Admit it Dems: Ryan scares the shit out of you

j-mac said:
Those "cost savings" you are speaking of come about by denying seniors treatment through the edicts of a non medical governmental board who will make the decision whether or not you are worth the cost of treatment...Wonderful.
Click to expand...


Actually, they don't. But thanks for at least trying. Also, too, Ryan didn't repeal those costs savings in his budget resolution that Romney said he would sign if he were president.

So you're saying that Romney-Ryan were for denying seniors treatment through the edicts of the non medical governmental board before they were against it? That'll work out swell.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Actually, they don't. But thanks for at least trying.
Click to expand...


I suggest that you look into the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)...

Also, too, Ryan didn't repeal those costs savings in his budget resolution that Romney said he would sign if he were president.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Both Ryan's, and The Ryan/Wyden bill was shot down in the Senate. They are now running on the Romney plan.

So you're saying that Romney-Ryan were for denying seniors treatment through the edicts of the non medical governmental board before they were against it? That'll work out swell.
Click to expand...

Nope. That is you frantically spinning because your disaster of a President, and plan to destroy in order to fundamentally change America is being unmasked, so you must just make shit up.
 
j-mac said:
I suggest that you look into the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)...
Click to expand...

Oh, I know what that is, but that has nothing to do with the $700 billion in cost savings over the next 10 years.


j-mac said:
Irrelevant. Both Ryan's, and The Ryan/Wyden bill was shot down in the Senate. They are now running on the Romney plan.
Click to expand...

Just because the Ryan proposal didn't become law (Ryan/Wyden didn't pass the House and had no opportunity to be shot down in the Senate) doesn't mean it is irrelevant. It's what Ryan wanted and what Romeny said he would have signed. They support(ed) what's in the 2013 House Budget.

As for them now running on "the Romney plan," can you provide a link to that plan? I haven't seen it.


j-mac said:
Nope. That is you frantically spinning because your disaster of a President, and plan to destroy in order to fundamentally change America is being unmasked, so you must just make shit up.
Click to expand...

What exactly am I making up? The Ryan Budget left the $700 billion Medicare cost savings in the Affordable Care Act intact. Romney said he would have signed that budget if it reached his desk as president. Now both say they would repeal those cost savings. What is made up other than the part that I quoted from you?
 
Turdhead: Now both say they would repeal those cost savings.
Click to expand...

Cost savings? Where were there any "cost savings" in Obama's plan to take $700 billion from Medicare? You are mixing semantics here, and trying to claim the money they plan to remove from funding Medicare is a "savings" when it's a cut in funding. Well.... let's use that same logic and apply it to entitlement or discretionary spending, and say that all the cuts we are going to make are "savings" and not cuts! Whenever you start screaming and moaning about starving children and poor old folks eating dog food, we can point to monumental "savings" we achieved! Seems maybe we can completely eliminate the Department of Education and Department of Energy, and realize tremendous SAVINGS! Seems we can obliterate the EPA and pear down the FDA to a fraction of their size, and see all kinds of "savings" in doing so! Is this the argument you really wanted to make, or are you just too myopically stupid to understand what a moron you are in making it?
 
Dixie said:
Cost savings? Where were there any "cost savings" in Obama's plan to take $700 billion from Medicare? You are mixing semantics here, and trying to claim the money they plan to remove from funding Medicare is a "savings" when it's a cut in funding. Well.... let's use that same logic and apply it to entitlement or discretionary spending, and say that all the cuts we are going to make are "savings" and not cuts! Whenever you start screaming and moaning about starving children and poor old folks eating dog food, we can point to monumental "savings" we achieved! Seems maybe we can completely eliminate the Department of Education and Department of Energy, and realize tremendous SAVINGS! Seems we can obliterate the EPA and pear down the FDA to a fraction of their size, and see all kinds of "savings" in doing so! Is this the argument you really wanted to make, or are you just too myopically stupid to understand what a moron you are in making it?
Click to expand...


Look, if you can figure out a way for stores that accept SNAP benefits into giving people the same amount of food for less money, I'd agree to it. You see, that's what the $700 billion in costs savings represents. As part of the ACA, certain healthcare providers agreed to accept lower payments over time, which reduces costs to Medicare. There are also some changes to the Medicare Advantage program, which is more expensive than traditional Medicare in the first instance.

So, yeah, if you can get the same for less, I'm all for it!
 
Also, too, this is why we can't have nice things.

Medicare is the single biggest cause of our exploding debt in the years to come. Obama and the Democrats passed a law that makes modest changes that do nothing to Medicare benefits but save $700 billion over ten years in changes to payments to healthcare providers. The House Republicans (and most of the Republicans in the Senate) passed a law that kept those costs savings intact. (We can call them cuts if you want. I don't necessarily mind). The Republican nominee for president said he would have signed that budget that included those costs savings. So far so good.

Until now. Now all of a sudden (well, not really all of a sudden since the same thing happened in 2010) those are draconian benefit cuts, not Medicare savings, and Romney and Ryan will roll back this $700 billion in savings all while making Medicare more solvent and totally awesome and balancing the budget and cutting taxes for everyone while raising defense spending and not hurting programs that help the poor and lower income earners. It's insanity.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Look, if you can figure out a way for stores that accept SNAP benefits into giving people the same amount of food for less money, I'd agree to it. You see, that's what the $700 billion in costs savings represents. As part of the ACA, certain healthcare providers agreed to accept lower payments over time, which reduces costs to Medicare. There are also some changes to the Medicare Advantage program, which is more expensive than traditional Medicare in the first instance.

So, yeah, if you can get the same for less, I'm all for it!
Click to expand...

But that is not the case here, they didn't figure out how to do this, they simply said they were going to and claimed it would be a savings. They figured out a way to manipulate semantics and trick people like you, but that wasn't all that hard to do. If you take your mortgage payment and put it into a savings account, you haven't really "saved" that money, because the mortgage still has to be paid. You can run around CLAIMING you have saved this much money, and that you'll find some miraculous other way to pay the mortgage, maybe the interest rates on your savings will increase so much, you can pay the mortgage? But you haven't SAVED the money, you've merely played a semantics game while acting retarded.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Look, if you can figure out a way for stores that accept SNAP benefits into giving people the same amount of food for less money, I'd agree to it. You see, that's what the $700 billion in costs savings represents. As part of the ACA, certain healthcare providers agreed to accept lower payments over time, which reduces costs to Medicare. There are also some changes to the Medicare Advantage program, which is more expensive than traditional Medicare in the first instance.

So, yeah, if you can get the same for less, I'm all for it!
Click to expand...

They cut costs in a number of ways that make sense, then they use that money to pay for expanded care (insurance) for millions. When the SC took out the mandate it made it harder but not impossible...fewer people will be able to be covered but that can be fixed. I know the insurance companies helped write this law and at one time it pissed me off because I wanted a single payer system based on medicare but I can see where this was a compromise that still accomplishes a lot of positive change. This system keeps costs down (a real problem with our system of 'for profit' medical care) and takes aways the provisions that allowed insurers to drop people and deny them coverage. I want single payer...I want everyone covered but this is a good first step in a climate of 'just say NO' and where we haven't been able to make any improvements prior.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Also, too, this is why we can't have nice things.

Medicare is the single biggest cause of our exploding debt in the years to come. Obama and the Democrats passed a law that makes modest changes that do nothing to Medicare benefits but save $700 billion over ten years in changes to payments to healthcare providers. The House Republicans (and most of the Republicans in the Senate) passed a law that kept those costs savings intact. (We can call them cuts if you want. I don't necessarily mind). The Republican nominee for president said he would have signed that budget that included those costs savings. So far so good.

Until now. Now all of a sudden (well, not really all of a sudden since the same thing happened in 2010) those are draconian benefit cuts, not Medicare savings, and Romney and Ryan will roll back this $700 billion in savings all while making Medicare more solvent and totally awesome and balancing the budget and cutting taxes for everyone while raising defense spending and not hurting programs that help the poor and lower income earners. It's insanity.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent point and can't be said often enough.
 
Dixie said:
But that is not the case here, they didn't figure out how to do this, they simply said they were going to and claimed it would be a savings. They figured out a way to manipulate semantics and trick people like you, but that wasn't all that hard to do. If you take your mortgage payment and put it into a savings account, you haven't really "saved" that money, because the mortgage still has to be paid. You can run around CLAIMING you have saved this much money, and that you'll find some miraculous other way to pay the mortgage, maybe the interest rates on your savings will increase so much, you can pay the mortgage? But you haven't SAVED the money, you've merely played a semantics game while acting retarded.
Click to expand...


The mortgage analogy isn't really a good one since we're not talking about money borrowed from hospitals that the government agreed to pay back. What we are talking about are changes to the reimbursement rates that health care providers will accept from Medicare in exchange for treating Medicare patients in the future. Hospitals agreed to the changes during the negotiations over the Affordable Care Act.

Nice try, though.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
The mortgage analogy isn't really a good one since we're not talking about money borrowed from hospitals that the government agreed to pay back. What we are talking about are changes to the reimbursement rates that health care providers will accept from Medicare in exchange for treating Medicare patients in the future. Hospitals agreed to the changes during the negotiations over the Affordable Care Act.

Nice try, though.
Click to expand...

Well, the FIRST thing is, doctors are already having a difficulty in accepting what Medicare pays out. Many doctors have stopped taking Medicare patients altogether because of this. So to somehow presume that further cuts in reimbursements will be practical, is nonsense in of itself. Hospitals did not "agree" to a goddamn thing, hospitals didn't get a Senate or House vote, or sit on any of the planning committees for this. 80% of the doctors in America have stated they will leave their practice if Obamacare becomes law of the land in 2014. You can't remove 80% of the doctors and increase patient load by tens of millions, and realize the same costs... the economics do not work, the math doesn't add up, and it doesn't matter which shell you hide the funding under, while playing your little game.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Romney has vowed to spend no less than 4% of GDP on base military spending, which is an increase.
Click to expand...

Sounds like whether it's an increase or decrease might just depend on the actual GDP, doesn't it... since that is what it's based upon? Doesn't logic sort of dictate that? If the GDP is 20% less this year than last, then 4% this year as opposed to last, would be a cut, not an increase.
 
Dixie said:
Well, the FIRST thing is, doctors are already having a difficulty in accepting what Medicare pays out. Many doctors have stopped taking Medicare patients altogether because of this. So to somehow presume that further cuts in reimbursements will be practical, is nonsense in of itself. Hospitals did not "agree" to a goddamn thing, hospitals didn't get a Senate or House vote, or sit on any of the planning committees for this. 80% of the doctors in America have stated they will leave their practice if Obamacare becomes law of the land in 2014. You can't remove 80% of the doctors and increase patient load by tens of millions, and realize the same costs... the economics do not work, the math doesn't add up, and it doesn't matter which shell you hide the funding under, while playing your little game.
Click to expand...

80%? Really? That's right up there with your other lie about VA doctors.

An absolute fabrication.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top