Reply With Quote
No worries.
LOL my bad
No worries.
Lies, lies, and more lies.
I only got to the second post so far. In the original post, it says Newt Gingrich called the House Republican plan for Medicare "right-wing social engineering."
ing liars...
Newts words were "I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering." He did not say they were doing it. He was answering a hypothetical question.
In the second post, it says he came out against Paul Ryan's plan to end Medicare as we know it because he said it was too "radical." He didn't say that. He said "I would be against a conservative imposing radical change," in response to a question that may or may not be accurate.
If the rest of this thread is like this, reading any and all fantasized negativity, then it is a loser thread.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-16-2011 at 06:54 PM.
George...
Did you even listen to the video, or did you just believe the lies from the author of the article?
The political context is clear. Pretending that Newt was addressing some abstract hypothetical courts falsehood IMHO.
Converting Medicare to a voucher system is radical in the straight-forward sense of the word.
The shoe fits: Newt, probably in a craven attempt to pander to seniors and the AARP on a Sunday news show, was referring to the Ryan plan. With a 100% probability. Your attempt to spin it otherwise only shows how biased you are.
WC's not very good at probability, WH.
I don't think posting idiotic messages on Spurstalk is helping anyone. I also don't think being deliberately obtuse is confusing anyone.
Then show me the quotes in the transcript where I am wrong.
I'm thinking the 'Ryan Plan' was misrepresented here. If you have a copy of it, please show us. I don't know where it is, but that is not what I heard about it.
Bottom line, there are clear lies in the article. Therefore, how can any reasonable person trust what they want from it?
Found the "Ryan Plan' and the article misrepresents it also.
Lies from the Wall Street Journal?..
mmmmkk.
It does not. The article represents it as vouchers for private insurance which is exactly what Ryan proposes.
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budge...Healthsecurity
Direct Assistance. Providing low-income families with dependent children the financial assistance to purchase high quality private plans will end the two-tiered health care system that exists today. In addition to the health care tax credit, this individual Medicaid payment will provide Medicaid beneficiaries with nearly $11,000 that can be applied to health care costs. Additional assistance is provided for pregnant women and families with children younger than 1 year old. This will ensure families stay together within one provider network and foster coordinated and personalized health care as well as promote new and innovative care models for patients.
Stop thinking. You're not very good at it.
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budge...Healthsecurity
Direct Assistance. Providing low-income families with dependent children the financial assistance to purchase high quality private plans will end the two-tiered health care system that exists today. In addition to the health care tax credit, this individual Medicaid payment will provide Medicaid beneficiaries with nearly $11,000 that can be applied to health care costs. Additional assistance is provided for pregnant women and families with children younger than 1 year old. This will ensure families stay together within one provider network and foster coordinated and personalized health care as well as promote new and innovative care models for patients.
Bottom line, you completely fail at intellectual honesty. You wouldn't recognize a reasonable person or position if they bit you on your ass.
Yes. Outside of the hard facts of any publication, opinion is colored by those who write it. The journalists who write for the WSJ are as human an infallible as any others in the media.
Please...
Don't tell me you think they are unbiased.
I ask again. Did you actually watch the video? I did.
any health care plant that
- doesn't kill Medicare Advantage (+12% more costly than non-Advantage),
- doesn't kill the Repug regulation that prevents US govt from negotiating drug/device prices
- doesn't define the US govt as (hard-assed) single-buyer for drugs/devices/etc for Medicare, Medicaid, VA
... is not serious about reducing the (medicare/medicaid) deficit.
btw, the Ryan (what are his qualifications for dreaming up his fantasy?) vouchers are wildly below what (exorbitant, gouging) sick-care costs are:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/11/news...mily/index.htm
So...
The current idea of $1,100 in monthly vouchers, and more for lower income isn't enough for buying one's own insurance? And it is indexed to medical inflation.
We have to draw the line someplace financially. Where would you draw it at?
Don't forget. The outline released from the democrats is more cutting, and immediate... not giving anyone time to adjust!
"Where would you draw it at?"
The problem is framed all wrong, as the Repugs/VRWC dishonest lying always is.
The solution is to reduce sick-care costs, not limit treatment (get sick and die early) while allowing the sick-care predators to increase their prices at 3x the cost of inlation.
A hard-core public insurance option open to every citizen, as adult countries have, paid for as a percentage of salary and capital income, no cap.
Govt doctors as salaried, overhead-free employees, free to practice medicine rather than stuff their pockets with fee-for-service racketeering. They would get no percentage of the costs of the treatments they order.
So to critcize Ryan's proposal as endangering the ability of older Americans to afford insurance is real and should be feared... nice analysis
Medicare turning into some kind of voucher system is inevitable. It's a system ripe with fraud, the ratio of those receiving benefits to those funding them is only going to get more out of kilter, and government is completely incapable of controlling rising HC costs. As the amount of money medicare can pay doctors to treat medicare patients becomes less and less, more and more doctors will simply stop treating medicare patients. The only solution from that point is for medicare to become a voucher program where the government is forced into just giving people a check for whatever amount the income from payroll taxes allows and saying "good luck".
"government is completely incapable of controlling rising HC costs."
but it's a "free market". Now you want the govt to control HC costs?
UCA is richest country in the history of the universe, but its health care is so expensive, even its health insurance is so expensive, that 10Ms can't afford it, and those that can are getting sucked dry.
"good luck" is the best you can recommend? Why even bother with useless vouchers? How about, off, Darwin says You Die.
People will pile into already-overloaded public health facilities that are paid for by taxpayers anyway.
Universal public insurance option and govt doctors and clinics is the only way to provide least-cost health care. Nobody would cry if the for-profit sick-care system shrank by 75%.
I thnk a certain idiot Trailblazer fan should refrain from posting until he engages his brain first.
Huh? I said government is incapable of controlling HC costs. How do you read that and come away with the impression that I want the government to control HC costs?
It's not a recommendation, it's a prediction. Just like social security, medicare is merely another ponzi scheme en lement program that is destined to fail. Just like every other ponzi scheme, people are going to end up getting screwed badly. In this case, the ones getting screwed badly will be anyone foolish enough to have believed that medicare would take care of them."good luck" is the best you can recommend? Why even bother with useless vouchers? How about, off, Darwin says You Die.
And when those overloaded public health facilities can't handle any more people, they'll start showing people to the door, telling them "good luck".People will pile into already-overloaded public health facilities that are paid for by taxpayers anyway.
A public option in this country is nothing more than a fantasy. Neither party is interested. Nor is there any logical reason to believe that one would become anything other than another governmental cluster .Universal public insurance option and govt doctors and clinics is the only way to provide least-cost health care. Nobody would cry if the for-profit sick-care system shrank by 75%.
Even Fox News knew Newt bagged on Ryan's plan.
The costs are real. Where would you draw the line?
Solutions rather than criticism please.
I agree.
One reason for the rising health care costs is the lack of accountability. People who pay little or no co-pay don't care how much it costs their insurance company. When you put individuals in charge of the costs, they shop for the best they can find. Their comes a point when everyone must live within their means. The tax payer dollar is not endless.
Do you even try to understand my point, or blow it off because of your personal bias and lack of open mind?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
