Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
This is quite comical coming from you since you refused to address the questions I posed to you and instead were 'dancing on the head of a pin'.
New York Special Election
- Thread starter cawacko
- Start date
This is quite comical coming from you since you refused to address the questions I posed to you and instead were 'dancing on the head of a pin'.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
That's classic Moot. He never admits that he's FOS and simply leaves the thread after getting pwned.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/163469-dem-campaign-chief-this-house-is-in-play
While the above really says it all.... I cannot help myself.... what do you have to say now Mott? Is the HEAD OF THE DCCC a political (or poitical as you called it) noob as well? Is he also lacking in 'real world political experience'????
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Dance, dance, dance.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes, that is exactly what you are doing. I notice you STILL have not addressed the comments I posted to you.
I also can't help but notice you completely FAILED to respond to the link that shows the head of the DCCC saying the EXACT SAME THING you called me a noob for..... I wonder why?
apple0154
MEOW
“you cannot have health care devour the economy.” and I agree. Of course, that's what Obama was trying to explain during the '08 campaign. Medical care/services need to be combined under one government plan.
People talk about the job losses if privatization is removed from medical care. So? Medical care is not supposed to be an employment program.
Paul Ryan notes there will be "paralysis" regarding changes to medicare if the Dems win. He's right, there will be paralysis until the Repubs grasp the idea a full, combined medical government plan is necessary.
That's why dozens of countries, including virtually every industrialized nation, have government plans.
Hello??? Repubs?? Anyone home?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yeah.... take a look at the Democrats add at the bottom.... nope... No FEAR MONGERING there. None at all.
The Ryan Plan does nothing to control health care costs. It just makes health care cost increases not the government's problem, but the problem of the disabled, poor and elderly. In fact, in all likelihood the Ryan Plan would increase health care costs as Medicare and Medicaid pay less that private insurance for the same care.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
and ONCE AGAIN, we have more FEAR MONGERING....
The Ryan plan.... does actually address the issues that have lead to the insane rise in health care costs. People can either choose to read the actual plan or they can listen to the idiotic fear mongers who consistently use comments like the above to scare the crap out of people.
The following is a link to Ryan's actual proposal and not Dung's master's version where old people and the poor are led off to slaughterhouses.
http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/plan/#Healthsecurity
Just so you know, the Roadmap is not Ryan's plan. Ryan's latest version of the plan (there was first the Roadmap, then a proposal referred to as Ryan-Rivlin, and now the latest Ryan Plan), is different from the Roadmap in several respects, most significantly, the vouchers increase at CPI-U, not medical inflation (in Ryan-Rivlin, the vocuhers increased at GDP+1).
So, you may want to stop linking to that. It isn't the current proposal. It isn't even the second most recent proposal.
The reality is that the Ryan Plan cuts government spending by capping the amount the government will spend on Medicare, not by reducing healthcare costs. Here's how those rising costs are apportioned by the Ryan Plan:
Note that it increases health costs. You can call it fearmongering if you want, but it's the truth.
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/orszag-ryan-budget-would-increase-total-health-care-spending/
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Just so you know, the Roadmap is not Ryan's plan. Ryan's latest version of the plan (there was first the Roadmap, then a proposal referred to as Ryan-Rivlin, and now the latest Ryan Plan), is different from the Roadmap in several respects, most significantly, the vouchers increase at CPI-U, not medical inflation (in Ryan-Rivlin, the vocuhers increased at GDP+1).
So, you may want to stop linking to that. It isn't the current proposal. It isn't even the second most recent proposal.
The reality is that the Ryan Plan cuts government spending by capping the amount the government will spend on Medicare, not by reducing healthcare costs. Here's how those rising costs are apportioned by the Ryan Plan:
Note that it increases health costs. You can call it fearmongering if you want, but it's the truth.
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/orszag-ryan-budget-would-increase-total-health-care-spending/
LMAO....
So yes, the amount paid is higher using all of the assumptions of the CBO.
The CBO fails to incorporate in this projection any of the cost controls mentioned on Ryan's page.
As noted above, while the current Medicare plan is less, the direct result is a FAR higher national debt... which conveniently for you is not calculated as a part of the COST per person. Why? Because it pushes the debt off on future generations, making THEM pay for the current Medicare deficiencies. On top of that the Trustees of Medicare predict it will go bankrupt in 2018. So it won't even make it to the 2022 time frame.
Tell us... Do you really expect future generations to continue paying for OUR health care?
Also... it most certainly IS fear mongering on the part of the Dems. The 'Medicare will be eliminated' mantra is just that. You claim it is because the changes mean Medicare will not be as we know it today. Well NO SHIT. That is what happens when you make changes. The alternative of keeping it as it is means it will be gone in 7 years. So what do we do dung? Do we follow the Dems and make NO CHANGES? Or do we discuss changes that can help reduce health costs long term and make Medicare economically viable?
Side note: You are correct, under the current CBO analysis, the Ryan plan is adjusted based on CPI. I stand corrected on that point.
SF:
You are answering the question "will the government's healthcare costs be less under the Ryan Plan?" No one disputes that the answer to that question is yes. Of course the federal government will pay less when its costs are capped and it does not pay for health care.
The question I was addressing "will health care costs overall be less under the Ryan Plan?" The answer to the question, based on all available evidence, is no.
You are answering the question "will the government's healthcare costs be less under the Ryan Plan?" No one disputes that the answer to that question is yes. Of course the federal government will pay less when its costs are capped and it does not pay for health care.
The question I was addressing "will health care costs overall be less under the Ryan Plan?" The answer to the question, based on all available evidence, is no.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Taking the costs of the increased amount of debt to the US and pretending that it doesn't exist as part of the "costs" of the current system is 100% dishonest.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I'm glad that you clarified that, because it makes it so easy to prove you wrong. You're ignoring market forces and the realities of human nature.
When people have to pay for a portion of their service, they will shop around to find the best price. They will also use as little of the service as they can. Providers will either respond by keeping prices low or go out of business.
I'm not sure I follow you. Right now, total health expenditures are X. In 2022, under current law, total health expenditures will be Y. Of that Y, the government will have a share, less call it A and private parties will have a share, B. In 2022, under the Ryan Plan, total health expenditures will be Y + Z, but the governments share will be substantially less than A and private parties' share will be substantially more than B. Overall, the Ryan Plan increases total health expenditures while lowering the governments share of the costs and increase private parties' share of the costs.
As I said, based on all available evidence, you are incorrect. You are applying a very basic economic theory to health care markets and pretending it self-evidently is applicable when there is no available evidence to support that theory. Based upon observed data (Medicare Advantage, for example), Medicare is less costly than private insurance.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
It's only less costly when the government controls and regulates the private insurance.
You're trying to pretend that the very basic economic reality that I presented is a theory, that people buy health care differently than widgets, and that there is no available evidence relative to health care markets. But the fact is that when a CVS store moves in next to a Rite-Aid the prices at the Rite-Aid go down. And Wal-Mart can offer generic subscriptions for $4 because they want folks to make a trip to their store on a regular basis.