kmiller1610
Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2012
- Messages
- 136
- Reaction score
- 45
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Here's another prominent Dem admitting the point.
The Obama administration made Obamacare debt neutral by borrowing one third of its anticipated cost from anticipated Medicare funds. It's all in the future, just like the supposed "gutting" of the program by Paul Ryan.
Spending increasing is one of the reasons the crash happened to begin with. President Obama and the Dem Congress thought, for some reason, that spending MORE would pull us out. We now know that didn't work.If the Crash didn't happen the spending wouldn't have increased and there wouldn't be an issue. We can play that game all day long.
So you equate a POTUS doing something that harms no one except maybe his wife to an entire body of gov't (the Senate in this case) doing something that harms the entire country? Sure, the BJ got just as much (I'd say probably more) coverage but that doesn't mean its worse. Further, that you think the House DOING THEIR JOB/ABIDING BY THE LAW is a PR stunt is a very ignorant stance to take.It didn't bother me that Clinton lied about getting a BJ, either. That whole thing was just another farce packaged up for purposes of Republican PR at the tax payer's expense. A ****ing waste of time and money. The House does the same thing "passing" budgets that are nothing more than Republican PR at tax payer expense. They know full damn well their budgets are so far removed from anything acceptable to the Senate that it's just a PR stunt, plain and simple, meant to incite the blind masses - which seems to be working to some extent.
I have no issue with someone saying they think getting him out of office is a priority. Even saying that it's a top priority isn't something I take offense too. However, if a politician on either side purposely does things to make the situation worse just to see a POTUS lose reelection, I would have a problem with that. If you have proof of a politician doing that, present it. If not, you're falling prey to the typical rhetoric and hyperbole of Capital Hill.Debate honestly? Let's get some honesty here. The Republicans have plainly stated that running the country is not their top priority. Their top priority is making Obama a one term president. What more is there to discuss after that?
Last time I checked, both sides screwed that up. Just sayin.The Dems tried to work things out in the Super Committee - yeah, how did THAT go? :roll:
I disagree. Put simply, maintenance and training funds affect no one but us. R&D and purchase contracts affect the private job market. God forbid a politician be the one that forfeits jobs from his district or state. He'll be a one termer. Thats why the Joint Strike Fighter had parts made in all 50 states, its the only way it would gain approval. However, I will agree with you that some of the more ridiculous projects will be stopped. Crap like rifles that shoot around corners will stop.I have no doubt maintenance will suffer to some extent. That's what's been happening to our roads for years because no one sees the effects of that right away. New orders for equipment will most likely stop but existing orders will go on as planned since we're under contract to buy certain things in a given time-frame. R&D, again except as already contracted, will most likely stop.
For those who claim that President Obama cut over $500 billion from Medicare, could you tell us with a verifiable link just how much in actual benefits to flesh and blood recipients that comes to?
For those who claim that President Obama cut over $500 billion from Medicare, could you tell us with a verifiable link just how much in actual benefits to flesh and blood recipients that comes to?
4 million seniors getting kicked off of medicare advantage
The cut is connected to the funding of Obamacare. It was originally 500 billion, but even though Obamacare is barely even running, the CBO raised the number to 700 billion. One third of Obamacare's funding comes from Medicare, but for now that's mostly on paper.
No, the Medicare Trustee's Report on Obamacare's Deficit Expansion Isn't 'Bogus' - Forbes
That's the biggest pile of crap I've seen in quite awhile. Is that the latest from the Tea Party or was it just a Republican/conservative site? They want to cut spending so they blame the Crash on spending! LOL! The sad thing is, some people will be stupid enough to believe it regardless of the public and private reports to the contrary.Spending increasing is one of the reasons the crash happened to begin with.
Are they passing anything that ANYBODY thinks the Senate or the President would consider?? No, they aren't. The Representatives in the House are building up a plank for their upcoming campaigns and you're falling for it.So you equate a POTUS doing something that harms no one except maybe his wife to an entire body of gov't (the Senate in this case) doing something that harms the entire country? Sure, the BJ got just as much (I'd say probably more) coverage but that doesn't mean its worse. Further, that you think the House DOING THEIR JOB/ABIDING BY THE LAW is a PR stunt is a very ignorant stance to take.
Do you truly and honestly believe that the House has done absolutely every possible thing in their power to work with the President and move issues forward? If you can honestly and with a straight face answer "yes" then I'd suggest you're the one falling prey to rhetoric. The House has been obstructing since Day One and we both know it.I have no issue with someone saying they think getting him out of office is a priority. Even saying that it's a top priority isn't something I take offense too. However, if a politician on either side purposely does things to make the situation worse just to see a POTUS lose reelection, I would have a problem with that. If you have proof of a politician doing that, present it. If not, you're falling prey to the typical rhetoric and hyperbole of Capital Hill.
When you won't make any concessions to the other side that's not trying or negotiating, that's being obstructionist. The Republicans have shown many times that they're very good at obstructing and have no clue what "compromise" or "negotiate" means. But I'm sure you see that as a Dem screw up. :roll:Last time I checked, both sides screwed that up. Just sayin.
Where in that article does it discuss benefit cuts to actual flesh and blood recipients?
If one assumes that the medical care providers will simply eat the cost difference between what Medicare pays and what private insurance pays (for the same treatment procedures) then there is no change, but if you rationally assume that the providers will either not accept Medicare patients or will riase the costs for "normal" (privately insured) patients to cover the difference then there is an effect on "flesh and blood" patients. Gov't mandates do not magically make goods and services cost less, no matter what Obama wishes you to believe.
I ask this because there was a discussion on POTUS on Sirius/XM yesterday afternoon between two doctors. They maintained that the over $500 billion was a negotiated reduction in payments to providers and WOULD NOT cause any actual recipients of benefits to lose one dollars worth of benefit.
Keep in mind these were two doctors - one of which specialized in service to older frail people who are homebound.
You honestly believe the medical community and businesses only charge cost + 6-8% for profit??? :shock:If one assumes that the medical care providers will simply eat the cost difference between what Medicare pays and what private insurance pays (for the same treatment procedures) then there is no change, but if you rationally assume that the providers will either not accept Medicare patients or will riase the costs for "normal" (privately insured) patients to cover the difference then there is an effect on "flesh and blood" patients. Gov't mandates do not magically make goods and services cost less, no matter what Obama wishes you to believe.
You honestly believe the medical community and businesses only charge cost + 6-8% for profit??? :shock:
I'm talking about medical institutions taking a smaller profit in order to keep their Medicare patients. They always have the option to NOT accept Medicare patients :shrug: but I suspect most of them won't take that option. Much better to reduce the profit margin slightly to keep the facility full. Empty beds and empty waiting rooms make no money at all.What are you talking about? You do realize that more people turn 65 every year than those over 65 that die, so that means Medicare total costs for treatment rise (not fall) every year. You, and Obama, live in some fantasy land in which medical care providers will now gladly accept less money for giving the same treatment (out of some strange desire to make less money?) for the common good. When was the last year that any actual Medicare cuts were made (not simply added back in via the "doctor fix")? Hmm....
You do know that means I'm blaming Republicans for the Crash right? Clinton kept spending relatively under control, so that only leaves two candidates for the screw up. Can you guess who?That's the biggest pile of crap I've seen in quite awhile. Is that the latest from the Tea Party or was it just a Republican/conservative site? They want to cut spending so they blame the Crash on spending! LOL! The sad thing is, some people will be stupid enough to believe it regardless of the public and private reports to the contrary.
Honestly, I like Rand Paul's bill better than Ryans. Ryan doesn't reduce gov't, he just reins in the spending of it. Maybe you should look up how gov't works. Ideally, the House would pass something, the Senate would pass something. They would realize they're obviously way off. The would keep counter proposing until something passed both. I know that sounds like a fallacy that this Congress could agree on anything. However, they should at least do the due dilligence instead of what the Dems did. They just quit.Are they passing anything that ANYBODY thinks the Senate or the President would consider?? No, they aren't. The Representatives in the House are building up a plank for their upcoming campaigns and you're falling for it.
The House passed a budget and the POTUS presented a budget that sucked but at least he presented it. Who's not participating?Do you truly and honestly believe that the House has done absolutely every possible thing in their power to work with the President and move issues forward? If you can honestly and with a straight face answer "yes" then I'd suggest you're the one falling prey to rhetoric. The House has been obstructing since Day One and we both know it.
RE-READ THE COMMENT I RESPONDED WITH!!! Take your partisan hack hat off man. You are arguing just for the sake of it.When you won't make any concessions to the other side that's not trying or negotiating, that's being obstructionist. The Republicans have shown many times that they're very good at obstructing and have no clue what "compromise" or "negotiate" means. But I'm sure you see that as a Dem screw up. :roll:
So, these two doctors (alone?) have agreed to accept $500 billion less for the same services and not to simply raise other fees to make up the difference? Can you provide a link to these "negotiated" savings? Are you familiar with the "doctor fix" tradition of congress adding back in the "savings" from Medicare "cuts"? It seems only the federal gov't can manage to both save and spend the same dollar. ;-)
Gov't mandates do not magically make goods and services cost less, no matter what Obama wishes you to believe.
I'm talking about medical institutions taking a smaller profit in order to keep their Medicare patients. They always have the option to NOT accept Medicare patients :shrug: but I suspect most of them won't take that option. Much better to reduce the profit margin slightly to keep the facility full. Empty beds and empty waiting rooms make no money at all.
NO. They were not speaking simply for themselves but explaining the negotiated cuts agreed to. POTUS is a radio show and I know of no text available.
Your earlier reply to me caused me to think about it while on my hour run just now.
Why is it that you and others claim that President Obama simply cannot lower costs but keep services via decree or negotiated settlement or law while many of the same Obama critics do exactly that by mandating that public school teachers can indeed give the same service - or even more - at the same time they reduce wages or benefits for them?
It seems there is a serious contradiction in the thinking process there.
You are mixing apples and oranges here. The gov't may indeed not offer over generous benefits and pay to teachers and still have them work (or let them leave and be replaced by others). To offer less pay for the same treatment of Medicare patients provides doctors a choice, accept a partially paid for Medicare patient or a fully paid for PPACA patient, remember that their will soon be many millions more of those PPACA patients.
You are mixing apples and oranges here. The gov't may indeed not offer over generous benefits and pay to teachers and still have them work (or let them leave and be replaced by others). To offer less pay for the same treatment of Medicare patients provides doctors a choice, accept a partially paid for Medicare patient or a fully paid for PPACA patient, remember that their will soon be many millions more of those PPACA patients.
Gov't mandates do not magically make goods and services cost less, no matter what Obama wishes you to believe.
The Republicans in and of themselves shouldn't be blamed completely. I agree that with good government oversight the banks probably couldn't have pulled off the more obvious cons but some (most!?) blame has to fall on the banks. And even if you don't buy into the banks theory the other option presented was too much private credit, which still has nothing to do with overzealous government spending. In a nutshell, I don't care which party you're blaming because I'm not as much of a hack as you think I am. From the evidence and reports I've seen, and I've even skimmed through a couple of those 3-digit monster reports, it's either the banks or too much private debt. I favor the former but admit I might be convinced of the latter with more/better information, which I doubt we'll ever see.You do know that means I'm blaming Republicans for the Crash right? Clinton kept spending relatively under control, so that only leaves two candidates for the screw up. Can you guess who?
See? The PR machine is working just as I said.Honestly, I like Rand Paul's bill better than Ryans. Ryan doesn't reduce gov't, he just reins in the spending of it. Maybe you should look up how gov't works. Ideally, the House would pass something, the Senate would pass something. They would realize they're obviously way off. The would keep counter proposing until something passed both. I know that sounds like a fallacy that this Congress could agree on anything. However, they should at least do the due dilligence instead of what the Dems did. They just quit.
It wasn't any worse than the House budget --- both were just as unpalatable to the other side.The House passed a budget and the POTUS presented a budget that sucked but at least he presented it. Who's not participating?
I don't think both sides did screw it up --- so what part of your comment do you think I didn't address?RE-READ THE COMMENT I RESPONDED WITH!!! Take your partisan hack hat off man. You are arguing just for the sake of it.
It is the exact same thing. Here is what you said earlier
In both health care and education what we have is government demanding the same level of service but paying less for it. The right seems to think its the cats pajama's when we do it to public employees especially school teachers. But demanding the same of insurance companies and medical service providers seems suddenly to be out of bounds.
Hypocrisy.
It is NOT the same thing since seniors now have no right to get any other medical care (and ALL must still pay for Medicare out of their checks), it is Medcare or nothing at all, teachers can certainly seek other employment.
Spoken like somebody who has never taught or had to "seek other employment" after spending years in the profession.
It is exactly the same thing in that it is government mandating that the same level of services (or even more) be delivered for less compensation in return. Of course there will be differences when going from one sector to the other. That is normal and unavoidable. But righties love to demand that teachers teach more for less and government employees give more for less but asking insurance companies and providers to do the same is verbotten to the corporate mindset because it is their constituency which loses out.