Is the radical right dumbing down the GOP?

[Dymanic]

The contention seems to be that any change to Medicare is "killing Medicare", yes? Even though the program will live on and continue in its mission to provide health care to seniors?

No, the contention is that if we eliminate the Medicare program and replace it with a completely different system (one which, by the way, places a much higher burden on the recipients), insisting that it is still the same system is merely a mental exercise.

 

[WildCat]

No, the contention is that if we eliminate the Medicare program and replace it with a completely different system (one which, by the way, places a much higher burden on the recipients), insisting that it is still the same system is merely a mental exercise.

What is your point? That any change at all in how Medicare is structured means we "killed Medicare"?

What changes are allowed before we cannot call it Medicare any more?

You are playing partisan politics with the health care of our elderly. Do you even realize taht Medicare cannot survive at all as currently structured? The system is going broke, and fast.

And don't assume I support the Ryan plan. But at the moment it's the only one out there, nothing but crickets from the Dems. Clearly the usefulness of the issue for the 2012 elections is more important to them than delivering health care to seniors.

 

[WildCat]

No, the contention is that if we eliminate the Medicare program

There is no "elimination of the Medicare program". Why do you keep doing that?

and replace it with a completely different system (one which, by the way, places a much higher burden on the recipients), insisting that it is still the same system is merely a mental exercise.

It is the same program, even if it's a different system.

If you don't like the Ryan plan, feel free to offer up your own. You'll have to do it without any input at all from the Dems, because they're keeping quiet.

 

[Dymanic]

What changes are allowed before we cannot call it Medicare any more?

Glad you've identified what's important: what it is doesn't matter nearly so much as what we call it.

It is the same program, even if it's a different system.

I say no, for the same reason that my hypothetical hammer is not the original hammer, even though I may call it that.

You are playing partisan politics with the health care of our elderly.

Clearly the usefulness of the issue for the 2012 elections is more important to them than delivering health care to seniors.

I'm never been much of one to nominate posts, but if there's a category for unintentional irony, I'd certainly consider these statements worthy.

If you don't like the Ryan plan, feel free to offer up your own.

Medicare.

You'll have to do it without any input at all from the Dems, because they're keeping quiet.

Republicans made their choice without any help from the Democrats. Under our political system, choices have consequences. Deal with it.

 

[BenBurch]

You've established that you are no good at analogies.

Hint: Medicare is not a physical object.

The contention seems to be that any change to Medicare is "killing Medicare", yes? Even though the program will live on and continue in its mission to provide health care to seniors?

You jack up the name, push in a new program that will let old and sick people die due to poor coverage, and then re-attach the name, and it is the same program? Is that your contention?

 

[TraneWreck]

The contention seems to be that any change to Medicare is "killing Medicare", yes? Even though the program will live on and continue in its mission to provide health care to seniors?

That's the part that isn't true.

It will provide a voucher that seniors use to purchase insurance on the open market. Whether any insurer will take on high risk patients with a voucher that covers half a year of assisted living is anyone's guess.

It ends Medicare in the sense that seniors who paid taxes their whole life can rely on health insurance when they retired. Now they can hope they have enough in their savings to cover any deficiencies and that a private insurer will take them on.

Medicare as a guaranteed health care provider is dead under the Ryan plan, and it doesn't control costs, it simply shifts costs from the very efficient single-payer system to the very inefficient private insurers. The added costs must all be covered by seniors and their families, and there's no explanation for what happens to seniors who exhaust the voucher and have no other source of revenue.

Again, this becomes semantic. I would say Ryan destroys the fundamental purpose and intent of Medicare.

Truman at the signing:

Not one of these, our citizens, should ever be abandoned to the indignity of charity. Charity is indignity when you have to have it. But we don't want these people to have anything to do with charity and we don't want them to have any idea of hopeless despair.

Mr. President, I am glad to have lived this long and to witness today the signing of the Medicare bill which puts this Nation right where it needs to be, to be right. Your inspired leadership and a responsive forward-looking Congress have made it historically possible for this day to come about.

http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/650730.asp

Johnson:

Many men can make many proposals. Many men can draft many laws. But few have the piercing and humane eye which can see beyond the words to the people that they touch. Few can see past the speeches and the political battles to the doctor over there that is tending the infirm, and to the hospital that is receiving those in anguish, or feel in their heart painful wrath at the injustice which denies the miracle of healing to the old and to the poor. And fewer still have the courage to stake reputation, and position, and the effort of a lifetime upon such a cause when there are so few that share it.

[...]

It was a generation ago that Harry Truman said, and I quote him: "Millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and to enjoy good health. Millions do not now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness. And the time has now arrived for action to help them attain that opportunity and to help them get that protection."

[...]

There are more than 18 million Americans over the age of 65. Most of them have low incomes. Most of them are threatened by illness and medical expenses that they cannot afford.

And through this new law, Mr. President, every citizen will be able, in his productive years when he is earning, to insure himself against the ravages of illness in his old age.

[...]

No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine. No longer will illness crush and destroy the savings that they have so carefully put away over a lifetime so that they might enjoy dignity in their later years. No longer will young families see their own incomes, and their own hopes, eaten away simply because they are carrying out their deep moral obligations to their parents, and to their uncles, and their aunts.

That Medicare is dead under the Ryan plan. The purposes for which it was created will be destroyed.

So again, it's just a semantic dispute: does that amount to "killing" Medicare, or does keeping the name around but fundamentally changing the nature of the program suffice to defeat the claim?

But it's not like it matters. The Ryan plan is a horrific farce. It's a cost-shifting exercise, not a serious attempt to deal with the problem.

 

[WildCat]

Glad you've identified what's important: what it is doesn't matter nearly so much as what we call it.

This is actually your view, not mine. I'm not the one shreiking on internet forums about Ryan "killing Medicare".

I say no, for the same reason that my hypothetical hammer is not the original hammer, even though I may call it that.

I thought semantics weren't the issue with you?

I'm never been much of one to nominate posts, but if there's a category for unintentional irony, I'd certainly consider these statements worthy.

And yet, here you are shreiking about semantics and ignoring the problem.

Medicare.

yes, Medicare. What is your plan to keep it viable, or do we just let it go broke in 2024 as the CBO says it will?

Republicans made their choice without any help from the Democrats. Under our political system, choices have consequences. Deal with it.

The GOP made a plan, so far all we hear from the Dems are crickets. Do you think ignoring the problem will make it disappear?

 

[WildCat]

You jack up the name, push in a new program that will let old and sick people die due to poor coverage, and then re-attach the name, and it is the same program? Is that your contention?

Ben, can you link to the Dem plan to save Medicare?

Thanks in advance!

 

[WildCat]

But it's not like it matters. The Ryan plan is a horrific farce. It's a cost-shifting exercise, not a serious attempt to deal with the problem.

Yes, it's horrible. I bet the Dems have a far better plan! My Google skills seem to be lacking at the moment, perhaps you can link to the Dem plan for Medicare?

 

[TraneWreck]

Yes, it's horrible. I bet the Dems have a far better plan! My Google skills seem to be lacking at the moment, perhaps you can link to the Dem plan for Medicare?

Oh god. Didn't we just do this in another thread?

First, I will point out that there were very good cost cotrol measures included in the health care bill. If you'll recall, the Republicans used those cost control measures to claim that Democrats were destroying Medicare in the 2010 elections. Remember "death panels?" Certainly I wish the Democrats showed more spine and provided a realistic plan for sustaining Medicare's future, but surely you can see why they would avoid the issue for the coming elections. We have the government we deserve because of our insane over-reaction to any attempt at rational legislation.

Second, that's a pretty weak attempt at changing the discussion. Just because no alternative plan has been offered, that doesn't make Ryan's a good one. And yes, doing absolutely nothing is better than adopting the Ryan plan. Because it contains no cost control measures and shifts the burden to seniors, it results in an explosion of increased cost under multiple analyses:

In addition to comparing the costs of Medicare to the government under the current system and under the Ryan plan, the authors also show the effects of raising the age of Medicare eligibility. The paper also demonstrates that while Ryan shifts $4.9 trillion in health care costs from the government to Medicare beneficiaries, this number is dwarfed by a $34 trillion increase in overall costs to beneficiaries that is projected based on the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-ryans-bad-joke/2011/04/12/AFyvg2PD_blog.html

It's a moronic plan that simply hides exploding costs from the government books. The burden to society is incredible.

 

[BenBurch]

Ben, can you link to the Dem plan to save Medicare?

Thanks in advance!

Off topic.

Is it your contention that you have not destroyed a program as long as there is some program, of whatever description, with the same name?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Of course, you can fnd an unlimited number of partisan opinion pieces making the claim.

What you won't find are facts to back it up. Do you have a political BS filter at all, or do you just parrot what you want to hear?

The non-partisan PolitiFact.com lists the "kill Medicare" claim as false btw.

But hey, just becase Medicare is going broke fast doesn't mean we should take any steps to save it so long as there's partisan political games to play! I mean, what's more important, saving health coverage for the elderly or scoring political points for the next election?

I've read that analysis more than once. The conclusion explains the rating and not in the way you think, rather in the way your confirmation bias would like to interpret it.

Those are questions of degree. Change of some kind is likely -- so will that mean death to Medicare?

Certainly not for millions of current retirees and baby boomers now over age 55. For everyone else, the Ryan plan might better be defined by using another political chestnut, namely, the end of "Medicare as we know it" -- a cliche, perhaps, but one with enough qualification to keep the claim out of the hot seat.

The Brown fund-raising pitch had no such qualification. No matter how often it's said, this still remains true - that the unqualified end-of-Medicare statement is not accurate.

And on the Truth-O-Meter, that means the statement still garners a rating of False.

Politifact is saying true on the basis of a technical analysis, not on the basis of a practical analysis. Even without the problem of changing the fundamental nature of Medicare, the fact Ryan proposed leaving it be for people 55 and older would have been enough for Politifact to call Senator Brown's statements false.

Compare that to the "mostly true" fact check rating: Throw-granny-from-the-cliff ad says Paul Ryan plan would privatize Medicare

It's in the eye of the beholder if one believes privatizing Medicare is not the same as eliminating. If you are going to turn it over to private insurance companies, how is it still 'Medicare'?

And shifting the cost to lower income seniors is no different than increasing their taxes. Rep. Tim Ryan says Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal will cost patients $6,000 more a year: True The Repubs are hypocrites.

And regardless of Boxer exaggerating the difference, overhead for private medical insurers is still considerably greater than Medicare's overhead. That pretty much debunks the 'inefficient' government claim that the right loves to repeat again and again.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, it's horrible. I bet the Dems have a far better plan! My Google skills seem to be lacking at the moment, perhaps you can link to the Dem plan for Medicare?

Yes, it's called, Medicare.

The Democrats have proposed increasing revenue via small tax increase on the rich who can afford it rather than shifting costs to the poor and pretending that isn't the equivalent of a tax increase.

 

[WildCat]

Oh god. Didn't we just do this in another thread?

So no, you can't link to the Dem plan.

Off topic.

And neither can Ben.

I guess we can conclude that the Dems plan is to not only end Medicare by 2024 but also to eliminate health care for seniors entirely by then through inaction?

 

[WildCat]

The Democrats have proposed increasing revenue via small tax increase on the rich who can afford it rather than shifting costs to the poor and pretending that isn't the equivalent of a tax increase.

Can you link to this Dem plan to save Medicare? Ben and TraneWreck seem to have misplaced the url.

 

[TraneWreck]

So no, you can't link to the Dem plan.

Again, doing nothing is better than the Ryan plan. At least we have 13 years before anything serious happens, as opposed to willfully *********** ourselves for no reason excepts, "Derp DERP, where democrat plan?"

Why do they need to offer one now? Why not next year or after the election?

But it is amusing to watch you try and slink out of your ridiculous complaints that started this. I wouldn't want to talk about the Ryan plan either, if I were you. It's absolutely idiotic.

 

[TraneWreck]

I guess we can conclude that the Dems plan is to not only end Medicare by 2024 but also to eliminate health care for seniors entirely by then through inaction?

No, the Democrats' plan is to let Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by backing idiotic proposals like Ryans so they all get booted out of office in 2012. Then, when all the lizard brains are gone, they can develop a rational plan that includes cost control measures to stabilize and even expand Medicare without a posse of Republicans trying as hard as they can to make the bill crap.

It's a good plan.

 

[WildCat]

Again, doing nothing is better than the Ryan plan.

So no Medicare at all is better than a restructured Medicare?

At least we have 13 years before anything serious happens,

And since Ryan's plan affects only those aged 54 and less it would be a decade before anyone is affected.

as opposed to willfully *********** ourselves for no reason excepts, "Derp DERP, where democrat plan?"

So allowing Medicare to disappear altogether by 2024 (if not earlier) is not "willfully *********** ourselves for no reason"?

Why do they need to offer one now? Why not next year or after the election?

Because the sooer the issue is dealt with the cheaper it will be to fix.

But it is amusing to watch you try and slink out of your ridiculous complaints that started this. I wouldn't want to talk about the Ryan plan either, if I were you. It's absolutely idiotic.

It may well be idiotic, but it is actually a plan to save health care for seniors.

Right now the Dem plan is apparently "no health care for seniors after 2024". Because that is the inevitable result of doing nothing, and so far doing nothing is all we've got from the Dems.

And it's ovious why the Dems don't want to do something, and it's because they don't want to tell people they'll have to pay more, one way or another. A least the GOP is being honest about the situation.

 

[TraneWreck]

So no Medicare at all is better than a restructured Medicare?

No, avoiding adding $30 trillion of health care costs to our economy is better than adopting that plan in a panic. There's plenty of time to develop a good plan, there's no reason to adopt a plan that makes things worse.

And since Ryan's plan affects only those aged 54 and less it would be a decade before anyone is affected.

So? As you notice, in government it's very difficult to change things. Once Ryan is the status quo, it will be very hard to re-establish single payer Medicare. It is better to leave that in place for a decade or until a good plan is adopted that set the default position as a massive cost shift to seniors.

So allowing Medicare to disappear altogether by 2024 (if not earlier) is not "willfully *********** ourselves for no reason"?

Refusing to adopt the Ryan plan does not mean do nothing until 2024. This is rather obvious and you're more than smart enough to understand this, so I can only conclude you're trolling.

Because the sooer the issue is dealt with the cheaper it will be to fix.

That depends on the solution. Waiting 5 years to adopt a good plan would be better than adopting a bad plan right now. If we're taking the Ryan plan as a baseline, we have plenty of time to do better than adding $30 trillion to the economy through health care costs.

It may well be idiotic, but it is actually a plan to save health care for seniors.

No, it's a plan to make them pay for their health care so the government books look like they're balanced. This involves shifting from the efficient Medicare single-payer system to the highly inefficient private insurance market.

Even assuming the best case scenario (that insurers will take on these high risk, unemployed patients), the plan is still horrible. Worse than doing nothing.

Right now the Dem plan is apparently "no health care for seniors after 2024". Because that is the inevitable result of doing nothing, and so far doing nothing is all we've got from the Dems.

Again, you're better than this. This is like saying the Republicans want to eliminate the military because they haven't offered their budget for 2024 yet. You can do better. I've seen you do better when you were still wrong.

And it's ovious why the Dems don't want to do something, and it's because they don't want to tell people they'll have to pay more, one way or another. A least the GOP is being honest about the situation.

Haha, the GOP being honest on this issue? Hilarious.

They swept into office in 2010 to calls of "death panels" and "the Democrats want to destroy Medicare" because they included strong cost control measures in the Affordable Health Care Act. Now they're claiming that seniors won't be harmed by their plan because it would only affect people under the age of 55. This is based on the dishonest notion that a demographic class is frozen in time. "Seniors" just means anyone over the age of 65 RIGHT NOW.

The Republicans, who are normally incredibly odious, are at the peak of their sliminess on this topic.

 

[BenBurch]

Wildcat, stop regurgitating talking points and answer the question?

As for how to "save" Medicare; The entire solution is to get the economy working. Once the unemployment drops and wages start to rise, Medicare will be in no immediate danger. And that is all you can do with ANY long term program; See to it that the next ten years or so are taken care of, and keep managing the situation.

A far better solution would be a national health system where you can see doctors who are public employees in hospitals that are owned by the people. Then you can "kill" Medicare.