• 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!

Between the Medicare Cutters

Which Plan?


  • Total voters
    15

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,619
Reaction score
39,894
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As I've pointed out a couple of times, here, both sides are admitting that we need to cut medicare. The President's plan is to give authority to an independent board to make one-size-fits-all decisions and imposing them on seniors. Ryan's plan is to give Seniors the choice of how to allocate their Medicare dollars so that they have control over where and what to cut and emphasize. The President's plan has been scored by the CBO as saving no money, Ryan's plan does save money, and looks like it would lower healthcare costs aside.

But that is debatable, to be sure. between the two options, which is better for seniors?


The Medicare Cutters

The debate over Paul Ryan's Medicare reform ideas has largely been healthy, even amid the liberal distortions. But why has there been so little scrutiny of President Obama's new Medicare proposal? Anyone worrying about more individual choice and responsibility in health care might be interested to learn that the alternative is turning every one of these decisions over to a 15-member central committee.

It sounds absurd, but there the President was last week, gravely conceding Mr. Ryan's analysis of Medicare's balance sheet and then claiming that the solution is to give a lot more political power to an unelected board to control health costs. Democrats believe this board will play doctor and actuary and allocate health resources better than markets, so allow us to fill in some of the details of this government-planned future...

Starting in 2014, the board is charged with holding Medicare spending to certain limits, which at first is a measure of inflation. After 2018, the threshold is the nominal per capita growth of the economy plus one percentage point. Last week Mr. Obama said he wants to lower that to GDP plus half a percentage point.

Mr. Ryan has been lambasted for linking his "premium support" Medicare subsidies to inflation, not the rate of health cost growth. But if that's as unrealistic as the liberal wise men claim, then Mr. Obama's goals are even more so. Medicare grew 2.1 percentage points faster between 1985 and 2009 than Mr. Obama's new GDP target. At least Mr. Ryan is proposing a workable model for bringing costs down over time by changing incentives.

Mr. Obama, by contrast, is relying on the so far unidentified technocratic reforms of 15 so far unidentified geniuses who are supposed to give up medical practice or academic research for the privilege of a government salary. Since the board is not allowed by law to restrict treatments, ask seniors to pay more, or raise taxes or the retirement age, it can mean only one thing: arbitrarily paying less for the services seniors receive, via fiat pricing...

Messrs. Ryan and Obama agree that Medicare spending must decline, and significantly. The difference is that Mr. Ryan would let seniors decide which private Medicare-financed insurance policies to buy based on their own needs, while Mr. Obama wants Americans to accept the commands of 15 political appointees who will never stand for election.
 
Orr we could seize the oil revenues from Iraq and Afghanistan that are owed for saving their sorry asses and give our seniors better wheel chairs and bingo boards.
 
Orr we could seize the oil revenues from Iraq and Afghanistan that are owed for saving their sorry asses and give our seniors better wheel chairs and bingo boards.

that wouldn't even begin to be enough to cover our current baseline entitlement expenses.

and Afghanistan has no oil that I am aware of; though there are pipelines that run through her.
 
I think that if we're going to have some kind of mandatory medical care, it should be a mandatory HSA, with less restrictions on what type of insurance you can get.

Seriously, I don't need to be covered for pregnancy, I don't have a vagina.
 
I think that if we're going to have some kind of mandatory medical care, it should be a mandatory HSA, with less restrictions on what type of insurance you can get.

Seriously, I don't need to be covered for pregnancy, I don't have a vagina.


You are a human being. Of course you have a vagina. How else could you be fruitful and multiply? And medical care must be mandatory because humans do not let other humans suffer or die.
 
Afghanistan doesn't have any oil!? Then why the hell did we rescue them? There's so much I don't know.
 
I think that if we're going to have some kind of mandatory medical care, it should be a mandatory HSA, with less restrictions on what type of insurance you can get.

Seriously, I don't need to be covered for pregnancy, I don't have a vagina.

Indiana is in the process of switching it's Medicaid recipients over to HSA's, having already offered that option to it's public employees. Going to be interesting to see how it works out and what it tells us for public policy.
 
Indiana is in the process of switching it's Medicaid recipients over to HSA's, having already offered that option to it's public employees. Going to be interesting to see how it works out and what it tells us for public policy.

And think, if we swapped out the Medicare tax to contribute to the HSA, it would be golden.
 
And think, if we swapped out the Medicare tax to contribute to the HSA, it would be golden.

geez. combined with swapping Social Security over to a ROTH-style plan... and saved up against your retirement...

....our biggest retiree issue would be that housing prices in Florida would be skyrocketing. we would literally be retiring entire generations of millionaires in real money.

we could means-test Medicare and join it with Medicaid to cut redundancy - both of which would just subsidize the 'Low Income / High Risk HSAs', everyone would still be provided for; and we could concentrate what few dollars we have to spend on that exceedingly small percentage seniors who would actually need it....

Long Term, we could lower government spending to 15% of the economy. 10%. Easily. Good God, can you imagine the economic boom?
 
Last edited:
geez. combined with swapping Social Security over to a ROTH-style plan... and saved up against your retirement...

....our biggest retiree issue would be that housing prices in Florida would be skyrocketing. we would literally be retiring entire generations of millionaires in real money.

we could means-test Medicare and join it with Medicaid to cut redundancy - both of which would just subsidize the 'Low Income / High Risk HSAs', everyone would still be provided for; and we could concentrate what few dollars we have to spend on that exceedingly small percentage seniors who would actually need it....

Long Term, we could lower government spending to 15% of the economy. 10%. Easily. Good God, can you imagine the economic boom?

and yet we won't because we are so stupid :doh

aaaaarg, it's depressing seeing how awesome we could be, how many poor people we could lift out of poverty, how we could recapture our founding ideals..... and yet we wont. :sigh: ....





:rwbdonkey:blastem:
 
Kandahar, you surprise me;

why do you think that a board imposing one-size-fits-all decisions by fiat is better than means testing to allow for our poorer seniors to get more support, and then letting all seniors make their own allocative decisions?
 
geez. combined with swapping Social Security over to a ROTH-style plan... and saved up against your retirement...

....our biggest retiree issue would be that housing prices in Florida would be skyrocketing. we would literally be retiring entire generations of millionaires in real money.

we could means-test Medicare and join it with Medicaid to cut redundancy - both of which would just subsidize the 'Low Income / High Risk HSAs', everyone would still be provided for; and we could concentrate what few dollars we have to spend on that exceedingly small percentage seniors who would actually need it....

Long Term, we could lower government spending to 15% of the economy. 10%. Easily. Good God, can you imagine the economic boom?

You're insane, crazy, that will cause millions to die for some unknown cosmic reason. :scared:
 
and yet we won't because we are so stupid :doh

aaaaarg, it's depressing seeing how awesome we could be, how many poor people we could lift out of poverty, how we could recapture our founding ideals..... and yet we wont. :sigh: ....





:rwbdonkey:blastem:


In my lifetime CPwill theres been many just like you...telling me how fantastic this idea for change is...or that idea for change is...if WE WOULD ONLY DO THIS it would end all world problems as we know it...they have ALL been fail...ive been sold a bill of goods so many times using contrived math and scare tactics...I find most all of it to be created BS by a special interest group big or small for their own gain...this time the group is 30-45 age demographic who believe their entitlement is ALL OF IT and everyone else is entitled to squat...they live with the belief if your not rich its because your a lazy piece of ****, if you work for a living that living is what THEY want to give you and nothing more, if your in a union you should die.....pffffffffffft....all you have to do is read some of the posts written not only on this forum but on others to see that come glaring through.
Personally I dont buy the teaparty Rahm Emmanual war cry....never waste a crisis. Obama used that to spend insanely...the teaparty wants to use that to SHAFT everyone that works and lower their taxs to nothing...I dont buy either
 
You're insane, crazy, that will cause millions to die for some unknown cosmic reason. :scared:

that doesn't need to be specified or defined, but certainly involves your elderly grandmother and an autistic kid being stabbed to death - as they lay in the snow - by the Koch brothers.
 
In my lifetime CPwill theres been many just like you...telling me how fantastic this idea for change is...or that idea for change is...if WE WOULD ONLY DO THIS it would end all world problems as we know it..

it wouldn't end all of our problems. Jesus said the poor will always be with you and I take Him at His Word. but it would just about solve this problem.
 
Just checked, I still do not have a vagina.

There are other humans you know. It's not all about just you. Your concerns for your female humans should be no different than your own.

Ya know like " I don't get pregnant so I;m not paying," NO,
 
Last edited:
There are other humans you know. It's not all about just you. Your concerns for your female humans should be no different than your own.

oh, believe us. we are very interested in vaginas. it's just that we don't happen to have any.
 
There are other humans you know. It's not all about just you. Your concerns for your female humans should be no different than your own.

When I am female, I will have a deep concern for my vagina.
Until then, I have no need of insurance that covers pregnancy or any vagina related ailment/problem.

Insurance is meant to cover things that could happen to you, you wouldn't buy car insurance when you don't have a car.
I wouldn't purchase insurance to cover pregnancy when I can not get pregnant.

That's why it's moronic to have government regulate these markets beyond contract enforcement and fraud.
 
When I am female, I will have a deep concern for my vagina.
Until then, I have no need of insurance that covers pregnancy or any vagina related ailment/problem.

Insurance is meant to cover things that could happen to you, you wouldn't buy car insurance when you don't have a car.
I wouldn't purchase insurance to cover pregnancy when I can not get pregnant.

That's why it's moronic to have government regulate these markets beyond contract enforcement and fraud.

Cars are not necessary to advance life. Babies are. You have to pay for the well being of babies. Not cars.
 
Back
Top Bottom