i've done it twice now and didn't need a lawyer either time. and with the IPAB it isn't difficult. it is impossible. literally, the law forbids it.
You'll forgive me if I doubt you.
my 'silliness' is the letter of the law. in order to overturn an IPAB decision you have to get the same supermajority in Congress that is necessary to pass a Constitutional Amendment. And even then you aren't open to receiving reimbursement.
Silliness, because that is not what we're talking about. Agian, you lose yourself, others, and the argument in your breaking things down excessively and out of context.
you stated that the different forms of government on that penninsula - one communist the other free market - did not have a strong effect on their respective economies. it was part of your "well, the government can't really effect the economy, so nothing that happens is Obama's fault" attempt.
:lol: it was hilarious.
Actually that isn't what I said. Go back and read, this time for comprehension.
feeling entitled to others' money is indeed greed.
Agian, thinking that is what they are doing is your bias and not their thinking.
you have argued that the American people would oppose means-testing because they would feel too entitled to "getting theirs", and would thus refuse to take less in order to provide the poor with more.
You do know this has come up before, and they have opposed it before:
RESOLVED That we oppose means testing of Part D just as we oppose means testing of Part B since means testing unfairly penalizes the middle class who cannot be considered among the wealthy and be it further
RESOLVED That we continue our opposition to means testing and conduct an appropriate campaign.
Courses / Workshops - UFT Catalog | United Federation of Teachers
This morning I watched a clip on Fox News (not the above clip) with a panel discussing social security and the above clip of Obama. One of the panelists, a Democratic strategist, talked about means testing social security payments so that the “wealthy” do not receive benefits.
Here is the problem with this idea:
It penalizes those who planned for retirement. There are lots of people out there who are making sacrifices in order to put money aside for retirement. People who are foregoing nice cars, fancy houses, and vacations in order to save for their future. Meanwhile, their neighbors are living the highlife and not saving nearly enough for retirement. Then, retirement day gets here and the one who put money back for retirement is going to have to give up some of their social security and the one who did nothing is going to get their full retirement. Crazy.
Should We “Means Test” Social Security? | AllFinancialMatters
Just the first couple on a search to opposition.
this is not necessarily accurate - the added premium support is greater than the amount the CBO said Seniors might end up spending extra. and if the plans match the growth rate that we have seen in similar provisions of Medicare, then the comparative worth of this benefit will grow over time.
I think it is quite true:
A Republican proposal to radically reshape Medicare and Medicaid, the federal and state-federal health insurance programs for the poor and elderly, would devastate L.A. County’s public hospitals and clinics, said County Chief Executive William T Fujioka.
“It would have a horrific impact on our programs and services, not only in direct context for the amount of funds we receive to support individuals who rely on Medicare and Medi-Cal for healthcare services, but what you’ll see is providers throughout the whole county who will stop seeing Medicare and Medi-Cal patients,” Fujioka said Monday.
GOP health insurance plan would hurt poor, elderly, says L.A. County chief - latimes.com
Rep. Ryan's proposals slash programs for the elderly, the disabled, the poor and the middle class or transform them into a voucher system that will result in hardships for many. In the opinion of most economists, including many on the right, Ryan's proposals will further weaken the economy and lead to greater unemployment. He proposes these measures while he advocates for more tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy, many of whom pay little or no taxes while getting a tax refund (i.e.: General Electric). I hardly call this courageous.
Ryan plan will hurt elderly, economy - The Sun Chronicle Online - Opinion
Again, just a couple, the first two, of a search. But like myself, you're likely seen many more by now.
again that is not necessarily correct. the CBO says seniors in a flat measure (not taking into account means testing) would end up needing $6,600 extra to get straight comparative coverage. The added premium support is $7,800. Now, I took "math for the non-math major, but..."
I've learned to doubt you because you accept things unchallenged from sources like NRO. If you can provide another source, linking to the specific report, I'll consider it. But here is what I read:
To summarize, a typical beneficiary would spend more for health care under the proposal than under CBO’s long-term scenarios for several reasons. First, private plans would cost more than traditional Medicare because of the net effect of differences in payment rates for providers, administrative costs, and utilization of health care services, as described above. Second, the government’s contribution would grow more slowly than health care costs, leaving more for beneficiaries to pay.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-Ryan_Letter.pdf
you argued that a cash service was impossible in a market in which we kept insurance. not my fault you were wrong.
Again, you've lost the argument, completely lost as to what I have agrued. I can only suggest it is because you broke it so much you no longer know what was argued.
is that a way of saying no, you have no idea?
No, that you have no idea, as noted above.
possibly - but least probably for the poor; which is how it should be. It is also quite possible that this will not be the case; despite reduced expenditures.
More for the middle class, as it is now. They suffer more than the very poor and the very wealthy. And they will be hurt more with this.
yes, which doesn't mean that his patients have no insurance, or even that they aren't using their plan.
Please remember what you said. Everyone is to go to his system to be more effective. There is no way for that to be with insurance, as no one would take it.
Except of course in those states wise enough to follow Indiana's lead.
I see nothign different there that would change anything I'm speaking of.
and again no I haven't. you seem stuck in this model wherein our current structure is the only one available; when in fact our current structure is a heavily flawed make-up, the result of Government interference in the market - to the extent that we even have a market.
Again you show a lack of knowing my argument. I would change the struture to a single payer system.
:lamo
oh, no, I remember these quite clearly. I also remember that at the point which violence turned downwards and you came up with the "2005 level" standard (why did you pick that year, btw?), you told me that as soon as we withdrew, the nation was still going to descend into civil war, mass chaos, blood, and so on and so forth.
No, you do not remember clearly. I suspect it was your happen of not actually listening, but creating strawment to argue, to make yourself look better. But, regardless, you have my argumnent quite confused.