• 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!

Democrat scores upset in Medicare-focused House race

apdst said:
The bill mandated end of life counciling. You need to go back and read it.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't, and you really should go back and read it.
 
apdst said:
The bill mandated end of life counciling. You need to go back and read it.
Click to expand...

Yes, IT MANDATED COVERAGE FOR A COUNCILLING SESSION WITH YOUR DOCTOR.
 
It's called The Independent Payment Advisory Board and they decide who gets to live and who gets to die.

Welcome to the real world.
 
What if...? said:
Yes, IT MANDATED COVERAGE FOR A COUNCILLING SESSION WITH YOUR DOCTOR.
Click to expand...

Do you not understand what you just yelled?

It mandated COVERAGE. It mandated that the councilling be paid for by MediCare.

It did not mandate that you must recieve councilling.
 
donsutherland1 said:
A few quick thoughts:

1. The outcome provides a snapshot at a specific point in time. It reflects sentiment expressed in a national Washington Post poll. It does not speak much about the 2012 election.
2. The 2012 election will likely turn on the state of the economy and expectations for the economy going forward for the most part.
3. There is a real need for policy makers to educate and inform the public on the overall fiscal challenges facing the nation, as the public's understanding of that issue is very poor. Failure to do so could create the kind of resistance that would make sustained credible fiscal consolidation impossible, no matter how it is structured (alternative approaches to the Medicare board or suggested vouchers could be devised).
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. This election provides a snapshot of what happens when the Republican vote is split between 2 candidates. Despite winning, the Democrat got under 50% of the vote. Had there only been the Republican in the race, and no Tea Party candidate, the district would have stayed red.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
Do you not understand what you just yelled?

It mandated COVERAGE. It mandated that the councilling be paid for by MediCare.

It did not mandate that you must recieve councilling.
Click to expand...

I know! I was yelling so maybe it'd break through his conditioning. Then I saw who it was.
 
What if...? said:
I know! I was yelling so maybe it'd break through his conditioning. Then I saw who it was.
Click to expand...

Sorry about that - in the stupidity of it all I lost track. Especially easy since he was saying the same thing and not getting what he was saying.
 
Dan beat me to my point. The Democrat only received 47% of the vote, and the rest was split between two candidates on the right. Also, the incumbent was caught sending questionable photos of himself to a woman online. This special election is not representative of what a normal election looks like. The circumstances are much different.
 
Alex said:
Dan beat me to my point. The Democrat only received 47% of the vote, and the rest was split between two candidates on the right. Also, the incumbent was caught sending questionable photos of himself to a woman online. This special election is not representative of what a normal election looks like. The circumstances are much different.
Click to expand...

Normally, I would agree with the point Danarhea raised. However, the reality is that Mr. Davis (the "Tea Party" candidate) is himself a democrat. Therefore, I don't believe one can fairly state that the "right" gained a majority vote. It is even more difficult to assert that a majority did not vote against a candidate who took a specific position on Medicare.

Now, post-election, there are arguments that "scare tactics" were used. Such tactics are not new and their use was no surprise. It is incumbent on candidates to articulate their positions in a fashion that neutralizes the opposition's likely arguments.

The reality is that Medicare needs to be reformed. The program as it is currently constructed is not fiscally sustainable. In the immediate term, the American public needs to be educated and informed on that reality. In the New York 26 race, no compelling case for such reform was articulated in a fashion that would have been embraced by the voters. The candidate could correctly have argued that maintaining the status quo is a false choice. That false choice will lead to exactly the outcome the critics fear when they decry the voucher proposal. Furthermore, the Republican candiate could have argued that the voucher approach offers one attempt--a first attempt--to address Medicare's long-run solvency. It is a first attempt at reforms aimed at assuring that senior citizens could retain health coverage. Finally, the candidate could have asserted that other alternatives may also be viable and then pledged to be open to giving any credible approach the serious consideration it would deserve.

Fiscal consolidation is necessary given the nation's long-term imbalances. Selling it will be challenging. In addition to educating and informing voters about why fiscal consolidation is necessary, candidates will need to paint a positive picture that resonates with voters. Merely emphasizing crisis avoidance likely won't cut the muster except when a crisis is imminent or unfolding. By then, the sacrifices required to address the crisis might be so extreme that they are not politically feasible.
 
apdst said:
It's called The Independent Payment Advisory Board and they decide who gets to live and who gets to die.

Welcome to the real world.
Click to expand...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA That, folks, is what happens when your only news source is Faux News and Limbaugh. In the words of Bugs Bunny, what a maroon.
 
American said:
I don't understand this. Isn't Obamacare making cuts to medicare?
Click to expand...

They were supposed to but they decided to not to after the fact.
Medicare Advantage plans were to have their funding reduced, but the president issued bonuses to the programs even when they did not meet the ObamaCare guidelines to receive the bonus.
 
apdst said:
It's called The Independent Payment Advisory Board and they decide who gets to live and who gets to die.

Welcome to the real world.
Click to expand...

That's not the real world by any stretch...
 
Sgt Meowenstein said:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA That, folks, is what happens when your only news source is Faux News and Limbaugh. In the words of Bugs Bunny, what a maroon.
Click to expand...
It's amazing th get so misinformed by these people...
 
So a bunch of New Yorkers are still looking for government handouts.

Wake me if something changes.
 
Basically what this vote shows is that old folks want the money the voted themselves from our pockets, and our children's futures be damned.

**** the old people, they created this mess. They sat around and did nothing while these programs just become more and more unsustainable, and now they demand to get what they were promised in return for their votes.

It's time to take the country back from the brink, the brink these "old folks" made happen.
 
MrVicchio said:
Basically what this vote shows is that old folks want the money the voted themselves from our pockets, and our children's futures be damned.

**** the old people, they created this mess. They sat around and did nothing while these programs just become more and more unsustainable, and now they demand to get what they were promised in return for their votes.

It's time to take the country back from the brink, the brink these "old folks" made happen.
Click to expand...

You don't think paying for it all their lives is a good reason to expect it? How about you buy a hat from me and I just decide not to send it to you?

We would have the money if the government didn't regard pilfering from the funding a viable way of covering expenses.
 
MistressNomad said:
You don't think paying for it all their lives is a good reason to expect it? How about you buy a hat from me and I just decide not to send it to you?

We would have the money if the government didn't regard pilfering from the funding a viable way of covering expenses.
Click to expand...

It's not going away. It needs to be better managed, and at a lower cost, like EVERYTHING the government touches.

If you buy a box of cereal and a gallon of milk and make yourself breakfast, it'll cost you about $6 and last you for about 5 days.

If the government does it, it'll cost $150 and most of it will be thrown in the trash before you eat it.
 
lpast said:
Could this be an indicator of what seniors really think of the Ryan Plan and new Teaparty far right Governors ?
Click to expand...

Hopefully not, since the Ryan plan has absolutely NO effect on people over the age of 55.
 
MrVicchio said:
Basically what this vote shows is that old folks want the money the voted themselves from our pockets, and our children's futures be damned.

**** the old people, they created this mess. They sat around and did nothing while these programs just become more and more unsustainable, and now they demand to get what they were promised in return for their votes.

It's time to take the country back from the brink, the brink these "old folks" made happen.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah! PLEASE repeat this argument every chance you get.

Shout it from the rooftops.
 
Dav said:
Hopefully not, since the Ryan plan has absolutely NO effect on people over the age of 55.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they don't want to see their children suffer in old age. Has empathy ever occured to anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom