Rachel Maddow shines some light on the GOP/Paul Ryan's bogus budget proposal

Haiku said:
You're a laughing stock here...ignorant and proud of it aren't you?! LMAO
Click to expand...
Funny how they never offer specifics?

I saw another segment comparing/contrasting Ryan's plan to kill Medicare, with the future of Medicare under Obamacare.

In essence, seniors still get to keep their free screenings, and other current coverages under Obamacare, but lose all of them in exchange for a voucher under Ryan.
 
Althea said:
Funny how they never offer specifics?

I saw another segment comparing/contrasting Ryan's plan to kill Medicare, with the future of Medicare under Obamacare.

In essence, seniors still get to keep their free screenings, and other current coverages under Obamacare, but lose all of them in exchange for a voucher under Ryan.
Click to expand...
I saw that too... Ryan then takes the money saved by reducing benefits to seniors, the disabled etc. and funnels the money to the 1%. Just don't tell me these people care about our budget other than to find more ways to steal money from us.
 
Haiku said:
I saw that too... Ryan then takes the money saved by reducing benefits to seniors, the disabled etc. and funnels the money to the 1%. Just don't tell me these people care about our budget other than to find more ways to steal money from us.
Click to expand...

There it is.
 
Althea said:
Funny how they never offer specifics?

I saw another segment comparing/contrasting Ryan's plan to kill Medicare, with the future of Medicare under Obamacare.

In essence, seniors still get to keep their free screenings, and other current coverages under Obamacare, but lose all of them in exchange for a voucher under Ryan.
Click to expand...

Flat wrong. The analysis doesn't take some very important information into account.

Those who are younger than 55 and become Seniors will have a choice to take the voucher or to remain on traditional Medicare under Ryan's plan. Also, for anybody currently 55 and above nothing at all changes. Zero. Your grandma is safe and continues on her current plan.

It is interesting to note that Ryan's plan is based on recommendations from Bill Clinton's bipartisan commission on how to save Medicare.
 
Vouchers, isn't that what Bush tried? We all saw what a great idea that was when everyone lost everything on Wall Street. Yeah. How much do you think those vouchers will buy when the cost restrictions to health care coverage are removed by Romney/Ryan? It's estimated that the average person will have to pay $6,500 per year under their program and I can only imagine what would happen to people with chronic conditions. Don't forget you guys provided a part D medicare program that wasn't paid for and prevented the government from negotiating prices. Great fiscal policy there, just wonderful. Do you know how in the pockets of the healthcare industry these two are? Who do you think they work for? Us? LOL

There is a reason that these programs were enacted 77 years ago. They were needed and have been successful. They have never missed a payment. People don't want your proposed answers to manufactured problems.

Four days after Ryan is brought onto the ticket he's in Nevada with Adelson taking his orders. Thanks Citizens United.

This is pure Koch Brothers, John Birch Society bullshit....
 
Althea said:
Funny how they never offer specifics?

I saw another segment comparing/contrasting Ryan's plan to kill Medicare, with the future of Medicare under Obamacare.

In essence, seniors still get to keep their free screenings, and other current coverages under Obamacare, but lose all of them in exchange for a voucher under Ryan.
Click to expand...

The above is complete nonsense. Ryan does not plan to kill Medicare. Seniors 55+ keep Medicare just as it is. Those under 55 have the option to keep Medicare or go to a private plan. Funny how you bitch about others offering no specifics, yet in the same post you are willing to blatantly lie. Which is worse?
 
Damocles said:
Flat wrong. The analysis doesn't take some very important information into account.

Those who are younger than 55 and become Seniors will have a choice to take the voucher or to remain on traditional Medicare under Ryan's plan. Also, for anybody currently 55 and above nothing at all changes. Zero. Your grandma is safe and continues on her current plan.
Click to expand...

There are few falsehood in these few sentences. First, the options are not to take the voucher or to remain on traditional Medicare. What happens is you get a voucher and can use it to buy health insurance from private providers or Medicare. Now, if a private provider undercuts Medicare's rate and you want Medicare, you have to pay the difference in the voucher and the Medicare rate. So it's not voucher or Medicare. It's voucher and good luck. Also, too, if overall costs exceed GDP+0.5% then Medicare beneficiaries are on the hook for the difference. And for people currently over 55, things change because the ACA is repealed (except for that $700 billion). First, the donut hole is back for prescription drugs. Also, too costs will increase for preventive care services. Additionally, it is questionable whether doctors will continue to accept the low Medicare reimbursement rates if seniors are shifted to various plans instead of one that covers everyone. So grandma might keep her Medicare coverage, but her doctor may not accept it anymore.

Damocles said:
It is interesting to note that Ryan's plan is based on recommendations from Bill Clinton's bipartisan commission on how to save Medicare.
Click to expand...

Someone got his talking points today. I think it's amazing that John Breaux is still the Republicans' favorite Democrat. The trouble with this argument is several fold (1) the Medicare commission in question wasn't "Bill Clinton's bipartisan commission." Clinton appointed four of the 17 members. All four of them voted against the final report, which brings us to (2) the commission didn't actually make any recommendations because the final report lacked the requisite number of votes. The Republican members of the committee and two "centrist" democrats (the aforementioned John Breaux and Bob Kerrey, another of the Republicans' favortie Democrats) voted in favor of it while the remaining democrats voted against it.

Nice work, though, Damo.
 
Last edited:
General Buck Turgidson said:
There are few falsehood in these few sentences. First, the options are to take the voucher or to remain on traditional Medicare. What happens is you get a voucher and can use it to buy health insurance from private providers or Medicare. Now, if a private provider undercuts Medicare's rate and you want Medicare, you have to pay the difference in the voucher and the Medicare rate. So it's not voucher or Medicare. It's voucher and good luck. Also, too, if overall costs exceed GDP+0.5% then Medicare beneficiaries are on the hook for the difference. And for people currently over 55, things change because the ACA is repealed (except for that $700 billion). First, the donut hole is back for prescription drugs. Also, too costs will increase for preventive care services. Additionally, it is questionable whether doctors will continue to accept the low Medicare reimbursement rates if seniors are shifted to various plans instead of one that covers everyone. So grandma might keep her Medicare coverage, but her doctor may not accept it anymore.



Someone got his talking points today. I think it's amazing that John Breaux is still the Republicans' favorite Democrat. The trouble with this argument is several fold (1) the Medicare commission in question wasn't "Bill Clinton's bipartisan commission." Clinton appointed four of the 17 members. All four of them voted against the final report, which brings us to (2) the commission didn't actually make any recommendations because the final report lacked the requisite number of votes. The Republican members of the committee and two "centrist" democrats (the aforementioned John Breaux and Bob Kerrey, another of the Republicans' favortie Democrats) voted in favor of it while the remaining democrats voted against it.

Nice work, though, Damo.
Click to expand...

And easy work for you, General. :awesome:
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
There are few falsehood in these few sentences. First, the options are not to take the voucher or to remain on traditional Medicare. What happens is you get a voucher and can use it to buy health insurance from private providers or Medicare. Now, if a private provider undercuts Medicare's rate and you want Medicare, you have to pay the difference in the voucher and the Medicare rate. So it's not voucher or Medicare. It's voucher and good luck. Also, too, if overall costs exceed GDP+0.5% then Medicare beneficiaries are on the hook for the difference. And for people currently over 55, things change because the ACA is repealed (except for that $700 billion). First, the donut hole is back for prescription drugs. Also, too costs will increase for preventive care services. Additionally, it is questionable whether doctors will continue to accept the low Medicare reimbursement rates if seniors are shifted to various plans instead of one that covers everyone. So grandma might keep her Medicare coverage, but her doctor may not accept it anymore.



Someone got his talking points today. I think it's amazing that John Breaux is still the Republicans' favorite Democrat. The trouble with this argument is several fold (1) the Medicare commission in question wasn't "Bill Clinton's bipartisan commission." Clinton appointed four of the 17 members. All four of them voted against the final report, which brings us to (2) the commission didn't actually make any recommendations because the final report lacked the requisite number of votes. The Republican members of the committee and two "centrist" democrats (the aforementioned John Breaux and Bob Kerrey, another of the Republicans' favortie Democrats) voted in favor of it while the remaining democrats voted against it.

Nice work, though, Damo.
Click to expand...

You seriously deserve some sort of medal. I consider myself a high information voter, and half the times I have no idea what the eff they are talking about but I know it's right wing horseshit and outright falsehoods. I don't know how you keep track of all of this, but if we were teams you'd be MVP.
 
Darla said:
You seriously deserve some sort of medal. I consider myself a high information voter, and half the times I have no idea what the eff they are talking about but I know it's right wing horseshit and outright falsehoods. I don't know how you keep track of all of this, but if we were teams you'd be MVP.
Click to expand...

Thanks but I don't know that they give medals for otherwise useless knowledge.
 
Haiku said:
You're a laughing stock here...ignorant and proud of it aren't you?! LMAO
Click to expand...
Not really. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and MSNBC decided to imitate Fox News, making them the defacto liberal propaganda channel. Meaning anything learned from MSNBC is as suspect as anything learned from Fox. Neither is a credible source of information. They're telling a constituency what they want to hear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top