SuzukiSavage.com /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Medicare /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1345635451 Message started by WebsterMark on 08/22/12 at 04:37:31

Title: Medicare Post by WebsterMark on 08/22/12 at 04:37:31 Great piece out of the New York Times this morning that I think sums up the thought process many people will go through over the next couple of months. You look at the Obama-Biden ticket. You like them personally. But you’re not sure what they want to achieve over the next four years. The country needs big changes, and they don’t seem to be offering many. Where’s the leadership? In this disaffected frame of mind, you ask yourself: What really matters in this election? Well, the big issue is national decline. How can we ensure that the U.S. is as dynamic in the 21st century as it was in the 20th? The biggest the theat to national dynamism is spending money on the wrong things. If you go back and look at the federal budgets during the mid-20th century, you see that they spent money on the future — on programs like NASA, infrastructure projects, child welfare, research and technology. Today, we spend most of our money on the present — on tax loopholes and health care for people over 65. A study by Jessica Perez and others at the group Third Way lays out the basic facts. In 1962, 14 cents of every federal dollar not going to interest payments were spent on entitlement programs. Today, 47 percent of every dollar is spent on entitlements. By 2030, 61 cents of every noninterest dollar will be spent on entitlements. Entitlement spending is crowding out spending on investments in our children and on infrastructure. This spending is threatening national bankruptcy. It’s increasing so quickly that there is no tax increase imaginable that could conceivably cover it. And, these days, the real entitlement problem is Medicare. So when you think about the election this way, the crucial question is: Which candidate can slow the explosion of entitlement spending so we can devote more resources toward our future? Looking at the candidates through this prism, you see that President Obama deserves some credit for taking on entitlement spending. He had the courage to chop roughly $700 billion out of Medicare reimbursements. He had the courage to put some Medicare eligibility reforms on the table in his negotiations with Republicans. He created that (highly circumscribed) board of technocrats who might wring some efficiencies out of the system. Still, you wouldn’t call Obama a passionate reformer. He’s trimmed on the edges of entitlements. He’s not done anything that might fundamentally alter their ruinous course. When you look at Mitt Romney through this prism, you see surprising passion. By picking Paul Ryan as his running mate, Romney has put Medicare at the center of the national debate. Possibly for the first time, he has done something politically perilous. He has made it clear that restructuring Medicare will be a high priority. This is impressive. If you believe entitlement reform is essential for national solvency, then Romney-Ryan is the only train leaving the station. Moreover, when you look at the Medicare reform package Romney and Ryan have proposed, you find yourself a little surprised. You think of them of as free-market purists, but this proposal features heavy government activism, flexibility and rampant pragmatism. The federal government would define a package of mandatory health benefits. Private insurers and an agency akin to the current public Medicare system would submit bids to provide coverage for those benefits. The government would give senior citizens a payment equal to the second lowest bid in each region to buy insurance. This system would provide a basic health safety net. It would also unleash a process of discovery. If the current Medicare structure proves most efficient, then it would dominate the market. If private insurers proved more efficient, they would dominate. Either way, we would find the best way to control Medicare costs. Either way, the burden for paying for basic health care would fall on the government, not on older Americans. (Much of the Democratic criticism on this point is based on an earlier, obsolete version of the proposal.) You’re still deeply uncomfortable with many other Romney-Ryan proposals. But first things first. The priority in this election is to get a leader who can get Medicare costs under control. Then we can argue about everything else. Right now, Romney’s more likely to do this. All of which causes you to look over to the Democrats and wonder: Why don’t they have an alternative? Silently, a voice in your head is pleading with them: Put up or shut up. If Democrats can’t come up with an alternative on this most crucial issue, how can they promise to lead a dynamic growing nation?

Title: Re: Medicare Post by bill67 on 08/22/12 at 05:24:01 I do like mitt and paul's plan on the economy.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by Drifter on 08/22/12 at 05:41:23 Yep, more tax breaks for the rich more taxes and less benefits for the middle class and poor....forgot war on women, medicare social security etc.....gotta love Mitt the twit and lyin ryan! They have turned flip flopping into an art form......hell mitt could add this sport to the olympics.... gold medal winner for sure.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by bill67 on 08/22/12 at 05:50:06 I meant their last Tuesday plan not their Thursday plan.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by Savage_Rob on 08/22/12 at 08:16:38 A private option is not necessarily a bad idea but one of the things they rarely seem to mention about the Ryan voucher plan is that future adjustments are tied to the cost of living instead of the cost of healthcare (which FAR outpaces cost of living increases).  That being the case, it might be functional on day one but it won't be ten years later.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by Savage_Rob on 08/22/12 at 08:23:06 Since this thread is generally about what goes through our minds regarding Medicare (not Medicaid), here's part of what goes through mine when I think about it. First, I have a problem with the way the word "entitlement" is typically used these days.  Many folks seem to use it as if it means "handout" or "charity".  Most of the people who receive Social Security and Medicare are retirees who've paid into the system for most of their lives; usually 40-50 years (or more) of payments into the plan.  That said, it truly is something they are entitled to receive.  However, it seems like folks pay for an insurance policy for half a century and then are treated as if they're asking for charity when it comes time for the insurer to pay out.  The REAL problem is the politicians who've robbed the system to be able to maintain corporate tax loopholes and fund lucrative government contracts handed to cronies without being bid on by anyone else.  They left it depleted such that it cannot now be properly funded and instead turned it into a Ponzi/pyramid scheme on the brink of collapse.  They are never penalized in any way for their actions.  Rather, they are rewarded by the wealthy donors they work for.  Now they just want to sweep it under the rug and pull some kind of Jedi mid-trick telling us to forget that we've been funding this forever and that we should just forget ever seeing anything meaningful from the system and instead focus on recreating it into an anemic version.  I guess if you're in your twenties, it probably sounds reasonable to ditch it and rework everything.  When you've been paying into the plan for 30, 40, 50 years or more already, it's more than just a slap in the face; they should be wearing masks and holding guns because it's outright theft.  And since we were forced to pay it, it's more like armed robbery.  I realize that now it has to be changed if we are to make it functional again but it also MUST have extreme safeguards to keep the thieving bastards from raping it the same way they've raped the existing system.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by Serowbot on 08/22/12 at 09:44:16 Talking about costs and budgets in the abstract, is all good and well, for the intellectuals...  They are all financially comfortable... The reality is,... millions of people without healthcare,.. and more than 1/3 of bankruptcies currently related to health costs... If you want an America that looks like a third world country,... with poor and elderly people living in shanty-towns, begging on street corners, and dying alone... then, go ahead,.. pull the rug the rest of the way out.. It will cure the immigration problem... no one will want to come here... ... and we'll have more money for wars, and business will thrive, hiring desperate people that will work under any conditions for next to nothing to survive... (just like those countries we so admire,.. like China, India, Malaysia, Pakistan)... And we'll export the majority of our products, because so few here will be able to afford them... And the rich will move to Europe so they don't have to live near all this misery... they'll just outsource manufacturing to the US from there... Oooooh! yes!... let's be just like all those other third world countries...

Title: Re: Medicare Post by Savage_Rob on 08/22/12 at 10:01:12 Personally, I honestly believe we need a single-payer system similar (though not necessarily identical) to Britain and Canada for preventative and non-elective healthcare.  Things like cosmetic procedures would be elective and be up to the individual to fund.  HSAs could be useful for this sort of care.  Of course, I don't include restorative cosmetic procedures such as those performed on burn victims or mastectomy patients, etc.  The same applies to dentistry.  Things like braces would not be covered unless it was necessary for normal function.  Whitening would be purely cosmetic/elective.  Of course, this is all anathema to the oligarchs running the hospital and pharmaceutical companies and they have politicians in their pockets.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by bill67 on 08/22/12 at 10:26:39 Maybe it was last week Wednesday's plan.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by Serowbot on 08/22/12 at 10:31:53 4A4144441E1F280 wrote: I do like mitt and paul's plan on the economy. 23282D2D7776410 wrote: I meant their last Tuesday plan not their Thursday plan. 393237376D6C5B0 wrote: Maybe it was last week Wednesday's plan. ;D ;D ;D...

Title: Re: Medicare Post by srinath on 08/22/12 at 12:56:37 724047565140576844574E250 wrote: Great piece out of the New York Times this morning that I think sums up the thought process many people will go through over the next couple of months. You look at the Obama-Biden ticket. You like them personally. But you’re not sure what they want to achieve over the next four years. The country needs big changes, and they don’t seem to be offering many. Where’s the leadership? In this disaffected frame of mind, you ask yourself: What really matters in this election? Well, the big issue is national decline. How can we ensure that the U.S. is as dynamic in the 21st century as it was in the 20th? The biggest the theat to national dynamism is spending money on the wrong things. If you go back and look at the federal budgets during the mid-20th century, you see that they spent money on the future — on programs like NASA, infrastructure projects, child welfare, research and technology. Today, we spend most of our money on the present — on tax loopholes and health care for people over 65. A study by Jessica Perez and others at the group Third Way lays out the basic facts. In 1962, 14 cents of every federal dollar not going to interest payments were spent on entitlement programs. Today, 47 percent of every dollar is spent on entitlements. By 2030, 61 cents of every noninterest dollar will be spent on entitlements. Entitlement spending is crowding out spending on investments in our children and on infrastructure. This spending is threatening national bankruptcy. It’s increasing so quickly that there is no tax increase imaginable that could conceivably cover it. And, these days, the real entitlement problem is Medicare. So when you think about the election this way, the crucial question is: Which candidate can slow the explosion of entitlement spending so we can devote more resources toward our future? Looking at the candidates through this prism, you see that President Obama deserves some credit for taking on entitlement spending. He had the courage to chop roughly $700 billion out of Medicare reimbursements. He had the courage to put some Medicare eligibility reforms on the table in his negotiations with Republicans. He created that (highly circumscribed) board of technocrats who might wring some efficiencies out of the system. Still, you wouldn’t call Obama a passionate reformer. He’s trimmed on the edges of entitlements. He’s not done anything that might fundamentally alter their ruinous course. When you look at Mitt Romney through this prism, you see surprising passion. By picking Paul Ryan as his running mate, Romney has put Medicare at the center of the national debate. Possibly for the first time, he has done something politically perilous. He has made it clear that restructuring Medicare will be a high priority. This is impressive. If you believe entitlement reform is essential for national solvency, then Romney-Ryan is the only train leaving the station. Moreover, when you look at the Medicare reform package Romney and Ryan have proposed, you find yourself a little surprised. You think of them of as free-market purists, but this proposal features heavy government activism, flexibility and rampant pragmatism. The federal government would define a package of mandatory health benefits. Private insurers and an agency akin to the current public Medicare system would submit bids to provide coverage for those benefits. The government would give senior citizens a payment equal to the second lowest bid in each region to buy insurance. This system would provide a basic health safety net. It would also unleash a process of discovery. If the current Medicare structure proves most efficient, then it would dominate the market. If private insurers proved more efficient, they would dominate. Either way, we would find the best way to control Medicare costs. Either way, the burden for paying for basic health care would fall on the government, not on older Americans. (Much of the Democratic criticism on this point is based on an earlier, obsolete version of the proposal.) You’re still deeply uncomfortable with many other Romney-Ryan proposals. But first things first. The priority in this election is to get a leader who can get Medicare costs under control. Then we can argue about everything else. Right now, Romney’s more likely to do this. All of which causes you to look over to the Democrats and wonder: Why don’t they have an alternative? Silently, a voice in your head is pleading with them: Put up or shut up. If Democrats can’t come up with an alternative on this most crucial issue, how can they promise to lead a dynamic growing nation? YES ... BUT Mitt's plan doesn't affect any of this in any way and it offers tax cuts to the wealthy on top of this. Ryan's plan cuts womens programs and offers more $ to the wealthy. Yes I can see Obama could be a 1 term proposition, I can even hold him to his word, till I see the option ... Obama is a headache, these 2 are a brain tumor. In many cases you may have to opt for the lesser of 2 evils even if 1 of the 2 evils has said it will leave under some circumstances. Now I also dont agree with Bill, Mitt's economic/healthcare/foreign/energy plan that comes out the 7th tuesday of every month is the best, simply the best, cos That whole 7th weekend and monday, Todd Aiken and Ryan and Rand Paul, and Rupaul (yes that Rupaul) get together and make the best plan. It also is when Mitt's glue gets reapplied so he sticks to issues the best. Cool. Srinath.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by srinath on 08/22/12 at 13:01:23 635156474051467955465F340 wrote: Great piece out of the New York Times this morning that I think sums up the thought process many people will go through over the next couple of months. Here is misconception #1 for people with grandiose plans of getting the undecided to go to their point of view ... There is less than 1% of the electorate that is in this category in states that actually matter ... I mean if you're undecided in a state that is 60% one way or another, it makes no diff. That 1% you are trying to sway over to your side, even if you do that is very unlikely to actually get to the polls and vote. 1% who will very likely not vote is whom this piece is written for ... seems like a waste of everyone's time and $ and space to me. This election is going to be won by whose base turns out. Cool. Srinath.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by Retread on 08/26/12 at 08:10:33 Very little input in the present system, it doesn't matter WHO is elected! If we the people had a lobby it has long since been diluted by special interests. The common man cannot hang around Washington year round, stopping by each office asking for consideration, or bribing with nice vacations, and free drinks...  The insurance industry will continue to throw billions into keeping present system, or even making people MORE dependent on insurance. Those billions will go to the "People" according to Romney, those people being CEO's and the highest execs.. These insurance industry gurus will continue to tell us (The people) how terrible/evil socialized medicine is, and push for more control of Medicare and the working man..    Obama played into their hands with the ACA, he had to play pattycake with the minority (Republicans/Insurance/paid for Democrats), so we lost the public option, which would have been an over the top success, showing this nation that a single payer system is the way to go...   There is a lesser of two evils here..

Title: Re: Medicare Post by Midnightrider on 08/26/12 at 18:23:04 "The biggest the theat to national dynamism is spending money on the wrong things. If you go back and look at the federal budgets during the mid-20th century, you see that they spent money on the future — on programs like NASA, infrastructure projects, child welfare, research and technology. Today, we spend most of our money on the present — on tax loopholes and health care for people over 65." That came about because the rich were having to pay taxes during that time period and there was plenty of money to invest in America's future. Plain and simple. Learn from the past Web. The tax rates on the rich declined and the stupid wars started and thats why we are where we're at now.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by WebsterMark on 08/26/12 at 18:49:12 No Midnight; LBJ started the Great Society and the War on Poverty which is ironic since it's where we are all going now. Maybe we could look back and point to this as the beginning of the end. We took a safety net and tried to make a hardwood floor out of it. In 1960, the federal budget per person was $4,000 or so.  Today, it’s over $11,000 per person. Now again, tell me exactly how we have a revenue problem and not a spending problem?....

Title: Re: Medicare Post by Midnightrider on 08/26/12 at 20:19:25 I've already told you Web. When this country flourished as you mentioned in your first post the rich were paying taxes. All you have to do is look at the tax rate during the investment in America time you mentioned. Due to the decline of the rich paying taxes and the stupid wars, we are in the shape we are in now. Its history, dont argue with me. Rewrite the history books if you dont like it. Our citizens health and well being should be the last thing the goverment cuts back on. There's too many other things like defense, useless wars, foreign aid etc. I dont see how anyone can stand in front of a crowd and claim to love their country and wanna see seniors who paid into the system for the most part of their life do without. As Retread said in a previous post its not a handout, its an entitlement.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by WebsterMark on 08/27/12 at 06:00:07 I've already told you Web. When this country flourished as you mentioned in your first post the rich were paying taxes no, no no no no. Not true. Spending was miniscule compare to what it is now. But that's not the main thing wrong with your thinking. Its history, dont argue with me. I am going to argue with you because you are wrong. It’s a fallacy that high tax rates yield prosperity. Here’s an exercise for you. How much revenue was generated from those high tax rates you refer to and how many actual earners fell into those categories?

Title: Re: Medicare Post by bill67 on 08/27/12 at 06:24:43 Higher taxes worked when Bill Clinton was in office.GWB lowered taxes and you know what happened.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by srinath on 08/27/12 at 06:36:14 764443525544536C40534A210 wrote: No Midnight; LBJ started the Great Society and the War on Poverty which is ironic since it's where we are all going now. Maybe we could look back and point to this as the beginning of the end. We took a safety net and tried to make a hardwood floor out of it. In 1960, the federal budget per person was $4,000 or so.  Today, it’s over $11,000 per person. Now again, tell me exactly how we have a revenue problem and not a spending problem?.... We took a safety net and tried to change it into a net full of razor blades ... Correct it was 4k in 1960 per person and its 11K now ... and what was a loaf of bread in 1960 ? what was a gal of gasoline in 1960 ? what was the cost of electricity in 1960 ? How about the roof over your head ... cos if I remember in 1960 too people still had to have those things to survive. Its called inflation my friend. The 11k doesn't mean they are living in luxury as the rich people and if it was just the rich it would be alright ... its the brain washed wanna be rich as well ... would like people to think ... Its right up there with Joe the Plummer's tax dilema ... Obama was going to raise taxes on me if I statred making over 250K per year ... bad, bad, bad. Yea right moron, you barely make 55K now, you will take decades if not centuries if things go right before you get to 250K. You are worried about your taxes going up then ... really ... really. The whole taxes on the rich (the 1%) need to be lower so that the soon to be rich (the 99%) will enjoy the lower taxes too has a fine print there, and that is, if they ever get to becoming rich ... I'm a bit horrified that 11K per head is all we are spending on the safety net ... seriously in 50 years what else has not even tripled in $ ... yea I know, Internet. In 1960 you would have paid billions for the speed we have now ... how about TV's and electronic gadgets ... yea You get the point ... not neccesities for life my friend. Cool. Srinath.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by srinath on 08/27/12 at 07:07:56 774542535445526D41524B200 wrote: Here’s an exercise for you. How much revenue was generated from those high tax rates you refer to and how many actual earners fell into those categories? Webster, it makes no difference how much $ is being collected by the progressive taxes on the rich ... there is 1 reason - moral hazard. Reason #2 is that its anti reinvestment. Reason #1 is the more powerful IMHO, which is why Ron Paul was against the bailout in 2007/08, and why he wants to throw out the 17th amendment. It is extremely bad to reward someone for a crime. You want taxes to be low, lower them for everyone. It still needs to be progressive, so if Mitt "the I paid no less than 13% in taxes" Romney gets 13%, I should get 5% or less ... and if you make even less than I do, you need to have to pay even less, so I guess we need a smaller govt, like ... no govt ... cos you cant run the govt on 1/100th the current expenditure. Cool. Srinath.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by WebsterMark on 08/27/12 at 07:31:59 Correct it was 4k in 1960 per person and its 11K now ... and what was a loaf of bread in 1960 ? what was a gal of gasoline in 1960 ? what was the cost of electricity in 1960 ? How about the roof over your head ... cos if I remember in 1960 too people still had to have those things to survive. Its called inflation my friend. The 11k doesn't mean they are living in luxury as the rich people and if it was just the rich it would be alright ... its the brain washed wanna be rich as well ... would like people to think ... i stopped reading right there because the numbers have been adjusted for inflatation which is standard practice when comparing one year to the next.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by srinath on 08/27/12 at 09:57:04 112324353223340B27342D460 wrote: Correct it was 4k in 1960 per person and its 11K now ... and what was a loaf of bread in 1960 ? what was a gal of gasoline in 1960 ? what was the cost of electricity in 1960 ? How about the roof over your head ... cos if I remember in 1960 too people still had to have those things to survive. Its called inflation my friend. The 11k doesn't mean they are living in luxury as the rich people and if it was just the rich it would be alright ... its the brain washed wanna be rich as well ... would like people to think ... i stopped reading right there because the numbers have been adjusted for inflatation which is standard practice when comparing one year to the next. Sorry inflation adjustment isn't that accurate ... not in a 52 year span. And please cite the source that says these numbers. I really dont think its adjusted for inflation. BTW as a quick note in 1982 they switched from purchase prices of houses to rents as a measure of inflation and cost of living. Sometime in 2009 they went back to house prices. Sometime in the middle they also came up with a new calculation - core inflation - food and energy taken out of inflation. There is also the facts that many items like food, medical, college tuition etc are climbing faster than inflation ... and some items like durable good (not in the CLI) are actually far below inflation. Cool. Srinath.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by WebsterMark on 08/27/12 at 11:07:14 one source below. i found this in several places. http://supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_budget_per_resident_over_time.html 2) The chart shows the total federal budget, or how much it spent during each fiscal year - from 1962 to 2009, with projections through 2015, adjusted for inflation to constant FY2005 dollars - divided by the U.S. resident population over time. Inflation reduces the buying power of the dollar over time. So constant FY2005 dollars adjusts to constant buying power over time.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by srinath on 08/27/12 at 12:01:09 370502131405122D01120B600 wrote: one source below. i found this in several places. http://supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_budget_per_resident_over_time.html 2) The chart shows the total federal budget, or how much it spent during each fiscal year - from 1962 to 2009, with projections through 2015, adjusted for inflation to constant FY2005 dollars - divided by the U.S. resident population over time. Inflation reduces the buying power of the dollar over time. So constant FY2005 dollars adjusts to constant buying power over time. Thank you for posting that webster mark - Now I'd like to get a tally of the $ paid out to veterans+retirees+medical from that 1960 number vs 2011 is it - OK yea ... if I recall 1960 was pre vietnam. We had ww2 then. So yes numbers like this for the wars and the retirementshould be compared too. Cool. Srinath.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by WebsterMark on 08/27/12 at 12:13:12 Thank you for posting that webster mark - Now I'd like to get a tally of the $ paid out to veterans+retirees+medical from that 1960 number vs 2011 is it - OK yea ... if I recall 1960 was pre vietnam. We had ww2 then. So yes numbers like this for the wars and the retirementshould be compared too. have at it, do whatever you want.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by srinath on 08/27/12 at 12:22:34 132126373021360925362F440 wrote: Thank you for posting that webster mark - Now I'd like to get a tally of the $ paid out to veterans+retirees+medical from that 1960 number vs 2011 is it - OK yea ... if I recall 1960 was pre vietnam. We had ww2 then. So yes numbers like this for the wars and the retirementshould be compared too. have at it, do whatever you want. What you mean have @ it ... I'm saying the data given in incomplete, and without the mandatory expenditures its meaningless. Say in 60 we spent $12 per capita on veterans and retirees. In 2012 that number may be 10K. I dont know but its a matter where we have no choice - then the amount spent on social programs has dropped from 4000 in 60 to under 1000 in inflation adjusted terms for 2010. Cool. Srinath.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by srinath on 08/27/12 at 12:28:36 OK this is all I could find - http://supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_budget_as_percent_GDP_over_time.html The 07 recession has caused that last bit to climb a bit, but in historic terms its very well manageable and close to the 1960 mark. Plus remember, retiring people and returning war veterans will have that number climbing more and more in the future unless the economy expands rapidly. Cool. Srinath.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by srinath on 08/27/12 at 12:34:38 Oh wow look at this - http://supportingevidence.com/Government/Def_HHS_Percent_GDP.html Huh ... the Defence spending dropped steadily from 92 to 2000 and spiked from 00 to 2008, after which it appeared to have turned downward ... wonder who was in the WH at those times ? And health and human services seems to constantly be rising from 1962. wonder why ... Cool. Srinath.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by srinath on 08/27/12 at 12:40:30 And in 2005 dollars, GDP numbers ... http://supportingevidence.com/Government/US_GDP_over_time.html Man that sorta increase in GDP comes with its own set of rules ... its doubled from 70 to 95, and stayed with that same rate of rise through to now. You do know that your 4k-11K rise from 1960 to 2010 is a bit pathetic incomparison right - in 1960 we were @ less than a trillion. in 2008 we were @ 13 trillion. 15 fold increase vs a 3 fold increase ... OK who says they have to increase in lock step ... Ok fine ... however if you count in the mandatory payments I am gonna say the 4k to 11K rise is closer to a 4k-5K rise than to 11. Cool. Srinath.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by srinath on 08/27/12 at 12:46:59 Oh wow look at this - http://supportingevidence.com/Government/fed_debt_as_percent_GDP_over_time.html From 95-2001 the debt to gdp dropped from about 68% to around 58%. Who was running the WH then ... Bill Clintstone ah I see. Then from 2001 where it was @ 58, it climbed to 82% was it in 2009 ... guess who's in the WH then ? Bushies .. correct. Cool. Srinath.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by WebsterMark on 08/27/12 at 16:52:30 Srinath; i'm not sure if you're high or just naturally.... creative with the english language..., but i can't make heads or tails out of what you're talking about. Honestly, what the hell is this suppose to mean? You do know that your 4k-11K rise from 1960 to 2010 is a bit pathetic incomparison right - in 1960 we were @ less than a trillion. in 2008 we were @ 13 trillion. 15 fold increase vs a 3 fold increase ... OK who says they have to increase in lock step ... Ok fine ... however if you count in the mandatory payments I am gonna say the 4k to 11K rise is closer to a 4k-5K rise than to 11. I think you are really Bill67 with another signon name..... but... the only thing I can easily make out is: From 95-2001 the debt to gdp dropped from about 68% to around 58%. Who was running the WH then ... Bill Clintstone ah I see. to which I can only say see the history of Newt Gingrich and the historical losses the Democrats suffered when it became apparent to the American voters Clinton was on his way to what Obama is doing now. Which, by the way, caused Obama to lose massive amounts of Democratic congressmen as well. It was Newt that slowed Clinton's spending, not Clinton himself.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by srinath on 08/27/12 at 17:14:02 Look @ all the evidence presented with graphs on that site ... not just the ones you like ... That site shows GDP climbed ahead of inflation, it doesn't say anything about mandatory spending - military or retiree when it talks about govt expenditure increases, and in general doesn't show obama did anything bad except cut the military (which we know he did by pulling out of the 2 wars against 2 countries 1/2 way around the world). I can assure you I am not bill67 - though I remember we both share a dislike for dog owners who think their dogs nuts gold and when they yap its a concert ... A few people have met me - from this site. One or more of em could pop up sometime ... And Newt gets credit for being the thorn In clintstone's hide but Obama still gets the blame for a Republican controlled house ? how is that even fair ? Cool. Srinath.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by WebsterMark on 08/28/12 at 04:57:12 back to my original point, Medicare and SS are unsustainable in their present form. Something has to change. By choosing Ryan as VP, Romney is going to try and do something. Obama will try more of what's been done in the past which is band aids to trick you into thinking they've been saved. So, do you go with someone serious about addressing the issue or someone not serious?

Title: Re: Medicare Post by bill67 on 08/28/12 at 05:35:03 Why do Ryan and Mitt care about S.S. they were born with it.Obama and Clinton weren't,They know whats its about,Without out S.S. most  old people would be on welfare.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by WebsterMark on 08/28/12 at 06:18:15 Bill; NO ONE is talking about kicking people off Medicare or SS. NO ONE. The reality is the two programs are not sustainable in their present form. They are not. Get that through your head. There are more and more people drawing benefits from both programs and fewer and fewer people contributing. Stop talking stupid class warfare crap. Stop it. If we do nothing, they will collapse. Something has to be done. My son is 24 and neither Medicare or SS will be around in 40 years. It's mathmatically not possible. What would you suggest we do? Nothing. Keep talking how Romney and Ryan don't care and just keep the status que until we reach the tipping point like Greece? is that your plan?

Title: Re: Medicare Post by bill67 on 08/28/12 at 06:27:50 It simple you pay more in for S.S.,When I was young I paid enough for the old people ,Now the young people can pay more in to care for the old like we always have.You seem to think people shouldn't pay in to their government,You are lost in your own world.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by srinath on 08/28/12 at 06:43:34 427077666170675874677E150 wrote: back to my original point, Medicare and SS are unsustainable in their present form. Something has to change. By choosing Ryan as VP, Romney is going to try and do something. Obama will try more of what's been done in the past which is band aids to trick you into thinking they've been saved. So, do you go with someone serious about addressing the issue or someone not serious? Well Ryan and Romney are going to change it of course ... they are going to make it much much worse ... following the Ryan plan if they do that. If they follow The O-Romney-bama plan ... it will trim it round the edges ... till someone implements the better plan IMHO. Read on. Only 1 thing can change it for the better ... prices on the wall and no insurance to doctor direct payments ... heck there should be no interaction between those 2. Even medicare needs to be on a patient only basis. In the absence of that ... I'd have taken single payer ... in the absense of that O-Romney-Bama plan will have to do. There is no political will in the republican party to do anything close to that prices on the wall idea. Most of the rest of the civilised world has single payer ... the rest of the world has prices on the wall ... you dont got to a restaurant that dont have a price list, you dont go to an auto repair shop that dont have prices, you dont go to a grocery store that dont have prices and yet you do that on the most $$$ things you may ever do ... The secrecy is what gives the system its ungodly hold over people. It needs to be tossed into the open and it will whither and die and in its place a new system will come to life. Cool. Srinath.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by WebsterMark on 08/28/12 at 07:10:34 It simple you pay more in for S.S.,When I was young I paid enough for the old people ,Now the young people can pay more in to care for the old like we always have.You seem to think people shouldn't pay in to their government,You are lost in your own world. Bill; it is not simple. "Young people" cannot pay enough money to care for 'old' like we always have. That's the point. The expense are too much and the amount coming in is too little. Can't you understand that? It has nothing to do with 'you are lost in your own world'. The bills are higher than the money coming in. The amount of money coming into the system in the future is not enough to pay the bills in the future. Get it?

Title: Re: Medicare Post by Retread on 08/28/12 at 07:19:24  Ok, we are ALL in agreement that medicare/medicaid needs change, but how do you achieve it?   Ryans plan is to go to a voucher system, another givaway to big insurance, and a major cost to seniors. Along with less coverage.    Obama's plan is to cut the abuse, the overbilling, the double testing, and fraud. The ACA is also supposed to bring lower costs to supplement plans by creating market coops for people to purchase.    To myself the later plan is better, it isn't perfect and sooner or later will have to be changed to socialized medicine. You can't continue to pay a middle man everytime you want care, and the overhead of administering a couple hundred different insurance plans is top heavy.    If all of America went to a single payer system, issued a card at birth, everybody pays, even on welfare the cost is deducted from your check! You can walk into any doctors office, any hospital, and get care. Your whole medical history is on that card, one swipe and any doctor/hospital can access your records in seconds. When you have to go to a nursing home, its covered, you do not have to worry about losing your lifes savings, work, just because your old! Yep, we ALL would have to pay for OUR own care, nope we wouldn't have any co-pay, hidden charges, coverage loopholes, or out of area charges.     How long can big insurance and the Republican party continue the onslaught of anti-socialized medicine media, and lies? How long before the people of this nation wake up? We are not #1 in healthcare, we 27th in the world! The only people who come here for medical care are the rich, they can afford to have their own personal ball washer, most of the US cannot..    If you look at history for 77 years the Republican party has called SS a pox on America.. For 77 years it has kept the elderly from poverty, hunger, and even death. They have no other plan except to kill it, along with Medicare, they would like nothing more than to give it all to the big insurance, and market giants.. The problem is that markets crash, and big insurance likes to raise their prices every year.. >:(    Think about this little fact, on 9/11 3000 people died, we invaded two countrys, spent a couple trillion dollars on these wars.. Every year 45,000 people die because of lack of healthcare, and the best we can do? I guess vengence is a bigger driver than basic care? The Republican party would much rather build a military than take care of its own..

Title: Re: Medicare Post by WebsterMark on 08/28/12 at 09:20:46 We are not #1 in healthcare, we 27th in the world! The only people who come here for medical care are the rich, they can afford to have their own personal ball washer, most of the US cannot.. one question for you genius; If we are 27th and the rich can afford to go anywhere, why would they come to the 27th place? Why not go to #1?...

Title: Re: Medicare Post by srinath on 08/28/12 at 09:30:01 003235242332251A36253C570 wrote: We are not #1 in healthcare, we 27th in the world! The only people who come here for medical care are the rich, they can afford to have their own personal ball washer, most of the US cannot.. one question for you genius; If we are 27th and the rich can afford to go anywhere, why would they come to the 27th place? Why not go to #1?... Because they do - and you never hear about it. Because we are #27 in a cumulative quality+outcome vs cost ratio, not just in quality. Even more interestingly, the countries that have socialised medicine dont let anyone in even the rich, even if you will pay out the ears for it. There is no price on it. However medical tourism is good and alive atleast among the foreign born ... Everything from root canals to plastic surgery I know of people who go to India ... of course they are of Injun origin ... Cool. Srinath.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by srinath on 08/28/12 at 09:41:25 1B2C3D3B2C282D490 wrote:     Think about this little fact, on 9/11 3000 people died, we invaded two countrys, spent a couple trillion dollars on these wars.. Every year 45,000 people die because of lack of healthcare, and the best we can do? I guess vengence is a bigger driver than basic care? The Republican party would much rather build a military than take care of its own..  Odd as this is, it is an excellent way to put it BTW and I call this "the starving children and the rocket to the moon" syndrome. Countries routinely send up rockets to everywhere, while ignoring the poverty and suffering right @ their door step. I also know people who would rather paint their bike than do a valve adjustment. I think the glamour of the task overtakes the utility of it. If the press was @ every homeless shelter and street corner idolising anyone that fed the homeless or did something good I think we will see a lot fewer useless rockets to the moon and a lot fewer starving people too. BTW I felt darn good when I stuffed the united way bin with 4, 603X700 cans of beans, and that bin was already 1/2 full with cans and dry food. I moved the dry foods and got to near the bottom cos these guys were heavy. No $$$ for you united way ... oh yea the receipt for the cans was in the bag so they know I bought it 2 days ago and gave them food instead of the equal amount of $. Let them pay the CEO with beans. IMHO, Its not charity till you see the recipient eating/using/wearing/driving/living in it. Cool. Srinath.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by WebsterMark on 08/28/12 at 09:57:52 Ok, we are ALL in agreement that medicare/medicaid needs change, but how do you achieve it? Ryans plan is to go to a voucher system, another givaway to big insurance, and a major cost to seniors. Along with less coverage. When you start your commentary on how we achieve what we all agree on with ‘another giveaway to big insurance’ you pretty much disqualify the rest of your commentary as not being worth a darn. Obama's plan is to cut the abuse, the overbilling, the double testing, and fraud. The ACA is also supposed to bring lower costs to supplement plans by creating market coops for people to purchase. Really? So your plan to solve one of the biggest problems facing us is cut abuse and fraud? Every single president says they are gonna cut abuse and fraud and none ever do. Do you have any idea how much of the trillion dollars stimulus money we borrowed was stolen and wasted?  You think for one second you’re gonna pay for medicare reform by cutting abuse? Have you heard of the GSA scandal? It’s repeated everyday all over the country. Expanding Medicare is like calling the cows to feed…. To myself the later plan is better, it isn't perfect and sooner or later will have to be changed to socialized medicine. You can't continue to pay a middle man everytime you want care, and the overhead of administering a couple hundred different insurance plans is top heavy. What do you think Government bureaucrats are other than middle men? And worse, they are middle men with no profit motive. I don’t understand how you guys thing running healthcare like the DMV (or the VA)  is a good thing…. Are you out of your freaking minds…… If all of America went to a single payer system, issued a card at birth, everybody pays, even on welfare the cost is deducted from your check! You can walk into any doctors office, any hospital, and get care. Your whole medical history is on that card, one swipe and any doctor/hospital can access your records in seconds. When you have to go to a nursing home, its covered, you do not have to worry about losing your lifes savings, work, just because your old! Yep, we ALL would have to pay for OUR own care, nope we wouldn't have any co-pay, hidden charges, coverage loopholes, or out of area charges. Why the world is great! Just walk into a doctors office and swipe a card! Ain’t life grand? . It’s like the Big Rock Candy Mountain. “In the Big Rock Candy Mountains, you never change your socks and little streams of alcohol come trickling down the rocks. There’s a lake of stew and whiskey too, you can paddle all around them in a big canoe, in the Big Rock Candy Mountains”… If you look at history for 77 years the Republican party has called SS a pox on America.. For 77 years it has kept the elderly from poverty, hunger, and even death. They have no other plan except to kill it, along with Medicare, they would like nothing more than to give it all to the big insurance, and market giants.. The problem is that markets crash, and big insurance likes to raise their prices every year.. No, for 77 years it has given a false sense of security to millions and kept the elderly from a more comfortable retirement. And the government raises it’s price every year too, it just gets borrowed and you dont see it. Now the bill is coming due, but you’ve got your head in the sand. Think about this little fact, on 9/11 3000 people died, we invaded two countrys, spent a couple trillion dollars on these wars.. Every year 45,000 people die because of lack of healthcare, and the best we can do? I guess vengence is a bigger driver than basic care? The Republican party would much rather build a military than take care of its own.. Let me guess, you want the military to hold a bake sale to buy a battleship right?....

Title: Re: Medicare Post by WebsterMark on 08/28/12 at 10:00:04 Because they do - and you never hear about it. sorry dude,that's BS and I ain't buying it. Imagine the most important person in the world to you is sick and in need of the top medical care for a long time. money is no object. Are you telling me the US is 27th on the list? Really? You want to name me 26 other countries you'd rather send your child to?

Title: Re: Medicare Post by Retread on 08/28/12 at 10:41:02 "When you start your commentary on how we achieve what we all agree on with ‘another giveaway to big insurance’ you pretty much disqualify the rest of your commentary as not being worth a darn."  Well what else would you call it? Do you have another name for handing tax dollars and private monies to insurance companys? Its liking to a no bid contract for all services.. It pretty much stinks... "Really? So your plan to solve one of the biggest problems facing us is cut abuse and fraud? Every single president says they are gonna cut abuse and fraud and none ever do. Do you have any idea how much of the trillion dollars stimulus money we borrowed was stolen and wasted?  You think for one second you’re gonna pay for medicare reform by cutting abuse? Have you heard of the GSA scandal? It’s repeated everyday all over the country. Expanding Medicare is like calling the cows to feed…."   Thats not my plan, that is the Presidents plan, it will help, but like I tried to explain to you, IT IS NOT THE total cure.. Every program and corporation out there, private and public is prone to abuse and fraud.. Get over it, its human nature, look at your canidates IRS record... "What do you think Government bureaucrats are other than middle men? And worse, they are middle men with no profit motive. I don’t understand how you guys thing running healthcare like the DMV (or the VA)  is a good thing…. Are you out of your freaking minds……"  Really? Like I have stated before SS is a success, Medicare was a success before the politicians got their hands on it.. No, YOU are out of your freaking mind, I like to think things through, so far all you have given me is hyperbole and failed for profit idealology.. "Why the world is great! Just walk into a doctors office and swipe a card! Ain’t life grand? . It’s like the Big Rock Candy Mountain. “In the Big Rock Candy Mountains, you never change your socks and little streams of alcohol come trickling down the rocks. There’s a lake of stew and whiskey too, you can paddle all around them in a big canoe, in the Big Rock Candy Mountains”…   Maybe you should look at Canada's system, it is pretty much what I have described. That and quit making like there is nothing better than clicking those golden heels together and saying "We are #1, we are #1.".. "No, for 77 years it has given a false sense of security to millions and kept the elderly from a more comfortable retirement. And the government raises it’s price every year too, it just gets borrowed and you dont see it. Now the bill is coming due, but you’ve got your head in the sand."  Hardly true, I have given you the actual numbers, you choose to ignore them and go with what Rush, Hannity, and the Fox crew tell you. I'll give you a hint, they are NOT into facts, they are into ratings! In those 77 years that "false" sense has kept millions from poverty, that in itself is a success story to me.. I don't know what planet you live on... "Let me guess, you want the military to hold a bake sale to buy a battleship right?...."   No, we need to cutback on military spending, we do not have a world power to worry about anymore, we are spending 48 times the rest of the world on defense.. We need to spend more wisely, not just more!

Title: Re: Medicare Post by Serowbot on 08/28/12 at 11:08:11 Here's the big silly... or the elephant in the room... Ryan's plan would create a private option for Medicare... allowing perhaps half of the young people to opt-out of Medicare... ... but this is a system that has a shortage of young people to support the current number of elderly... How does removing half the young fix this?.. it don't... Duhhh!... :-?... Maybe we're too stupid to do healthcare... ...maybe we should outsource it to Canada (where they know how),... and pay them to treat our elderly... If Canada can't handle it all,.. we can add India, Thailand, France, and Hong Kong... they all do much better than us... ... and the old folks get to see the world for free... and it's still cheaper... ;)...

Title: Re: Medicare Post by srinath on 08/28/12 at 11:16:26 596B6C7D7A6B7C436F7C650E0 wrote: Because they do - and you never hear about it. sorry dude,that's BS and I ain't buying it. Imagine the most important person in the world to you is sick and in need of the top medical care for a long time. money is no object. Are you telling me the US is 27th on the list? Really? You want to name me 26 other countries you'd rather send your child to? If $$$$$ was no object ... we are not 27th, we are like 3rd or 4th depending on the ailment. If you have an ailment that stem cell therapy is good at curing we are like 10th or worse ... in some non christian obection related treatments we are 3rd, 4th maybe. Switzerland, norwegian countries and maybe denmark and the netherlands beat us easy, but 3rd is still OK, being equals but more $$$ dont make us worse except when $ is a problem. Stem cell therapies have very much come to the fore for many treatments and there cost no object we are behind. What do you want me to do, find a guy who has gone some where else for some treatment and push him into the internet for you to see ? With $ not being a concern and the immigration non resident disqualifications too not being a concern, I'd put countries in this order - Non stem cell and other christian objectionable therapies:- Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Finland (the last 2 were countries I wanted to move to in 98 except I opted to go to canada and then come back to the US cos I wanted to keep all my bikes and cars etc ... ) denmark, netherlands and the US Probably in that order. If Stem cell and other therapies objectionable to the evangelical segment was what you needed US drops easily to below 20 with cost not being a concern still. Factor in cost and you have the US as a 27th rated country ... Say we can cure stuff on par with 4-5 countries but we cost the most, we will then be ranked at the bottom of that list wont we ? cos not everyone is Mitt "I can afford any care I need in the world" Romney. Some of us are Barack "I hope I can pay all my bills and still put food on the table this month" Obama. Cool. Srinath.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by srinath on 08/28/12 at 11:26:44 5345524F57424F54200 wrote: Here's the big silly... or the elephant in the room... Ryan's plan would create a private option for Medicare... allowing perhaps half of the young people to opt-out of Medicare... ... but this is a system that has a shortage of young people to support the current number of elderly... How does removing half the young fix this?.. it don't... Duhhh!... :-?... Maybe we're too stupid to do healthcare... ...maybe we should outsource it to Canada (where they know how),... and pay them to treat our elderly... If Canada can't handle it all,.. we can add India, Thailand, France, and Hong Kong... they all do much better than us... ... and the old folks get to see the world for free... and it's still cheaper... ;)... Guys today - with no changes needed, and the insurance I have still being active, it is cheaper for me to fly to India and get a root canal done and fly back. Only thing I would be out is the pay for that 2-week window. Factor in a crown etc etc and you'll be far ahead going to India for it. Tell me how many of you guys have seen an Indian doctor and come away with the feeling that the doctor really knows their craft. That is cos Indians are one studious bunch. You know the geek in school ... yes all of em are like that over there. Cool. Srinath.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by Serowbot on 08/28/12 at 11:32:22 Medical tourism... 1.6 million Americans will participate this year... On Faux News no less... :-?... [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDVKgaEHdIw&feature=related[/media]

Title: Re: Medicare Post by bill67 on 08/28/12 at 14:02:12 2C2D36313E2B375F0 wrote: [quote author=5345524F57424F54200 link=1345635451/45#45 date=1346177291]Here's the big silly... or the elephant in the room... Ryan's plan would create a private option for Medicare... allowing perhaps half of the young people to opt-out of Medicare... ... but this is a system that has a shortage of young people to support the current number of elderly... How does removing half the young fix this?.. it don't... Duhhh!... :-?... Maybe we're too stupid to do healthcare... ...maybe we should outsource it to Canada (where they know how),... and pay them to treat our elderly... If Canada can't handle it all,.. we can add India, Thailand, France, and Hong Kong... they all do much better than us... ... and the old folks get to see the world for free... and it's still cheaper... ;)... Guys today - with no changes needed, and the insurance I have still being active, it is cheaper for me to fly to India and get a root canal done and fly back. Only thing I would be out is the pay for that 2-week window. Factor in a crown etc etc and you'll be far ahead going to India for it. Tell me how many of you guys have seen an Indian doctor and come away with the feeling that the doctor really knows their craft. That is cos Indians are one studious bunch. You know the geek in school ... yes all of em are like that over there. Cool. Srinath.[/quote] The Indians might be cheap in India but they come over here and screw the Americans,I don't go into stores or gas stations owned by Indians,they are as bad as the Jews.

Title: Re: Medicare Post by srinath on 08/28/12 at 14:16:05 6C67626238390E0 wrote: The Indians might be cheap in India but they come over here and screw the Americans,I don't go into stores or gas stations owned by Indians,they are as bad as the Jews. That's because they are businessmen. Those types are blood sucking vampires even in India ... you dont expect a lawyer to not screw you just cos you are in another country do you ? same thing ...  ;D Cool. Srinath.

SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved.