Re: Health Care in a Free Society by Paul Ryan
All true. On Mar 17, 4:49 pm, M. Johnson micha...@america.net wrote: The all but TOTAL government control of banks in America has existed since the very EARLY 1900s. The (unconstitutional) political tool -- the FED -- was foisted upon us in 1913. The New Deal (actually the second one -- FDRs) gave of Fannie Mae and a myriad of other fascist policies that remain in place ... the Congress subsequently gave us Freddie Mac. In the 1970s the government gave us something known as the Community Investment Act. Subsequent congresses gave us changes and enhancements What basically occurred is the government FORCED lenders to give money (printed by the FED) to people and projects that would not otherwise be funded ... they PROMISED to then purchase those loan instruments ... they then packaged and guaranteed them. As is typical with these interventions ... the whole thing came tumbling down -- only the government has continued to try and 'shore up' their catastrophe which serves only to delay and increase the magnitude of the problem when it actually hits full force. Regard$, --MJ We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi At 04:02 PM 3/17/2010, you wrote: ho, ho...if you are referring to Barney Frank while the repugs had control of both houses and the presidency, you must debate only with your self or a self absorbed group of wingnuts ...nothing to do with credit default swaps, or that Wells Fargo and others had Wall Street accept their risk..and then in turn we had to bail them out or have the credit markets lock? Zippy, you had better return to the economic romper room, you are out of your league if you want to debate why and what happened in the fall of 2008. rule one, no making crap up, rule 2, all aspects are considered, not just cherry picked ones...I will even give you that Clinton signed the repeal of Glass Steagall just to give you leg up. -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Health Care in a Free Society by Paul Ryan
There ya go with your goofy interpretations again. You seem to be too dense to understand that I didn't call for NO restrictions or regulations. Thats just your goofiness at work. On Mar 17, 5:55 pm, Hollywood jims29...@gmail.com wrote: Zeb, Oh, so YOUR brilliant plan is that if there are NO restrictions and/or regulations it follows that there could not be bad or poorly regulated controls or restrictions. Ya' got me lad. It would be the same as if there were No building codes there could not possibly be BAD ones. Fucking brilliant. On Mar 17, 3:48 pm, Zebnick zebn...@gmail.com wrote: What would you have regulated that would have averted the mortgage banking meltdown? Greedy banks? What would the regulation have been? Order them not to write risky loans? It was the fuckin government that ordered them TO write risky loans. On Mar 17, 4:13 pm, Hollywood jims29...@gmail.com wrote: Zeb, NOTHING is beyond debate. The only question is which side, the negative or the positive, will make the best case for it's arguement. Rght, let's just have a completely unregulated and unrestricted banking system and see how things go. Fucking brilliant idea. On Mar 17, 2:41 pm, Zebnick zebn...@gmail.com wrote: The US economy is suffering because of liberal government intervention into the banking system, specifically in mortgage guidelines. And that is beyond debate. On Mar 17, 12:30 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Vastly more accurate than the corporate whore voodoo economists the wingnuts produce. Free market fundamentalism is a bust and the entire US economy and millions are still suffering for it. Even Greenspan admitted that. Using facts and figures to demonstrate what hypocrites the republofascists are instead of a lot of made up rhetorical crap with a big helping of faux patriotism slavered on top.way to go Paul!. Keep up the good work. On Mar 15, 11:13 pm, Sage2 wisdom...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Krugman is the most unreliable source in the business. He is simply a hack for the NYTs , nothing more, nothing less ! ****** On Mar 15, 11:46 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: “Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. And irony died. Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. Furious denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — death panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away with it. Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts. After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy. No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills. What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” the budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, in fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to power. The broad picture that emerges from the
Re: Health Care in a Free Society by Paul Ryan
Vastly more accurate than the corporate whore voodoo economists the wingnuts produce. Free market fundamentalism is a bust and the entire US economy and millions are still suffering for it. Even Greenspan admitted that. Using facts and figures to demonstrate what hypocrites the republofascists are instead of a lot of made up rhetorical crap with a big helping of faux patriotism slavered on top.way to go Paul!. Keep up the good work. On Mar 15, 11:13 pm, Sage2 wisdom...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Krugman is the most unreliable source in the business. He is simply a hack for the NYTs , nothing more, nothing less ! ** On Mar 15, 11:46 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: “Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. And irony died. Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. Furious denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — death panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away with it. Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts. After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy. No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills. What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” the budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, in fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to power. The broad picture that emerges from the “roadmap” is of an economic agenda that hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush proposals of five years ago. But what’s really worth noting, given the way the G.O.P. has campaigned against health care reform, is what Mr. Ryan proposes doing with and to Medicare. In the Ryan proposal, nobody currently under the age of 55 would be covered by Medicare as it now exists. Instead, people would receive vouchers and be told to buy their own insurance. And even this new, privatized version of Medicare would erode over time because the value of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind the actual cost of health insurance. By the time Americans now in their 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn’t be much of a Medicare program left. But what about those who already are covered by Medicare, or will enter the program over the next decade? You’re safe, says the roadmap; you’ll still be eligible for traditional Medicare. Except, that is, for the fact that the plan “strengthens the current program with changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure long- term sustainability.” If this sounds like deliberately confusing gobbledygook, that’s because it is. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which has done an evaluation of the roadmap, offers a translation: “Some higher- income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced.” In short, there would be Medicare cuts. And it’s possible to back out the size of those cuts from the budget office analysis, which compares the Ryan proposal with a “baseline” representing current policy. As I’ve already said, the total over the next decade comes to about
Re: Health Care in a Free Society by Paul Ryan
Biff Free market fundamentalism is a bust and the entire US economy and millions are still suffering for it. MJ What is free market fundamentalism ? Please elaborate/explain how the US economy is suffering for it. Thanks Regard$, --MJ Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men Alyssa Rosenbaum -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Health Care in a Free Society by Paul Ryan
Sage2, Here's a wild and crazy idea. Why don't you actually try to refute WHAT was stated? On Mar 15, 11:13 pm, Sage2 wisdom...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Krugman is the most unreliable source in the business. He is simply a hack for the NYTs , nothing more, nothing less ! ****** On Mar 15, 11:46 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: “Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. And irony died. Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. Furious denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — death panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away with it. Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts. After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy. No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills. What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” the budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, in fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to power. The broad picture that emerges from the “roadmap” is of an economic agenda that hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush proposals of five years ago. But what’s really worth noting, given the way the G.O.P. has campaigned against health care reform, is what Mr. Ryan proposes doing with and to Medicare. In the Ryan proposal, nobody currently under the age of 55 would be covered by Medicare as it now exists. Instead, people would receive vouchers and be told to buy their own insurance. And even this new, privatized version of Medicare would erode over time because the value of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind the actual cost of health insurance. By the time Americans now in their 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn’t be much of a Medicare program left. But what about those who already are covered by Medicare, or will enter the program over the next decade? You’re safe, says the roadmap; you’ll still be eligible for traditional Medicare. Except, that is, for the fact that the plan “strengthens the current program with changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure long- term sustainability.” If this sounds like deliberately confusing gobbledygook, that’s because it is. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which has done an evaluation of the roadmap, offers a translation: “Some higher- income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced.” In short, there would be Medicare cuts. And it’s possible to back out the size of those cuts from the budget office analysis, which compares the Ryan proposal with a “baseline” representing current policy. As I’ve already said, the total over the next decade comes to about $650 billion — substantially bigger than the Medicare savings in the Democratic bills. The bottom line, then, is that the crusade against health reform has relied, crucially, on utter hypocrisy: Republicans who hate Medicare, tried to slash Medicare in the past, and still aim to dismantle the program over time, have been scoring
Re: Health Care in a Free Society by Paul Ryan
The US economy is suffering because of liberal government intervention into the banking system, specifically in mortgage guidelines. And that is beyond debate. On Mar 17, 12:30 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Vastly more accurate than the corporate whore voodoo economists the wingnuts produce. Free market fundamentalism is a bust and the entire US economy and millions are still suffering for it. Even Greenspan admitted that. Using facts and figures to demonstrate what hypocrites the republofascists are instead of a lot of made up rhetorical crap with a big helping of faux patriotism slavered on top.way to go Paul!. Keep up the good work. On Mar 15, 11:13 pm, Sage2 wisdom...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Krugman is the most unreliable source in the business. He is simply a hack for the NYTs , nothing more, nothing less ! ** On Mar 15, 11:46 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: “Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. And irony died. Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. Furious denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — death panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away with it. Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts. After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy. No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills. What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” the budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, in fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to power. The broad picture that emerges from the “roadmap” is of an economic agenda that hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush proposals of five years ago. But what’s really worth noting, given the way the G.O.P. has campaigned against health care reform, is what Mr. Ryan proposes doing with and to Medicare. In the Ryan proposal, nobody currently under the age of 55 would be covered by Medicare as it now exists. Instead, people would receive vouchers and be told to buy their own insurance. And even this new, privatized version of Medicare would erode over time because the value of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind the actual cost of health insurance. By the time Americans now in their 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn’t be much of a Medicare program left. But what about those who already are covered by Medicare, or will enter the program over the next decade? You’re safe, says the roadmap; you’ll still be eligible for traditional Medicare. Except, that is, for the fact that the plan “strengthens the current program with changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure long- term sustainability.” If this sounds like deliberately confusing gobbledygook, that’s because it is. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which has done an evaluation of the roadmap, offers a translation: “Some higher- income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments
Re: Health Care in a Free Society by Paul Ryan
Krugman is a boob. He's a tool for the Democrat party and couldn't be non-partisan if his life depended on it. On Mar 15, 11:46 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: “Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. And irony died. Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. Furious denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — death panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away with it. Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts. After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy. No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills. What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” the budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, in fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to power. The broad picture that emerges from the “roadmap” is of an economic agenda that hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush proposals of five years ago. But what’s really worth noting, given the way the G.O.P. has campaigned against health care reform, is what Mr. Ryan proposes doing with and to Medicare. In the Ryan proposal, nobody currently under the age of 55 would be covered by Medicare as it now exists. Instead, people would receive vouchers and be told to buy their own insurance. And even this new, privatized version of Medicare would erode over time because the value of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind the actual cost of health insurance. By the time Americans now in their 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn’t be much of a Medicare program left. But what about those who already are covered by Medicare, or will enter the program over the next decade? You’re safe, says the roadmap; you’ll still be eligible for traditional Medicare. Except, that is, for the fact that the plan “strengthens the current program with changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure long- term sustainability.” If this sounds like deliberately confusing gobbledygook, that’s because it is. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which has done an evaluation of the roadmap, offers a translation: “Some higher- income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced.” In short, there would be Medicare cuts. And it’s possible to back out the size of those cuts from the budget office analysis, which compares the Ryan proposal with a “baseline” representing current policy. As I’ve already said, the total over the next decade comes to about $650 billion — substantially bigger than the Medicare savings in the Democratic bills. The bottom line, then, is that the crusade against health reform has relied, crucially, on utter hypocrisy: Republicans who hate Medicare, tried to slash Medicare in the past, and still aim to dismantle the program over time, have been scoring political points by denouncing proposals for modest cost savings — savings that are substantially smaller than the spending cuts buried in their own proposals. Paul Krugman On Mar 15, 4:47 pm, Travis baconl...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010mo... -- Thanks for being part of
Re: Health Care in a Free Society by Paul Ryan
ho, ho...if you are referring to Barney Frank while the repugs had control of both houses and the presidency, you must debate only with your self or a self absorbed group of wingnuts ...nothing to do with credit default swaps, or that Wells Fargo and others had Wall Street accept their risk..and then in turn we had to bail them out or have the credit markets lock? Zippy, you had better return to the economic romper room, you are out of your league if you want to debate why and what happened in the fall of 2008. rule one, no making crap up, rule 2, all aspects are considered, not just cherry picked ones...I will even give you that Clinton signed the repeal of Glass Steagall just to give you leg up. On Mar 17, 2:41 pm, Zebnick zebn...@gmail.com wrote: The US economy is suffering because of liberal government intervention into the banking system, specifically in mortgage guidelines. And that is beyond debate. On Mar 17, 12:30 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Vastly more accurate than the corporate whore voodoo economists the wingnuts produce. Free market fundamentalism is a bust and the entire US economy and millions are still suffering for it. Even Greenspan admitted that. Using facts and figures to demonstrate what hypocrites the republofascists are instead of a lot of made up rhetorical crap with a big helping of faux patriotism slavered on top.way to go Paul!. Keep up the good work. On Mar 15, 11:13 pm, Sage2 wisdom...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Krugman is the most unreliable source in the business. He is simply a hack for the NYTs , nothing more, nothing less ! ** On Mar 15, 11:46 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: “Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. And irony died. Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. Furious denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — death panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away with it. Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts. After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy. No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills. What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” the budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, in fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to power. The broad picture that emerges from the “roadmap” is of an economic agenda that hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush proposals of five years ago. But what’s really worth noting, given the way the G.O.P. has campaigned against health care reform, is what Mr. Ryan proposes doing with and to Medicare. In the Ryan proposal, nobody currently under the age of 55 would be covered by Medicare as it now exists. Instead, people would receive vouchers and be told to buy their own insurance. And even this new, privatized version of Medicare would erode over time because the value of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind the actual cost of
Re: Health Care in a Free Society by Paul Ryan
nasty rhetoric, what else is new from wingnut land?no evidence of course On Mar 17, 2:44 pm, Zebnick zebn...@gmail.com wrote: Krugman is a boob. He's a tool for the Democrat party and couldn't be non-partisan if his life depended on it. On Mar 15, 11:46 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: “Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. And irony died. Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. Furious denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — death panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away with it. Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts. After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy. No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills. What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” the budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, in fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to power. The broad picture that emerges from the “roadmap” is of an economic agenda that hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush proposals of five years ago. But what’s really worth noting, given the way the G.O.P. has campaigned against health care reform, is what Mr. Ryan proposes doing with and to Medicare. In the Ryan proposal, nobody currently under the age of 55 would be covered by Medicare as it now exists. Instead, people would receive vouchers and be told to buy their own insurance. And even this new, privatized version of Medicare would erode over time because the value of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind the actual cost of health insurance. By the time Americans now in their 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn’t be much of a Medicare program left. But what about those who already are covered by Medicare, or will enter the program over the next decade? You’re safe, says the roadmap; you’ll still be eligible for traditional Medicare. Except, that is, for the fact that the plan “strengthens the current program with changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure long- term sustainability.” If this sounds like deliberately confusing gobbledygook, that’s because it is. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which has done an evaluation of the roadmap, offers a translation: “Some higher- income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced.” In short, there would be Medicare cuts. And it’s possible to back out the size of those cuts from the budget office analysis, which compares the Ryan proposal with a “baseline” representing current policy. As I’ve already said, the total over the next decade comes to about $650 billion — substantially bigger than the Medicare savings in the Democratic bills. The bottom line, then, is that the crusade against health reform has relied, crucially, on utter hypocrisy: Republicans who hate Medicare, tried to slash Medicare in the past, and still aim to dismantle the program over time, have been scoring political points by denouncing proposals for modest cost savings — savings that are substantially smaller than the spending cuts buried
Re: Health Care in a Free Society by Paul Ryan
Zeb, How about trying to refute what was said instead of whining about who said it. On Mar 17, 2:44 pm, Zebnick zebn...@gmail.com wrote: Krugman is a boob. He's a tool for the Democrat party and couldn't be non-partisan if his life depended on it. On Mar 15, 11:46 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: “Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. And irony died. Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. Furious denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — death panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away with it. Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts. After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy. No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills. What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” the budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, in fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to power. The broad picture that emerges from the “roadmap” is of an economic agenda that hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush proposals of five years ago. But what’s really worth noting, given the way the G.O.P. has campaigned against health care reform, is what Mr. Ryan proposes doing with and to Medicare. In the Ryan proposal, nobody currently under the age of 55 would be covered by Medicare as it now exists. Instead, people would receive vouchers and be told to buy their own insurance. And even this new, privatized version of Medicare would erode over time because the value of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind the actual cost of health insurance. By the time Americans now in their 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn’t be much of a Medicare program left. But what about those who already are covered by Medicare, or will enter the program over the next decade? You’re safe, says the roadmap; you’ll still be eligible for traditional Medicare. Except, that is, for the fact that the plan “strengthens the current program with changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure long- term sustainability.” If this sounds like deliberately confusing gobbledygook, that’s because it is. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which has done an evaluation of the roadmap, offers a translation: “Some higher- income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced.” In short, there would be Medicare cuts. And it’s possible to back out the size of those cuts from the budget office analysis, which compares the Ryan proposal with a “baseline” representing current policy. As I’ve already said, the total over the next decade comes to about $650 billion — substantially bigger than the Medicare savings in the Democratic bills. The bottom line, then, is that the crusade against health reform has relied, crucially, on utter hypocrisy: Republicans who hate Medicare, tried to slash Medicare in the past, and still aim to dismantle the program over time, have been scoring political points by denouncing proposals for modest cost savings — savings that are substantially smaller than the spending
Re: Health Care in a Free Society by Paul Ryan
LOL!!! I'M out of my depth? You haven't got a clue what CAUSED the mortgage crisis and the larger financial industry melt down. Do you even know what a credit default swap is? And if so, why they failed? And please, don't give me the they were too risky simplicity. Hint: they failed for the same reason that derivatives and mortgage backed securities failed. On Mar 17, 4:02 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: ho, ho...if you are referring to Barney Frank while the repugs had control of both houses and the presidency, you must debate only with your self or a self absorbed group of wingnuts ...nothing to do with credit default swaps, or that Wells Fargo and others had Wall Street accept their risk..and then in turn we had to bail them out or have the credit markets lock? Zippy, you had better return to the economic romper room, you are out of your league if you want to debate why and what happened in the fall of 2008. rule one, no making crap up, rule 2, all aspects are considered, not just cherry picked ones...I will even give you that Clinton signed the repeal of Glass Steagall just to give you leg up. On Mar 17, 2:41 pm, Zebnick zebn...@gmail.com wrote: The US economy is suffering because of liberal government intervention into the banking system, specifically in mortgage guidelines. And that is beyond debate. On Mar 17, 12:30 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Vastly more accurate than the corporate whore voodoo economists the wingnuts produce. Free market fundamentalism is a bust and the entire US economy and millions are still suffering for it. Even Greenspan admitted that. Using facts and figures to demonstrate what hypocrites the republofascists are instead of a lot of made up rhetorical crap with a big helping of faux patriotism slavered on top.way to go Paul!. Keep up the good work. On Mar 15, 11:13 pm, Sage2 wisdom...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Krugman is the most unreliable source in the business. He is simply a hack for the NYTs , nothing more, nothing less ! ** On Mar 15, 11:46 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: “Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. And irony died. Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. Furious denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — death panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away with it. Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts. After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy. No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills. What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” the budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, in fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to power. The broad picture that emerges from the “roadmap” is of an economic agenda that hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush proposals of five years ago. But what’s really worth noting, given the way the
Re: Health Care in a Free Society by Paul Ryan
The all but TOTAL government control of banks in America has existed since the very EARLY 1900s. The (unconstitutional) political tool -- the FED -- was foisted upon us in 1913. The New Deal (actually the second one -- FDRs) gave of Fannie Mae and a myriad of other fascist policies that remain in place ... the Congress subsequently gave us Freddie Mac. In the 1970s the government gave us something known as the Community Investment Act. Subsequent congresses gave us changes and enhancements What basically occurred is the government FORCED lenders to give money (printed by the FED) to people and projects that would not otherwise be funded ... they PROMISED to then purchase those loan instruments ... they then packaged and guaranteed them. As is typical with these interventions ... the whole thing came tumbling down -- only the government has continued to try and 'shore up' their catastrophe which serves only to delay and increase the magnitude of the problem when it actually hits full force. Regard$, --MJ We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi At 04:02 PM 3/17/2010, you wrote: ho, ho...if you are referring to Barney Frank while the repugs had control of both houses and the presidency, you must debate only with your self or a self absorbed group of wingnuts ...nothing to do with credit default swaps, or that Wells Fargo and others had Wall Street accept their risk..and then in turn we had to bail them out or have the credit markets lock? Zippy, you had better return to the economic romper room, you are out of your league if you want to debate why and what happened in the fall of 2008. rule one, no making crap up, rule 2, all aspects are considered, not just cherry picked ones...I will even give you that Clinton signed the repeal of Glass Steagall just to give you leg up. -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Health Care in a Free Society by Paul Ryan
I live in the district Ryan supposedly represents, he is a lying sack of shit weasel. On Mar 15, 4:47 pm, Travis baconl...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010mo... -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Health Care in a Free Society by Paul Ryan
“Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. And irony died. Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. Furious denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — death panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away with it. Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts. After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy. No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills. What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” the budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, in fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to power. The broad picture that emerges from the “roadmap” is of an economic agenda that hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush proposals of five years ago. But what’s really worth noting, given the way the G.O.P. has campaigned against health care reform, is what Mr. Ryan proposes doing with and to Medicare. In the Ryan proposal, nobody currently under the age of 55 would be covered by Medicare as it now exists. Instead, people would receive vouchers and be told to buy their own insurance. And even this new, privatized version of Medicare would erode over time because the value of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind the actual cost of health insurance. By the time Americans now in their 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn’t be much of a Medicare program left. But what about those who already are covered by Medicare, or will enter the program over the next decade? You’re safe, says the roadmap; you’ll still be eligible for traditional Medicare. Except, that is, for the fact that the plan “strengthens the current program with changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure long- term sustainability.” If this sounds like deliberately confusing gobbledygook, that’s because it is. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which has done an evaluation of the roadmap, offers a translation: “Some higher- income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced.” In short, there would be Medicare cuts. And it’s possible to back out the size of those cuts from the budget office analysis, which compares the Ryan proposal with a “baseline” representing current policy. As I’ve already said, the total over the next decade comes to about $650 billion — substantially bigger than the Medicare savings in the Democratic bills. The bottom line, then, is that the crusade against health reform has relied, crucially, on utter hypocrisy: Republicans who hate Medicare, tried to slash Medicare in the past, and still aim to dismantle the program over time, have been scoring political points by denouncing proposals for modest cost savings — savings that are substantially smaller than the spending cuts buried in their own proposals. Paul Krugman On Mar 15, 4:47 pm, Travis baconl...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010mo... -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking
Re: Health Care in a Free Society by Paul Ryan
Paul Krugman is the most unreliable source in the business. He is simply a hack for the NYTs , nothing more, nothing less ! ** On Mar 15, 11:46 pm, Biff jacobsenj...@sbcglobal.net wrote: “Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis. And irony died. Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. Furious denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — death panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away with it. Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts. After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy. No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills. What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” the budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, in fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to power. The broad picture that emerges from the “roadmap” is of an economic agenda that hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush proposals of five years ago. But what’s really worth noting, given the way the G.O.P. has campaigned against health care reform, is what Mr. Ryan proposes doing with and to Medicare. In the Ryan proposal, nobody currently under the age of 55 would be covered by Medicare as it now exists. Instead, people would receive vouchers and be told to buy their own insurance. And even this new, privatized version of Medicare would erode over time because the value of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind the actual cost of health insurance. By the time Americans now in their 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn’t be much of a Medicare program left. But what about those who already are covered by Medicare, or will enter the program over the next decade? You’re safe, says the roadmap; you’ll still be eligible for traditional Medicare. Except, that is, for the fact that the plan “strengthens the current program with changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure long- term sustainability.” If this sounds like deliberately confusing gobbledygook, that’s because it is. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which has done an evaluation of the roadmap, offers a translation: “Some higher- income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced.” In short, there would be Medicare cuts. And it’s possible to back out the size of those cuts from the budget office analysis, which compares the Ryan proposal with a “baseline” representing current policy. As I’ve already said, the total over the next decade comes to about $650 billion — substantially bigger than the Medicare savings in the Democratic bills. The bottom line, then, is that the crusade against health reform has relied, crucially, on utter hypocrisy: Republicans who hate Medicare, tried to slash Medicare in the past, and still aim to dismantle the program over time, have been scoring political points by denouncing proposals for modest cost savings — savings that are substantially smaller than the spending cuts buried in their own proposals. Paul Krugman On Mar 15, 4:47 pm, Travis baconl...@gmail.com
