Couple great video’s out about the Ryan pick and Romney/Ryan team:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y6hYhL8yAs[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Add2VY0FM7U[/youtube]
Meanwhile the Obama camp tells outright lies, as usual:
“[Ryan’s] plan also would end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher system, shifting thousands of dollars in health care costs to seniors,”
The latest version of the Ryan Medicare reform plan allows future retirees use a premium support payment to buy private insurance or buy into traditional Medicare–a proposal endorsed by Democratic senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. Medicare will end “as we know it” under Obama’s plan of rationing and/or bankruptcy. But the most dishonest part of Messina’s statement is that it leaves the impression that the Ryan plan would affect current seniors. That is not true. Ryan’s Medicare reform doesn’t affect current seniors or those 10 years away from retirement.
Ryan justifies the delayed implementation of the plan because retirees or those near retirement have planned their lives around Medicare in its current form, and those under 55 will have more time to plan for some modest changes necessary to avert a fiscal crisis. Delayed implementation is also what makes Ryan’s plan politically viable. Voters 55 and over won’t be affected at all, so they really shouldn’t have anything to worry about. And the vast majority of voters under the age of 55 don’t believe big entitlement programs will even be around to pay them a benefit when they retire, as this Gallup poll on Social Security revealed.
While 69% of Americans age 55 and older think they will receive Social Security benefits, a mere 22% of 18- to 34-year-olds and 32% of 35- to 54-year-olds think the program will even be around when they retire. Changes to Medicare–even the modest changes Ryan and Romney favor–might spook current beneficiaries or those close to retirement, but it’s hard to imagine why younger voters would vote against a candidate for altering a program from which they don’t expect to benefit. If anything, Ryan’s plan offers the under-55 crowd the best hope that these programs will still be functioning when they reach retirement.
John McCormack then asks why are journalists not reporting on these lies?
the job of journalists is to provide context that politicians leave out. And when it comes to Medicare reform, the press does a pretty shoddy job of providing essential context that would allow an adult conversation about how the country can avert a fiscal crisis. See, for example, the New York Times report on Romney’s vice presidential announcement. Reporters Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny describe Ryan as “an advocate of reshaping the Medicare program of health insurance for retirees.”
No, Ryan is not in favor of reshaping Medicare “for retirees”–he wants to reshape it for Americans who are 55 years old and younger. It shouldn’t be too difficult to mention the very basic fact about which Americans would actually be affected by the Romney Ryan plan. But the word “Medicare” appears five times in the New York Times report, and not once does the report explain that Ryan’s reform takes effect for new retirees starting in 2023.
It shouldn’t be too difficult, but they won’t. They weakly called out Obama on his ‘Romney murdered my wife’ baloney…and it remains to be seen if they will even attempt to call them out on this latest lie.
I’m not holding my breath and neither should the Romney/Ryan campaign. They need to fight it themselves and they have the very best person for the job to do just that. Paul Ryan.
See author page
A “premium support payment” IS a voucher. Simply referring to a thing by another name doesn’t change what it is.
The problem is this: As a group, Medicare-eligible individuals represent high-risk insurees by definition: They’re old and they only get older; as they do, their need for increasingly expensive medications and health care services inevitably increases. No private insurer can cover such a high-risk group and still make a profit without charging very high premiums, unless they deny coverage for a variety of necessary services. This is why Medicare services are subsidized by the government. It’s goofy to think that you’re going to somehow reduce costs via a “premium support payment” system, while still maintaining the current level of medical care for the elderly, the blind, and the disabled.
There’s also a huge hole in their Social Security privatization scheme:
If you divert a significant percentage of FICA revenue into a voluntary private investment program, you decrease the available program funds that are used to pay current retirees by a like amount. You will therefore be required to either cut current retiree benefits, or to shift more of the costs of current retirees onto general revenue funding. You will then be required to either raise taxes to avoid the new federal deficits that would result, or to watch the total national debt rise at an even more rapid rate. Republicans have vowed to cut taxes, and also to reduce deficits. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that something about their privatization proposal isn’t adding up.
The fundamental problem is that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you want to reduce deficits while maintaining things like Medicare and Social Security, you’ve got to both reduce spending and raise taxes. We can’t keep on getting what we aren’t willing–as a nation–to pay for. It’s as simple as that.
@Greg:
And the Democrat plan to fix Medicare/Social Security problems can be found where?
@retire05:
Yes, we know the Democrats are idiots, but where is the Republican Fix to these problems (go ahead and list them, I’ll destroy them as unworkable).
For those just starting to pay into Social Security, or for those who have been paying for a short time, this would be great. A consumerist named Clark Howard said that if a 15 year old would put $2,000 a year into a Wroth IRA for 7 years, and leave it there, and if the stock market averages what it has since the time it was started, by the time they are 65 years old, they would have $1,000,000 in the account. I am retired now. Imagine how much I would have in my account if I was allowed to put my SS payments into a Wroth IRA!
I suggest that everybody start their own retirement accont. I don’t know how many people I have talked to who retired at around age 50. They worked to retire. Most of them put a percentage of EVERY paycheck they received in a retirement account. The SS administration said that it is at the point now that the ones paying into it won’t get back as much as they paid into it. How many of us would keep investing in something that we know will return us less money than we put in it?
Several ways to save the SS system is:
(1) Put it back in an interest drawing account like it was when it was created.
(2) Quit giving the money to those who don’t deserve it, such as children and adults under retirement age. There are even illegals who are receiving monthly SS checks higher than I am, and I paid into it all of my working life.
(3) Take the SS system away from the politicians so that it is a SEPARATE system that the politicians have no control over.
(4) Eliminate the SS system, but guarantee that the ones who qualify now and will later, will receive the same retirement payments they would have received if they would have kept paying into SS. This way, the money the individual pays into a retirement accont in their own name, will accumulate for them, not the government. When the person dies, it will go to whoever is in the will, not the government.
This kind of a system wouldn’t cost the governmet anything, and the individualss would have much more money for their own retirement. All that the government has to do is require each individual pay a certain percentage of their income into a retirement account of their own choosing, like the 401(k) accounts. The states could do this too, so that they wouldn’t’ have to worry about coming up with pension money for retirees. The politicisans don’t want this idea, because there is a lot of money to be made in managing someone else’s money.
@Ivan:
While I doubt you could destroy a single garden slug with a whole box of salt, the question remains; where is the Democrat plan to make SS/Medicare solvent?
You see, the “I know I am but what are you” doesn’t work with me. If the Dems have no solutions, they are not in a position to argue against anyone else’s solutions.
@retire05, #5:
Ryan hasn’t really proposed a viable solution. As pointed out in #1, there’s that huge hole in their scheme that nobody talks about: If you divert part of the FICA revenue stream into a private investment program, how do you make up what is no longer available to cover current retiree costs?
That money would have to come from somewhere. Either you’d have to raise taxes to cover it out of general revenue, or you’d just be playing a new version of the same old “hide the deficit” shell game.
@Greg:
And what do you think the hundreds of billions of $$ that Obamacare pulls out of Medicare to divert to other programs is going to do to the solvency of Medicare?
Maybe we should put off any discussion until Romney rolls out his own budget proposals. Apparently he doesn’t support the Ryan budget. From Business Insider, yesterday evening: Mitt Romney STILL Won’t Take A Stand On Paul Ryan’s Budget
My suggestions for bumper stickers:
Ride the RR Train
On the RR Train
On the Train
The RR Train
The Train to Prosperity
RR Train Fan
RR Train
Yes, I have applied for a copyright. We’ll see how it goes.
The Dems and Obama had ObamaCare scored by the CBO as saving a ton of cash by ending the doctor-fix.
But then they chickened out and never did it.
Billions are NOT there for ObamaCare that the CBO said had to be there for it to work at all.
That’s just one example.
There are tons of other things Obama fraudulently built into ObamaCare.
All the Waivers lost money for its bottom line…..but Obama’s buddies in the unions and in some of his cronies’ companies are saving for now.
Tons of these things.
And what has Obama got against Ryan?
He’s going to toss granny over a cliff.
Good to see Obama do a ”fundraiser” and only ask $51/ticket and sell out less than 1/2 of the place.
Good to see.
@Nan G, #10:
Hey, if Romney wants to bring back denials of coverage for preexisting conditions, the retroactive denial of applications on technicalities, dropping coverage when policy holders are sick, and lifetime coverage maximums that kick in in the middle of your chemotherapy, he should come right out and say so. He could also win points by explaining why it’s a good thing to get rid of small business tax credits for providing insurance to their employees, and extended coverage for children on their parents’ policies. By all means, he should explain the many advantages of repealing Affordable Health Care.
Of course anyone who’s really sick will always have that Medicaid safety net, right?
@Greg:
Perhaps you would like to review the Obama budget proposal from when he was campaigning in 2008? Or maybe you would like to discuss the Constitutionally mandated budgets that have been passed since Obama plunked his shoes on the Resolution desk?
Oh, wait, we are now pass 1,200 (that is one thousand, two hundred, Greg) days without an annual budget that is Constitutionally mandated. And Obama, WOW! He has been giving rousing speeches about his budgets, hasn’t he, Greg?
So if you want to talk about future budgets, perhaps it would be wise for you to address the fact that this administration has done nothing when it comes to getting Harry (Real Estate) Reid off his duff to pass a budget for the last 3+ years. Hell, Greg, the Democrats didn’t even pass a budget when they controlled both Houses and you are worried about Romney’s budget?
What a jokester you are.
@Greg:
Extended coverage for children, Greg? You mean all those stone slackers who are 25 that can now stay on their parent’s health insurance policy?
Funny how you think a 25 year old should not be responsible for his own insurance but Democrats think a 14 year old girl is responsible enough to make a decision about abortion without parental approval.
Perhaps that complaint should be taken up with the members of our totally dysfunctional Congress.
#13, btw, doesn’t even make sense to me. You seem to be suggesting that parents who elect to buy extended health insurance coverage for adult children who for some reason can’t obtain it on their own yet are somehow behaving irresponsibly, or that a provision that makes that option possible to them is somehow an irresponsible law.
@Greg:
Remember, that totally disfuntion Congress was controlled by Democrats until January, 2011 when people voted a bunch of them out and even now the Senate is still controlled by crazy old Harry Ried. So how do you explain why there was NO budget the first two years of the Obama administration which was TOTALLY under Democrat control? BTW, the House of Represenstative did pass a budget, twice, but the Dems in the Senate, under crazy old senile Harry Reid, refused to bring it to a vote.
Now, about those “adult children” which is actually an oxymoron. You cannot be an adult and still be a child, that is unless you are mentally childish at which point you are handicapped. So why age 26? Why not 28, or 30, or maybe even 35? And how long do you think adults (which they are at age 18) should leech off their parents? Were you still mooching off your parents at age 26 or maybe you still live in your parents basement, being a drain on them. At what age do you think it is permissible to think that adults should be responsibile for themselves and not mooch off either their parents or the government?
You remind me of the OWS crowd, many who attend tony universities, and have a Visa card in their pocket, all paid for by their parents who are too stupid to turn the little brats loose.
@retired05#15 – You are dead on!! Chock full of common sense!!! Why is this so dam hard for the Left to understand??? It truly bewilders me…
but then again, I am convinced that “Common Sense” bewilders the Left…
So, let’s see if I have this straight. The Obamacare bill was not just written just by Obama, but also the Democrats in the House & Senate spent weeks fabricating it in secret, only letting us know what was in it after passage. Meanwhile the Democratically controlled Senate refuses to even bother creating a Constitutionally budget. Oh, and where was Biden’s pre-election budget? Why didn’t Obama and Biden release their detailed plans for this nation in the days prior to the election. (Oh, that’s right. if they did tell us the truth of their socialist agenda, independent voter might have rejected them.)
But Greg wants Romney and Ryan (who was just tapped for VP days ago) to suddenly create out of thin air their own healthcare bill and budget instantly release them to the press? What hypocritical arrogance!
Ryan and Romney need a little time prior to the convention to iron out their differences and work on their mutual game plan. They may also need to discuss their plans with certain members of the GOP so as to coordinate and get the ball rolling. The GOP had many excellent ideas to reform and fix the healthcare system, and these will of course all be considered after Obamacare is repealed. I’ll bet that Republicans will even let a quite a few Democrats in on the discussion (not that they deserve it after their dishonest socialist power grab). They will also most likely talk to healthcare professionals (as opposed to lobbyists, tort- lawyers and corporate campaign backers,) and this time craft a plan that addresses the problems without bankrupting future generations.
@Ditto: #17
The democrats didn’t even write the bill. They had a private company write it so that it was complicated and broken up so that parts of items they knew we wouldn’t like are scattered through the bill like a jigsaw puzzle. People are putting the pieces together, and it ain’t pretty what they see.
@Smorgasbord:
C’mon Smorg, you know what I mean. Many of us are aware that congress critters rarely actually write the bills themselves. They almost always farm that part of the job to others (often lobbyests and their industry campaign backers who will benefit from the bill). However they do tell those actually writing the bills what they want in them.
@Ditto: #19
An article I read said that the company who wrote the bill could have put stuff in it for themselves that the politicians didn’t know were there. To paraphrase Nance, “You have to pass the bill before you can find out what you gave us.”
Someone came up with the idea that a bill should be introduced that says the politicians have to write the laws themselves. I go along with that. I would also like to see them written in plane English. Not written intentionally to make it hard and laboring to find out what it says.
Only a minority of Americans ever supported ObamaCare.
But, many of those who did thought that Obama was at least truthful that, if it went into law, 30 million uninsured Americans would be covered at a cost of a mere $900,000,000.
But it turned out that was a bit off.
ObamaCare will cost us all up to $2.5 TRILLION and guess what else?
30 million Americans will STILL be uninsured!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-obamacare-cost-1930-trillion-leave-30-million-uninsured_649066.html
It was simply a power-grab.
Obama federalized 7% of the American economy.
Anybody see that new movie about Obama?
2016, it is called.
DeSousa (sp?) centers his thesis of how to best understand Obama around Obama’s hatred of colonialists and colonialism.
The fact that Cloward/Piven came along in time to give Obama a strategy for destroying America from within is simply icing on Obama’s cake.
But Obama misses a major truth: you can’t redistribute what’s not there.
And, if Obama’s policies really bring America to its knees there won’t be loads of wealth to spread about.
But then, maybe Obama is more in the Hugo Chavez vein and his redistributionist stories are just fables until he ends up with ALL the money.
@Greg: So if I wreck my car, and then call State Farm should they be forced to cover the repairs on my auto?
If the government did force them to do that, what would it do to premiums for everyone else and what would it do to services currently covered by insurance?
All I read here were just a bunch of meaningless anecdotes, and not a single logical argument against Greg’s position. Come on ultra-conservatives, put on your thinking caps—the right always claims to be the party of logic, but I rarely see it practiced by them.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): All I read here were just a bunch of meaningless anecdotes, and not a single logical argument,put on your thinking caps….So says the clown who barely contributes meaningless anecdotes and not logical argument….Where’s your two cents non-server?…
@retire05, #15:
You’re joking, right?
@Sua Sponte, #24:
Liberal1’s observation is correct, of course. No one seems to want to touch either of the points raised in post #1 with a 10-foot barge pole. The reason is that Ryan’s “solutions” are pure illusion. On the surface they look good, but don’t stand up to close inspection. There’s a fatal logical flaw in each.
@Greg:
Greg, I realize you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but do you not understand the difference between a child and an adult? 26 year olds are not, in any way, considered by any rational thinking person to be a “child.”
If it is, then we need to raise the age limit for soldiers, police officers, fire fighters, doctors, lawyers, and especially politicans since they are still “children” at age 26.
@Greg:
How does Ryan’s plan, co written by a Democrat not workable? And what is Obama’s alternative?
Oh, that’s right; Geithner said they had no alternate but just didn’t like the Republican suggestions.
@retire05, #27:
Please refer to definition #2:
Check any dictionary you want.
@retire05, #28:
Refer to post #1. It doesn’t matter who wrote it, if critical parts of it simply don’t add up.
@Greg:
It is pretty much universally accepted that any one 18 or over is considered an adult. If they are still leeching off their parents at age 26, then they are too immature to be allowed to vote.
Yet Kathleen Sebelius just ruled that any girl in Oregon who has reached her menses is allowed to be sterilized without the approval of her parents. How the hell does that work? That means that girls 12 years old can decide to be sterilized and can do that without her parents even knowing about it. Yet, don’t think that the school nurse can give that little girl an aspirin without her parents approval, because she can’t.
You liberals just want to make everyone dependent on government so there will be total control over our every actions.
Now, tell me two things:
why Ryan’s plan won’t work
what the Democrat alternative is
Until you do, shut the hell up.
Presidebt Obama discusses Medicare and the Ryan Plan. A stroll down Memory Lane:
@retire05:
That was uncalled for. I’m not Mata, nor am I Aye. I don’t insult you, as you have done to me. There was and is no reason to address me in such a manner. Why go there?
I would say the Democrats are morons, but that would be insulting to morons.
If you can’t enunciate the Republican “fix”, just admit it or, as I challenged you before, state it and let’s have at it.
I could care less about the Democrats as they are retarded, but the fact that they are fools doesn’t allow, in my book, the Republicans to skate on some bogus “fix” that doesn’t, in reality, fix anything.
Now, tell me two things:
why Ryan’s plan won’t work
I already did. See post #1.
what the Democrat alternative is
Do you really want to know?
There will eventually be a single payer healthcare system, much greater emphasis on preventive health care as a means of controlling costs, and regulation of fees for prescription drugs and medical services. That’s not so much what democrats want. It’s more a matter of recognizing that that’s probably the only system that will actually work. You simply cannot allow the private sector to shake down people for every nickel they can extract for providing essential health care services. Ultimately, people will care more about a good and affordable health care system than about protecting private sector profits. Too socialist? Sorry about that. I just don’t see any other likely alternative.
Social Security? Full retirement age will likely be increased and means testing will likely be expanded. Social Security was intended to be an insurance plan, not an annuity plan. It was intended to insure people against income loss and poverty in old age. We don’t expect to get all of our home insurance premiums back if we don’t realize a loss; we don’t expect auto insurance to pay if there’s no theft or accident.
The program will run at a deficit for some time to come. It won’t run at a deficit forever. The baby boomers aren’t immortal.
@Ivan:
I apologize if I hurt your widdle feelings. I had no idea you were that thin skinned.
Now, as to Ryan’s plan; it was created with the help of a Democrat who seems to have enough sense to know that the system is unsustainable. Actually, as far as I am concerned, it didn’t go far enough. Social Security should be abolished as I view it as unconstititional. Anyone who is under the age of 45 has 20 years to work until retirement. Give them their money back and let them opt out of the system. Abolish the rule (that a Democrat Congress passed) that Medicare becomes your primary health care insurance provider at age 65. If you are in a union and have negotiated for health care insurance after you retire, then keep that, but not both. If at the age of retirement, you don’t need Social Security payments to live on, you should be allowed to be reimbursed for what you have put in with a standard rate of interest attached, and not claim the monthy payment. That would eliminate the Democrats whining that “rich people” get SS payments when they don’t need them.
People don’t save for their retirement years because for two generations they have been conditioned to believe that the Federal government is going to take care of them. Anyone who thinks that a senior can live off a minumal SS monthly payment, which a lot of women get, is plain nuts. It is time to make Americans responsible for themselves again. I doubt there are 1,000 people living now that could make it across the Rockies in a covered wagon.
@retire05:
Nice, insult me under the guise of an apology. Let’s see if I ever get your back again.
@retire05:
Wait, I”m confused, are these Ryan’s specifics or your suggestions??? Where is the specifics of his Medicare fixes? I do agree with you, you vituperative person, on Social Security being abolished.
@Greg:
Perhaps you would like to tell me how you will force people into preventative care? Are you going to require everyone to have an annual check up and if they don’t, throw them in jail? What about people who drink heavily, do drugs, engage in risky sex? Are you going to punish them for doing that because they then become a drain on a single payer system?
Protecting private sector profits? I assume you are talking about the money that doctors make? Well, let’s take that even farther. Why should Hollywood movie stars, like left winger Tom Hanks, be allowed to make so much money. Let’s control the entertainment industry. No one is allowed to make over a certain amount, and ticket prices to movies and concerts should be control by the federal government. Do that and watch how fast Hollywood turns hard core conservative.
Social Security? Why means test? Why not just take a successful person’s wealth, wealth they accumulated by working hard, unlike Ted Kennedy who inherited all his money, and let the government decide who gets it? After all, class envy is designed for only one thing; to win votes from lazy and stupid people for Democrats. How about this? Let people opt out of Social Security when they start working? Let people contribute to their 401(k) and 401(A) plans and not to Social Security. Let cities and states set up systems of retirement like the one in Galveston County, Texas.
Everything you said comes right out of the Communist Manifesto. Not that I’m surprised.
@Ivan:
Those are MY suggestions. I know that the only reason FDR even wanted Social Security is because, like Obama, he was completely inept at ending the Great Depression and was facing losing his next election. So, along with his Stalinist supporting henchmen, he came up with a “New Deal” that would have made Stalin proud.
If you want the exact wording of the Ryan plan, Google is your friend.
Here you go:
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/wydenryan.pdf
@retire05:
Sorry, I challenged you to tell me why the Ryan plan was better. You failed with this comment. I won’t bother trying to engage you with intelligent conversation any more as you’d rather sit around and insult people than exchange ideas.
I suspect you and I agree on many issues, but you’re to insecure for me to be bothered with. Good luck with life, Retire.
Why are we ”debating” or even talking about Ryan’s plan?
When Romney was asked about it on 60 Minutes he said, in effect, I have MY OWN PLAN.
Ryan was right next to him and didn’t frown and insist on HIS OWN plan supplanting Romney’s.
So, again, I ask, why are we even bothering with Ryan’s plan?
@Ivan:
I agree with the Wyden/Ryan plan on opening up the market to seniors by allowing them to cost/benefit compare private plans with Medicare.
For someone so sensitive, you don’t seem to mind throwing the insults yourself. Maybe we should question your ability for “intelligent” conversation, or would that also hurt your feelings?
@Nan G:
We’re debating it as we’re attempting to determine if there is any REAL difference between Obama (failure) and Ryan’s plan (unworkable).
I notice that “Conservatives” don’t seem to want to debate the specifics of Ryan’s plan. I gave Retire05 a chance, he passed on it, and you NanG seem rather gun-shy about doing it.
No takers, huh? I didn’t think so.
@Ivan:
You are the one claiming the Wyden/Ryan plan is unworkable. The onus is on you to explain how you reached that opinion.
@retire05:
No, I didn’t. All I asked was for someone to tell me the specifics of Ryan’s plan. THEN I said I would show how it doesn’t work.
You had your chance, Mr. Retire05, and you chose to engage in insults are opposed to intelligent discourse.
You had your chance and you blew it. But, I bet you feel all tough and funny though!
Ivan, I think it is irrelevant, therefore a waste of time to debate Ryan’s plan when it is NOT Romney’s plan.
Every time Ryan’s plan came up to the Senate, I noticed the Dems there refused to debate it.
All they did was KILL it.
@Ivan:
Waaaaaahhhhhh!
So in your post #43 you said “Ryan’s plan (unworkable)” Now you’re claiming you didn’t say that, although it is still in your post #43 for everyone to see.
So…………….explain to me why I should even want to have a conversation with you when you are obviously dishonest?
@Nan G: Okay, you choose, like Retire to “pass.”
What are the details of Romney’s plan.
@retire05:
Wow, you really are a crack-pot.
I’ve tried to be civil to you, now be gone.
@Ivan:
If you don’t like how I respond to you (and asking that you back up your own statements) find another place to hang out and quit trolling here.