• 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!

Does the GOP need to fear the 99% Movement?

Should the GOP should fear the 99% movement

  • Absolutely should fear it

    Votes: 19 31.1%
  • Somewhat fear it

    Votes: 7 11.5%
  • Fear it a little bit

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Fear it a tiny bit

    Votes: 3 4.9%
  • Absolutely nothing to fear

    Votes: 20 32.8%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Don't care

    Votes: 6 9.8%
  • Other (explian)

    Votes: 4 6.6%

  • Total voters
    61
There is a great deal of anger at Wall St., the big banks, corporations, and our current system within the Tea Party. If just a bit of it merges with the 99%/OWS movement....the GOP is screwed.

how so given Obama got more support from wall street than any candidate in recent history.
 
how so given Obama got more support from wall street than any candidate in recent history.

Obama supports policies that will lead to more income equality. The GOP supports the opposite.

You really think the Tea-Baggers are happy that soo fewer Americans can afford to buy a home than 25 years ago? Right.
 
how so given Obama got more support from wall street than any candidate in recent history.

Ya might want to inform Goldman Sachs about this:

Top Recipients, 2011-2012
Romney, Mitt (R)
red.gif
$290,750
Obama, Barack (D)
blue.gif
$44,750
Rubio, Marco (R-FL)
red.gif
$43,000
Brown, Scott P (R-MA)
red.gif
$38,500
Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY)
blue.gif
$34,000
...view more Recipients

Candidate Amount
Goldman Sachs: Summary | OpenSecrets
 
Well, if you look at how the protests went from originally peaceful, to the mayhem that was the Democrat Convention in Chicago in '68, and all that violence, you might be able to understand why the Republican, Nixon, won so big that year against a very fine man, Hubert Humphrey, who suffered enormously politically because of the excesses of those protesters.

So, while I do not think you knew how much your reference would make my point, I thank you. :)

All the anti-war protests I was involved with were non-violent. The great majority of the anti-war demonstrators were also non-violent. And we accomplished our goal, bringing about the end to the Vietnam war.
 
That's only true if, take home pay was an accurate way to define total compensation and income, but since it isn't, that isn't true at all.
The middle class shrinkage, is a myth.

Please just keep repeating this to the middle class, and to the poor that used to be middle class, as we approach the election, please keep repeating this as often as you can!!! Thanks! :elephantf
 
are you aware that the current democratic policy is to begin cutting your medicare benefits in 2014?

Please tell us how Earl's medicare benefits will be cut in 2014???
 
Mitt Romney changes his position maybe as often as he changes his under wear, Rick Perry's distain for SS along with other undesirable traits he has makes him a candidate I could/would not trust, Herman Cain does not seem to have SS payments in his 999 plan. Any candidate with Tea Party support would be a candidate I would not trust to represent main street Americans


so, no. you can't. nor can you explain claiming to support the Obama Administration because he will protect entitlements when Democrats are the only party calling for cutting entitlements for current seniors.

well, it's good to know that at least you stick to your principles. Democrats are going to deeply cut your medicare, but you're staying with them.
 
Please just keep repeating this to the middle class, and to the poor that used to be middle class, as we approach the election, please keep repeating this as often as you can!!! Thanks! :elephantf

Another red herring.
At least you're consistent, if only it were of substance.
 
Please tell us how Earl's medicare benefits will be cut in 2014???

:) That's the year Obamacare begins to really kick in (it's such a good deal that they made sure it wouldn't take effect until safely after the election ;)), with it's massive cuts to the program, and reductions in reimbursement rates that will cause providers to flee the system.

but hey, you don't have to take it from me.

Even Pro Single Payer People are pointing this stuff out

...The first kind of cut is a scaling-back of the yearly payment increases these providers get to compensate for their increased costs in providing care to Medicare patients. Actually, these payment increases have never kept up with inflation of medical costs. The yearly payment increases have ranged from 2.0-3.5%[8] over the last decade, but medical care costs in general have increased about 6% annually. In spite of this, the Obama plan will deduct a significant fraction[9] of each year’s payment increase, and the deduction gets worse as time goes on. Medicare providers will have less and less incentive to treat Medicare patients.

The second kind of cut is a one-time penalty if providers cannot increase their “productivity” as fast as the rest of the nation’s economy. CMS, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, knows it will be virtually impossible for providers to meet this “productivity” target, and has already counted these penalties as an income source. Even if facilities know they can’t meet their productivity targets, there will still be a strong incentive to rush Medicare patients through as fast as possible, to maximize their productivity and minimize the penalty. One medical adviser wrote[10] “Within the next 6-12 months, healthcare organizations will need to find a way to reduce their expenses or increase revenue by 3-5% to offset Medicare productivity adjustments.”

The combination of the across-the-board reductions and the penalties for not meeting productivity targets means many providers will experience absolute decreases in funding from one year to the next.

Medicare’s own Actuary estimates these two types of payment reductions could cause 15 percent of hospitals and other institutions to become unprofitable and stop providing Medicare services by 2019. By 2030 it would be 25 percent of hospitals...

oh well. it's not like we're in a doctor shortage now, or anything, right?



or, let's go to the actual Medicare Actuaries Themselves:



but gosh, didn't the Obama Administration say access would be improved while holding costs down?



meanwhile, do they say that Premium Support (the Ryan Budget) destroys Medicare, as Earl claims?



Gosh, it looks like no they don't.
 
This Republican congressman is obviously concerned, Do you feel the the GOP has anything to fear from the 99% Movement?<img src="http://www.debatepolitics.com/attachments/polls/67116558-does-gop-need-fear-99-movement-sprite-6.jpg" attachmentid="67116558" alt="" id="vbattach_67116558" class="previewthumb">

I say no the republicans have nothing to fear from the anti-wall street protesters, they are a bunch of loons.Now of course Peter King could be right, most likely they said the same thing about those dirty pinko commie anti-war trash hippies in the 60s and 70s. That is when I say the US government lost it's damn mind by starting to give a crap by what that trash says. Can you imagine if the same **** happened during WWI, WWII, Civil War or any other war prior to that? The US wouldn't exist today, we would be like Canada or Australia.
 
Last edited:
I say no the republicans have nothing to fear from the anti-wall street protesters, they are a bunch of loons.Now of course Peter King could be right, most likely they said the same thing about those dirty pinko commie anti-war trash hippies in the 60s and 70s. That is when I say the US government lost it's damn mind by starting to give a crap by what that trash says. Can you imagine if the same **** happened during WWI, WWII, Civil War or any other war prior to that? The US wouldn't exist today, we would be like Canada or Australia.

There was.a.good bit of dissent in this country over our entry into WW1:

Opposition to World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
That is when I say the US government lost it's damn mind by starting to give a crap by what that trash says. Can you imagine if the same **** happened during WWI, WWII, Civil War or any other war prior to that? The US wouldn't exist today, we would be like Canada or Australia.
I'm sorry! Both Canada and Australia are great countries.

Also, both of them are more economically free than the US.
 
Also, to compare US with another country is difficult, because US is very large and diverse. If US was more left-wing, then taxes would be somewhat higher. You would have public health care, death penalty would be outlawed, most guns would be banned, and you would have a more centralized public school system with fewer private schools. Also, there would be many more environmental regulations. However, by large US would look much more like Italy/Greece/France/Germany/Mexico than Scandinavia.

The west would look like California, so no change there. The South would look like New Mexico, and be dominated by poor Hispanics due to amnesty, so not very good. The southwest would look like now, but with less religion. The northwest would look like now and the north wouldn't be very different either. To summarize

West: Greece
South: Mexico
SouthEast: Italy
NorthEast: Sweden
North: Germany
 
Last edited:
:) That's the year Obamacare begins to really kick in (it's such a good deal that they made sure it wouldn't take effect until safely after the election ;)), with it's massive cuts to the program, and reductions in reimbursement rates that will cause providers to flee the system.

but hey, you don't have to take it from me.


Even Pro Single Payer People are pointing this stuff out

I'm afraid I do have to take it from you, as you are the one that made the claim. Tell us exactly how Earl's benefits are going to be cut in 2014. I'm not going searching for something that doesn't exist.

You made the claim, you back it up.
 
I'm sorry! Both Canada and Australia are great countries.

Also, both of them are more economically free than the US.

Our money doesn't have the Queen of England on it.
 
What drives the economy and creates jobs? Would you be more willing to expand your business under higher taxes and high demand, or lower taxes and low demand?

I am a small business owner. I own a recording studio and my business has been my families sole income for ten years.

Tell me how higher taxes will correlate with higher demand for my services? I don't see how less money in the hands of my clients will result in more business for me unless I start doing post production for NPR?
 
I'm afraid I do have to take it from you, as you are the one that made the claim. Tell us exactly how Earl's benefits are going to be cut in 2014. I'm not going searching for something that doesn't exist.

i quoted it for you - at length. you know all that stuff you cut out in your reply?
 
i quoted it for you - at length. you know all that stuff you cut out in your reply?

You never listed exactly how Earl's medicare benefits will be cut in 2014.
 
are you aware that the current democratic policy is to begin cutting your medicare benefits in 2014? are you aware that current democratic policy is to severely limit your access to providers who will take Medicare in 2014? can you name a single major Republican who has called for cuts to current recipients of Social Security or Medicare?


I repeat the question. Please name a single major Republican leader who has called for cuts for current retirees, as the Obama administration has.

I never believed that either the democratic or republican party would allow President Obama or any other candidate to run for President that was not a natural born citizen yet 57% of registered republicans admitted to believeing that thier own party could not prevent an illegal candidate from running, my point just because some one says it does not make it fact but some for what ever partisan reason continue throwing sh-t against the wall hoping that eventually some of it will stick and unfortunately at least 57% of registered republicans and undoubedly some others won't bother to check so for you CP I took the time to look it was difficult but I never minded hard work I am one of the 99% and proud of it

FactCheck.org : Premium Nonsense On Medicare

Medicare Part B Standard Premium (projected, February 2011)

2012- $108.20
2013-$112.10
2014-$117.10

I used to receive chain e-mails BTW all from republican buddies of mine until one day I started to fact check and replied to all names on the CC list disproving the BS in the chain mails, I would suggest you start to question some of the facts you receive in your chain e-mails 99% of them will probably be distortions of the truth or just plain out right lies. What time is it in Okinawa?


Source: Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Office of theActuary
 
You never listed exactly how Earl's medicare benefits will be cut in 2014.

ah. my bad - I assumed you were capable of making the leap.

Earl's benefits are cut because his access is cut. In two ways: 1. the number of available providers will shrink dramatically and 2. the range of services that remaining providers will be able to afford to provide him with at Medicare reimbursement rates will sink.

Earl is going to have to look harder and go to more effort and personal expense in order to get less healthcare. That's why it's a "cut".


Earl: :) I'm in the Philippines right now, and it is 1845.
 
Last edited:
ah. my bad - I assumed you were capable of making the leap.

Earl's benefits are cut because his access is cut. In two ways: 1. the number of available providers will shrink dramatically and 2. the range of services that remaining providers will be able to afford to provide him with at Medicare reimbursement rates will sink.

Earl is going to have to look harder and go to more effort and personal expense in order to get less healthcare. That's why it's a "cut".


Earl: :) I'm in the Philippines right now, and it is 1845.

This has been in the works for years at least since 2003, your opinion is subjective to your conclusions and nothing more. Enjoy your trip

Medical News: New Bill Pushes Medicare Pay Cuts Out to 2014 - in Practice Management, Reimbursement from MedPage Today

New Bill Pushes Medicare Pay Cuts Out to 2014

By Emily P. Walker, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today
Published: May 21, 2010

WASHINGTON -- Doctors would be spared from cuts in Medicare reimbursement until 2014 under a new bill that Congress is expected to take up before Memorial Day.

The bill -- known as the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010 -- would enact tax cuts and extend a number of expired federal programs. It would also stave off a 21% cut mandated by the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula, according to an outline of the bill, released Thursday by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sander Levin (D-Mich.).

Lawmakers appear to have abandoned a plan that was discussed earlier in the week to stall the cuts for five years.

The SGR was originally designed to match increases in physician payments under Medicare to the growth in the gross domestic product (GDP). The formula has called for reductions in Medicare payments for years as medical costs have inflated far more quickly than the GDP. Every year, at the last minute, Congress has postponed the cuts.

Under the bill, physicians who treat Medicare patients would receive "reasonable updates" for the rest of 2010 and all of 2011. In 2012 and 2013, "rates would continue to increase if spending growth on physician services is within reasonable limits."

While it's not clear how much the rates could be increased, the rates won't be reduced in 2012 and 2013, according to the outline of the bill.

Primary and preventive care doctors would see an extra, unspecified reimbursement.

The Congressional Budget Office is currently estimating the cost of the 3.5-year "doc fix."

But come 2014, physician reimbursements would again be on the chopping block. By then, the amount mandated to be cut under the SGR would be greater than 21%. Each time the cut is pushed down the road, the amount that physicians should be nicked -- according to the formula -- gets bigger and bigger.

The American Medical Association (AMA), which has long advocated for full repeal of the SGR, said the delay would provide some temporary relief. However, the group's president, James Rohack, MD, said the AMA is "deeply disappointed" that Congress has given up on a permanent fix.

"Lawmakers must realize that the underlying policy problem will return larger than ever in 2014," Rohack said in a statement. "Future Medicare cuts will severely undermine health system reform initiatives that aim to optimize the quality of patient care as physicians find they cannot afford to participate in Medicare."

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) echoed similar sentiments.

"Four years of positive updates will provide physicians with the stability needed, while we look at real ways for true payment reform and eliminating the need for the SGR," said ACC President Ralph Brindis, MD, MPH, in a statement.

The American Hospital Association (AHA), meanwhile, objected to a provision in the bill that would clarify the so-called "72 Rule," which states that all services provided for Medicare patients within 72 hours of a hospital admission are billed on one claim.

The bill would prevent hospitals from unbundling those services to receive additional Medicare payments.
 
This has been in the works for years at least since 2003

the IPAB has been in the works since 2003? I'm going to need some evidence of that.

Medical News: New Bill Pushes Medicare Pay Cuts Out to 2014 - in Practice Management, Reimbursement from MedPage Today

New Bill Pushes Medicare Pay Cuts Out to 2014

By Emily P. Walker, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today
Published: May 21, 2010

WASHINGTON -- Doctors would be spared from cuts in Medicare reimbursement until 2014 under a new bill that Congress is expected to take up before Memorial Day.

The bill -- known as the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010 -- would enact tax cuts and extend a number of expired federal programs. It would also stave off a 21% cut mandated by the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula, according to an outline of the bill, released Thursday by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sander Levin (D-Mich.).

Lawmakers appear to have abandoned a plan that was discussed earlier in the week to stall the cuts for five years.

The SGR was originally designed to match increases in physician payments under Medicare to the growth in the gross domestic product (GDP). The formula has called for reductions in Medicare payments for years as medical costs have inflated far more quickly than the GDP. Every year, at the last minute, Congress has postponed the cuts.

Under the bill, physicians who treat Medicare patients would receive "reasonable updates" for the rest of 2010 and all of 2011. In 2012 and 2013, "rates would continue to increase if spending growth on physician services is within reasonable limits."

While it's not clear how much the rates could be increased, the rates won't be reduced in 2012 and 2013, according to the outline of the bill.

Primary and preventive care doctors would see an extra, unspecified reimbursement.

The Congressional Budget Office is currently estimating the cost of the 3.5-year "doc fix."

But come 2014, physician reimbursements would again be on the chopping block. By then, the amount mandated to be cut under the SGR would be greater than 21%. Each time the cut is pushed down the road, the amount that physicians should be nicked -- according to the formula -- gets bigger and bigger.

The American Medical Association (AMA), which has long advocated for full repeal of the SGR, said the delay would provide some temporary relief. However, the group's president, James Rohack, MD, said the AMA is "deeply disappointed" that Congress has given up on a permanent fix.

"Lawmakers must realize that the underlying policy problem will return larger than ever in 2014," Rohack said in a statement. "Future Medicare cuts will severely undermine health system reform initiatives that aim to optimize the quality of patient care as physicians find they cannot afford to participate in Medicare."

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) echoed similar sentiments.

"Four years of positive updates will provide physicians with the stability needed, while we look at real ways for true payment reform and eliminating the need for the SGR," said ACC President Ralph Brindis, MD, MPH, in a statement.

The American Hospital Association (AHA), meanwhile, objected to a provision in the bill that would clarify the so-called "72 Rule," which states that all services provided for Medicare patients within 72 hours of a hospital admission are billed on one claim.

The bill would prevent hospitals from unbundling those services to receive additional Medicare payments.

this is what I said - 2014. how did you think Obama "paid for" his healthcare boondoggle of a bill?
 
Back
Top Bottom