The Big Lie: Ryan Hates Medicare

[Politico]

With increased life expectancies+new and more expensive medical innovations, the huge population of baby boomers on unaltered Medicare is virtually guaranteed to bankrupt Medicare, no matter how much you gut Medicare for those under 55 or curtail discretionary spending.

Not if you shift Medicaid completely onto the states and make it voluntary. Furthermore, life expectancy projections may or may not pan out. America has never been more obese. It is possible, although not necessarily likely, that the Silent Generation (the last generation not affected by the obesity crisis) will be the generation with the highest life expectancy rates ever.

Anyway, making Medicaid a voluntary state program is a trade-off that will probably have to be made. America was fine before Medicaid and will be fine afterward.

Perhaps the most sociopathic post I've seen on this site yet; and I read Krazen's posts.

If the choice is between seniors and the poor and the choice must be made for fiscal reasons, I guarantee the seniors are going to win.

It's just an economic and political reality. Besides, charities will assist the poor more than the government has, anyway.

Mind you, Medicaid would probably be preserved for children. I forgot to mention that.

[patrick1]

With increased life expectancies+new and more expensive medical innovations, the huge population of baby boomers on unaltered Medicare is virtually guaranteed to bankrupt Medicare, no matter how much you gut Medicare for those under 55 or curtail discretionary spending.

Not if you shift Medicaid completely onto the states and make it voluntary. Furthermore, life expectancy projections may or may not pan out. America has never been more obese. It is possible, although not necessarily likely, that the Silent Generation (the last generation not affected by the obesity crisis) will be the generation with the highest life expectancy rates ever.

Anyway, making Medicaid a voluntary state program is a trade-off that will probably have to be made. America was fine before Medicaid and will be fine afterward.

Perhaps the most sociopathic post I've seen on this site yet; and I read Krazen's posts.

If the choice is between seniors and the poor and the choice must be made for fiscal reasons, I guarantee the seniors are going to win.

It's just an economic and political reality. Besides, charities will assist the poor more than the government has, anyway.

Mind you, Medicaid would probably be preserved for children. I forgot to mention that.

Poltico, Im no policy wonk by any stretch and even I know you are talking out of your a$$

[Lief]

Oh thank goodness. Their parents would be dead, but at least the poor children would still have health insurance. Thank you for your generosity, oh great and wise Politico.

[Politico]

Oh thank goodness. Their parents would be dead, but at least the poor children would still have health insurance.

Yes, because parents always need health insurance or they die. Everybody needs health insurance or they die. Really? It may be true for a certain portion of the population, but by and large it is mostly only true of many seniors. Other demographics are not in THAT bad of a shape on average. Nowhere near it.

[Progressive Realist]

Oh thank goodness. Their parents would be dead, but at least the poor children would still have health insurance.

Yes, because parents always need health insurance or they die. Everybody needs health insurance or they die. I am glad to discover this truth. It may be true for a certain portion of the population, but by and large it is mostly only true of many seniors.

Do you understand the concept of insurance?

Hint: The word "risk" is used a lot in insurance for a reason.

[Politico]

Oh thank goodness. Their parents would be dead, but at least the poor children would still have health insurance.

Yes, because parents always need health insurance or they die. Everybody needs health insurance or they die. I am glad to discover this truth. It may be true for a certain portion of the population, but by and large it is mostly only true of many seniors.

Do you understand the concept of insurance?

Hint: The word "risk" is used a lot in insurance for a reason.

Yes, it is important to have health insurance and to be as healthy as one can be. One should always prioritize their life such that spending decisions are made first and foremost on "food, shelter/utilities, clothing, health insurance, and other goods/services" in that order and no other order.

In other news, Santa Clause did not change his name to "government" or Barack Obama. In fact, Santa Clause does not exist.

[Progressive Realist]

Oh thank goodness. Their parents would be dead, but at least the poor children would still have health insurance.

Yes, because parents always need health insurance or they die. Everybody needs health insurance or they die. I am glad to discover this truth. It may be true for a certain portion of the population, but by and large it is mostly only true of many seniors.

Do you understand the concept of insurance?

Hint: The word "risk" is used a lot in insurance for a reason.

Yes, it is important to have health insurance and to be as healthy as one can be. One should always prioritize their life such that spending decisions are made first and foremost on "food, shelter/utilities, clothing, health insurance, and other goods/services" in that order and no other order.

In other news, Santa Clause did not change his name to "government" or Barack Obama. In fact, Santa Clause does not exist.

Believe it or not, but there are millions of people who don't have money to spend. Do you want them to go further into debt?

[President Marokai]

Oh thank goodness. Their parents would be dead, but at least the poor children would still have health insurance.

Yes, because parents always need health insurance or they die. Everybody needs health insurance or they die. I am glad to discover this truth. It may be true for a certain portion of the population, but by and large it is mostly only true of many seniors.

Do you understand the concept of insurance?

Hint: The word "risk" is used a lot in insurance for a reason.

Yes, it is important to have health insurance and to be as healthy as one can be. One should always prioritize their life such that spending decisions are made first and foremost on "food, shelter/utilities, clothing, health insurance, and other goods/services" in that order and no other order.

In other news, Santa Clause did not change his name to "government" or Barack Obama. In fact, Santa Clause does not exist.

Believe it or not, but there are millions of people who don't have money to spend. Do you want them to go further into debt?

Well those people have to die, of course. It's for the greater good. What's the other option? Wealthy people sacrifice a percentage or two more of their income? Don't be ridiculous.

You must be one of those immature socialists. Be a serious neoliberal.

[Progressive Realist]

Oh thank goodness. Their parents would be dead, but at least the poor children would still have health insurance.

Yes, because parents always need health insurance or they die. Everybody needs health insurance or they die. I am glad to discover this truth. It may be true for a certain portion of the population, but by and large it is mostly only true of many seniors.

Do you understand the concept of insurance?

Hint: The word "risk" is used a lot in insurance for a reason.

Yes, it is important to have health insurance and to be as healthy as one can be. One should always prioritize their life such that spending decisions are made first and foremost on "food, shelter/utilities, clothing, health insurance, and other goods/services" in that order and no other order.

In other news, Santa Clause did not change his name to "government" or Barack Obama. In fact, Santa Clause does not exist.

Believe it or not, but there are millions of people who don't have money to spend. Do you want them to go further into debt?

Well those people have to die, of course. It's for the greater good. What's the other option? Wealthy people sacrifice a percentage or two more of their income? Don't be ridiculous.

You must be one of those immature socialists. Be a serious neoliberal.

Why don't we just raise taxes (on the poor and middle class) AND cut spending (on the poor and middle class) and cut taxes for the rich more, just cause we can?

Surely, that would attract bipartisan support and the praise of Serious People.

[Politico]

Oh thank goodness. Their parents would be dead, but at least the poor children would still have health insurance.

Yes, because parents always need health insurance or they die. Everybody needs health insurance or they die. I am glad to discover this truth. It may be true for a certain portion of the population, but by and large it is mostly only true of many seniors.

Do you understand the concept of insurance?

Hint: The word "risk" is used a lot in insurance for a reason.

Yes, it is important to have health insurance and to be as healthy as one can be. One should always prioritize their life such that spending decisions are made first and foremost on "food, shelter/utilities, clothing, health insurance, and other goods/services" in that order and no other order.

In other news, Santa Clause did not change his name to "government" or Barack Obama. In fact, Santa Clause does not exist.

Believe it or not, but there are millions of people who don't have money to spend. Do you want them to go further into debt?

I want them to have an opportunity to better them self, which is not happening right now and needs to change.

[President Marokai]

What's an acceptable Dead Poor Person:Better Person ratio for you? 10:1? 5:1?

[patrick1]

Was it the South Carolina GOP debate where the audience gleefully cheered about letting uninsured people die? There seems to be a general disconnect or disregard that there are people behind these decisions.

[Cobbler]

Oh, I could spend time digging up background information, but it would be a waste of time. Just go read some of Howard Dean's more controversial comments from late 2003 if you want a taste of what a lot of the Obama crew really believes in.

Unless you are conceding that you basically have no evidence to back up your claim, you'll present some evidence. You can't just say something, and then say "look it up yourself" when you are called on it. And Howard Dean is not Barack Obama, so I don't see how his comments from 2003 are not automatically applicable to Obama's personal views. I hardly see evidence of Obama wanting to return to Carter level tax policies (he wants Clinton levels), Michael Dukakis crime policies, or especially McGovern style foreign policy.

That is what pushes them over the edge, but they would give Lieberman leeway if were a radical liberal on other issues rather than being a moderate.

Democrats like moderates like Clinton and Gore, and hate Lieberman. The issue with him isn't moderation, its his foreign policy and security views.

[Politico]

Nobody is in favor of people dying, but some of you are implicitly in favor of allowing Medicare to go bankrupt. That will lead to the deaths of A LOT of seniors.

Shifting Medicaid onto the states will almost surely result in Medicaid staying in place as is in most states. State taxes will go up, or spending elsewhere in the state will be cut, to pay for it.

If the choice is the federal government ensuring the solvency of Medicare or Medicaid, Medicare will win that trade-off. Seniors will demand it, and they tend to have more clout than the poor.

Sorry, but China is not Santa Clause either. They are not interested in lending more and more to us forever.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nobody is in favor of people dying, but some of you are implicitly in favor of allowing Medicare to go bankrupt. That will lead to the deaths of A LOT of seniors.

Shifting Medicaid onto the states will almost surely result in Medicaid staying in place in most states. If the choice is the federal government ensuring the solvency of Medicare or Medicaid, Medicare has to win. Seniors will demand it.

Those who voted for the 2003 Medicare bill are the ones who are in favor of Medicare going bankrupt.

[Politico]

Nobody is in favor of people dying, but some of you are implicitly in favor of allowing Medicare to go bankrupt. That will lead to the deaths of A LOT of seniors.

Shifting Medicaid onto the states will almost surely result in Medicaid staying in place in most states. If the choice is the federal government ensuring the solvency of Medicare or Medicaid, Medicare has to win. Seniors will demand it.

Those who voted for the 2003 Medicare bill are the ones who are in favor of Medicare going bankrupt.

Do you put Medicaid before drug benefits for seniors?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nobody is in favor of people dying, but some of you are implicitly in favor of allowing Medicare to go bankrupt. That will lead to the deaths of A LOT of seniors.

Shifting Medicaid onto the states will almost surely result in Medicaid staying in place in most states. If the choice is the federal government ensuring the solvency of Medicare or Medicaid, Medicare has to win. Seniors will demand it.

Those who voted for the 2003 Medicare bill are the ones who are in favor of Medicare going bankrupt.

Do you put Medicaid before drug benefits for seniors?

That 2003 bill had no cost controls and was a highly partisan vote that only passed because they held the vote open for a few hours in the middle of the night while they bribed and threatened enough members of Congress. There definitely ought to be a law against that. Anyone who believes in good government opposes that bill.

[patrick1]

Nobody is in favor of people dying, but some of you are implicitly in favor of allowing Medicare to go bankrupt. That will lead to the deaths of A LOT of seniors.

Shifting Medicaid onto the states will almost surely result in Medicaid staying in place as is in most states. State taxes will go up, or spending elsewhere in the state will be cut, to pay for it.

If the choice is the federal government ensuring the solvency of Medicare or Medicaid, Medicare will win that trade-off. Seniors will demand it, and they tend to have more clout than the poor.

Sorry, but China does not lend to countries forever.

I don't think you know how Medicaid works, do you?  Please read what your own VP actually wants to do to reform before you just spout off.

[Politico]

Nobody is in favor of people dying, but some of you are implicitly in favor of allowing Medicare to go bankrupt. That will lead to the deaths of A LOT of seniors.

Shifting Medicaid onto the states will almost surely result in Medicaid staying in place in most states. If the choice is the federal government ensuring the solvency of Medicare or Medicaid, Medicare has to win. Seniors will demand it.

Those who voted for the 2003 Medicare bill are the ones who are in favor of Medicare going bankrupt.

Do you put Medicaid before drug benefits for seniors?

That 2003 bill had no cost controls

By definition, you cannot have cost controls and ensure seniors get all of the drugs they need. Cost controls have an implicit cost in the form of rationing, which means some seniors getting what they need while others do not.

The drug benefit is expensive, but is too politically popular to be repealed or changed.

Medicaid is expensive, but it is politically possible to shift it completely onto the states and make it voluntary. Most states will continue business as usual. Some will experiment. Some will cut. It is up to the states. After an adjustment period, the people of each state will get the combination of taxes/spending that they demand. Poor people will likely get better service than they do currently. They will certainly have more job opportunities than currently.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nobody is in favor of people dying, but some of you are implicitly in favor of allowing Medicare to go bankrupt. That will lead to the deaths of A LOT of seniors.

Shifting Medicaid onto the states will almost surely result in Medicaid staying in place in most states. If the choice is the federal government ensuring the solvency of Medicare or Medicaid, Medicare has to win. Seniors will demand it.

Those who voted for the 2003 Medicare bill are the ones who are in favor of Medicare going bankrupt.

Do you put Medicaid before drug benefits for seniors?

That 2003 bill had no cost controls

By definition, you cannot have cost controls and ensure seniors get all of the drugs they need. Cost controls have an implicit cost in the form of rationing, which means some seniors getting what they need while others do not.

The drug benefit is expensive, but is too politically popular to be repealed or changed.

Medicaid is expensive, but it is politically possible to shift it completely onto the states and make it voluntary. Most states will continue business as usual. Some will experiment. Some will cut. It is up to the states. After an adjustment period, the people of each state will get the combination of taxes/spending that they demand. Poor people will likely get better service than they do currently. They will certainly have more job opportunities than currently.

The Democrats didn't have an issue with there being a drug benefit. They did have an issue with it being a giveaway to Big Pharma at the expense of the Medicare solvency.

[Politico]

Nobody is in favor of people dying, but some of you are implicitly in favor of allowing Medicare to go bankrupt. That will lead to the deaths of A LOT of seniors.

Shifting Medicaid onto the states will almost surely result in Medicaid staying in place as is in most states. State taxes will go up, or spending elsewhere in the state will be cut, to pay for it.

If the choice is the federal government ensuring the solvency of Medicare or Medicaid, Medicare will win that trade-off. Seniors will demand it, and they tend to have more clout than the poor.

Sorry, but China does not lend to countries forever.

I don't think you know how Medicaid works, do you?

A lot of the funding comes from the federal government. The federal government cannot afford to continue funding it. It will need to end those costs and allow the states to close the gap by whatever means they deem necessary. Obviously the states manage it, which will continue albeit on a voluntary basis now. Doing this will probably strengthen the assistance for poor people who really need it. The ones who have been abusing it will get the message, and go out there and find a job so they can afford health insurance.

[President Marokai]

Most states will continue business as usual. Some will experiment. Some will cut. It is up to the states. After an adjustment period, the people of each state will get the combination of taxes/spending that they demand. Poor people will likely get better service than they do currently. They will certainly have more job opportunities than currently.

This is preposterous and based on nothing but guesswork pulled from your ass.

[Politico]

Most states will continue business as usual. Some will experiment. Some will cut. It is up to the states. After an adjustment period, the people of each state will get the combination of taxes/spending that they demand. Poor people will likely get better service than they do currently. They will certainly have more job opportunities than currently.

This is preposterous and based on nothing but guesswork pulled from your ass.

This is where we are headed or else Medicare is going bankrupt. The longer we delay the inevitable, the more painful it will be down the road. We need reform now, not later.

[greenforest32]

Ridiculous, the states can't even fund higher education or unemployment benefits. Medicaid should be federalized and pharmaceutical patents abolished in favor of a prize incentive system that has a fraction of the cost.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/do-liberals-have-to-be-lo_b_940798.html

There has also been a massive strengthening of patent and copyright laws in this period. As a result of patent protection, we pay almost $300 billion a year for prescription drugs that would sell for about $30 billion a year in a free market. The difference of $270 billion is more than 5 times as large as the amount at stake with the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/End-of-Loser-Liberalism.pdf

pg. 138-139
Most people will pay almost any price to protect their life or the life of a loved
one. Giving the drug companies‟ monopoly control over potentially life-saving
drugs  is  like  allowing  firefighters  to  negotiate  their  pay  package  with  the
homeowner when the house is on fire. Needless to say, firefighters would be
very well paid under these circumstances, and drug companies raise enormous
revenue under the patent system.

Of  course,  the  research  and  testing  necessary  to  bring  a  drug  to
market has enormous costs. But this expenditure has already been made when
the drug comes on the market. The key goal of progressive policy should be to
separate  the  payment  for the  research  from  the  payment  for  the  drug.  

If the payment for the research is made independent of the payment for the drug,
then all drugs can be sold in a free market without patent monopolies, just as
generic drugs are sold today. The two main alternatives for financing research
apart from the patent system  are  a  prize  system and direct public  funding.  
Both would involve an expansion of public  funding  for biomedical research.

Currently,  the federal government spends  $30  billion  a  year on biomedical
research through the National Institutes  of  Health. For an additional  $30  billion
to $80 billion  it could  replace the research currently funded through the patent
system. Even taking the higher figure, the government would soon recoup this
cost through savings  on  drug  expenses  in  Medicare,  Medicaid,  and  other
public  health programs.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

2003. Ryan is a strong supporter of the Medicare drug benefit. It doesn't have cost controls, and so hurts the solvency of Medicare
2006. Romney has his key accomplishment as governor, RomneyCare
2010. Obama steals RomneyCare. The 2003 Medicare bill's existful wasteful spending makes it easy to make ObamaCare revenue neutral.

Obama should really write a thank you note to Romney and Ryan.