by Jack Lee
You can start printing up the bumper stickers now, it’s official!!! Paul Ryan, a 7 term Congressman from Wisconsin will be Mitt’s running mate. A good choice too! Ryan has long been known as the intellectual leader of the republicans. He’s an articulate spokesman and a person who understands the budget and has a recovery plan written down and ready! Even his detractors have to admit they respect the man for his character.
Will he be enough to put an exclamation point behind this ticket, only time will tell. But, the race for the White House has finally started in earnest. Now Romney and Obama will square off, so let’s see how the President defends his dismal track record. You know Obama had a rough start, that’s a given, nobody is denying that. He inherited an economy that was in very bad shape, but he also had two years where democrats controlled the whole show and what did he do with it? Well, we’re still in bad shape and unemployment is still well over 8% and has been for the last 3 years! Hard to escape blame for that. In fact, it’s the worst job statistic since they started tracking such things.
At least Romney and Ryan have a plan we can read and analyze, it’s not just pie in the sky talk. Obama was elected on rhetoric called hope and change. All he really offered was catchy buzz words, there was no visible plan. We all had to hope that through his s charisma he would somehow charm the nation back into prosperity..so much for that pipe dream. Well, so Obama flunked his test of office and now we have no hope and no change. Do we need four more years of that?
The simple answer is NO!
I’m very pleased with this choice. Ryan can talk clearly about what needs to be done so that the whole show won’t come tumbling down around us. As your recent post about the state of the economy indicates, we need to do something to reverse the course we’ve been on since the thirties.There’s a lot of work to be done.
Works for me!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs
We won’t survive four more years of Obama and Biden.
I think Romney made a good choice with Ryan. He sent a loud message that he understands our economy is our biggest problem and Ryan is an expert who understands what it will take to turn it around. Ryan had the guts to present his plan by working with Democrats instead of kicking the problem down the road like Harry Reid who hasnt even brought budget proposals to the Senate floor for the past three years. Hes intelligent, a leader and has the Tea Party support. What a big difference from Biden who has been the worst VP and thankfully hasnt had to fill the presidents position.
Now, the Republicans must gain a majority in the Senate to really put our country on the road to recovery. Our do nothing Congress has really been a do nothing Senate under Reid.
Romney should also announce his cabinet before the election, at least the Sec. of State, Defense, Energy, etc. so we can see who his advisors will be.
We won’t survive four more years of Obama and Biden.
I think Romney made a good choice with Ryan. He sent a loud message that he understands our economy is our biggest problem and Ryan is an expert who understands what it will take to turn it around. Ryan had the guts to present his plan by working with Democrats instead of kicking the problem down the road like Harry Reid who hasnt even brought budget proposals to the Senate floor for the past three years. Hes intelligent, a leader and has the Tea Party support. What a big difference from Biden who has been the worst VP and thankfully hasnt had to fill the presidents position.
Now, the Republicans must gain a majority in the Senate to really put our country on the road to recovery. Our do nothing Congress has really been a do nothing Senate under Reid.
Romney should also announce his cabinet before the election, at least the Sec. of State, Defense, Energy, etc. so we can see who his advisors will be.
It was Obama who said in 2008, “We’re not red states and blue states, we’re the United States.” Instead he’s led us to be the most divided country since the Civil War.
Right on Peggy! And the efforts to divide and conquer will continue!
Media Matters launches a scorched earth plan by releasing a dossier on Ryan that features the following bulletpoints:
http://veepmistakes.com/paul-ryan/
Slashes Medicaid, Destroys Jobs; Hurts The Most Vulnerable, Makes College Less Affordable; and Raises Taxes on The Poor To Pay For Tax Breaks For The Rich.
Same old Alynski-esque yada yada, yada!
We can expect the worst from the “cheer leading for Obama” media and our own true believers, Libby and Chris.
But we are prepared and ready for this must win battle of ideas…yes?
Tina: “Media Matters launches a scorched earth plan by releasing a dossier on Ryan that features the following bulletpoints:
Slashes Medicaid, Destroys Jobs; Hurts The Most Vulnerable, Makes College Less Affordable; and Raises Taxes on The Poor To Pay For Tax Breaks For The Rich.
Same old Alynski-esque yada yada, yada!”
Well, do you have an actual rebuttal, Tina? In what way is Media Matters’ assessment untrue? Ryan’s plan DOES slash Medicaid, hurts the most vulnerable by cutting social services (including Medicare, even though you and he have both called cuts to Medicare “rationing” when done by Obama), makes college less affordable by gutting the Pell grant, and raises taxes on the poor to pay for tax breaks for the rich. What is “Alinsky-esque” about pointing out the truth?
Media Matters is pure adolescent attitude on a stick. It has no argument. It doesn’t attempt to compare programs or see differences in approaches. It is scorched earth blowtorch; its ads are designed for one purpose…scare the daylights out of people and make them turn away without bothering to look or compare!
If they were intellectually honest they would actually make a comparison and they wouldn’t need words like “slashes”, “hurts the most vulnerable”, or “tax breaks for the rich”.
There is nothing to rebut!
Obama promised hope and change. He has delivered on change and its killing us! Here are the headlines:
“Forced to Early Social Security, Unemployed” … – The New York Times June 9, 2012
“The 86 million invisible unemployed” CNN Money – May. 3, 2012
“Don’t Be Fooled, The Obama Unemployment Rate Is 11%” – Forbes February 9, 2012
“Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month” – ZeroHedge.com
“U.S. Added Only 115000 Jobs in April” – The New York Times May 4, 2012
More Young Americans Out of High School Are Also Out of Work – New York Times June 6,2012
How did Obama go wrong? he put his faith in BIG Government solutions instead of the American people…a few extraordinary quotes from the folks at Powerline:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/its-ryan.php
Paul Ryan, like most of America, can see the latest attempt to structure a utopian dream…we can also see its utter failure. failure.
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan know how to reverse the fatal conceit: get government out of the way and set the people free!
Do the American people have the guts and fortitude to take the country back…to shoulder more of the responsibility themselves or at the local and state levels?
Yes, Tina we do, but will there be enough of us to get Obama out of the Oval office and gain control of the senate along with maintaning the House.
If not, I’ve decided to have one big party, buy that sports car I’ve always wanted, go on a cruise to Alaska and thru the Panama Canal. And when the money runs out I’m going to let Chris and all those who voted for Obama take care of me when it’s all gone.
Gee free food, clothes, a room in one of those nice retirement homes and all the health care I’ll need for the rest of my life. Sounds pretty good, no it sounds very good.
Grand idea, Peggy! I think I’ll join you.
Tina, they should call you the artful dodger for how much effort you put into avoiding tough questions.
Tina: “Media Matters is pure adolescent attitude on a stick. It has no argument.”
Of course they have an argument. You quoted their argument, and then refused to make one of your own. You are the one who has no argument.
“It doesn’t attempt to compare programs or see differences in approaches.”
Obviously, that’s not true. Media Matters frequently defends the policies of Democrats and compares them to GOP policies. Clearly, they think the Democrats’ policies are better. You can disagree, but you can’t claim they’re not making comparisons and arguments. That’s ridiculous.
“If they were intellectually honest they would actually make a comparison and they wouldn’t need words like “slashes”, “hurts the most vulnerable”, or “tax breaks for the rich”.”
Boy, you can dish it out, but you sure can’t take it! You’re the woman who sees no problem using far more dishonest and inflammatory terms such as “rationing,” “death panels,” “tyranny,” “plantation,” “slavery,” “thugs,” “fascists,” “communists,” “feminazis,” etc., even though these labels usually have no relation to the things you’re applying them to. You have a lot of nerve complaining about “intellectual honesty” and harsh language, Tina, given how prone to hyperbole you are.
The phrases you are complaining about (“slashes,” “hurts the most vulnerable,” “tax breaks for the rich”) are not even that harsh–certainly not compared to the language you use to demonize Democrats! These phrases are accurate descriptions of Ryan’s plan. You have refused to explain why they are inaccurate. So to see you clutch your pearls over such terms, when you have said far worse about far better, is just one of the whiniest things I’ve ever seen.
“There is nothing to rebut!”
Exactly, because they’re right, and you have no way of proving them wrong. Ryan’s budget plan is indefensible, so instead of defending it, you decide it’s easier to shoot the messenger. Then you accuse your opponents of doing what you do: attacking without argument. This routine of yours used to be amusing, but it’s getting old.
Now that is hilarious! “you have no way of proving them wrong. Ryan’s budget plan is indefensible”
Such is what one would expect from a person who relies upon Media Matters for analysis. What budget plan does Chris propose? What budget has Obama proposed and passed since assuming office? How, EXACTLY is Ryan’s budget plan is indefensible?
No, I don’t expect an answer from Chris, it would be above his pay (inconsequential pseudo-intellectual/blowhard) grade.
Chris it does not make an argument. Media Matters throws rocks but I’ll play if you insist:
Slashes Medicare.
Really, by how much? Is that more or less than the $716 Billion that Obamacare robs from Medicare?
Destroys Jobs
How? Explain!!! And is that more or less than the millions of jobs lost and not created since Obama took office? (We don’t know for several reasons but that doesn’t stop the sensational attack)
Hurts The Most Vulnerable:
Once again…how? The amount of money that is set aside for the truly needy is more than sufficient. Most so-called “cuts” are really just a lesser amount of increase.
“Makes college less affordable”
How? Making college more affordable is a great goal but you don’t do it with policy that assures people can’t find work or by government takeover of the student loan process so that college administrators don’t have to think about keeping costs low (because the government will forgive loan debt and hand out money left and right).
Slashes Medicaid”
The idea is to give power back to the states. THEY will receive less money over ten years but they can structure their plans free of Federal government mandates. Less bureaucracy could result in more money for actual care but I wouldn’t count on that in California where the legislature is as inept at budgeting as Obama/Reid/Pelosi.
Raises Taxes on The Poor To Pay For Tax Breaks For The Rich.
What taxes on the poor?
You ask me to rebut these accusation BUT give me little to work with.
OUR BUDGET NEEDS TO BE REIGNED IN. SPENDING HAS TO BE REIGNED IN.
MORE REVENUE TO GOVERNMENT COMES WHEN THE RICH INVEST IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR…WHEN THE MIDDLE CLASS SMALL BUSINESS OWNER INVEST IN THE GROWTH OF HIS BUSINESS!
NONE OF OBAMAS POLICIES ACCOMPLISHES THIS!
The record of the man and party you support is terrible, Chris. EVERYBODY BUT THE RICH are hurting in one way or another under OBAMA’s policies. The poor are paying higher prices for food and other products they need because of it. He has created debt that is twice what others created in less time and over time that will put even more pressure on the buying power of the poor. Under Obama’s watch this country received its first ever downgrade making it harder to borrow against our debt. The unemployment rate remains above 8% with no relief in sight.
“You’re the woman who sees no problem using far more dishonest and inflammatory terms such as “rationing,” “death panels,” “tyranny,” “plantation,” “slavery,” “thugs,” “fascists,” “communists,” “feminazis,”
The plan does ration…Obama, “you can take a little pill”
There is a panel designated in the plan. I is not an elected body and it is accountable only to the appointed HHS secretary. it can arbitrarily decide not to allow certain medications or treatments. Denial of such treatment means death can result.
Here’s what a brain surgeon had to say about this panel and HHS under Obamacare:
http://www.therightscoop.com/shock-brain-surgeon-confirms-obamacare-rations-care-has-death-panels/
As Obama said…you just give em a little pill (and get ready to shove them in a drawer)
Chris you are unqualified to address these things because you have zero experience in the world, the practical, everyday, working world.
As for the rest of the words all I can say is they accurately describe what I am expressing. I won’t attempt to defend the rest because it would take too much time and be too long. I will defend them to the ground for their accuracy and I can honestly state as a fact that the Ryan plan does not “slash” anything.
The Ryan plan is honest in that it starts from the TRUTH that America has created programs that are unsustainable. It starts with the TRUTH that the American people were promised something the government cannot deliver. It starts from the responsibly adult conclusion that America has to find a way to reign in spending and do a better job of budgeting programs.
Democrat harry Reid has not passed a budget in THREE YEARS! The debt has increased by $4 trillion dollars and worse, the Gross National Debt now stands at 97.6 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product.
Democrats want to keep promising what they cannot deliver, because it BUYS VOTES. They demonize Republican plans not because they are terrible but to BUY VOTES. They write legislation to BUY VOTES. It is cowardly…it is easy…it is a lie to constantly legislate by promising giveaways and selling it on the idea that taxing the rich will pay for it. Your party doesn’t just tell incredibly outrageous lies it deliberately pretends that the giveaway programs are sustainable.
In doing these things they SHOVE debt levels higher. They set in motion a need for higher taxation and creative taxation and that stifles the business machine that generates revenue…and one day in your future, Chris, America will default. What the hell do you think will happen to the poor then? You won’t have to worry about college tuition, Chris, because only the rich will be able to go anyway.
You are a total fool without a clue about how things work.
I can only respond to a few things right now.
“Slashes Medicare.
Really, by how much? Is that more or less than the $716 Billion that Obamacare robs from Medicare?”
If you’d kept up with the news lately, you’d know that it cuts pretty much the exact same amount. The difference is that Obama’s cuts are restricted from lowering care to patients and from raising the eligibility age, while there are no such restrictions in Ryan’s plan, which actually does raise the eligibility age. But then, you know this already, because we’ve been through this several times before.
“Hurts The Most Vulnerable:
Once again…how?”
The plan drastically cuts social programs including Medicare and Medicaid. Again, you know this.
“”Makes college less affordable”
How?”
By cutting the Pell grant, for one thing.
Slashes Medicaid”
The idea is to give power back to the states.”
The CBO says that the states don’t have enough money to do this.
“MORE REVENUE TO GOVERNMENT COMES WHEN THE RICH INVEST IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR…”
Then you need to support regulations that would encourage the rich to invest in the private sector, not overseas.
“WHEN THE MIDDLE CLASS SMALL BUSINESS OWNER INVEST IN THE GROWTH OF HIS BUSINESS!”
The middle class small business owner has seen zero tax increases and many new tax breaks under Obama.
“The record of the man and party you support is terrible, Chris. EVERYBODY BUT THE RICH are hurting in one way or another under OBAMA’s policies.”
And your solution is to make things easier for the rich while cutting programs that help the poor. Yeah, that makes sense.
“The plan does ration…”
No, it’s expressly forbidden from rationing. But you know that already.
“There is a panel designated in the plan. I is not an elected body and it is accountable only to the appointed HHS secretary. it can arbitrarily decide not to allow certain medications or treatments.”
You are a f***ing liar, Tina. There is NOTHING in the law that allows the IPAB to make decisions regarding medications and treatments. NOTHING. Go ahead, try and prove me wrong. I dare you.
I have shown you the text of the law showing that it is expressly forbidden from making recommendations about benefits and care. You know that it has no control over what treatments and medications are approved under Medicare. And yet, you said this anyway. Why do you lie so blatantly when you know I’m going to call you out on it?
If you have any evidence at all that the IPAB can control what medications and treatments are allowed, you need to present it now. If you do not, you need to admit you lied and apologize.
Chris: “The difference is that Obama’s cuts are restricted from lowering care to patients…”
Obamacare cuts payment to doctors and raises their costs for compliance…many of them are considering retirement from the profession:
http://www.leavenworthtimes.com/opinions/letters_to_the_editor/x285935825/Letter-Doctors-against-Obamacare
“The plan drastically cuts social programs including Medicare and Medicaid”
On Medicare see the Ryan video I just posted. You are grossly misrepresenting his plan. (Also, “drastically cut” doesn’t quite explain “HOW” which is what I asked…it’s a bumper sticker response) Current seniors will see zero change. The changes to those 55 and under are exactly what everyone has screamed to have for decades…the same program that Congress enjoys OR they can stick with Medicare as we know it.
As for the grossly inadequate and broken medicaid program his plan is reform designed by the individual states. Reductions in federal grants back to the states over the years are based (my opinion) on the fact that his reforms will bring the cost of medical services and insurance down by introducing competition and putting patients in charge of healthcare. (Again see the video I just posted)
Cutting Pell grants would be a problem for a few people but the country is handing out money it doesn’t have now. These citizens will have to pay big for those grants in the form of taxes to pay the growing debt (or in nthe form of suffering a severe depression) if we don’t do something to get our economy on track and people back to work. Students will have to find another way or work for a few years to save enough to go to college…or, like people who can’t qualify for a Pell grant make other career plans.
“The CBO says that the states don’t have enough money to do this.”
Not under the current lousy economy but we expect to change that. Also not as long as legisaltores keep mismanaging the peoples money! IT’S TIME FOR THESE LEGISLATORS TO TELL THE TRUTH, QUIT PLAYING GAMES, AND MAKE THE HARD DECISIONS.
“Then you need to support regulations that would encourage the rich to invest in the private sector, not overseas.”
I do. But more importantly YOU need to learn enough about how business works and about human nature, before you lecture me about jobs. You, like the re-distributor-in-chief, would make all of the wrong decisions in this regard.
“The middle class small business owner has seen zero tax increases and many new tax breaks under Obama.”
Many of them make $200-$250K a year so that’s a lie. All of them have already been hit with a slowdown in business, more expensive healthcare insurance, higher energy costs, more regulations (particularly healthcare related business), the slowdown in business alone has cost me plenty!!!!!!!!!!! Plant closings or scrapping plans to open new operations has cost them in dollars and the public in jobs. So the puny little crumbs that the ONE has offered on the one hand while screwing us on the other is, if you excuse me, less than paltry.
“And your solution is to make things easier for the rich while cutting programs that help the poor.”
YOU ARE AN IDIOT! The rich don’t give a rats butt one way or the other. IT DOESN’T MATTER TO THEM YOU TWIT…it matters to the people who will get a job because of it.
And the tax breaks don’t just effect the bottom lines of the rich. Higher tax rates on investments and savings also benefit all retirement plans. They benefit all seniors on fixed incomes. They benefit the overall economy! THEY, ALONG WITH OTHER POLICY CHANGES WILL BRING BUSINESS BACK TO AMERICA.
The idea is not to help the rich but to help them help America. But the collectivist in you is all wrapped up in making things equal so you won;t let this information passed that fog in your brain.
“No, it’s expressly forbidden from rationing.”
The president himself said…(paraphrasing) maybe you don’t really need that operation; maybe you could get by with a little pill …don’t be dumb Chris…of course there will be rationing…and delays. This medical care behemoth will ration care to save money. It adds millions of people that have to be covered and promises to cut costs. It adds piles of bureaucracy to enforce and administer it and promises to save money. You are a total fool if you can’t see how ignorant you sound when you try to make the case for this piece of cr5ap legislation.
“You are a f***ing liar, Tina.”
Nice. Well, I did call you an idiot. I think I have the better case.
I don’t know what you think that panel was created to do, Chris. Perhaps you think they will meet a few times a year for milk and cookies? They have a job…what is it?
I think its purpose is to suggest ways to cut costs and that will include proposals for cuts in treatments and services. The HHS secretary will implement at her discretion!
Heritage names the ways Obamacare will affect patients access to care and services:
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/22/top-five-reasons-obamacare-is-bad-for-doctors/
I have shown you what the government told the American people that Medicare would cost them in 1965 when the law was written. I have shown you what it actuallt costs today and the debt it is responsible that will make your life more difficult. What government says will happen (good intentions sometimes; sometimes just a power grab) and what actually happens is Always very different. There are people trying to give you valuable information and for some reason you elect to ignore it completely and believe what Obama and the Democrats in Congress tell you. You believe it even though you watched them pass this bill with the most egregiously dirty tricks that have been used in decades. You think I have some reason to lie to you. What possible reason do I have, Chris?
I care about the future of this country because I have children and grandchildren…that is my ONLY motivation.
“If you have any evidence at all that the IPAB can control what medications and treatments are allowed, you need to present it now. If you do not, you need to admit you lied and apologize.”
Chris, you should only live so long.
First things first, Tina: I asked you to provide evidence that Obamacare allows the IPAB to make recommendations about what medications and treatments should be allowed. You didn’t provide any, but still you claim this:
“I think I have the better case.”
Usually the person with the most reliable evidence is considered the one with the better case. No?
I have quoted the exact portion of the PPACA which makes clear that the IPAB has no power to make recommendations about what kind of treatment is offered to patients. Here, I’ll show you again. On page 490 of the law, under the section labeled “Requirements,” the law clearly lays out what kind of proposals the board can and cannot make. Here’s what it says about Medicare benefits:
“(ii) The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or
Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818,
1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost-
sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.”
It’s very clearly stated that the panel cannot restrict benefits. That would include what medications and treatments are authorized.
Your only source for a counter-claim is the Heritage Foundation, an extremely biased right-wing think tank, which baselessly claims that the IPAB is “within its abilities” to “limit seniors access to certain treatments and services.” Heritage itself provides no evidence to support this claim; it does not point to any portion of the law which allows the IPAB to do this, and neglects to point to the portion of the law which explicitly forbids it.
So why on earth should you or I believe what Heritage says here? Their claim is baseless, and contradicted by the text of the law itself. If the IPAB proposed disallowing certain medications and treatments, it would be breaking the very law that created it.
Again, I implore you: if you can find anything in the law that contradicts what I’m telling you, and says that the IPAB does have the power to allow or disallow certain medications and treatments, then show me where it is. If you can’t do that, you can’t possibly claim to have the better case. If you have no evidence, you have no case at all.
“I don’t know what you think that panel was created to do, Chris. Perhaps you think they will meet a few times a year for milk and cookies? They have a job…what is it?”
Again I implore you to actually read the law, at least the portions dealing with the IPAB. I have already linked to it for you and given you a page number and a quote.
You talk as if the only way to cut Medicare is to cut services to seniors. If that’s the case, I’m not sure what exactly it is you think Ryan’s Medicare cuts do. The cuts the IPAB are supposed to focus on involve wasteful bureaucratic spending–the very thing you claim to be against.
One thing the IPAB is allowed to do, as we’ve discussed, is to recommend cutting payments to Medicare doctors. I think that lowering payments is a problem, and one that the PPACA should have addressed. (See, I can criticize the law without thinking it’s the devil incarnate.) You’ve claimed (falsely) that this amounts to “rationing,” but do you know if Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan does the same? We do know that his plan cuts the same amount from Medicare as Obama’s–over $7 billion–and that he hasn’t proposed the same kind of restrictions found in the PPACA. For instance, the IPAB is forbidden from raising the eligibility age, but raising the eligibility age is crucial to Ryan’s plan. Where else do you think the money is being cut in Ryan’s Medicare plan, and why couldn’t most of those same cuts be made by the IPAB without sacrificing patient care?
Also, if Ryan’s Medicare plan ends up lowering payments to doctors, will you accuse him of “rationing” as well? Or is this only “rationing” if Obama does it?
“I think its purpose is to suggest ways to cut costs”
Yes…
“and that will include proposals for cuts in treatments and services.”
No. It can’t. If they do that, they will be breaking the very law that created them. Why do you think they would do that? Again, can you not think of other ways to cut costs? How do you think Paul Ryan will do it? What does he want cut?
“The HHS secretary will implement at her discretion!”
No. Congress has the authority to reject the IPAB cuts if they come up with an equal amount of savings.
“Obamacare cuts payment to doctors and raises their costs for compliance…”
These are possible actions the IPAB could take to cut Medicare spending, but these are not required actions mandated in Obamacare. So this is not entirely accurate.
You also quote a letter to the editor claiming that “If Obamacare is fully implemented, 83 percent [of doctors] will consider leaving the practice of medicine.” Apparently extreme gullibility is a side effect of extreme partisanship. You abandon your B.S. detector all too easily when you really want to believe something.
The writer of this letter is completely misrepresenting the poll. Politifact evaluated the claim and rated it false:
“We found it came from a survey by the Doctor Patient Medical Association Foundation, a group founded last fall that is opposed to the health care law.
The group asked: “How do current changes in the medical system affect your desire to practice medicine?” According to the group, 83 percent answered, “Makes me think about quitting,” 5 percent said, “Im re-energized,” while 13 percent said they were unsure or had no opinion.
So while the number is right, it’s important to examine whether Duncan has accurately explained the results…
…Duncan said “83% of doctors have considered leaving the profession because of #Obamacare.” But that’s an inaccurate description of the foundations poll.
The poll did not specifically ask about the federal health care law and was meant to measure concerns about a wide range of changes in health care. Also, it’s worth noting that the poll had a small return rate and the group that conducted it is opposed to the law. We rate the claim False.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/12/jeff-duncan/gop-lawmaker-jeff-duncan-repeats-survey-finding-83/
Let me sum that up for you: the genius you’re citing who says that 83% of doctors are considering quitting because of Obamacare, is basing his conclusions on a poll which DID NOT ASK about Obamacare.
“The changes to those 55 and under are exactly what everyone has screamed to have for decades…”
Really? Who is “everyone?” I have heard Republicans asking to raise the eligibility age for a long time, but I haven’t heard the same from Democrats (which is why the PPACA restricts the IPAB from recommending to raise the eligibility age).
“Cutting Pell grants would be a problem for a few people”
A few people? Try looking at the actual numbers:
“The number of Pell recipients at public two-year institutions increased 36.8 percent between 2008-09 and 2009-10, compared to a 31.5 percent increase in recipients at all higher education institutions. Of the nearly 8.1 million Pell grant recipients in 2009-10, more than 35 percent were community college students…
…If the maximum grant is cut from $5,550 to $4,731, as has been proposed, May estimates about 3,000 Louisiana community college students would no longer qualify. All in all, he said, Louisiana students would have about $9 million less to spend on education.”
http://www.communitycollegetimes.com/Pages/Funding/Pell-grants-crucial-for-community-college-students.aspx
Tina: “but the country is handing out money it doesn’t have now. These citizens will have to pay big for those grants in the form of taxes to pay the growing debt (or in nthe form of suffering a severe depression) if we don’t do something to get our economy on track and people back to work. Students will have to find another way or work for a few years to save enough to go to college…or, like people who can’t qualify for a Pell grant make other career plans.”
I find this attitude very depressing. All my life I’ve been told that education should be my number one priority. Isn’t that what all good parents tell their children? And now you’re saying that it shouldn’t be a priority for our government. What kind of example does that set for our nation’s youth?
You’re saying that low-income kids should put their education on the back-burner (where it usually doesn’t come off–most people who don’t enter college right away or take time off end up never going back), while at the same time you argue for tax cuts on the wealthiest among us?
Higher education means more qualified workers, more educated people able to develop their skills and come up with innovative solutions to solve our nation’s problems. I don’t see how less students attending college could possible end up being good for our economy.
“Many of them make $200-$250K a year so that’s a lie.”
*sigh* No, Tina. I have cited, countless times, statistics from respectable organizations showing that only 2-3% of small businesses make that amount of money. This figure is the same one cited by all major news and fact-checking organizations in the United States. In the past you have doubted the accuracy of this number, but you’ve never really given a reason why, nor have you provided any evidence to show that the number is anything different. For you to accuse me of lying when I have provided evidence and you have not is bad form.
Again, I repeat: only 2-3% of small businesses will see a tax increase under Obama’s policy. That’s not “many” by any reasonable definition of the word. That is “few.”
If you have any compelling evidence to the contrary, please present it. If you don’t, then there’s really no point in denying it, is there?
“The president himself said…(paraphrasing) maybe you don’t really need that operation; maybe you could get by with a little pill…”
Can you provide the full quote in context, Tina? I can’t seem to find this one online. But it sounds to me that Obama was talking about how the new healthcare law allows increased access to preventative care, giving more patients the opportunity to get help right away rather than waiting until their condition has worsened to the point where they need an operation. I don’t know how you interpret that as a call for rationing. But again, I’d have to see his actual words to be certain.
“don’t be dumb Chris…of course there will be rationing…and delays. This medical care behemoth will ration care to save money.”
This isn’t a logical argument, Tina. For that you need evidence, of which you have none. Senseless fearmongering doesn’t work on me, and it shouldn’t work on you either if you want to make choices based on reason rather than emotion.
“It adds millions of people that have to be covered and promises to cut costs. It adds piles of bureaucracy to enforce and administer it and promises to save money.”
It does save money. The CBO says that the amount of revenue collected by the changes in the PPACA exceed the costs by $109 billion. They also say that repealing it would add to the deficit you claim to be so concerned about. Now you may think these numbers are off, but they are the best we’ve got.
Chris: “I have quoted the exact portion of the PPACA which makes clear that the IPAB has no power to make recommendations about what kind of treatment is offered to patients.”
I acknowledged that portion of the law. I have attempted to show you how it is meaningless in terms of how the law will be implemented to. I finally found a paper from CATO that explains in detail what I have been attempting to tell you. The paper is long so I cannot post all of the points. I will offer a few excerpts and if you are curious I advise you to read or at least skim through the paper.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA700.pdf
There is much more that is disturbing about this law and the powers it gives HHS and the IPAB:
It goes on to show how, by 2020, Congress loses all authority to control the IPAB.
The law, Chris, is pages and pages long and has been written precisely to undermine Congressional authority and grant authority and power to the President through his HHS secretary.
Your opinion is your own and you are welcome to it. I have observed the workings of government, the unintended consequences of government solutions, the grossly inadequate projected costs for programs, the way politicians often use their proposals to gain power for themselves or their party, and the ever increasing cost of government that we cannot support…and I’ve grown quite cynical. Promises by politicians and government agencies, even when it is put in writing, are just so much cotton candy. They are really pretty to look at but sticky, unhealthy, and sometimes make you sick later on.
This law is a power grab, through and through. It will enslave the American people in a broken, inadequate, system of low quality care. It will provide one thing that you like…we will all be in the same leaky sinking boat together (except for the elite few).
“Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan does the same…”
Paul Ryan’s plan is nothing like Obamacare. (see above and the full Cato report). I offers choice, it gives power back to doctors and patients, it introduces market principles to lower costs…Obamacare does none of those.
Here’s more opinion that supports my own:
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/SecShallTroy–052212web.pdf
http://www.americancrossroads.org/2012/04/berkley-on-the-ipab/
http://gop.com/news/press-releases/obamacare-ipab/
The change that I said “everyone” has been screaming about when the subject of healthcare reform is discussed is: “Why doesn’t Congress just give us what they have?” Congress has the plan that Ryan offers to those 55 and under (Unless they choose Medicare, which is one of the options open to them).
“Your only source for a counter-claim is the Heritage Foundation, an extremely biased right-wing think tank…”
One of the main proponents and creators of this law is the woman in Congress that negotiated in secret offering bribes and special deals to write and pass this 2700 page legal power grab. She said they had to pass it so we could see what was in it. I’m not impressed with those on your side who love this law any more than you are with the Heritage Foundation. It’s irrelevant that you don’t like my sources for information and opinion.
“The cuts the IPAB are supposed to focus on involve wasteful bureaucratic spending–the very thing you claim to be against.”
If that was all it would do I wouldn’t object. The board has power to do so much more. (read CATO)
Ryan has worked on three proposals so it’s difficult to discuss what he would do. I did find an article that explained his thinking pretty well in an honest way:
http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/07/in-defense-of-paul-ryans-medicare-plan/
You are living at a time when we are discovering that the big ideas people had over the last half century or so for a perfect society are just not sustainable. We are going broke trying to take care of everyone. This country is at a crossroads. We will decide either to give ourselves over to total government control or return to our founding ideals of personal choice, responsibility, family and charity. If we choose the latter we will all need to accept the fact that citizens must plan better for their futures. We need to save rather than buying ourselves all the fancy gadgets, snacks, and vacations so that we will have enough for our old age and our healthcare. We are going to have to teach and develop a stronger work ethic…too many of us have become dependent and nonproductive. If we choose the former we had better get used to a low quality of life for everyone…shared misery. When government finally becomes the total authority, opportunity for wealth creation goes away, the source of revenue dries up and we will be told to work at the point of a gun. Sounds dramatic to American ears but we wouldn’t be the first country to fall to government authority and tyranny.
You point out that Medicare and other plans already ration care. These government program are going broke…of course they are rationing. Fraud prevention tactics don’t stop the fraud, waste and abuse either. They are paying less for services and it leads to rationing for those covered and higher prices for those with private policies and no coverage. For some crazy reason I can’t fathom, you think the solution to this mess is a bigger government program that covers more people…but you don’t expect more rationing. In fact you expect what the President promised, that it will all cost less. How?
For some reason you think I’m illogical to prefer a plan that introduces market principles, choice, competition, and emphasizes the doctor patient relationship as the proper place for decisions about care. You think its illogical to believe that this type of plan will bring costs down for everyone and serve most people better than Obamacare, a big, legally complicated, government plan requiring a huge expensive bureaucracy and tax collecting body.
Republican Dr. Michael Pryce lists ten reasons you don’t want Obamacare. Give it some thought:
http://www.michaelpryce.com/node/158
10. It was passed by the Congress in a Non-Parliamentary form through a process called Reconciliation. This allowed the Senate to bypass the routine American debate so a filibuster could not stop passage of the bill.
9. The bill was provided to the entire Congress at 03:00 AM and they were told to be back at 11:00 AM the same morning. The bill is 906 pages long in single-spaced statutory form. It takes a whole team of lawyers to look up citations to previous laws. The bill is next to impossible to read.
8. It is impossible to understand the entire force the bill will ultimately have because there are 159 new bureaucracies, all with regulatory power and punitive power, but there is no accountability at either the ballot box or in the courtroom.
7. The bill is called The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Nothing could be further from the truth. The bill actually involves regulation and punishment, taxation, all in the form of subsides, mandates, and price controls. It actually raises the cost of health care, not make it “affordable” as the title would suggest.
6. The key themes of the bill have little to do with health care, but they actually promote redistribution of wealth, political and racial favoritism and expansion of the welfare/surveillance state.
5. Individual mandates force you to buy the insurance whether you want it or not. This is the facet of the bill that is being tested in the courts as we speak. A federal judge had declared this and the entire bill to be unconstitutional. (This was before the SC decision)
4. There are an estimated 1500 new taxes in this bill. At a time when America is reeling from being over taxed, this bill is the coupe-de-grace for our way of life.
3. The creation of “exchanges” for cheaper health care. These are nothing but glorified captivated health care programs that “save” money by denying health care. These exchanges have been tried elsewhere and have failed universally, more notably California and Massachusetts. Virtually every program in this bill has been tried elsewhere and failed.
2. DEATH PANELS DO EXIST. Under “End-of-Life” treatments, the government has placed a disclaimer in the bill so they can deny responsibility for the death panels. The first disclaimer in this section states” Individuals or institutions refusing to participate in ‘assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing’ may not be discriminated against by government, entities receiving federal financial assistance under this Act, or health plans created under it. (p.141, section 1533). (Why would a health care bill EVER have language like that promoting death instead of health?) However, reading on, the protection, explicitly does not apply to the following activities: abortions, withholding of nutrition, the withholding of fluids, the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment, the withholding or withdrawal of medical care, abortions. So the Government states they will not persecute institutions or doctors who do not participate in activities that are known to cause death by their titles, but they then unbundle the terms and remove the protection of the doctors by persecuting them for the individual activities that make up things like euthanasia, assisted suicide and mercy killings. The second disclaimer has to do with the use of any item for the purpose of alleviating pain even if such use may increase the risk of death as long as such an item is not furnished with the purpose of causing or the purpose of assisting in causing death for any reason. So apparently all the doctor has to do is to document that he gave too much medicine to someone, not for the purpose of causing their death, but to relieve their pain as he kills them and it is okay. DEATH PANELS DO EXIST and they are aimed at seniors and Baby Boomers for the purpose of denying health care by allowing them to suffer medical killings because the government cannot pay for it.
1. The NUMBER 1 reason for not wanting ObamaCare is that the President and the Congress have exempted themselves from being part of the program. If is it so bad that they will not allow themselves to be part of it? Why should it be forced upon the rest of us?
ObamaCare: Doctor speaks out about its attack on womens health.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6e3udzHIiVs
I double-dog dare you.
You won’t like it in the medicaid home … the bad smells, the worse food, the neglect. But you’ll deserve every second of it, for spending your relatively privileged existence pissing on people who have no choice but to live such an end of life.
Fantastic…look for it on the front page soon!
Double dog dare who…to do what?
Medicaid home?
I cared for my mother in my home.
My grandmother was in a very nice facility and paid her own way to age 98 (she died 99.5). She came to this country with nothing at age 15 and planned for her future knowing she had to count on herself to “save her” from the “medicaid home”.
Maybe if we didn’t encourage government dependency we would have far fewer people riding in the government cart and more contributing to pulling the few, truly needy that are incapable of caring for themselves.
You liberals have created the enormous dependency class. It’s time to acknowledge the mistake and begin to work toward a large vibrant productive America with a charitable heart that cares for those few who need it (in style).
Tina, there’s a lot to respond to there. First I’ll just repeat a question I have asked many times: Are you for or against cuts to Medicare? If you are for cuts to Medicare, where would you make these cuts, and how would you avoid reducing access to services and “rationing?”
The main complaint from CATO seems to be that the law does not define “rationing.” Yet CATO itself seems to be defining the term in a way that is so broad as to be meaningless. The institute says:
“If IPAB and the Secretary adopt a narrow definition of rationingsay, that rationing only occurs when Medicare flatly refuses to pay for a given servicethen IPAB could deny access to care as it sees fit simply by setting Medicares prices for certain treatments and procedures so low that no providers will offer them.”
But how can this be called a “narrow definition” of rationing? “Rationing only occurs when Medicare flatly refuses to pay for a given service…” That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Here is how dictionary.com defines the term:
1. a fixed allowance of provisions or food, especially for soldiers or sailors or for civilians during a shortage: a daily ration of meat and bread.
2. an allotted amount: They finally saved up enough gas rations for the trip.
The dictionary definition is even more narrow than the one CATO fears the government might use in its application of the healthcare law. CATO seems to be defining the term “rationing” to mean “any decision which leads–directly or indirectly–to lowered access to healthcare for some people.” I can’t accept that definition; it is so broad as to be utterly useless. By that definition, we have rationing right now in the United States, and we would have it under almost any healthcare plan proposed.
For instance, Ryan’s healthcare plan leads to less people with access to Medicare by raising the eligibility age; the CBO predicts that it will also lower access to care in other ways as well, especially for seniors’ and low-income people. Is it fair to call his plan “rationing?” I don’t think so, but by your and CATO’s logic, it absolutely is. Yet neither of you refer to his plan as “rationing,” because…he is a Republican.
I didn’t read all of the top ten reasons to oppose Obamacare by Dr. Michael Pryce, but I did skip to the number 1 reason he gives, and…it’s completely false. The president and Congress are not exempt from the health care law.
“Q: Does the health care bill specifically exempt members of Congress and their staffs from its provisions?
A: No. This twisted claim is based on misrepresentations of the House and Senate bills, neither of which exempts lawmakers.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/congress-exempt-from-health-bill/
Also, you and other conservatives have repeatedly taken Nancy Pelosi out of context. What she actually said was, But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.
What she meant is that with all the lies and false accusations leveled against the PPACA by you and your party, Americans were getting an extremely skewed depiction of what the law actually does. Most Americans aren’t going to read the actual law; they get their information second-hand, and a lot of that information was utterly terrible. Polls have shown that most Americans still don’t have a good grasp on what’s actually in the law, but they do favor a lot of what’s in it. She was saying that once the law is passed, Americans would begin to feel the effects of it, and the misinformation put out by the right wouldn’t be as effective.
And the right responded by…spinning her remark in order to peddle more misinformation. Classy.
Finally, Tina, I’ll admit that I don’t personally know whether I am for or against the IPAB. I think it might actually be a bad idea, and that these decisions should probably stay in Congress without an extra board added on top with a great deal of authority (though not as much as many on the right claim). Contrary to what you might think of me, Tina, I do want to have a real debate about these issues. I want Americans to be able to talk out these things in an informed manner so that we can work together to come up with better solutions.
But the key word there is “informed.” We all have to operate from the same facts. We can’t look facts in the eye and say, “Well, it doesn’t match my pre-formed opinion, so I’m going to choose to believe a think tank whose job description involves political spin instead of independent analysis of the same issue.” That’s a form of lying to yourself. Facts and opinions are not interchangeable.
It is very hard to have a real debate when one side is repeatedly lying about things that were disproven long ago. You can disagree with the health care law all you want. I disagree with parts of it myself! But that disagreement should be based on something real. “Rationing” is a term that conservatives have chosen because it sounds scary, not because it’s accurate. Same for the even more outrageous term “death panels.” This language has no place in our political discourse. It is not conducive to intelligent, reasoned debate. It’s 100% emotional appeal. If you really think you have a case, you should do better than that. If anything, I think these terms are only hurting your cause. Most people my age look at that, and what we see are grown adults acting like babies. This kind of hyperbolic fearmongering does not reflect well on you to anyone who doesn’t already agree. It is not a good way to get your message across and I think it will backfire on you come November.
Libby: I double-dog dare you.
You won’t like it in the medicaid home … the bad smells, the worse food, the neglect. But you’ll deserve every second of it, for spending your relatively privileged existence pissing on people who have no choice but to live such an end of life.
Libby, Oh sweetie you have no idea what Im capable of. You can bet your sweet bippy Ill do it.
Remember I lost my husband and raised a dying and disabled son while working at a college and running my own business. I have one son left and two grandkids now to care about what their future will be, but Im not longer financially responsible for anyone but myself.
What I have Ive worked my a$$ for and saved for. I owe nobody anything. My house and car are PAID for and I have no credit card bills. The only monthly outlay I have each month is my living expenses. To achieve this I didnt go on expensive vacations, hell I went on very few inexpensive vacations prior to 2004.
The one luxury I did indulge myself in was my Harleys, which I paid cash for, and the 80 thousand miles I put on them from 1995 to 2003. Loved riding all over the country, to Mexico a couple of times and Canada once. Took some guts to get on that first bike sweetie, so getting in my SUV and heading out again will be a piece of cake.
Im sick and tired of footing the bill for thousands of lazy entitlement freaks like you who keep screaming, Give me, give me, give me MORE!!! And for you to say my life was privileged shows you know nothing of what its like to get up every morning for 25 years knowing your son could die that day. I had to buy all of our clothes at the thrift store so I could spend the money of new shoes. I always bought our bread at the day old stores and we ate mac and cheese and pancakes for dinner a lot because it was cheep.
Ive never pissed on anyone in my whole life, because of the hard life Ive lived at times. Yes, there were some very good years, but they only came after the very lean years of sacrifice, and only lasted about 5 years before my husband died and my whole world came crashing down again. Im just tired of being pissed on by people like you who feel your entitled to what I have now, without any regard for what it took me to earn and sacrifice for it.
You really are an idiot Libby if you think Im the only one who feels this way. My brother and six friends from San Jose retired to Nevada just three hours away. They all worked in CA, and took their retirement pensions to a state that doesnt have income tax. Ill be damned if Ill keep paying to the state of CA or the Feds to support people like you and a bunch of illegals who broke our laws and have joined your chorus of, give me, give me, give me MORE.
Ill be out of here with the complete support of my family as long as I keep in touch and stop by on my way through. And Ill be joining many that have already left for other states and even more that are just as fed up as I am.
Whos going to pay to support you sweetie when theres no one left to pick up the bill for all your free stuff? If youre one of those still working here theyll just take more from you to pay for it all, because theyll be more like me who left you to pick up the whole damn tab/tax. Duh, dummy.
Have a good life Libby with what you have left. Ill send post cards from all those places I always wanted to see, spending MY money and not yours, until I return broke in about 10-15 years to have you pay for my final days. By then Im not going to really care where I end up, Im going to have one good time while I can.
Tina: “Medicaid home? I cared for my mother in my home.”
What’s that got to do with anything? Peggy said she was gonna sell up and go on the dole. That’s what you do, the medicaid home is what you get.
“Ill send post cards from all those places I always wanted to see, spending MY money and not yours, until I return broke in about 10-15 years to have you pay for my final days. By then Im not going to really care where I end up, Im going to have one good time while I can.”
A privileged existence … as I said.
I presume youll now want my tax returns for the past 12 years to make sure I didnt cheat you from what YOU think your entitled to of MY earnings, savings and investments.