Mayor Snorkum
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,631
- Reaction score
- 317
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
-
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!
McConnell: Paul Ryan Medicare Plan 'On The Table' In Debt Ceiling Discussions
- Thread starter Sgt Meowenstein
- Start date
Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You won't mind if I doubt you. The type of disputes we're talking about would be just as difficult to beat an insurance company for as the state. Particularly for those most finanacally challeneged.
it is, in fact, more comparable than your own. the nature of the two are the same - it is merely the degree that differs. whereas the comparison you are attempting to draw is between two items of opposing nature.
but I don't expect you to address it at all.you have consistently demonstrated yourself unwilling to do so, preferring to be dismissive rather than try to actually engage.
In fact, it isn't. Your tactic is to throw up crap and then say why won't you addres it. The answer is because it is crap and not really anything to address.
More silliness, no one has to pass a constitutional amendment. See, one has to accept your silliness to address it. I don't.
ANd this is addressing a point? First, you don't act as if you understand what was said concerning Korea, another silly off point comparison of yours, and then you keep throwing this in, with multiple disconnected posts, in an effort to not address any thing being discussed. Bravo. Your debating coach at how not to engage in debate would be proud.
Do try to put all the snetences together.
You really need a good dictionary and better understanding.
Agian, as I have no problem with means testing, and if you read for comperhension you would know this, the entire plan has more than means testing. Beyond that, it decreases benefits for even the poor, giving compensation even among those getting the most in his plan. But by all means, fight the easier strawman.
ONly, that's not really what the plans does. It may give more to person with $16,000 than $70, but it overall decreases what the person at 16K would have made previously.
As regard to the standard.
I do know. Do you even know what I'm arguing? Have you broke it so much you even lost the misrepresentation you were aiming for?
I doubt you accurately saw the results of whatever last time you spak of, but being unspecfic, it's hard to be sure. As for scarcity of resources, this has always been the case, and there will always be limitations. The point is, this leads to more limitations, for everyone.
Yes I do. But please try to stay with what you are saying concerning the doctor. He's taking no plan, no government plan, no insurance plan. This means insurance plays no role. Only cash. This means there are people who will not afford it no matter the cost.
Again, you've lost your own argument.
and all the while you are loudly proclaiming that Afghanistan is the "good" war, that that is where we should be "surging" and that is where we should be sticking it through.... and so did nearly everyone else on the anti-Iraq side of the aisle, throwing out support for Afghanistan as their shield to charges that they were weak on national security and willing to lose the war.....
.... now, let me see if I can recall... When McCrystal asked for another 40,000 troops and a surge to stick it through your response was.....
.... and your reaction to Obama deciding to go for what is politically popular rather than necessary to finish that conflict will be.....
and the faux-support you and your compatriots pretended to have for Afghanistan shrivels up minus the need to use it as a cover.
Amazing that you don't even know my arguments. Sad really. Maybe it is because you break things up so much that you create your own arguments in your head. Someday, you should stop the game playing and try to actually understand.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2011
- Messages
- 1,993
- Reaction score
- 470
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Who's lieing? Under Ryan's plan, a greater portion of health care cost are transferred to the people, who are already being taxed to pay for the program and does not upkeep with health care inflation. Thus, in the long run, medicare becomes worthless unless health care cost go down, which isn't likely to happen unless the federal government tramples on state's rights. Good luck getting that to happen with repubs.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,879
- Reaction score
- 19,549
- Location
- Rocky Mtn. High
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
...and you are not really serious about closing the deficit gaps until tax increases (in any form) are also on the table. We know the conservatives are not serious about the debt or deficit, they just hate social programs and Obama. They are more than happy to crater the economy than to allow either social programs or Obama to continue on...
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,605
- Reaction score
- 39,893
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
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.
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.
feeling entitled to others' money is indeed greed.
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.
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.
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..."
you argued that a cash service was impossible in a market in which we kept insurance. not my fault you were wrong.
is that a way of saying no, you have no idea?
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.
yes, which doesn't mean that his patients have no insurance, or even that they aren't using their plan.
Except of course in those states wise enough to follow Indiana's lead.
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.
: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.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,605
- Reaction score
- 39,893
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
this is absolutely incorrect. firstly, we don't have a revenue problem. we have a spending problem. revenue has continued to climb over the decades - it is spending that has outstripped it. furthermore, raising tax rates wouldn't increase revenue. Because revenue is not a function of tax rates. it is a function of GDP, and the major factor that drives that up and down is the relative size of government.
as you can see:
even as tax rates have varied wildly over the past 60+ years, revenue has remained relatively constant at around 19% of GDP. Within that range it is worth noting that we hovered nearer the top of the range with lower marginal tax rates, and we hovered near the bottom of the range with higher marginal tax rates.
It is also worth noting that since 2007, Government has increased from about 20% of GDP to about 24.5% of GDP, and Revenue has dropped from about 19.5% of GDP to about 15% of GDP... as Government does not seem so keen on taxing itself as much as it does investment, labor, and production, the more the government expands, the less revenue we will see relative to GDP.
To sum:
1. It is exceedingly unlikely that hiking tax rates will have the effect of increasing revenue and
2. It is very likely that hiking tax rates on the recovery at this point will degrade growth in GDP, which, as demonstrated above, is what actually drives revenue... thus
3. By hiking tax rates, you are very likely to reduce revenue from what you would have otherwise received.
this is BS. Conservatives are attempting to save those social programs from their current course which entails their destruction.
:roll: yeah. and Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,605
- Reaction score
- 39,893
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
this is true in general - but that is the case with any plan to save Medicare. Expenditures have to be reduced sharply or the program collapses and takes the government with it.
retirees are taxed to pay for Medicare?
that point may happily not necessarily be true. Medicare Part D, which functions similarly to the Ryan Plan, has seen annual cost inflation of about 1.2%
Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You'll forgive me if I doubt you.
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.
Actually that isn't what I said. Go back and read, this time for comprehension.
Agian, thinking that is what they are doing is your bias and not their thinking.
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.
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.
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.
No, that you have no idea, as noted above.
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.
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.
I see nothign different there that would change anything I'm speaking of.
Again you show a lack of knowing my argument. I would change the struture to a single payer system.
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.