GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2011/06/02/republicans-fight-back-against-medicare-misrepresentations/trackback/

  1. no, not against a murderous tyranny,

    But those Americans who admire and make excuses for them.

    Comment by TGC — June 2, 2011 @ 9:46 pm - June 2, 2011

  2. I am sick and tired of trying to figure out which lies are true and which aren’t! At a time when voters need to know the truth, we are still wondering around from one place to another! I am 68 and need my medication to stay alive! Why is it that nobody can just tell it like it is?! If misinformation causes my death, I will be back to haunt every politician who may even think of lying in a future campaign! This is crap and I for one am sick of all of the games!

    Comment by aggie — June 2, 2011 @ 10:01 pm - June 2, 2011

  3. Comment by aggie

    WHOOP!!

    If it comes from the left, you can bet it’s fear mongering bullshit.

    Comment by TGC — June 3, 2011 @ 3:13 am - June 3, 2011

  4. Meh, needs MOAR Hitler. I mean, if you’re to Godwin yourself as the entire basis of a post you really should just go all out because you can’t possibly make yourself any more ridiculous.

    Comment by PeeJ — June 3, 2011 @ 12:48 pm - June 3, 2011

  5. If I make myself so ridiculous, PeeJ, please tell me what precisely bout this post makes me ridiculous. (Should be easy if I couldn’t, as you put it, possibly make myself any more ridiculous!)

    And no, PeeJ, the Nazi comparison wasn’t the entire basis of the post, merely a lead-in because the title came to mind. And if you read the first line of the second ¶, you’d know that I was only referring to the act of defiance.

    Thanks!

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 3, 2011 @ 12:51 pm - June 3, 2011

  6. And in our country, Republicans are fighting back, no, not against a murderous tyranny, but against a mendacious opposition

    There is no valid comparison to be made between a political disagreement and the slaughter of millions of people. it is an equivalence that is mind-staggeringly false. You trivialize the holocaust with such histrionics.

    “Oh I didn’t mean to say they were alike.” then why did you spend your entire lead-in drawing the absurd comparison?

    Comment by PeeJ — June 3, 2011 @ 1:47 pm - June 3, 2011

  7. Nameless, okay, let’s compare the two sides. Please tell me about the Democratic policy to reform Medicare and prevent its bankruptcy. And the links in the post above indicate that the Ryan reforms are not a voucher program.

    Actually, PeeJ, you make a valid point. I thought I had distinguished the two with the line you quote, but since the introduction was incidental to the point of the post, I will edit it accordingly.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 3, 2011 @ 2:00 pm - June 3, 2011

  8. There is no valid comparison to be made between a political disagreement and the slaughter of millions of people.

    Of course there is. That’s why you and your DNC, PeeJ, are putting out ads showing Republicans murdering the elderly, saying that the Republican plan is to kill the elderly, and claiming that the Republicans want to murder millions of people.

    You played the Holocaust card, and now you’re getting it thrown back into your face. Like the bully that you are, you can’t handle that, so you start screaming and whining about how unfair Holocaust comparisons are when you yourself were just making them.

    Also, compounding the problem here is that your party is the one making Holocaust references even as it cozies up to and supports groups and regimes like Hamas, Hizbollah, and Iran that somehow manage to make even Hitler look tolerant towards Jews.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 3, 2011 @ 2:00 pm - June 3, 2011

  9. It won’t work: about 80-90% of people bright enough to vote know that privatization would kill Medicare & that re-establishing it would be a nightmare. The private healthcare system has had every economic & judicial advantage in the US (up to & including anti-trust exemption) & dollar for dollar, its net output has been abysmal.

    Ryan’s “courageous” brainwave involves taking a failed for-profit system & expanding it to previously-protected seniors.

    There’s not enough makeup in the world to make that dog sexy, & the GOP itself knows it … why else would they have been recently seen plaintively clutching their pearls at the horrifying prospect of Dems using their own (foolhardy & politically useless) Ryan vote against them in 2012?

    I have no doubt the same GOP that can’t even count its own votes will try to double down on the stupid, because they have no Plan B: Vermont signing on for single-payer must be giving Boehner lucid nightmares. If that experiment isn’t sabotaged in its cradle, it’ll be the death-knell for the lovely cash-cow that’s made so much sweet easy profit for WellPoint, Blue Cross, & their ilk (at the low low cost of only 57,000 or so needless deaths per annum!) – you can smell the GOP’s flop-sweat from upwind at this point.

    So, which GOP was the one “sitting on its hands?” Reagan’s? Poppy Bush’s? W’s? Yeah, those layabouts like Meese, Kirkpatrick & Rove were such a pack of total wusses, such a sad contrast to the go-getters of today.

    You know who ELSE tried to rewrite history to make themselves look like the innocent victims of a nefarious plot?

    Comment by jim — June 3, 2011 @ 2:05 pm - June 3, 2011

  10. CNN Poll Data;

    rank-and-file Republicans are split right down the middle, with 48 percent favoring the GOP plan and 50 percent opposed.

    Is that half of self-described Republicans also persecuting the Ryan Republicans?

    Also, if you’re trying to say that the Jews vs. Nazi comparison doesn’t compare to what follows, then why put it in the article in the first place? Saying that these struggles “remind” you of a current struggle is a comparison on some level, even if not a direct one.

    Comment by tsam — June 3, 2011 @ 2:16 pm - June 3, 2011

  11. Um, tsam, where do I mention persecution in the post above? It’s about Republicans working hard to make a better case for their reforms against Democratic misrepresentations.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 3, 2011 @ 2:19 pm - June 3, 2011

  12. jim,

    Are you really that allergic to facts?

    1) “The private healthcare system has had every economic & judicial advantage in the US (up to & including anti-trust exemption) & dollar for dollar, its net output has been abysmal. ”

    Medicare has higher claim rejections than any private insurance.

    Medicare fraud alone is more than the profits of Humana, Wellpoint and Aetna combined.

    “Ryan’s “courageous” brainwave involves taking a failed for-profit system & expanding it to previously-protected seniors.”

    Now that we’ve shown the first half of that statement is wrong, the second half is a lie. Ryan’s plan will not affect anyone over 55. You use the word seniours. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    “at the low low cost of only 57,000 or so needless deaths per annum!”

    So you’re holding Reid/Pelosi/Obama et all responsible for over 150k dead people then?

    Please try posting when you have facts. I know it’s hard, thinking instead of parroting talking points, but you can do it.

    (Standard disclaimer: I work for an insurance company, I don’t speak for them, and they sure as hell don’t want me do.)

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 3, 2011 @ 2:28 pm - June 3, 2011

  13. Medicare fraud alone is more than the profits of Humana, Wellpoint and Aetna combined.

    Perhaps but at least that ends up in Governor Scott’s pocket so hats off to the GØP.

    Comment by PeeJ — June 3, 2011 @ 2:49 pm - June 3, 2011

  14. Ryan’s plan does affect the current Seniors. It re-opens the donut hole. It eliminates 1.7 trillion in Medicaid which current Seniors use for Nursing Home care as well as their supplemental payer.

    Comment by PeeJ — June 3, 2011 @ 2:52 pm - June 3, 2011

  15. #14 A non sequetor from PeeJ, how cute. So let us be clear. PeeJ believes that Theft on the catagory of billions is fine, but a company providing a service and making a profit for its investors is not.

    Let’s also be clear PeeJ prefers no one having benefits, than see the Republicans save medicare.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 3, 2011 @ 3:02 pm - June 3, 2011

  16. This liberal fear mongering, as I see it, doesn’t indicate that they give a rotten rat’s ass about seniors, as usual. What it does indicate is that they’re pissed because they won’t be able to swipe billions from Medicare to use for their pet projects.

    Comment by TGC — June 3, 2011 @ 3:07 pm - June 3, 2011

  17. (at the low low cost of only 57,000 or so needless deaths per annum!)

    What about the 16 million people who suspiciously disappeared from the liberal claims? They used to piss & moan that 47 million people don’t have coverage. When ObamaCareless was foisted on us, they crowed that 31 million would be covered. Nobody ever asked about the other 16 million and I can’t find where any liberal has ever answered. What about the hundreds of thousands (based on Harry Reid’s claim) that will die from the time ObamaCareless passed to the time that it’s implemented?

    If liberals actually gave a good f*ck about the American people, why wait so long to implement the tool that will allegedly save us all? It’s bullshit, that’s why.

    So quit pretending you give a damn, Jim & PeeJ, and shove your faux concern sideways.

    Comment by TGC — June 3, 2011 @ 3:12 pm - June 3, 2011

  18. Perhaps but at least that ends up in Governor Scott’s pocket so hats off to the GØP.

    Actually, Scott was neither charged nor questioned in the affair, which would seem to make it clear that the FBI didn’t have any evidence that he did know, approve, or profited from it.

    And since this happened in 1997 during the Clinton DOJ, it would have to be the fault of the Obama Party that he wasn’t.

    Meanwhile, let’s see how willing PeeJ is to apply the rule that if anyone anywhere in any organization commits a crime, the CEO is personally responsible and benefitted — to his Obama.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 3, 2011 @ 3:22 pm - June 3, 2011

  19. The issue with Medicare fraud is on the part of healthcare providers, not on the patients.

    Comment by Dooms — June 3, 2011 @ 3:25 pm - June 3, 2011

  20. It re-opens the donut hole. It eliminates 1.7 trillion in Medicaid which current Seniors use for Nursing Home care as well as their supplemental payer.

    Really? Prove it. Link to it in the plan. Show the actual language. Especially given how your Obama and his puppets are just flat-out lying about Medicare in the first place.

    By the way, the “donut hole” is a strong bulwark against fraud, because it requires people who charge over a certain amount to start paying a portion of their bill themselves. Isn’t it interesting how Obamabots like you scream about fraud, but then try to block anything that would prevent your Barack Obama supporters from defrauding Medicare?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 3, 2011 @ 3:27 pm - June 3, 2011

  21. No Dooms, it’s both. It’s also due to Medicare, because the governemnt has no incentive to minimize fraud.

    Thank you for explaining PeeJ’s attempt to slander this ‘Gov Scott’. So in other words, PeeJ’s fine with stealing as long as it’s the government that’s paying for the theft. Besides, I’m talking about Profits, which PeeJ is against.

    Why are you against retirees PJ? Why are you against pension funds? Afraid someone’s getting more than you?

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 3, 2011 @ 3:46 pm - June 3, 2011

  22. I don’t know why I bother to prove something you could easily prove yourself if you werent so lazy and hostile to facts.

    http://paulryan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf.

    See table S-3

    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-Ryan_Letter.pdf

    Non partisan CBO:

    The proposal would repeal the provisions that created the Independent Payment Advisory Board and that expanded subsidies for the ‘coverage gap’ in Part D (a range of spending in which many enrollees have to pay all of their drug costs, sometimes called the doughnut hole).

    Next!

    Comment by PeeJ — June 3, 2011 @ 3:50 pm - June 3, 2011

  23. Um, PeeJ, Independent Payment Advisory Board lets an unelected panel of bureaucrats determine who gets coverage and how much.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 3, 2011 @ 4:23 pm - June 3, 2011

  24. I don’t know why I bother to prove something you could easily prove yourself if you werent so lazy and hostile to facts.

    Because you think that you know how to read charts, which the S-3 table proves you do not. :)

    Meanwhile, as for the doughnut hole, like we pointed out, it deters fraud and reduces overall costs of Medicare. No surprise that the Obama Party, which overwhelmingly profits from Medicare fraud, wants it removed; they oppose cost management and support fraud.

    Finally, I was hoping you would quote the CBO. Now we can slap you with this:

    So since cuts to Medicare mean you want to kill senior citizens, according to the Obama Party, the CBO just proved, PeeJ, that you and your Obama Party’s Obamacare law is meant to kill and murder seniors.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 3, 2011 @ 4:58 pm - June 3, 2011

  25. You meant _un_elected bureaucrats, I take it. Aside from the implication that all bureaucrats are evil, socialist, communist … whatevers, that the board’s duties and powers were explicitly set out in the ACA and that the Ryan brainfart eliminates the board must be central your point somehow. I just don’t see what how it could be.

    Um, PeeJ, Independent Payment Advisory Board lets an elected panel of bureaucrats determine who gets coverage and how much.

    Strange, I read the article and I didnt see where that is said. The weekly standard hack even pointed out that their power is largely limited to setting physician reimbursement rates. It’s a long stretch to read that as OMG DEATH PANELS!

    Comment by PeeJ — June 3, 2011 @ 5:06 pm - June 3, 2011

  26. NDT: logic, UR DOIN IT RONG

    Comment by PeeJ — June 3, 2011 @ 5:07 pm - June 3, 2011

  27. Thanks for catching that typo, PeeJ, will fix. 15 bureaucrats sitting in Washington shouldn’t decide health care coverage for 300 million Americans spread across 3,000 (and then some) miles of North America.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — June 3, 2011 @ 5:08 pm - June 3, 2011

  28. As a bit of an update, the Joint Economic Committee, Chaired by Sen. Casey of Pennsylvania issued a report on May 20, 2011 saying out of pocket medical costs paid each year by those 65 and older will double in 2022 in all 50 (or is it 58?) states. The report further says the donut hole in prescription drugs will reappear.

    I suspect that this report is the source of the blog swarm here concerning Ryan’s plan.

    Reports of this nature are used by both parties as political tools. The Democrats control the Senate and they control the reports of the Joint Economic Committee. When they asked the CBO to study the Ryan plan, they laid down rules that would produce the results the chairman desired.

    It is, of course, ludicrous to think that any economist could predict the economy in 2022 for the United States, let alone the economies of each state as well. How much population migration among the Medicare set will occur between now and 2022 and how does the CBO know where the migrating population will settle and what health cares they will carry with them?

    Here is an example of the Joint Economic Committee work:

    May 06 2011
    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), Chairman of the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee (JEC), released the following statement on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ April jobs report showing that the unemployment rate edged up to 9.0 percent and 244,000 total nonfarm jobs were added:
    “April was another solid month of job creation.  In the past three months, we’ve averaged more than 250,000 new private sector jobs each month.   The recent job creation is a sign that policies put into place during the last Congress to spur hiring and strengthen small businesses are gaining traction. 
    “It was encouraging to see that the economy added jobs across nearly all sectors of the economy.    Manufacturing, which is especially important to the nation’s competitive position, gained 29,000 jobs this month, and professional and business services has now added jobs for nine months in a row.  The breadth of the job gains shows that the recovery is strengthening but clearly there is more to be done.
    “Additional progress reducing unemployment is critical to the 13.7 million Americans who are looking for work, but can’t find it, and who are struggling to make ends meet.   With so many people unemployed, the economy is still operating below capacity and is not benefitting from the skills and labor of those who are currently jobless.   Congress needs to continue to support the private sector in creating jobs and driving new innovations that will boost future economic growth.”

    This decidedly off topic example is salient because it shows the type of boilerplate which the Joint Economic Committee puts out.

    Last year, the donut hole was eliminated in the supplemental insurance plan. The insurance companies do not write the plans; Congress writes the plans. The insurance companies sell them for what they can or they do not sell the insurance at all. My insurance company cancelled the entire policy. In order to be insured, I had to buy the replacement policy. That policy greatly increased the deductible and the co-pay for the drugs. Since our medicines are fairly inexpensive, my wife and I bought our separate plans to the tune of nearly $800 a year for the two of us. Neither or us uses the policy as we can buy our drugs much cheaper at Wal-Mart. We each bought the insurance as pure insurance. If we get hit with major prescription drug costs, we will use the insurance. This means the insurance company gains a pure profit from us in the same way the insurance company that protects our houses and cars gets paid and we file no claims.

    I also pay $500 per month for nursing care in my home which my wife or I may need some day. There is a strong chance that we will never use that insurance. However, we have determined that we prefer to insure ourselves against the risk of ending up in a ward somewhere. To me, that is what individual choice and personal responsibility is all about. Furthermore, $6000 a year for a policy pales in comparison to one month in a nursing home.

    A huge sector of the 65 and older crowd does not need full blown Medicare. I liken Obamacare to the TSA screening every living soul as if he is a terrorist. When you insure everyone in order to omit no one, you throw a tremendous amount of money down the toilet.

    Insurance vouchers and health savings plans are perfectly sane approaches for a given segment of the population. To shoot down the Ryan Plan on the basis of scare tactics, economic voo doo and intentional demogoguery is nuts. It is especially nuts while doing nothing to stem the hemorrhaging of Medicare.

    Congress passed a bill allowing Obama to cut a half trillion dollars of waste out of Medicare. I say good for them. But the point is that the claim of waste cutting will live forever and the actual fact with not occur. Much of the waste to be cut is in federal jobs in the duplicated federal healthcare bureaucracy. No federal jobs will be cut and no SEIU dues will go unpaid.

    Neither PeeJ nor the blog swarm that followed had made one salient point addressing the crisis. It is typical of power merchants to cripple the opposition rather than to be constructive.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 3, 2011 @ 6:54 pm - June 3, 2011

  29. Don’t forget, Heliotrope, PeeJ’s already admitted that he doesn’t see a problem with defrauding the government for billions. He also admits now that he has no problem with *no one* having any form of Medicare.

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 3, 2011 @ 8:47 pm - June 3, 2011

  30. What I get from the Obamacrats is that it’s terrible, awful, inhuman for an insurance company to deny medical treatment based on it not being covered by your insurance plan; but wise and rational for a Government bureaucrat to deny medical treatment based on its determination that your life isn’t worth saving (ObamaCare’s IPAB panel.)

    Do I have that right?

    Comment by V the K — June 5, 2011 @ 8:19 am - June 5, 2011

  31. Hi Dan,
    I agree that misrepresenting Ryan’s plan is unfair, but it depends on if the media really push back on it, or do the same “even-handed” nonsense they usually do so often to refuse to consistently call something an outright untruth, i.e., a lie.

    Funnily enough, I don’t think the Dems have to misrepresent the plan in order to make the plan look bad. Just stating what it does is enough to make Americans dislike what it offers. First, why is the term “voucher” so bad? Why not embrace it, as Herman Cain has done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dU4zo5qUYM ? Folks here appear to like his bluntness and speaking his mind. Why not follow it?

    Apparently the term doesn’t test well with the American public. So, what is a voucher? “A voucher is a bond which is worth a certain monetary value and which may be spent only for specific reasons or on specific goods.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voucher

    Now Ryan’s plan has that as a central feature. He wants to call what he has premium support. “This is not a voucher program, but rather a premium-support model.” http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf, p46

    He does not really explain why he believes this or how this is actually different from a voucher. He does say later that: “The Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so that wealthier beneficiaries would receive a lower subsidy, the sick would receive a higher payment if their conditions worsened, and lower-income seniors would receive additional assistance to cover out-of-pocket costs.” p47 So, what that says is that the payment will vary–means tested–according to need. I think that is good. But it doesn’t make the system any less a voucher system. If it isn’t, I would like to understand more clearly why some here do not think it is a voucher, because Ryan hasn’t made that case clearly.

    The real problem for Repubs isn’t that its a “voucher” or “premium support” though. The problem is that the value of that voucher is indexed to inflation, rather than the rising cost of health care. As such, individuals will be expected to pay more and more out of pocket. What is the creditable process outlined in the Ryan proposal to cut medical cost rises to at or below inflation? Any such proposal would require Ryan’s vision of Medicare to exercise market power to lower costs and as far as I can tell the Ryan proposal doesn’t address that issue. I think that that part of the plan sinks it, especially when you tie it with tax cuts for the wealthy. I just don’t see Ryan’s plan flying or being popular with the American people. After all, all someone has to say is: “I look at my higher contribution to healthcare coverage a few years down the pike, whilst the money to pay for it is being given to wealthy folks…” Whether you think that is a fair characterization or not, in a debate, it will be made, and it will stick. And if Ryan wants to defend against that proposition, good luck to him–it will make for interesting TV.

    Comment by Cas — June 5, 2011 @ 1:24 pm - June 5, 2011

  32. I agree that misrepresenting Ryan’s plan is unfair

    Which is why you do it, right Cas?

    That’s no surprise. The Obama Party has no plan. There is no possible way that their imaginary numbers can add up and they are using outright lies and accounting tricks to try to hide that fact. Their Treasury Secretary admits it. His Budget nominee admits it. Obama’s puppet Kathleen Sebelius admits that the Obama Party slashed half a trillion dollars from Medicare and cooked the books on Obamacare.

    Your obsession with the word “voucher” and your whining about “tax cuts for the wealthy” gives away your whole strategy in this. You have no interest in the meat of the issue or the numbers; your only concern is how to demagogue the issue. You are desperately throwing out buzzwords trying to smear people and divert attention away from the numbers.

    And to top it off, you and your fellow liberals are running ads showing Paul Ryan murdering a senior citizen, Cas. That is the sort of disgusting trash you and your Barack Obama call an intelligent and civil argument.

    You are lying, Cas. Your Obama Party is lying. Even the media can’t hide your Obama Party’s lies any more.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 5, 2011 @ 5:04 pm - June 5, 2011

  33. So NDT, you agree it is a voucher system, right?

    Comment by Cas — June 5, 2011 @ 5:31 pm - June 5, 2011

  34. So NDT, you agree it is a voucher system, right?

    Oh, so you still want to play semantic games?

    Fine.

    Retirees would get from the government what Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), the chairman of the House Budget Committee, calls “premium support” — a set payment adjusted to inflation; they would use that money to pick from a range of plans offered by insurance companies through what is termed a Medicare exchange. Democrats tend to refer to this payment by the more ominous-sounding word “voucher.”

    Wasserman Schultz did not say voucher, but her statement suggests that people would be handed a check (“X number of dollars”) and then have to go out and find a plan that they can afford. She also said the plan would “allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for pre-existing conditions.”

    Neither of those claims are true. The system as envisioned by Republicans would operate much like the Medicare prescription drug plan currently does. The government would not give people a check or anything like that; the government would handle the funds, just as they do under the drug plan. As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said when it examined the plan, “The premium support payments would go directly from the government to the plans that people selected.”

    Your talking points have already been thoroughly debunked, Cas, along a direct callout of the fact that you and your Obama Party are deliberately scaremongering.

    Your party has no plan, Cas. As I have demonstrated above, your party and your fellow Obamabots ADMIT that they deliberately lied and cooked the governmental books already on health care. So it appears all you now have left is to sit here and scream “voucher, tax cuts for the rich, kill Grandma, ooga booga booga!”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 5, 2011 @ 5:44 pm - June 5, 2011

  35. Hi NDT,
    ““The premium support payments would go directly from the government to the plans that people selected.””
    I think Mr. Kessler thinks that who holds the voucher is important. Go check the definition of the term voucher. I don’t think it matters who holds it, what is important is that it is used. Why do you think it matters who holds it, NDT? It serves the function of a voucher and does what a voucher does. You want to argue along with Mr. Kessler that having the “government hold it” somehow changes it function (though you and Mr. Kessler are silent on that issue). OK. But I don’t think that helps you very much. I think you are better off, NDT, just embracing it, as Mr. Cain did, and fight for it on that basis. You point to this being a case of semantics. I agree.

    In any case, I think that still leaves the substantive problem facing Repubs I expressed above in #32 above which no amount of semantics is going to make go away.

    Comment by Cas — June 5, 2011 @ 6:32 pm - June 5, 2011

  36. Still not reading the article, Cas?

    The system as envisioned by Republicans would operate much like the Medicare prescription drug plan currently does. The government would not give people a check or anything like that; the government would handle the funds, just as they do under the drug plan.

    Now, since you seem so insistent on whether or not something is a “voucher”, be honest and state that Medicare is a voucher system already by your own definition, Cas.

    The article called you out. You are using scare words. More pathetically, you are trying to redefine those scare words to fit the inconvenient reality in which you find yourself and avoid any explanation for why you have no plan and instead are relying on lies and demagoguery.

    Your own party admits you are lying and cooking the books, Cas. Why do you support and endorse this? Why do you support and endorse Medicare and the government lying and making false financial disclosures that you would never tolerate from private insurance? Why do Obama Party members like yourself excuse cooking the books and lying about budgets?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 5, 2011 @ 6:45 pm - June 5, 2011

  37. NDT,
    Oh, I looked at the article, NDT. You still refuse to acknowledge the fundamental issue–it is not about whether it is a voucher system or not which is critical here.

    However, I know you like to be shy about answering questions I ask you, but I will do you the courtesy of doing so for you.

    I like the use of the term “would operate much like the Medicare prescription drug plan…” There is a lot of room there, I think. For example, here is a piece taken from Forbes, not what I would call a bastion of socialism. What do you think?

    “Rep. Ryan likes to point out that his proposed Medicare program is the same as that employed by the Federal Employees Benefits Program and the Medicare Part D benefit that helps seniors pay for their prescription drugs. Both these programs operate using government premium support, whereby the government contributes towards the payment of the premiums charged by the private insurance carrier to the beneficiary, but makes the government’s share of the premium payment directly to the insurance company issuing the policy.

    This direct payment is what is often considered the point of distinction between a voucher and premium support. In a voucher program the government gives the financial support directly to the beneficiaries who are then on their own to do what they will with the money, so long as they don’t look to the government to do anything else for them.

    Using this standard alone, Rep. Ryan would have a point.

    Indeed, his plan proposes seniors going to private insurers for their health care coverage with the government contributing a share of the premium charges and making the payment directly to the insurance company. This is just as the federal government does in the cases of federal employee benefits and Medicare Part D.

    However, there is a more important distinction between premium support plans and vouchers.

    In the plan that provides heath care benefits for federal employees, on which Ryan relies to make his premium support case, if a government employee’s premium costs go up –and they always do – the government increases the premium support in lockstep with the increased premium.

    Not so with RyanCare.

    Ryan’s proposal – that would turn Medicare into a private insurance program with the government providing assistance to seniors on their premium payments – does not increase that support as premiums rise. The premium support is fixed. If premiums increase (and of course they will) the costs of these increases will be shifted to our senior citizens who, in most instances, would not appear to have the ability to take on these increased costs on their fixed retirement budgets.

    This, by anyone’s definition, is a voucher program.”
    http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/06/05/is-paul-ryans-medicare-a-voucher-system-or-not-who-is-demagoguing-who/

    Comment by Cas — June 5, 2011 @ 8:07 pm - June 5, 2011

  38. Actually, your own article lies, Cas.

    Ryan’s proposal – that would turn Medicare into a private insurance program with the government providing assistance to seniors on their premium payments – does not increase that support as premiums rise. The premium support is fixed.

    But what does the article itself quote?

    If one does the arithmetic, income grows a few percentage points faster than prices. Health-care spending grows faster than income by a couple of percentage points. So we’re looking at linking to an index that grows less rapidly than health-care costs by three to four percentage points a year.

    Your article lies and states that the support never grows. It does indeed grow, but again, you and your article lie and demagogue and tell falsehoods about Ryan’s plan.

    Furthermore, Cas, you’re simply showing your Obama Party’s complete hypocrisy on this issue.

    You whine and scream and cry that the premium support not growing as fast as projected costs denies people care.

    Do you know how Obamacare “cuts Medicare costs”?

    IPAB’s authority is triggered when Medicare’s future spending is anticipated to increase faster than a target rate. The target growth rate through 2018 is the average of the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the medical-care component of the CPI. For 2018 and later, the target rate is real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita plus 1 percentage point.

    For every year the projected Medicare growth rate exceeds the target, the IPAB will put forward proposals to cut spending by a certain percentage that increases to 1.5 percent of total Medicare spending (after 2017) or the projected excess, whichever is less. But IPAB may only address some providers. Before 2020, it may not target providers for which rates are already cut by ObamaCare — primarily hospitals…..

    First, ObamaCare assumes dramatic cuts to physicians’ fees, just like Congress assumed pre-ObamaCare. The Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR), introduced in 1997, was meant to constrain Medicare’s physicians’ fee schedule by the growth in GDP, instead of matching physicians’ costs. Because the cost of practicing medicine has increased faster than GDP for almost a decade, pre-ObamaCare law mandated cuts to physicians’ fees.

    Do you understand what this means, Cas? It means that your Obamacare miracle attempts to “control costs” by reducing the amount the government pays — which means that seniors then have to pay more out of pocket.

    But then you scream in regard to the Ryan plan that making seniors pay more out of pocket is “killing Grandma”.

    You are hypocritically complaining about requiring seniors to pay more out of pocket for their health care costs when your own Obamacare plan does exactly that.

    You are lying and demagoguing, Cas. You are hiding from the consequences of your Obamacare plan, which cuts Medicare, steals money to pay for giveaways to welfare addicts from senior citizens who have worked their entire lives paying into the system, and to top it off, penalizes businesses for hiring and expanding.

    Your own party admits you lied and cooked the books on Obamacare, Cas. That’s why you’re sitting here flipping out over the word “voucher” — because you are desperate, just like the rest of your Obama Party, to spin and lie and demagogue your way out of reality.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 5, 2011 @ 11:17 pm - June 5, 2011

  39. NDT @ #37:

    The article called you out. You are using scare words. More pathetically, you are trying to redefine those scare words to fit the inconvenient reality in which you find yourself and avoid any explanation for why you have no plan and instead are relying on lies and demagoguery.

    This is why circuses have three rings and a side show.

    What is most amusing is that Obamacare was entirely exempt to any type of discussion. It was rammed through without hearings and we had to “pass it to find out what is in it.” We are still finding out what is in it and what is left to the discretion of a closeted czar. Meanwhile, business is scrambling to get waivers or just not hiring. They are waiting to see what Obamacare actually does to the free market when it is in full force.

    So, Hi! Cas takes the peripheral stuff in the Ryan Plan and makes a hundred year flood of it while completely ignoring what the Democrats have failed to provide as a better solution.

    Such is the job of the party hack: comes to the table and immediately stops everything over the construction of the seating chart. Jonathan Swift called Hi! Cas out when he wrote about the war fought over which end of the egg should be cracked. You can always delay dealing with the big stuff if you skirmish over the small stuff.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 6, 2011 @ 8:15 am - June 6, 2011

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.175 Powered by Wordpress