- #71
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,267
- 10,503
I didn't mean you had to come up with the idea -- unless Obama is shopping around for a new Veep!
Evo said:Well, read this about Ryan's "plan".
Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick, would fundamentally remake federal health and long-term care services for the frail elderly and adults with disabilities.
He’d completely restructure Medicare, slash funding for Medicaid, and likely abolish most of the other safety net programs that this vulnerable population has come rely on over the last half-century.
It is fair to say that no major party candidate for national office in a half-century would do more to change the way seniors and those with disabilities get care than Ryan.
Medicare: Ryan would effectively end the current Medicare system for future retirees. He’d replace it with a government subsidy that seniors would use to buy their own health insurance, a system known as premium support. In one version, seniors would still have the option to buy into traditional Medicare, but in most others, they would not.
And where does the financial burden fall for seniors lucky enough to have children? On the children.
But of course if you are rich, as you would be if you weren't a deadbeat leech on society (IMO), this wouldn't affect you.
Do you have a version of his plan that contradicts the information in that article? If you do, please post it.CAC1001 said:Restructuring federal health and long-term care services is something that is necessary to save them. However, doing so doesn't mean just coming up with a new experimental plan and forcing everyone to adopt it, it means making the new changes optional, and seeing how they work out.
That's his (IMO inflammatory) opinion. And remember, the Vice President does not have absolute power. Republicans do not have a problem with safety net programs. The Democratic party wants the general public to think they do, as they want to scare them. The Democrats are the ones who are allowing programs like Medicare to just go straight over a cliff (same with the federal debt), not proposing any kind of reforms for it. Reform does not mean repeal and it doesn't have to be mandatory at all even (a truly good reform will become popular on its own as word would spread).
He says this like it's a bad thing.
Ryan and Romney have both made it explicit that they will never support any Medicare reform program that makes it where people cannot keep their conventional Medicare should they choose to. From a strict political standpoint even, it wouldn't make any sense not to do this.
That's only if the program was mandatory and didn't work out well.
You sound like you've fallen hook, line, and sinker for how the Democrats want you to perceive the Republican party as opposed to what it is actually proposing.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-13/ryan-romney-poll/57038326/1In a nationwide survey taken Sunday, 39% of registered voters call Republican contender Mitt Romney's selection of Ryan "excellent" or "pretty good" while 45% rate it as "only fair" or "poor." Sixteen percent have no opinion.
Evo said:There has to be a sane approach, the rich need to pay a fair share of the tax burden, not be given more tax loopholes and lower taxes. We discussed this before, the rich have ways to "legally" evade taxes. Let's get rid of those laws. I'm watching tv, so I'm just typing between commercials.
Evo said:Do you have a version of his plan that contradicts the information in that article? If you do, please post it.
mheslep said:Then the President and Nancy Pelosi are "fundamentalists"?
There is at least one published paper in a respected journal and well informed opinion to the contrary.
CAC1001 said:And Obama and many Democrats hold some bizarre and unreasonable positions as well. Until a politician comes along who is inbetween, all one can do is vote for politicians from both sides of the isle to create a balance.
This doesn't show his plan, can you link to his plan?CAC1001 said:The current version of his plan contradicts the information in the article. I believe his plan has always contradicted the information claimed in the article regarding seniors not having a choice in the matter as it implies.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57491634/romney-ryan-together-on-60-minutes-tonight/
Evo said:Sure, anyone can recommend saving billions by taking the money away from programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled. Is that the way to do it? Not in my opinion. What then happens to these people that have no way to afford to live?
In the United States, however, if you are born into poverty, you are highly likely to have malnutrition, childhood sicknesses and a bad education. The dirty little secret about the U.S. welfare state is that it spends very little on the poor — who don’t vote much — lavishing attention instead on the middle class. The result is clear. A student interviewed by Opportunity Nation, a bipartisan group founded to address these issues, put it succinctly, “The ZIP code you’re born in shouldn’t determine your destiny, but too often it does.”
Evo said:We only accept, mainstream, well known sources without a strict bias. Although there are known biases in well known sources, they can't specifically list themselves as "conservative or liberal".
russ_watters said:No, that's your argument! What the heck?!
Well: This is exactly my point. Near as I can tell, for 20,000 years of /human cultural development, it was taken for granted that that the biological mom and dad should be the parents. That view has nothing whatsoever to do with religion*.
Now you [Pythagorean] think that in 20 years that view can completely flip to being the absurd one? That's just plain not reasonable. The traditional view doesn't have to be right for it to be reasonable to be skeptical of such a radical change. It is certainly not reasonable to label that view as being strictly a religious fundamentalist view and therefore anyone who holds it as being a religious fundamentalist.
Evo said:This doesn't show his plan, can you link to his plan?
Thanks!
You claimed the Forbes article was wrong. I asked you to post Ryan's plan that shows that the article was wrong and instead you are just posting opinion pieces.CAC1001 said:Are Politifact and Factcheck.org okay?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ar-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/no-end-to-end-medicare-claim/
Also, regarding the Forbes link you used, you should be aware that Forbes can be very conservative or very liberal depending on which person wrote the article. Their way of being balanced seems to be to just have both right-wing and left-wing people writing for them.
What the heck does this have to do with the proposed changes that we are discussing?CAC1001 said:http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf
- scroll to page 45 and 52, where it is pointed out that this Medicare reform plan does not change Medicare for current recipients or those nearing retirement.
Medicare: Ryan would effectively end the current Medicare system for future retirees. He’d replace it with a government subsidy that seniors would use to buy their own health insurance, a system known as premium support. In one version, seniors would still have the option to buy into traditional Medicare, but in most others, they would not.
The government subsidy level would grow more slowly than the growth of medical costs. As a result, if health costs don’t slow, seniors would end up paying a much larger share of their health expenses than they do now. Today, the federal government pays about 70 percent of Medicare costs while seniors themselves pay about 30 percent. In one version of Ryan’s plan, seniors would pay 70 percent.
Perhaps that's because we've moved past helping the poor and have moved on to helping the middle class? When 47% of the public pays no federal income tax, we're well beyond being able to talk about how tax policy affects the poor.SixNein said:Before any policy is considered financial or otherwise, we should stop to ask if its just. The purpose of our government is to serve the people. The largest problem I see in our government today is the complete failure to consider if a policy is just. Politicians rarely even mention the poor class today; instead, they talk only of the rich and middle class.
-1:I like the take by Fareed Zakaria (Who I have a great deal of respect for btw):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/fareed-zakaria-plagiarism-new-yorker-time_n_1764954.htmlFareed Zakaria Suspended For Plagiarism
Everyone of course believes everyone should pay "their fair share". But there is a lot of disagreement about what "fair" is. Me personally, I don't think everyone should pay federal income tax. I think the poor should be exempt. So that leaves around 30% of the population (47% who pay nothing minus ~17% who are poor) who pay nothing but should pay something.CAC1001 said:2) Depending on how one looks at it, the rich already do pay their fair share, as they pay the majority of the bill. It is much of the poor and middle-class that pay nothing in federal income taxes, and are subsidized to a degree right now.
IMO, everyone needs to be paying something into the system.
Evo said:You claimed the Forbes article was wrong. I asked you to post Ryan's plan that shows that the article was wrong and instead you are just posting opinion pieces.
Please post Ryan's PLAN and point out where the Forbes article was wrong. I don't know what part of my request you don't get. I don't want opinion pieces.
Evo said:What the heck does this have to do with the proposed changes that we are discussing?
Come on, stick with the topic, follow through on it. I know you can do it. Post Ryan's plan and show me where the above isn't true as you claimed.
I was talking about gay marriage/parenting only and I pointed out that it in and of itself has nothing to do with religion. It (heterosexual marriage/parenting) is a tradition that has existed essentially forever until recently.Pythagorean said:All I said was that homosexual discrimination, forcing God into political ceremony, and pro-life are positions aligned with fundamentalism. They are all based in religious doctrine, not in social stability.
I didn't say "standard conservative principles" -- it isn't important enough or old enough of an issue to be part of traditional conservativism. I merely said it was the mainstream view. And really, it is more than that. The Defense of Marriage act passed by about an 85% - 15% margin in 1996. And as someone pointed out, even in liberal states that held referrendums, gay marriage laws have not done well. You're essentially calling a large majority of the congress and Americans in general "religious fundamentalists" (even if their opinion has nothing to do with religion! ).You're the one that said these are standard conservative principles (which I disagree with).
Wow. Are you not aware that gay marriage and gay adoption are relatively new concepts in human history? And FYI, my sister was adopted. That fact caused tension in my family. She's done well and certainly better than she would have with her single-mom biological mother, but certainly her situation is less ideal than mine (biological son of my parents). It's the reason I have a closer relationship with them than she does.So your argument has nothing to do with the sexuality. According to your argument, straight parents shouldn't even be able to adopt. Do you know how absurd it sounds in the first place, let alone not even hitting the mark of what we're talking about?
Just think about your argument for a little bit... (preferably before you post it next time)
Gleckman is not a Forbes staff writer but a blogger hosted by Forbes.CAC1001 said:Are Politifact and Factcheck.org okay?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ar-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/no-end-to-end-medicare-claim/
Also, regarding the Forbes link you used, you should be aware that Forbes can be very conservative or very liberal depending on which person wrote the article. Their way of being balanced seems to be to just have both right-wing and left-wing people writing for them.
You claimed that the Forbes piece was wrong. I am waiting for you to post something that shows it's wrong. I never claimed the article wasn't an opinion piece.CAC1001 said:Politifact is an opinion piece?? Also, how is the article you posted not an opinion piece?
It’s true that an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that seniors on the private plans would pay more than they would under traditional Medicare. And the CBO analysis indicated that a 65-year-old in 2022 could pay about $6,000 more than he or she would for the year under traditional Medicare. The government subsidies would increase with the rate of inflation, which critics argued was not much when dealing with health costs that, for years, have risen much faster than the general inflation rate. Ryan did say that low-income beneficiaries would get more money from the government to help cover costs, but the details on how much and who would qualify were not yet fleshed out.
CAC1001 said:http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf
- scroll to page 45 and 52, where it is pointed out that this Medicare reform plan does not change Medicare for current recipients or those nearing retirement.
russ_watters said:The problem with budget talk is this: For several generations, we've been feeding the economy with debt. Giving people free money is very popular, regardless of how bad of an idea it is. To correct that, not only do you need to stop giving people free money, but you need to get younger people to pay back the money given to people who are now retired or dead. So people would much rather just pretend there aren't any problems or hope they die before the check comes due than make any attempt to right the ship. As we've seen in Europe, people prefer to stubbornly fly their economic plane straight into the ground than try to pull up.
That was Obama's plan. Stimulus makes people happy, so let's do more. Taxing the rich makes the 99% happy even if it doesn't do much for the budget, so let's try to do that. But for God's sake, don't talk about SS and Medicare or mention the rapidly growing debt.
You should check your facts before you post misinformation.Skrew said:Those who believe that gay marraige and gay adoption are supported by most of the american population are wholly mistaken.
I didn't say any such thing.SixNein said:So your argument is essentially that liberals are responsible for our federal debt?
You're arguing against your point by posting a Krugman article!In addition, our debt problem is being quite exaggerated. I would recommend a quick reading of...
Increased social spending -> increased debt ->bankrupcy.On a side note, I do not understand why you keep mentioning Europe. It's a different animal.
russ_watters said:Perhaps that's because we've moved past helping the poor and have moved on to helping the middle class? When 47% of the public pays no federal income tax, we're well beyond being able to talk about how tax policy affects the poor.
-1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/fareed-zakaria-plagiarism-new-yorker-time_n_1764954.html
I never liked him anyway. Too much of a popular ideologue masquerading as a reporter. Your particular chosen quote contains some clear nonsense: Malnutrition? Virtually nonexistent in the US. I suppose "highly likely" is subjective, but I would have put it over 50% (of the poor). Instead, our malnutrition rate is less than 2.5%, which would be <15% of our poor. Perhaps he misspelled "unlikely"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Percentage_population_undernourished_world_map.PNG
russ_watters said:Wow. Are you not aware that gay marriage and gay adoption are relatively new concepts in human history?
And FYI, my sister was adopted. That fact caused tension in my family. She's done well and certainly better than she would have with her single-mom biological mother, but certainly her situation is less ideal than mine (biological son of my parents). It's the reason I have a closer relationship with them than she does.
Evo said:You claimed that the Forbes piece was wrong. I am waiting for you to post something that shows it's wrong. I never claimed the article wasn't an opinion piece.
Factcheck, from your link
It’s true that an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that seniors on the private plans would pay more than they would under traditional Medicare. And the CBO analysis indicated that a 65-year-old in 2022 could pay about $6,000 more than he or she would for the year under traditional Medicare. The government subsidies would increase with the rate of inflation, which critics argued was not much when dealing with health costs that, for years, have risen much faster than the general inflation rate. Ryan did say that low-income beneficiaries would get more money from the government to help cover costs, but the details on how much and who would qualify were not yet fleshed out.
CAC1001 said:He’d completely restructure Medicare, slash funding for Medicaid, and likely abolish most of the other safety net programs that this vulnerable population has come rely on over the last half-century.
That's his (IMO inflammatory) opinion. And remember, the Vice President does not have absolute power. Republicans do not have a problem with safety net programs. The Democratic party wants the general public to think they do, as they want to scare them. The Democrats are the ones who are allowing programs like Medicare to just go straight over a cliff (same with the federal debt), not proposing any kind of reforms for it. Reform does not mean repeal and it doesn't have to be mandatory at all even (a truly good reform will become popular on its own as word would spread).
Medicare: Ryan would effectively end the current Medicare system for future retirees. He’d replace it with a government subsidy that seniors would use to buy their own health insurance, a system known as premium support. In one version, seniors would still have the option to buy into traditional Medicare, but in most others, they would not.
Ryan and Romney have both made it explicit that they will never support any Medicare reform program that makes it where people cannot keep their conventional Medicare should they choose to. From a strict political standpoint even, it wouldn't make any sense not to do this.
He’d completely restructure Medicare, slash funding for Medicaid, and likely abolish most of the other safety net programs that this vulnerable population has come rely on over the last half-century.
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-ryan_letter.pdfCBO scoring of Ryan plan said:The proposal does not involve changes to Social Security.
CBO said:Medicare
Starting in 2022, the proposal would convert the current Medicare system to a system
of premium support payments and would increase the age of eligibility for Medicare:
...
o The payment for 65-year-olds in 2022 is specified to be $8,000, on average, which is approximately the same dollar amount as projected net federal spending per capita for 65-year-olds in traditional Medicare (that is, the program’s outlays minus receipts from the premiums enrollees pay for Part B and Part D, expressed on a per capita basis) under current law in that year. People who become eligible for Medicare in 2023 and subsequent years would receive a payment that was larger than $8,000 by an amount that reflected the increase in the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) and the age of the enrollee. The premium support payments would increase in each year after initial eligibility by an amount that reflected both the increase in the CPI-U and the fact that enrollees in Medicare tend to be less healthy and require more costly health care as they age.
russ_watters said:I didn't say any such thing.
However: You're arguing against your point by posting a Krugman article!
Increased social spending -> increased debt ->bankrupcy.
We're not there yet, but we're following their lead.
CAC1001 said:... I do not see anywhere in Ryan's plan where he's calling to "slash" Medicaid. He is proposing to fix it (i.e. make sure it can continue doing what it does). ...
CBO said:Medicaid
The proposal would modify Medicaid as follows:
o Starting in 2013, the federal share of all Medicaid payments would be converted
into block grants to be allocated to the states. The total dollar amount of the block
grants would increase annually with population growth and with growth in the CPI-U.
I think this is where people are getting confused. People going on medicare in 2023 have the option of private or medicare, but NOT the Medicare we have now. It will be the new voucher-based medicare.CAC1001 said:Regarding Factcheck, if the private plans cost a person more then traditional Medicare, then that person could stay with or switch back to traditional Medicare. Regarding the details, I agree, Ryan needs to spell out the details.
That's the problem.Beginning in 2023, 65-year-olds would have their choice of insurance plans — private and traditional — on a new Medicare exchange. A premium-support payment, like a subsidy, would be sent to the plan of their choice.