Observation: Republican party intimidated by the worst President in U.S. history

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm not sure the Ryan proposal was an honest proposal to begin with. It was really far out there to use as a template.

I have to tell you Burgold. I did not like all aspects of Ryan's plan but I do believe that it's going to take a plan such as this to solve our problems. By now, I think that we can all see the direction of what is to come. The Democrats are going to use Ryan's plan against the GOP to try and win the Presidential Election and the GOP is going to try and use the platform of Fiscal Responsibility to win the Senate and the House. They are going to try and defund or just get President Obama's Health Care plan ruled as Unconstitutional. If the GOP can win the Presidential Election as well, then it's likely that we are going to have another Elections Have Consequences moment. I don't see any of this as being good for the country. We have a situation in which one side or the other is going to end up bitterly opposed to whatever is passed. It will result in more failed legislation. Ryan's plan is not popular with the GOP either. When his plan was release a few months ago, I commented on the fact then that it would not be popular in his own party and that's pretty much what has happened. It's going to take some hard decision making here from both sides to get this thing under control. I think Ryan's plan was as good a place to start as any. Nobody is going to like what is ahead of us but I honestly believe that we either make these decision now or live with a much harsher reality when the day comes that they are forced upon us.

I can come on this board and argue all day about my side being right, regardless of what side I decide to be on. It won't fix anything. We gotta come together and make good decisions. That probably means accepting things that are not ideal for either side.

[Burgold]

I agree. We need to stop playing games. Everyone's so excited to go for the gotcha and try to demonize the other that the possibility of crafting something useful is much reduced. That needs to stop.

[The Evil Genius]

The Dems in the Senate forced a vote today on the privitization of Medicare plan that the GOP led House passed last month.

5 GOP Senators broke ranks and the plan was easily defeated in the Senate.

I have come to suck your Medicare..muhahahahahahaha...

[ABQCOWBOY]

The Dems in the Senate forced a vote today on the privitization of Medicare plan that the GOP led House passed last month.

5 GOP Senators broke ranks and the plan was easily defeated in the Senate.

I have come to suck your Medicare..muhahahahahahaha...

This is what I'm talking about. These guys didn't break ranks. The 5 who voted against the bill were Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul (Beacuse it wasn't radical enough).

Also voted upon today was President Obama's 2012 budget, now shelved, as it was voted down 0 to 97.

I ask, what was solved today but yeah, keep posting more stuff like this. Keep feeding the machine I guess.

[isle-hawg]

ANYBODY that thinks the DEMS or REPS have our nation's (or your's) best interest in mind are ****ing idiots!!!!

[NoVaO]

you musta missed the dem primaries:ols:

lol, no, I am quite familiar with the primaries as I was a Hillary Clinton supporter. And I felt a lot of her comments were taken wildly out of context. And I felt the Obama campaign did play the race card a bit, and rather effectively too. For instance, I found it funny how race would suddenly become such a big issue when an upcoming primary state happened to be one with a large black electorate. Still, I'm not oblivious to actual race baiting, which Republicans have done a lot of over the past two years. And honestly -- if I'm a minority and I feel a politician is using my race to incite an emotional and angry response from white voters, you'd be damn sure I'd vote against that person.

Also there are counter-examples to the Democratic primary. For instance, Steve Cohen, a white Democrat representing a 60% black district in Tennessee was primaried by a black lawyer, who ran much of his campaign based on racial grounds. Cohen ended up receiving 80% of the vote

---------- Post added May-26th-2011 at 03:44 AM ----------

So is it natural for whites to vote against the black president because they feel he's being protected and supported on racial grounds, and that his supporters are using coded language that whites are sensitive to?

Funny how this stuff goes both ways. I wonder why so few acknowledge it.

Yes to a certain extent. If I were a religious, gun toting middle aged white man living in rural Georgia, I would be annoyed as hell with those on the left who mock religion, and who paint the south as a bunch of uneducated rednecks. And I suppose one way to speak out against those people is to vote in opposite of how they vote.

But one of the differences here is that I don't see Obama or other Democratic politicians using coded language that attacks white voters on racial grounds. One could say look at Reverend Wright, or point his comments about clinging to guns and religion, but Democratic politicians tend to run away from people like Reverend Wright, and many more Republicans seem to embrace their more extreme characters, like Glenn Beck for instance.

[Burgold]

But one of the differences here is that I don't see Obama or other Democratic politicians using coded language that attacks white voters on racial grounds. One could say look at Reverend Wright, or point his comments about clinging to guns and religion, but Democratic politicians tend to run away from people like Reverend Wright, and many more Republicans seem to embrace their more extreme characters, like Glenn Beck for instance.

What do you mean coded words? Harumph! Don't you speak English like a real American? Hey, how can we be sure you even are a "real American" Huh, I see you are from Northern Virginia. Why you're not even a real Virgian.

Republicans do not use coded words!

[mardi gras skin]

I'm not sure the Ryan proposal was an honest proposal to begin with. It was really far out there to use as a template.

Has a more substantive plan been proposed? Right now, I'm comparing Ryan's plan to nothing and Ryan looks great.

[Burgold]

Has a more substantive plan been proposed? Right now, I'm comparing Ryan's plan to nothing and Ryan looks great.

That is a fallacy. Sometimes doing nothing is superior than doing something really dumb.

[twa]

That is a fallacy. Sometimes doing nothing is superior than doing something really dumb.

Is that a call to eliminate Congress...or in support of it? :pfft:

Doing nothing is not a option in Medicare

[Burgold]

Is that a call to eliminate Congress...or in support of it? :pfft:

Doing nothing is not a option in Medicare

Hmmm... I'd be for eliminating Congress if you could think of a better idea. I'm not sure I want to give Obama total control of the government. Besides, what a drop... from messiah to mere king? I'd think he'd be offended.

[DRSmith]

Republicans have to stop this crap that people do not like government, as these disastors hit in the US who are people looking to for financial help and help putting things together? The government

People like the social safety net, I have a friend who is an avowed conservative who feels that a strong social sefety net is the best tool to allow an indivual to succeed, the thing no one likes is the abuse of said systems

[ABQCOWBOY]

Republicans have to stop this crap that people do not like government, as these disastors hit in the US who are people looking to for financial help and help putting things together? The government

People like the social safety net, I have a friend who is an avowed conservative who feels that a strong social sefety net is the best tool to allow an indivual to succeed, the thing no one likes is the abuse of said systems

Not all people DR. I think Government has a very specific role. I don't believe it should have nearly as much influence in day to day life as it currently does.

---------- Post added May-26th-2011 at 07:06 AM ----------

That is a fallacy. Sometimes doing nothing is superior than doing something really dumb.

I do agree with this statement but I don't think that it applies to Ryan's plan. I do understand that others may not agree with me. I watched a piece this morning on Clinton and a brief discussion he had with Ryan. It was a very interesting piece.

[Burgold]

Government's just an easy target, DRSmith... and almost all of the anti-government people aren't really anti-government. They just say it to be cool. Even the ardent don't think we should do away with the courts or the military, for example. SnyderShrugged who's about as dye hard a libertarian as we have has a soft spot for the free cheese program. Even most hyper free market people would be scared to death of a world without some oversight in drug testing or polution watchdogging. At least I hope so. After all, they know despite their rhetoric that if the companies were left completely to their own devices that every waterbed in the United States would be toxic and we'd lose 75% of our population to various types of poisoning and injury. Profits can't be the sole overlord.

[PeterMP]

Has a more substantive plan been proposed? Right now, I'm comparing Ryan's plan to nothing and Ryan looks great.

Medicare helps control costs. It has lower overhead than private insurance, which means more money actually spent on health care.

If you go with the Ryan plan, people are either going to get less healthcare or you are going to spend more money to get the same healthcare.

The alternative to the Ryan plan is very simple: have the government cover less. That's exactly what the Ryan plan is going to result in (and this way you don't end up paying for the increased overhead).

[Wrong Direction]

What do you mean coded words? Harumph! Don't you speak English like a real American? Hey, how can we be sure you even are a "real American" Huh, I see you are from Northern Virginia. Why you're not even a real Virgian.

Republicans do not use coded words!

I'd like to take a break from this thread to point out a simple fact: Hulk Hogan is the original Real American. He fights for the rights of every man!

/break

---------- Post added May-26th-2011 at 10:19 AM ----------

Medicare helps control costs. It has lower overhead than private insurance, which means more money actually spent on health care.

If you go with the Ryan plan, people are either going to get less healthcare or you are going to spend more money to get the same healthcare.

The alternative to the Ryan plan is very simple: have the government cover less. That's exactly what the Ryan plan is going to result in (and this way you don't end up paying for the increased overhead).

No it doesn't. Medicare severely inflates health costs across the public and private spectrum in everything but drugs. Hospice is supposed to be an end of life comfort system. It has turned into a benefit with a ton of people on it for many months, or even years, many of whom are still getting other healthcare services.

Durable Medical Equipment was outed as being WAAAAAY over priced in the late 90's. Republicans passed the competitive bidding program in 2003, it was finally implemented in 2011, in 9 cities and about 9 product categories. That's a great example of government efficiency.

We could go across the spectrum of Medicare and point out the ridiculousness. Part B drug prices are highly inflated. Non-competitive bidding DME companies are publicly making 90% profits. Hospital costs look more like the cost of a Pentagon toilet seat than the cost of care actually provided. Home Health is a payment mess. ESRD payment just changed and is getting gamed already. Physicians are scheduling multiple appointments because of the misincentives in those payment systems.

And private insurance payment rates to hospitals/providers all too frequently reflect Medicare payment policies. I really want to have this Ryan-plan discussion, because I think the conclusions people are jumping to against the plan are ridiculous. I personally think Ryan's plan is the only one out there to save benefits, especially for the sick and the poor.

I highly recommend people watch Ryan at the Petersen Summit. He comes on at about 1:42 of the first video.

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Peterson-Foundation-2011-Fiscal-Summit/10737421792-1/

[ABQCOWBOY]

Medicare helps control costs. It has lower overhead than private insurance, which means more money actually spent on health care.

If you go with the Ryan plan, people are either going to get less healthcare or you are going to spend more money to get the same healthcare.

The alternative to the Ryan plan is very simple: have the government cover less. That's exactly what the Ryan plan is going to result in (and this way you don't end up paying for the increased overhead).

I think maybe we need to study Ryan's plan a little more. What he is suggesting is not all that different then what the President's Healthcare Plan has already done. In President Obama's Health Care act, cuts have already been made to this program. They just haven't taken effect yet. I'm telling you guys, where Healthcare is concerned, Ryan's plan is not all that different. This is why many of the Republicans won't support him. Not only does it call for some hard cuts to take place, it is a bit more social then many of them like.

Bottom line to me, if the program does not get cut and brought back into balance, it's going to die a hard death completely. It can not be sustained as it is now.

[Wrong Direction]

Bottom line to me, if the program does not get cut and brought back into balance, it's going to die a hard death completely. It can not be sustained as it is now.

With respect, the Democrats opposing the Ryan plan want to turn it into a cut Medicare or not argument. That is a red herring. The biggest changes in Ryan's plan aren't about cuts, they're about a single payer top down payment versus a multi-payer bottom up system, where patients choose the best value for them and companies compete for their business.

With respect to cuts, Medicare as it is now is running a huge projected deficit. With no changes, massive cuts and tax hikes are guaranteed.

This isn't about cuts versus no cuts. It's about cuts for everyone versus choice for everyone.

[PeterMP]

No it doesn't. Medicare severely inflates health costs across the public and private spectrum in everything but drugs. Hospice is supposed to be an end of life comfort system. It has turned into a benefit with a ton of people on it for many months, or even years, many of whom are still getting other healthcare services.

First, medicare absolutely has lower overhead costs than private insurance. We can argue as to the why, but nobody really doubts that it does (and in fact, I've argued here in the past it is at least partly because private insurers say no more often, they refuse to cover things, which requires adminisrative oversight and appeal processes, which increase overhead). All single payer systems do. The Canadian single payer system has ridiculously lower overhead costs than ours.

So you mean fewer people will get hospice? I think that would fall under getting less, which the government can do.

Durable Medical Equipment was outed as being WAAAAAY over priced in the late 90's. Republicans passed the competitive bidding program in 2003, it was finally implemented in 2011, in 9 cities and about 9 product categories. That's a great example of government efficiency.

Which has been done through the government.

We could go across the spectrum of Medicare and point out the ridiculousness. Part B drug prices are highly inflated. Non-competitive bidding DME companies are publicly making 90% profits.

There's actually language in the legislation related to the drugs not being over 5% of manufactures costs, and drug prices have/are coming down.

http://www.healthindustrywashingtonwatch.com/2011/03/articles/other-hhs-developments/medicare-part-b-drug-asp-files-second-quarter-2011/

"CMS has posted the Medicare Part B average sales price (ASP) payment files for the second quarter of 2011. CMS continues to characterize drug prices in the market as “stable,” with prices for the top Part B drugs decreasing by an average of 0.4%. CMS attributes decreased prices to "a number of competitive market factors at work – multiple manufacturers, alternative therapies, new products, recent generic entrants, or market shifts to lower priced products." "

And private insurance payment rates to hospitals/providers all too frequently reflect Medicare payment policies.

Are you saying that private industry can't make a better deal with the hosipitials/provider than the one the government is legislating, but then you want to argue that the government is doing a poor job of controlling costs?

It would seem to be a counter-intuitive argument.

[ABQCOWBOY]

With respect, the Democrats opposing the Ryan plan want to turn it into a cut Medicare or not argument. That is a red herring. The biggest changes in Ryan's plan aren't about cuts, they're about a single payer top down payment versus a multi-payer bottom up system, where patients choose the best value for them and companies compete for their business.

With respect to cuts, Medicare as it is now is running a huge projected deficit. With no changes, massive cuts and tax hikes are guaranteed.

This isn't about cuts versus no cuts. It's about cuts for everyone versus choice for everyone.

I agree. I believe Ryan is a straight shooter here. I think he's done the math and it's pretty clear that the program can not be sustained as it is currently running. One way or the other, I think changes are coming and I think the changes will be worse if we don't act now to correct course.

[Wrong Direction]

First, medicare absolutely has lower overhead costs than private insurance. We can argue as to the why, but nobody really doubts that it does (and in fact, I've argued here in the past it is at least partly because private insurers say no more often, they refuse to cover things, which requires adminisrative oversight and appeal processes, which increase overhead). All single payer systems do. The Canadian single payer system has ridiculously lower overhead costs than ours.

I'll at least partially concede this point because it is so frequently cited and I'm not familiar with the methodology. I would simply add this...private insurers are responsible for complying with 50 state laws, specific agreements with thousands of employers, lobbying DC, etc. I believe they'd be somewhat higher regardless (though with much lower fraud and waste), but I think this comparison is at least a little bit apples to oranges.

So you mean fewer people will get hospice? I think that would fall under getting less, which the government can do.

When? Medpac has been looking at this forever. There are too many lobbyists on the hill forestalling real reform. Medicare is riddled with overpayments like this.

Which has been done through the government.

Did you see the timeline? Over a decade later, 9 product categories in 9 cities have been implemented. Full implementation will come nearly 20 years after the system was outed, and who knows what insiders were aware of before the oig report.

The funny thing is, though competitive bidding will save money, its draconian implementation will punish losing bidders and drive many out of business. This is the conundrum of a single payer system. Changes are across the board. Losers can rightfully claim that they're being put out of business. How many members of congress want to vote for those reforms? This is the type of systemic problem that prevents a single payer system from ever keeping up with the marketplace.

There's actually language in the legislation related to the drugs not being over 5% of manufactures costs, and drug prices have/are coming down.

http://www.healthindustrywashingtonwatch.com/2011/03/articles/other-hhs-developments/medicare-part-b-drug-asp-files-second-quarter-2011/

"CMS has posted the Medicare Part B average sales price (ASP) payment files for the second quarter of 2011. CMS continues to characterize drug prices in the market as “stable,” with prices for the top Part B drugs decreasing by an average of 0.4%. CMS attributes decreased prices to "a number of competitive market factors at work – multiple manufacturers, alternative therapies, new products, recent generic entrants, or market shifts to lower priced products." "

[/Quote]

Actual manufacturing costs are pennies for most drugs. There's big down pressure now on drug costs because of big new generics. This is the calm before the storm (after 2015 when big hitters going generic dramatically slows).

Are you saying that private industry can't make a better deal with the hosipitials/provider than the one the government is legislating, but then you want to argue that the government is doing a poor job of controlling costs?

It would seem to be a counter-intuitive argument.

I wish it were that simple. MA plans have to provide medicare payment rates. They need to meet state requirements too. Most healthcare is paid for by government (elderly and poor are highest users), private markets are limited by states too. The entire system has hurdles to lowering prices, and those costs are reflected in healthcare inflation.

[mardi gras skin]

That is a fallacy. Sometimes doing nothing is superior than doing something really dumb.

Well there you go. Democrats are doing doing nothing to balance the budget. Thank you for your honesty.

---------- Post added May-26th-2011 at 12:35 PM ----------

The alternative to the Ryan plan is very simple: have the government cover less. That's exactly what the Ryan plan is going to result in (and this way you don't end up paying for the increased overhead).

I would like to see a competitive plan put forward by the Democrats. Something other than Burg's "Do Nothing" approach. Until that happens, I'll support Ryan's plan.

[Wrong Direction]

I would like to see a competitive plan put forward by the Democrats. Something other than Burg's "Do Nothing" approach. Until that happens, I'll support Ryan's plan.

I genuinely believe that Ryan's plan is much more than a simple Republican attempt to save money.

It is an incredibly well-thought-out reform proposal which addresses many of the inefficiencies inherent in healthcare today. It is NOT a pure conservative utopian healthcare system. It does protect the poor and the sick and it does put into place competitive mechanisms to lower prices the way politicians cannot, which over the long run should mean more and better care is available to seniors, the poor and the disabled.

Once again, I really hope people take the time to watch Ryan in his own words at the link I posted above. Too many people demagogue in politics. Ryan is proposing something concrete.

[PeterMP]

When? Medpac has been looking at this forever. There are too many lobbyists on the hill forestalling real reform. Medicare is riddled with overpayments like this.

At the same time as the government holds the line on how much money it would actually paying out for the "vouchers" under the Paul plan.

There's big down pressure now on drug costs because of big new generics. This is the calm before the storm (after 2015 when big hitters going generic dramatically slows).

Pharma patents are way down, and many of the drugs that there are patents for have dubious long term medical affects with respect to outcomes.

There's a slow down on things going to generics because there was a slow down on new patents.

[88Comrade2000]

Looks like Sarah Palin is moving closer to running. Will she do it.

She will get the Tea Party/Social Conservative vote. Romney will probably have the Establishment vote unless Pawlenty can pull an upset. Obama has nothing to worry about other than the economy tanking.