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

Boo Radley said:

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.

Click to expand...

no, plans do not exist in a vacuum, and must be compared to the alternatives available.

lpast said:

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

Click to expand...

you post this crap, i demonstrate how you are incorrect, i ask you for your evidence of your claims, and your response is to flee to another thread and post the same crap.... :roll:

digsbe said:

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.

Click to expand...

Please remind me, was it 7 or 8 times the debt limit was raised under Bush??

honestly I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't more. Bush was a pretty big spender.

cpwill said:

you post this crap, i demonstrate how you are incorrect, i ask you for your evidence of your claims, and your response is to flee to another thread and post the same crap.... :roll:

Click to expand...

Flee nowhere...im not answering your same question over and over, you are incorrect...you show me where a person 55 nothing changes for them under ryans plan...when it CLEARLY states in ryans plan in 10 yrs premium support starts..which means a person 55 everything changes for them...thats number 1...now AGAIN for the last time...abolishing the inheritance tax and the capitol gains tax benefits ONLY the richest americans and has no business in a deficit reduction plan that inflicts pain on senior citizens and the poor...
Cp ...you need to be a bit less partisan and not cheerlead for every single teaparty talking point...to hear you tell it whatever they say comes from the mouth of god and is gospel...sorry buddy I was like that and I outgrew it...

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs...ould-pay-most-of-their-income-for-health-care


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/31/american-sauce-the-ryan-medicare-plan/

- Here's how the Congressional Budget Office looked at that in dollars.
- CBO estimated that in 2022, the government would allot $8000 for a 65-year-old, to go toward buying a health insurance plan.
- CBO estimated that the 65-year-old would then pay an additional $12,500 for that plan and for all out-of-pocket costs.

cpwill said:

no, plans do not exist in a vacuum, and must be compared to the alternatives available.

Click to expand...

No. Not liking either doesn't make one good. Not even better really. It's not about a vaccum. It's about start over as this won't do.

Boo Radley said:

No. Not liking either doesn't make one good. Not even better really. It's not about a vaccum. It's about start over as this won't do.

Click to expand...

:shrug: nothing will be "good" in the sense that we will get more in benefits.

but this is a question of political contest, and so yes, it comes down to a question of whose medicine you prefer, and whose you think most likely to save the patient.

lpast said:

Flee nowhere...im not answering your same question over and over, you are incorrect...you show me where a person 55 nothing changes for them under ryans plan...when it CLEARLY states in ryans plan in 10 yrs premium support starts..which means a person 55 everything changes for them

Click to expand...

55 is the cut off for the old plan. if you are 54 today you will enroll under the new.

but that's not what you claim - you have claimed that it changes Medicare for the worse for current retirees, to the tune of hundreds of dollars a month.

abolishing the inheritance tax and the capitol gains tax benefits ONLY the richest americans

Click to expand...

this is wildly incorrect. Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that repealing the Capital Gains Tax would cause the investment of Trillions of extra dollars in the American economy in a matter of months.

If you want to reduce the deficit, you need to increase revenue. If you want to increase revenue, you have to increase GDP. If you want to increase GDP, getting rid of the capital gains tax is an excellent way to do it.

.....

but you know what? that whole bit is moot.

because the House 2012 Budget does not eliminate the death tax, and it does not eliminate the capital gains tax

you have confused the 2012 Budget with Ryan's previous work, the Roadmap For America; which has never been passed by the House, but which does contain the elimination of both of those taxes.


now.


you can either admit that you were wrong, or you can run away to another thread in a day... or three... and post the same false claim.


we'll see what you choose.

Cp ...you need to be a bit less partisan and not cheerlead for every single teaparty talking point...to hear you tell it whatever they say comes from the mouth of god and is gospel...sorry buddy I was like that and I outgrew it...

Click to expand...

:roll: I called for the election of Obama because I wanted to punish the Republican Party. I wrote long, angry letters to the local, state, and national party headquarters. I sent money to anyone running against a Republican incumbent that I thought had a chance and would be a better replacement. The Republican Party is a pack of fools - but this One Thing they seem to have gotten mostly right.

- Here's how the Congressional Budget Office looked at that in dollars.
- CBO estimated that in 2022, the government would allot $8000 for a 65-year-old, to go toward buying a health insurance plan.

Click to expand...

That's because the CBO scores dynamically - they either dont' or can't take into effect actual changes in the market so they have to assume current trends continue. that's why they overestimated Medicare D to the tune of 41% - because they don't factor in for the natural changes in a market that occur when you introduce choice.

- CBO estimated that the 65-year-old would then pay an additional $12,500 for that plan and for all out-of-pocket costs.

Click to expand...

unless of course they couldn't afford it in which case the government picked up the tab - I notice you don't mention the $7,800 extra that the government provides in premium support for those who means -test as needing it.

cpwill said:

:shrug: nothing will be "good" in the sense that we will get more in benefits.

but this is a question of political contest, and so yes, it comes down to a question of whose medicine you prefer, and whose you think most likely to save the patient.

Click to expand...

What you don't see is the answer is neither. It is not we'll take the one over the other. The answer is neither is good enough. And because of the reasoning, the one more likley to inspire voter turnout, one could fair better in a poll, but not at the polls, where it counts. However, the point is neither gets support. So no one can claim victory.

I do not understand Republicans. The populace, well at least those who actually have something to lose under Ryan's plan, have rejected his plan. McConnell wants to make this plan the GOP starting point in debt ceiling negotiation? And there are people on here saying they will win 2012?

I am comfortable with them having this position completely.

tlmorg02 said:

I do not understand Republicans. The populace, well at least those who actually have something to lose under Ryan's plan, have rejected his plan. McConnell wants to make this plan the GOP starting point in debt ceiling negotiation? And there are people on here saying they will win 2012?

I am comfortable with them having this position completely.

Click to expand...

This is laughable. If you are comfortable with doing nothing, will you be comfortable if the system is shut down entirely? The system is headed for a hard crash as more and more of the baby boomers retire.

This is entirely the problem with "entitlements" once you give them something they feel entitled to it and you cannot cut it or remove it. Never mind that someone has to pay for it, like their kids and grandkids. Medicare needs deep changes because that can has been kicked down the road one time too many, so how about instead of Dems griping about Ryan's plan they quit hiding under the politicial bed they propose one of their own.

Meh that would take some political courage, wouldnt it?

OpportunityCost said:

This is laughable. If you are comfortable with doing nothing, will you be comfortable if the system is shut down entirely? The system is headed for a hard crash as more and more of the baby boomers retire.

This is entirely the problem with "entitlements" once you give them something they feel entitled to it and you cannot cut it or remove it. Never mind that someone has to pay for it, like their kids and grandkids. Medicare needs deep changes because that can has been kicked down the road one time too many, so how about instead of Dems griping about Ryan's plan they quit hiding under the politicial bed they propose one of their own.

Meh that would take some political courage, wouldnt it?

Click to expand...

Not sure he said do nothing. I think he said he was comfortable with thme having this position. :coffeepap

OpportunityCost said:

This is laughable. If you are comfortable with doing nothing, will you be comfortable if the system is shut down entirely? The system is headed for a hard crash as more and more of the baby boomers retire.

This is entirely the problem with "entitlements" once you give them something they feel entitled to it and you cannot cut it or remove it. Never mind that someone has to pay for it, like their kids and grandkids. Medicare needs deep changes because that can has been kicked down the road one time too many, so how about instead of Dems griping about Ryan's plan they quit hiding under the politicial bed they propose one of their own.

Meh that would take some political courage, wouldnt it?

Click to expand...

Not at all. The single biggest cost in the Medicare/Medicad system is the huge expense of paying for nursing homes and prescription drugs. The best solution would be to find some improvements in those areas as well as cut out the tremendous fat from the system. Also, people need to learn that you do not have to run to the doctor for every little thing. I know people myself who, because they have Medicare/Medicad, go to the doctor way more than necessary just because they can.

There needs to be some limits put in place whether it be in the form of paying more when you use more, or some other factor. i would be in favor of penalizing people who go to the ER for non-life threatening issues, as well as penalizing doctors who use the elderly like cash cows.

Roll medicare into medicaid, means test just like medicaid does now, offer options for people to opt-in to the program for a free based on sliding scale ... profit

xpiher said:

Roll medicare into medicaid, means test just like medicaid does now, offer options for people to opt-in to the program for a free based on sliding scale ... profit

Click to expand...

Means test, means test, means test. A+ you my good sir.

Sgt Meowenstein said:

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.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should get back to us when YOU have a clue.... or not. I think I prefer or not.

PolitiFact | Throw-granny-from-the-cliff ad asks what the U.S. would be

But the notion that the Paul Ryan budget proposal would leave the country "without Medicare" merits a rating of False.

Click to expand...

FACT CHECK: Democrats distort GOP Medicare plan

A look at Wasserman Schultz’s statements and how they compare with the facts:

___

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: “They would take the people who are younger than 55 years old today and tell them: ‘You know what, you’re on your own. Go and find private health insurance in the health care insurance market; we’re going to throw you to the wolves and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for pre-existing conditions. We’re going to give you X amount of dollars, and you figure it out.’”

THE FACTS: First, the Ryan plan explicitly forbids insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone who qualifies for Medicare, including those who have pre-existing illnesses. Second, it does not merely send money to the elderly and leave them to their own devices in arranging for medical care.

The plan calls for Medicare to stay the same for people 55 and older. But starting in 2022, new beneficiaries would get their health insurance from competing private insurers instead of from the government. The government would offer subsidies to pay for the coverage and set standards that insurers must follow. One condition, says the plan, is that participating insurers “agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.”

Click to expand...

PolitiFact | Debbie Wasserman Schultz says Ryan Medicare plan would allow insurers to use pre-existing conditions as barrier to coverage

Wasserman Schultz is free to criticize the Ryan plan on any number of grounds, but in her comment, she went too far. Both the budget plan that passed the House and its predecessor, Ryan-Rivlin, specifically noted that coverage could not be prevented by a pre-existing condition. It may be easier to say you’ll bar "cherry picking" patients than it is to put it into practice, but Ryan has made his intentions consistently clear. We rate her statement False.

Click to expand...

I think this is the critical passage:

Many Democrats criticized our ruling, arguing that the Ryan proposal would change the program so fundamentally -- revoking its status as a government-run, single-payer system -- that the plan ends Medicare. As Erica Payne, the founder and president of the Agenda Project, put it, "While it is true that a rose by any other name will smell as sweet, a rose with no petals is just a thorny stick."

But we disagree, because dramatically changing a program is not the same as ending it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...granny-cliff-asks-what-country-would-be-with/

I don't think we need the hyperbole here concerning killing granny. It is enough to say it gives less care and coverage, reduces and dramatically changes medicare.

Boo Radley said:

Not sure he said do nothing. I think he said he was comfortable with thme having this position. :coffeepap

Click to expand...

precisely. he, like the Democrats, prefers non-solutions and cowardice that nonetheless comes along with easier electoral politics.

Boo Radley said:

I think this is the critical passage:

Many Democrats criticized our ruling, arguing that the Ryan proposal would change the program so fundamentally -- revoking its status as a government-run, single-payer system -- that the plan ends Medicare. As Erica Payne, the founder and president of the Agenda Project, put it, "While it is true that a rose by any other name will smell as sweet, a rose with no petals is just a thorny stick."

But we disagree, because dramatically changing a program is not the same as ending it.

PolitiFact | Throw-granny-from-the-cliff ad asks what the U.S. would be

I don't think we need the hyperbole here concerning killing granny. It is enough to say it gives less care and coverage, reduces and dramatically changes medicare.

Click to expand...

that is generally true - it does provide less. but both "plans" do that. the question is not whether we want to provide less, it's how do we want to provide less.

Do we want individuals and their doctors deciding what to cut?
Or do we want an unaccountable board of bureaucrats deciding when your care is no longer cost effective for the government?

Do we want to make the cuts across the board, and those who can make up the difference themselves do so?
Or do we want to means-test the entitlements to provide more help to the poor and less to the rich?

Do we want to make the cuts Right Now, and just hope Seniors can keep up?
Or do we want to give retirees time to plan for the newer system with fewer benefits?

Do we want to keep the current payout structure, which drives up prices?
Or do we want to introduce market pressure into the payout structure, which has a dampening effect on prices?




THESE are the questions at hand. Not whether or not we want to cut medicare expenditures. Nobody wants to cut medicare expenditures. As we have no choice, it's the how that becomes the issue.

cpwill said:

...the House 2012 Budget does not eliminate the death tax, and it does not eliminate the capital gains tax

you have confused the 2012 Budget with Ryan's previous work, the Roadmap For America; which has never been passed by the House, but which does contain the elimination of both of those taxes.


now.


you can either admit that you were wrong, or you can run away to another thread in a day... or three... and post the same false claim.


we'll see what you choose.

Click to expand...

well, I guess we know what he chose.

Who here has some consistent medical problem here? Diabetes, heart problems, etc...?

cpwill said:

precisely. he, like the Democrats, prefers non-solutions and cowardice that nonetheless comes along with easier electoral politics.

Click to expand...

You make as large a leap as the person I responded to. :coffeepap

cpwill said:

precisely. he, like the Democrats, prefers non-solutions and cowardice that nonetheless comes along with easier electoral politics.

Click to expand...

Incorrect as you usually are. I prefer getting rid of all the waste in the healthcare industry. Let Medicare negotiate drug prices and the lot just as private insurance does. End unneeded prescriptions and procedures, don't forget Drs. are out to make a dollar too and are not going to cause themselves any losses, nor do I blame them, and make record keeping more efficient. All these things will save the system money.

cpwill said:

that is generally true - it does provide less. but both "plans" do that. the question is not whether we want to provide less, it's how do we want to provide less.

Do we want individuals and their doctors deciding what to cut?
Or do we want an unaccountable board of bureaucrats deciding when your care is no longer cost effective for the government?

Do we want to make the cuts across the board, and those who can make up the difference themselves do so?
Or do we want to means-test the entitlements to provide more help to the poor and less to the rich?

Do we want to make the cuts Right Now, and just hope Seniors can keep up?
Or do we want to give retirees time to plan for the newer system with fewer benefits?

Do we want to keep the current payout structure, which drives up prices?
Or do we want to introduce market pressure into the payout structure, which has a dampening effect on prices?




THESE are the questions at hand. Not whether or not we want to cut medicare expenditures. Nobody wants to cut medicare expenditures. As we have no choice, it's the how that becomes the issue.

Click to expand...

You continue to present false choices. The government doesn't decide when your care is cost effective. Like your insurance company they decide when effective efforts they will pay for. Your are not forbidden for paying for more through other means. This is but one example of how you misrepresent the issue. Yes, there are choices that need to be addressed, but they must be presented honestly. And with neither the kill granny or the death panel silliness.

And there is no evidence a completely market driven system would lower prices or increase access. That is more fanasty than anything else.

tlmorg02 said:

Incorrect as you usually are. I prefer getting rid of all the waste in the healthcare industry.

Click to expand...

awesome. but you realize that A) this is an unattainable goal and B) if you want to nonetheless serious progress in it, you have to systemically alter Medicare in order to alter incentives?

there is no "get rid of waste fraud and abuse" magic button - and whoever has sold you on the notion that there are serious savings to be had there is a fool or a fraud themself. When you hear someone on the television say they want to stick to getting rid of waste fraud and abuse, that's code for "I have no idea".

Let Medicare negotiate drug prices and the lot just as private insurance does. End unneeded prescriptions and procedures, don't forget Drs. are out to make a dollar too and are not going to cause themselves any losses, nor do I blame them, and make record keeping more efficient. All these things will save the system money.

Click to expand...

not much. Medicare goes bankrupt within the decade - and, while we should certainly look into finding ways to alter the structure in order to reduce waste, your idea is sort of like trying to damn the Mississippi with a single sandbag.