More Republican Congressmen Face Town Hall Backlash Over Tax Breaks For Wealthy And Medicare Privatization

[Baculus]

Funny enough you are wrong. (in most cases I not only read the article but i read the underlying article or poll to see if its lazy reporting or smartly researched).

I read TP site on a regular basis, and they consistently have well-researched, well-written articles. I mean, for Pete's sake, you compared TP to Breitbart, who is a known out-and-out liar, a demagogue, and a bully. And Newsmax simply repeats whatever right-wing memes are floating out in meatspace or the Internet.

I stated you shouldn't normally use this site for posting and provided several republican trash sites that they say "link" to others also.

BUT after reading what it said I would agree with them.

I'm apparently not smart enough to tow the republican party line all of the time.

TP conducts its own research, but it sometimes links to Media Matters, another site whose is transparent with their sources. But TP is not a "trash site" -- they don't repeat memes, nor do they indulge in fear or rumor mongering (which is what NewsMax does). They use actual journalistic practices by real on-the-beat journalists (such as the former Amanda Terkel).

---------- Post added April-22nd-2011 at 10:20 PM ----------

How does that differ from Medicare Advantage or plan C programs?

Because the current system would be dismantled, and an extra financial burden would be placed onto the recipients.

This is a right-wing wet dream.

[twa]

Because the current system would be dismantled, and an extra financial burden would be placed onto the recipients.

This is a right-wing wet dream.

Example of the added burden?...I'm actually interested

[Baculus]

Here is the terrible, terrible irony: Health care reform was debated over a year's period, but the Republicans (and all of their supporters) have characterized the PPACA ("ObamaCare") as being "rammed" through Congress. Meanwhile, in a swift, two-week period, the Republicans truly "rammed" their legislation through Congress which would dismantle half-century old system that has a great deal of public support.

So, to the GOP, a year-long debate is "too short," but two weeks of debate to dismantle Medicare is "bravery"?

How ridiculous is that?

---------- Post added April-22nd-2011 at 10:28 PM ----------

Example of the added burden?...I'm actually interested

Under the Ryan plan, the recipient receives a voucher, which will not provide the same amount of coverage which Medicare beneficiaries currently receive. As a result, they will have to pay more money out of their pocket to get the coverage they would currently receive under whatever Medicare plan that they have.

"For purposes of this analysis, CBO assumed that all individuals projected to enroll in Medicare would use the proposed voucher. Voucher recipients would probably have to purchase less extensive coverage or pay higher premiums than they would under current law, for two reasons. First, most of the savings for Medicare under the proposal stem from reducing the amounts that the federal government would pay for enrollees on a per capita basis, relative to the projections under current law. Second, future beneficiaries would probably face higher premiums in the private market for a package of benefits similar to that currently provided by Medicare."

http://pnhp.org/blog/2010/11/22/cbo-analysis-of-the-rivlinryan-medicare-voucher-and-medicaid-block-grant-proposals/

The irony is that Ryan, and the GOP, want to make Medicare more like the FEHB -- which is a lot like ObamaCare (as far as the insurance exchanges are concerned).

[JimboDaMan]

Example of the added burden?...I'm actually interested

To use the loaded terms we heard during the health care reform debates, it "rations" health care. More things are not covered, including in some cases pre-existing conditions, a nasty little kick for those entering the age where conditions start to exist.

---------- Post added April-22nd-2011 at 06:41 PM ----------

Here is the terrible, terrible irony: Health care reform was debated over a year's period, but the Republicans (and all of their supporters) have characterized the PPACA ("ObamaCare") as being "rammed" through Congress. Meanwhile, in a swift, two-week period, the Republicans truly "rammed" their legislation through Congress which would dismantle half-century old system that has a great deal of public support.

So, to the GOP, a year-long debate is "too short," but two weeks of debate to dismantle Medicare is "bravery"?

How ridiculous is that?

---------- Post added April-22nd-2011 at 10:28 PM ----------

Under the Ryan plan, the recipient receives a voucher, which will not cover the same amount of coverage that Medicare beneficiaries current receive. As a result, they will have to pay more money out of their pocket to get the coverage they would currently receive under whatever Medicare plan that they have.

"For purposes of this analysis, CBO assumed that all individuals projected to enroll in Medicare would use the proposed voucher. Voucher recipients would probably have to purchase less extensive coverage or pay higher premiums than they would under current law, for two reasons. First, most of the savings for Medicare under the proposal stem from reducing the amounts that the federal government would pay for enrollees on a per capita basis, relative to the projections under current law. Second, future beneficiaries would probably face higher premiums in the private market for a package of benefits similar to that currently provided by Medicare."

http://pnhp.org/blog/2010/11/22/cbo-analysis-of-the-rivlinryan-medicare-voucher-and-medicaid-block-grant-proposals/

The irony is that Ryan, and the GOP, want to make Medicare more like the FEHB -- which is a lot like ObamaCare (as far as the insurance exchanges are concerned).

I know, it's just absurd. All the hysteria about "Obamacare", and most people have no idea what huge changes Ryan is proposing. And he same people who were apoplectic about "what in hell is an insurance exchange" are now endorsing it as a Medicare replacement. Sheesh.

That doesn't mean I'd reject the Ryan plan out of hand. We do ned to make some changes. But I'm just stunned at some of these turnabouts. Other than pure cynical politics I just don't understand it.

[DRSmith]

As a hit piece, the video was perfectly edited. But if you're interested in Ryan's answer to the question, it was cut short.

You mean he tried that redistrubution of wealth stuff?

But wait does not the Ryan plan do just that only the money flows to the already well to do?

---------- Post added April-22nd-2011 at 06:43 PM ----------

Example of the added burden?...I'm actually interested

There would be no way to control costs so people would have to shoulder the extra burden of healthcare inflation.

Then as emergency rooms become over loaded you have the added exspenses associated with them and the fallout

[Baculus]

To use the loaded terms we heard during the health care reform debates, it "rations" health care. More things are not covered, including in some cases pre-existing conditions, a nasty little kick for those entering the age where conditions start to exist.

Good point. Of all things, Congress, in effect, became a "death panel" through a voucher rationing program. Also, the detail you added is important: the GOP want to repeal "ObamaCare," so how is a voucher supposed to pay for the sort of high-risk pool insurance which the voucher won't nearly cover?

Ryan, and other Republicans, seem wholly ignorant to the sort of health care challenges which older people face.

[twa]

To use the loaded terms we heard during the health care reform debates, it "rations" health care. More things are not covered, including in some cases pre-existing conditions, a nasty little kick for those entering the age where conditions start to exist.

Not covered by who?....I thought this simply gave a set amount to those qualified to purchase the ins they want

pre-existing conditions was done away with Obamacare right?

How is this different than the Obamacare setup of healthcare for those that can't afford it?

[Baculus]

[/color]I know, it's just absurd. All the hysteria about "Obamacare", and most people have no idea what huge changes Ryan is proposing. And he same people who were apoplectic about "what in hell is an insurance exchange" are now endorsing it as a Medicare replacement. Sheesh.

That doesn't mean I'd reject the Ryan plan out of hand. We do ned to make some changes. But I'm just stunned at some of these turnabouts. Other than pure cynical politics I just don't understand it.

It's crazy, isn't it? When I heard Ryan (in the video I posted) comparing his plan to the FEHB, I gnashed my teeth. Because that is "the socialism" the GOP been attacking for the past two years.

I am also open to different reform ideas, but the Ryan plan is a fine example of political cynicism.

---------- Post added April-22nd-2011 at 10:48 PM ----------

Not covered by who?....I thought this simply gave a set amount to those qualified to purchase the ins they want

pre-existing conditions was done away with Obamacare right?

How is this different than the Obamacare setup of healthcare for those that can't afford it?

Read my last link, which has an analysis from the CBO.

[DRSmith]

Good point. Of all things, Congress, in effect, became a "death panel" through a voucher rationing program. Also, the detail you added is important: the GOP want to repeal "ObamaCare," so how is a voucher supposed to pay for the sort of high-risk pool insurance which the voucher won't nearly cover?

Ryan, and other Republicans, seem wholly ignorant to the sort of health care challenges which older people face.

A real solution would have been single payer, where you have young and old pay in which balance cost vs outlay, coupled with taxes on behaviours that drive up demand ie smoking, certain foods and drinks.

But that of course means less profits for insurance companies and less money to pay for politicians with.

---------- Post added April-22nd-2011 at 06:51 PM ----------

Not covered by who?....I thought this simply gave a set amount to those qualified to purchase the ins they want

pre-existing conditions was done away with Obamacare right?

How is this different than the Obamacare setup of healthcare for those that can't afford it?

Weren't Republcans going to repeal and defund the new health care law?

[Baculus]

A real solution would have been single payer, where you have young and old pay in which balance cost vs outlay, coupled with taxes on behaviours that drive up demand ie smoking, certain foods and drinks.

But that of course means less profits for insurance companies and less money to pay for politicians with.

Totally agree. A single-payer system would save billions of dollars, and it would help to reduce the deficit (and the debt).

[twa]

Weren't Republcans going to repeal and defund the new health care law?

You mean the one with vouchers like this one?....good there, bad here?

Bac the CBO assumed no change in benefits in Medicare....isn't cutting Medicare costs integral in Obamacare?

you really think that will be done w/o changing benefits?

fascinating stuff as I will be facing being forced into Medicare shortly after Ryan's bill would come into effect....does that mean I will have a choice?

[DRSmith]

You mean the one with vouchers like this one?....good there, bad here?

Bac the CBO assumed no change in benefits in Medicare....isn't cutting Medicare costs integral in Obamacare?

you really think that will be done w/o changing benefits?

fascinating stuff as I will be facing being forced into Medicare shortly after Ryan's bill would come into effect....does that mean I will have a choice?

No elimination of medicare and medicaid unlike the Ryan plan as for you being forced if you really are opposed do not use it get really sick and post here how you are taking a stand.

[twa]

No elimination of medicare and medicaid unlike the Ryan plan as for you being forced if you really are opposed do not use it get really sick and post here how you are taking a stand.

why would I not prefer a voucher to use on my existing single payer plan?(assuming Obamacre doesn't disband it)

Or did they turn evil now?

[Baculus]

Bac the CBO assumed no change in benefits in Medicare....isn't cutting Medicare costs integral in Obamacare?

No, Medicare cuts are not "integral" to "ObamaCare." What it did, though, was to reduce change Medicare Advantage (and some changes in Medicare part-D).

[JimboDaMan]

I will be facing being forced into Medicare shortly after Ryan's bill would come into effect....does that mean I will have a choice?

Forced? How's that work? Some baldheaded, bespectacled government clerk gonna pound you into submission? You are automatically enrolled, but you are free to decline. So yes, dearie, you have choices.

[Baculus]

why would I not prefer a voucher to use on my existing single payer plan?(assuming Obamacre doesn't disband it)

Or did they turn evil now?

Because the voucher won't pay for the same sort of plan you will receive under Medicare. This has been said already on the thread; aren't you quite getting it?

---------- Post added April-22nd-2011 at 11:16 PM ----------

Here is another Republican (Rep. Sean Duffy, who is the former reality TV star who complained about his Congressional pay) being questioned by his constituents. But Duffy has a new tactic to defend himself against those who are questioning him: he simply denies that the Ryan plan would implement a voucher system, period:

"CONSTITUENT: [...] The Ryan program proposes to turn Medicare into a voucher program.

DUFFY: It doesn’t, No it doesn’t.

DIFFERENT CONSTITUENT: Yes it does.

DUFFY: No, it doesn’t there’s no voucher.

CONSTITUENT: That’s what my understanding of what it is.

DUFFY: No."

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/22/town-hall-sean-duffy-medicare/

Look for that to be the new GOP tactic: to simply deny what the Ryan plan does.

---------- Post added April-22nd-2011 at 11:20 PM ----------

I am not sure what to tell you Bac. I am not into blue team vs red team garbage. I know you are, but it's not my thing. Partisan websites can do journalism, sure. Never suggested otherwise. I have visited tp numerous times. I am pretty well acquainted with most establishment progressive websites.

Fine -- that is your POV and you are entitled to it. But don't call the site "garbage' when their articles are well-written, informed, and substantive. Otherwise, it sounds like you are simply trying to assume an equivalency position just to be "independent."

[Hitman21ST]

Why should the wealthy be taxed more than the poor? They're paying more taxes, even if the rate is the same. Since when should someone be punished for making more money?

[twa]

Because the voucher won't pay for the same sort of plan you will receive under Medicare. This has been said already on the thread; aren't you quite getting it?

.

I hear it,but I don't believe Medicare will keep the same benefits with the requirement of cutting $450 Billion

(well this says 500B over 10 yr,but why quibble)

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259427/obama-ryan-and-medicare-costs-james-c-capretta

As Richard Foster, the chief actuary of the Medicare program, has repeatedly warned, Obamacare’s cuts would drive Medicare’s average payment rates so low that they would fall below those of Medicaid by the end of the decade. And Medicaid’s rates are already so low that the network of physicians and hospitals willing to take care of large numbers of Medicaid patients is notoriously constrained.

[Baculus]

I hear it,but I don't believe Medicare will keep the same benefits with the requirement of cutting $450 Billion

(well this says 500B over 10 yr,but why quibble)

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259427/obama-ryan-and-medicare-costs-james-c-capretta

Ryan's plan doesn't implement any real reforms. It is NOT health care "reform," and for National Review frame it in that manner is inaccurate.

This article discusses the Medicare "reductions" under "ObamaCare":

"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."

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

I don't understand your P.O.V. You support a party who wants to dismantle Medicare in its current form. So what is the point of your assertions? (And under the Obama plan, Medicare benefits won't be reduced. Heck, if a lot us had our way, Medicare would become a national plan open to all citizens.)

---------- Post added April-22nd-2011 at 11:39 PM ----------

Why should the wealthy be taxed more than the poor? They're paying more taxes, even if the rate is the same. Since when should someone be punished for making more money?

This is a new thread unto itself. But I will say that the wealthy have the sort of financial leverage which a poor person simply does not possess.

[twa]

My POV comes from knowing Medicare cannot continue in it's current form,it is unsustainable

asserting the benefits will not be reduced is quite a leap of faith and ignores what it's actuary said

of course that is not reducing benefits...just compensation for them.

[Larry]

My POV comes from knowing Medicare cannot continue in it's current form,it is unsustainable

asserting the benefits will not be reduced is quite a leap of faith and ignores what it's actuary said

of course that is not reducing benefits...just compensation for them.

Ah, so your position is that what Paul says he's going to do, isn't much worse that what you imagine may happen, eventually, under somebody?

[Baculus]

My POV comes from knowing Medicare cannot continue in it's current form,it is unsustainable

asserting the benefits will not be reduced is quite a leap of faith and ignores what it's actuary said

of course that is not reducing benefits...just compensation for them.

Actually read that article I posted. The author has a relatively in-depth explanation on this issue.

What's unsustainable is our current health care system with reform, and the GOP want to repeal that while throwing Medicare recipients into a private health care pool whose costs rise much quicker (while being financially inefficient) compared to Medicare. So, basically, you want to change Medicare into an inferior system?

Yeah. That makes no sense at all.

Everything you are trying to argue as a criticism of "ObamaCare" is an inherent part of the Ryan plan which you seem to support. That's why your argument is off-beat and doesn't jive. You're inconsistent.

"ObamaCare reduces Medicare!"

"We need to reduce Medicare because it is unsustainable!"

[twa]

That's cause they are all lying thru their teeth with crap like we are not cutting benefits(just compensation)

Larry is close...at least with the Ryan plan I have some discretion....projections + politicians= assumptions :beatdeadhorse:

[Baculus]

That's cause they are all lying thru their teeth with crap like we are not cutting benefits(just compensation)

Larry is close...at least with the Ryan plan I have some discretion....projections + politicians= assumptions :beatdeadhorse:

A quick yes or no question: Do you support Paul Ryan's budget and/or the GOP's efforts to "transition" Medicare to a voucher-funded privatized system?

[DRSmith]

Why should the wealthy be taxed more than the poor? They're paying more taxes, even if the rate is the same. Since when should someone be punished for making more money?

Why should those who benefit more and have more to lose if the system falls apart pay more?

Why should those who get government contracts and benefit the most from trade agreements not pay more?