rickyp wrote:fate

And, they're mostly activists and/or know-nothings

You're quire an elitist.
Ryan and the Republicans already tried to educate Americans on "necessary changes to Medcare and Social Security". Lead balloon.
Apparently there are different priorities for them.

http://ourfuture.org/report/american-ma ... ct-polling

Medicare
Kaiser Health Tracking Poll. February 2012.

70 percent of Americans say “Medicare should continue as it is today, with the government guaranteeing seniors health insurance and making sure that everyone gets the same defined set of benefits.”
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Health Care. Sept 8-11, 2011.

When asked about raising the eligibility age for Medicare, 57% opposed and 39% were in favor.
The Washington Post/Bloomberg News Poll, October 6-9, 2011

82% oppose reducing Medicate benefits in order to reduce the nation’s budget deficit.
Bloomberg Poll, June 17-20, 2011

57% believe they would be worse off if they were to buy their own private insurance with the help of government subsidies instead of having traditional Medicare.
Pew Research Center, June 15-19, 2011

61% say they already pay enough of the cost of their health care under Medicare.
Gallup Poll, January 14-16, 2011

64% oppose spending cuts to Medicare.

Thus establishing MY point.

fate

Thus establishing MY point

Was it your point that fully 70 per cent of seniors are activists and no nothings?

rickyp wrote:fate

Thus establishing MY point

Was it your point that fully 70 per cent of seniors are activists and no nothings?

Know-nothings.

They fail to understand, because of Democratic propaganda, that no one wants to touch "their" Medicaid. Their fear is preventing the problem from being solved.

fate

They fail to understand, because of Democratic propaganda, that no one wants to touch "their" Medicaid.

Really. Not even Paul Ryan?

The House of Representatives approved Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2014, H. Con. Res. 25 on March 21, 2013 (221-207). The Ryan budget calls for significant reductions to Medicaid funding, potentially jeopardizing access to nursing home care and long-term services and supports (LTSS) in the community, rationing health benefits, and impairing low-income seniors' ability to pay for Medicare benefits. The Senate rejected the Ryan budget on March 21, 2013 (40-59).
The Medicaid program provides funding for health care to our nation’s most vulnerable, including low-income seniors, people with disabilities, children and some families. The Ryan budget would end the current joint federal/state financing partnership and replace it with fixed dollar amount block grants, giving states less money than they would receive under current law. In exchange, states would be given additional flexibility to design and manage their Medicaid programs. The proposed block grants would cut federal Medicaid spending by $810 billion over the next 10 years (2014-2023). This is about a 21 percent reduction compared to current law.

http://www.ncpssm.org/PressRoom/NewsRel ... ns-Seniors

New Ryan Budget Would Transform Medicare And Medicaid

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories ... icans.aspx

This is all propoganda?

rickyp wrote:fate

They fail to understand, because of Democratic propaganda, that no one wants to touch "their" Medicaid.

Really. Not even Paul Ryan?

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

The House of Representatives approved Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2014, H. Con. Res. 25 on March 21, 2013 (221-207). The Ryan budget calls for significant reductions to Medicaid funding, potentially jeopardizing access to nursing home care and long-term services and supports (LTSS) in the community, rationing health benefits, and impairing low-income seniors' ability to pay for Medicare benefits. The Senate rejected the Ryan budget on March 21, 2013 (40-59).
The Medicaid program provides funding for health care to our nation’s most vulnerable, including low-income seniors, people with disabilities, children and some families. The Ryan budget would end the current joint federal/state financing partnership and replace it with fixed dollar amount block grants, giving states less money than they would receive under current law. In exchange, states would be given additional flexibility to design and manage their Medicaid programs. The proposed block grants would cut federal Medicaid spending by $810 billion over the next 10 years (2014-2023). This is about a 21 percent reduction compared to current law.

http://www.ncpssm.org/PressRoom/NewsRel ... ns-Seniors

New Ryan Budget Would Transform Medicare And Medicaid

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories ... icans.aspx

This is all propoganda?

Yes. From the man himself:

ü Secures the Medicaid benefit by converting the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant tailored to meet each state’s needs, indexed for inflation and population growth. This reform ends the misguided one-size-fits-all approach that has tied the hands of so many state governments. States will no longer be shackled by federally determined program requirements and enrollment criteria. Instead, they will have the freedom and flexibility to tailor a Medicaid program that fits the needs of their unique populations.

ü Improves the health-care safety net for low-income Americans by giving states the ability to offer their Medicaid populations more options and better access to care. Medicaid recipients, like all Americans, deserve to choose their own doctors and make their own health care decisions, instead of having Washington dictate those decisions for them.

ü Repeals the Medicaid expansion contained in the President’s Health Care Law and removes the laws burdensome programmatic mandates on state governments.

All Americans will pay more because of this broken Medicaid system – and not just in higher taxes. Because Medicaid’s reimbursement rates have been ratcheted down to below-market levels, the care that Medicaid patients receive is often substandard. Offering states more flexibility for their Medicaid beneficiaries will remove the stigma Medicaid recipients face, and allow them to take advantage of a range of options available. Several of the nation’s governors have made innovative proposals to fix Medicaid. This budget encourages further efforts in this direction.

Ryan has not proposed cutting current benefits. He has proposed a number of ways that people my age and younger ought to be helped to prepare for retirement so we don't use Medicare the same (inefficient) way.

Grant-blocking Medicaid provides governors the flexibility. They will do a better job than DC will.

fate

Ryan has not proposed cutting current benefits. He has proposed a number of ways that people my age and younger ought to be helped to prepare for retirement so we don't use Medicare the same (inefficient) way.

Grant-blocking Medicaid provides governors the flexibility. They will do a better job than DC will.

The vast majority of seniors disagree with your generous interpretation, and suspect that the impact will be very different than what Ryans putting out.
They do this, based on all of the information they are receiving... including neural sources liek teh Kaiser network that i linked before.
And they don't trust Ryan.
But they do like medicare and medicaid. Which are socialist programs...

rickyp wrote:fate

Ryan has not proposed cutting current benefits. He has proposed a number of ways that people my age and younger ought to be helped to prepare for retirement so we don't use Medicare the same (inefficient) way.

Grant-blocking Medicaid provides governors the flexibility. They will do a better job than DC will.

The vast majority of seniors disagree with your generous interpretation, and suspect that the impact will be very different than what Ryans putting out.
They do this, based on all of the information they are receiving... including neural sources liek teh Kaiser network that i linked before.
And they don't trust Ryan.
But they do like medicare and medicaid. Which are socialist programs...

No, they are sheltered from the facts by the AARP and the Democrats, who run crap like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U

That's exactly the kind of "serious" debate we have come to expect from you and your Democratic friends.

But, the numbers don't lie. Something needs to be done. Democrats demagogue the issue and so do you.

Yes, something needs to be done. Something needed to be done in 2009. Something needed to be done in 1970 when Republican Senators were proposing Medicare for everyone, while Democrats were proposing national insurance with no co-pays.

Of course, there are problems with medicaid and medicare, if they cost about the same as the NHS (or the public health programmes of other first-world nations) but cover far lower a proportion of the population - and leave the rest paying about the same again for their own private cover.

What strikes me about this is that (as ever) DF is quick to describe the large number of the population who disagree with him as stupid or ignorant or selfish. And then accuses others of 'demagoguing'.

It is true that current seniors are among the most resistant to changes in the benefits that seniors receive - even if it won't actually affect them and their position will be grandfathered. Possibly because they see the value to them and would not want to deny that to others.

danivon wrote:What strikes me about this is that (as ever) DF is quick to describe the large number of the population who disagree with him as stupid or ignorant or selfish. And then accuses others of 'demagoguing'.

It just so happens that I'm right on both counts. Democrats won't talk substantively about the issues. Well, Baucus would, but he's retiring. The reason that most of the seniors panic over the issue is because of disinformation/propaganda from the Left. You may not like it, but it is demonstrable--I cited one example (the Ryan video), but I could fill a hundred pages here with others (although they would not be half as "entertaining").

It is true that current seniors are among the most resistant to changes in the benefits that seniors receive - even if it won't actually affect them and their position will be grandfathered. Possibly because they see the value to them and would not want to deny that to others.

That's very paternalistic of them.

I'm one of those who is in "the next generation." I have said I am willing to have my benefits cut. Why? Because the country cannot afford to do the same for me. If it does, my grandchildren will have to pay tax rates that will make them indentured servants.

Why do the rich have to be on Medicare? I know some folks who don't want to be on it and have no choice. Of course, they can (and often do) pay to see their own doctor. But, why should they be forced into Medicare at all? Why can't we means test Social Security? There are many small adjustments that could be made that would establish long-term viability. However, Democrats won't allow discussion of changes unless tax increases are also on the table.

Doctor Fate wrote:That's very paternalistic of them.

I'm one of those who is in "the next generation." I have said I am willing to have my benefits cut. Why? Because the country cannot afford to do the same for me. If it does, my grandchildren will have to pay tax rates that will make them indentured servants. [/quote]

Why do the rich have to be on Medicare? I know some folks who don't want to be on it and have no choice. Of course, they can (and often do) pay to see their own doctor. But, why should they be forced into Medicare at all? Why can't we means test Social Security? There are many small adjustments that could be made that would establish long-term viability. However, Democrats won't allow discussion of changes unless tax increases are also on the table.

Because tax increases would also help to make it more viable, given that your concern is fiscal balance?

It works the same over here as you are worrying about - the rich can use the NHS on the same terms as anyone else. They can choose to use their riches to go private, but they still pay the taxes. Boo Hoo for them, but it keeps the system going.

You can means test Social Security. However, adding means testing means adding administration costs, it means additional audits and federal scrutiny of individuals. It means more 'rules' and red tape, and it won't stop people from finding loopholes to get around it (by hiding 'means' from the state). It may save some money, but it will be less efficient, and also annoy a lot of the people at the margins.

The arguments about the cost of implementing the ACA or Medicare for all are usually presented as a false choice.
We can't afford it .....
It will break the nation.

The budget and expenditure choices of the complex governments that are the US Federal and State governments are vast. There are dozens of choices about expenditures and taxes that could be made that can make medicare sustainable.

The problem for those who say "we can't afford it" is that the current situation on US health care expenditures as a part of the economy is now at 17% of GDP. And that's without Universality, except through the unfunded mandate of the Emergent Care law.
If government is supposed to deliver what the people want, and what they want is financial security from health care problems ..... one can understand why Seniors distrust people who want to reshape the Medicaid and Medicare systems to lower the benefits they can receive. That's not security. Thats increased insecurity, especially for 95% of the populace who are independently wealthy.
Would they, for instance, support corporate tax rates (especially on financial institutions that don't produce anything, in order to ensure their security? I'll bet they would.
But thats not one of the choices on offer.
Currently the conservative argument says there are only 2 choices ... Its, Medicare and bankruptcy in the near future ....... or reduce benefits and higher costs for current and future beneficiaries..
A false choice.

rickyp wrote:If government is supposed to deliver what the people want, and what they want is financial security from health care problems .....

They don't want and never did want the ACA. So, you have a fundamental problem: you either call for a repeal of the ACA or admit that government doesn't always "deliver what the people want."

one can understand why Seniors distrust people who want to reshape the Medicaid and Medicare systems to lower the benefits they can receive.

Actually, again, that's not true. Did you miss the whole 2012 election? Ryan and Romney repeatedly said they would "not touch" the benefits of those currently receiving them.

That's not security. Thats increased insecurity, especially for 95% of the populace who are independently wealthy.

95% of the populace is independently wealthy???

You really need to read what you write.

Would they, for instance, support corporate tax rates (especially on financial institutions that don't produce anything, in order to ensure their security? I'll bet they would.

Again, you are incoherent. You meant to say, ". . . support RAISING corporate tax rates . . ."

However, you have fully revealed yourself as an economic idiot. We already have very high corporate rates. Most in Congress recognize we need to lower them--but they refuse to compromise and make it happen. Having high rates means corporations stash income overseas to avoid taxation here.

No one is talking about cutting current entitlements to seniors, so stop with the nonsense.

But thats not one of the choices on offer.
Currently the conservative argument says there are only 2 choices ... Its, Medicare and bankruptcy in the near future ....... or reduce benefits and higher costs for current and future beneficiaries..
A false choice.

The only thing "false" is your analysis. You don't have a clue. Please do some research and come back with something other than a false caricature, won't you?

ricky

what they want is financial security from health care problems

.....
fate

They don't want and never did want the ACA

So you don't disagree that what seniors, well, All Americans want is financial security from health care problems. That is insurance that provides them access to appropriate health care, when and where they need it without impacting their financial well being. Something every modern nation except the US provides to their citizens. (And seems to be able to afford)
Yes. Measured against this metric The ACA is flawed and only incremental improvement . Dn't disagree. But, its all that was politically possible.
Medicare for all would be a satisfactory solution that would provide the goal you seem to agree with...? But politically possible ?

fate

Ryan and Romney repeatedly said they would "not touch" the benefits of those currently receiving them.

Either the majority of people didn't trust them, or the majority of people want everyone to enjoy the current level of Medicare.
Either way, they didn't win.So whats that tell you?
And Ryan reintroduced his fixes to Medicare and Medicaid in his recent budget proposal to a lead balloon amongst seniors... So, I suspect that they think others, younger than they, should also get to enjoy their golden years with the relative security that they now enjoy. And they apparently distrust those who say that it isn't affordable .
With justification.

fate

You meant to say, ". . . support RAISING corporate tax rates

No I didn't. Although that and the eradication of all kinds of corporate grants, and tax breaks should also be included in a holisitic discussion about whats "affordable".
I meant, a tax on corporate financial transactions. Something that would stop "flash trading" too. (A rip off of other investors by a cabal of trading houses. )

It’s a simple tweak that would reign in an out-of-control financial sector, stimulate jobs, generate billions of revenue, and possibly prevent another heart-wrenching crisis. Nobel Prize-winning economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman want it. Billionaires like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates want it. Polls show the majority of Americans want it. Even the Pope wants it.

We’re talking about a financial transaction tax (FTT) — a tiny tax of, say, less than half a percent: maybe 3 cents per $100 — on Wall Street trading. It’s simple, more than fair, widely supported by the public, and long overdue.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/the_tax ... t_partner/

Dons English teacher cloak.

First, NB: you never corrected your misstatement. Do you want to stand by your assertion that 95% of Americans are independently wealthy?

rickyp wrote:ricky

what they want is financial security from health care problems

.....
fate

They don't want and never did want the ACA

So you don't disagree that what seniors, well, All Americans want is financial security from helath care problems.

It's not the number one concern of Americans. But, note well, I'm talking specifically about the ACA and you're talking in generalities.

And, can you spell check? It makes it look like . . . you pay no attention to the content of your posts.

That is insurance that provides them access to appropriate health care, when and where they need it without impacting their financial well being.
Yes. Measured against this metric The ACA is flawed and only incremental improvement .
Medicare for all would be a satisfactory solution that would provide the goal you seem to agree with...?

No.

Medicare is deadly. It killed my father. If you want to argue about that . . . oh, you can't.

fate

Ryan and Romney repeatedly said they would "not touch" the benefits of those currently receiving them.

Either the majority of people didn't trust them, or the majority of people want everyone to enjoy the current level of Medicare.
Either way, they didn't win.So whats that tell you?

That Democrats successfully lied and the electorate is gullible. That's how we wound up with such a pathetic excuse for a President.

fate

You meant to say, ". . . support RAISING corporate tax rates

No I didn't.

Okay, Mr. Incoherent, let's review what you wrote:

Would they, for instance, support corporate tax rates (especially on financial institutions that don't produce anything, in order to ensure their security? I'll bet they would.

Let's remove the parenthetical (although only half of the parenthesis is present--again, please proofread your foolishness) comment. That leaves:

Would they, for instance, support corporate tax rates . . . in order to ensure their security? I'll bet they would

We have "corporate tax rates." So, "supporting" them is immaterial. If the entire country "supports" corporate tax rates it won't change a thing. I support them. I think every liberal supports them. The question is not one of right or wrong, but how high should they be? So, one either wants them raised or lowered. Thus, I made the supposition that you were suggesting raising them "in order to ensure their security" by providing more money to Medicare. Now you tell me I'm wrong. Okay, so you meant to write a meaningless sentence. I apologize.

Although that and the eradication of all kinds of corporate grants, and tax breaks should also be inlcuded in a wholisitic discussion about whats "affordable".
I meant, a tax on corporate financial transactions. Something that would stop "flash trading" too. A rip off of other investors by a cabal of trading houses.

Oh. Well, thanks for clarifying. But, um, it is an increase on corporate taxes.

Again: nice spelling. I'm wearing a cast on my right hand. I have fewer spelling errors than you, even though I'm constantly mashing wrong keys.

Now, and I know this is difficult for you to grasp, yes, the "gimme" class will approve of taxes on someone else in order to get benefits for themselves. However, it may not be good for the economy. Furthermore, there may be people who are more interested in the collective good rather than only the good of the retired folks.

It’s a simple tweak that would reign in an out-of-control financial sector, stimulate jobs, generate billions of revenue, and possibly prevent another heart-wrenching crisis. Nobel Prize-winning economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman want it. Billionaires like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates want it. Polls show the majority of Americans want it. Even the Pope wants it.

We’re talking about a financial transaction tax (FTT) — a tiny tax of, say, less than half a percent: maybe 3 cents per $100 — on Wall Street trading. It’s simple, more than fair, widely supported by the public, and long overdue.

Oooh, all liberals want it! It must be good!

In any event, keep prattling with your meaningless posts. I'll come back when there is more bad news about Obamacare.

fate

First, NB: you never corrected your misstatement. Do you want to stand by your assertion that 95% of Americans are independently wealthy?

stipulated that should read...
are NOT independently wealthy.