Gee... I thought the health care debate was settled?

General Buck Turgidson said:
It's not just Paul Ryan. It's the GOP. And yes, they want to eliminate Medicare and put a voucher system in place in its stead.
Click to expand...

the only way you can argue it would be eliminated is if you assume everyone would choose the private option.......yet, you continue to argue that everyone wants the public option for health care.....
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
It's not just Paul Ryan. It's the GOP. And yes, they want to eliminate Medicare and put a finite voucher system in place in its stead.
Click to expand...

I fixt your post.

That is the problem. Once that voucher runs out, you're SOL. Cancer got ya down? Sorry! Need a new kidney little kid? Sorry! How 'bout that heart transplant, Grandpa? Sorry!

Talk about death panels...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the only way you can argue it would be eliminated is if you assume everyone would choose the private option.......yet, you continue to argue that everyone wants the public option for health care.....
Click to expand...


There would be no public option for people now under the age of 55. Medicare would no longer exist. The only option available would be private insurance. And, frankly, it likely wouldn't exist for a lot of people age 55+ either. Doctors only accept Medicare's rates now because of the sheer number of people who use lots of healthcare that have it. As fewer and fewer people have Medicare as their insurance, fewer and fewer doctors will accept it.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if you intend to criticize the Ryan plan you ought to read it....
Click to expand...


Oh, right. My mistake. The "new" version is the ACA for seniors but with a public option.

That's just stupid. The reason Medicare gets better rates than private insurance is the large pool of insureds. It basically gets a volume discount. Spreading out enrollees among various plans eliminates the best tool for keeping Medicare costs down.
 
Dixie said:
We are concerned about their lives, that's why, in 1965, we created a government-run public health care system for our elderly and poor.

Last I checked, no one wanted to get rid of it.... so you are correct... countries who have government health care, don't want to get rid of it!
Click to expand...

Ahhh, you're a witty little character. :lol:
 
Dixie said:
But see.... here's the thing, apple.... you keep talking about "lives" and "living" as if there were some miraculous program in question, which somehow guarantees we have life and never have sickness or death. Now.... I would LOVE for Obamacare to be able to do this, and if it did, I would readily admit it was WELL worth, whatever number of trillions it was going to cost, because... hey... guaranteed life and no sickness or death? Pretty sweet!

The thing is, this is not what Obamacare can or will do. And my problem is, I know this.
Click to expand...

You knew that? Wow! Have you been channelling the 45,000 people who die every year due to a lack of insurance?
 
Dixie said:
We've continued to improve ours! President George W. Bush expanded the Medicare program more than it had ever been expanded, by including a program for prescription drugs for the elderly. You may not remember this, perhaps you were preparing an effigy to burn, but this is so! Look it up!
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that, however, like any Republican plan is was a half-assed one. He could have had the government negotiate drug prices but, alas, it was a Republican plan.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Yes, I am sure that infrastructure was a word used with gay abandon by the Founding Fathers!!
Click to expand...

Are you trying to prove you're a fool...??
You think "infrastructure" was a foreign word to the Founding Fathers and "equal playing field" was a phrase they used ?
Of course, fool, the further musings at the end of the listings are my words....

Cripes, when Apple gives you a 'thanks' for a post, you know it must be stupid.(he'll probably come back here and thank mine just to be an ass...)
 
Dixie said:
We are concerned about their lives, that's why, in 1965, we created a government-run public health care system for our elderly and poor.

Last I checked, no one wanted to get rid of it.... so you are correct... countries who have government health care, don't want to get rid of it!
Click to expand...

And yet how many of those countries are now suffering from not having enough money and whose economy is failing.
I wonder where all that Health Care is going, when their entire system is flushed down the toilet.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And yet how many of those countries are now suffering from not having enough money and whose economy is failing.
I wonder where all that Health Care is going, when their entire system is flushed down the toilet.
Click to expand...

The health care programs of those countries have nothing to do with their current financial problems. Their universal health care is paid for through *shudder* taxes.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And yet how many of those countries are now suffering from not having enough money and whose economy is failing.
I wonder where all that Health Care is going, when their entire system is flushed down the toilet.
Click to expand...

Complex analysis is not your forte,.I could explain it to you but I can't be arsed as I have been trying to explain the difference between to, too and two for many a year and you still don't get it!!
 
bravo said:
Are you trying to prove you're a fool...??
You think "infrastructure" was a foreign word to the Founding Fathers and "equal playing field" was a phrase they used ?
Of course, fool, the further musings at the end of the listings are my words....

Cripes, when Apple gives you a 'thanks' for a post, you know it must be stupid.(he'll probably come back here and thank mine just to be an ass...)
Click to expand...

The salient point, which you have predictably chosen to miss, is that you have chosen to reinterpret the Constitution with your own words.
 
Dixie said:
We are concerned about their lives, that's why, in 1965, we created a government-run public health care system for our elderly and poor.

Last I checked, no one wanted to get rid of it.... so you are correct... countries who have government health care, don't want to get rid of it!
Click to expand...

As has already been pointed out to you, ask Paul Ryan. Better yet, ask the Republican Party, including Mitt Romney, all of whom have thrown their support behind Ryan's plan.
As far as our elderly and poor...Medicare does an outstanding job of taking care of the elderly, but the other government-run public health care system, Medicaid, is woefully inadequate in taking care of everyone else.

Dixie said:
We've continued to improve ours! President George W. Bush expanded the Medicare program more than it had ever been expanded, by including a program for prescription drugs for the elderly. You may not remember this, perhaps you were preparing an effigy to burn, but this is so! Look it up!
Click to expand...

Second to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Medicare Part D was the most expensive boondoggle of the Bush administration. It was a last-minute rose thrown to the populace to gain votes.
 
Howey said:
As has already been pointed out to you, ask Paul Ryan. Better yet, ask the Republican Party, including Mitt Romney, all of whom have thrown their support behind Ryan's plan.
As far as our elderly and poor...Medicare does an outstanding job of taking care of the elderly, but the other government-run public health care system, Medicaid, is woefully inadequate in taking care of everyone else.



Second to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Medicare Part D was the most expensive boondoggle of the Bush administration. It was a last-minute rose thrown to the populace to gain votes.
Click to expand...

If Dixie had been around in the early '60s you can be sure that he would have been arguing against both Medicare and Medicaid.
 
apple0154 said:
I'm aware of that, however, like any Republican plan is was a half-assed one. He could have had the government negotiate drug prices but, alas, it was a Republican plan.
Click to expand...

No, it was actually a bipartisan plan, with broad support from both Republicans and Democrats. Unlike Obamacare.

But to make a more profound point here, you are saying the LARGEST SINGLE EXPANSION in the history of Medicare was merely "half-assed."
 
Howey said:
As has already been pointed out to you, ask Paul Ryan. Better yet, ask the Republican Party, including Mitt Romney, all of whom have thrown their support behind Ryan's plan.
As far as our elderly and poor...Medicare does an outstanding job of taking care of the elderly, but the other government-run public health care system, Medicaid, is woefully inadequate in taking care of everyone else.
Second to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Medicare Part D was the most expensive boondoggle of the Bush administration. It was a last-minute rose thrown to the populace to gain votes.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it has been pointed out to you, that Ryan and Republicans never proposed CUTTING Medicare, and that is a lie based on your misinterpretations of what "CUT" actually means.

And AGAIN... Medicare Part D was voted on and supported by both Republicans and Democrats. Unlike Obamacare.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Complex analysis is not your forte,.I could explain it to you but I can't be arsed as I have been trying to explain the difference between to, too and two for many a year and you still don't get it!!
Click to expand...

So rather then show where I'm in error; you instead decided to act like your on your monthly visit. :palm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top