Tea Party kicks Boehner in the teeth - again

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

I strongly suggest you objectively look at the financial policies that each party actually practiced when in office since 1960.

Strictly referencing the uninformed voting block. I no longer have an allegiance to either party. Most logical thinking voters have been abandoned.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

I believe you're paying in about 25% of the actual cost of Medicare.

Medicare is one of the most successful, least-expensive health delivery systems anywhere in the world. Their overhead and healthcare delivery cost is nothing compared to private insurance companies.

That said, yes, we need to look at adjusting Medicare. I suggest we simply open it up to people 55 and over, for a huge cash influx.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Strictly referencing the uninformed voting block. I no longer have an allegiance to either party. Most logical thinking voters have been abandoned.

Strictly referencing the informed voting block: I think most voters over the past 50 years haven't much changed their personal politics, the two major parties have changed markedly around them.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Strictly referencing the informed voting block: I think most voters over the past 50 years haven't much changed their personal politics, the two major parties have changed markedly around them.

My statement goes back to your saying that uninformed people should not be allowed to vote. The parties have indeed changed to a fault and left a lot of people in the wind. The sheer number of voters has multiplied so much over the past 50 years the personal politics of those that have been voting that long are irrelevant now, with fantastic marketing campaigns and get out the vote movements bringing the uninformed to the polls it doesn't matter.

We agree, no uninformed voters. Take a test, be employed, serve the country, contribute you get to vote. Citizen vs. Resident one votes the other deals with it. Good plan.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

My statement goes back to your saying that uninformed people should not be allowed to vote.

Yes, I know. To make it clear to everyone, that was sarcastic - I strongly believe in no poll tax, no discrimination towards voting by any citizen.

Which is why I oppose the targeted Republican (RGA sponsored) voting suppression efforts in multiple states across this country before 2012 election.

I am, however, appalled at the general lack of factual knowledge that many voting citizens demonstrate.

And as an aside, I went to the country clerks office today to renew license plates. If you want a voter ID card, they make it hard as hell - have to go to multiple offices, two different buildings (one for photo, one for paperwork).

The parties have indeed changed to a fault and left a lot of people in the wind. The sheer number of voters has multiplied so much over the past 50 years the personal politics of those that have been voting that long are irrelevant now, with fantastic marketing campaigns and get out the vote movements bringing the uninformed to the polls it doesn't matter.

I strongly agree with all that.

We agree, no uninformed voters. Take a test, be employed, serve the country, contribute you get to vote. Citizen vs. Resident one votes the other deals with it. Good plan

Sorry. Can't agree. After what happened in 1960's in this country, I would rather continue to interpret the obvious intent of the Constitution, as the founders intended.

[Riot]

Obama throws the GOP a debt-ceiling rope
July 29, 2011 | 12:15 pm

With practically the first words out his mouth Friday morning, President Obama admonished House Republicans -- again -- not to bother with a debt-ceiling bill that sets the stage for another crisis early next year. Such a bill "does not solve the problem, and it has no chance of becoming law," Obama said.

He was preaching to the choir of the willfully deaf, however. Unable to secure enough GOP votes to pass a debt-ceiling bill that had no chance of winning Senate Democrats' support, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reworked his proposal for the second time to make it more toxic to Democrats and even some Senate Republicans.

The new version would reportedly require Congress to approve a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution before the debt ceiling could be raised again early next year, when the government would again reach its borrowing limit. That's a non-starter in the Senate.

If members of the GOP's "tea party" wing weren't so wedded to "cut, cap and balance," they'd see that Obama offered them a way out of this mess. Here's what he said Friday:

We agree on a process where the next step is a debate in the coming months on tax reform and entitlement reform –- and I’m ready and willing to have that debate. And if we need to put in place some kind of enforcement mechanism to hold us all accountable for making these reforms, I’ll support that too if it’s done in a smart and balanced way.

In other words, he's offering a hostage exchange. Instead of putting the "full faith and credit" of the federal government in doubt, Obama said, Republicans should come back to the table with another way to make sure Congress enacts a credible plan to close the budget gap.

Naturally, Obama and Republicans haven't seen eye to eye on enforcement mechanisms so far. But getting an agreement on that issue seems easier than finding a compromise on such things as a balanced-budget amendment or capping federal spending at a certain percentage of gross domestic product.

And make no mistake, settling on a long-term budget plan will be harder than getting an agreement on the debt ceiling. Nobody has offered a real road map for closing the fiscal gap as rapidly as many House members seem to want, and Democrats and House Republicans are far apart on the role that tax revenues should play in reducing the deficit.

Forgive me for pointing this out over and over again, but the budget the House GOP passed with great fanfare in April would run up trillions of dollars in new debt over the coming decade, while still leaving a $440-billion deficit in 2021.

And the "cut, cap and balance" bill the House passed also fails to identify a single program to cut. Instead, it limits total spending to a gradually declining percentage of the economy through 2021, with no guarantee that federal revenues will come anywhere close to those levels.

The specifics of the deficit-cutting plan, however, are a problem for another day. The current drama is all about the hole that House Republicans have dug for themselves. Obama suggested a credible path up and out, and they should take it.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sorry. Can't agree. After what happened in 1960's in this country, I would rather continue to interpret the obvious intent of the Constitution, as the founders intended.

If only simple words were not left open to interpretation. No need to explain it is written in plain English yet we have "scholars" and lawyers dedicating their lives to trying to wrangle the words to mean what they want them to mean.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Medicare is one of the most successful, least-expensive health delivery systems anywhere in the world. Their overhead and healthcare delivery cost is nothing compared to private insurance companies.

That said, yes, we need to look at adjusting Medicare. I suggest we simply open it up to people 55 and over, for a huge cash influx.

surely you jest. medicare is outrageous, with only part a included if you have forty credits...otherwise, a alone is over 500 per month. that only covers hospitalization, with deductibles per incident, not per year. part b costs extra, that is for doctor care, also expensive...you have to buy supplements to pay deductibles, with plan f paying the most...if you can afford plan f that is...
and the hosp deductible per event? equal to the price of three pints of blood...one pint can cost 2500.
most insurance has a yearly deductible, but not medicare.

[Danzig]

also, there are no out of pocket maximums in medicare, no stop loss.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

surely you jest. medicare is outrageous, with only part a included if you have forty credits...otherwise, a alone is over 500 per month.

No, you completely misunderstood. I'm talking from the health care delivery side.

It is one of the most-successful, least expensive health delivery systems in the world. It has very little overhead, it costs little to run, with nearly every dollar in the system going to medical care for those in the system.

As opposed to private insurance, where a great portion of premiums go to both administrative costs and profit-taking, with very little going to paying for actual health care for the insured.

[Danzig]

least expensive for whom? certainly not the patient, who pays for medicare in every check til retirement...then must pay for part b, for deductibles per occurrence, not oer year...who has no out of pocket max, must buy supplements to cover charges per day after so many days...
and you better show improvement, as medicare stops paying if you don't. its off to the nursing home then, which medicare pays exactly zero for.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

least expensive for whom?

As I said, Medicare is one of the least expensive insurance delivery systems, very efficient, with most of the dollars going to patient care - the government does it way better than privates.

And yeah, that efficiency is why the government can charge 70 and 80-year olds much less than any private company would, if someone could even get private insurance at that age at a remotely affordable price without exclusions for everything (cancer, cardiac, etc)

The alternative used to be no insurance whatsoever, until we decided to start Medicare. Because old people couldn't get and afford insurance when they needed it most.

So complaining about Medicare seems pretty silly. Try to get private insurance such as the Ryan plan recommends. The GOP Medicare plan is, "Crawl off and die in the woods, Granny"

It would be great to bring the cost of Medicare down even more, and increase coverage.

First start would be not to privatize it as the GOP wants (what a disaster!) but to increase government involvement, to allow the government to bargain for drug prices as the private insurance companies are allowed to do now. That would be huge savings, billions.

Then, open up Medicare to a healthier population. Start with people 50 or 55 and older. As a preface to opening it up to the entire population.

I don't know where you are getting your figures, most of the older people I know pay $300-$400 a month for their health insurance supplemental needs while on Medicare. Considering it would be at least a thousand dollars from a private insurer, with nothing covered (no cancer, no cardiac, etc) it's a damn good deal in my eyes! And Medicaid pays for nursing homes if the patient didn't plan for that.

[Danzig]

all i know is, when my husband and i turn 65 will be a sad day. i'll hate to give up my current coverage, private, without all that cost. group care is awesome. i've had no issues with anything, although it might have something to do with that fact we're both healthy.
a major illness now for one of us? no problems...once we're on medicare...well, if it's still around, i'll have to make sure we've put enough aside for monthly supplements to that 'wonderful' health from the govt. i'd rather keep my own.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

all i know is, when my husband and i turn 65 will be a sad day. i'll hate to give up my current coverage, private, without all that cost. group care is awesome. i've had no issues with anything, although it might have something to do with that fact we're both healthy.
a major illness now for one of us? no problems...once we're on medicare...well, if it's still around, i'll have to make sure we've put enough aside for monthly supplements to that 'wonderful' health from the govt. i'd rather keep my own.

You don't have to take Medicare. Good luck with any insurer, even your current, agreeing to continue to be your primary, however - they'll dump you as fast as they can due to your age. Call them and ask what they will do for you?

So it appears to be in all our interests to expand and improve Medicare.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

And as an aside, I went to the country clerks office today to renew license plates. If you want a voter ID card, they make it hard as hell - have to go to multiple offices, two different buildings (one for photo, one for paperwork).

That's so the county can employ double the amount of mopes and lease or build two buildings from likely a family member of a government official. It's not meant to make it hard as hell for you to register but rather to steal more tax money from you.

Or just maybe they can't find the one guy/lady in your county that has the ability to hand out paperwork AND take a photo?

[bigrun]

[Riot]

LOL - that middle one is pretty funny.

I can't figure out if Cantor is directing his, um, "comment" to the country at large, or just Boehner - I suppose both.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

As I said, Medicare is one of the least expensive insurance delivery systems, very efficient, with most of the dollars going to patient care - the government does it way better than privates.

And yeah, that efficiency is why the government can charge 70 and 80-year olds much less than any private company would, if someone could even get private insurance at that age at a remotely affordable price without exclusions for everything (cancer, cardiac, etc)

The alternative used to be no insurance whatsoever, until we decided to start Medicare. Because old people couldn't get and afford insurance when they needed it most.

So complaining about Medicare seems pretty silly. Try to get private insurance such as the Ryan plan recommends. The GOP Medicare plan is, "Crawl off and die in the woods, Granny"

It would be great to bring the cost of Medicare down even more, and increase coverage.

First start would be not to privatize it as the GOP wants (what a disaster!) but to increase government involvement, to allow the government to bargain for drug prices as the private insurance companies are allowed to do now. That would be huge savings, billions.

Then, open up Medicare to a healthier population. Start with people 50 or 55 and older. As a preface to opening it up to the entire population.

I don't know where you are getting your figures, most of the older people I know pay $300-$400 a month for their health insurance supplemental needs while on Medicare. Considering it would be at least a thousand dollars from a private insurer, with nothing covered (no cancer, no cardiac, etc) it's a damn good deal in my eyes! And Medicaid pays for nursing homes if the patient didn't plan for that.

where do i get my figures? the arkansas life/health ins. classes i went to last week, that's where.

and yes, capt obvious, i know full well that when tony retires we lose group health..probably because he'd no longer be a member of the 'group'.
and yes, medicaid pays for nursing homes for those in need, that need 'aid'. hence the name. do you know the amount of time they go back to find any assets you might have sold to remain solvent? five years, perhaps changing soon to seven. you have to be down to your last 2k to be eligible for medicaid. no house, no life ins with cash value, no annuities, no nothing. then the nursing home (avg cost 5k a month) takes all your ss less 40 a month.

i will be buying long term care coverage, i will buy supplements for medicare. i know what i'm looking at in 21 years...


i also know that in order to make this program work, things need to change:

you must work more than 10 years before you qualify for full benefits.
you must work more than 10 years to qualify for full medicare part A. part b is only available if you already buy A. and it'll cost you...plenty
the funds taken from your checks to go to ss, and thus medicare, need to go to a separate account...not into the gen'l fund to be spent, with iou's taking their place.

i will buy the 'f' plan of supplemental coverage, as that's the plan that covers all those deductibles that occur with every incident, unlike every other ins plan that charges one deductible per year....perhaps medicare could do the same IF they actually required that people pay more than 120 months for full coverage.




the 500-odd i quoted was what medicare part A costs you IF you don't have 40 credits, thus not qualifying for full ss-which operates medicare.

we talked for a while last week about medicare, and what would fix it...but it MUST start with changing qualifications on the front end. you can, in no way, pay your way with a max demand of 10 years. that is why this coverage is what it is. if things remain as they are, tony and i will go with the medicare co-pay plan upon retirement.


i am aware of the difficulties involved in seniors accessing health care...but i'm horrified at the costs involved with medicare. it was a real eye-opener last week.


warning to everyone: plan now, ss is just a supplement...don't count on medicare to take care of you, it's just a part of what you need.