Paul Ryan, Help Or Hurt Romney

Here's another prominent Dem admitting the point.

kmiller1610 said:

The Obama administration made Obamacare debt neutral by borrowing one third of its anticipated cost from anticipated Medicare funds. It's all in the future, just like the supposed "gutting" of the program by Paul Ryan.

Click to expand...

No, that is not accurate at all. Obamacare creates savings in Medicare because the two overlap somewhat. We don't want to double pay for the same thing obviously. Ryan's budget cut Medicare by $1.8 trillion a decade and did nothing to fill in that gap. It's just a cut that would need to be made up by seniors.

MoSurveyor said:

If the Crash didn't happen the spending wouldn't have increased and there wouldn't be an issue. We can play that game all day long.

Click to expand...

Spending increasing is one of the reasons the crash happened to begin with. President Obama and the Dem Congress thought, for some reason, that spending MORE would pull us out. We now know that didn't work.

MoSurveyor said:

It didn't bother me that Clinton lied about getting a BJ, either. That whole thing was just another farce packaged up for purposes of Republican PR at the tax payer's expense. A ****ing waste of time and money. The House does the same thing "passing" budgets that are nothing more than Republican PR at tax payer expense. They know full damn well their budgets are so far removed from anything acceptable to the Senate that it's just a PR stunt, plain and simple, meant to incite the blind masses - which seems to be working to some extent.

Click to expand...

So you equate a POTUS doing something that harms no one except maybe his wife to an entire body of gov't (the Senate in this case) doing something that harms the entire country? Sure, the BJ got just as much (I'd say probably more) coverage but that doesn't mean its worse. Further, that you think the House DOING THEIR JOB/ABIDING BY THE LAW is a PR stunt is a very ignorant stance to take.

MoSurveyor said:

Debate honestly? Let's get some honesty here. The Republicans have plainly stated that running the country is not their top priority. Their top priority is making Obama a one term president. What more is there to discuss after that?

Click to expand...

I have no issue with someone saying they think getting him out of office is a priority. Even saying that it's a top priority isn't something I take offense too. However, if a politician on either side purposely does things to make the situation worse just to see a POTUS lose reelection, I would have a problem with that. If you have proof of a politician doing that, present it. If not, you're falling prey to the typical rhetoric and hyperbole of Capital Hill.

MoSurveyor said:

The Dems tried to work things out in the Super Committee - yeah, how did THAT go? :roll:

Click to expand...

Last time I checked, both sides screwed that up. Just sayin.

MoSurveyor said:

I have no doubt maintenance will suffer to some extent. That's what's been happening to our roads for years because no one sees the effects of that right away. New orders for equipment will most likely stop but existing orders will go on as planned since we're under contract to buy certain things in a given time-frame. R&D, again except as already contracted, will most likely stop.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Put simply, maintenance and training funds affect no one but us. R&D and purchase contracts affect the private job market. God forbid a politician be the one that forfeits jobs from his district or state. He'll be a one termer. Thats why the Joint Strike Fighter had parts made in all 50 states, its the only way it would gain approval. However, I will agree with you that some of the more ridiculous projects will be stopped. Crap like rifles that shoot around corners will stop.

For those who claim that President Obama cut over $500 billion from Medicare, could you tell us with a verifiable link just how much in actual benefits to flesh and blood recipients that comes to?

haymarket said:

For those who claim that President Obama cut over $500 billion from Medicare, could you tell us with a verifiable link just how much in actual benefits to flesh and blood recipients that comes to?

Click to expand...

The cut is connected to the funding of Obamacare. It was originally 500 billion, but even though Obamacare is barely even running, the CBO raised the number to 700 billion. One third of Obamacare's funding comes from Medicare, but for now that's mostly on paper.

No, the Medicare Trustee's Report on Obamacare's Deficit Expansion Isn't 'Bogus' - Forbes

haymarket said:

For those who claim that President Obama cut over $500 billion from Medicare, could you tell us with a verifiable link just how much in actual benefits to flesh and blood recipients that comes to?

Click to expand...

4 million seniors getting kicked off of medicare advantage

cpwill said:

4 million seniors getting kicked off of medicare advantage

Click to expand...

And the verification of such a claim?

kmiller1610 said:

The cut is connected to the funding of Obamacare. It was originally 500 billion, but even though Obamacare is barely even running, the CBO raised the number to 700 billion. One third of Obamacare's funding comes from Medicare, but for now that's mostly on paper.

No, the Medicare Trustee's Report on Obamacare's Deficit Expansion Isn't 'Bogus' - Forbes

Click to expand...

Where in that article does it discuss benefit cuts to actual flesh and blood recipients?

MarineTpartier said:

Spending increasing is one of the reasons the crash happened to begin with.

Click to expand...

That's the biggest pile of crap I've seen in quite awhile. Is that the latest from the Tea Party or was it just a Republican/conservative site? They want to cut spending so they blame the Crash on spending! LOL! The sad thing is, some people will be stupid enough to believe it regardless of the public and private reports to the contrary.

MarineTpartier said:

So you equate a POTUS doing something that harms no one except maybe his wife to an entire body of gov't (the Senate in this case) doing something that harms the entire country? Sure, the BJ got just as much (I'd say probably more) coverage but that doesn't mean its worse. Further, that you think the House DOING THEIR JOB/ABIDING BY THE LAW is a PR stunt is a very ignorant stance to take.

Click to expand...

Are they passing anything that ANYBODY thinks the Senate or the President would consider?? No, they aren't. The Representatives in the House are building up a plank for their upcoming campaigns and you're falling for it.

MarineTpartier said:

I have no issue with someone saying they think getting him out of office is a priority. Even saying that it's a top priority isn't something I take offense too. However, if a politician on either side purposely does things to make the situation worse just to see a POTUS lose reelection, I would have a problem with that. If you have proof of a politician doing that, present it. If not, you're falling prey to the typical rhetoric and hyperbole of Capital Hill.

Click to expand...

Do you truly and honestly believe that the House has done absolutely every possible thing in their power to work with the President and move issues forward? If you can honestly and with a straight face answer "yes" then I'd suggest you're the one falling prey to rhetoric. The House has been obstructing since Day One and we both know it.

MarineTpartier said:

Last time I checked, both sides screwed that up. Just sayin.

Click to expand...

When you won't make any concessions to the other side that's not trying or negotiating, that's being obstructionist. The Republicans have shown many times that they're very good at obstructing and have no clue what "compromise" or "negotiate" means. But I'm sure you see that as a Dem screw up. :roll:

haymarket said:

Where in that article does it discuss benefit cuts to actual flesh and blood recipients?

Click to expand...

If one assumes that the medical care providers will simply eat the cost difference between what Medicare pays and what private insurance pays (for the same treatment procedures) then there is no change, but if you rationally assume that the providers will either not accept Medicare patients or will riase the costs for "normal" (privately insured) patients to cover the difference then there is an effect on "flesh and blood" patients. Gov't mandates do not magically make goods and services cost less, no matter what Obama wishes you to believe.

ttwtt78640 said:

If one assumes that the medical care providers will simply eat the cost difference between what Medicare pays and what private insurance pays (for the same treatment procedures) then there is no change, but if you rationally assume that the providers will either not accept Medicare patients or will riase the costs for "normal" (privately insured) patients to cover the difference then there is an effect on "flesh and blood" patients. Gov't mandates do not magically make goods and services cost less, no matter what Obama wishes you to believe.

Click to expand...

I ask this because there was a discussion on POTUS on Sirius/XM yesterday afternoon between two doctors. They maintained that the over $500 billion was a negotiated reduction in payments to providers and WOULD NOT cause any actual recipients of benefits to lose one dollars worth of benefit.

They also maintained that the Ryan plan would have made the same sort of cuts but without any negotiated aspect to it and had a far more significant chance to result in actual harm to real people.

Keep in mind these were two doctors - one of which specialized in service to older frail people who are homebound.

haymarket said:

I ask this because there was a discussion on POTUS on Sirius/XM yesterday afternoon between two doctors. They maintained that the over $500 billion was a negotiated reduction in payments to providers and WOULD NOT cause any actual recipients of benefits to lose one dollars worth of benefit.

Keep in mind these were two doctors - one of which specialized in service to older frail people who are homebound.

Click to expand...

So, these two doctors (alone?) have agreed to accept $500 billion less for the same services and not to simply raise other fees to make up the difference? Can you provide a link to these "negotiated" savings? Are you familiar with the "doctor fix" tradition of congress adding back in the "savings" from Medicare "cuts"? It seems only the federal gov't can manage to both save and spend the same dollar. ;-)

ttwtt78640 said:

If one assumes that the medical care providers will simply eat the cost difference between what Medicare pays and what private insurance pays (for the same treatment procedures) then there is no change, but if you rationally assume that the providers will either not accept Medicare patients or will riase the costs for "normal" (privately insured) patients to cover the difference then there is an effect on "flesh and blood" patients. Gov't mandates do not magically make goods and services cost less, no matter what Obama wishes you to believe.

Click to expand...

You honestly believe the medical community and businesses only charge cost + 6-8% for profit??? :shock:

MoSurveyor said:

You honestly believe the medical community and businesses only charge cost + 6-8% for profit??? :shock:

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? You do realize that more people turn 65 every year than those over 65 that die, so that means Medicare total costs for treatment rise (not fall) every year. You, and Obama, live in some fantasy land in which medical care providers will now gladly accept less money for giving the same treatment (out of some strange desire to make less money?) for the common good. When was the last year that any actual Medicare cuts were made (not simply added back in via the "doctor fix")? Hmm....

ttwtt78640 said:

What are you talking about? You do realize that more people turn 65 every year than those over 65 that die, so that means Medicare total costs for treatment rise (not fall) every year. You, and Obama, live in some fantasy land in which medical care providers will now gladly accept less money for giving the same treatment (out of some strange desire to make less money?) for the common good. When was the last year that any actual Medicare cuts were made (not simply added back in via the "doctor fix")? Hmm....

Click to expand...

I'm talking about medical institutions taking a smaller profit in order to keep their Medicare patients. They always have the option to NOT accept Medicare patients :shrug: but I suspect most of them won't take that option. Much better to reduce the profit margin slightly to keep the facility full. Empty beds and empty waiting rooms make no money at all.

MoSurveyor said:

That's the biggest pile of crap I've seen in quite awhile. Is that the latest from the Tea Party or was it just a Republican/conservative site? They want to cut spending so they blame the Crash on spending! LOL! The sad thing is, some people will be stupid enough to believe it regardless of the public and private reports to the contrary.

Click to expand...

You do know that means I'm blaming Republicans for the Crash right? Clinton kept spending relatively under control, so that only leaves two candidates for the screw up. Can you guess who?

MoSurveyor said:

Are they passing anything that ANYBODY thinks the Senate or the President would consider?? No, they aren't. The Representatives in the House are building up a plank for their upcoming campaigns and you're falling for it.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I like Rand Paul's bill better than Ryans. Ryan doesn't reduce gov't, he just reins in the spending of it. Maybe you should look up how gov't works. Ideally, the House would pass something, the Senate would pass something. They would realize they're obviously way off. The would keep counter proposing until something passed both. I know that sounds like a fallacy that this Congress could agree on anything. However, they should at least do the due dilligence instead of what the Dems did. They just quit.

MoSurveyor said:

Do you truly and honestly believe that the House has done absolutely every possible thing in their power to work with the President and move issues forward? If you can honestly and with a straight face answer "yes" then I'd suggest you're the one falling prey to rhetoric. The House has been obstructing since Day One and we both know it.

Click to expand...

The House passed a budget and the POTUS presented a budget that sucked but at least he presented it. Who's not participating?

MoSurveyor said:

When you won't make any concessions to the other side that's not trying or negotiating, that's being obstructionist. The Republicans have shown many times that they're very good at obstructing and have no clue what "compromise" or "negotiate" means. But I'm sure you see that as a Dem screw up. :roll:

Click to expand...

RE-READ THE COMMENT I RESPONDED WITH!!! Take your partisan hack hat off man. You are arguing just for the sake of it.

ttwtt78640 said:

So, these two doctors (alone?) have agreed to accept $500 billion less for the same services and not to simply raise other fees to make up the difference? Can you provide a link to these "negotiated" savings? Are you familiar with the "doctor fix" tradition of congress adding back in the "savings" from Medicare "cuts"? It seems only the federal gov't can manage to both save and spend the same dollar. ;-)

Click to expand...

NO. They were not speaking simply for themselves but explaining the negotiated cuts agreed to. POTUS is a radio show and I know of no text available.

Your earlier reply to me caused me to think about it while on my hour run just now.

Gov't mandates do not magically make goods and services cost less, no matter what Obama wishes you to believe.

Click to expand...

Why is it that you and others claim that President Obama simply cannot lower costs but keep services via decree or negotiated settlement or law while many of the same Obama critics do exactly that by mandating that public school teachers can indeed give the same service - or even more - at the same time they reduce wages or benefits for them?

It seems there is a serious contradiction in the thinking process there.

MoSurveyor said:

I'm talking about medical institutions taking a smaller profit in order to keep their Medicare patients. They always have the option to NOT accept Medicare patients :shrug: but I suspect most of them won't take that option. Much better to reduce the profit margin slightly to keep the facility full. Empty beds and empty waiting rooms make no money at all.

Click to expand...

This was something discussed on the radio show I heard yesterday. They said that the companies and providers were more than willing to accept less per service in return for 38 million more customers. In the end, that trade off would net them even more money.

haymarket said:

NO. They were not speaking simply for themselves but explaining the negotiated cuts agreed to. POTUS is a radio show and I know of no text available.

Your earlier reply to me caused me to think about it while on my hour run just now.



Why is it that you and others claim that President Obama simply cannot lower costs but keep services via decree or negotiated settlement or law while many of the same Obama critics do exactly that by mandating that public school teachers can indeed give the same service - or even more - at the same time they reduce wages or benefits for them?

It seems there is a serious contradiction in the thinking process there.

Click to expand...

You are mixing apples and oranges here. The gov't may indeed not offer over generous benefits and pay to teachers and still have them work (or let them leave and be replaced by others). To offer less pay for the same treatment of Medicare patients provides doctors a choice, accept a partially paid for Medicare patient or a fully paid for PPACA patient, remember that their will soon be many millions more of those PPACA patients.

ttwtt78640 said:

You are mixing apples and oranges here. The gov't may indeed not offer over generous benefits and pay to teachers and still have them work (or let them leave and be replaced by others). To offer less pay for the same treatment of Medicare patients provides doctors a choice, accept a partially paid for Medicare patient or a fully paid for PPACA patient, remember that their will soon be many millions more of those PPACA patients.

Click to expand...

I see.... so when those on the right want to reduce compensation for those who dispense public education but demand the same service and labor in return - that is well and good and fair and just and works out just right. But when the administration negotiates less compensation for the insurance companies and providers in return for a increased customer pool, that is a violation of the principle that you cannot demand more for less.

Got it.

ttwtt78640 said:

You are mixing apples and oranges here. The gov't may indeed not offer over generous benefits and pay to teachers and still have them work (or let them leave and be replaced by others). To offer less pay for the same treatment of Medicare patients provides doctors a choice, accept a partially paid for Medicare patient or a fully paid for PPACA patient, remember that their will soon be many millions more of those PPACA patients.

Click to expand...

It is the exact same thing. Here is what you said earlier

Gov't mandates do not magically make goods and services cost less, no matter what Obama wishes you to believe.

Click to expand...

In both health care and education what we have is government demanding the same level of service but paying less for it. The right seems to think its the cats pajama's when we do it to public employees especially school teachers. But demanding the same of insurance companies and medical service providers seems suddenly to be out of bounds.

Hypocrisy.

MarineTpartier said:

You do know that means I'm blaming Republicans for the Crash right? Clinton kept spending relatively under control, so that only leaves two candidates for the screw up. Can you guess who?

Click to expand...

The Republicans in and of themselves shouldn't be blamed completely. I agree that with good government oversight the banks probably couldn't have pulled off the more obvious cons but some (most!?) blame has to fall on the banks. And even if you don't buy into the banks theory the other option presented was too much private credit, which still has nothing to do with overzealous government spending. In a nutshell, I don't care which party you're blaming because I'm not as much of a hack as you think I am. From the evidence and reports I've seen, and I've even skimmed through a couple of those 3-digit monster reports, it's either the banks or too much private debt. I favor the former but admit I might be convinced of the latter with more/better information, which I doubt we'll ever see.

MarineTpartier said:

Honestly, I like Rand Paul's bill better than Ryans. Ryan doesn't reduce gov't, he just reins in the spending of it. Maybe you should look up how gov't works. Ideally, the House would pass something, the Senate would pass something. They would realize they're obviously way off. The would keep counter proposing until something passed both. I know that sounds like a fallacy that this Congress could agree on anything. However, they should at least do the due dilligence instead of what the Dems did. They just quit.

Click to expand...

See? The PR machine is working just as I said.
((And budgets are going to be done piecemeal until further notice.))

Maybe you should live through a few decades of watching how government works instead of repeating pie-in-the-sky ideals out of a book. Most social theories die right outside the door of the library.

It takes two sides to negotiate and the Republicans have repeatedly shown they have no interest in doing that. Heaven forbid they might do something that would give the Dems any credit. That would be in direct violation of Job #1, which you have said was acceptable to you. What did you expect would be the real world result of such a policy? One result is exactly what you've been seeing, obstructionism.

Yeah, all 51 "just quit". What happened to the other 49? :roll:

MarineTpartier said:

The House passed a budget and the POTUS presented a budget that sucked but at least he presented it. Who's not participating?

Click to expand...

It wasn't any worse than the House budget --- both were just as unpalatable to the other side.

MarineTpartier said:

RE-READ THE COMMENT I RESPONDED WITH!!! Take your partisan hack hat off man. You are arguing just for the sake of it.

Click to expand...

I don't think both sides did screw it up --- so what part of your comment do you think I didn't address?
If you meant "We'll have to agree to disagree then you should have said so".

haymarket said:

It is the exact same thing. Here is what you said earlier




In both health care and education what we have is government demanding the same level of service but paying less for it. The right seems to think its the cats pajama's when we do it to public employees especially school teachers. But demanding the same of insurance companies and medical service providers seems suddenly to be out of bounds.

Hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

It is NOT the same thing since seniors now have no right to get any other medical care (and ALL must still pay for Medicare out of their checks), it is Medcare or nothing at all, teachers can certainly seek other employment.

ttwtt78640 said:

It is NOT the same thing since seniors now have no right to get any other medical care (and ALL must still pay for Medicare out of their checks), it is Medcare or nothing at all, teachers can certainly seek other employment.

Click to expand...

Spoken like somebody who has never taught or had to "seek other employment" after spending years in the profession.

It is exactly the same thing in that it is government mandating that the same level of services (or even more) be delivered for less compensation in return. Of course there will be differences when going from one sector to the other. That is normal and unavoidable. But righties love to demand that teachers teach more for less and government employees give more for less but asking insurance companies and providers to do the same is verbotten to the corporate mindset because it is their constituency which loses out.

haymarket said:

Spoken like somebody who has never taught or had to "seek other employment" after spending years in the profession.

It is exactly the same thing in that it is government mandating that the same level of services (or even more) be delivered for less compensation in return. Of course there will be differences when going from one sector to the other. That is normal and unavoidable. But righties love to demand that teachers teach more for less and government employees give more for less but asking insurance companies and providers to do the same is verbotten to the corporate mindset because it is their constituency which loses out.

Click to expand...

You are very confused about what Obama is doing here. Obama is taking from those that now pay (or who have paid) into Medicare and giving to those that get will get PPACA subsidies to make PPACA appear not to be as expensive as it actually is. That is far different from changing the pay/benefit level for a particular gov't job. Obama is not saving any tax money, he is spending more tax money, just changing who is getting that money from Medicare patients to PPACA patients.