Why Does It Seem Republicans and Their Supporters Are Destroying America

[JMS]

Honestly, a lot of that talk turned out to be propaganda. Now that the program has been a Bush/Republican success, you don't hear any talk of it. Looking through the google machiene, I see no evidence that Medicare Part D has been changed since 2006

http://www.touchstoneh.com/blog/post/2011/03/18/Medicare-Part-D-A-Health-Care-Success-Story.aspx

If sucess can be associated with an 800 billion dollar boon doggle which was obsolete the second it was passed and was repealed by consensus of government AND INDUSTRY LEADERS, before we were half way into the program!! Yeah if that can be called a sucess then Bush had a sucessful presidency.

And I'll repeat, I was opposed to the program at its inception, and wouldn't shed tears if it was de-funded and repealed

And I'll repeat.... Bush's healthcare plan was repealed, and the about 460 billion in funding which was left on it's books went in to help paying for Obamacare. The drug, and hostpital companies agreed to this at the inception of Obama term in office. Only the Insurance companies objected; and only the insurance companies fought Obamacare.

Bush's "plan" written by industry involved in handing drug, hospital, and insurance companies hundreds of billions of dollars worth of grants and subsidies in exchange for a pledge to reduce costs across the board by 10%. Industry increased costs by 10% in the months before bush signed his bill, and thus did not reduce costs substantially at all from when the bill was originally proposed on the floor of the house.

Tauzin, the congressman who negotiated for Bush on the house on the bill resigned from office along with 10 other congressional staffers and all signed lucritive contracts with the healthcare industry as lobiests within months of Bush signing the legislation. Tarzin resigned in the middle of his term in office to become the highest paid healthcare lobiest on the hill.

[SkinsHokieFan]

If sucess can be associated with an 800 billion dollar boon doggle which was obsolete the second it was passed and was repealed by consensus of government AND INDUSTRY LEADERS, before we were half way into the program!! Yeah if that can be called a sucess then Bush had a sucessful presidency..

What repeal?

I am providing you links and you have heresay. Please show me where 460 billion was repealed from Medicare Part D

And I'll repeat.... Bush's healthcare plan was repealed, and the about 460 billion in funding which was left on it's books went in to help paying for Obamacare. The drug, and hostpital companies agreed to this at the inception of Obama term in office. Only the Insurance companies objected; and only the insurance companies fought Obamacare.

Again, what repeal? Please provide me some evidence

Bush's "plan" written by industry involved in handing drug, hospital, and insurance companies hundreds of billions of dollars worth of grants and subsidies in exchange for a pledge to reduce costs across the board by 10%. Industry increased costs by 10% in the months before bush signed his bill, and thus did not reduce costs substantially at all from when the bill was originally proposed on the floor of the house.

And this has to do with 85 percent of Seniors happy with Medicare Part D, and projected costs being far lower how?

[JMS]

Did you just miss all the articles I posted above?

Medicare D was also passed in 2003, not 2006.

Passed in 2003, but it didn't take effect until 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act

Medicare D was a plan to subsidize insurance companies. Insurance companies could sell policies and collect commision on the sale of these polices only the policy they were selling was Medicare and the guys paying the commission was the taxpayer..... It significantly increased the overhead cost of medicare while not benifiting the consumer or increasing the level of care bottom line...

http://arthritis.about.com/cs/medicare/a/medicaremodern.htm

[SkinsHokieFan]

Passed in 2003, but it didn't take effect until 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act

Yes I know when it took effect. You stated earlier it passed in 2006 which was incorrect. I was working with seniors in 2006 on Medicare D issues.

Medicare D was a plan to subsidize insurance companies. Insurance companies could sell policies and collect commision on the sale of these polices only the policy they were selling was Medicare and the guys paying the commission was the taxpayer..... It significantly increased the overhead cost of medicare while not benifiting the consumer or increasing the level of care bottom line...

http://arthritis.about.com/cs/medicare/a/medicaremodern.htm

Again, give me evidence it was "repealed" as you have asserted above

According to everything I have presented, it not only is still in effect, but is very successful, both in terms of projected costs being lower and senior satisfaction. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[KevinthePRF]

The two party system is what is destroying America. The will to win always outweighs the will to comprimise. That being said, national politics as a whole is exaggerated. There's a whole lot more right with our country than wrong. But instilling brinkmanship wins elections.

[JMS]

What repeal?

I am providing you links and you have heresay. Please show me where 460 billion was repealed from Medicare Part D

I am talking about Bush's Medicare Modernization Act in it's entirety not just Part D.... Something that Bush called Meicare Advantage, which increased the overhead of medicare by 12-13% in the Bush bill by paying private insuranc3e companies commission and subsidies to sign up seniors to federally funded medicare benifits. A practice which Obamacare ended.

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2010/09/25/does-obamacare-really-cut-medicare-benefits-to-senior-citizens/

Does Obamacare really cut Medicare Benefits to Senior Citizens?

Sep. 25 2010 - 9:25 pm | 10,519 views | 2 recommendations | 72 comments

By RICK UNGAR

Among the many narratives injected into the public debate over health care reform, I find the most disturbing to be the notion that our senior citizens will experience cuts in their Medicare benefits as a result of Obamacare.

Despite the ‘doom and gloom’ predictions you may have heard, the proposed savings in Medicare are designed to come from two sources; (a) a crackdown on Medicare fraud, estimated to currently cost the federal government as much as $60 billion per year and ( a reduction in what is paid to the Medicare Advantage programs offered by private insurance companies.

Again, what repeal? Please provide me some evidence

Repeal might be the wrong word... It's more like a restructuring. It was negotiated with hospital and drug companies by the obama administration and amounted to about half the costs of the Obama care price tag.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a5Ach3DuD3sY

Drugmakers’ Deal Doesn’t Bind Congress in Health-Care Debate

By James Rowley - August 8, 2009 00:01 EDT

Aug. 8 (Bloomberg) -- The bargain U.S. drugmakers struck with President Barack Obama for the pharmaceutical industry to absorb no more than $80 billion in cost cuts as part of a health-care overhaul can’t be enforced on Congress, lawmakers say.

Democratic lawmakers pushing health-care legislation, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, both California Democrats, have said Congress isn’t bound by the agreements negotiated by the Obama administration and six industry groups to help cut a total of $2 trillion from medical spending over 10 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html

White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost

WASHINGTON — Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion

And this has to do with 85 percent of Seniors happy with Medicare Part D, and projected costs being far lower how?

It's a pedantic argument to focus in on one issolated part of Bush's Bill. Why not talk about the entire bill as I was doing. Find me anybody who claims that 85% of Seniors were happy with Bush's entire modernization law... Cause that's what's no longer in effect and which seniors felt betrayed on.

[JimboDaMan]

I would love to have seen the reaction on this board if Bush had crammed a sweeping health care bill down our throats with one of his loyal minions spouting garbage like "we have to pass it, so we can tell you what's in it" after promising every second of the deabtes would be on C-SPAN. No back-room deals, Mr. President?

Bush saved that approach for his wars. And his judicial and UN appointments. And his assaults on civil liberties. Etc.

The other thing that really bothers me is the broken promise to give fathers who pay child support half the tax credit for doing so. Please don't pretend you want to help the middle class, or people who are struggling until and unless this promise is fulfilled. There is NO excuse for so many American fathers bearing 100% of the burden for 50% of the mistake. And most of them (read: us) can't survive unless we work two jobs. And tell me, please tell me, how you can even SEE your kids if you have to work 80 hours a week to be able to eat. Then, of course, when you get a second job, you get banged even harder in support, because your income is higher. This is one of the biggest, and most neglected, problems facing our society right now, IMO.

I didn't even know this was on the table. I agree with you that this needs to get done. I don't know that it's one of the biggest problems facing society, but it surely is a HUGE problem for those affected by it. Fair is fair, this should be done.

Panther Poll Guards. Pretty self-explanatory. And the solution is not to allow the two guys were involved to guard polls again until the next presidential election? Wow.

Without a victim, slap his wrists and move on. A non-story about a knucklehead in Philadelphia. Next.

Three armed conflicts now instead of two. Weren't we promised that we wouldn't be getting involved in more armed conflicts in the Middle East, and ending the ones we were involved in, because it inspires radicalism? Apparently that's only the case if someone with an "R" after their name is in the White House.

Really? I'm not happy about being engaged in so many places. But we are winding down in Iraq, as promised. And we were told to expect more activity in Afghanistan. Pakistan too. Libya's something of a wild card, right now it's too soon to call it another war.

But at least Gitmo's closed, so that should help us win friend and influence people in the ME. Orrrr....

Touche.

Now we're going to increase taxes on the wealthy, big business owners, which will SURELY encourage them to hire more workers in a struggling economy. I know when I'm struggling, I always spend more money.

Because wealthy big business owners are noted for passing up profitable expansions in a snit about a small personal tax increase.

Spending cuts? Balancing the budget? Bill Clinton did it. Barack Obama pays lip-service to it. And sadly, far too many buy the bull****.

I believe sizable spending cuts were just agreed to last week. But the budget is nowhere near balanced and both parties have hard work to do in the next few months. Obama is not close to a balanced budget.

So yeah, the lemmings will still be blaming Bush in 2012. But this is your baby now. And hopefully enough of my fellow Americans will see fit to vote for change again this time.

It could happen. Does that change have a name? Trump? Bachmann? I understand Glenn Beck is newly available.

[The 12th Commandment]

After watching most of the reruns they've been having this week on the Ken Burns civil war piece (it's one of PBS's more important fund raising seasons apparently? and after seeing what Lincoln had to do to our civil liberties during that time - plus the fact we fixed them asap - I've come to understand the need for Gitmo and military tribunals in a situation like we have.

---------- Post added April-11th-2011 at 12:16 PM ----------

Bill Clinton pulled us out of our deficit because the economy was growing like a mad dog and revenues were going up no matter what they did. To his credit he used those to pay down instead of spending even more. This is going to have to be how we get out of it again. Hope it's possible.

[Baculus]

Engarde, HH!

I would love to have seen the reaction on this board if Bush had crammed a sweeping health care bill down our throats with one of his loyal minions spouting garbage like "we have to pass it, so we can tell you what's in it" after promising every second of the deabtes would be on C-SPAN. No back-room deals, Mr. President?

Health care reform was debate for a year. That is not "cramming" anything, though I know conservatives can't talk about the ACA without using some form of "ram, cram," etc. You just can't escape the meme, can you? Plus, you completely ignore the fact that the Democrats's platform, you know, the ones who had won office, included health care reform, and the majority of Americans, when polled, support the idea of reform, period.

Where was the public debate over Medicare, Part D, passed during the Bush administration? Heck, what about the Bush administration's military's effort

The other thing that really bothers me is the broken promise to give fathers who pay child support half the tax credit for doing so. Please don't pretend you want to help the middle class, or people who are struggling until and unless this promise is fulfilled. There is NO excuse for so many American fathers bearing 100% of the burden for 50% of the mistake. And most of them (read: us) can't survive unless we work two jobs. And tell me, please tell me, how you can even SEE your kids if you have to work 80 hours a week to be able to eat. Then, of course, when you get a second job, you get banged even harder in support, because your income is higher. This is one of the biggest, and most neglected, problems facing our society right now, IMO.

It's a problem, but it is not one of our biggest problems. But I see you brought this up while you are seemingly unconcerned about corporations not only paying no federal taxes, but receiving money back from the government.

Panther Poll Guards. Pretty self-explanatory. And the solution is not to allow the two guys were involved to guard polls again until the next presidential election? Wow.

As opposed to tea party ID inspectors?

Three armed conflicts now instead of two. Weren't we promised that we wouldn't be getting involved in more armed conflicts in the Middle East, and ending the ones we were involved in, because it inspires radicalism? Apparently that's only the case if someone with an "R" after their name is in the White House.

It's an ugly, complex situation. We'll see if Obama is punished for that in 2012.

But at least Gitmo's closed, so that should help us win friend and influence people in the ME. Orrrr....

Conservatives never know what to do about this. They didn't want Gitmo closed, and yet they are attacking Obama for not closing. If anyone should be unhappy, it's those people who wanted to close Gitmo. So which is it? "OMG! Obama is going to close Gitmo!" "OMG! Gitmo wasn't closed!"

Now we're going to increase taxes on the wealthy, big business owners, which will SURELY encourage them to hire more workers in a struggling economy. I know when I'm struggling, I always spend more money.

What? Where? Where are taxes being increased? The Bush tax cuts were extended? Though I think we SHOULD RAISE TAXES on them, or close loops and end subsidies, especially if they pay little to no taxes.

But you don't seem to be aware that some of these companies are making RECORD PROFITS during this supposedly trying time for them.

Spending cuts? Balancing the budget? Bill Clinton did it. Barack Obama pays lip-service to it. And sadly, far too many buy the bull****.

Some spending was just cut. But Clinton also didn't have to deal with heaps of national debt and a large deficit, either. BTW, back in the day, Clinton was viewed as as monster by the Right.

So yeah, the lemmings will still be blaming Bush in 2012. But this is your baby now. And hopefully enough of my fellow Americans will see fit to vote for change again this time.

Unlike the lemming tea partiers who robotically repeat stuff as "you're cramming health care down our throats!" while blaming Obama for Bush-era policies, or for everything wrong in the world?

We don't have to go back to Bush to see bad Republican policies. Heck, we just have to read Paul Ryan's economic plan!

:-)

[DRSmith]

Seems with the Republicans stunt vote on the debt ceiling their credit rating may be revisisted, and because of the talk from congress about anti bailout the big banks are loooking at a credit rating cut also