patrick.net

Tenpoundbass what did the Hitler family do to you for you to associate them with the likes of Hillary Clinton?

CBOEtrader says

I have pointed out where Bernie is lying to you. Medicare as we know it will absolutely be pillaged in favor of Medicare for all.

You made a ridiculous assertion based on nothing. Please point me to a thoughtful analysis of this topic done by a serious (AND HONEST) source.

I

dr6B says

Where did "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" disappear?

Exactly. Remember Voltaire? Probably most of the modern left don't know who he was.

Quigley says

When the Left began talking about “hate speech” as being too dangerous to be allowed. Of course, since the Left also gets to define “hate speech,” it can designate any speech it doesn’t approve of as hate speech. And since they’ve decided that some speech is “too dangerous to be protected,” that means that “dangerous” speech is also fair game for censorship and retribution. And since they control what is defined as “dangerous speech,” they control the conversation. And Free Speech is effectively dead.

Yep.

georgeliberte says

Tenpoundbass what did the Hitler family do to you for you to associate them with the likes of Hillary Clinton?

He was a Socialists too!

Tenpoundbass says

georgeliberte says

Tenpoundbass what did the Hitler family do to you for you to associate them with the likes of Hillary Clinton?

He was a Socialists too!

All politicians are associated with Hitler. Just ask the other side.

marcus says

CBOEtrader says

I have pointed out where Bernie is lying to you. Medicare as we know it will absolutely be pillaged in favor of Medicare for all.

You made a ridiculous assertion based on nothing. Please point me to a thoughtful analysis of this topic done by a serious (AND HONEST) source.

I

Facts arent an honest source to you? That's bizarre.

Let's review: Medicare benefits have already been sacrificed to help finance Obamacare. Fact.

The exact same thing would happen if we went to medicare for all, effectively killing Medicare as we know it. Fact.

Do you have an argument? Or do you always run when it's time to use specific facts?

Feelings! Nothing more than feelings!
I should get Marcus a teddy bear to snuggle for Christmas.
And get APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch what he really wants: a gunnysack full of kittens and a ball peen hammer!

HEYYOU says

If Conservatives don't like pissed-off Liberals,they shouldn't piss Liberals-off.

Without pissed off liberals and pissed off conservatives, elections would be so boring.

CBOEtrader says

Let's review: Medicare benefits have already been sacrificed to help finance Obamacare. Fact.

Actually no, and I did answer you above with this.

marcus says

One, the flow to and from medicare relating to Obamacare are far more complicated than what you implied with your empty assertion.

As for the cuts, they come from eliminating a massive subsidy to private insurers and gradually reducing the rate of growth in payments to some providers. These changes, while not catastrophic for Medicare, are important. Under the ACA, the federal government will substantially reduce the amount it spends funding Medicare Advantage, which is privately administered insurance offered to Medicare beneficiaries. About one-quarter of Medicare recipients are enrolled in private Medicare Advantage. In theory, these plans are supposed to manage health care spending better than fee-for-service Medicare. But they don’t actually save the federal government any money. They cost, per patient, 14% more than traditional Medicare. (See Figure 3 of this fact sheet from the Kaiser Family Foundation. And see here for more.) The ACA eliminates this subsidy and pegs Medicare Advantage payments to quality metrics.

The second bunch of money that gets cut from Medicare under Obamacare comes from providers. Hospitals, home health agencies and others will see Medicare payments grow more slowly than they have in the past.

Medicare benefits will not change – in theory. However, providers who get paid less from Medicare in the future may be less inclined to accept Medicare patients, thereby reducing access. The frequently criticized Independent Payment Advisory Board, created by the ACA, could cut provider payments even more to keep the growth in Medicare spending under a benchmark. If Medicare per capita spending grows faster than a rate pegged to inflation and later GDP, IPAB will be empowered to recommend provider payment cuts. If Congress can’t find alternative ways to keep Medicare spending growth under the inflation or GDP benchmark, the IPAB recommendations will automatically go into effect. This too could reduce access. Bonus Medicare Advantage benefits – like free gym memberships – may go away.
In exchange for these kinds of reductions in Medicare spending, funding for the program was bolstered in other ways by the ACA. Preventive care is now covered at 100% for Medicare beneficiaries and a gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage will slowly close under the law. Some Medicare beneficiaries, primarily wealthy Americans, will pay higher Medicare premiums and taxes under the ACA.

The idea, however, that the Affordable Care Act struck a dangerous blow to Medicare that will change the program in fundamental ways is untrue. Under the new law, Medicare will remain a wildly popular, public single-payer health insurance system that provides comprehensive coverage to millions of Americans.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/16/fact-check-obamacares-medicare-cuts/

As I said, the details are more complicated, and for such problems there are always solutions. No offense intended, but your assertions are political spin, and downright silly. . EVen if you were correct, and there weren't another side to it (which there is - just read), there is no reason it couldn't be fixed.

If you want to consider the ultimate SIMPLE FACT , and forgive me if it's too simple or too obvious, but Medicare already covers a huge percentage of our health care, that is when people over 65 are dying from heart disease, Cancer, or any one of the other myriad ways that every person eventually dies. This has to be way more than 70% of all "major medical" type health care spending. The kind we need insurance for.

It's a no brainer, to anyone with any sense, that our current insurance system for people under 65, is vastly inefficient and downright stupid compared to just having medicare cover whatever the other (I don't know the number is it 15% ? ) small fraction of all major medical expenditures. Yes, it would mean a large increase in medicare taxes, and a great reduction (to zero) in what many pay for shitty health care plans that don't cover everything, and that bankrupt people when they get really sick.

$200 is $200. It should make for a nice dinner out. I actually believe you will pay up. If I remember... there were some schools in Red areas that were very pro-gun during the student led walkouts eg https://www.businessinsider.com/national-school-walkout-students-protest-gun-violence-in-us-2018-3 where the students dissed those few democrats in attendance that participated. Weak compared to the leftist college protests, but it happened nonetheless.

marcus says

No offense intended, but your assertions are political spin, and downright silly.

marcus says

As for the cuts, they come from eliminating a massive subsidy to private insurers and gradually reducing the rate of growth in payments to some providers.

One of these statements cant be true. You are literally contradicting yourself.

Let's remember your original assertion that trump lied w evry word. Medicare as we know it dying in favor of a medicare for all is NOT a lie. It is a fact.

The fact that more can be said than what Trump said in a speech is ofc, completely irrelevant. More can always be said on a topic.

You have gotten to the point where you believe the propgandized lies, this is a dangerous time for our country

CBOEtrader says

You have gotten to the point where you believe the propgandized lies, this is a dangerous time for our country

MY belief, and that of so many reality based people is that you have described exactly what you suffer from. Although, apparently you have been "at this point" for quite some time.

CBOEtrader says

this is a dangerous time for our country

Yes it is. Donald Trump is President.

CBOEtrader says

Medicare as we know it dying in favor of a medicare for all is NOT a lie.

Let me get this straight. A policy that doesn't exist yet, that is, a policy that could come to exist and be structured in an infinite number of different ways, negotiated by congress, can not be done in a way that doesn't damage another policy, even though a huge and powerful and growing interest group (old people) that votes, is deeply moved to politically support the well being of the latter policy.

This could just be the stupidest assertion of a supposed fact that I've ever heard on Patrick.net.

“ in an infinite number of different ways negotiated by congress”

Do any of those ways come attached with a price tag of less than 10 trillion?

Asking for a friend.

Yes, cost is the question. But at least you presumably get that the cost doesn't have to take from existing medicare. IT could even be structured to enhance medicare for the elderly.

But of course cost matters. The new medicare taxes added would have to be significantly less than the major medical part of the health insurance we now pay for.

Economies of scale baby ! And everyone is paying in. So of course the cost is less.

marcus says

Let me get this straight. A policy that doesn't exist yet, that is, a policy that could come to exist and be structured in an infinite number of different ways, negotiated by congress, can not be done in a way that doesn't damage another policy, even though a huge and powerful and growing interest group (old people) that votes, is deeply moved to politically support the well being of the latter policy.

Medicare - for - all implies everyone is paying into it. You said this yourself multiple times.

Seniors have already paid into medicare. Why should they risk a good system for them which is already paid for?

So yeah, the only feasible way to have a medicare for all program would be for existing medicare funds intermingle w medicare for all funds. This is guaranteed hurt those who've already paid. History has shown this to be true w Obamacare.

marcus says

Economies of scale baby ! And everyone is paying in. So of course the cost is less.

They made the same arguments about Obamacare. How'd that work out?

marcus says

Economies of scale baby !

Economies of scale only works if you have a reasonable assumption that the firm (or in this case gov't entity) is going to act like a profit seeking firm. Often the advantages of "economies of scale" are lost to inefficiency, outright corruption, and incompetence for government institutions. Just look at how the government has handled the VA.

Goran_K says

Just look at how the government has handled the VA.

Or medicare part D. Or Obamacare.

CBOEtrader says

Or medicare part D. Or Obamacare.

Part D was R's. Obamacare was D's. Both are budget- and common-sense busting monstrosities, enacted to pay off Big Pharma and Insurance. And we are arguing here if R's or D's are worse...

dr6B says

CBOEtrader says

Or medicare part D. Or Obamacare.

Part D was R's. Obamacare was D's. Both are budget- and commons-sense busting monstrosities, enacted to pay off Big Pharma and Insurance. And we are arguing here if R's or D's are worse...

Well this argument started when Marcus posted an article claiming every word of Trumps speech was a lie. I asked him to get behind one of his claims and he wouldn't again.

So I took the liberty of pointing out the valid criticisms and truthful statements in trumps speech.

Goran_K says

marcus says

Economies of scale baby !

Economies of scale only works if you have a reasonable assumption that the firm (or in this case gov't entity) is going to act like a profit seeking firm. Often the advantages of "economies of scale" are lost to inefficiency, outright corruption, and incompetence for government institutions. Just look at how the government has handled the VA.

If you have an inefficient bureaucracy, greater volume will only create a greater inefficient bureaucracy.
Two weeks ago I heard on the radio, 30% of government workers are not at work at any given time for a variety of reasons. And I'm pretty sure, when they are at work, they are hardly working. Almost impossible to fire incompetent government workers, and yet they get early retirement with mega pensions for life.

Exactly.

My company is working with the Department of Education in California. One of my key contacts, a "web developer", hasn't been to work in 3 months. Supposedly out on "stress leave". So California is paying me to hire a developer so the work can be completed by me!

That's two salaries being paid to do the work of "one" person.

Big government is great at waste.

Goran_K says

Big government is great at waste.

That is also the case with a California government employee we are acquainted with. Takes days off at will. This is why bigger governments are never welcome.
Big governments are the greatest ripoffs ever.

CBOEtrader says

Medicare - for - all implies everyone is paying into it. You said this yourself multiple times.

Seniors have already paid into medicare. Why should they risk a good system for them which is already paid for?

This is stupid and makes no sense. You might be right. Just as republicans didn't like Al Gore's idea, of a "lock box" for social security. If you give republicans a chance to fuck over the elderly, by spending their medicare, just to prove that single payer doesn't work, they would. Hell, they could probably get some big tax cuts out of the deal with the consequences blamed on the libruls.

But it's insanely stupid to think that the moneys brought in for medicare for people under 65, HAVE TO be commingled, and also have to be insufficient, therefore causing stealing from medicare. This makes no sense, even if you were right about the ACA doing that, which you aren't. You clearly didn't read through the balanced last link a gave.

But I will say this, I understand your instincts, but think a better analogy would be the way we keep lowering taxes, and then we are going to say we can't afford "entitlements" such as SS and medicare.

Maybe you're right. Medicare for all might just end up being another way for republicans to fuck over the democrats and the people, and say "I told you so" with their tax cuts and (at all costs democrats never get to do anything) ensuring a more solid rule by the corporations and the plutocracy.

Although unfortunately that also means the end of humanity. Oh, well. We had a good run.