Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can you be any more delusional? I guess you didn't read the fine print. If you are on medicare and you are voting for Obama, you are voting to slit your own throat.
Don't tell me you were unaware of this! EVERY medicare patient will have thier lives change for the worse if Obama is re-elected.
It is you that are delusional. a voucher system for medicare will increase out of pocket expenses like nothing else. that is something those on it will simply not be able to afford... guess if they weren't old they could borrow from their parents ...
Parents with kids in school ...be ready to pay much more with Flip.
Nothing he proposes will be good for anyone but the filthy rich.
Most of us pick the lesser of two evils. I certainly don't believe in much of what the Dems believe in, but they seem to be better than the alternative, at least in my opinion. But he's right that Romeny would be a huge mistake for this country. This whole thing about not proposing the voucher support for the current seniors strikes me as a very cynical ploy to not offend or frighten that group. If the voucher system provides such great choices, then why not extend it to them also? I'm sorry for calling your Dad "dumb" earlier. I just don't sympathize much for swing state voters who don't vote when so much is at stake. I feel better though that he's withholding a vote for romney, a very flawed candidate who would be utterly beholden to corporate interests and horrible for the middle class. Remember when he said, "Corporations are people too, my friend".
My dad will not pick the lesser of 2 evils. He would never ever vote Democratic but he won't vote Republican unless he believes in that person. And he doesn't believe in Romney. How can he be faulted for that. My dad is in his 90's and I can't imagine him with a voucher shopping around for insurance. Who's to say insurance companies won't take advantage of him because of his age. His mind is all there but his body has been failing for a number of years now.
Thank you for apologizing to me My dad is not dumb at all
Why are you trying to do the same thing? Ryan's plan for Medicare doesn't affect anyone over the age of 55 years old. In other words, if you are within 10 years of receiving Medicare or are already on Medicare, Ryan's plan won't have any effect on you. Even for those under 55, you would still have the option of choosing traditional Medicare or choosing a new premium support provider. Ryan's plan, at the very least, ensures some competition to help keep prices down, and still allows the same level of service.
On the other hand, you're wrong about Obamacare. The original version did not reduce Medicare payments to providers. However, because the original version was going to cost upwards of $1 TRILLION, the cuts to Medicare providers were written in to offset that cost. Starting in January of 2013, Medicare payments to providers will be slashed by 31%. Even Richard Foster, Obama's Chief Actuary, writes the following:
The estimate stated in the report is that 15% of providers will likely become unsustainable in the next 10 years. This is probably a pipe dream, considering that some Doctors have already stopped taking new Medicare patients.
Obamacare also creates a brand spanking new beauracracy for the U.S. taxpayer to support, the Independent Payment Advisory Board. What do they do? They propose cuts to health care providers.
Stop trying to sell people on Obamacare. It's a broken law that never has and never will gain majority support, and it was shoved down our throats by someone that wanted a legacy other than broken campaign promises and a massive increase in the deficit that he promised to reduce (this was not a campaign promise, btw. He promised to reduce the deficit in 2009). Had it truly reformed the medical system, it may have managed to get some support, but then again, it wouldn't have had the backing of the Insurancy Lobbies if it had done that.
I never said anything about the current seniors. In fact, I said in a later post that it is a cynical ploy not to extend those same groovy premium support benefits to the current old foagies. There are reductions to providers under the ACA, but NOT the whopping 30% that your hawkeye referenced. There is no plan to wipe out the docs overnight. That would be political suicide. I have heard that the reductions would be gradual over 10 years so as not to interrupt patients' care. What's wrong with the "Indep Advisory Board". How expensive would it be to employ 14 professionals to seek cost reductions and adopt best practices for healthcare delivery? seems like it would actually save money.
I'm not trying to sell Obamacare. I'm not exactly FOR it either since I would not be one of the lucky people that would get all of the free stuff. Single payer system would have been a better option, but the insurance cos shot that down as you alluded to.
Incidentally, there is already competition in the marketplace with the various Med Advantage plans. However, you're smoking something if you think that there are enough insurance companies to effectively compete. First of all, the companies cherry pick which geographic areas that they operate in- normally high cap areas where they can make a profit. There are huge start-up costs to run a Med aDvantage plan, which make it possible only for the largest insurance cos. Lately, the largest insurance companies have been buying up the smaller ones, providing even less competition. We already see how "just a few oil companies" do their best to promote the common good for the american consumer.
Is there any reason to think that there would be enough competition left to reduce healthcare costs by that much when their admin costs (exec salaries, worthless middle management) are already eating 15-18% of their gross income?
I never said anything about the current seniors. In fact, I said in a later post that it is a cynical ploy not to extend those same groovy premium support benefits to the current old foagies. There are reductions to providers under the ACA, but NOT the whopping 30% that your hawkeye referenced. There is no plan to wipe out the docs overnight. That would be political suicide. I have heard that the reductions would be gradual over 10 years so as not to interrupt patients' care. What's wrong with the "Indep Advisory Board". How expensive would it be to employ 14 professionals to seek cost reductions and adopt best practices for healthcare delivery? seems like it would actually save money.
I'm not trying to sell Obamacare. I'm not exactly FOR it either since I would not be one of the lucky people that would get all of the free stuff. Single payer system would have been a better option, but the insurance cos shot that down as you alluded to.
Incidentally, there is already competition in the marketplace with the various Med Advantage plans. However, you're smoking something if you think that there are enough insurance companies to effectively compete. First of all, the companies cherry pick which geographic areas that they operate in- normally high cap areas where they can make a profit. There are huge start-up costs to run a Med aDvantage plan, which make it possible only for the largest insurance cos. Lately, the largest insurance companies have been buying up the smaller ones, providing even less competition. We already see how "just a few oil companies" do their best to promote the common good for the american consumer.
Is there any reason to think that there would be enough competition left to reduce healthcare costs by that much when their admin costs (exec salaries, worthless middle management) are already eating 15-18% of their gross income?
Obamacare is a step towards a single payer system where we all have access to medicare regardless of age. (this will require paying a bit more in medicare tax) but think about it.. it will provide coverage to everyone.. we will finally be like the rest of the industrialized world.. AND it takes the burden of providing healthcare off of employers.. The american worker is expensive because our businesses have to provide healthcare.. other industrialized nations have wages almost twice as much as ours and they're STILL cheaper than an american worker. Anyone with Human Resources background knows that the average contribution for each employee in the US for healthcare insurance is 13,000 dollars per year by your employer..ON TOP of what what comes out of employees checks.. and on average 30-45 percent of total compensation for an employee is benefits and not actual money in their pocket.. THIS alone would take a HUGE burden off of small businesses...
He knows the voucher system won't affect him. But are you saying he should vote party lines even when he doesn't believe in the candidate. He won't do that. He doesn't think Romney has what it takes to run this country. Why would anyone vote for someone they don't believe in just because they are affiliated with that party.
Exactly!
I find it sad, frustrating and humorous at the same time, but many Republicans I meet believe it's their way or the highway (as the expression goes!) Remember the pastor who preached that you should "leave the country" if you're not Christian? Some lifelong Republicans voted for Obama in 2008. When Colin Powell endorsed him, the RW said it had to be because he was Black. So if Obama were White, would he only be endorsing him because he's White? I'm Jewish and I would never vote for Joe Lieberman.
So then they had to come up with some cute acronyms like RINO. If a candidate didn't lean as far right as the Tea Party, he/she was not a real Republican. I live in Florida and when Charlie Crist took stimulus money, he was called a sellout. Rick Perry took millions, but then he criticized the program as being wasteful spending. When Paul Ryan wrote 2 or 3 letters requesting stimulus money and even said it was a good program that created jobs, he denied it. Then he blamed them on staffers and said he's not always aware of everything he signs. Why? Because any program that Obama created or approved, even if it was one that Republicans originally designed or promoted, had to be criticized. That was the agreement. The main goal of the Republican Party since the last election has been to destroy President Obama. They've come right out and said it. "Our goal is to make Obama a one-term president" not "our goal is to work together for the good of the people."
I remember during the Vietnam War protesters who were for the war (like Mitt Romney) stood with signs "America, Love it or Leave It" Is that in the Constitution? Back in those days, people who believed napalming villages while little children screamed as their flesh burned off their bones wasn't moral, were called unpatriotic. They were traitors. They weren't real Americans. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Think like we do, pray like we do, vote like we do.
I remember during the Vietnam War protesters who were for the war (like Mitt Romney) stood with signs "America, Love it or Leave It" Is that in the Constitution? Back in those days, people who believed napalming villages while little children screamed as their flesh burned off their bones wasn't moral, were called unpatriotic. They were traitors. They weren't real Americans. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Think like we do, pray like we do, vote like we do.
Romney was keen on holding the pro-war signs, but he refused to serve himself.
The early and absentee turnout is starting to look more troubling. As of yesterday, Republicans made up only 22% of early voters and 30% of returned absentee votes.
This is closer to (and worse than) 2008 where we saw 19% EV and 38% of the absentees. 2010 (our blowout year) was 33% of EV and 45% of AB.
Conclusion: the Democrat turnout machine in the county has been very effective and they are cleaning our clock. Even if Romney wins the state (likely based on polls), the turnout deficit in PBC will affect our local races.
NET: when you are calling or canvassing, remind people how effective our opposition has been and how they must not only get themselves to the polls but their friends and neighbors as well.
Romney was keen on holding the pro-war signs, but he refused to serve himself.
Pro-draft signs, specifically.
Mitt Romney believed that we had such a manpower shortage that we needed to conscript people under penalty of imprisonment if they refused to serve ... yet he himself was unwilling to step forward, enlist, and personally help alleviate that manpower shortage.
"Hi, I'm Mitt Romney! You can bet I'm not going to serve, but I support a draft to force you to serve!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My dad is not dumb at all
