Reply With Quote
Did Ryan actually say what tax expenditures he was going to eliminate to pay for his $4.6T in tax cuts. You said he had a real plan.
Not unless workers check the power of Wall Street.
Did Ryan actually say what tax expenditures he was going to eliminate to pay for his $4.6T in tax cuts. You said he had a real plan.
Except those ARE the Ryan Plan. Can't do it. I get what people like Snake Boy are saying when they are talking about voter enthusisaim but Romney isn't winning on the back of a high base turnout. His base isn't wide enough and the base that is energized by this selection is the same base that was energized by Palin.
That was tried by McCain. He lost and it wasn't close. Obama certainly won't get the same type of turnout this time from his base, but I don't believe anyone thinks he has to.
Personally, I think Romney could have made it an interesting campaign if he had come more to the middle and away from the conservative right. If he would have made it something more than "I'm not Obama". But he's apparently not brave enough for that.
Some of which the military doesn't even want.
In most cases, yes. I wouldn't say all though.
Yep. As long as they stay off our soil and our allies, let them kill each other.
"he had come more to the middle and away from the conservative right"
he's too wimpy, too empty to be his own man. Totally without "that vision thang", he yields to whatever applies maximum pressure.
Which tax expenditures is he eliminating to pay for his $4.6T in new tax cuts CC? Which of these are politically viable? http://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010...penditures.pdf
They don't have to be "as we know it now". In the Medicare case, it also doesn't need to be entirely wiped out and replaced with "vouchers" that don't keep up with medical costs... that's just not addressing what the real issue with Medicare or healthcare in general is: actual costs.
Don't get me wrong, CC. I'm not against reforming both systems to put them on a sustainable path. But there's more ways to do that than just giving a big fat middle finger to those that chipped into the system a good chunk of their salaries their entire adult life.
Or, there might be other options other than Ryan's Catfood for Seniors vs Obama's Simpson Bowles "necessary cuts."
For if you truly want to reduce costs, you'd have to talk about expanding these programs rather than delivering them to Wall Street.
Well Obama has more experience than Romney or Ryan right now, and since it's obviously such an important factor in your calculations, I'll assume you're voting for Obama this time?
If the President can put out assassination orders on US citizens, I'm pretty sure he can find a way to break a contract...
IIRC, he voted for Obama last time.
Of what contracts are you speaking?
Doesn't this move help invisible Gary Johnson? Just think about it. Ron Paul supporters ain't in voting for Romney and Ryan and defintely not voting for Obama. I think it helps. I also think Gary Johnson and the even more invisible Virgil Goode will do a little damage to Obama and Romney in November. Romney, Ryan, Biden, and Obama all support nation building, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the bailouts, a welfare state from cradle to grave, endless wars that make several countries hate America and/or make relations with those countries even worse than they were before, etc...
The list goes on.
Not even close. They hardly cover anything at this point. Not even close to private insurance.
Not my experience, but depends on the private insurance also... lots of places going with marginal private self-insurance that doesn't cover these days...
That is true. But still is a more efficient option long-term than Medicare and Medicaid. Medicaid doesn't cover anything anyway and patients on it have to wait months anyway to get anything done. Medicare is covering less and less each day. Plus, they're now trying to audit hospitals, private health care centers for past expenses because they're broke and useless. Also, patients on it have to pay 20% of any procedure they're getting done. That's alot to pay for. Medicare is really a joke and can't be reformed. Not enough money.
You Lie
"Indeed, the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll found 62 percent of Americans expressing support for "having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans." Other pollsters describing the public option as "government administered" and "similar to Medicare" gauged even more positive reactions: 67 percent in a Kaiser Family Foundation poll in April and 72 percent in the most recent CBS News/New York Times poll."
Among those insured through Medicare, however, "the Medicare program" (68 percent) scores nearly as high. Among those with private insurance, "your health insurance company" earns much less trust (48 percent).
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonl...ance--20090629
Medicare Is More Efficient Than Private Insurance
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/0...ate-insurance/
What Paul Ryan Brings to the Romney Ticket
Tapping Paul Ryan gives Romney a ticket mate who believes the problems facing the country are too serious to demagogue. Good luck with that.
Mitt Romney finally found a way to fire up the base—the other guy’s base. One needn’t venture beyond these pages to encounter gleeful liberal depictions of Romney’s new running mate, Paul Ryan, as an unhinged Randian plutocrat whose plans to kill Medicare (among other mustache-twirling villainies) will make him a “juicy target” for Obama and the Democrats this fall.
The Wall Street Journal’s Gerald Seib believes that the Ryan pick “best guarantees the country will get the kind of philosophical debate worthy of a presidential campaign.”
Maybe. A likelier result is a turn further downward. Everyone up for a “zombie-eyed granny-starver from Wisconsin”?
In choosing Ryan, Romney is no longer defending a vague set of ideas aligned with Ryan’s reform approach; he’s now taken on the thing itself, and will find himself spending the remainder of the campaign defending it, in all of its potentially damaging details. If en lement reform is the third rail of politics, this is an entire third-rail transportation system.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...=Cheat%20Sheet
He's BAAAACK!
A Repug prez candidate whose VEEP pick kills his chances.
You just don't know the true of what Medicare actually pays for. You're ignorant. They're cutting what they cover all the time. No secret there. Plus, there will be alot more medicare cuts coming soon. No myth, it will happen. Eventually, it will hardly cover anything at all and yet tax payers will continue to pay for it and pay more for it.
Of course more people will want something that they don't have to pay for. That's common sense. If I got something for free, I would like it to. Doesn't mean its best for the country.
What's gonna happen eventually is private insurance will follow what's going on and start to cover less and less as well. They will start to go out of business and eventually one day, we will just have a single payer for insurance. The government.
And Bouton, you're so clueless, you don't even mention how much Obama is cutting from medicare with his health care plan. He's gonna neuter it down to pretty much nothing, yet the tax payers will continue to pay for.
Cutting Medicare reimbursements is "controlling govt costs" by paying less, which doesn't mean less care, while the Ryan's voucher plan does nothing to reduce health care bills, only shifts payments from Medicare to seniors, impoverishing, AND THEREBY DENYING THEY CARE (they won't be able to get coverage with vouchers, nor pay the copays).
Nobody is really addressing the core problem of the sick-care system horribly overcharging for their dubious services with inferior outcomes.
It absolutely means less care. When medicare decides its not gonna pay for something, then that means less care. Medicare is already covering less and less all the time. When its gets less money, its gonna stop covering either more which obviously means less care for the patients. Less reimbursements will mean less specialists will see medicare patients and means less care for those people.
No way. Insurance is expensive as already unless you're getting it through your employer, and that's insuring a very low risk pool compared to seniors, where 80% of the healthcare expenses happen. A premium for the elderly would cost a load of money, many more times than for your average person. Medicare spends a lot of money because it's actually taking care of people that are sick the most by a large margin. Since these people largely don't work for obvious reasons, government will have to pick up the bill no matter what. Adding an insurance company in the middle is just inserting another middleman that wants their cut.
IMO, the only way to make this work is addressing healthcare costs. The US simply pays way too much for the services and the medications compared to any other country. Almost twice as much. You could tell me you get 2x better service, but for a lot of basic services it's very debatable.
The ACA didn't address costs either, which is why we keep kicking the can around instead of actually doing what needs to be done.
"Insurance is expensive as already unless you're getting it through your employer"
BS. $15K+ is avg insurance cost for family of 4, estimated to be $20K+ by 2020.
When the employer pays for group insurance, he skims of the employee's salary, tax deductible for him and a tax-free benefit for the employee, directly to the insurance company, just he does with IRS and withholding tax. So employees still "pay" for still expensive insurance.
$15K+ per year for insurance for family 4, but the average bill for sick care per year is $32K for four persons.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions