• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Will Democrats Be Able To Defend Their Own Medicare Cuts?

Will Democrats Be Able to Defend Their Own Cuts After Attacking Ryan's?

  • Yes. They will be able to sell that the WAY in which they cut MORE is better

    Votes: 4 30.8%

  • No. Most Democrats do not yet realize this sword has two edges.

    Votes: 9 69.2%
  • Total voters
    13
azgreg said:
Wouldn't reforming any program "End that program as we now know it".
Click to expand...

I would certainly hope so.

If we don't change the direction we are heading, we will end up where we are going"
- Old Chinese Proverb
 
azgreg said:
Wouldn't reforming any program "End that program as we now know it".
Click to expand...

:) It is cute to watch them promulgate the standard by which President Obama has Ended Welfare Reform As We Know It.

AdamT said:
The bottom line, IMO, is that the Dems do not have a big issue in the NEW Ryan Medicare plan, which doesn't really solve the problem, but also doesn't throw old people under the bus like Ryan's original plan.
Click to expand...

interesting. so, then, you would argue we aren't about to see the mother of all mediscare campaigns?
 
cpwill said:
:) It is cute to watch them promulgate the standard by which President Obama has Ended Welfare Reform As We Know It.



interesting. so, then, you would argue we aren't about to see the mother of all mediscare campaigns?
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't put it past the super pacs to try it, but I don't think it gets them very far. The Ryan 2.0 Medicare plan just isn't that different from Obamacare. In fact that would probably be the better way to spin it. Romney/Ryan want to repeal the Obamacare health care exchanges ... and then CREATE their own health care exchanges for Medicare. Romney/Ryan excoriate Obamacare for cutting Medicare provider payments ... and then they do exactly the same thing. Romney/Ran attack Obamacare for unelected "death panels" that would reduce Medicare coverage ... and their plan does exactly the same thing....
 
Last edited:
Well, yeah. Some level of competition is better than single-payer. But the Ryan plan is no endorsement of Obamacare, any more than supporting Medicaid is an endorsement of a national health service.

where is the IPAB in the Ryan plan?
 
cpwill said:
Well, yeah. Some level of competition is better than single-payer. But the Ryan plan is no endorsement of Obamacare, any more than supporting Medicaid is an endorsement of a national health service.

where is the IPAB in the Ryan plan?
Click to expand...

The Ryan plan attempts to reduce costs by use of the voucher/exchange system, but if that is not sufficient to meet the plan's targets, then there is an unelected panel of "experts" that makes the cuts necessary to bring spending within the target cap. Sound familiar?
 
Diogenes said:
Way, way back in ancient times, before anybody had even heard of an iPad... :(
Click to expand...

:lamo You need to tak this act on the rode. :lamo

Your one liners are a rip. :applaud
 
AdamT said:
Both plans, as they stand, will "save" Medicare by cutting service. I think the Wyden-Ryan exchange idea is a good addition, but it's not going to provide the savings necessary to avoid service cuts.
Click to expand...

wait a minute. you just said that if the Ryan-Wyden plan utterly fails, then in a worst case scenario it is precisely as bad as the current administrations plan.

There are only two options for maintaining the current level of service without bankrupting the government: raise taxes or nationalize the entire health care system.
Click to expand...

1. you can't raise taxes to pay for Medicare. Even the President admits this.
2. rationing care (your other method) through government redistribution is one way of lowering healthcare costs, yes. Sort of like how we could lower our food bills by having the government deny us the occasional meal.
 
AdamT said:
The Ryan plan attempts to reduce costs by use of the voucher/exchange system, but if that is not sufficient to meet the plan's targets, then there is an unelected panel of "experts" that makes the cuts necessary to bring spending within the target cap. Sound familiar?
Click to expand...

...except that since seniors are going to be individually choosing among competing plans, no central authority would have the ability to cut benefits to Medicare recipients at large - at most only those who remain on the government option.

Ryan-Wyden Plan - gives choice to seniors in order to let them pick what is best for them.

Obama's Plan - gives seniors no choice, but expects them just to suck it up.



And I would still like to see you reference the portion of the law. It doesn't strike me as too outlandish, but I am suspicious :)
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
The Ryan plan attempts to reduce costs by use of the voucher/exchange system, but if that is not sufficient to meet the plan's targets, then there is an unelected panel of "experts" that makes the cuts necessary to bring spending within the target cap. Sound familiar?
Click to expand...

Except the difference is the Ryan Plan Co-Sponsored by the Democrat Wyden. Doesn't count on some 15 man panel. Their goal was to have Congress do Their job, and Provide a Solution.
 
10354507-large.jpg


See this Democrat here . This is the Demo who his Co-sponsoring the Ryan Plan.

WASHINGTON – In an unlikely partnership, Sen. Ron Wyden joined Rep. Paul Ryan on Wednesday in a plan for remodeling Medicare to ensure its long-term future.

The plan that Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon and Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin, rolled out is a hybrid of earlier ideas, modified and repackaged in a way they hope will soften the partisan political turmoil.

He and Ryan propose maintaining Medicare in its traditional form until 2022, when seniors eligible for Medicare (those now under 55) would be able to choose Medicare or a private health care plan.

In a 13-page blueprint, Ryan and Wyden laid out the principles for an overhaul. There should be "no disruptions for those in or near retirement," the plan says. "Seniors should not be forced to reorganize their lives because of government's mistakes."

There are still many gaps and unanswered questions. Wyden and Ryan believe their plan would be cheaper, but they cannot say how much. They do promise that seniors would not be forced to make up the difference with higher premiums if costs continue to soar. Their plan requires Congress to find a solution.....snip~

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...republi_1.html



Do you think Team Obama and the DNC will ever own up to Wydens part in in the creation of a plan that only has 13 pages in it? 13 pages only......that might be a little over the top for those Progressives.

Course if the Democrats start with the basics and Read the Bill. They Might actually would have known what was in it.

Message to Liberaldom.....this one comes from Eddie Griffin~ Liberal Comedian/ Actor....."Reading is FUN-TO-MENTAL!
applause.gif
 
cpwill said:
wait a minute. you just said that if the Ryan-Wyden plan utterly fails, then in a worst case scenario it is precisely as bad as the current administrations plan.
Click to expand...

Yes, as I said, they will end up in the same place. To be honest, I don't understand the difference between what Ryan is proposing and what we have now. Medicare eligible individuals already have the option of using private Medicare Advantage plans instead of traditional Medicare.

1. you can't raise taxes to pay for Medicare. Even the President admits this.
Click to expand...

Of course you can.

2. rationing care (your other method) through government redistribution is one way of lowering healthcare costs, yes. Sort of like how we could lower our food bills by having the government deny us the occasional meal.
Click to expand...

Yes, rationing is certainly part of it, and of course it happens every day and always has. But the bigger part of it isgaining the ability to dictate provider payments and negotiate volume discounts for drugs and other things.
 
cpwill said:
As I've pointed out a number of times here, (usually with no response), the Obama administrations current plan cuts more from Medicare than the Ryan Plan does. No one currently salivating over attacking Ryan on Medicare seems to realize that doing so leaves them horribly vulnerable to that retort. Apparently even the usually erudite Rachel Maddow didn't either.


Are Democrats going to be able to defend Obama's Medicare cuts with the same vigor as Republicans will be able to defend the Ryan-Wyden plan?
Click to expand...
There is no Ryan-Wyden plan. :lamo


Ron Wyden Blasts Paul Ryan For Claiming Bipartisanship On Medicare « Alan Colmes' Liberaland
 
MMC said:
10354507-large.jpg


See this Democrat here . This is the Demo who his Co-sponsoring the Ryan Plan.
Click to expand...

He actually isn't co-sponsoring anything. He and Ryan worked together to produce a paper outlining a plan. There is no actual plan except the version that Ryan put into his Budget, which Wyden does not support.


Message to Liberaldom.....this one comes from Eddie Griffin~ Liberal Comedian/ Actor....."Reading is FUN-TO-MENTAL!
applause.gif
Click to expand...

Message to you: take your own advice.
 
cpwill said:
...except that since seniors are going to be individually choosing among competing plans, no central authority would have the ability to cut benefits to Medicare recipients at large - at most only those who remain on the government option.
Click to expand...

Any idea why Ryan is so insistent that his plan not be called a "voucher" plan? The difference between a true voucher plan and his "premium support" plan is that the payments go directly from the government to the insurer -- not to the insured. So yeah, the central authority can absolutely reduce payments to meet the plan's targets, despite your insistence that Ryan's plan wouldn't work as intended. ;)
 
Ron Wyden Takes Issue With Mitt Romney Linking Him to Paul Ryan : Roll Call Politics


Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney's attempt to bolster his new running mate's deal-making credentials drew a sharp rebuke from the Democratic Senator at the center of the supposed bipartisanship.

At a Saturday campaign stop with his new vice presidential pick, Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.), Romney praised the House Budget chairman's work with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.) to develop a Medicare overhaul plan.

"This man said, 'I'm going to find Democrats to work with.' He found a Democrat to co-lead a piece of legislation that makes sure we can save Medicare," Romney said in Ashland, Va. "Republicans and Democrats coming together. He's a man who has great ideas and the capacity to lead to find people to cross the aisle - to work together."

Wyden was quick to push back on Romney's version of events.

"Gov. Romney is talking nonsense. Bipartisanship requires that you not make up the facts. I did not 'co-lead a piece of legislation.'" Wyden said. "I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare. Several months after the paper came out, I spoke and voted against the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget."

Ryan and Wyden did work together in December 2011 to develop a paper outlining ways to provide for Medicare solvency, including a "premium support" model. Under premium support, Medicare would allow a menu of competing plans to offer coverage with government payments. Wyden, however, never signed on to support the House-adopted budget resolution written by Ryan that included plans for a premium support approach.

"Gov. Romney needs to learn you don't protect seniors by makings things up, and his comments today sure won't help promote real bipartisanship," Wyden said.

Wyden has voted against House Republican budgets when they have received votes in the Senate. Republican aides were quick to circulate the Wyden-Ryan Medicare report after the announcement that Ryan would be joining Romney on the GOP presidential ticket....​
 
AdamT said:
He actually isn't co-sponsoring anything. He and Ryan worked together to produce a paper outlining a plan. There is no actual plan except the version that Ryan put into his Budget, which Wyden does not support.




Message to you: take your own advice.
Click to expand...

Kinda like White the Demo on the first time round with the Aids package.....eh? Seems he released that after Wassermann Schultz had her Azz handed to her. Do you think Obama will shut him up like he did the Demo White? So then why didn't Wyden the Democrat vote for Obama's Budget twice thru the House? Do you think he was supporting Obamacare then when he voted NO.....TWICE?

White was in on the Budget to.....How many Demos gonna say they submitted a report when submitting ideas for a Bill? How many walk up talkin Bi-partisanship only to back pedal when in front of the media?

This is good then.....for then No DEMOCRAT has had an Original Idea in their head since they Passed Obamacare without reading it. Means the Demos and Liberaldom won't be able to come back in the future and try to soak up credit for something they Just can't think of on their own.
point.gif
 


Thas Alright.....We can just go with the Original. Wherein Ryan Tears Obamacare apart. ;)
 


Course this is where Ryan showed what the True Numbers are with Obamacare. That hidden amount from the Class Act that the Demos are playing Dumb and Blind on. Then top it off with the 53 million Obama is stealing from Social Security and then add in Approropriations. We see Ryan totally destroysthe lies the Democrats like to run with and hide from.
f_doh.gif
 
AdamT said:
Yes, as I said, they will end up in the same place. To be honest, I don't understand the difference between what Ryan is proposing and what we have now. Medicare eligible individuals already have the option of using private Medicare Advantage plans instead of traditional Medicare.
Click to expand...

For prescription drug coverage, yes. However, in Part D the prices are still set by the Medicare Bureaucracy, instead of through competition, and the bidding is different. Applying the Ryan-Wyden Bidding structure to Part D in 2009, for example, would have resulted in costs 9% BELOW traditional Medicare - and that's with price setting still in place. Relieved of that price-setting the savings over time would become enormous, as each year we sink further and further below the baseline. Furthermore, by passing the savings on to seniors should they choose to cost less than the bid, we create an incentive for seniors to reduce expenditures, not overconsume health care resources, and reduce general-market health inflation

Of course you can.
Click to expand...

"If you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up." - President Barack Obama.


No, you can't. There is probably not enough money available in the world to cover our entitlements and national debt, much less in the amount plausibly available for US federal revenue.

Yes, rationing is certainly part of it, and of course it happens every day and always has. But the bigger part of it isgaining the ability to dictate provider payments and negotiate volume discounts for drugs and other things.
Click to expand...

we already dictate provider payments - and the Medicare/Medicaid underpayments are made up for by the rest of us who pay higher prices. Putting everyone on the lower payment schedule will not magically make those payments profitable any more than declaring that all houses hereforth shall cost only $100 would mean that you could get builders who would be able to construct a home for $99. All it will do is exacerbate the doctor shortage we already have by driving out massive numbers of providers. Meaning that those dependent upon the government will effectively have no actual access to healthcare.
 
cpwill said:
For prescription drug coverage, yes. However, in Part D the prices are still set by the Medicare Bureaucracy, instead of through competition, and the bidding is different.
Click to expand...

Part D is a completely different ball of wax. You're confused.

Applying the Ryan-Wyden Bidding structure to Part D in 2009, for example, would have resulted in costs 9% BELOW traditional Medicare - and that's with price setting still in place. Relieved of that price-setting the savings over time would become enormous, as each year we sink further and further below the baseline. Furthermore, by passing the savings on to seniors should they choose to cost less than the bid, we create an incentive for seniors to reduce expenditures, not overconsume health care resources, and reduce general-market health inflation
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read the article you cited. It states that ACA has measures to reduce Medicare spending which could result in traditional Medicare becoming the benchmark, in which case the private plans would end up being MORE expensive than standard Medicare. Like I said -- eventually you end up in the same place: a board of unelected folks (death panel) decides to cut costs.


"If you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up." - President Barack Obama.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that's true if you do absolutely nothing to contain costs -- I don't know.

we already dictate provider payments - and the Medicare/Medicaid underpayments are made up for by the rest of us who pay higher prices. Putting everyone on the lower payment schedule will not magically make those payments profitable any more than declaring that all houses hereforth shall cost only $100 would mean that you could get builders who would be able to construct a home for $99. All it will do is exacerbate the doctor shortage we already have by driving out massive numbers of providers. Meaning that those dependent upon the government will effectively have no actual access to healthcare.
Click to expand...

You're not getting what I'm saying. If we move to Medicare-for-all, no one will make up for lower payments because doctors will have no option but to accept what Medicare pays. The simple truth is that doctors are overpaid in this country relative to what doctors make in every other country, and that is going to have to change. We will have to make some adjustments to prevent a doctor shortage problem (subsidized eduction, tort reform, etc.), but it is obviously doable as it has been done in every other advanced country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom