Words of wisdom from Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Medicare and Medicaid didn't exist when Ike wrote that letter. But Medicare and Medicaid are extremely successful programs that citizens strongly support. Just like Social Security, cutting those programs or radically altering them would be suicide for Teapublicans.

BTW, Medicare per capita expenditures remained significantly lower than the private sector. So privatization would just be another windfall for corporations, at the expense of We, the People.

Can you say Medicare D?

why are you changing the topic of the thread? is it because you know you can't prove your claim in the OP, so now you need to move the goal post in order to hide your embarrassment? i'm not surprised you ran away from your claims.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

BULLSHIT. Why are you such a lying sack of shit?

House GOP's 'Radical' Plan For Medicare, Medicaid

House Republicans are preparing to introduce a 10-year budget Tuesday that will eliminate Medicare and replace it with a private insurance system that closely resembles the new health care law, and end Medicaid as an entitlement program all together.

This plan, which also will include major restructuring of the tax code and cap discretionary spending, will reduce the deficit by over $4 trillion in 10 years, according to House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.

Here's what this means if you're elderly, disabled, or poor.

Low-income Medicaid beneficiaries will lose their guaranteed benefits altogether. Currently, Medicaid is jointly financed by the federal government and states, which are required to provide comprehensive health care benefits to people in poverty. Ryan's plan turns the program into block grants for the states -- states get a bunch of cash from the feds and have to make the best of it. For many states, that will mean severe benefit rollbacks.

Seniors, and others on Medicare, would be in a slightly different predicament. Currently seniors 65 and over are guaranteed a defined benefit program: taxpayers finance the system, and the government agrees to pay for seniors' health care services (though seniors have to pitch in too). Ryan's plan would leave that system intact for anybody currently on Medicare, or expecting to be on Medicare within 10 years. For everyone else the program would be radically overhauled. Future beneficiaries would no longer have a single payer system to rely on. Rather, they'd be given a menu of private insurance plans to pick from, and subsidies to help pay their premiums. If those premiums skyrocket, that's on them. If the insurers themselves aren't required to pay for whatever the doctor orders, then the guaranteed benefits will erode.

Recently Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt -- a respected health care expert -- described the plan this way: "Under the defined contribution approach envisaged by the Rivlin-Ryan plan, most of the risk of future health-care cost increases would be shifted onto the shoulders of Medicare beneficiaries. This feature makes the proposal radical."

But it's structured an awful lot like the new health care law, which means the GOP's position on health care is about to become Obamacare for seniors, but not for anybody else.

Your OP stated....."abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs"

You have shown NOTHING to support that.

The above talks about Medicare/Medicaid, which came AFTER Ike.

That said, with regards to Medicare/Medicaid, the left likes to pretend this is 'eliminating' Medicare. It IS changing HOW the system works and thus it is ending it IN ITS CURRENT FORM (which is unsustainable) and it is REPLACING it with another form which would still help accomplish the same goals.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Medicare and Medicaid didn't exist when Ike wrote that letter. But Medicare and Medicaid are extremely successful programs that citizens strongly support. Just like Social Security, cutting those programs or radically altering them would be suicide for Teapublicans.

BTW, Medicare per capita expenditures remained significantly lower than the private sector. So privatization would just be another windfall for corporations, at the expense of We, the People.

Can you say Medicare D?

Yes, the costs are lowered because the Private sector subsidizes Medicare/Medicaid. While people do indeed like the programs, that doesn't alter the FACT that they are severely unfunded and unsustainable in current form. THAT is why people are trying to alter the way they are run.

 

[Bfgrn]

Your OP stated....."abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs"

You have shown NOTHING to support that.

The above talks about Medicare/Medicaid, which came AFTER Ike.

That said, with regards to Medicare/Medicaid, the left likes to pretend this is 'eliminating' Medicare. It IS changing HOW the system works and thus it is ending it IN ITS CURRENT FORM (which is unsustainable) and it is REPLACING it with another form which would still help accomplish the same goals.

Either you are a disingenuous piece of shit, or you are a moron who lives under the house...which is it? Why don't you right wing scum bags stand up for your radical and ignorant ideology, your worship at the alter of corporations and 'privatization'?

Republican Leader Eric Cantor Says He Opposes Keeping Social Security Around

In a incredibly revealing moment that exposed the radical House Republican agenda, Republican Leader Eric Cantor (VA-07) said that “we have to come to grips” with the fact that Social Security “cannot exist” any longer. House Republicans have begun pushing forward on budget proposals that include privatization of Social Security on Wall Street and cuts to benefits for senior citizens. Recently, House Speaker John Boehner called for cuts to benefits.

Background

Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor Opposes Continuing Social Security: “We’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be.” [NPR, 3/29/11]

Republican Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and House Speaker John Boehner have made clear they intend to push forward a plan that privatizes Social Security and dismantles Medicare. [AP, 3/11/11; Wall Street Journal, 3/4/11]

Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Paul Ryan’s roadmap and the plan to privatize Social Security and dismantle Medicare is “something we need to embrace.” [The Hill, 1/23/11]

Plan Would ‘Destroy’ Medicare and Social Security. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare discussing the Ryan/Republican plan wrote, “In short, it is a budget plan which decimates Social Security and Medicare in the name of deficit reduction. The only thing new about this strategy, is the fact that Rep. Ryan isn’t shy about acknowledging that he believes seniors should foot the bill for our current economic nightmare…Destroying Social Security and Medicare, under the guise of deficit reduction, isn’t about creating sound economic policy it’s just more of the same old privatization politics, rewrapped, repackaged and rejected by the American people just two years ago.” [NCPSSM, 2/3/10]

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Either you are a disingenuous piece of shit, or you are a moron who lives under the house...which is it? Why don't you right wing scum bags stand up for your radical and ignorant ideology, your worship at the alter of corporations and 'privatization'?

Republican Leader Eric Cantor Says He Opposes Keeping Social Security Around

In a incredibly revealing moment that exposed the radical House Republican agenda, Republican Leader Eric Cantor (VA-07) said that “we have to come to grips” with the fact that Social Security “cannot exist” any longer. House Republicans have begun pushing forward on budget proposals that include privatization of Social Security on Wall Street and cuts to benefits for senior citizens. Recently, House Speaker John Boehner called for cuts to benefits.

Background

Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor Opposes Continuing Social Security: “We’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that these programs cannot exist if we want America to be what we want America to be.” [NPR, 3/29/11]

Republican Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and House Speaker John Boehner have made clear they intend to push forward a plan that privatizes Social Security and dismantles Medicare. [AP, 3/11/11; Wall Street Journal, 3/4/11]

Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Paul Ryan’s roadmap and the plan to privatize Social Security and dismantle Medicare is “something we need to embrace.” [The Hill, 1/23/11]

Plan Would ‘Destroy’ Medicare and Social Security. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare discussing the Ryan/Republican plan wrote, “In short, it is a budget plan which decimates Social Security and Medicare in the name of deficit reduction. The only thing new about this strategy, is the fact that Rep. Ryan isn’t shy about acknowledging that he believes seniors should foot the bill for our current economic nightmare…Destroying Social Security and Medicare, under the guise of deficit reduction, isn’t about creating sound economic policy it’s just more of the same old privatization politics, rewrapped, repackaged and rejected by the American people just two years ago.” [NCPSSM, 2/3/10]

state where they want to "abolish" social security.

your link does not support your claim..........................AGAIN

 

[Bfgrn]

state where they want to "abolish" social security.

your link does not support your claim..........................AGAIN

Either you are a disingenuous piece of shit, or you are a moron who lives under the house...which is it?

Which is it pea brain?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Either you are a disingenuous piece of shit, or you are a moron who lives under the house...which is it?

Which is it pea brain?

i didn't think you could cite where they "want" to abolish social security.

thanks for playing.

 

[cawacko]

Either you are a disingenuous piece of shit, or you are a moron who lives under the house...which is it?

Which is it pea brain?

So is any reform to S.S. or Medicare & Medicaid, outside of raising taxes, an attempt to eliminate or abolish these programs? If not what reforms would work for you?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Either you are a disingenuous piece of shit, or you are a moron who lives under the house...which is it? Why don't you right wing scum bags stand up for your radical and ignorant ideology, your worship at the alter of corporations and 'privatization'?

Seriously? LMAO..... despite your little rant above.... I will answer with a question to you....

Does privatization ABOLISH Social Security or does it simply change the structure of how the program is run?

Also, quoting different sources that highlight the same quote doesn't change what was stated. He is not supporting abolishing SS or Medicare. he is supporting changing HOW they are run. He wants to make them SUSTAINABLE.

You on the other hand want to maintain the status quo... which WILL lead to either the abolishing of those entitlements or bankruptcy for this nation. Which is it that you are hoping for?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So is any reform to S.S. or Medicare & Medicaid, outside of raising taxes, an attempt to eliminate or abolish these programs? If not what reforms would work for you?

He cannot answer, that is why he continues to cut and paste quotes that don't say what he claims they do.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

and for the record....

USC still sucks

 

[brazenhussy]

Seriously? LMAO..... despite your little rant above.... I will answer with a question to you....

Does privatization ABOLISH Social Security or does it simply change the structure of how the program is run?

Also, quoting different sources that highlight the same quote doesn't change what was stated. He is not supporting abolishing SS or Medicare. he is supporting changing HOW they are run. He wants to make them SUSTAINABLE.

You on the other hand want to maintain the status quo... which WILL lead to either the abolishing of those entitlements or bankruptcy for this nation. Which is it that you are hoping for?

It abolishes it.

You can call your dinner tonight "social security" but it'll still be your dinner.

 

[cawacko]

and for the record....

USC still sucks

I ought to beat the $800 out of you that I lost on the game last weekend in Vegas.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

"Reforming" = "privatizing".

 

[Bfgrn]

Seriously? LMAO..... despite your little rant above.... I will answer with a question to you....

Does privatization ABOLISH Social Security or does it simply change the structure of how the program is run?

Also, quoting different sources that highlight the same quote doesn't change what was stated. He is not supporting abolishing SS or Medicare. he is supporting changing HOW they are run. He wants to make them SUSTAINABLE.

You on the other hand want to maintain the status quo... which WILL lead to either the abolishing of those entitlements or bankruptcy for this nation. Which is it that you are hoping for?

The United States has the highest priced medical system in the world, with dismal results...WHY? PRIVATIZATION!

Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, then ranking the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

1 Ireland
2 United Kingdom
3 New Zealand
4 Austria
5 Australia
5 Italy
6 Finland
7 Japan
8 Spain
9 Swede
10 Canada
11 Netherlands
12 France
13 Norway
14 Greece
15 Germany
16 USA
17 Portugal
18 Switzerland

Conclusions

Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?

The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at “well-being” of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.

Universal vs. Private Health Insurance

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The United States has the highest priced medical system in the world, with dismal results...WHY? PRIVATIZATION!

Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, then ranking the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

1 Ireland
2 United Kingdom
3 New Zealand
4 Austria
5 Australia
5 Italy
6 Finland
7 Japan
8 Spain
9 Swede
10 Canada
11 Netherlands
12 France
13 Norway
14 Greece
15 Germany
16 USA
17 Portugal
18 Switzerland

Conclusions

Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?

The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at “well-being” of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.

Universal vs. Private Health Insurance

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

ROFLMAO... you really are trying to divert the topic now aren't you?

You know when the health care costs skyrocketed in this country? When we shifted to the HMO/PPO model. When we stopped having high deductible plans for catastrophic care and simply paid out of pocket for day to day. When we let the GOVERNMENT get involved.

We also outspend the rest of the world in almost EVERY category. Kind of tends to happen when you are by far the largest GDP producer in the world.

Did you know that the combined GDP of the EU (27 countries).... was about $1.7 Trillion more than the US alone?

The paper says the US suffers from a "relatively huge bureaucratic burden needed to monitor the costs, behaviour and risks of customers, as well as the immense legal costs required to control payment".

I also have to ask... why did your site rank just the 55-74 year olds? I mean surely they did the same statistical ranking for the 15-74 year old group too???

I wonder also if obesity has ANYTHING to do with higher mortality in the US. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

 

[cawacko]

He cannot answer, that is why he continues to cut and paste quotes that don't say what he claims they do.

It looks like you would be correct.

 

[Bfgrn]

So is any reform to S.S. or Medicare & Medicaid, outside of raising taxes, an attempt to eliminate or abolish these programs? If not what reforms would work for you?

Any reform has to:
A) works within the framework of the existing structure, because there is NO WAY privatization can lower cost without cutting benefits.
B) NOT lower benefits
C) NOT raise the cost on beneficiaries.

 

[cawacko]

Any reform has to:
A) works within the framework of the existing structure, because there is NO WAY privatization can lower cost without cutting benefits.
B) NOT lower benefits
C) NOT raise the cost on beneficiaries.

At least your honest. You don't want it to change at all which would be nice if money grew on trees but it doesn't and changes are going to have to be made because it is an unsustainable program. And the idea that we can raise taxes high enough to cover S.S. and Medicare without any changes to those programs isn't reality. We would have to raise taxes so high that we would completely suffocate the economy. And stating the programs, especially medicare/medicaid, are on an unsustainable path is not a partisan statement, it's a factual statement.

 

[Bfgrn]

ROFLMAO... you really are trying to divert the topic now aren't you?

You know when the health care costs skyrocketed in this country? When we shifted to the HMO/PPO model. When we stopped having high deductible plans for catastrophic care and simply paid out of pocket for day to day. When we let the GOVERNMENT get involved.

We also outspend the rest of the world in almost EVERY category. Kind of tends to happen when you are by far the largest GDP producer in the world.

Did you know that the combined GDP of the EU (27 countries).... was about $1.7 Trillion more than the US alone?



I also have to ask... why did your site rank just the 55-74 year olds? I mean surely they did the same statistical ranking for the 15-74 year old group too???

I wonder also if obesity has ANYTHING to do with higher mortality in the US. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

Do you always step on your dick freak?

Some more wisdom from Dwight D. Eisenhower:

In 1960, when asked what major projects Nixon had assisted with during the Eisenhower Presidency, Ike famously said, “If you give me a week, I may think of something.” Eisenhower also delayed his endorsement of Nixon during the 1960 race for the Republican Presidential nomination.


This is a transcript of the 1971 conversation between President Richard Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman that led to the HMO act of 1973:

John D. Ehrlichman: “On the … on the health business …”

President Nixon: “Yeah.”

Ehrlichman: “… we have now narrowed down the vice president’s problems on this thing to one issue and that is whether we should include these health maintenance organizations like Edgar Kaiser’s Permanente thing. The vice president just cannot see it. We tried 15 ways from Friday to explain it to him and then help him to understand it. He finally says, ‘Well, I don’t think they’ll work, but if the President thinks it’s a good idea, I’ll support him a hundred percent.’”

President Nixon: “Well, what’s … what’s the judgment?”

Ehrlichman: “Well, everybody else’s judgment very strongly is that we go with it.”

President Nixon: “All right.”

Ehrlichman: “And, uh, uh, he’s the one holdout that we have in the whole office.”

President Nixon: “Say that I … I … I’d tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it’s, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I’m not too keen on any of these damn medical programs.”

Ehrlichman: “This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am …”

President Nixon: [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: “This … this is a …”

President Nixon: “I don’t [unclear] …”

Ehrlichman: “… private enterprise one.”

President Nixon: “Well, that appeals to me.”

Ehrlichman: “Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …”

President Nixon: [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: “… the less care they give them, the more money they make.”

President Nixon: “Fine.” [Unclear.]

Ehrlichman: [Unclear] “… and the incentives run the right way.”

President Nixon: “Not bad.”

[Source: University of Virginia Check - February 17, 1971, 5:26 pm - 5:53 pm, Oval Office Conversation 450-23. Look for: tape rmn_e450c.]