party of wimps... God help us.
 
Last edited:
People want to fix the deficit, yet personal income taxes are at an all time low. No one is really serious about fixing the deficit unless they are willing to discuss taxes.

The party of fools vs. the party of wimps... God help us.

they Ryan plan does discuss taxes. specifically the changes we can make to the code in order to keep revenue neutral while spurring rapid growth.

if you are thinking of increasing revenue by hiking rates, however.... you might as well forget it.

hauser.gif


as you can see, revenues generally are not a function of tax rates. they are a function of GDP. if you want to increase revenue, therefore, you have to increase GDP. one of the easiest and best ways to do this quickly is to reduce complexity in the tax code - which currently costs us $431 Billion and encourages all manner of non-productive behavior besides.

xipher said:
Because HMO became mandatory under republicans

out of curiosity, could you show me where they have done this, because I can't find it.
 
that is correct. for example, if we got rid of Social Security we could probably prop up Medicare for 20 years; I would be hesitant to say 30.

but good luck selling that.

Or eliminating section of the executive branch that are useless, or closing down military bases over seas (you don't need to fire military personal to do that), o raising taxes slightly etc.

Create a law. Change a law. Easy Peasy.

Its actually harder to change a law than it is to pass it because now you have vested interest in the continuation of the law and ignorance. I agree it should be changed, it would have been better if it never passed in the first place.

out of curiosity, could you show me where they have done this, because I can't find it.

Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Or eliminating section of the executive branch that are useless, or closing down military bases over seas (you don't need to fire military personal to do that), o raising taxes slightly etc.

1. raising tax rates won't increase revenue. increasing GDP will increase revenue.
2. there isn't enough money in the other things you cite to push Medicare back the distance that you are hoping. If we were to pull every single Military member back from overseas, that still would not be nearly enough money to push Medicare back as far as you are hoping.
3. and why are we talking about just pushing back the crash date? that's what we've been doing for decades - and now that point is here. in 20-30 years do we want to wake up and realize that the only path to survival is to deeply cut or eliminate benefits for current retirees. why not be responsible now - instead of choosing to pass more pain onto our children?


:confused: your link does not seem to say what you claimed. It says employers of over 25 employees have to offer them; not that employees have to take it, nor that medicare patients have to take one.
 
1. raising tax rates won't increase revenue. increasing GDP will increase revenue.
2. there isn't enough money in the other things you cite to push Medicare back the distance that you are hoping. If we were to pull every single Military member back from overseas, that still would not be nearly enough money to push Medicare back as far as you are hoping.
3. and why are we talking about just pushing back the crash date? that's what we've been doing for decades - and now that point is here. in 20-30 years do we want to wake up and realize that the only path to survival is to deeply cut or eliminate benefits for current retirees. why not be responsible now - instead of choosing to pass more pain onto our children?

The delay is needed in order to give people enough time to save money up to pay for their own health care if the goal is to push most of the cost off of the government onto individuals. 10 years is not enough time to save for 20+ years of health care cost.
 
Last edited:
i see why you want a delay. and i understand that you think 10 years isn't enough (I disagree, especially if we take some alternative measures in the meantime that can reduce costs, and especially once you consider that people won't be purchasing full-parity plans).

what you don't seem to be getting is that 10 years is all we have. we don't have the option of waiting 20 years because Medicare will not be there in 20 years.
 
i see why you want a delay. and i understand that you think 10 years isn't enough (I disagree, especially if we take some alternative measures in the meantime that can reduce costs, and especially once you consider that people won't be purchasing full-parity plans).

what you don't seem to be getting is that 10 years is all we have. we don't have the option of waiting 20 years because Medicare will not be there in 20 years.


The point isnt the 10 yrs cpwill....the point was they outright lied to us. They said quote over and over, nothing will change if your 55 or over. LIE....What would be the truth is it changes immediately for people aged 55 when they become eligible for medicare at 65 and it changes for EVERYONE over 55 thats still alive in 10 yrs....they lied period.

But it may not make any difference either way...America doesnt seem to be liking Ryans middle class pays for what I give to the rich deficit neutral plan.

CNN Poll: Majority gives thumbs down to Ryan plan – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
 
The point isnt the 10 yrs cpwill....the point was they outright lied to us. They said quote over and over, nothing will change if your 55 or over.

and under their plan that is correct. that's not the case under current law, but that law is repealed in the House 2012 budget.

LIE....What would be the truth is it changes immediately for people aged 55 when they become eligible for medicare at 65 and it changes for EVERYONE over 55 thats still alive in 10 yrs....they lied period.

people who are currently 55 retire under the old system, unchanged. people who are currently 54 retire under the new system.


:shrug: people don't like any plan that makes us grow up.

but every age group over 30 like Ryan's plan better than the Presidents' - including seniors. I guess they like the sound of their benefits getting slashed in 2014 not at all.
 
from the poll:

"A majority of all demographic groups don't favor the GOP Medicare proposals," Holland adds. "That includes conservatives - 54 percent of them don't like the plan. As a result, rank-and-file Republicans are split right down the middle, with 48 percent favoring the GOP plan and 50 percent opposed."

The poll is another sign that the House Republicans’ Medicare proposal could be politically damaging to the party. Last week the Democrats won a special election to fill a vacant House seat in New York's 26th congressional district, which the GOP held for over a generation. The Ryan Medicare plan became a major issue in the race, with both the Democratic and Republican candidates, the party committees and outside organizations spending millions of dollars to run ads that focused on Medicare.
 
well yeah, when you poll in a vacuum, that's what you get.

but we aren't competing in a vacuum. That's why Democrats don't want to pass a budget - they don't want to have to have their plan compete against Ryan's.

when you do put them head-to-head, the picture shifts:

Americans Divided Over Ryan vs. Obama Deficit Plans

baidvf9hm0kke-caef-wna.gif


and when you compare the competing parties in Congress (since the first was the Republican Congress v the President) the picture shifts even more:

4iwfh4xepk6_zevu5j38xq.gif


and when you start looking at priorities, people are actually more concerned that the Democrats won't cut enough to avoid a debt crises than they are that Republicans will cut too much out of the entitlements:

aak2iqhqvewepqh4wdjfew.gif




and so when you look at the fuller picture, a different split begins to emerge.
 
I don't suggest a vaccum, but that this particular plan isn't a winner. It isn't about comparison. It is the plan standing on its own.
 
CP will is so partisan he wants to hear nothing less than ryans plan is LOVED by all...you need to get over it buddy...ryans plan as written will not float.
All I hear in florida how he is lieing to us...
 
I don't suggest a vaccum, but that this particular plan isn't a winner. It isn't about comparison. It is the plan standing on its own.

I totally agree that medicare needs to be fixed....but any plan put forth by either party has to be HONEST and UPFRONT and not include any tax breaks for anyone...
A straight deficit reduction plan that includes sacred cows like subsidies for corporations with no competition at all and who have never had a loss...OIL and pet democrat sacred cows need to go.....share the pain across the board....ryans plan gives all the pain to the middle class down and pleasure to the wealthiest and corporations....its dead
 
We start the program in 10 years because if we wait any longer the whole damn thing goes down, and takes the rest of the country with it. 10 years is about as long as we can push out without drastic and painful fixes elsewhere, likely to current seniors.

CP you just pull this stuff out of your head dont you...wow, your the worst doom and gloomer ive seen. Medicare can be repaired forever...the teaparty wants it gone PERIOD and they will spout the same doom and gloom and dread you do to try and make it happen....


he reason repubs start 10 years is because they don't want to pay for it. It can easily be made solvent for another 20-30 years (starting today) if money was taken from other programs and feed into it. If Ryan's plan didn't start at 55, seniors wouldn't be up in arms about it.

That statement is mostly true....but as a senior who is active in a few orgs in florida with seniors....its more that they LIED to try and flamboozle it through that got everyones arse up down here...Over and over they told us...It doesnt effect anyone 55 and above nothing changes ever for any of you....even their head cheerer cpwill repeated that over and over in threads....and the truth is that is a LIE...for 55 yr olds it changes immediately upon them being eligible at 65, then it changes for all of us in 10 yrs....that and the huge tax breaks for the richest americans while they stick it to everyone else....

Again, Deficit reduction plan ONLY that has pain from the top to the botton and right to left....that includes the richest americans and corporations and the middleclass.
Stop loopholes that allow GE to piss in the entire countries face...14.9 billion profit and got a 300 million tax credit from US..plus subsidies....they dont need a TAX Cut to start paying some taxs and for us to close some of their loopholes.....yanno this ryan plan is totally full of **** seriously...any working man that falls for this needs a lobotamy
 
So the Republicans need to just say yes to raising the debt ceiling because Democrats want and need that. But if they want to throw in any of their ideas into the bill it means they aren't willing to compromise? Should they just sit back and approve of raising the debt ceiling again because Democrats want them to? I'm sorry, but I see this as Dems not willing to compromise with anything the Republicans might want. They are the House majority party, there will need to be some bi-partisan talks and compromising.
 
Back
Top Bottom